I bought a used refractor on Craigslist, an old Celestron 102mm f/5 refractor branded as a "FirstScope," though not to be confused with the tabletop reflector of the same name. I bought it as a Christmas present for my cousin, since I figured a refractor--not needing to be collimated--would be better for them. I made a mistake--the mount, while sturdy and not too difficult to use, would definitely be too difficult for my cousin (who struggled with my Dobsonian while picking up the FirstScope (the tabletop reflector, not to be confused with the 102mm f/5 refractor of the same name) just fine). It uses slow motion cables with limited travel and the ergonomics are just kinda wrong.
I have been giving it a trial run to evaluate it, and although I decided that it's not good for the application I intended, I love the optics. I never thought a 4" telescope could perform so well. Bright, contrasty images of some of my favorite DSOs that my 4.5" Bushnell Voyager reflector struggled with, approaching what I see in my 6" reflector. I don't want to get rid of it, although I must if I am to afford a tabletop reflector for my cousin. Oh well.
One of the things that struck me is that despite being an entry-level product by Celestron, it's really pretty good. The modern entry-level Celestron stuff is rubbish by comparison--the finnicky mounts, 1.25" focusers, etc. It's probably the better part of 20 years old; the manual still refers to film photography.
The views of the Double Cluster in Perseus, E.T. Cluster, Orion Nebula, M31, and even newly explored M15, they'll stick with me for a while. It also throws up a **** good picture of the Moon, though it doesn't do well on planets--maybe about as well as the 50mm f/10 Galileoscope. Alas, I have taken no sketches or notes.
One day I'd like to get a 4" refractor for myself. For now, it's cheap reflectors.