180 replies to this topic

[Augustus]

You think that is a simple cell, I have a simpler one.

John Dobson had a hand in this one from the San Francisco Sidewalk Astronomer's.

It works great.

Robert

 

post-50896-0-69970200-1676836375_thumb.jpg

post-50896-0-95144900-1676836358_thumb.jpg

My 8 that he made had a cell like that for a while. Never lost collimation and seemed to induce no issues with the image. I swapped for a UO kit cell though for more ventilation

[RAK on Tour]

I might as well add my experience to this thread. When Coulter first advertised the Odyssey, only the 13.1" was offered at $400.00. I soon ordered one as did a friend. I lived in SoCal, so when both scopes were ready for delivery, I drove to Idyllwild to pick up both scopes in my Ford Econoline ex-Bell telephone van. I met the owner, Jim, who showed me two different versions of the Odyssey.

 

Jim told me that the first few Odysseys were built with a different altitude bearing. I was like a section of a huge soda can, where the thickness of the can was about 1/2-inch and extremely strong. There was nothing inside the cylinder, so the cylinder itself was a good hand-hold to move the optical tube. Later models used a wood center with a thin aluminum strap wrapped around the wood as the altitude bearing. Since I had a bigger transport vehicle than my friend, I took the heavier early model and he took the later, lighter version.

 

I used the scope for more than 20 years, but the two most memorable subjects were M13 and M42 - both stunning. I eventually decided to sell it and purchase refractors and was lucky enough to sell it to Jim's daughter. She told me that her father always wanted her to have one of his scopes, but she was not interested until after Jim had sadly passed. I was thrilled that my scope was going to the daughter of the man who made my scope.

[Jehujones]

I might as well add my experience to this thread. When Coulter first advertised the Odyssey, only the 13.1" was offered at $400.00. I soon ordered one as did a friend. I lived in SoCal, so when both scopes were ready for delivery, I drove to Idyllwild to pick up both scopes in my Ford Econoline ex-Bell telephone van. I met the owner, Jim, who showed me two different versions of the Odyssey.

 

Jim told me that the first few Odysseys were built with a different altitude bearing. I was like a section of a huge soda can, where the thickness of the can was about 1/2-inch and extremely strong. There was nothing inside the cylinder, so the cylinder itself was a good hand-hold to move the optical tube. Later models used a wood center with a thin aluminum strap wrapped around the wood as the altitude bearing. Since I had a bigger transport vehicle than my friend, I took the heavier early model and he took the later, lighter version.

 

I used the scope for more than 20 years, but the two most memorable subjects were M13 and M42 - both stunning. I eventually decided to sell it and purchase refractors and was lucky enough to sell it to Jim's daughter. She told me that her father always wanted her to have one of his scopes, but she was not interested until after Jim had sadly passed. I was thrilled that my scope was going to the daughter of the man who made my scope.

  That's a great story

[starman876]

The red tube 13.1 I used to have was a great scope.  Some really good views that scope provided.  Guess I was lucky and happy.

[Terra Nova]

Yes a vinyl skin. It may have been an idea Coulter was trying because it a way it sure beats spraying

paint if they got it down applying the skin. And yes underneath it is the same heavy spiral cardboard.

It looks like a 'Ranch Special' all dolled up the way it is.

Robert

 

post-50896-0-57619300-1637297686.jpg

Haha! I would call that, Big Tex!

[rcwolpert]

My 12.5” Coulter full thickness, specially selected mirror inside a sono tube with vinyl coating and an RV6 on top. It’s not pretty but it sure got a lot of use pre 2000.

 

I

Edited by rcwolpert, 16 January 2024 - 08:19 PM.

[sqrlman]

My Coulter 13.1" Odyssey. I received it in 1988. I used it awhile in the original condition. Later on I kept improving it until it was a good high resolution lunar and planetary telescope. That involved changing every part except the sonotube.  It was starting to feel too heavy to carry it out to the Dodge. I used it on and off for 36 years. I took it to the WSP in 1991. I have had a lot of fun with it.. I have had lots of other scopes along the way. I am pretty much done with the heavy ones. I was sad when I heard that Jim Braginton died. I talked with him a few times on the phone. He was really funny. I told him if I lived out there I would go to work for him. He made a lot of people happy with his telescopes.

 

Steve

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[sqrlman]

The Odyssey.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Jehujones]

My Coulter 13.1" Odyssey. I received it in 1988. I used it awhile in the original condition. Later on I kept improving it until it was a good high resolution lunar and planetary telescope. That involved changing every part except the sonotube.  It was starting to feel too heavy to carry it out to the Dodge. I used it on and off for 36 years. I took it to the WSP in 1991. I have had a lot of fun with it.. I have had lots of other scopes along the way. I am pretty much done with the heavy ones. I was sad when I heard that Jim Braginton died. I talked with him a few times on the phone. He was really funny. I told him if I lived out there I would go to work for him. He made a lot of people happy with his telescopes.

 

Steve

Gee, I didn't know Coulter made a Cat 

 

nice scope 

[rxeddie2003]

I bought a battered and neglected Coulter 13.1" blue odyssey at a local sale for $250.  I put some TLC into this telescope by a couple layers of paint (I kinda messed up as the paint kept dripping), replacing the collimation screws with thumb screws, flocking interior parts of the scope, replacing the focusers with a two speed focuser (I also messed up as I should have used a low profile focuser), installing telrad and GSO finder scope, mounting my smartphone cover so I could use astrohopper to guide my scope, buying a cheap cooking lid to serve as a dust cover,replacing the teflon pads on the rocker box as well as putting an old vinyl record for smoother slewing,  installing a eyepiece rack, installing a magnetic counterweight, and buying a cheap 5 dollar push dolly since the scope is unwieldly to say the least.  Total upgrade cost so far is about $290. Next I plan on installing to leveling screws using m12 thread rods,wing nut, knurled knob, and rubberized feet.   Future upgrades include changing out the lawn mower-like secondary to a traditional secondary system.  So far, I spent way more time improving my scope than actually observing it, but I guess that is the whole point of buying a Coulter in the first place

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Edited by rxeddie2003, 12 May 2024 - 02:32 PM.

[k5apl]

Your photos remind me of my 13 inch Blue Coulter that I bought brand new to see Halley's Comet.  It

provided good views and a little old lady saw the comet for the 2nd time.  I kept it for a while but went

to something more manageable.  I didn't know too much about optics then, but I knew the blue 13 was much better than the blue 10 that preceded it.  The 13's mirror was IIRC excellent.  Very nice Deep Sky

views.  I still remember how striking the little planetary nebula stood out in M47.  I had the extra box to store the primary mirror, and a dolly with bungee cords to haul it outside from my carport.  I hope you have a lot of fun with yours.

Wes

[rxeddie2003]

Thanks!  I am having a lot of fun upgrading and playing with this scope.  My mirror seems pretty good as well.  I've only used it briefly, but so far views of  moon and Orion nebula are breathtaking.  Although I cannot be sure views couldn't be further improved with better collimation.  Problem with an off-centered secondary is that one can never be sure collimation is prefect  I did the  best I could with a chesire but I couldn't get it work with an Ocal collimator (btw I highly recommend this device).  I plan on keeping the mirror inside the telescope box  because I think if I had to reinstall it each time, I would likely use it less.  I'm still trying to figure an optimum way to keep the mirror from slipping off the strap.  I've installed a metal bolt wrapped with 3d printed plastic to hopefully keep the mirror in place.   

[Jehujones]

 

[Snip]

"...Future upgrades include changing out the lawn mower-like secondary to a traditional secondary system..."

Don't do it. that lawnmower blade holds collimation for years and years and years. 

[deSitter]

Don't do it. that lawnmower blade holds collimation for years and years and years. 

"Lawn mower blade" that's perfect!

 

-drl

[rxeddie2003]

I think when John Dobson designed his telescope, which later became the basis of the Coulter Odyssey,  he wanted something solid and stable. something that Nassim Taleb might label as anti-fragile.  His design weren't made with delicate aluminum, but with sonotube, which originally were intended for concrete beams but repurposed for astronomy.  Imagine trying to sleep inside a "modern" dobsonian!

Edited by rxeddie2003, 17 May 2024 - 08:50 AM.

[rxeddie2003]

Check out the lastest Ed Ting review of the blue Coulter.  https://www.youtube....kjmWCrCMM&t=53s

[starcruiser]

I use to read the Coulter ads a lot back in the 80's, and the 13 inch appealed to me, but I never got one. They had a monster 29 inch one. Do any of you have one of these, and what was it like looking through one of these. They claimed it had an illusion of being in space more than any other scope available at that time. They had an 8", 10", 13",17" and the 29".

I had the one of the early 13.1" blue Coulters....  It was a glorious light backet! Glorious!! So incredible was M42 that to this very day, my memory of it remains my personal DSO benchmark when evaluating scopes. M13, M4 fully resolved under city light pollution. M57's smoke ring was easy to see under city light pollution. I saw M31 dust lanes for the first time ever and saw both companions first time ever. Planets were very bright, lots of detail on Jupiter. When articles came out suggesting making an 5" off-center aperture mask, I tried it, but I didn't like...it didn't improve planetary performance, it just made it a lot dimmer. I preferred the full aperture.

 

But it was heavy. It weight more than skinny teenage me! (I was VERY skinny).

 

In my opinion, the arrival of the Coulters heralded (for better or worse) a new age in amateur astronomy. It marked the beginning of the end of the (expensive) classical era. From here on, everyone wanted and expected better price to aperture ratios. In the coming years, most telescope companies would not survive.

[Jehujones]

I don’t think the (expensive) classical era ended at all except maybe for Newtonian reflectors.

Expensive refractors and SCTs are alive and well along with expensive equatorial mounts.

 I think it simply opened the door to the casual observers who may not have joined the hobby otherwise.

 

 I think that’s the case for me, I honestly don’t know if I would be in the hobby today if it weren’t for Coulter.

[starcruiser]

I don’t think the (expensive) classical era ended at all except maybe for Newtonian reflectors.

Expensive refractors and SCTs are alive and well along with expensive equatorial mounts.

 I think it simply opened the door to the casual observers who may not have joined the hobby otherwise.

 

 I think that’s the case for me, I honestly don’t know if I would be in the hobby today if it weren’t for Coulter.

Get a catalog from the 1960s/70s and see how many of those telescope makers are still around. From the classic era of telescope manufacturers, only Celestron and Questar survived. The modern apo refractors you see today are made by companies that didn't even exist back then -and they're part of the modern apo revolution that began with the Televue Genesis. Nobody makes those old F/15 refractors anymore...they went out of business (who wanna pay $$$ for a 2.4"- 4" refractor when you can get this new monster 13.1" dob for only just $499 and see M42 in color). It's a new era with today's apo refractors. Classic era ended long ago.

[Jehujones]

Get a catalog from the 1960s/70s and see how many of those telescope makers are still around. From the classic era of telescope manufacturers, only Celestron and Questar survived. The modern apo refractors you see today are made by companies that didn't even exist back then -and they're part of the modern apo revolution that began with the Televue Genesis. Nobody makes those old F/15 refractors anymore...they went out of business (who wanna pay $$$ for a 2.4"- 4" refractor when you can get this new monster 13.1" dob for only just $499 and see M42 in color). It's a new era with today's apo refractors. Classic era ended long ago.

Okay, I get it now.

[k5apl]

I'm trying to remember back, and I recall that Dobs and SCTs put refactors at the bottom of the barrel until Roland came along and introduced his APOs.  They were inxpensive and of high quality, and much better images compared to many catadioptric and reflector telescopes of the time. Now check the classifieds, and the number of refractors coming and going is much greater than the Dobs and

SCTs.  But I remember when refractors were unattainable (I was broke) and Dobs were the poor man's choice before the advent

of the Celestron SCTs.

Refractor choices were Tak, Unitron,Zeiss and maybe D&G.  All high dollar.

Catadioptric choices were Questar, Quantum.  High dollar.

Reflectors were Coulter, Starliner, maybe others.  Most were home built.  Affordable.

 

We truly do live in telescope Paradise these days.  So many choices.  Its a good time to be an amateur astronomer.

Wes

[CHASLX200]

I'm trying to remember back, and I recall that Dobs and SCTs put refactors at the bottom of the barrel until Roland came along and introduced his APOs.  They were inxpensive and of high quality, and much better images compared to many catadioptric and reflector telescopes of the time. Now check the classifieds, and the number of refractors coming and going is much greater than the Dobs and

SCTs.  But I remember when refractors were unattainable (I was broke) and Dobs were the poor man's choice before the advent

of the Celestron SCTs.

Refractor choices were Tak, Unitron,Zeiss and maybe D&G.  All high dollar.

Catadioptric choices were Questar, Quantum.  High dollar.

Reflectors were Coulter, Starliner, maybe others.  Most were home built.  Affordable.

 

We truly do live in telescope Paradise these days.  So many choices.  Its a good time to be an amateur astronomer.

Wes

There were really no real fracts to buy in the early 80's . Unitron had rolled over to die as the prices for them were insane by late 81. Meade was coming on strong to beat Celestron with the SCT like they just started selling in 1981.  Then came the big and cheap blue Dobs around later 82. This was just about when the Nag was coming out.

 

I remember looking thru a 17.1" and thinking to myself what a sea of mush.  Man i got sea sick with all that coma sweeping . I mean ya the images were bright

but sloppy. My eyes just never played well with any fast scope even at age 19.

[ccwemyss]

There were really no real fracts to buy in the early 80's . Unitron had rolled over to die 

I was selling Pentax refractors in the early 80's. Nikon was also still in the business. Both of those were a big step up over the Unitrons.

 

Chip W. 

[Tom Stock]

Meade was coming on strong to beat Celestron with the SCT like they just started selling in 1981.  

They may have sold a ton of models (LX90, LX3, LX200, LX6, LXD) but Celestron got the optics right or at least more consistently good with the C8, and that is no surprise since they developed the method. Meade sort of specialized in wizbang computerized mounts.

 

I owned a few Meade SCT's and several old classic Orange C8s. 

 

All of the C8s were excellent and most of the Meade SCT's were just ok, but some were really bad and never really seemed to come to perfect focus.

 

I loved the original C8 fork as well, I just wish the aluminum RA central bearing hub was stiffer because the fork tended to bounce when on a wedge because the base itself would flex (not the arms).

Edited by Tom Stock, 04 June 2024 - 10:01 PM.

[CHASLX200]

I was selling Pentax refractors in the early 80's. Nikon was also still in the business. Both of those were a big step up over the Unitrons.

 

Chip W. 

Plus Tak was getting going. But them scopes were wayyyyyyyyy out my reach at age 17 to 34. But that was just before Celestron did the only thing right in all it's years and let Vixen make some nice mounts and scopes for them starting in 1983. Once they went black on 80 to 102mm fracts we never went back.  But compared 2 today it was bare fract world in 1981 vs now.  Now you can get a AT125 EDL that does as good as a FS128 for much less money. Who would have thunk that back in 1981 when Untiron dropped the M-160 that cost a insane 3.5k back then.  Looking back now that seems cheap. 

Edited by CHASLX200, 05 June 2024 - 06:04 AM.