41 replies to this topic

[Ralph Marantino]

well tell me please thanks

[Don W]

I don't know if there's a certain age to be considered a classic. In fact there are a lot of old telescopes that were, well, they were just plain junk. They might be an antique, but that doesn't mean it's a classic.

I think a classic scope is one that held a certain appeal within the astro community when it was new and still holds a place of respect and awe today. It's really pretty subjective.

[dbledsoe]

To me classics are scopes made before or about the time of the change over from wooden boxed telescopes kits to cardboard and styrofoam boxed kits. With the start of the cardboard and styrofoam packaging we started to see a cheapening of the scopes that came in the packaging.

Don

[Don W]

Well that's ummm.......pretty year specific.

[refractory]

Aw, c'mon- when brass was still king....

Jess Tauber

[Darenwh]

In production scopes:
The scope model must be out of prodution.
The scope must be either:
A highly regarded model.
A scope that introduced large numbers of people to the hobby.
A scope that was innovative for it's time or had an impact on the hobby.
In a home brew scope must meet at least one of the following to me:
Must be historically significant. Such as one published or featured in a regoinal or national publication.
The scope needs to be of a design that was highly thought of in the amateur community.
Must feature either origional and innovative designs for the first time or bring together a variety of innovative designs. Bonus if these inovations became popular, even if only for a period of time.
Must be based on a well known design such as one published in a well known book or magazine.
Features large number of classic components for it's day that are no longer in production.
Was built exceptionally well or with good artistic appeal. A good example of one of these would be the Garden Scopes that are so well done and rare.

Daren

[Don W]

Gee, I guess that answers that.

[droid]

is this like multiple chioce any or all of the above will qualify the scope , or only if it meets all the criteria.

[trainsktg]

is this like multiple chioce any or all of the above will qualify the scope , or only if it meets all the criteria.

I think that was already covered...

In production scopes:
...The scope must be either:

In a home brew scope must meet at least one of the following...:

Keith

[dbledsoe]

Gee, I guess that answers that.

Care to add anything more than your previous description here to this discussion?

Don

[Darenwh]

I guess I failed to state, that is what I would consider a classic. I am sure others idea's would vary as they should. I still think over all it's a good basis, though anybody could add anything they wish to that list.

[Don W]

Well, Darenwh, your description is about as close to the mark as anything else I've seen.

[Jon Isaacs]

When the question of what a classic scope might be came up on AM, I suggested a "classic" scope is any scope that someone thinks is a "classic."

It works for me.

jon

[EverlastingSky]

The Celestron C8 that started in 1970 is a classic series of course...

[jayscheuerle]

Fairly good bracketing there, Daren, but here's one for you– the Edmund Astroscan.

I'd put it in the classic category, even though it's still in production.

[habsburg8]

Although there may be some disagreement about the exact dating, 'classic' generally means manufactured after 1954 and before 1980. 'Classic' is in contrast to 'Antique,' which implies (but is not always the case) a telescope that is at least 100-years old.

Usually 'classic' telescopes are collectable with good secondary market values, but there are also scores of simply-constructed instruments made in the aforementioned time period that fetch low prices today. A 'classic' telescope does not necessarily have to come in a wooden storage chest. For example, look at the extremely desirable Sears 90mm f/15.6 equatorial refractor from 1970-72, which was shipped in a very large cardboard carton.

The 1954 date coincides with the formation of Tasco, which had some pretty impressive telescopes back then. The market was soon after flooded with instruments from Japan with similar designs and components. I tend to date the end of the 1970s as the finish of the 'classical period,' where Meade had just discontinued its Model 420 105mm f/15 Unitron 'clone,' Towa's Model 339 had disappeared from the marketplace, Tasco's Models 7TE-5 & 10TE had faded into the sunset, and Celestron's classic sandcast orange models were past their zenith of popularity.

[Don W]

And where can I find this information? Who decided this?

[trainsktg]

I don't think John's post specifies any firm reolute definitions of a classical/antique telescope, especially with words like 'generally', 'not always the case', 'tend', etc. being used

Perhaps the 'Antique Telescope Society' might be of help here.

Here's a link for those who might care to ask the question of them.

http://webari.com/oldscope/


Keith

[dbledsoe]

And where can I find this information? Who decided this?

If you know John at all you'd recognize that he has spent many many years researching "classic" telescopes and his articles published in the Rose City Astronomer will bear this out.

I first met John via "The Starry Meesenger" back in the mid/latter 1980's. TSM was the astronomical equipment sale/exchange digest published once a month. Something every telescope junkie sat by their mailbox waiting for so they could be the first to make the call on a good deal. That was well before computers even hinted at anything like the Internet for regular people. John recognized way back then that telescopes, and the telescope industry, was/were changing. He brought my attention to what we now consider "classic" telescopes back when they were still inexpensive (the age of the cat and the Dobsonian had arrived) and I am forever grateful to him for that.

So I would say that if John has provided a definition it is worth VERY SERIOUS consideration because he speaks with the first hand knowledge of one who has been follwing "classic" for a very long time. In other words, he's likely forgotten more than you and I know put together.

Don

[Don W]

I was a very early subscriber of TSM. You're preaching to the choir here. Last I heard, it was permissible to ask someone for their source. You don't mind that, do you Mr. Bledsoe?

[trainsktg]

Tone and word choice might have something to do with it?

Keith (Just a humble guess, hoping everyone stays happy with an interesting thread)

[trainsktg]

Fairly good bracketing there, Daren, but here's one for you– the Edmund Astroscan.

I'd put it in the classic category, even though it's still in production.

You've got a point there Jay. The older 2001 Astroscans command some very decent prices on eBay. Perhaps it has to do with country of manufacture? I'm not too up on the history of the Astroscan, though, so someone else will have to provide the specifics.

Keith

[dbledsoe]

I was a very early subscriber of TSM. You're preaching to the choir here. Last I heard, it was permissible to ask someone for their source. You don't mind that, do you Mr. Bledsoe?

Of course I don't mind. But I wasn't preaching to anyone. My intent was to provide some history in case you weren't familiar with John's background. It was not my intent to insinuate that it isn't permissible to ask a question. What I was trying to point out is that John IS the source, or as close to it as we're likely to get.

Expert witnesses in many legal cases often do not have a source. They ARE the source based on their research, knowledge, and experience of the subject. That's all I was trying to get across.

I sincerely hope you'll pardon me if I have offended. That certainly was not my intention.

Don

[Don W]

This post is made in the spirit of harmony. I have apparently ruffled some feathers here. It was inadvertent. In one case it was an attempt at levity, but was taken otherwise. The other instance was an attempt by me to get some clarification to a statement. I could have asked it in better terms. That being said. I was asking a question of a certain member. That should not have been an invitaion for others to respond with derision and disrespect. One of our most important tenets here at Cloudy Nights is to treat others with respect. If I have failed to do so, I apologize.

For the remainder of this thread, I am asking everyone to be a bit more mindful of what they post. Let's keep it friendly.

Don Wyman
Moderator

[trainsktg]

Harmony promotes learning.



Keith