41 replies to this topic

[dbledsoe]

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

Amen Don.

Don

[refractory]

Drats- I was hoping for a bit of local color.....

Jess Tauber

[Darenwh]

Jay,
I agree, the Astroscan is a classic. It was very revolutionary when it was released and is excellent. I bet there are other exceptions to the 'No longer in production' statement I made as well, but over all I still think it's a good guideline, just with a few exceptions.
Daren

[Lew Chilton]

I'm glad I read this thread. I have an Astroscan from about 1977. I never thought of it as a classic, just a beginner scope. I've used it maybe a dozen times since I acquired it used in 1978. It came with a 32mm Brandon. It's stored in its original cardboard shipping container somewhere in the garage. I guess I'll treat it with more respect and bring it indoors. In fact, I think I'll look at Comet Swan with it tonight!

[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.

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

Before 2001 Edmund Scientific was its own entity. At that point, they were purchased by Science Kit @ Boreal Laboratories which sells a variety of educational science products online. The 25 yr. old Astroscan was part of the sale. The original Edmund lives on as Edmund Optics, but it's mostly industrial equipment (You CAN still get RKEs there).

Never had one, but I DO have a couple of other red-tubes and consider my 8" yoke-mount to be a classic AND a killer piece of 70's over-engineering.

The Astroscan was/is a kids' scope, but was revolutionary at the time. I WOULD like to look out one sometime, but it seems that they're overpriced ($200 new for basic package) for the quality you get (cheap, rubber roller focuser and an unforgiving f/4.2). I'd pay $50 for one, tops, and I LIKE Edmund stuff! - j

[habsburg8]

According to Wikipedia, the online dictionary:

'A classic is an item that has become a ubiquitous and unique symbol or icon of a time gone by, mainly because of its inherent quality or its representative status.'

The bulk of these 'icons' were made from 1954 until 1980 (approx.). However, some amateur astronomers may consider Coulter's Odyssey line of Dobsonians and other name-brand telescopes a 'classic.' Today's world is ruled by apochromatic refractors and big aperture Dobsonians--are these 'classics?'

In the collecting field, definitions become blurred and vague. The terms 'usually' and 'generally' can apply. Still, when I think of a 'classic' telescope, I picture one of quality and often imported from Japan during the time period 1954 to 1980. As mentioned, the time frame is only approximate. (Astro-Physics was formed in the early 1980s, and Coulter's famous Odyssey telescopes were first sold then. Unitron, although formed in October 1951, really got going by about 1954.)

[trainsktg]

'A classic is an item that has become a ubiquitous and unique symbol or icon of a time gone by, mainly because of its inherent quality or its representative status.'

As with everything, there is always a standout exception...I was unable to find any 'quality' whatsoever in Ed Wood's sci-fi classic Plan Nine from Outer Space .

Its so bad...its good...

Keith (anyone else suffer themselves to sit through that stinker?)

[refractory]

On the other hand, 'Ed Wood' will likely end up as a classic- go figure.

Me I wish they had 8 inch Astroscans (not Portaballs, which are WAY more expensive) for us adults.

Jess Tauber

Jess Tauber

[Jon Isaacs]

>>>Still, when I think of a 'classic' telescope, I picture one of quality and often imported from Japan during the time period 1954 to 1980.
----

When I think of a Classic Telescope, I think of one that is one that is from a bye-gone era, whether it is a refractor, Newtonian, SCT or whatever. Whether that scope is from 1932 or 1986, what is important to me is "what it is" rather than when it was made.

Is the Blue Tube Coulter 13.1 inch a "classic?" I think so simply because it was really the first commercial DOB, the C-8 is a classic in the same vein.

But I think it is a mistake to define what is a "classic" and what is not a "classic." We should be inclusive of ideas, telescopes and people rather than exclusive so that if someone thinks a 1984 Meade 2080 is a "classic" then it is.

Classic is really a term that came about to bridge the gap between antique and the modern, it is purposefully vague for that reason and trying to define it specifically is a mistake. Any definition will be vague and nebulous.

And then too, it is a moving target, what is a classic changes with time. I am quite certain that 100 years from now, some of today's scopes will be "classics." Seeing 7 inch AP's offered at 50K and 8 inch APs offered at 100K indicates to me that these scopes are already "classics" and will with time likely achieve the status of Clark refractors. Certainly there are other high quality APOs but from a historical perspective, certainaly APs have a special place is the history of the amateur refractor.

Anyway...

If you think it's a classic, then it's a classic...

That's what I think.


Jon

[Scott Horstman]

Is the LX200 "classic" not truly a classic?
I bought mine thinking it was a classic darn it. It was sold to me with the understanding it was a "classic"
I'm so gul-a-bul.

[dbledsoe]

Jon,

Excellent post and excellent point. Classic is indeed a moving target. One man's basic scope can be another man's classic, and early square box blue Coulter's might be a prime example.

Regards,

Don

[tybee]

Is the LX200 "classic" not truly a classic?
I bought mine thinking it was a classic darn it. It was sold to me with the understanding it was a "classic"

No it's actualy a "legacy". When you can no longer get parts for it then it will be a classic.

[Scott Horstman]

I hope it remains a legacy then.

[rwiederrich]

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

According to your Homebrew list(well done by the way), I have an exact representation of the definition, meeting every criteria........Dang.




Rob(I'm the luckiest kid on the block) :DPinch me. Hard...

[rwiederrich]

>>>Still, when I think of a 'classic' telescope, I picture one of quality and often imported from Japan during the time period 1954 to 1980.
----

When I think of a Classic Telescope, I think of one that is one that is from a bye-gone era, whether it is a refractor, Newtonian, SCT or whatever. Whether that scope is from 1932 or 1986, what is important to me is "what it is" rather than when it was made.

Is the Blue Tube Coulter 13.1 inch a "classic?" I think so simply because it was really the first commercial DOB, the C-8 is a classic in the same vein.

But I think it is a mistake to define what is a "classic" and what is not a "classic." We should be inclusive of ideas, telescopes and people rather than exclusive so that if someone thinks a 1984 Meade 2080 is a "classic" then it is.

Classic is really a term that came about to bridge the gap between antique and the modern, it is purposefully vague for that reason and trying to define it specifically is a mistake. Any definition will be vague and nebulous.

And then too, it is a moving target, what is a classic changes with time. I am quite certain that 100 years from now, some of today's scopes will be "classics." Seeing 7 inch AP's offered at 50K and 8 inch APs offered at 100K indicates to me that these scopes are already "classics" and will with time likely achieve the status of Clark refractors. Certainly there are other high quality APOs but from a historical perspective, certainaly APs have a special place is the history of the amateur refractor.

Anyway...

If you think it's a classic, then it's a classic...

That's what I think.


Jon

Well what I think, is that you are on target as usual Jon.

Good analysis.

One good question is what is the importance of the term any way, and who is it important to???

If you are a collector, or seller, then the term may mean more to you. And that can probably have a very narrow meaning. Now if you are like many, the term may be vary loose, and as mentioned, be a moving target.

I guess in the context of this thread, and the good folks here, it is more personal perception.

But as is necessary, we need clarity in understanding if we are to commumicate effectively, and if we want to be understood. If some uses the term looslely as he understands it, it could be missunderstood..

Good exchange.

Rob(everything I own is a classic)

[Ziggy943]

Where would 90 years old fall into that formula?

[tybee]

Where would 90 years old fall into that formula?

In a different league!