105 replies to this topic

[Physicsman]

Mike Marotta posted a very interesting set of comments re. his discovery of Norton's Star Atlas in the "Books Acquired Recently" thread.

 

A lot of us have a long, and cherished, association with this book.

 

Following Brent's suggestion, any comments about the book should be posted in here.

 

Now that's scuppered it....bet there are no further replies!! LOL.

[BrentKnight]

I have a PDF of the 1st edition, a print copy of the 16th edition and a much newer print edition (don't remember which right now).  The Stars by H. A. Rey is the only other book that I have multiple copies of...

[mikemarotta]

My preferred online book vendor is the collective of retailers at ABE Books. Earlier editions of Norton's are extremely affordable. 

 

 

Many recent publishings are available 2000 and later, as well as the touted 16th edition.

 

Thanks,

Mike M.

Edited by mikemarotta, 14 September 2023 - 06:15 PM.

[B 26354]

Every time a "newbie" to C-Nights requests a reference for an introductory star atlas, I recommend Norton's.

 

I bought my first one in 1954 when I was ten -- the 1954 12th edition, which got stolen from me in 2001. I got the 1998 19th edition (paperback) to replace it... but like many who know and love the early hardback editions for their content, and because they lie flat when opened, I eventually bought a replacement '54 edition, and a '57 edition as well. Because of their age, I keep the hardbacks inside, but the 19th edition almost always accompanies me when I'm doing a prolonged observing session... along with Vehrenberg's Handbook of the Constellations and a laminated field edition of Sky Atlas 2000.

 

[Physicsman]

Yes, I use ABE a lot. Some people give the organisation a bad press, but I've never had anything but good service and product from its sellers.

 

 "Gold Books" in Austin, Tx has been outstanding - if anyone ever comes across them.

 

I may have a look at getting an older copy or two of Norton's.

 

Brent - I have a hardback copy of Rey published by the Hamlyn group in Europe (Prague, I think) in 1966. One of my first astronomy books, and I adored it. Recently bought a recent paperback reprint. My original has planetary positions to 1975!

 

Interestingly, many of the "standard" intro books for amateurs in the UK took "a jolly dim view" of Rey's wonderful re-sketching of constellation shapes. Traditionalist piffle, I'm afraid....

Edited by Physicsman, 14 September 2023 - 06:27 PM.

[kasprowy]

I have the edition from around 2000. It has good info, but as an atlas, it's terrible. The binding is stiff and the scale is fairly small. From the standpoint of an astronomy primer, it's very good. Back then, I purchased it because it was referenced in Burnham's, which is my all time favorite astro masterwork.

Edited by kasprowy, 14 September 2023 - 06:38 PM.

[kasprowy]

Yes, I use ABE a lot. Some people give the organisation a bad press, but I've never had anything but good service and product from its sellers.

"Gold Books" in Austin, Tx has been outstanding - if anyone ever comes across them.

I may have a look at getting an older copy or two of Norton's.

Brent - I have a hardback copy of Rey published by the Hamlyn group in Europe (Prague, I think)

Abe Books is top notch. I've bought many items from their sellers. As for Hamlyn, yes, Prague. They published Rukl's Moon, Mars, and Venus in 1976, which I still use to this day at the scope.

[Physicsman]

Abe Books is top notch. I've bought many items from their sellers. As for Hamlyn, yes, Prague. They published Rukl's Moon, Mars, and Venus in 1976, which I still use to this day at the scope.

Moon, Mars and Venus, and another Hamlin classic - "Constellatons" by Klepesta and Rukl.....excellent. And still available from ABE, or equivalent.

 

Agree about what's been said about the modern Norton's. Not very helpful as a practical atlas if it won't open flat. 

[RichA]

Mike Marotta posted a very interesting set of comments re. his discovery of Norton's Star Atlas in the "Books Acquired Recently" thread.

 

A lot of us have a long, and cherished, association with this book.

 

Following Brent's suggestion, any comments about the book should be posted in here.

 

Now that's scuppered it....bet there are no further replies!! LOL.

I used Norton's and Burham's extensively in the field.  But, one other atlas I loved was the three-part Antonin Becvar's Atlas Borealis, Eclipticalis and Australis.  Large format and star colours.

[BrentKnight]

I used Norton's and Burham's extensively in the field.  But, one other atlas I loved was the three-part Antonin Becvar's Atlas Borealis, Eclipticalis and Australis.  Large format and star colours.

And none of those pesky DSO's to clutter it up.  I just can't seem to find a copy of Australis to complete my set.

[BrentKnight]

Yes, I use ABE a lot. Some people give the organisation a bad press, but I've never had anything but good service and product from its sellers.

 

 "Gold Books" in Austin, Tx has been outstanding - if anyone ever comes across them.

 

I may have a look at getting an older copy or two of Norton's.

 

Brent - I have a hardback copy of Rey published by the Hamlyn group in Europe (Prague, I think) in 1966. One of my first astronomy books, and I adored it. Recently bought a recent paperback reprint. My original has planetary positions to 1975!

 

Interestingly, many of the "standard" intro books for amateurs in the UK took "a jolly dim view" of Rey's wonderful re-sketching of constellation shapes. Traditionalist piffle, I'm afraid....

I bought both copies of The Stars on the used market.  Before these, it was the library.  I've got an "Enlarged" edition from 1962 (6th printing) and a newer paperback from 1980.  The old one is printed with a very dark blue/gray for the charts, the newer one is a pale blue/grey.  I like the dark blue much better.  Same silly constellations in both though...

[Castor]

Hi,

 

Two of my favorite sources on stellar cartography when I started in the hobby, were a copy of the Norton’s Star Atlas, 16th Edition (Epoch 1950.0, hardcover, 1973, acquired in used cond.) along with the miniature-sized photographic star atlas included on my copy of Peterson’s Field Guide to the Stars and Planets (1964, also found used).   Many years later, I also purchased a copy of Norton’s Star Atlas, 20th Edition (Epoch 2000.0, hardcover, 2004), more for the updated info on the tables than for the redesigned star charts.  See my comparison pictures below from my 16th and 20th Ed. copies, depicting Orion.  As commented by B_26354 on post #4 and also by other owners, the pages on the older hardcover editions are sewn into the binding (‘cotton binding’), so it lies conveniently flat when opened.

 

What I enjoyed the most from the earlier editions of Norton’s was that double stars plotted on the atlas were normally labeled using the old time classic catalog designations (Struve, Otto Struve, etc.), a great aid for locating double stars within reach of small amateur telescopes, either on its own or in the company of larger atlases that mark them, but don’t label them –recent edition of Norton’s Star Atlas also mark them, but no longer label them.  When the first edition of The Cambridge Double Star Atlas came out in 2009, superseding Norton’s in most venues, it was time to put my old friend to rest, well-protected behind glass, on the shelves of my personal library.

 

Congratulations to Mike Marotta on purchasing his copy of Norton’s Star Atlas and thank you Physicsman for starting this thread!

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 
• 

Edited by Castor, 15 September 2023 - 04:52 PM.

[yuzameh]

My copy is celebrating it's half century this year, as it seems I bought it in 1973, when money was money, just before the last time silly inflation levels hit here.

[yuzameh]

Hi,

 

Two of my favorite sources on stellar cartography when I started in the hobby, were a copy of the Norton’s Star Atlas, 16th Edition (Epoch 1950.0, hardcover, 1973, acquired in used cond.) along with the miniature-sized photographic star atlas included on my copy of Peterson’s Field Guide to the Stars and Planets (1964, also found used).   Many years later, I also purchased a copy of Norton’s Star Atlas, 20th Edition (Epoch 2000.0, hardcover, 2004), more for the updated info on the tables than for the redesigned star charts.  See my comparison pictures below from my 16th and 20th Ed. copies, depicting Orion.  As commented by B_26354 on post #4 and also by other owners, the pages on the older hardcover editions are sewn into the binding (‘cotton binding’), so it lies conveniently flat when opened.

 

What I enjoyed the most from the earlier editions of Norton’s was that double stars plotted on the atlas were normally labeled using the old time classic catalog designations (Struve, Otto Struve, etc.), a great aid for locating double stars within reach of small amateur telescopes, either on its own or in the company of larger atlases that mark them, but don’t label them –recent edition of Norton’s Star Atlas also mark them, but no longer label them.  When the first edition of The Cambridge Double Star Atlas came out in 2009, superseding Norton’s in most venues, it was time to put my old friend to rest, well-protected behind glass, on the shelves of my personal library.

 

Congratulations to Mike Marotta on purchasing his copy of Norton’s Star Atlas and thank you Physicsman for starting this thread!

Mine's the copy on the left, well done on keeping your dust cover intact, mine tore so much in the end I just ditched it all together.  It tore simply just shoving it back on the shelves between its neighbouring tomes.

[Physicsman]

The sales of the 1973, 16th edition must have been (relatively) substantial - not a typical sample, I know - everyone on this thread  seems to have a copy.

 

Maybe we all just happen to be a similar age....

[mikemarotta]

Hi,

 

Two of my favorite sources on stellar cartography when I started in the hobby, were a copy of the Norton’s Star Atlas, 16th Edition (Epoch 1950.0, hardcover, 1973, acquired in used cond.) along with the miniature-sized photographic star atlas included on my copy of Peterson’s Field Guide to the Stars and Planets (1964, also found used).  

Congratulations to Mike Marotta on purchasing his copy of Norton’s Star Atlas and thank you Physicsman for starting this thread!

I have not bought mine yet, but it will be the 16th but not one of the newer ones.  If I find any stars that have moved along much (doubles with significantly changed position angles, for example), I will annotate the book.

 

Thanks!

Mike M.

[Castor]

Wow Yuzameh, you have owned your Norton’s Atlas for half a century!  TBH, I purchased mine used in the 80’s and even though it looks fine in the small picture, its dustcover was already torn when I got it.  Later on, I restored it and wrapped in a clear protector jacket!

 

Right Physicsman, 1973 must have been a very good year for the publisher of Norton’s Star Atlas!  Agreed, maybe we all just happen to be a similar age …

 

Oops, that’s right Mike, on the other thread you mentioned just checking it on your local library, sorry for the confusion!  I concur, getting a copy from one of the early editions is the proper way to own one of the classic books of amateur astronomy!

 

Thank you!

[Mark Gingrich]

I still have my 15th edition, tattered though it may be.  I believe this particular edition is notable for the publisher's subtle pun of placing the table of letters in the Greek alphabet on, most appropriately, page xi.

 

As much as I enthusiastically endorse purchasing a copy, my opinion of it is slightly less glowing than that of the novelist James A. Michener, who in his 1982 saga Space said the following, on page 47, by way of the character named Karl Anderssen:

 

     "This is one of the loveliest books in the world," the professor had

     said, still clinging to the large flat volume.  "Norton's Star Atlas.

     Half the great astronomers living in the world today started with this

     as boys.  Do you know it?" 

[mikemarotta]

Just bought mine!

I have not bought mine yet, but it will be the 16th but not one of the newer ones.  If I find any stars that have moved along much (doubles with significantly changed position angles, for example), I will annotate the book.

 

I found a nice 16th with dust jacket, a bit pricier at $29.95 + tax, S&H.

 

I searched also on ABE Books for "Norton's star atlas 1973" and found another in the USA (Texas) for less but without dust jacket and also several in the UK. 

 

Thanks!

Mike M.

[Castor]

Mark:  That was a fun tidbit: The table with the Greek alphabet on page ‘xi’!

 

I hope that when I commented on the worthiness of having an earlier copy of Norton’s Star Atlas in our bookshelves (mostly for historic context on the type of objects that was favored in that era), it wasn’t interpreted as an endorsement on its suitability for actual field use with current amateur telescopes -IMHO, its scale is too small and its limiting magnitude too restrictive to be practical for finding faint DSOs in light-polluted skies.

 

When I got my copy of Norton’s, I used it mostly for double star work.  For deep-sky observing at the time, I mainly used the miniature photographic star atlas included on my early copy of Peterson Field Guide to the Stars and Planets (Donald H. Menzel, 1964), replaced years later by the all too familiar, pocket-sized version of the field edition (white stars on black background) of Sky Atlas 2000 by Wil Tirion.

 

The wonderful thing about having a photographic star atlas at the telescope, is that there was not much guesswork of where the object that you intended to observe was in the sky, because you were holding a miniature B&W version of the sky (in negative and positive plates) in your hands! See picture attached below.  My main complaint about Peterson’s Field Guide was the very small scale of the atlas that required a magnifying lens to use it!

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Castor]

Just bought mine!

I found a nice 16th with dust jacket, a bit pricier at $29.95 + tax, S&H.

 

I searched also on ABE Books for "Norton's star atlas 1973" and found another in the USA (Texas) for less but without dust jacket and also several in the UK. 

 

Thanks!

Mike M.

Mike,

 

The white dust jacket of Norton’s Star Atlas 16th Edition (1973) is not much of a charmer if you ask me, easily stained and kind of brittle, so it also tears easily!  See pictures below of the actual condition of the front and back side of my pre-owned copy.

 

Another important observation I would like to make is that the early versions of Norton’s Star Atlas were relatively thin in comparison with the more recent editions (the one you checked at the library), that include lots of astronomical info and tables filled with useful data (again, see my picture below of the 16th Edition (left) next to the 20th Edition (right).  The main reason to get a copy of an early edition would be to have the original charts with the labeled double stars and DSOs with the Herschel catalogue designations (instead of NGC).

 

Best of luck with your purchase decision!

 

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 
• 

Edited by Castor, 16 September 2023 - 02:53 AM.

[Physicsman]

I'm glad that I started this thread, following Brent's suggestion.

 

I am being royally informed about the history of this classic publication!

[BrentKnight]

I had no idea what you people were talking about.  My 16th Ed. charts are anything but "flat".  I went back again to figure out what the deal was.

 

 

The individual chart pages (for example, Map 7 to Map 8) are a single sheet that has been pasted into the book.  This means that there is a crease, but no break in the paper at the gutter.  This allows the two sides line up better and likely lie flat in the binding.  My glue/tape has gotten stiff and discolored and causes the pages to bow up quite a bit at the gutter (unless I press down in the center).  I can imagine this was a very nice feature for an atlas when this book was new, but it has not aged well in my case.

 

I do see this a lot in older books that have color spreads or even fold-out pages.  I've got a couple books from the late 1800's that do not suffer from the stiff glue issue that my Norton's has.  I can only assume the method and materials used in Norton's were chosen to make the book more durable while out by the telescope.  Other than the discoloration and the stiffness, I can't see these pages ever falling out.

[mikemarotta]

 My main complaint about Peterson’s Field Guide was the very small scale of the atlas that required a magnifying lens to use it!

I agree. The text is great, the charts, not so much. The same is true of all of the similar books that I have seen and owned, such as the National Geographic field guide. A "field guide" with little pictures might be OK for birds and trees, but for the sky at night, the charts need to be big enough to be useful. It is why I have relied on the Sky & Telescope Pocket Sky Atlas Jumbo Edition ring bound. I have had it only about 15 months and it is already showing wear.

 

Thanks for your suggestion about using a photographic guide. As little as I have to say for Stellarium, SkySafari, etc., etc., their ability to actually show you what you should see in the eyepiece is very powerful.

 

Best Regards and Clear Skies,

Mike M.

Edited by mikemarotta, 16 September 2023 - 10:39 AM.

[yuzameh]

Mark:  That was a fun tidbit: The table with the Greek alphabet on page ‘xi’!

 

I hope that when I commented on the worthiness of having an earlier copy of Norton’s Star Atlas in our bookshelves (mostly for historic context on the type of objects that was favored in that era), it wasn’t interpreted as an endorsement on its suitability for actual field use with current amateur telescopes -IMHO, its scale is too small and its limiting magnitude too restrictive to be practical for finding faint DSOs in light-polluted skies.

 

When I got my copy of Norton’s, I used it mostly for double star work.  For deep-sky observing at the time, I mainly used the miniature photographic star atlas included on my early copy of Peterson Field Guide to the Stars and Planets (Donald H. Menzel, 1964), replaced years later by the all too familiar, pocket-sized version of the field edition (white stars on black background) of Sky Atlas 2000 by Wil Tirion.

 

The wonderful thing about having a photographic star atlas at the telescope, is that there was not much guesswork of where the object that you intended to observe was in the sky, because you were holding a miniature B&W version of the sky (in negative and positive plates) in your hands! See picture attached below.  My main complaint about Peterson’s Field Guide was the very small scale of the atlas that required a magnifying lens to use it!

Yep, I bought Menzel's book soon after Norton's, maybe before, it seems my Norton's is 1973 but bought a coupla years later.

 

I found Norton's charts useless in practice for all bar constellation learning.  Nice touches in them though for later cross referencing, like Birmingham and Espin's red stars and some Herschel (W) identifiers oft times superseded by other designations nowadays.