155 replies to this topic

[yuzameh]

In another response to physicsdude's wonderings about the 16th edition, the pedia of the wiki is informative in this instance

 

https://en.wikipedia...on's_Star_Atlas

 

as is also this

 

http://www.ianridpat.../nortonpage.htm

 

Ridpath of the Ian's not Nicholson of the Iain's.

 

Notice Norton's deep involvement with his work for a long time, and his charts sticking to the latest available data, and remember you had to get copies of those sorts of catalogues in those days, which would have been short runs and mostly in specialist libraries and no doubt quite expensive.  I doubt Norton made much money from this dedicated task he'd set himself.

 

I remember the 17th edition being kind of a hybrid version of the classical and new stuff, but essentially Norton's was destroyed in the 18th edition by the look of things, and even more totally divorced in the final version, as in totally re-written, so in many ways it is good it ended there as that wasn't really a Norton's, possibly even the 18th Edition wasn't, whereas the 17th just had new bits which had also happened with earlier editions, it seems.

 

I'm sure if Pasachoff hadn't been a dedicated direct student of Menzel the Petersen Field guide updates would also have been fully ruined instead of updated.  Although I did always prefer the negative plate images in the original, it may surprise some to know that white dots drawn on black pages under a dim red light (say a filtered Halpha LED) is far better than black dots on white in terms of keep dark adaptation whilst still being quite readable.

 

They were it for me, if I needed anything extra I used Guide 2.0 onwards, and as I think I've said before that meant the Uranometria Volume I and Field Guide I'd saved up for ended up being expensive white elephants barely used at all.

 

Of course THE handbook was Burnham's, maybe one or two others still around on the shelf.

 

In fact Norton's has always been more of a reference tome to me as its beauty was that it was an ASTRONOMY book, even the limited bits of astrophysics in it are far more astronomy than physics (eg HR diagrams and spectral types).  Moon map was rubbish of course, but in my personal view all non-photographic Moon maps are, but Mars map was okay for my scope.  It's probably because of Norton's that I still think of 1 AU as 93,000,000 miles first then have to remember 150,000,000 km afterwards and much similar.  Haven't read it in full in years but must've read it multiple times when first bought.  I notice too that it has little pencil dots against the objects I'd observed up to probably the late 90s, which includes more double stars than I remember ever looking at.

[Physicsman]

Interesting comments.

 

And I agree about editions beyond the 16th. Seems to me that "traditional" stuff that had stood the test for years just HAD to be replaced by a more "modern" aporoach.

 

Don't get me started on the dumbing-down of education and it's knock-on effects elsewhere....

 

At least many of us have the books in the (older) form that we much prefer.

 

But who is PhysicsDUDE? 

 

Do I know him?   

Edited by Physicsman, 17 September 2023 - 11:04 AM.

[Castor]

Y'know, if you think about it, ONLY in this section of cloudy nights, and maybe only in this thread, would that effort earn anything more than an eye roll... 

                                                                                                                                                                                             Marty

 

 

Marty, you may be right about that.

 

But since signing-up to CN in February, it's been apparent that there's a pretty tight-knit community on the "book-loving" threads. We appreciate the background that others provide - especially with some of the rarely-seen stuff that you come up with.

 

The downside of this is it's costing us all a fortune. I'm fighting a battle to avoid the temptation to buy the Cambridge Photographic Star Atlas that was illustrated and discussed above!

Marty,

 

It’s such a shame that the quick and easy availability of information through the internet, has resulted in a loss of demand for printed astronomy books, and I’m afraid this also reflects on the smaller participation of members in the CN Astro Art, Books subforum!

 

Fortunately, like Jeff points out so accurately: “there’s still a pretty tight-knit community on the book loving threads” and “we appreciate the background that others provide”.  I wish I could participate more actively, but unfortunately my English is not my native language and it really takes me lot of effort to compose anything longer than single-word remarks, so most of the time I just press the ‘like’ button to show my appreciation for your posts.   I hope you all can forgive me for not being more communicative!

 

[Castor]

[...]  The downside of this is it's costing us all a fortune. I'm fighting a battle to avoid the temptation to buy the Cambridge Photographic Star Atlas that was illustrated and discussed above!

 

 

I lost the battle - Cambridge Atlas ordered....

Jeff,

 

Sometimes it’s necessary to lose a battle to win the war… I think this would be one of those instances.  I hope that when you get your book, you decide that it was worth the cost!   It’s a beautiful book and unlike other photographic atlases, it covers the whole sky!

 

Ah, and when it becomes out of print, the price will probably rise to the stratosphere!

 

[Castor]

I really need to stop hanging out here.  the Cambridge Atlas is on it's way from the fleaBay.

 

 

Well...that is wonderful, Marty, and I've become obsessed with observing dark nebulae since I got that Springer Barnard book a couple weeks ago.  I'm really looking forward to it now.  I bet it's pretty good at showing the Sharpless objects too.  I was sold when I noticed Stoyan was co-author. [...]

 

Brent,

 

Good decision ordering The Cambridge Photographic Star Atlas!

 

I too like books from Ronald Stoyan!  My only regret is not having purchased a second copy (for field use) of his stunning book, Atlas of the Messier Objects: Highlights of the Deep Sky, when I had the chance.   Now, used copies are priced well above my reach, usually around the $250 mark.

 

[Physicsman]

Jeff,

 

Sometimes it’s necessary to lose a battle to win the war… I think this would be one of those instances.  I hope that when you get your book, you decide that it was worth the cost!   It’s a beautiful book and unlike other photographic atlases, it covers the whole sky!

 

Ah, and when it becomes out of print, the price will probably rise to the stratosphere!

I do love my Cambridge publications and the Cambridge Photographic Lunar Atlas is a case in point, regarding price.

 

The book I bought less than 10 years ago for £25-ish was on offer recently from various sellers at several hundred £. They rely on idiots like me to be tempted - nope, there are limits.

 

I don't know what your native language is, but your written English is excellent - better than many on the Forum! 

 

And I'd wager that your English is a hundred times better than my attempt at your home language (though my French is quite good)!

[BrentKnight]

Our little forum might be hard to find buried down where it is. I often see posts that should go here in the General forum.

Regardless... I'll take quality over quantity any day.

[Castor]

I do love my Cambridge publications and the Cambridge Photographic Lunar Atlas is a case in point, regarding price.

 

The book I bought less than 10 years ago for £25-ish was on offer recently from various sellers at several hundred £. They rely on idiots like me to be tempted - nope, there are limits.

 

I don't know what your native language is, but your written English is excellent - better than many on the Forum! 

 

And I'd wager that your English is a hundred times better than my attempt at your home language (though my French is quite good)!

Thank you for your kind words Jeff!

 

Unfortunately, the merit on my written English is not mine: I get lots of help from the spell-checking subroutines of a word-processor and also from the usual search engine!  As to my native language, I’d rather not comment on a public forum, but without going off-topic, you may get a hint from my picture below of some of my ‘cherished’ guidebooks.

 

Best,

 

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[PJ Anway]

Here's the 1937 SIXTH EDITION

Sort of a grayish or very dull green Milky Way...

I have the 2000 18th edition and the 1937 6th edition.

If you are a double-star fan, the 1937 has more to offer; here is an example from chart map #12:

 

 

In this comparison, the "circled" area is a good example.

The 1937 edition shows the Piazzi 212 designation.

The 2000 edition shows nothing but the strikethrough to indicate a double star.

[Alvan Clark]

That's why I think a lot got the 16th edition but you don't hear of many having later versions.  There was a long gap between 15 and 16 as well I think and 17 was still Norton's but also wasn't.

 

However, I think you are spot on with a guess re age also for those of us who first bought our copy in our teenage years but are just on the correct side of decrepithood to still (at least try) to observe from time to time.  If you're like me also often bemoaning how the skies aren't dark no more.  I used to find constellations like Lynx and Lacerta and Leo Minor a doddle to see, nowadays Sagitta can be a struggle sometimes.

Yes, there's probably a certain age on this forum who bought the 16th edition. Some of it is that Norton's was the choice at the time. If someone were getting started today would you recommend Norton's? No. There are so many choices and Norton's is way down the list. If someone were starting in the 90's would Norton's be high on the list. No, too many other choices. Sky Atlas 2000 was probably their big downfall and likely why they revised it.

 

I try to think back why I bought it. I seem to remember my choices as Telescope Handbook and Star Atlas (glad I didn't pick that), Norton's and Atlas of the Heavens. I don't remember why I picked Norton's but as a kid price was probably a factor. It was cheaper than Atlas of the Heavens and you got a Handbook too.

[Alex65]

My old Norton's Star Atlas forms part of my trio of observing handbooks that I still use for my star gazing sessions, alongside the Burnham's Celestial Handbook set and Menzel's A Field Guide to the Stars and Planets. 

 

The very first adult amateur astronomy book that I read as a fourteen year old , The Amateur Astronomer's Handbook, by James Muirden, recommended the Norton Star Atlas and it was therefore one of the books that I checked out from my local library on a regular basis afterwards, along with the Menzel guide. Both Norton and Menzel were the books that I most often consulted in my mid to late teens as I learnt my way 'round the night sky using my little AstroScan. 

 

Sure, there are better and more up to date guides than these, but they suit me and my type of star gazing needs just fine. I don't hunt for comets, follow asteroids or search out faint DSOs, so the 6.5 magnitude limit of the Norton works out fine for me; I don't need, nor want, fainter star maps. 

 

I am fully aware that I still use these old guides in preference to modern guides purely due to a sense of nostalgia.

 

[Physicsman]

Nice post, Alex.

 

I agree about nostalgia. But there's also a deep familiarity that comes with having used them repeatedly over the years. It may not be the case now, but for a good while in the 1980s I could close my eyes and run through dozens of pages of Burnham's in my head, as I'd looked at them so often.

 

Besides, if a book or atlas provides everything you need, why use something else?

Edited by Physicsman, 18 September 2023 - 05:10 AM.

[B 26354]

I'm a "constant reader", so I love "armchair" activities as much as the actual pursuit of them... mountaineering, cycling, canoeing, astronomical observing....

 

My favorites for astronomy, as mentioned by others in several posts already, are:

 

Vehrenberg's Atlas of Deep Sky Splendors

 

Mellinger & Stoyan's The Cambridge Photographic Star Atlas

 

Konig & Binnewies' The Cambridge Photographic Atlas of Galaxies

 

Stoyan et al's Atlas of the Messier Objects: Highlights of the Deep Sky

 

Legault & Brunier's New Atlas of the Moon

 

And if I need additional descriptive detail, my three volumes of Burnham's Celestial Handbook are always close at hand.

 

Edited by B 26354, 18 September 2023 - 07:34 PM.

[Physicsman]

Good selection.

 

I did suggest discussion of atlases other than Norton's in my opening post and we're getting them. Great stuff.

 

I'm a very active observer and imager, but with the amount of cloud we get in the UK it's good to have these excellent texts to pore over.

 

I have the Vehrenberg and the Legault atlases, and the Mellinger/Stoyan Cambridge Atlas arrived an hour ago, and it's a good one.

 

So, Castor - I'm very happy with it!  

[Castor]

[...] I have the Vehrenberg and the Legault atlases, and the Mellinger/Stoyan Cambridge Atlas arrived an hour ago, and it's a good one.

 

So, Castor - I'm very happy with it!  

Jeff,

 

That was fast!   Congratulations on your new book, I’m so very glad to hear that you are happy with it!

 

My skies are cloudy more often than not, so having a nice, large format, color photographic star atlas is almost a necessity!

 

[Castor]

I have the 2000 18th edition and the 1937 6th edition.

If you are a double-star fan, the 1937 has more to offer; here is an example from chart map #12:

 

Nortons.jpg

 

In this comparison, the "circled" area is a good example.

The 1937 edition shows the Piazzi 212 designation.

The 2000 edition shows nothing but the strikethrough to indicate a double star.

PJ,

 

Your comment is dead on and the pictures speak for themselves, thanks a lot for posting them!

 

[Castor]

Good selection.

 

I did suggest discussion of atlases other than Norton's in my opening post and we're getting them. Great stuff.

 

I'm a very active observer and imager, but with the amount of cloud we get in the UK it's good to have these excellent texts to pore over.

 

I have the Vehrenberg and the Legault atlases, and the Mellinger/Stoyan Cambridge Atlas arrived an hour ago, and it's a good one.

 

So, Castor - I'm very happy with it!  

When I saw the picture of Alex56’s books, for a split second I thought it was the one I had posted before (post #58).  All the books looked so very familiar, but then I realized that I hadn’t posted a photo of my Burnham’s set here.  Talk about similar taste in our selection of books!  Next, I read B 26354 listing of his favorites for astronomy and I see that we have a lot in common too.  Same with the rest of other posters in this thread!

 

It’s so relieving to find a place where we can share our thoughts in a harmonious way with like-minded people who appreciate their books, regardless if they are treasured old classics that open up a window to the past or current ones with the latest in astrophysical info!

 

Thank you again Jeff for starting this thread!

 

[yuzameh]

My old Norton's Star Atlas forms part of my trio of observing handbooks that I still use for my star gazing sessions, alongside the Burnham's Celestial Handbook set and Menzel's A Field Guide to the Stars and Planets. 

 

The very first adult amateur astronomy book that I read as a fourteen year old , The Amateur Astronomer's Handbook, by James Muirden, recommended the Norton Star Atlas and it was therefore one of the books that I checked out from my local library on a regular basis afterwards, along with the Menzel guide. Both Norton and Menzel were the books that I most often consulted in my mid to late teens as I learnt my way 'round the night sky using my little AstroScan. 

 

Sure, there are better and more up to date guides than these, but they suit me and my type of star gazing needs just fine. I don't hunt for comets, follow asteroids or search out faint DSOs, so the 6.5 magnitude limit of the Norton works out fine for me; I don't need, nor want, fainter star maps. 

 

I am fully aware that I still use these old guides in preference to modern guides purely due to a sense of nostalgia.

 

IMG_6777.JPG

Remarkably spooky.

 

Those are my six too.

 

Although my stars and planets ones are British printings, from Collins Publishing, the hardback being a normal hardback but the same image as part of a quality dust cover with a quality plastic cover over the paper dust jacket.  That predates my Norton's, but I have a memory that I ditched my original Norton's for some reason and had to re-buy it several years later.  I've always had the memory of that happening, but no memory of details such as why or what for.

 

Sure, I've others, specialist object guides and the like, more general ones probably bought because they used to come out so rarely and I hadn't had one for a while, it's nice to read another book cover to cover that you ain't read afore, and slightly more deep ones that actually have visual observations, but these are the core ones, Norton's for reference, Burnham's for catalogues and looking stuff up and write up (a lot of the write ups are still valid today, not so much out of date wrong but out of date incomplete in that new stuff has been learnt since, however the latter is rarely relevant to observation with moderate sized modern scopes), and Menzel to find the things on the sky (augmented by printed out stuff from software in sparse fields needing multistage star hopping, eg some Virgo galaxies).

[yuzameh]

Mellinger/Stoyan Cambridge Atlas arrived an hour ago, and it's a good one.

 

So, Castor - I'm very happy with it!  

I managed to get a look at bits of that online umpteen webpages down, and in practical observing terms I'd describe it as money well wasted.

 

Too deepsky for constellation and star pattern work, too shallow sky for any other work.  Maybe decent binocular work on a mount, not sure though.

 

It'd've been better off not using colour and maybe upping the contrast a bit on the 'monocrhome', rather greyscale.  The charty images are negatives which lose any nebulae when negative for some reason, the colour ones seem to have a very blue sky, and the thing in places seemed to have these totally made up asterism things made up by people who were comfortably well off and sufficiently not overworked who lived in ideal sites with nothing better to do than make up objects, but they charts drew the dotted open cluster symbols around them.  If we all lived somewhere dark with plenty of dark skies and good skies and plenty of time to observer we could all make up our own sky things.

 

I know it's a bit old now in terms of when the images were took, and thus technology used, but given their dark sites I'd suspect better quality.

 

If it is really going for a lot of money in some places that's expensive tinder.

 

To me, personally, not a practical tome, more a coffee table book with indifferent images of insufficient depth for the wide field DSOs, but too much depth for naked equating to constellations, although maybe a dark cloud or two comes out okay from the little sample stuff I found dotted about.

 

Of course, assuming I got the right book, cambridge and photographic and stars were in the title, but CUP have done similar themed and similar titled books before.  I know they've a series of photographic Moon kind of atlases that look to be by a Chinese author that seem to be the same thing done multiple times, because they're all that bit similar.

[Castor]

Yuzameh,

 

Thank you for sharing your impressions on The Cambridge Photographic Star Atlas!

 

We may have different points of view, but it’s always a good thing for the potential buyer to have a wide range of opinions to make better informed decisions!

 

Cheers,

[Physicsman]

The thing is, I bought the Cambridge Atlas as a "thing of beauty". It may not be practical for someone thinking of using it, but that wasn't my intention, so it certainly wasn't money wasted at all - FOR ME.

 

If you were offering an advisory for others who might well buy it for outdoor use, then fair enough.

 

Over the years my primary non-planet guides have been Norton's, Burnham's, a battered copy of Moore's Naked Eye Astronomy, Klapesta's Constellations (Hamlyn) and field and desk editions of Sky Atlas 2000.

 

Of course, I'm now predominantly a Lunar and planetary imager, so they all take a back-seat.

 

Burnham's would be with me as my choice if marooned on a desert island!

[Alex65]

Though I only use my vintage 1973 Norton Star Atlas these days, I do have another atlas which I got way back in 1980. It is simply called the Star Atlas (1979) and edited by Dr J. Mitton and Dr, S. Mitton. I used it to supplement the simple star maps in my Edmund Sky Guide that had come free with my AstroScan and I used it for twenty odd years. The sky maps were computer generated and were supplied by the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, though the atlas is actually a British publication. I quite liked using this atlas, even though the little black asterisks marking out the stars on a pale blue background were a pain to see under a red light when used alongside my telescope. Now, forty years later, I need to wear my glasses, and use a magnifying glass, just to see the tiny 'stars' at all! Certainly not an atlas that I'd recommend anyone these days, but it did its job well enough for me. 

 

 

 

 

The only other atlas that I own is The Photographic Atlas of the Stars (1999) which shows the entire naked eye sky on 90 large photos (45 nonlabelled in color and 45 labelled negative images). This is basically an updated version of the old Menzel guides. 

[Alvan Clark]

December 1978 S&T cover story on available atlases for the time period we are mostly discussing at the moment...

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Alvan Clark]

Also adding Proctor's A New Star Atlas since some seem to think Norton ripped it off...

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Blue Sky Idiot]

I have paperback copy of Sky Atlas 2000.

A beautiful book, but one i haven't used really since buying it 20 years ago.

 

How do you guys use these books out of interest?

 

For reference (indoors) only or do you "use" them as a tool, take them outside, make notes on them, etc?

 

Curious.

 

Without them being laminated, i can't see them being much use outdoors.