544 replies to this topic

[starman876]

Gee, the Casio is a lot more informative than the Rolex. All that expensive Rolex does is show you the time.

I remember when I had a casio like that and it stopped working the first time it got wet.

[Jon Isaacs]

Exquisite, artful and functional. Name an 80mm commercial refractor that can make the claim that it might become a museum piece someday.

Also, the Questar (and Porter Garden Scopes) have even become an artistic inspiration for some.

Questar
https://youtu.be/9I3...b8F5recl-qAN0fy

Porter
https://youtu.be/1Yv...vbSnG-hdUzMI7NH

Well....

 

I am thinking of another 90mm refractor that is legendary and even more collectible than the Questar.  The original Astro-Physics Stowaways.  Optically superior to the Questars, fully functional and more capable, artful? that is in the eyes of the beholder..  But certainly the original Stowaway is an example of a master optician at his very best.  

 

Of course an original Stowaway is much more expensive than a Questar.  The last I saw they were over $10,000.  i don't know how the new runs has affected that, I suspect very little because of the historic nature of the original Stowaway.  

 

But that is neither here nor there, the Questar is not the only such scope.. The Questar holds no allure for me, it's just not my kind of scope.  But I believe I have some understanding of the what makes it attractive.  

 

In today's world, we are surrounded by material things.  They are well designed, effective at what they do but they are mass produced and the result of a series of compromises.. Even a very expensive car, hundreds of thousands of dollars, is a series of engineering compromises, it could be built better if absolute perfection were the goal.  

 

There are a few things that a person with normal means can own that uncompromised.  A Questar is one of those things.  A new Questar is $5000-$6000 which is a lot of money for a 90mm Telescope but people regularly spend more on upgraded packages when buying a new car, a car that will likely be gone in 15 years to another kind of museum, the junkyard.  

 

A Rolex watch might be similar but performance wise, compared to my $40 Casio watch, it is not as good a watch at telling time. 

 

That's my 2 cents.

 

Jon

[NinePlanets]

One of those watches looks like it has stopped telling time.

It's pretty easy to guess which one.

I have a self winder that does the same thing. I wore it for almost 40 years but when my lifestyle changed and the winder didn't get the action it needed, well, on the shelf it went.

The sundial and stars tell me all I need to know now.

[Jon Isaacs]

I remember when I had a casio like that and it stopped working the first time it got wet.

 

I take showers with my Casio every day, wash dishes, etc, etc.  Works great.

 

Jon

[kgb]

My Casio has been running for almost 40 years and has an 8 digit calculator. The only problem is that the calendar will only work until 2099 (but my estate will need to worry about that).

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[geovermont]

After all of these years I still have never looked through a Questar. So, I can't really say what the allure is, beyond the fact that they sure looked pretty in Sky and Telescope.

[Terra Nova]

It goes without saying that astronomers herein would also have an interest in time pieces. After all Astronomy and Time/Time Keeping go hand in hand.

[TOMDEY]

The Rolex vs Timex is a flawed argument. When you say "they both tell time" I have to say that they don't tell time equally well. In fact, like any mechanical watch, the Rolex is subject the effects of temperature, causing it to either run slow or fast over a period of time (I know this because I have a Rolex). On the other hand a quartz watch will not suffer from this, making it a better timekeeping piece than the Rolex.

 

One wants a Rolex on their wrist because it is an example of conspicuous consumption. It says "I've arrived". On my wrist now? An Apple watch! It gives me so much more information than a Rolex or a Jaeger-LeCoultre can. 

 

Is a Questar another example of CC? Only the owners can say ... 

The Rolex is diffraction limited; the Timex is not.    Tom

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Steve C.]

I've been accused of having too much time on my hands.

 

The monster Invicta on the left I found at an estate sale. For $20, I couldn't resist.  The Timex on the right I what I like the most, though I have thought about getting the battery replaced in the Seiko in the middle.

 

[Bomber Bob]

Honestly, I felt the same way about Takahashi, until I bought one, It's a lotta hype - no way they're worth that much!

 

Yeah, yeah, I know:  Your brand new PhartGard PRC-made ED-102 Quadruplet with FU-3.1415963 ED element can beat a Tak FS-102 from before you were born.  Great!  Use & Enjoy!  I'm happy for you.  Really.

 

Takahashi & Questar will (hopefully) still be cranking out quality instruments long after we're all dust...

[hyiger]

It's like audiophile equipment. Does that vacuum tube amplifier with NOS Western Electric 300B tubes made in the 40's that cost $2000 each, eats 120 watts of power to produce 8 watts of sound, really sound and perform better than a $0.05 op amp made yesterday? No... it doesn't... It certainly looks better on my desk and it has the added bonus of keeping the room warm. 

Edited by hyiger, 28 January 2024 - 01:54 PM.

[Terra Nova]

It's like audiophile equipment. Does that vacuum tube amplifier with NOS Western Electric 300B tubes made in the 40's that cost $2000 each, eats 120 watts of power to produce 8 watts of sound, really sound and perform better than a $0.05 op amp made yesterday? No... it doesn't... It certainly looks better on my desk and it has the added bonus of keeping the room warm. 

 

For those of us old enough to remember tube radios (and the warm red glow coming out of the perforated brown particle board (masonite?) back, I can relate to this! We had one old black bakelite tube radio that would get so hot that if you laid your hand on the top of it, it could almost burn you if it had been on an hour.

Edited by Terra Nova, 28 January 2024 - 01:59 PM.

[Steve C.]

Terra, that reminds me of watching our old B&W TV until the station sign-off. Turn off the TV and then slowly watch the little white dot fade away.

[NinePlanets]

I have a lovely wooden pre-1944 Crosley. The 90V batteries are a thing of the past but it isn't hard to make your own. I did, however, make an AC adapter and use it to listen to a local old-timey station.

[NinePlanets]

The nostalgia is fine, but not at Questar prices.

[CHASLX200]

Well....

 

I am thinking of another 90mm refractor that is legendary and even more collectible than the Questar.  The original Astro-Physics Stowaways.  Optically superior to the Questars, fully functional and more capable, artful? that is in the eyes of the beholder..  But certainly the original Stowaway is an example of a master optician at his very best.  

 

Of course an original Stowaway is much more expensive than a Questar.  The last I saw they were over $10,000.  i don't know how the new runs has affected that, I suspect very little because of the historic nature of the original Stowaway.  

 

But that is neither here nor there, the Questar is not the only such scope.. The Questar holds no allure for me, it's just not my kind of scope.  But I believe I have some understanding of the what makes it attractive.  

 

In today's world, we are surrounded by material things.  They are well designed, effective at what they do but they are mass produced and the result of a series of compromises.. Even a very expensive car, hundreds of thousands of dollars, is a series of engineering compromises, it could be built better if absolute perfection were the goal.  

 

There are a few things that a person with normal means can own that uncompromised.  A Questar is one of those things.  A new Questar is $5000-$6000 which is a lot of money for a 90mm Telescope but people regularly spend more on upgraded packages when buying a new car, a car that will likely be gone in 15 years to another kind of museum, the junkyard.  

 

A Rolex watch might be similar but performance wise, compared to my $40 Casio watch, it is not as good a watch at telling time. 

 

That's my 2 cents.

 

Jon

Just silly to pay 12k for a used 92mm AP.

[CHASLX200]

Terra, that reminds me of watching our old B&W TV until the station sign-off. Turn off the TV and then slowly watch the little white dot fade away.

Back when TV was real and no stupid beeps every 3 secs on TV shows.  Now it is AD's 80% of the time gents and 20% tv show.  I no longer watch Gold rush since it is non stop beeps. My sister my myself would count the beeps on these shows.  And now all chans are rigged to have a AD at the same time so you can't flip chans.

Edited by CHASLX200, 28 January 2024 - 02:34 PM.

[CHASLX200]

The nostalgia is fine, but not at Questar prices.

Way over priced like used AP's.

[starman876]

Just silly to pay 12k for a used 92mm AP.

Just silly to pay all that money for a vette when a honda civic does the same thing but slower

[hyiger]

Just silly to pay all that money for a vette when a honda civic does the same thing but slower

I can't drive any faster than 35mph to pick up groceries from Trader Joe's plus I have more space in the trunk. Anyway, it's all moot really. Questar is a luxury telescope and you pay a luxury price for it. Doesn't imply though that it is better than something 5x cheaper. 

[CHASLX200]

Just silly to pay all that money for a vette when a honda civic does the same thing but slower

I paid about the same for my Vette chet than a new Honda. When you buy near 10 year old Vettes they are cheap. Never buy new like i did on a 2019 C7 and have to lemon law it with 400 miles.

[starman876]

I paid about the same for my Vette chet than a new Honda. When you buy near 10 year old Vettes they are cheap. Never buy new like i did on a 2019 C7 and have to lemon law it with 400 miles.

so sly, it makes you almost cry when a 10 year old Honda civic can do the same thing your vette does but cheaper at 1/10 the cost.

[CHASLX200]

so sly, it makes you almost cry when a 10 year old Honda civic can do the same thing your vette does but cheaper at 1/10 the cost.

But no V8 sound and no 0 to 60 in 2.8 secs. 

Edited by CHASLX200, 28 January 2024 - 03:11 PM.

[gstrumol]

and date

Which you have to manually change (or not) at the end of each month 

 

If I just want to know the time and date then my Citizen Eco Drive watch does all that, has the superior accuracy of a quartz movement, and never requires a battery change because it's powered by light/sun! The hands and numbers glow in the dark at night, and it's water resistant to 10 Bar (more than I am):

 

 

Probably could use a new band. 

 

But we've strayed (wildly) from the OP topic. My final words on that topic are these:

 

The Questar is arguably the most beautiful telescope ever made. The craftsmanship is both inspired and incredible. The mount and dew shield are jewel-like in appearance. If I didn't want my home to look like the interior of an Orion B&M store I would get one; d@mn the extravagance. It was a marvel of engineering back in 1950, but time marches on, and despite its beautiful mirror it's still a 3.5" mak, and physics is a harsh judge. Today there are many superb scopes of various designs with much larger apertures that will blow it away. That is, unless the need to set up anywhere with something you can carry in a small case is of paramount importance.

 

But for those who don't care about the verdict, it was, and still is, a beautiful scope!

[starman876]

Which you have to manually change (or not) at the end of each month 

 

If I just want to know the time and date then my Citizen Eco Drive watch does all that, has the superior accuracy of a quartz movement, and never requires a battery change because it's powered by light/sun! The hands and numbers glow in the dark at night, and it's water resistant to 10 Bar (more than I am):

 

citizen.jpg

 

Probably could use a new band. 

 

But we've strayed (wildly) from the OP topic. My final words on that topic are these:

 

The Questar is arguably the most beautiful telescope ever made. The craftsmanship is both inspired and incredible. The mount and dew shield are jewel-like in appearance. If I didn't want my home to look like the interior of an Orion B&M store I would get one; d@mn the extravagance. It was a marvel of engineering back in 1950, but time marches on, and despite its beautiful mirror it's still a 3.5" mak, and physics is a harsh judge. Today there are many superb scopes of various designs with much larger apertures that will blow it away. That is, unless the need to set up anywhere with something you can carry in a small case is of paramount importance.

 

But for those who don't care about the verdict, it was, and still is, a beautiful scope!

Well said