65 replies to this topic

[abe]

I've always wanted a vintage orange C5.  They are just so lovely.  I REALLY don't need another telescope, but I'm kind of kicking myself for letting this one get away (especially for $250, and with the original trunk):
​https://hibid.com/lo...es?ref=lot-list

 

I have no experience with "Hibid".  Anyone know if they are legit?  It probably would have been worth taking a chance, though for this little gem.

 

-abe.

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 

Edited by abe, 24 February 2024 - 08:41 PM.

[gstrumol]

What a beauty!

[vtornado]

It is pretty, If an old sandcast orange C5 were to pop up by me, I would grab it.

I'm always hesitant to to buy online.  Never know what you are going to get.

[Joe Cepleur]

A best guess, although not an especially educated one: The trunk may be a replacement. Trunks that size are still made. That one is an almost iridescent, shiny, metallic green. Were they made that way in the early 1970s?

But, yes; beautiful scope!

Edited by Joe Cepleur, 24 February 2024 - 09:07 PM.

[abe]

A best guess, although not an especially educated one: The trunk may be a replacement. Trunks that size are still made. That one is an almost iridescent, shiny, metallic green. Were they made that way in the early 1970s?

But, yes; beautiful scope!

Despite the odd color choice, I believe that the metallic green trunk is actually original for the very early sand cast models based upon this earlier CN post:
​https://www.cloudyni...c5-orange-tube/

 

-abe.

[photiost]

Beautiful telescope !!

[Joe Cepleur]

Despite the odd color choice, I believe that the metallic green trunk is actually original for the very early sand cast models based upon this earlier CN post:
​https://www.cloudyni...c5-orange-tube/

-abe.

Good find; well done! So, the metallic green is original to the sand cast! My diecast's trunk is a much more mundane black.

[Kasmos]

They also came in blue but the older C5s didn't come in a trunk but instead more of a small travel case

My '74 from bought from the original came in one

Edited by Kasmos, 24 February 2024 - 10:46 PM.

[ericb760]

A best guess, although not an especially educated one: The trunk may be a replacement. Trunks that size are still made. That one is an almost iridescent, shiny, metallic green. Were they made that way in the early 1970s?

But, yes; beautiful scope!

For Christmas 1972 me, my brother, and my sister all received trunks similar to this. Mine was blue, my sister's paisley, and my brother's this exact shade of green. 

[abe]

They also came in blue but the older C5s didn't come in a trunk but instead more of a small travel case

C5 C8 Cases.jpg

Case.jpg

My '74 from bought from the original came in one

C5S-In-Case.jpg

Oh my!   That C5 in a travel case is a thing of beauty.   I've never seen this combo before.  So compact - it looks like something James Bond would use.  Just gorgeous!!!

 

-abe.

[GUS.K]

They also came in blue but the older C5s didn't come in a trunk but instead more of a small travel case

C5 C8 Cases.jpg

Case.jpg

My '74 from bought from the original came in one

C5S-In-Case.jpg

My 74 C5 came in the same plastic case as well.

 

I've always wanted a vintage orange C5.  They are just so lovely.  I REALLY don't need another telescope, but I'm kind of kicking myself for letting this one get away (especially for $250, and with the original trunk):
​https://hibid.com/lo...es?ref=lot-list

 

I have no experience with "Hibid".  Anyone know if they are legit?  It probably would have been worth taking a chance, though for this little gem.

 

-abe.

Don't miss out on the next one, these early C5's are great performers, mine handles high magnification easily and they make a great grab and go scope without the tripod. I use mine as a table top scope on it's fork mount.

[Joe Cepleur]

My 74 C5 came in the same plastic case as well.

Don't miss out on the next one, these early C5's are great performers, mine handles high magnification easily and they make a great grab and go scope without the tripod. I use mine as a table top scope on it's fork mount.

I have read on this forum that because the early C5 cost essentially as much to manufacturer as the C8, its price was relatively high, reducing sales. Reduced production then drove more patience in quality control, resulting in the early C5s being typically especially fine.

If we wanted to pick a fight, we could compare the early C5s with Questars on the "Lure of the Questar" thread! Seriously; less hyper-quality, yet notably good quality with more aperture. Would fit in a small box, if one built one's own tabletop legs. Might make an interesting thread!

[Kasmos]

I have read on this forum that because the early C5 cost essentially as much to manufacturer as the C8, its price was relatively high, reducing sales. Reduced production then drove more patience in quality control, resulting in the early C5s being typically especially fine.

If we wanted to pick a fight, we could compare the early C5s with Questars on the "Lure of the Questar" thread! Seriously; less hyper-quality, yet notably good quality with more aperture. Would fit in a small box, if one built one's own tabletop legs. Might make an interesting thread!

I can already imagine the back and forth battle babbel!

 

I personally can't directly compare, but since I have a C5 (actually 2), and it's so compact I don't see any reason to want a 3.5 Q. Also, some people just plop the wedge on a table top.

Edited by Kasmos, 25 February 2024 - 03:21 PM.

[Bomber Bob]

How early are we talking for the C5's?  My mid-70s C5 Astro wasn't a Questar Killer (for resolution), or even a 1983 Kenko SC125L F14.4 Killer...  But, it was (as intended) a very good all-rounder for just about anything I'd point a 90mm refractor at...

 

Edited by Bomber Bob, 25 February 2024 - 03:28 PM.

[Exnihilo]

For Christmas 1972 me, my brother, and my sister all received trunks similar to this. Mine was blue, my sister's paisley, and my brother's this exact shade of green. 

Wow, how cool is that!  What happeed to them?

Edited by Exnihilo, 25 February 2024 - 05:20 PM.

[Kokatha man]

Wow, how cool is that!  What happeed to them?

...I read this post of Eric's as they had received trunks those colours, not trunks with C5's in them...but maybe mine was the wrong interpretation..! 

[ericb760]

...I read this post of Eric's as they had received trunks those colours, not trunks with C5's in them...but maybe mine was the wrong interpretation..! 

Yeah, they most decidedly did not have C5's in them... 

[Terra Nova]

I have read on this forum that because the early C5 cost essentially as much to manufacturer as the C8, its price was relatively high, reducing sales. Reduced production then drove more patience in quality control, resulting in the early C5s being typically especially fine.

If we wanted to pick a fight, we could compare the early C5s with Questars on the "Lure of the Questar" thread! Seriously; less hyper-quality, yet notably good quality with more aperture. Would fit in a small box, if one built one's own tabletop legs. Might make an interesting thread!

I had both at the same time, a second quarter 1977 C5 diecast (complete, trunk and all) and a Questar 3.5 Standard from the mid 1980s. The C5 came with a set of 0.965” flattop circle T Kellner and Orthoscopic eyepieces, 0.965” prism star diagonal, long 0.965” 2X tube barlow, and 5X external finder; no solar filter, no dew shield, and a press-fit plastic dust cap. The Questar came with 1.25” Brandon eyepieces, built in diagonal, barlow, finder and solar finder, a 1/10 wave glass solar filter, a sliding dew shield and and a thread-in metal dust cap. Both had AC drives. The C5 was in its mini-steamer trunk, the Questar in its top-quality, luggage-like, stitched leather case. I can tell you now, unequivocally, there was NO comparison between the two! None, zip, nada! Not in optical quality, mechanical quality, or appearance. One could tell the difference in two minutes. The C5 was crude in every respect by comparison. It’s like comparing a Yugo to a BMW. You’re better off comparing a Meade ETX 125 to the Q. Then, at least, the Yugo becomes a Ford Fairlane.

 

C5 or Q3.5, you decide:

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 
• 
• 

Edited by Terra Nova, 26 February 2024 - 10:07 AM.

[clamchip]

I like to think of a C5 as a Johnny Popper  especially a sand cast:

https://www.youtube....h?v=-Pc0nr_NpHo

 

Robert

[tim53]

I bid on an ebay auction for a Short 2.5" Gregorian on ebay several years back.  It had allegedly been stored in an attic in England for more than 100 years, and dated to the 1780s or so, and was complete and in excelllent condition.  I bid something like $2K for it, but was outbid by more than $1K.  

 

But I later bought the Watkins an Smith 3.5" Greg.  It isn't complete, but is (so far) a very nice display piece:  

[Bomber Bob]

Good Lord!  Tim, First of ALL - Beautiful Corner Display!  First glance on my tablet this morning, I thought, Is that a painting??

 

Years ago, I missed out on an eBay auction for a nearly mint & 100% complete Unitron 128 Kit, because I was at work, and couldn't use the DOD network to keep bidding... that hurt.  Since then, I tend to go after the BIN / Make Offer ads on scopes & such.  An item may wind up costing a bit more, but I get it to The Swamp.  I've been lucky a couple of times using the Snipe Bid option on ZEN, but my very best buys have been the occasional Big Box / Assorted Junk / Attic Clean-Out ads.  Yes, I have to pay shipping on ALL of it to get the one to few things I really want, but... to get a Tak TS-65P for about $30... that's worth the trouble.

Edited by Bomber Bob, 26 February 2024 - 07:23 PM.

[GUS.K]

I had both at the same time, a second quarter 1977 C5 diecast (complete, trunk and all) and a Questar 3.5 Standard from the mid 1980s. The C5 came with a set of 0.965” flattop circle T Kellner and Orthoscopic eyepieces, 0.965” prism star diagonal, long 0.965” 2X tube barlow, and 5X external finder; no solar filter, no dew shield, and a press-fit plastic dust cap. The Questar came with 1.25” Brandon eyepieces, built in diagonal, barlow, finder and solar finder, a 1/10 wave glass solar filter, a sliding dew shield and and a thread-in metal dust cap. Both had AC drives. The C5 was in its mini-steamer trunk, the Questar in its top-quality, luggage-like, stitched leather case. I can tell you now, unequivocally, there was NO comparison between the two! None, zip, nada! Not in optical quality, mechanical quality, or appearance. One could tell the difference in two minutes. The C5 was crude in every respect by comparison. It’s like comparing a Yugo to a BMW. You’re better off comparing a Meade ETX 125 to the Q. Then, at least, the Yugo becomes a Ford Fairlane.

 

C5 or Q3.5, you decide:

Like the Yugo, the C5 can be considered crude when compared to a Questar, ( the sandcast C5 fork mount does have that agricultural machinery look to it) and like the Yugo, it was designed and sold to the masses. The Questar like a luxury car was marketed towards the bourgeois. But joking aside, I like and enjoy using my sandcast C5 ( I would love to try out a Questar one day). 

[abe]

Like the Yugo, the C5 can be considered crude when compared to a Questar, ( the sandcast C5 fork mount does have that agricultural machinery look to it) and like the Yugo, it was designed and sold to the masses. The Questar like a luxury car was marketed towards the bourgeois. But joking aside, I like and enjoy using my sandcast C5 ( I would love to try out a Questar one day). 

The Questar is definitely a beauty, but I think different manufacturers chose different "design languages" in today's parlance and the old Celestrons had their own charm different from, but not necessarily inferior to, the Q (strictly from a design perspective).    

I too, would love to try a Q (I've looked through one once but never owned one).   I think I'd be afraid of scratching or otherwise marring the high polish surfaces. 

Edited by abe, 26 February 2024 - 05:10 PM.

[Joe Cepleur]

The Questar is definitely a beauty, but I think different manufacturers chose different "design languages" in today's parlance and the old Celestrons had their own charm different from, but not necessarily inferior to, the Q (strictly from a design perspective).

I too, would love to try a Q (I've looked through one once but never owned one). I think I'd be afraid of scratching or otherwise marring the high polish surfaces.

That is a fine insight about design and design language. Different scopes for different markets.

I am aware that the perfection in the Q blows away C5's workman-like construction, but I am wondering how much that matters at the eyepiece. To what extent does the extra 1.5" of aperture offset the Q's obvious perfection? Not the overall experience of using them, just the views in the eyepiece. Do the Q's views blow away the C5's, or for some or all views does the extra aperture compensate for being good, but not perfect?

Edited by Joe Cepleur, 26 February 2024 - 05:30 PM.

[Jim in PA]

Scopes that got away...I once sent 40 Questar Field scopes (3.5" IIRC) along with all their accessories and Brandon EPs to DRMO.  We had been using them as surveillance scopes, and replaced them with Kowa TSN spotting scopes.

 

I've often wondered whatever happened to them.  I picture some guy buying the entire pallet for some trivial amount.