80 replies to this topic

[jcj380]

$621 lol

 

Some of these Astronomy publications are fast becoming lucrative investments. 

https://www.alibris....08822?matches=1

 

But you get free shipping, so that's a bargain.  

Edited by jcj380, 15 May 2024 - 11:04 AM.

[pugliano]

$621 lol

 

Some of these Astronomy publications are fast becoming lucrative investments. 

At the link I posted, it's $375, not $621.

 

 

Outrageous? Absolutely. But if it means enough to someone to pay that much to get it and it's extremely hard to find any copy of it al all, then for that person it might be worth it. I never judge what's best for someone else.

 

You said, "But of course, I'll sooner strike oil in my backyard than find a copy..."

 

Well, I found you a copy, and in "like new" condition. You never said anything about needing it to be a certain price.

 

Next time, I won't try to help you.

Edited by pugliano, 15 May 2024 - 02:48 PM.

[BrentKnight]

I think we were talking about the Millennium Star Atlas (MSA).  If it's legit, I did find a reasonable copy on Amazon.

 

Uranometria 2000.0 is still available through Shop @ Sky, so it's not usually hard to find.

 

That SA 2000 Companion was an insane price though...

[pugliano]

I'd like to try Uranometria 2000.0 all sky edition for its DSO count, sometimes the lack of DSOs in MSA is frustrating.  But ofcourse, I'll sooner strike oil in my backyard than find a copy...

Seemed to me that he was looking for a copy of Uranometria 2000.0 All Sky Edition, because he said he'd like to try it, but "of course, I'll sooner strike oil in my backyard than find a copy."

 

And he didn't say my link was not the book he was looking for, just laughed at the price.

 

I could be wrong.

Edited by pugliano, 15 May 2024 - 03:06 PM.

[HellsKitchen]

At the link I posted, it's $375, not $621.

 

1.jpg

 

Outrageous? Absolutely. But if it means enough to someone to pay that much to get it and it's extremely hard to find any copy of it al all, then for that person it might be worth it. I never judge what's best for someone else.

 

You said, "But of course, I'll sooner strike oil in my backyard than find a copy..."

 

Well, I found you a copy, and in "like new" condition. You never said anything about needing it to be a certain price.

 

Next time, I won't try to help you.

 

Jesus, no need to get so upset   While I appreciate you finding one, obviously I am not going to pay that kind of insane money for a book just because it is out of production. Some of these sellers must be flat out high.I can live without it, I have other atlases. I'd only like one as a matter of convenience of a single book compared to the big and heavy MSA.

[HellsKitchen]

 

 

Uranometria 2000.0 is still available through Shop @ Sky, so it's not usually hard to find.

 

 

Out of stock

Edited by HellsKitchen, 15 May 2024 - 04:16 PM.

[dbreit]

If "you" want a Harold Bobroff Astroatlas (nearly mint Lymax version), make me an offer..

:-))

Derek

Oroville, CA

[yuzameh]

The annotated photographic negatives in Donald Menzel's original field guide to the stars and planets.  Although he used ADS numbers for doubles which was a bit of a pain in pre-internet days.

 

As with Lunar atlases drawn charts ain't much cop at the scope.

 

Having said that I did tend to print out paper sheets for faint DSOs in sparse fields for jumping off to when the nearest finderscope star was a field of view or few away.  However, before that for comets I'd to go down the reference section of the library, photocopy a chart and get me pencil out.  Strangely I can't remember where I got the ephemerides from though before I had a computer based planetarium/star chart thingy...

[BrentKnight]

Out of stock

Unfortunate.  Hopefully they will reprint it...

[Daniel Mounsey]

Could you give some examples?

 

Obviously the Pocket Sky Atlas shows a limited number of objects, due to the limited amount of real estate available. The same can be said for any paper atlas, in fact. But that's a matter of choice, not a matter of oversight.

 

Reasonably enough, Roger Sinnott selected objects that have well-defined and well-known magnitudes according to a magnitude cut-off -- and then hand-added a few objects that fail to meet that cutoff, such as the remaining Herschel 400.

 

With bright nebulae, which generally don't have well-known magnitudes, there was much more choice involved. And even more with respect to dark nebulae, which don't have any magnitude at all.

 

I'm sure that if I looked in detail I could find a case of an object that I would have chosen but Roger didn't. But that's inevitable; different people have different tastes. On the whole, I think the Pocket Sky Altas arguably makes better use of its (necessarily very limited) real estate better than any other atlas in print.

 

The number of objects visible through a 100-mm refractor under dark skies far exceeds what could possibly be shown in the Pocket Sky Atlas -- or in Sky Atlas 2000.0, for that matter.

 

It's a matter of choice to have M13 and M31. There's no shortage of atlases with these objects in fact if I made an atlas myself, it would contain nothing but interesting, overlooked objects. I would literally omit M13 and M31 altogether along with many other objects that are already too well known. 

 

Think about this for a moment. The whole purpose of a compact atlas is to travel lightly, which most likely means an observer will be using a compact scope of small aperture in most cases. Yes there are some observers with larger scopes who use the Pocket atlas, but let's be practical here. The whole idea is to travel light.

 

Here's a few examples. They left out the HD106112 Group. You can see it plain as day in the pocket atlas, yet, there's no designation. Look at Collinder 70 which looks like a beautiful, delicate, braided necklace in small scopes, no designation, yet they included IC434 which is practically impossible to even see in a small telescope. This is just poor oversight as far as I'm concerned.

 

They didn't even bother to highlight the beautiful Fairy Ring in Cygnus. They also missed the cheshire cat in Auriga, Mellote 31 in Auriga. All of these are visible in small scopes. They didn't even bother to put Pakan's 3. These are just a few of countless objects I could go on about, yet they still put many objects in the Pocket Atlas that are near impossible to see in small telescopes. 

 

I respect that Burnham's Celestial Handbook didn't highlight these objects either, but Burnham also didn't have access to the information and sources we have today free online. For his efforts he gets an A+ but really, there's no excuse for a modern atlas of this design should be missing these objects, especially since they are visible in small scopes and the limitless access to information available today. I give the Pocket atlas a C. It also doesn't even designate interesting carbon stars. For example T Lyra just says © for carbon star. 

 

How can they ignore these fun and interesting targets, yet you go to a star party and ask ten observers what they're looking at and all they can say is either M13 or M31. If I wanna know where that is, I can just yell out and ask. I'm sure there's all sorts of sad excuses why they omit so many cool things but once again, they had time to designate countless objects we've already seen time and time again.

 

S&T and Astronomy are sick of seeing the same images submitted again and again. It's time to turn the page. 

Edited by Daniel Mounsey, 25 May 2024 - 05:22 PM.

[Daniel Mounsey]

Just looked online and didn't realize the price of these Pocket Atlas's are a total rip off now. This astro book industry has become as fake as house price inflation in California for new home buyers. Just totally absurd. 

[WillR]

It's a matter of choice to have M13 and M31. There's no shortage of atlases with these objects in fact if I made an atlas myself, it would contain nothing but interesting, overlooked objects. I would literally omit M13 and M31 altogether along with many other objects that are already too well known. 

 

Think about this for a moment. The whole purpose of a compact atlas is to travel lightly, which most likely means an observer will be using a compact scope of small aperture in most cases. Yes there are some observers with larger scopes who use the Pocket atlas, but let's be practical here. The whole idea is to travel light.

 

Here's a few examples. They left out the HD106112 Group. You can see it plain as day in the pocket atlas, yet, there's no designation. Look at Collinder 70 which looks like a beautiful, delicate, braided necklace in small scopes, no designation, yet they included IC434 which is practically impossible to even see in a small telescope. This is just poor oversight as far as I'm concerned.

 

They didn't even bother to highlight the beautiful Fairy Ring in Cygnus. They also missed the cheshire cat in Auriga, Mellote 31 in Auriga. All of these are visible in small scopes. They didn't even bother to put Pakan's 3. These are just a few of countless objects I could go on about, yet they still put many objects in the Pocket Atlas that are near impossible to see in small telescopes. 

 

I respect that Burnham's Celestial Handbook didn't highlight these objects either, but Burnham also didn't have access to the information and sources we have today free online. For his efforts he gets an A+ but really, there's no excuse for a modern atlas of this design should be missing these objects, especially since they are visible in small scopes and the limitless access to information available today. I give the Pocket atlas a C. It also doesn't even designate interesting carbon stars. For example T Lyra just says © for carbon star. 

 

How can they ignore these fun and interesting targets, yet you go to a star party and ask ten observers what they're looking at and all they can say is either M13 or M31. If I wanna know where that is, I can just yell out and ask. I'm sure there's all sorts of sad excuses why they omit so many cool things but once again, they had time to designate countless objects we've already seen time and time again.

 

S&T and Astronomy are sick of seeing the same images submitted again and again. It's time to turn the page. 

You could make an atlas of underrepresented targets like those you mentioned, which are mostly asterisms. But a general purpose atlas without M13 or M31? It would be like printing a roadmap without labeling the interstate highways because “Everyone knows where they are.” Makes no sense.

 

Real estate in the PSA isn’t that crowded.

[Tony Flanders]

You could make an atlas of underrepresented targets like those you mentioned, which are mostly asterisms. But a general purpose atlas without M13 or M31? It would be like printing a roadmap without labeling the interstate highways because “Everyone knows where they are.” Makes no sense.

Right. When I was reading David Mounsey's description, I was thinking "You have just described the perfect atlas for David Mounsey. Nobody else would have the slightest interest in buying it."

[Daniel Mounsey]

Sue French covers most of these obscure objects in many of her columns using a small scope. That's why Deep Sky Wonders is a great source. The Pocket Atlas is a nice atlas, don't get me wrong. Many observers like it. The designers just overlooked too many fun targets worth a look in small scopes because they're just copying from old sources. I'm not necessarily interested in what sells as I'm not into this for business. It's strictly about observing with others who share an interest to see more that's out there. 

Edited by Daniel Mounsey, 01 June 2024 - 08:25 AM.

[Jbond]

Daniel, I agree with your thoughts. I have a few of the more recent (past 20 years) Atlases including SkyAtlas 2000.0 (deluxe) along with Interstellarum. I would like to procure Uranometria (temporarily out of stock or likely out of print) The Great Sky Atlas, and the Bobroff Atlas, but the latter two are difficult to find. I would like something that includes more DSO's and would gladly pay for such a thing. As to Tony's point I think each of us has an Ideal Atlas and I think there should be room for ones that have different emphases (why not have an atlas that has a swath of recognizable objects along with a large proportion of more exotic objects of interests?). I do have all of the Becvar atlases in various degrees of decrepitude and I favour this more aesthetic approach. I think that what ever comes next should pay attention to the past in terms of excellence in design (for example the principles  contained in Edward Tufte's series of books on visualizing information). As nifty as some of the online and printable ones are, I really would like a well designed and comprehensive paper atlas. 

[dbreit]

My Harold-Bobroff Atlas is listed on this site..

[Jbond]

Well returning to the original posters idea of favourite. I love the more aesthetically pleasing ones, so my favourites are Becvar, Sky 2000.0 2e Deluxe, The Astrophotography Sky Atlas, and Interstellarum. I do own a Mint paperback of Millennium, and have just begun to dabble in it and there are things I quite like about it (I just wish it had many more DSO's!). I am undecided about what to get or do next (and thank you dbreit for noting the availability of the HB). I have looked at some of the online ones and am obsessively pouring over them (I have a really good printer -the EPSON 8550, and have been printing samples on A3 plus (13 by 19 32lb). 

[firemachine69]

At the link I posted, it's $375, not $621.

 

1.jpg

 

Outrageous? Absolutely. But if it means enough to someone to pay that much to get it and it's extremely hard to find any copy of it al all, then for that person it might be worth it. I never judge what's best for someone else.

 

You said, "But of course, I'll sooner strike oil in my backyard than find a copy..."

 

Well, I found you a copy, and in "like new" condition. You never said anything about needing it to be a certain price.

 

Next time, I won't try to help you.

 

 

I got mine in great condition for about $25usd shipped. What sort of substance are they on to charge that much? 

[Astroman007]

Sue French covers most of these obscure objects in many of her columns using a small scope. That's why Deep Sky Wonders is a great source. The Pocket Atlas is a nice atlas, don't get me wrong. Many observers like it. The designers just overlooked too many fun targets worth a look in small scopes because they're just copying from old sources. I'm not necessarily interested in what sells as I'm not into this for business. It's strictly about observing with others who share an interest to see more that's out there. 

+1 on Deep Sky Wonders.

 

I recently added The Cambridge Double Star Atlas (MacEvoy and Tirion). https://www.amazon.c...,aps,500&sr=8-1

 

Anyone find that title useful on its own, or redundant given the doubles plotted in other atlases / books?

Edited by Astroman007, 15 August 2024 - 10:39 AM.

[jcj380]

+1 on Deep Sky Wonders.

 

I recently added The Cambridge Double Star Atlas

 

Anyone find that title useful on its own, or redundant given the doubles plotted in other atlases / books?

Since CDSA has become my favorite atlas, I don't find it redundant.  That leaves my Norton's, Cambridge, Bright Star, and Karoshka (sp?) all sitting on the shelf.  I am tempted to get a photo atlas of some kind though.

[wrvond]

+1 on Deep Sky Wonders.

 

I recently added The Cambridge Double Star Atlas (MacEvoy and Tirion). https://www.amazon.c...,aps,500&sr=8-1

 

Anyone find that title useful on its own, or redundant given the doubles plotted in other atlases / books?

I have both the Cambridge Star Atlas and Double Star Atlas (among others) and find them unique enough in their own right to use along with all my other atlases. 

[BrentKnight]

Since CDSA has become my favorite atlas, I don't find it redundant.  That leaves my Norton's, Cambridge, Bright Star, and Karoshka (sp?) all sitting on the shelf.  I am tempted to get a photo atlas of some kind though.

The Cambridge Photographic Star Atlas is plenty nice.  I use it often to help track down dark nebulae.  It's good on the overall view, but the scale of the atlas is a little large to be useful for details...  You can often find used copies fairly reasonably priced.

[Starman1]

Some recent threads got me thinking: what is your personal favorite paper atlas? Why do you favor it and why is it the best for you?

 

There will likely be a distinction between desk reference and field atlases. On my desk when planning a session I will often use either the famous Uranometria 2000.0 or the lesser known but quite deserving Interstellarium Deep Sky Atlas because they show greater detail in smaller areas and more field stars, but the few times I bring an atlas out under the stars I choose a more "overall" guide like the Pocket Sky Atlas or Wil Tirion's Cambridge Star Atlas. One thing I really like though about Interstellarium is how one version of it, the Field Edition, is printed on waterproof paper to combat potential damage from dew or frost. If a more detailed map is needed, as when combing through the spring galaxy fields, the Field Edition of Interstellarium is my go to for that reason.

 

Over to you. 

Uranometria 2000.0 All-Sky Edition.

It's the closest to what is visible in my 12.5" of all the atlases, and the image scale is large enough to be usable in crowded areas.

It's also in book form, so not overly large.

[Keith Rivich]

Interstellarum Deep Sky Atlas, Field Edition.

 

I use this 90% of the time. Has more then enough obscure DSO's to keep me happy with my bigger scopes. However, I still use Uranometria quite often. Not sure it counts but I still use Megastar to print close in charts. 

[bphaneuf]

Interstellarum Deep Sky Atlas, Field Edition.

 

I use this 90% of the time. Has more then enough obscure DSO's to keep me happy with my bigger scopes. However, I still use Uranometria quite often. Not sure it counts but I still use Megastar to print close in charts. 

Interstellarum field edition was one of my first purchases when I got into visual observing a few years ago.  I’ve never regretted it and it’s been imminently useful for the same reasons Keith mentions.

-b