If the skies deign to be clear on the coupla nights or so it is at maximum and the relevant bit of sky deigns to not be too near Solar Conjunction, then you will see it easily enough with just your eyeballs.
Learn to recognise Corona Borealis as an asterism, it's shape, relative mags etc.
When T CrB goes bang (unless it decides to be contrary and doesn't bother this time) then you will just need to look towards the constellation and you'll see T CrB an utter and complete doddle for suddenly Diadem (more commonly known as Gemma), that is alpha Coronae Borealis, the jewel in the crown so to speak, is magnitude 2 and the only magnitude two star for some distance, whereas T CrB achieved magnitude 2 during the two certainly and independently observed outbursts, so you'll see a pair of equal brightness stars in the sky not quite 6 degrees apart, which you will never have seen before (the Sun's disc and the full Moon's disc are roughly half a degree wide, as roughly is your raised thumb held at arms length (which can be checked by placing over the Moon next time it is full).
The so called NASA prediction is not a NASA prediction but a Schaeffer prediction and he has mistaken the return of the natural sinusoidal variation depicting the orbital period of the lightcurve due to the ellipsoidal (egg shaped) nature of the red giant (due to gravity of the white dwarf causing tidal effects and all that) which has returned after a decade or so long 'high state'. There was a high state prior to the last explosion, followed by a short dip, then the explosion, but that high state was of far less duration than the recent one and the dip was very short and certainly more pronounced. Schaeffer just read the data wrong. Seeing as cataclysmic variables and recurrent novae are his professional speciality this is a bit annoying, but he's a long history of fitting historical data into conclusions despite the thinness of the former. Don't get me wrong, he has been quite successful at times in this area fo research. He's also been quite wrong at times too.
If the dip he declared had started this time around had really been the dip he claimed for his Feb onwards prediction it would have blown up by now, or would be due within the next six weeks, based on the dip duration of the last outburst. Now suddenly everyone is saying April to September conveniently forgetting he originally said Feb to Sep. By June they'll be saying June to September, forgetting they said April.
Whatever the case, you keep going until it blows up, eyeball the constellation regularly and take your images, it will fade in just over a week or so, rapidly, and will explode from faint to maximum in barely a day.
If you have Burnham's Celestial Handbook, which many observers have even those who could care less about variable stars, there is an entry on it there with a good plot of the lightcurves of the only two certainly known outbursts (one feasible older one has been claimed but with only one observer, no independent observation, whilst another much earlier assumed outburst is based on fresh air evidence that isn't even good in itself, let alone unconfirmed). That will clue you into what is likely to happen. The last two outbursts were very similar, though with some subtle differences towards the end, and the first lightcurve has little or no prior to outburst data because that outburst was the discovery one so no-one was bothering to look. In fact, very few people bothered to look after that, it was just by coincidence that Leslie Peltier included some old novae as exploding variable star targets because their nature wasn't clear in those days, and thus there is data before the outburst. Until the 1945/46 event no one knew it was a so called recurrent nova.
In fact only T CrB and RS Oph (which I saw in its most recent explosion a year or two ago, but it only gets to mag 4, but every 6 to 12 years instead of 80) are long studied and firmly established recurrent novae where the other star is a red giant. The other ones known, such as U Sco and T Pyx, have dwarf star companions. There's a longer list nowadays of objects, some even been found to outburst three times, but the other outbursts are often found in archival data and not many of those have been caught in outburst in recent times (if any, but I haven't checked recently).
So, yes do keep looking, no don't stop in September, dates are GUESSTIMATES, and yes do keep going even if it takes you into late 2026. Mostly because 80 years is 80 years, and although Halley's comet was rubbish last time I saw it, just, but I won't be around for the likely much better next return.
T CrB last blew up before I was born. If it is a regular 80 year thing it will next blow up around 2105 or 2106 when I'll be long dead (as indeed so may the planet).
I first heard about it in the 1970s, I never expected to get to this date and a chance of seeing it even though I'm not that old, you don't think about that when you are younger. However, if it DOES blow up this year I reckon, given the year so far, that I will be full clouded out during the whole thing. So be prepared but don't put too much expectation into it, just in case of the universe being a so and so.
