88 replies to this topic

[BrentKnight]

I'm starting this topic to create a space where folks can share the classic astronomy books they have discovered.  Let's define "classic" as any books older than about 1970 (it's hard to believe how long ago that was) and not limited to any specific types of books (Lunatics are welcome too).

 

I'll just start out with one of my favorites.  Pleasures of the Telescope by Garrett P. Serviss and published in 1901.  I posted about this book in this topic: The Challenges of "Pleasures of the Telescope"

 

[desertstars]

The first book on the subject of astronomy that I can remember seeing, as a very small boy. My father bought a copy to learn the constellations, so you could answer questions about the night sky that kept popping out of his children. For some reason, the circumpolar star trail picture on page 13 lodged firmly in my memory. (His copy was from 1947, obtained through a used book store.)

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[desertstars]

And then there's this one, the book that turned me into a visual observer and introduced me to double stars. The 1954 revised edition of a book already considered a classic.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[steveincolo]

Maybe a bit of a stretch, but the category is “not limited to any specific types of books.”  This one, published in 1965, I’ve had since I was a kid.  

 

 

I remember making the Galilean 4x scope shown below.  It had a bit of chromatic aberration.

 

[herschelobjects]

I got this book when I was eight years old (father bought it for me when we took a Saturday morning trip to downtown Montreal in the sixties). Sidgwick was a well-known astronomy popularizer in Great Britain after the war and he wrote two classics that were must-haves in the fifties: “Observational Astronomy for Amateurs” and “Amateur Astronomer’s Handbook”. I read “Introducing Astronomy” over and over as a kid... it was my constant companion to the observing I was doing in the backyard with a vintage pair of World War I field glasses. This book really got me hooked on astronomy. I looked inside just now and the book cost $1.75, a fortune for a paperback book back in 1963, but as it was published in England, I presume it must have been imported.

 

BTW “Introducing”was first published in 1951 but my paperback edition dates from 1961.

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 

Edited by herschelobjects, 20 May 2025 - 04:23 PM.

[BrentKnight]

Maybe a bit of a stretch, but the category is “not limited to any specific types of books.”  This one, published in 1965, I’ve had since I was a kid.  

 

 

 

I remember making the Galilean 4x scope shown below.  It had a bit of chromatic aberration.

 

Definitely every single book written and illustrated by Sam Brown is a classic!

[BrentKnight]

The first book on the subject of astronomy that I can remember seeing, as a very small boy. My father bought a copy to learn the constellations, so you could answer questions about the night sky that kept popping out of his children. For some reason, the circumpolar star trail picture on page 13 lodged firmly in my memory. (His copy was from 1947, obtained through a used book store.)

My first experience with Neely's books was The Stars by Clock and Fist:

 

 

I don't actually own this one though - I read it from the library long ago.

[desertstars]

My first experience with Neely's books was The Stars by Clock and Fist:

 

The Stars by Clock and Fist.jpg

 

I don't actually own this one though - I read it from the library long ago.

I have a copy of this one on the shelf. I've somehow never gotten around to actually reading it.

[Tim Hager]

My first experience with Neely's books was The Stars by Clock and Fist:

 

The Stars by Clock and Fist.jpg

 

I don't actually own this one though - I read it from the library long ago.

When I was a kid in the 60's, there was a radio program on WICC in Bridgeport, Connecticut that ran on Saturday or Sunday nights.  Philip Stern who was the lecturer at the planetarium at the Museum of Art, Science and Industry did the program based on this book.  I believe he did it live from the museum roof when it was clear.  He would give a list of stars visible that week and their clock and fist positions.

 

I have looked for the book off and on over the years but never found it.

[desertstars]

When I was a kid in the 60's, there was a radio program on WICC in Bridgeport, Connecticut that ran on Saturday or Sunday nights.  Philip Stern who was the lecturer at the planetarium at the Museum of Art, Science and Industry did the program based on this book.  I believe he did it live from the museum roof when it was clear.  He would give a list of stars visible that week and their clock and fist positions.

 

I have looked for the book off and on over the years but never found it.

Did a quick check and found several copies on eBay. The prices are all over the place.

[Headshot]

The New Handbook of the Heavens by Bernard, Bennet, and Rice, Signet Science Library 1962 paperback and Principles of Astronomy by Wyatt.

[Alex65]

I bought this book in a used book store about thirty years ago: The Book of the Heavens (1924) by Mary Proctor (daughter of Richard A. Proctor). 

 

 

The book largely deals with the legends and myths surrounding the night skies, taken from a wide range of cultures throughout the ages, as well as stories about historical figures that played a role in the science of astronomy. The actual science in the book is largely dated, even for a book that was published in 1924. For example, the author states that the moon 'budded' out of the Pacific Basin around 50 million years ago!  

 

The book was aimed at, primarily, children and has a very Victorian / Edwardian feel to it even though it was published in the 'Roaring Twenties'. The author wasn't a professional astronomer, and it clearly shows that in her writings, but there are some very good descriptions of the simple joys of stargazing with, for example, her writings of viewing both Halley's Comet (from atop a New York skyscraper) and the Daylight Comet (from a wind blasted Carlton Hill in Edinburgh) in 1910. There are also touching references of her viewing the southern stars from aboard a passenger ship 'off Honolulu' and of staying out all night in India observing the stars overhead. Surprisingly, as the daughter of an astronomer, she appeared to be unaware of the risks of viewing the sun through binoculars and recalls that she nearly blinded herself trying to see a Mercury transit in 1907! 

 

The book is full of line illustrations, colored plates and B&W photos as well as a few star charts. 

[scottinash]

Most of my interests regarding "older" books has been early 20th century focused, not necessarily as a collection, but more about direct intrigue and/or sentimentality.   A few of these were later acquisitions of books that I checked out of my school library back during the elementary and middle school days, one example being the A Field Guide to the Stars and Planets by Menzel (1964 - the year I was born).  I do have a few other older books and atlases, but these were readily available for a quick family portrait.

 

 

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Alex_V]

This book published in 1962, started my interest in astronomy. A lot of b/w photos, taken by famous telescopes, like 200" Hale and 48" Schmidt in Palomar, and 100" in Mount Wilson.Only one colour photo in whole book.

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 

[gfamily]

What would be interesting is to compare some of the images captured using the world's finest telescopes in the mid 20th century with some of the images we ourselves are capturing now.
We are living in a golden age.

[scottinash]

A couple early 1950's books that I have thoroughly enjoyed. 

Attached Thumbnails

• 

Edited by scottinash, 23 May 2025 - 02:25 PM.

[macpurity]

It seems that many are posting the classics that helped initiate their youthful interest in astronomy and observing. Many have already posted the titles that did that for me (Olcott, Menzel, H. A. Rey, etc.).

 

As an adult, a classic I came across in a used book store in 2004 is Charles A. Young's A Textbook of General Astronomy for Colleges and Scientific Schools, published in 1893.

 

My copy originated from the US Naval Academy's Department of Mathematics. I believe it has been re-bound; nonetheless, for it's day, it gave a fairly broad overview of the state of 1893 astronomical science, laced with 233 figures (mostly etchings). Very nicely done! Great historical perspective when contrasted with current understanding.

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[Alex_V]

What would be interesting is to compare some of the images captured using the world's finest telescopes in the mid 20th century with some of the images we ourselves are capturing now.
We are living in a golden age.

Picture from the above mentioned book vs Hubble vs an amateur with 10" Ritchey-Chrétien
 

Attached Thumbnails

• 
• 
• 

Edited by Alex_V, 23 May 2025 - 10:50 AM.

[Physicsman]

Bit off books, but I'm sure someone recently posted some comparisons between Amateur kit and Professional kit, with regard to imaging, from the 1950s to the present.

 

Either in the General Astronomy or Cats and Casses section. I'm away from my laptop at the moment - I'll see if I can find the link later. Then again, someone else can find it in the interim...

[Physicsman]

Still on my phone, so no hyperlink. But the thread is "Hale of yesteryear vs Amateur gear of today".

 

In General Astronomy forum, currently on page 2.

 

I'll edit a link in later.

 

https://www.cloudyni...-gear-of-today/

Edited by Physicsman, 24 May 2025 - 06:09 AM.

[BrentKnight]

Most of my interests regarding "older" books has been early 20th century focused, not necessarily as a collection, but more about direct intrigue and/or sentimentality.   A few of these were later acquisitions of books that I checked out of my school library back during the elementary and middle school days, one example being the A Field Guide to the Stars and Planets by Menzel (1964 - the year I was born).  I do have a few other older books and atlases, but these were readily available for a quick family portrait.

Two Primers for Star Gazers?  Must be a really good book!  What is the title of the book second from the right?

[BrentKnight]

It seems that many are posting the classics that helped initiate their youthful interest in astronomy and observing. Many have already posted the titles that did that for me (Olcott, Menzel, H. A. Rey, etc.).

 

As an adult, a classic I came across in a used book store in 2004 is Charles A. Young's A Textbook of General Astronomy for Colleges and Scientific Schools, published in 1893.

 

My copy originated from the US Naval Academy's Department of Mathematics. I believe it has been re-bound; nonetheless, for it's day, it gave a fairly broad overview of the state of 1893 astronomical science, laced with 233 figures (mostly etchings). Very nicely done! Great historical perspective when contrasted with current understanding.

Wow, that engraving looks like a photo!

 

Curious what the book says about galaxies.  Were they considered island universes or planetary systems in the making within our own galaxy?

[russell23]

Wow, that engraving looks like a photo!

 

Curious what the book says about galaxies.  Were they considered island universes or planetary systems in the making within our own galaxy?

Here is a post I made in January 2021 that is related to this question:

 

 

 

I wrote an article titled "Island Universes from Wright to Hubble" that was published in S&T January 1999.  There is rich, interesting history left out of textbook treatment of the existence of external galaxies.  In fact, when Hubble observed Cepheid variables in M31 and convinced the world of external galaxies, it was the second time that the world of Astronomers concluded that "nebula" are external galaxies.

 

Prior to 1870, astronomers thought that most nebula were external galaxies.  Then, around 1869, Richard Anthony Proctor made arguments that caused astronomers to abandon the view that nebula are external galaxies.  Proctor's arguments caused a change of view because they were based upon observations.

 

I discovered this when I was collecting antiquarian Astronomy and other science books.

 

Here are a few quotes I included in the article:

 

From Proctor's book "Other Worlds Than Ours"  (1870):  "Yet once more, according to accepted views, thousands and thousands of galaxies, external to the sidereal system, can be seen with powerful telescopes."

 

From Thomas Dick's book "Sidereal Heavens"  (1840):   "Winging our flight from the Milky Way over unknown and immeasurable regions, regions where infinitude appears opening upon us in awful grandeur, we approach some of those immense starry clusters called the Nebulae, every one of which may be considered another Milky Way, with its ten thousands and millions of suns."

 

And then after 1870 in Simon Newcomb's large Astronomy Treatise titled "Popular Astronomy" (1884):  "This idea that the nebulae were other galaxies was more or less in vogue among popular writers until a quite recent period."

 

Anyway, Most people don't know that until ~1870 the idea that nebulae were external galaxies was a commonly accepted view.  Arguments based upon the distribution of nebula and other observations led astronomers to change their mind.  And then it came around again in the decade before Hubble finally proved it with Cepheid variables in M31.

 

From this thread:

 

https://www.cloudyni...d-the-universe/

 

 

As to this book by Young, I have an 1898 printing of the book.  On page 560561 Young says the following:

 

 

 

  Distance of the Nebulae - On this point we have very little absolute knowledge.  Attempts have been made to measure the parallax of one or two, but so far unsuccessfully.  Still it is probable, indeed almost certain, that they are at the same order of distance as the stars. [/quote]

 

He goes on to say on page 561:

 

Fifty years ago a very different view prevailed.  as has been said already, astronomers at that time very generally believed that there was no distinction between nebulae and star-clusters except in regard to distance, the nebulae being only clusters too remote to show the separate stars.  The considered a nebula, therefore, as a "universe of stars," like our own "galactic cluster" to which the sun belongs, but as far beyond the "star-clusters" as these were believed to be beyond the isolated stars.  In some respects this old belief strikes one as grander than the truth even.  It made our vision penetrate more deeply into space than we no dare think it can.

 

Of course the typical textbook history of Hubble's discovery and the "great debate" misses this reality that up until about 1870, most astronomers actually thought the nebula were external Milky Ways.  But arguments in the 1870's shifted the thinking to the idea that all nebulae are actually part of the Milky Way.   I discuss all this in my 1999 S&T article, but the immediate quote above is one I either missed or did not make the editing into the published version of the article.

 

Dave

Edited by russell23, 23 May 2025 - 08:36 PM.

[scottinash]

Two Primers for Star Gazers?  Must be a really good book!  What is the title of the book second from the right?

Concerning the two Primers for Star-Gazers, the one with the jacket is a 1970 edition and the one without is 1946.  

 

The red book, second from the right is William Herschel by Angus Armitage 1963. 

Attached Thumbnails

• 

[BrentKnight]

Here is a post I made in January 2021 that is related to this question:

 

 

 

 

From this thread:

 

https://www.cloudyni...d-the-universe/

 

 

As to this book by Young, I have an 1898 printing of the book.  On page 560561 Young says the following:

 

 

 

 

Of course the typical textbook history of Hubble's discovery and the "great debate" misses this reality that up until about 1870, most astronomers actually thought the nebula were external Milky Ways.  But arguments in the 1870's shifted the thinking to the idea that all nebulae are actually part of the Milky Way.   I discuss all this in my 1999 S&T article, but the immediate quote above is one I either missed or did not make the editing into the published version of the article.

 

Dave

I read and got really interested in this idea from your article.  Do you happen to have some references to textbooks that teach the island universe theory from that time period?