Matt1979

Matt,

It's difficult to say when, basically because tasco were a group of companies, one of which was toys and hobbies.  So there was an overlap between the toy scope with plastic lenses and push pull focusing, that would still give you an image of the moon, and then the general telescopes which whilst featuring glass lenses, came on the same flimsy table top mount and required a baffle behind the lens to reduce the aberration.  I ended up being the Product manager (more in title than having any clout) and spent many an hour replying to letters where folk had purchased a toy scope and expected it to perform line an EDS80 !

When you moved up to the 3TR, 11TR and 9T these scopes performed optically very well, although they were let down by their eyepieces.  I borrowed an 11TR from the showroom one weekend, and was loaned a decent 20mm eyepiece.  The views I had of Saturn were fantastic, until you breathed near the tube and the mount would wobble !

One of the thing you need to take into consideration was back in the late 70's and early 80's there was no real alternative.  You either purchased a celestron, vixen or had someone like superscopes make a scope to your own specification, all of which were outside the realms of a christmas pressy for the kids.  I later purchased a Vixen 102 non fluorite and had the battery driven RA axis - cost in 1986 - £1200.  In todays money that's like spending £4K on an LX10 or SW Esprit.  At the time the 11TR retailed for around the £250 - £350 mark if I recall  (given it was some time ago )

Hi Malcolm, your comments are very interesting.  I knew Tasco had become a group of companies at one point and I didn't realise that more than one kind of the toy telescopes had poor optics.  I know what you mean about how Celestron and Vixen would have been outside Christmas present realm.  

All the Argos catalogues used to have were Tascos, but i remember most of these were "proper" refractors and were in the camera and binoculars section.  I think my 5TN is a more modern equivalent of these telescopes.  Sadly, mine is on a tabletop mount (I couldn't  get one on a proper tripod) and while the optics don't match my Celestron, the views of the planets are still fairly good - Saturn is recognisable.  I know Tasco eyepieces don;t have a good reputation and mine is much narrower than other refractor eyepieces.

I never knew Tasco used plastic for the lenses of the cheapest telescopes.  

Matt

I worked for Tasco between 1981 and 1987 when it was a family run firm based in Welwyn, Hertfordshire, with the distribution centred in Newbury.  The higher end scopes like the 11TR etc had reasonably good optics, but rather flimsy mounts.  The clock drives for the 11TR were mains driven, which given the amount of dew that forms on equipment is quite scary !!

The thing was that Tasco started to cater for all markets, including the toy market, and then got a reputation for making poor scopes with plastic lenses, or cheap glass lenses that required a baffle and thus effectively reduced the aperture by 50%.  Where Tasco succeeded though was that these scopes introduced kids to telescopes and the basics of astronomy, and once they started looking up would move on to the 3TR or 11TR, both of which were good optically for a commercially mass produced scope

However Tasco were producing expensive amateur scopes with apertures of 8" and above, and on suitable driven mounts, and I did try and persuade management to import a few of these scope for the serious astronomer, but it never happened.  

I have fond memories of my time working in the small offices in Welwyn, and was (and still am) proud of my association with Tasco.  It's also nice to know that all these decades on, other SGL members recall good experiences with tasco scopes too.

Hi Malcolm, your post is very interesting.  Were the poor scopes you mention the 40x40 ones with the push and pull focus?  There is a photo of one of these in my 1980s catalogue.  I have heard that some kids were actually put off my the cheap telescopes with stopped-down apertures.  This happened to me - my parents bought me a cheap refractor with a push and pull focus (not a Tasco) that was bright blue and what I didn't know at the time was that it contained a baffle.  As my parents didn't know about telescopes they would never have known that they had bought rubbish and not quality.  Jupiter through this toy telescope was just a blurry point of light.

When would Tasco have started making the poor quality toy telescopes?

Matt

My old 60mm Tasco (and me some 25 years ago!)

An impressive looking Telescope.  My Tasco is smaller and has a 50mm/2 inch lens.  The 1980s version of my telescope had much more metal and much less plastic!  Still, the bright planets and Orion Nebula show up well with the Tasco and I am pleased that I bought a version of the telescope i always wanted when i was younger.

If anyone enjoys reading and looking through the old catalogs of Tasco, and many others, you'll get a smile from this:

http://geogdata.csun.edu/~voltaire/classics/

Enjoy!

Dave

Thanks.  I have looked through the catalogues and found them very interesting.  I noticed how Tasco's telescopes always had white tubes in the late 1960s and it is disappointing that they aren't as well made nowadays.

I remember around eighteen months ago I mentioned Tasco telescopes on the forum and I commented about the unfair criticism they have had.  I have a small Tasco refractor that gives perfectly good views of Venus's phases, Jupiter and its moons and Saturn's rings.  

I have a 1980s Tasco Catalogue that has a really good range of refractors as well as two reflectors.  Unfortunately, the tube of my Tasco is plastic as well as the focusing knobs and the eyepiece barrel, but back in the 1980s metal was always used and the 1980s Tasco counterparts look so much better and the metal tubes are noticeable in the images.  It is disappointing how plastic is used in small Tasco refractors nowadays, although I think the 2 inch red refractor is the only one that now has a plastic tube.

I have attached three images from the Catalogue.  While every telescope in here is red, most modern-day Tasco telescopes don't have red tubes now.

[attachment=145505:Tasco1.JPG

Tasco2.JPG

Tasco3.JPG

Hi John, I have read that Tasco telescopes were much better made in the 1960s.  While the mounting on my 2 inch/50mm isn't the best (it is on a table tripod), the views are perfectly acceptable and I have also had a good view of the Orion Nebula with the Tasco.  I always wanted a Tasco refractor for Christmas as a child so I wanted to get one in recent years and I haven't been disappointed.  Very sadly, I didn't have a proper telescope as a child (I won't go into details on the awful "toy" telescope that almost put me off astronomy...).

I can imagine there have been many astronomers who started with a Tasco and it is disappointing that Tasco telescopes aren't as widely available now.  I know Argos haven't had them for years.

I remember around eighteen months ago I mentioned Tasco telescopes on the forum and I commented about the unfair criticism they have had.  I have a small Tasco refractor that gives perfectly good views of Venus's phases, Jupiter and its moons and Saturn's rings.  

I have a 1980s Tasco Catalogue that has a really good range of refractors as well as two reflectors.  Unfortunately, the tube of my Tasco is plastic as well as the focusing knobs and the eyepiece barrel, but back in the 1980s metal was always used and the 1980s Tasco counterparts look so much better and the metal tubes are noticeable in the images.  It is disappointing how plastic is used in small Tasco refractors nowadays, although I think the 2 inch red refractor is the only one that now has a plastic tube.

I have attached three images from the Catalogue.  While every telescope in here is red, most modern-day Tasco telescopes don't have red tubes now.

LOL - Its nice to hear you guys speak so highly about Tasco scopes produced back in the late 80's - 90's

I Joined Tasco as an Office Administrator back in 1982, based in their Head Office in Old Welwyn, Hertfordshire. Back then, there was no real competition for the range of scopes they produced. There were the Tasco scopes and then you jumped up to Vixens, with the 102 Fluorite refactor being the most popular but was well over a grand at the time. By 1984 I was promoted to Product Manager and was responsible for answering most of the technical letters we received. My first views of Saturn were through an 11TR (4.5" reflector) that I borrowed from the showroom one weekend. Other than about three of the more expensive models (3TR, 11TR and 9T) most of the cheaper refractors had stop down rings installed as the quality of the single lens used gave poor CA. Yes, the stability of the mounts, wooden tripods and poor eyepieces took the edge of their performance, but placed on a sturdy pillar and using a decent eyepiece proved the mirrors were quite good for a small scope. Where Tasco really outshone was with their Binoculars, Rifle scopes and spotting scopes were decent quality and often used by professionals in their sports.

Back in the mid 1980's I was kept really busy answering letters and phone calls advising people how best to see Halley's Comet when it was due to return in the November of 1986. Most people used to believe that comets were bad omens, for us at the time it was a good omen as sales of 11TR's and binoculars went through the roof, so much so that the directors were air-freighting then in from China to keep up with orders from Argos, TV Times and a host of mail order catalogs.

It was a hard decision, but I left Tasco in 1987 as I was getting married and had an opportunity to earn more money in a new field which enabled us to get on the property ladder. I had some real fun times working for Tasco, the staff were warm and genuine people. I was given a pair of 8 x 40 Zip binoculars for my 21st (1983) and I still use them today - they perform every bit as good now as they did back then with nice wide field views of the night sky.

Hi Malcolm,

I was always disappointed not to have had a Tasco refractor for Christmas in the late 80s - the red 2 inch refractors were always in catalogues. The 5TN which you would probably remember is one of the cheaper models but it its almost, if not the same as the 1980s version. I decided to buy the 5TN so I could have a telescope like the one I always wanted when I was younger - and to see how good Tasco telescopes are. Although there are slight drawbacks, such as the fragile plastic focusing knobs and the plastic star diagonal, I have had good views of Saturn with the 5TN as well as Virgo and Libra. Not as many Tasco telescopes appear to be available in the UK nowadays, Argos seem to have Celestron instead.

I have recently bought a Tasco 5TN refractor - it is packaged with a microscope as the 49TN and the refractor doesn't appear to be sold separately anywhere - and I have been quite impressed so far. The x50 refractor has given me a small but very clear view of Saturn which was very recognisable and I have also had good views of Spica and the other brighter stars in Virgo with the refractor.

As I never had a Tasco in my childhood, I was really keen on getting the refractor (which I always wanted when I saw it in Christmas catalogues) and I am pleased that I have had good use of it. I don't know why Tasco have been criticised so much and also why some astronomers have given advice not to buy refractors smaller than 3 inches.

Did anyone else ever have a cheap terrestrial refractor as their first scope, like I did? I can remember that one of these was made by Humbrol, as I mentioned in my first post. Apparently the lens on this one was stopped down a lot, making it show only as much as an ordinary pair of binoculars.

Reading that i think its best i did sell mine, looking through it now would probably ruin all the wonderful memories i have of my little Tasco.

Aged 13 i used to get very angry when i kept reading people should avoid the 60mm refractors. Buy a good pair of binoculars all the advice was at the time. I remember thinking, based on what exactly? The moon and planets are rubbish in my Swift 10x50's, i would have given up if that's all i could see. My little 60mm is what got me (and my friends) hooked. Baloney to that advice. At the time my anger was also, dare i say, aimed at Sir Patrick.

I agree about the way the Moon and planets look in 10x50 binoculars. Even with 20x50 binoculars the planets only look like bright dots of light. I was always quite surpised about how Patrick Moore said that small refractors should be avoided.

If only I had a Tasco for my Christmas present instead of the "toy" terrestrial refractor! The cheap telescope I had eventually caused me to lose interest, at least in looking at the stars and planets although not in reading about space. I became more interested around 12 years ago when I bought my Celestron 3-inch refractor and with a 2x Barlow Lens I finally saw Jupiter as a disc and the four moons as well as the rings of Saturn. I can never forget my first sight of Saturn through the telescope - Jupiter and Saturn were the first objects I saw with the Celestron.

Has anyone else had experiences with cheap terrestrial refractors like those that often used to be in the toy sections of Christmas catalogues? I know many astronomers have said that these toys often discourage kids from Astronomy with their limited optics and ridiculous claims about magnification.

Same here .... I have very fond memories of my first ever telescope when I was a kid - and of course it was a 60mm Tasco. I will always remember the first time I saw Saturn (complete with rings) and Jupiter & its moons. Sure - they have a reputation for not being the best scopes ever - but you'll find a heck of a lot of people who have owned them as first scopes which got them into the hobby in the first place, and have lots of fond memories. Many years later I bought my son his first telescope - and yes - it was a 60mm Tasco... and he was similarly 'hooked'. So despite their poor reputation, they seem to being a pretty good job of introducing people to the hobby... which can't be a bad thing ;-)

It is interesting to hear that so many people got into astronomy with Tasco scopes - it seems Heather Couper and Nigel Henbest were being a bit too critical in their 1980s review. If only I was bought a Tasco after all...I am a bit emabarrased to say what my first telescope was. It was a fairly cheap terrestrial refractor (a toy bascially) and I can't even remember the make of the telescope, but it was bright blue and slightly better in appearance than the Humbrol telescope.

Many astronomers have said that these cheap terrestrial refractors can put kids off astronomy and that is what mine did! The telescope had its supposed magnification listed near the eyepiece - 45x, but what I didn't know at the time was how the refractor's lens was stopped down. Jupiter and Venus looked just like bright points of light (no moons of Jupiter or phases of Venus) and I was disappointed! My parents didn't know about telescopes and didn't make enquiries. After a few months of use, I started to hear a rattle near the lens - a plastic ring had become loose and we fixed it back - if only I had known back them what that blasted ring

did

I have never owned a Tesco telescope, but I have heard that they are generally quite poor quality or have been in the past. When I was a kid in the late 80s they always had Tasco 2-inch refractors (always bright red) in catalogues and no other telescopes. I wanted a Tasco in around 1989-90 but it was around £70.00 and my parents said it was too expensive!

Looking back, from what I have since heard about Tasco telescopes, it was probably best that I didn't have one. I recently read a 1980s review of a small Tasco telescope by Heather Couper and Nigel Henbest (in a New Scientist issue available on Google Books) and they commented that the aperture was stopped down. I didn't realise Tasco would have done this, although I know that the poorest quality cheap "toy" refractors have had stopped-down lenses.

Can anyone remember the Humbrol telescope? This was always in the toy section of Christmas catalogues and it looked the cheapest of cheap, with its flimsy tabletop tripod.