mikeDnight

If its frustrating you you're doing it all wrong. Take a chill-pill! Forget camera's, computer's and accurate alignement; stick a low power eyepiece in your scope and go on a mystery tour around the sky.

Was the outcome a good one Jon?

It's good to think things through carefully, reviewing options and seeking advice, before punching an unpluggable hole in your bank account!

That's a terrifying price Dave. My own pier is a simple steel construction made by a local sheet metal worker, 6" square and 7' 6" tall, with 18" set in concrete, and it cost me £35. The top is a flat steel plate onto which I bolt my EQ mount, but I could quite easily have attached an adjustable plate as in the image if I needed to. I'm only a visual observer so things don't need to be as accurately set and aligned. However, if you were to take a picture of that expensive pier to a local sheet metal worker, I feel certain he'd construct one at a fraction of the price. Don't show him the price on that one though!

That looks like a great refractor David. Colour around Sirius wouldn't phase me in the slightest, so I doubt there's anything sinister there! With regard to the serial number, it could simply be the number within the batch produced in any given year, so there may be a 0006 appear elsewhere down the line that was made in a different year. Then again, it could genuinely be the 6th in the entire production run, and AA just happened to receive it in their order. Doesn't really matter! My buddy paulastro once bought a TAK FC100DL F9 that had F7.4 engraved on the lens cell. It still worked like a dream! Looking at your refractor makes me want one, but I've no idea how I'd smuggle it past the furore!!

Try looking at Vega when its close to the zenith if you get chance, as it will be high enough not to be overly influenced by the atmosphere. Or if in the evening, take a look at Castor, as it isn't so blindingly bright that it will give you a misleading take on the scopes colour correction. Also, the limb of the moon gives a pretty good idea as to how well controlled the scopes CA is. Sirius is a pig at the best of times, even in a Tak, so don't be too disheartened as yet!

Stating a limit on the minimum useful aperture serves only to place a mental block in the mind of an observer. Back when mirrors were made from rapidly tarnishing speculum metal, or home ground mirrors that were of questionable quality and silvered, small reflectors may have performed relatively poorly. Today I'd imagine there are relatively few "bad" reflectors in existance. I've seen a 4.5" F11 Newtonian (generally considered little more than a toy), kick the socks off a 4" Vixen F9 fluorite apo while looking at Saturn. I've seen the same 4" Vixen fluorite outperform many very much larger reflectors, as regards image quality and definition, on lunar & planetary targets. Much of what I've seen seems to be counterintuitive. I've detected detail in Saturn's rings that should be beyond the capability of my telescopes, yet it's obvious. I've split at least one double star that was well beyond the theoretical resolution of the scope I was using, and I've seen faint nebulae in impressive detail, where you'd imagine only a large aperture would be successful. When practicing my lunar sketching, I tried to find a simple target to draw and chose the crater Werner. Situated in the southern uplands, it at first appeared to be an easy crater to draw. However, as I was sketching the crater floor looking for variations in shade etc, I noticed a very fine rille running from one of the central mountain peaks, up and over the southern terrace wall, and out into the rough terrain beyond. Thinking little of it, I later tried to find evidence of this rille in maps and images. What a struggle! The only proof of its existance I could initially find was an indication of a rille running along the crater floor, as recorded by Percy Wilkins, who was using the 33" Maudon refractor. I'd had it said to me by another, very well respected lunar observer, that I'd likely seen a line of sight effect caused by terrain artefacts. Later observations continued to show the feature as a definite rille, and not only that, other rilles began to reveal themselves at different points in the lunation. To date I have observed five within the Werner! Then, a wonderful chap in the BAA sent me an email, in which he'd attached some images he'd taken of Werner, and guess what - there were the rilles. Though barely visible in the images, they were there and exactly in the same positions my small scope had seen them. Like many others, I'd started off using a 60mm refractor that gave me my first real view of the moon & planets, and it was a nice scope. I also bought a second hand pair of 12x60 binoculars, with which I found every Messier object above my horizon. From my experience, small apertures can be very revealing and capable scopes, and having a larger aperture scope is no guarantee of a better view (unless of course we're considering the advantages of light grasp)! Reflector or refractor has always been a hot topic for as long as I remember, and again from experience, I've seen instances were both have outperformed the other, dependant on target, seeing, transparency and optical quality etc. As regards the 3" refractor or 6" reflector advice of yesteryear, I'd say ignor it completely and just use whatever scope you've got to the full. Only then will you realize its true potential!

If Leslie Peltier had this scope & eyepiece, it would have definitely been put to good use! Perhaps not as ridiculous as it first appears in the right hands!

It might seem a silly question Dave, but have you removed the plastic cover from the microfocuser?

When this is over and you finally recieve a nice 4" frac from a reputable supplierJon, your supplier review should make an informative read around the world! Ive bought small items from TS in the past, but I won't be using them again! I do hope you find time to write one, as it could save others a lot of worry and heartache.

I feel for you Jon, I really do! A new scope should be an exciting and enjoyable time, but this has left a nasty aftertaste I'd imagine. I'd also imagine TS will lose some sales from this, and not just with this refractor, as their trustworthiness has been brought into question.

These scopes might be quite popular on the day following this thread. It might be worth asking a vendor to ensure there's one there with your name on it Jon, if you decide to wait until March 9th.

That's one of my all time favourite refractors John. I've seen some wonderful sights and had many happy hours at the eye end of a Vixen ED102SS. I can't remember seeing much in the way of false colour, only great views of DSO's, the planet's and the Moon. Through a 20mm Nagler from a dark site M42 was spectacular, showing several levels of black nebulosity with the bright nebula almost exploding out from behind the black dust. The effect was almost 3D, and the pearl green hue of the nebula was very obvious. I remember following Europa's tiny disc as it transited the complex cloud tops of Jupiter, followed by the sharpest black Indian ink spot of its shadow transit. And the Vixen ED's rendition of Saturn's rings was breathtaking, revealing hints of countless divisions across the A & B rings, almost like the grooves on a vinyl record. The Crepe ring looked like grey/blue smoke on the inside of the each anse. So good Infact was the view of Saturn in the Vixen, that i soon after, sold my TV NP101 IS as it was left standing by the ED doublet with regard to the planet's. My reasoning was two fold: Obviously there was a large sum tied up in the 101, which really rubbed against the grain with me. Then I had it set in my mind that, if the 101 can't show Saturn's rings well, its not showing anything well. Right or wrong, I felt that if the Vixen shows Saturn's rings in such detail, then it must be giving the same level of definition on everything, including nebulae. The 101 on the other hand, although giving very nice views, had to be lacking in definition by comparison. Bye bye NP101

Things could still work out to your advantage Jon!

If you do return it and decide to get a refund Jon, you might consider if possible, attending the Practical Astronomy event in Kettering on the 9th March. There are quite a few vendors displaying their wares and you could possibly pick up a 4" at a discount. I dare say you'll have chance to meet a few unsavoury characters there too!

Exactly the same as mine Dave, but I found the fork a bit bouncy, so like you I mounted it on an equatorial and discarded the fork. It's a shame really as the fork would have been ideal for my Tak. I didn't remove the wing nut thingy's on the side of the tube, but used them as a means of attaching a home made bracket for mating with the equatorial mount. I kept mine in our bedroom, and where most men would be looking at the beautiful silhouette of their wife laid alongside them, thinking "what a lucky little lad I am"! I - ever the romantic - left her knocking back the zeds, while I laid there admiring the silhouette of my gorgeous refractor standing in the corner of the room thinking, "what a lucky little lad i am"!!

I too had a Vixen 102mm F13 and had a terrific time with it. No optical issues that i was aware of with mine! When i bought it from Peter Drew sometime around 1985/86, I really felt I'd made it, having longed for a top class 4" refractor for a long time. What amazed me was that on top of its superb lunar and planetary performance, the 4" F13 was an excellent deep sky scope, giving some really contrasty views. I suppose an F13 back in the mid 80's was really a rich field comet seeker and thought of as a short focus scope. But from what I remember, it showed no noticeable CA and like all good refractors, it always delivered the views with style. Sadly ive misplaced the only two photographs I had of it, and am sorry I sold it so as to fund 'A' Level Chemistry & Geography text books. I passed the 'A' Levels, but should have been certified "THICK IN THE HEAD" for parting with that Vixen!

Well done Jon, its an excellent choice! It didnt occur to me when i mentioned breaking out the cigars, that i dont smoke and don't have any cigars! Will a bottle of 12 year old Scotch do instead? I'm looking forward to the family pic's when the new baby arrives!

Once dismantled by removing the tension knobs, there's usually enough grease on the inside of the mount to lubricate the surfaces. It's just poorly applied in the factory. I've reapplied the grease on several AZ4 mounts and they've always benefited. With the tension set just right on my AZ4, I've been able to observe Mars using my 100mm refractor and a 2.5mm Vixen LV eyepiece at X296 with the touch of a finger. It's not ideal at that magnification but it can be done.

The AZ5 has slow motion controls in both altitude and azimuth but it isn't as beefy or as solid as the AZ4 Dave. I've had both mounts, and although I found the AZ5 to be reasonable for carrying my lightweight FC100DC, it wasn't as solid as the AZ4. I find the AZ4 on a solid tripod to be a very good Altaz. I use a Vixen GP mounted on a steel pier as my main work horse, but I also use a AZ4 on a heavy duty Vixen aluminium tripod as a light weight grab and go, and it is remarkably solid. If you fancy a solid altazimuth with slow motion controls, you might like to search for a second hand Vixen Polaris or Super Polaris mount. I've just given a Polaris mount to my friend Derek for use with his Sky 90. The weakest of these is the AZ5! Derek with his Sky90 on VP AZ5 AZ4 Vixen GP

Hi Jon, Most of my observing is lunar and planetary, mostly because my site tends to be misty and not because I have no interest in dso's. Obviously, even if my site had really dark skies, a 4" scope will have limits with regard to light grasp. However, I've found by blocking out stray light from entering my eye from surrounding light sources by using a dark hood or blanket over my head and eyepiece, I can attain a really good level of dark adaption. Rather than rushing from one dso to the next, I will spend some time observing each, even upto an hour depending on the intricacy or difficulty of the target. I think you'll find the 102ED to be a surprisingly good fuzzy finder. TeleVue designed one of the world's most popular 4" refractors as a visual rich field/deep sky scope, so if they ere not very good on dso targets, I think TeleVue would have dropped them decades ago. I've attached a few dso sketches made from home on the outskirts of Burnley on the Lanc's/York's border. All sketches were made using a 100mm F7.4 apo. M82 M33 M97 M78 M42 M57 M27 M45

Thanks for the correction Paul. So the manufacturer's felt the scope was worthy enough to warrant a top class focuser. That's got to be a good indicator! ☺

As Paul mentions in his short review, "you have to look for the false colour"! You mentioned earlier Jon, that the colour in the SW Star Travel didn't bother you much. Well the colour in the Astro Tech is in a whole different league to that of the Star Travel. Does this mean you're going to become the daddy of a new 102ED? Shall I break out the cigars?? Just take a look at it once again....... And don't forget that happy chap who owns it! The tube assembly looks physically larger in the pic than it does in the flesh, due to perspective.

There's always the Star Wave ASCENT 102ED F11 if you want that tad better colour correction, but I'm sure the Astro-Tech F7 will do amazing things, and with a wider/richer field!

I think paulastro has the original version of the Astro Tech 102ED. I've used it numerous times and the one thing that strikes me when thinking about it, is that nothing strikes me! In other words, if the CA were objectionable I would definitely have noticed it. If the star images were anything but perfect it would have jumped out like a sore thumb. And if its lunar and planetary performance was In anyway lacking, I would definitely have noticed it! Consider also that Paul's scope had its focuser replaced with a feathertouch by its original owner. It must have been very highly thought of as noone would go to that expense for a mediocre scope. Also, Paul regularly observes with me using his AT ED alongside my Tak FC100DC and the two scopes get along fine. There is no rivalry between the two and they play pretty on all targets. I think a 4" ED is an excellent scope for a serious observer who likes a portable, easy to use, yet very capable all round wide field/lunar/planetary/binary star instrument. Often excelling well beyond their aperture class, a 4" refractor could be the only scope you'll ever need! Whether its the only scope you'll ever want is another matter! Just a quick point on glass types. Years ago manufacturer's didn't necessarily disclose the glass type used in their scopes. I've used a few old Vixen ED's long and short and they were all superb! Today it seems everyone worries a little too much about things they really don't need to worry about. Strehl for example: could anyone really tell the difference between a strehl of say .97 and .99? What i do know is that if you want to add colour to a refractor image, use a Nagler eyepiece and look at the Moon. I wonder how many good apo's have received bad press that way?