TeleVue "Classic"?

[A McEwan]

Hi all,

In perusing the classifieds on another site recently, I saw an advert for a "Classic" TeleVue 102 refractor.

First thought was, "Ooh, a nice TeleVue 102 at a reasonable price - somebody's going to be very lucky". At this point visions of 4" Apo like-views swam through my head combined with the joy of owning a TeleVue refractor. So I went for a lie down.

But then I thought, "hang on... 'Classic'?"

Is it? Does it count? I know the design has been around for a long time but I'm not sure if they're still being manufactured?

I do not mean to cause any offence here, by the way. If the advertiser reads this, I'm perfectly happy to accept it as a "Classic" , and indeed I do think that the TeleVue scopes (particularly the older designs) will be collectors items in he future.

I just think it's interesting as I think it's the first time I've seen the term applied to a TeleVue 102.

Thoughts?

Ant

[John]

I've no doubt it's a great scope but I'm not sure about the term "classic" either Ant.

I can't really blame the seller for using it though as it's banded around all the time these days eg: Baader Classic Orthoscopics etc, etc.

For me I guess something like an original orange tube Celestron C8 might be more realistically termed a classic ?

It would make for an interesting discussion to see what others consider as real classics

[ollypenrice]

I think it might be a reasonable use of the term if applied to the early Genesis, for instance. The first (F5) ones are also known as the 'Pearl River' models from before the company relocated. This was a ground breaking telescope offering excellent colour correction at an improbably fast F5. It was something new and exciting and it spawned two things which make the 'classic' term meaningful; 1) lots of refinements from TV themselves, so its offspring are still going strong and 2) lots of imitators. You can now buy 4 inch quadruplets from other big hitters, most notably Takahashi with their FSQs.

Note definitions 1a, 1b and 1c in this link. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/classic

I would say the Genesis was a good fit for all three.

Olly

[A McEwan]

Looking at those definitions, Olly, I can only agree.

Ant

[Dave In Vermont]

"Classic" tends to refer to an article that differs from a 'rarity' by the fact that it is mass-produced over an extended period of time. So it would have many variations as the time-line expands onwards from it's introduction. An example of relevance to folks like most of those who are reading this - a "classic Meade LX-series catadioptric - telescope" as differing in it's workmanship and design from one made at the present moment. Whereas the original lens'-bearing telescope that belonged to Galileo himself could not be called a "classic" telescope, except in the most extreme generalization. It would be more properly considered a 'rarity.'

So I would consider one of the original "orange-tube" C8 Celestron scopes to qualify as a 'classic' in the field of mass-produced SCT telescopes that became available to amateur-astronomers about 40ish years ago.

Clear Skies of the Classic-Variety,

Dave

[ollypenrice]

"Classic" tends to refer to an article that differs from a 'rarity' by the fact that it is mass-produced over an extended period of time. So it would have many variations as the time-line expands onwards from it's introduction. An example of relevance to folks like most of those who are reading this - a "classic Meade LX-series catadioptric - telescope" as differing in it's workmanship and design from one made at the present moment. Whereas the original lens'-bearing telescope that belonged to Galileo himself could not be called a "classic" telescope, except in the most extreme generalization. It would be more properly considered a 'rarity.'

So I would consider one of the original "orange-tube" C8 Celestron scopes to qualify as a 'classic' in the field of mass-produced SCT telescopes that became available to amateur-astronomers about 40ish years ago.

Clear Skies of the Classic-Variety,

Dave

Yes, and I think the Orange Celestron was a classic for the reasons you suggest and becaue it spawned many imitators, including Meade who award themselves the term 'classic' with no justification that I can see. They were always imitators in this field, though they beat Celestron to the flatfield modifications (ACF and Edge) but both of these are refinements and not first generation, therefore not classic. It's only a word but I like words and like to see them used intelligently. I intensely dislike seeing them stolen by the marketing brigade, too.

Olly

[A McEwan]

Like ebay item #291310916305 for example?

Not that I'm looking for one or am associated with the seller or listing in any way!

Ant

[Dannae]

There are some great threads on SGL and this is another 'classic' Great post Ant.

I think that valuable words (awesome, magnificent, quality, classic, unique) have a tendency to get overused which then lessens the impact of them over time. I think in this case I would use 'classic' that refers to something retro/antique/heirloom,  copied (and sometimes improved), fondly remembered by many people and something that really changed the game or was a huge leap forward at the time.

I think the celestron is a really great example. I would possibly add the 20mm T2 Nagler (late 80's), the 3.5inch Questar and Dave Kriege's original Obsession Dobsonians which I believe he now separates into 'classics' and the newer Ultra compacts. Many more I'm sure but those are the ones that stick out over the last few decades for me.

Anyone else care to add to the list?

Regards

Dannae

[John]

This may sound strange but the Synta / Skywatcher ED80 springs to mind as it introduced affordable near-apochromatic performance to many folks.

They were far from perfect but the Meade Lightbridges were pretty innovative as the 1st mass produced and off the shelf truss tubed dobsonian around 2006.

I'm sure I'll get laughed at for those suggestions

[Dave In Vermont]

This may sound strange but the Synta / Skywatcher ED80 springs to mind as it introduced affordable near-apochromatic performance to many folks.

They were far from perfect but the Meade Lightbridges were pretty innovative as the 1st mass produced and off the shelf truss tubed dobsonian around 2006.

I'm sure I'll get laughed at for those suggestions

Laughing at you for this viewpoint would only serve to prove the person laughing was ignorant and has need for a dictionary. As well as a thesaurus.

Just who should be responsible for defining, as well as assigning, what should be criteria for a "Classic" Telescope? The company that produced it? No. How about a triumvirate of magistrates from the House Of Lords? Veto that one as well! Maybe the original designer? And if they have "shuffled-off this mortal coil?" Do we have a seance? Or should invest in a Ouija Board instead?

I think that what this boils-down to is that this is our domain. That we who indicate the end-users. The tinkerers who have explored these articles by breaking them down to singular parts. Who have written and published our findings of actual usages. And so forth. And certainly NOT complacently sit by as advertising-firm pundits lay claim to supplying the accepted definitions.

This is our baby!

Clear Skies & Sailing,

Dave

[Ruud]

I think it might be a reasonable use of the term if applied to the early Genesis, for instance. The first (F5) ones are also known as the 'Pearl River' models from before the company relocated. This was a ground breaking telescope offering excellent colour correction at an improbably fast F5. It was something new and exciting and it spawned two things which make the 'classic' term meaningful; 1) lots of refinements from TV themselves, so its offspring are still going strong and 2) lots of imitators. You can now buy 4 inch quadruplets from other big hitters, most notably Takahashi with their FSQs.

Note definitions 1a, 1b and 1c in this link. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/classic

I would say the Genesis was a good fit for all three.

Olly

Gee, Olly, I have a Genesis. It's a most rewarding telescope. Next year it will be an antique - used since 1990 and still in perfect working order. Even today it is difficult to find a better 4" f/5. 

[Dave In Vermont]

Gee, Olly, I have a Genesis. It's a most rewarding telescope. Next year it will be an antique - used since 1990 and still in perfect working order. Even today it is difficult to find a better 4" f/5. 

A telescope, such as a refractor like yours - Ruud, can easily last a lifetime (and passed on to the kids, etc.) if properly maintained and serviced. Case in point being the 100-CM refractor at Yerkes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerkes_Observatory

And that behemoth was built in the 1890's! A few years back, I met a young man who'd gone to see it on a pilgrimage of sorts, and the staff there arranged for people to actually look through it as part of a night-tour of the facility. The young guy was stunned at the clarity and beauty of the image - and of the entire tour. As I know I would be, too!

If you can post a picture, or three, of your Genesis, I'd love to take a look at them. I love looking at "Telescope-[removed word]!" EDIT: Censor no like a word that rhymes with "corn." Silly-censor!

Clear & Classic Skies,

Dave

[ollypenrice]

This may sound strange but the Synta / Skywatcher ED80 springs to mind as it introduced affordable near-apochromatic performance to many folks.

They were far from perfect but the Meade Lightbridges were pretty innovative as the 1st mass produced and off the shelf truss tubed dobsonian around 2006.

I'm sure I'll get laughed at for those suggestions

I'm tempted to agree on the ED80. The fact that the original is still in unmodified production means that it hasn't yet passed into history, which is, perhaps, one of the implications of the word (and a very good thing!) But in terms of what it offers then, yes, it is right up there. 

The Vixen Polaris mount might rightly be considered a classic as well, don't you think?

Olly

[A McEwan]

The Nagler eyepiece. It all started with the 13mm didn't it? I might be wrong. But the type 1 Naglers surely set a new standard for readily available ultra-wide field eyepieces... or did the Meade Series 4000 UWA range beat them to it? Certainly the Meade S4k 14mm UWA is widely regarded as a "classic" eyepiece and still highly regarded even in today's world of budget Nagler-wannabes.

Ant

[John]

The 1st Nagler was the 13mm Type 1 launched in 1980. Meade copied the Nagler design I believe. Some of the 4000 UWA range do have a great reputation though.

[ollypenrice]

Meade are great copiers. They copied the Celestron SCTs, the Questar, the TV eyepieces and, doubtlesss more besides...

Olly

[Caldwell14]

Might I suggest the humble soviet TAL 100R/RS as candidate for a true classic. Might I also suggest the C8 along with two SW scopes both of which are in the 8 inch class. Firstly the classic Skyliner dob followed by the 200p on an eq5, in the 12 inch class might a flexitube not be a candidate

[Caldwell14]

This may sound strange but the Synta / Skywatcher ED80 springs to mind

That is a very good call in my book

[John]

Another possible classic, now I've thought about it further, might be the 6" F/8 equatorially mounted newtonian. TAL made a good execution of this design with the TAL 2 but I guess the Criterion RV6 Dynascope was the first that caught my eye with their adverts in the US astro magazines many years ago:

[Merlin66]

I still have my Genesis (Sorry Olly!) and the original TV-Systems mount (Carton), serial #1007. Still as good as new. A wonderful performer

I'll post some photos when I can.

[ollypenrice]

I still have my Genesis (Sorry Olly!) and the original TV-Systems mount (Carton), serial #1007. Still as good as new. A wonderful performer

I'll post some photos when I can.

You had to say that, didn't you - you cruel man, you! 

Olly

[HD-AP]

I think that my Astrophysics  180 EDT  refractor is a classic example of roland christians exellent workmanship / skills.

Perhaps it's also a rarity ?

My vixen alux 152 ED  refractor is rarer still in that fewer were produced ,but is it a classic ? possibly.