Jump to content

Stargazers Lounge Uses Cookies

Like most websites, SGL uses cookies in order to deliver a secure, personalised service, to provide social media functions and to analyse our traffic. Continued use of SGL indicates your acceptance of our cookie policy.

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_inspirational_skies.thumb.jpg.a20cdbfeadc049807f6d78e6c00ee900.jpg

Recommended Posts

Hi, I was wondering if anyone could tell me exactly what mount this is? 

I have come across it whilst cleaning out a shed and I have tried to search Google etc, but I can't find one exactly the same. 

It's about 5.5ft tall. I'm not a stargazer myself, but I'd be interested to know a bit about it. imageproxy.php?img=&key=bdf8b2134cef9d8b

Many thanks

Josh

IMG_20180225_093902.jpg

IMG_20180225_093842.jpg

IMG_20180225_093852.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like the Fullerscopes mklll mount,would clean up well.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of Fullerscopes basic German equatorial mounts with a manual slow motion control in right ascension. It's nice but needs some TLC to bring it back upto a reasonable standard. :happy11:  I like it and I'm sure some on SGL, myself included, would find a use for it, though I doubt it would be worth very much as there are so many great mounts readily available today.

Edited by mikeDnight
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that's a blast from the past!

If that cleans up, from what I remember of the old Fullerscopes catalogues, it's either  Mk II or a Mk III. If it's just metal castings on the mount, its a Mk II, if it looks like black enameled finish, that would make it a Mk III?

 

I'm sure others with more knowledge that what I've listed above could comment further.

 

Mark

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice find. Looks like the taller pier, so a bit more unusual I suspect. Mines the stubby pier for Newtonians.

I think the Fullerscopes mkIII mounts will be the only remaining evidence of human civilisation in a few thousand years! :)

So basic but solid, nothing so much that can go wrong with them that can't be fixed with a wipe down and a sparing application of grease.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just thought I`d share an photo of my 8.50 Fullerscopes newt which is  40 years old and still get some use when I`ve strength to  carry it out. Des

DSC_0276.JPG

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JTD said:

Hi, I was wondering if anyone could tell me exactly what mount this is? 

I have come across it whilst cleaning out a shed and I have tried to search Google etc, but I can't find one exactly the same. 

It's about 5.5ft tall. I'm not a stargazer myself, but I'd be interested to know a bit about it. imageproxy.php?img=&key=bdf8b2134cef9d8b

Many thanks

Josh

IMG_20180225_093902.jpg

IMG_20180225_093842.jpg

IMG_20180225_093852.jpg

now just to find the telescope in the attic that was used with this 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe Sir Patrick Moore had one of these with a 5 inch refractor on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow, that takes me back - as everyone says - MkII or MkIII depending on paint job or lack of it.

 

I remember lugging one of those (sans counterwieghts) all the way from Dud's shop in London to Bracknell - on the  train. Mounted a very nice f/6 Beacon Hill 8" Newt on it - this was back in the 70's. Built like a tank.

Neil

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the replies, it's nice to know a little more about it. 

What sort of value are they? (as it is and also if it was restored?) 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice [refractor] pier, shame about the legs? :wink2:

They don't usually fetch much. Late 1960s to 1970s?

There were two types of pier feet:

The heavy duty cast iron and the [rather] more manageable cast aluminium.

A wrinkle paint finish was used on the MkIII. Usually unpainted on the MkII.

The original, bare 1" [NOT metric 25mm] steel shafts usually rust into the thin, shell bearings and all the other fittings.

Later shafts were Acme threaded and chromed.

Getting it apart could be a serious problem if you want to avoid doing serious damage.

A loaded plastic mechanic's hammer with the mounting fixed in a large and very well padded vice?

Give everything a full week's soaking in a real mechanic's penetrating oil first? Not WD40!

I fitted mine with stainless steel shafts to finally end the rust problem.

It's all in the early posts of my [interminable] blog.

https://fullerscopes.blogspot.dk/2008/06/fullerscopes-mkiii.html

Stable, but heavy, doesn't suit the modern, highly mobile, instant gratification, Goto lifestyle.

Perhaps amateur astronomer's were stronger, or more willing, in the past?

A slow motion, synchronous drive motor would make it more useful.

Then it would be ideal for white light, solar astronomy, with up to [say] a 4" refractor with Baader Solarfilm.

You should be able to take handheld digital snaps at the eyepiece, like I do.

Few modern mountings and tripods can manage that.

 

mk3 vixen 90 11 rsz 500.jpg

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/02/2018 at 17:22, andyboy1970 said:

I believe Sir Patrick Moore had one of these with a 5 inch refractor on it.

No, don't think so. I believe it was a "Charles Frank" (Glasgow) that he had. Anyway,  not a lot of difference between the MK 2 and MK 3 Fullerscope mounts. Looks like the MK 3 with the black finish and round RA and Dec clutch knobs. But the three pedestal feet look MK 2. I don't think it's worth a lot but, for someone looking to take on a project for one of those long 3 or 4 inch refractors, you never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might be interested in this mount if it were up for sale... looking for one spares or repair.  Have PM'd you.

 

Craig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25/02/2018 at 16:01, des anderson said:

Just thought I`d share an photo of my 8.50 Fullerscopes newt which is  40 years old and still get some use when I`ve strength to  carry it out. Des

DSC_0276.JPG

My scope & mount were the same! I still have the Vixen focuser. I had FS motor drive for RA. 8.5had Grade A mirrors  were F8 I think. Great easy reading setting circles. Mirror access hatch was a great idea.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/26/2018 at 09:26, Rusted said:

Nice [refractor] pier, shame about the legs? :wink2:

They don't usually fetch much. Late 1960s to 1970s?

There were two types of pier feet:

The heavy duty cast iron and the [rather] more manageable cast aluminium.

A wrinkle paint finish was used on the MkIII. Usually unpainted on the MkII.

The original, bare 1" [NOT metric 25mm] steel shafts usually rust into the thin, shell bearings and all the other fittings.

Later shafts were Acme threaded and chromed.

Getting it apart could be a serious problem if you want to avoid doing serious damage.

A loaded plastic mechanic's hammer with the mounting fixed in a large and very well padded vice?

Give everything a full week's soaking in a real mechanic's penetrating oil first? Not WD40!

I fitted mine with stainless steel shafts to finally end the rust problem.

It's all in the early posts of my [interminable] blog.

https://fullerscopes.blogspot.dk/2008/06/fullerscopes-mkiii.html

Stable, but heavy, doesn't suit the modern, highly mobile, instant gratification, Goto lifestyle.

Perhaps amateur astronomer's were stronger, or more willing, in the past?

A slow motion, synchronous drive motor would make it more useful.

Then it would be ideal for white light, solar astronomy, with up to [say] a 4" refractor with Baader Solarfilm.

You should be able to take handheld digital snaps at the eyepiece, like I do.

Few modern mountings and tripods can manage that.

 

mk3 vixen 90 11 rsz 500.jpg

My Fullerscopes catalogue, circa 1975, shows, as Rusted has said, the Mk111 Standard Pedestal, ie with aluminium feet, whereas the picture shows the Extra Heavy Pedestal with cast iron feet. It was for mounting the long focus refractors made by them.

IMG_0209.JPG

IMG_0210.JPG

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve its you! 😅 There was me thinking dear Dudley's ghost 👻 was keeping his creations in the public eye.

I have the catalogue. It had so much useful information, in the pre-interweb days, it doubled as a reference handbook.

At the time, only the now revered Vixen mounts were available. They were meant for Vixen's refractors, then as now, light tubes. Fullerscope mounts were built to take Fullerscope OTAs, and neither were lightweight.

The epitome of Fullerscope engineering is the big Cassegrain on his brochure cover, and the 19 inch Newtonian with mount at Charterhouse Observatory.

Before the Chinese optics industry gave us today's marvellous assortment of commercially available telescopes, Celestron & Meade SCTs became, and still are, reflectors of choice. Their fork mounts are preferable to GEMs for most viewing.

I wish Fullerscopes had made good robust alt-azi mounts, and the Chinese make fork mounts that will take a range of scopes. SW 180 Maks in one would be awesome, as would shorter refractors.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice to see a good bit of over engineering from the old days rather than something designed on computer to be built of the least amount of material possible :grin:

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, 25585 said:

Steve its you! 😅 There was me thinking dear Dudley's ghost 👻 was keeping his creations in the public eye.

I have the catalogue. It had so much useful information, in the pre-interweb days, it doubled as a reference handbook.

At the time, only the now revered Vixen mounts were available. They were meant for Vixen's refractors, then as now, light tubes. Fullerscope mounts were built to take Fullerscope OTAs, and neither were lightweight.

The epitome of Fullerscope engineering is the big Cassegrain on his brochure cover, and the 19 inch Newtonian with mount at Charterhouse Observatory.

Before the Chinese optics industry gave us today's marvellous assortment of commercially available telescopes, Celestron & Meade SCTs became, and still are, reflectors of choice. Their fork mounts are preferable to GEMs for most viewing.

I wish Fullerscopes had made good robust alt-azi mounts, and the Chinese make fork mounts that will take a range of scopes. SW 180 Maks in one would be awesome, as would shorter refractors.  

Yes, I agree, and its probably the only catalogue I have ever read from cover to cover and over and over :grin:

Mind you, I had a very young family, mortgage, etc then, and couldn't afford any of it, but I used to dream. I also  have Basset & Gowin's catalogue from the same period, complete with prices.

8.75" Newtonian c/w mount, pillar stand and weights and.....1" Ortho.......£145 plus £5 carriage ( today's value approx £950)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I used to send for the Fullerscopes catalogue every year but it never changed after the very first.

They must have printed off far more than they ever needed.

They changed to a simpler pricing booklet after quite a few years. So they may have run out of the originals.

I could never afford anything in their catalogue but visited the shop once on a rare trip to London.

Build quality was very poor indeed on the Fullerscopes MkIV I own.

Its polar support fork and housing must have been drilled by eye. Probably by a one-eyed child, armed with a B&D hand drill.

And they missed by about 3/4"!  :confused5:

So I re-aligned all four holes with a large, round file and then re-cut the threads for oversize stainless steel bolts.

A fencing turnbuckle is almost vital to effortlessly adjusting and holding polar altitude.

Very easily done with an exhaust clamp and eye bolt on the pier.

My MkIII is better made but needed stainless steel shafts to remain viable under cover out of outdoors.

Both mountings were bought secondhand and worth every penny IMHO. :thumbsup:

Though they do need a solid pier to match their stability.

A pier saves carrying them about. Both awkward and heavy.

I should have added that I used the 18" Fullerscopes at Charterhouse in Somerset  a couple of times in the last century.

It has been restored more recently.

Copy of IMG_0639 mk4 turnbuckle.JPG

Edited by Rusted
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, 25585 said:

 

I wish Fullerscopes had made good robust alt-azi mounts...

Their equatorials become a solid altaz if you lower the polar altitude to 0°.

Though you still need a counterweight.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Their piers were made from steam pipes I remember. They could be blocked at the bottom and filled with hardcore or gravel to lower centre of gravity.

Dudley ought to have made his own Dobsonian mounts. Might have sold more Newtonians, but he was too old school. And Dobs were a relatively new design.

Mk III mounts were good workhorses, but needed to be easier for quick setting up. Too much observing time lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fabricated my own pier , around this time, along the lines of the Fullerscope ones, and filled the 4" pipe with sand.This was to hold the home made 6" reflector and mount. It amuses me now, that first attempt, as all the sand in the Gobi desert wouldn't have stabilized it, the mount itself was utterly inadequate, and a major re think had to be carried out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rusted said:

Their equatorials become a solid altaz if you lower the polar altitude to 0°.

Though you still need a counterweight.

This is how I'm using my Mk3 at the moment.  The polar axis doesnt quote get down to zero but it's close enough.  I suspect 'Close Enough' was the factory motto when they made these things!

 

DSC06180.thumb.JPG.c975df317a8a071872bc681d6879161f.JPG

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, CraigT82 said:

This is how I'm using my Mk3 at the moment.  The polar axis doesnt quote get down to zero but it's close enough.  I suspect 'Close Enough' was the factory motto when they made these things!

 

DSC06180.thumb.JPG.c975df317a8a071872bc681d6879161f.JPG

Should have done that with mine 😢

Edited by 25585

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The images of the catalogue ( think I still have a copy somewhere) take me back. Like others have said, in late70s/early 80s, I drooled over the scopes therein, and bounced back and forth between the 6" reflector or a four inch refractor! Couldn't afford them, of course.

 

Eventually got a 6 inch mirror from Astro Systems(?) and made my own dobsonian with chipboard shelves! Saw Halleys' with that, and kept that till I got my C8 in about 1990.

 

Makes me sad to hear what I fantasized over may have been a let down. What were the mirrors and lenses like, and did anyone here have a 6 inch reflector or 3 or 4 inch refractor from the catalogue?

 

@CraigT82

Does your scope has original mirror, or a modern one?

 

Mark

Edited by trynda1701
Added question at end

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.