The Good Old Days .....?

[budski]

A few weeks ago I was rummaging around in the attic when I came across an old astronomy book published in 1962 wherein the author boldly stated in an undisguised elitist tone:-

"Well, of course, the best telescope an amateur (oh, how that word was stressed) can ever hope for is perhaps a 3 inch refractor or a modest 6" reflector. Of course, it is entirely possible for the amateur (here we go again) to construct his own telescope - but quite frankly this would be less than satisfactory when compared to a professionally made instrument. So unless you have several hundreds of Pounds (£) to spare the only way you'll ever get a glimpse (!) through a telescope of significant aperture is to join an astronomical society with a wealthy patron".

Grrrrh! Would the peasants please line up for a glimpse .......

On a positive note: it's good to see from the equipment lists of our fellow observers how, nearly 50 years later, this hobby has become accessible - even on a modest income.

[Ags]

Hah! My 102mm Mak rocks!

I have on old Penguin star guide from the early sixties which I still use. It still talks about the 'spiral nebulae' (they knew by then these were galaxies, but probably a lot of readers were accustomed to the older terminology). What makes the guide very different from today's astro books is it assumes no equipment, and has just a few footnotes about objects that might be seen with binoculars or a very small telescope.

[Carbon Brush]

I remember in junior school (1966?) reading an astronomy book. There was a fuzzy picture of Saturn showing rings and cloud bands. It had been taken using the Mount Palomar scope, so was presumably the best picture in existence. It was probably on a par with today's 'amateur' pictures with the benefit of digital processing.

[John]

My earliest astro book is a late 1960's edition the Observers Book of Astronomy by Sir Patrick Moore (then simply Patrick Moore). Although the science has been overtaken of course to Sir Patrick's credit he manages to avoid that patronising tone and encourages readers by saying how simple it is to make a simple but effective scope and even shows a photo of such as scope and it's schoolboy maker alongside pictures of more exotic instruments. 6" newtonians and 3" refractors were considered the minimum necessary for "useful observations" whatever that means and catadioptrics were nowhere in sight !.

That's what I always liked about Sir Patrick - he always seemed to make astronomy accessible, whatever your background, finances etc

[George]

On a positive note: it's good to see from the equipment lists of our fellow observers how, nearly 50 years later, this hobby has become accessible - even on a modest income.

As we speak I'm saving up for my very own adaptive optics Newtonian with patented laser cloud burner.....no more clody nights in the future

[Macavity]

I do reckon, if one looks a the prices from 1962...

Telescope Reviews: Re: Wildey Galaxy 6 MK II

Telescopes would have been a luxury for many.

£50 0s 0d from 1962 is worth:

£800.00 using the retail price index

£1,810.00 using average earnings

I sense prices had come down quite a bit by the early seventies? But, by 1973, with £12-50, in a Post Office account, I'd generally given up on the "telescope idea"...

At the risk of being topical, there was then (personally) at least a full-ish student grant, to cover essentials... like LP records, guitars, odd bottle of "Blue Nun" etc.

[LukeSkywatcher]

I'm still living back in 1962.

[Astro_Baby]

Yup.....in this game at least we never had it so good.

The was an article in SaN by SPM a fair few months ago comparing what was achievable photographically back a bit and to illustrate it they had a picture of Jupiter taken by the Palomar 200" and one taken by an 8" modern scope with digital techniques. There was no comparison.....the amateur pic taken on the 8" was far, far superior.

Course it's a bit misleading because if you took the same pic today with Palomars 200" and use digital on it then the quality would be even more amazing but it did highlight how amateur gear has up gunned.

[budski]

Someone has asked what the instrument is in the thumbnail pic. It's a 1962 Gibson ES-345 made in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Bought from new it cost me £250 at the time but has been gigged every week since then - which is more than I can say about my C11 or 127APO given the state of the weather lately. Paul from Ireland said "I'm still living back in 1962" ..... Paul, if I can borrow your Time Machine I'd like to go back to the early '60's and give a certain teenager a few words of advice...

[nightfisher]

well, if a 3" refractor was a reasonable scope in the early 60`s, i guess light pollution might have been far less a problem in them days

[LukeSkywatcher]

Budski, i havent finished building my time machine just yet. You can however borrow my 3.5" or 5" scope to see how things looked to amateurs back in the 1960's.

[budski]

Budski, i havent finished building my time machine just yet. You can however borrow my 3.5" or 5" scope to see how things looked to amateurs back in the 1960's.

Paul, I actually remember (in the early '60's) being loaned a 3.5" f11 refractor in a brass tube complete with a claw & pillar stand. The first object I saw through it was Saturn - and just like most astrofolk - thought it the most beautiful sight ever. Of course, my eyesight was much better then so that compensated for lack of real aperture.

PS: Let me know when your time machine is available so I can mess about with history - nothing serious - I'd go and see the young Bill Gates and invest a few hundred dollars in Microsoft.

[Macavity]

I see e.g. the Charles Frank 3" refractor was an F15 scope... Presumably too, an Achromat? Were there any triplet amateur scopes? There seemed to be this philosophy of "minimising the amount of glass" generally though. I sense "1/4 wave" was the limit typical for affordable mirrors? Random wonderings tho'...

[budski]

Hi Macavity, If I remember correctly the Charles Franks 3" refractor had an achromatic doublet (Crown & Flint glass) which wasn't very well figured but no one noticed too much abberation because of the long (by today's standards) focal length. It would be interesting to find someone with such an instrument and run a comparison with a modern 'scope. I wonder if our rose-tinted memories might get a surprise?