Would you sell your immortal soul for a Questar?

I would! They are magical ...

Mean Mr Mustard wrote:
I would! They are magical ...

Will it paint my garage?

Shawn

On 8 Feb 2006 18:42:51 -0800, "Mean Mr Mustard"
wrote:

I would! They are magical ...

In the same way that a Rolex won't keep better time than a Timex, a
Questar won't give better performance than any number of $300
telescopes.

Personally, I'll pass on the Questar (and the Rolex).

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

TimeX, the watch that last forever! In 1985 a old meat shop in Glendale
Calif. closed down and they tore down the building. As they jackhammered the
cement slab and moved it for hauling away, they picket up one section and a
1940's Timx watch was there, for 40+ years tons of cement had stood on top
of it. The guy who found it, wond it up and it starting working right away.

It's now in the Timex corp. HQ display, they bought it from the guy got
$5,000.

I used to dream of owning one of those scopes back in the 60's/70's.


--

The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Astronomy Net Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/astronomy_net
In Garden Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/ingarden
Blast Off Online Gift Shop
http://www.cafepress.com/starlords




"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On 8 Feb 2006 18:42:51 -0800, "Mean Mr Mustard"
wrote:

I would! They are magical ...

In the same way that a Rolex won't keep better time than a Timex, a
Questar won't give better performance than any number of $300
telescopes.

Personally, I'll pass on the Questar (and the Rolex).

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Nope!
Granted...They are nicely engineered scopes, but over-rated.

Andy


"Chris L Peterson" wrote in message
...
On 8 Feb 2006 18:42:51 -0800, "Mean Mr Mustard"
wrote:

I would! They are magical ...

In the same way that a Rolex won't keep better time than a Timex, a
Questar won't give better performance than any number of $300
telescopes.

Personally, I'll pass on the Questar (and the Rolex).

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Andy wrote:
Granted...They are nicely engineered scopes, but over-rated.

Just curious -- over-rated by whom? By Questar Corp., by owners? Do you
base this on your ownership of a Questar?

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

Davoud wrote:
Just curious -- over-rated by whom? By Questar Corp., by owners? Do you
base this on your ownership of a Questar?

By owners. Especially when they also own Macs.

Seriously, I've spent some observing time with Questars. Their
mechanical precision is quite impressive, and in my opinion, is what
should be kept in mind when deciding whether to buy a Questar or an
ETX. Optically, their performance is too close to warrant the extra
price. The optical difference between the two is much smaller than,
say, the corresponding difference between an AP Traveler and a
run-of-the-mill 4-inch f/8 achro.

My opinion, of course.

--
Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Seriously, I've spent some observing time with Questars. Their
mechanical precision is quite impressive, and in my opinion, is what
should be kept in mind when deciding whether to buy a Questar or an
ETX. Optically, their performance is too close to warrant the extra
price. The optical difference between the two is much smaller than,
say, the corresponding difference between an AP Traveler and a
run-of-the-mill 4-inch f/8 achro.

My opinion, of course.


Hi:

I've thought long and hard about a Questar for years, and have finally
concluded that, no, I don't need one right now (as opposed to "want").
However, one might be just the thing as a "last" scope rather than a
"next" scope. That is, just the thing for when I finally reach the
point where I'm to decrepit to lug even a C8 to a star party, and when
my poor old eyes won't notice much difference between a 90 and an 8 (or
and 11 or a 14). ;-)

Peace,
Rod Mollise
Author of _Choosing and Using a Schmidt Cassegrain Telescope_
http://skywatch.brainiac.com/astroland/index.htm

Like SCTs and MCTs?
Check-out sct-user, the mailing list for CAT fanciers:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sct-user

See: http://journals.aol.com/rmollise/UncleRodsAstroBlog/
For Uncle Rod's Astro Blog.

"Mean Mr Mustard" wrote in message
oups.com...
I would! They are magical ...

No. I would, however, sell my soul for a Takahashi - FCT-200 - 8" f/10
Fluorite ED Triplet on EM-3500 Mount. Since I don't believe in God (or the
devil), it would be a no-brainer.

George

Mean Mr Mustard wrote:
I would! They are magical ...


Yeah ... I'd sell yours for one, too.