Damn them all to HELLL!!!!!! (Pentax)

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:03:02 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Somehow, I don't really envy your friend, as nice as Questars are. (I would
never buy a used Questar without original bill of sale and fully documented
provenance.)

You expect his friend to eventually be jailed for having stolen it?

Or is it just that it may turn out to have not been properly cared for?

I do remember that the old Questars used threaded eyepieces, so one could only
use the Brandons that came with them, so there is reason not to envy him _too_
much. Can a Questar really be _that_ much better than the 90mm go-to Maks that
London Drugs now sells cheaply?

But a Questar is still a thing of beauty and craftsmanship.

John Savard

On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 06:05:01 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:03:02 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Somehow, I don't really envy your friend, as nice as Questars are. (I would
never buy a used Questar without original bill of sale and fully documented
provenance.)

You expect his friend to eventually be jailed for having stolen it?

Or is it just that it may turn out to have not been properly cared for?

I do remember that the old Questars used threaded eyepieces, so one could only
use the Brandons that came with them, so there is reason not to envy him _too_
much. Can a Questar really be _that_ much better than the 90mm go-to Maks that
London Drugs now sells cheaply?

Optically, a Questar is nothing special. Nor does its mount offer any
real advantages over some of the mounts found on similar sized scopes.

But a Questar is still a thing of beauty and craftsmanship.

Which is the best reason for owning one. It's like somebody choosing
to own a Rolex, even though you can buy a watch for $20 at a
convenience store that works as well. There is value in something
which is beautifully made.

Of course, if you can afford to buy something like a Questar, you can
also afford a much better instrument for astronomical viewing.

On Saturday, 20 February 2016 11:26:59 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 06:05:01 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:03:02 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Somehow, I don't really envy your friend, as nice as Questars are. (I would
never buy a used Questar without original bill of sale and fully documented
provenance.)

You expect his friend to eventually be jailed for having stolen it?

Or is it just that it may turn out to have not been properly cared for?

I do remember that the old Questars used threaded eyepieces, so one could only
use the Brandons that came with them, so there is reason not to envy him _too_
much. Can a Questar really be _that_ much better than the 90mm go-to Maks that
London Drugs now sells cheaply?

Optically, a Questar is nothing special. Nor does its mount offer any
real advantages over some of the mounts found on similar sized scopes.

I saw one test out to near 1/20th wave recently. Better than Chinese stuff, or even AP/TEC.

On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 15:42:33 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Saturday, 20 February 2016 11:26:59 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 06:05:01 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:03:02 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Somehow, I don't really envy your friend, as nice as Questars are. (I would
never buy a used Questar without original bill of sale and fully documented
provenance.)

You expect his friend to eventually be jailed for having stolen it?

Or is it just that it may turn out to have not been properly cared for?

I do remember that the old Questars used threaded eyepieces, so one could only
use the Brandons that came with them, so there is reason not to envy him _too_
much. Can a Questar really be _that_ much better than the 90mm go-to Maks that
London Drugs now sells cheaply?

Optically, a Questar is nothing special. Nor does its mount offer any
real advantages over some of the mounts found on similar sized scopes.

I saw one test out to near 1/20th wave recently. Better than Chinese stuff, or even AP/TEC.

1/20th wave is utterly meaningless visually with a 3.5" scope.

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 9:53:10 PM UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 15:42:33 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Saturday, 20 February 2016 11:26:59 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 06:05:01 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:03:02 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Somehow, I don't really envy your friend, as nice as Questars are. (I would
never buy a used Questar without original bill of sale and fully documented
provenance.)

You expect his friend to eventually be jailed for having stolen it?

Or is it just that it may turn out to have not been properly cared for?

I do remember that the old Questars used threaded eyepieces, so one could only
use the Brandons that came with them, so there is reason not to envy him _too_
much. Can a Questar really be _that_ much better than the 90mm go-to Maks that
London Drugs now sells cheaply?

Optically, a Questar is nothing special. Nor does its mount offer any
real advantages over some of the mounts found on similar sized scopes.

I saw one test out to near 1/20th wave recently. Better than Chinese stuff, or even AP/TEC.

1/20th wave is utterly meaningless visually with a 3.5" scope.

It will help with focusing.

On Saturday, 20 February 2016 21:53:10 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 15:42:33 -0800 (PST), RichA
wrote:

On Saturday, 20 February 2016 11:26:59 UTC-5, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 20 Feb 2016 06:05:01 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote:

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:03:02 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Somehow, I don't really envy your friend, as nice as Questars are. (I would
never buy a used Questar without original bill of sale and fully documented
provenance.)

You expect his friend to eventually be jailed for having stolen it?

Or is it just that it may turn out to have not been properly cared for?

I do remember that the old Questars used threaded eyepieces, so one could only
use the Brandons that came with them, so there is reason not to envy him _too_
much. Can a Questar really be _that_ much better than the 90mm go-to Maks that
London Drugs now sells cheaply?

Optically, a Questar is nothing special. Nor does its mount offer any
real advantages over some of the mounts found on similar sized scopes.

I saw one test out to near 1/20th wave recently. Better than Chinese stuff, or even AP/TEC.

1/20th wave is utterly meaningless visually with a 3.5" scope.

Correction can impacts more than just resolution.

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 9:05:07 AM UTC-5, Quadibloc wrote:
On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 6:03:02 AM UTC-7, wsne... wrote:

Somehow, I don't really envy your friend, as nice as Questars are. (I would
never buy a used Questar without original bill of sale and fully documented
provenance.)

You expect his friend to eventually be jailed for having stolen it?


Weird stuff happens.


Or is it just that it may turn out to have not been properly cared for?

I do remember that the old Questars used threaded eyepieces, so one could only
use the Brandons that came with them, so there is reason not to envy him _too_
much. Can a Questar really be _that_ much better than the 90mm go-to Maks that
London Drugs now sells cheaply?

Depending on the situation, the acquisition could be anywhere from a stupendous windfall, an albatross or a white elephant.

But a Questar is still a thing of beauty and craftsmanship.

I think something made of brass and oak would look better in a den.

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 10:55:05 AM UTC-8, wrote:

But a Questar is still a thing of beauty and craftsmanship.

I think something made of brass and oak would look better in a den.

Well, that's just your opinion, isn't it? A lot of people would agree with you, so you would share opinions. A lot of people would prefer the Questar, which would be their opinion.

Having multiple choices and having multiple opinions is what keeps diversity in the marketplace, wouldn't you agree?

On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 3:11:20 PM UTC-5, palsing wrote:
On Saturday, February 20, 2016 at 10:55:05 AM UTC-8, wsne... wrote:

But a Questar is still a thing of beauty and craftsmanship.

I think something made of brass and oak would look better in a den.

Well, that's just your opinion, isn't it? A lot of people would agree with you, so you would share opinions.

Notice that I wrote "I think" not "Everyone thinks," dumb***.



A lot of people would prefer the Questar, which would be their opinion.

It's fairly rare to see any telescope on display in a home and not "a lot" of people own Questars anyway.

Perhaps a Questar might look good in a kitchen, so long as it doesn't clash with the stainless steel fridge.