So someone takes a cheap scope, puts some wood on it and....

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 6:51:56 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, 24 March 2016 16:52:30 UTC-4, wrote:
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 10:51:34 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Thursday, 24 March 2016 06:16:53 UTC+1, RichA wrote:

link deleted

Posted by "He who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."

With fairly little effort and a few dollars worth of contact paper and metallic spray paint one could take almost any old telescope and get much the same effect, although it wouldn't be the work of a famous artist.

There was some Brit outfit a while back "retrofitting" decent telescopes in
brass and charging a notable premium.

The other artwork on the site looks more creative and "antique." Refractors and Newts haven't changed much in outward appearance in the last couple of hundred years so almost all can be made to look old, antique, vintage, Steampunk, etc., with the right paint and some detailing.

On Thursday, 24 March 2016 19:13:25 UTC-4, wrote:
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 6:51:56 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, 24 March 2016 16:52:30 UTC-4, wrote:
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 10:51:34 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Thursday, 24 March 2016 06:16:53 UTC+1, RichA wrote:

link deleted

Posted by "He who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."

With fairly little effort and a few dollars worth of contact paper and metallic spray paint one could take almost any old telescope and get much the same effect, although it wouldn't be the work of a famous artist.

There was some Brit outfit a while back "retrofitting" decent telescopes in
brass and charging a notable premium.

The other artwork on the site looks more creative and "antique." Refractors and Newts haven't changed much in outward appearance in the last couple of hundred years so almost all can be made to look old, antique, vintage, Steampunk, etc., with the right paint and some detailing.

I can tell when someone has modified a 1970's Japanese-style focuser.
Why pay so much for a piece of crap like that when you can buy a REAL antique refractor of considerably size?

On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:55:42 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

I can tell when someone has modified a 1970's Japanese-style focuser.
Why pay so much for a piece of crap like that when you can buy a REAL antique refractor of considerably size?

Because the intent isn't to recreate an antique. It's a fantasy
design, created to appeal to a specific market (which is neither
telescope collectors, scientific instrument collectors, nor amateur
astronomers).

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 1:06:44 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:55:42 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

I can tell when someone has modified a 1970's Japanese-style focuser.
Why pay so much for a piece of crap like that when you can buy a REAL antique refractor of considerably size?

Because the intent isn't to recreate an antique. It's a fantasy
design, created to appeal to a specific market (which is neither
telescope collectors, scientific instrument collectors, nor amateur
astronomers).

You missed Rich's point. A genuine antique would be art and be more likely to hold its value and to appreciate. Furthermore, it wouldn't be susceptible to falling into an "uncanny valley," the way the fantasy design scope did for me and apparently for Rich.

It's still a great conversation piece, it would look good in a den and it works.

On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 6:51:56 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, 24 March 2016 16:52:30 UTC-4, wrote:
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 10:51:34 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Thursday, 24 March 2016 06:16:53 UTC+1, RichA wrote:

link deleted

Posted by "He who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."

With fairly little effort and a few dollars worth of contact paper and metallic spray paint one could take almost any old telescope and get much the same effect, although it wouldn't be the work of a famous artist.

There was some Brit outfit a while back "retrofitting" decent telescopes in brass and charging a notable premium.

Perhaps this? :

http://moonrakertelescopes.co.uk/custom-builds.html

This is cool:

http://www.wetherellart.co.uk/pages/astronomy.html

Dorpat Refractor as "Steampunk" ? :

https://10minuteastronomy.wordpress....d-observatory/

On Friday, March 25, 2016 at 12:22:13 PM UTC-4, wsne... wrote:
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 6:51:56 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, 24 March 2016 16:52:30 UTC-4, wrote:
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 10:51:34 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Thursday, 24 March 2016 06:16:53 UTC+1, RichA wrote:

link deleted

Posted by "He who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."

With fairly little effort and a few dollars worth of contact paper and metallic spray paint one could take almost any old telescope and get much the same effect, although it wouldn't be the work of a famous artist.

There was some Brit outfit a while back "retrofitting" decent telescopes in brass and charging a notable premium.

Perhaps this? :

http://moonrakertelescopes.co.uk/custom-builds.html

This is cool:

http://www.wetherellart.co.uk/pages/astronomy.html

Dorpat Refractor as "Steampunk" ? :

https://10minuteastronomy.wordpress....d-observatory/

Upon further reflection, I have concluded that a little bit of "steampunk" goes a long way.

On Friday, 25 March 2016 01:06:44 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:55:42 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

I can tell when someone has modified a 1970's Japanese-style focuser.
Why pay so much for a piece of crap like that when you can buy a REAL antique refractor of considerably size?

Because the intent isn't to recreate an antique. It's a fantasy
design, created to appeal to a specific market (which is neither
telescope collectors, scientific instrument collectors, nor amateur
astronomers).

It's like fantasy knives and swords. For the most part they look like overdone crap. I'd rather collect some rusting medieval blade that was actually old.

On Friday, 25 March 2016 12:22:13 UTC-4, wrote:
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 6:51:56 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
On Thursday, 24 March 2016 16:52:30 UTC-4, wrote:
On Thursday, March 24, 2016 at 10:51:34 AM UTC-4, Chris.B wrote:
On Thursday, 24 March 2016 06:16:53 UTC+1, RichA wrote:

link deleted

Posted by "He who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing."

With fairly little effort and a few dollars worth of contact paper and metallic spray paint one could take almost any old telescope and get much the same effect, although it wouldn't be the work of a famous artist.

There was some Brit outfit a while back "retrofitting" decent telescopes in brass and charging a notable premium.

Perhaps this? :

http://moonrakertelescopes.co.uk/custom-builds.html

This is cool:

http://www.wetherellart.co.uk/pages/astronomy.html

Dorpat Refractor as "Steampunk" ? :

https://10minuteastronomy.wordpress....d-observatory/

The Moonrakers look nice, cost a fortune and are incongruous on those modern mounts, a Vixen rail is probably not enough to really support what looks like a very heavy tube. However, like TeleVue's Renaissance, I wonder how much real use they'll see, if they'll likely remain as conversation pieces?

On Sat, 26 Mar 2016 09:27:42 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Friday, 25 March 2016 01:06:44 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:55:42 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

I can tell when someone has modified a 1970's Japanese-style focuser.
Why pay so much for a piece of crap like that when you can buy a REAL antique refractor of considerably size?

Because the intent isn't to recreate an antique. It's a fantasy
design, created to appeal to a specific market (which is neither
telescope collectors, scientific instrument collectors, nor amateur
astronomers).

It's like fantasy knives and swords. For the most part they look like overdone crap. I'd rather collect some rusting medieval blade that was actually old.

So would I. But there are all kinds of people, with all kinds of
interests.

On Saturday, March 26, 2016 at 12:27:44 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
On Friday, 25 March 2016 01:06:44 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:55:42 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

I can tell when someone has modified a 1970's Japanese-style focuser.
Why pay so much for a piece of crap like that when you can buy a REAL antique refractor of considerably size?

Because the intent isn't to recreate an antique. It's a fantasy
design, created to appeal to a specific market (which is neither
telescope collectors, scientific instrument collectors, nor amateur
astronomers).

It's like fantasy knives and swords. For the most part they look like
overdone crap. I'd rather collect some rusting medieval blade that was
actually old.

I am reminded by all of this of an Alfred Hitchcock Hour episode called "The Jar."


The item is different things to different people.