60mm Refractor for $60 at Department Store

On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 6:33:00 PM UTC-6, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 7:30:28 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:

If it's solid, great. If it's shaky, I'd steer people
away from it. At that price, I'd be doubtful it's something I'd
recommend.

I think it's a better value than a certain well-known MCT.

It wouldn't surprise me if a certain well-known MCT is a poor value.

A 60mm scope for $60. Is it an achromat? Not knowing who makes it, not knowing
the details of it, I can't say if it's a good value or not.

John Savard

On Wednesday, 18 May 2016 11:30:54 UTC-4, wrote:
A well-known store is selling 60mm refractors for $60, for delivery or in-store pickup.

Recently peterson wrote this about someone else in another thread:

"You're very obsessed with what other people have to say, aren't you? A
weakness in your own thoughts, perhaps."

Let's see if peterson is "obsessed" with what I just said about the $60 refractor.

60mm is worthless unless you live in the country.

On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 7:43:55 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

So it was once worth its price to some people with specialized needs... and a
telescope for only $60 is not a good value if it is not useful to you; wasted
money is wasted money, even if you've only wasted a little.

My searches also turned up this:

https://www.boreal.com/store/catalog...number=4787700

$272.93 for a 60mm refractor.

But then, if you want to pay more for a 60mm refractor, but also *get* more, there's...

for about $825, the Televue TV-60 two-element apochromat. It's an f/6 instrument, so it has a nice compact short tube.

I suppose if you want only the best as a finderscope...

Of course, if I had, say, $7,000 to splurge on a telescope, the 14" ACF from
Meade would be appealing. I can't get excited about something with 60mm
aperture.

John Savard

On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 7:53:40 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

Of course, if I had, say, $7,000 to splurge on a telescope, the 14" ACF from
Meade would be appealing. I can't get excited about something with 60mm
aperture.

But I think I'd control myself, and settle for 10" aperture, since _that_ is
available for as little as $3,899 without the tripod.

John Savard

On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 7:56:38 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 7:53:40 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:

Of course, if I had, say, $7,000 to splurge on a telescope, the 14" ACF from
Meade would be appealing. I can't get excited about something with 60mm
aperture.

But I think I'd control myself, and settle for 10" aperture, since _that_ is
available for as little as $3,899 without the tripod.

Oh, sorry, 12".

John Savard

On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 8:39:53 PM UTC-4, palsing wrote:
On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 5:33:00 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 7:30:28 PM UTC-4, peterson wrote:

If it's solid, great. If it's shaky, I'd steer people
away from it. At that price, I'd be doubtful it's something I'd
recommend.

I think it's a better value than a certain well-known MCT.

And this opinion is based on what information?

Compared to no telescope, $60 gets you about five additional magnitudes versus $6000 getting you about six additional magnitudes. YMMV.

On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 9:16:45 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
I do know that in every case where I do have
knowledge, I would tell people that no telescope at all is a better
choice than a $60, 60mm choice.

That's a very unfortunate attitude. Let's hope that not many newbies ask for your advice!

But maybe you've discovered a hidden
gem.

Actually, I did discover a gem in my early days of astronomy. It was a small reflector with 0.965-inch eyepieces, an alt-az mount and a small finder that needed some mods...

Very unlikely, but anything's possible.

and luck had little to do with it.

On Thu, 19 May 2016 05:07:10 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 9:16:45 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
I do know that in every case where I do have
knowledge, I would tell people that no telescope at all is a better
choice than a $60, 60mm choice.

That's a very unfortunate attitude. Let's hope that not many newbies ask for your advice!

They do. I've helped many parents avoid the mistake of buying a cheap
telescope for their kids.

On Thursday, May 19, 2016 at 9:30:19 AM UTC-4, peterson wrote:
On Thu, 19 May 2016 05:07:10 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 9:16:45 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
I do know that in every case where I do have
knowledge, I would tell people that no telescope at all is a better
choice than a $60, 60mm choice.

That's a very unfortunate attitude. Let's hope that not many newbies ask for your advice!

They do. I've helped many parents avoid the mistake of buying a cheap
telescope for their kids.

Well, we do remember that you think amateur astronomy is for the upper middle class only, peterson.

For almost everyone else, the cheap scope is usually the realistic approach, and not a mistake.

On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 9:43:55 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 7:19:28 PM UTC-6, Quadibloc wrote:
On Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at 6:33:00 PM UTC-6, wsne... wrote:

I think it's a better value than a certain well-known MCT.

It wouldn't surprise me if a certain well-known MCT is a poor value.

Oh, dear. I wasn't paying attention, so I didn't get your joke.

I did realize that MCT stood for Maksutov-Cassegrain Telescope, even though,
unlike SCT, I don't see that abbreviation often.

The monthly cost of that MCT is around $14 if spread out over a thirty year period. The problem of course is that it is difficult and probably financially irresponsible to pay for it that way.

However, someone who can come up with the scratch to pay for it within a much more realistic time frame will probably find many advantages in owning one.

Meanwhile, the 60mm can be bought by exponentially more people and can actually show most objects well enough compared with the MCT. Those who are truly interested in astronomy will figure out how to work around any of the 60mm's problems.