Good amateur astronomy is getting astoundingly cheap!

People have no idea how the hobby has changed. In the early 1900's, any decent telescope ownership meant you were rich, unless you made it yourself.. In the 50's, a decent scope cost a month's pay. In the late 1970's, Celestron began offering SCT's though independent dealers and things began to get cheaper. A 4" alt-az Unitron achromat in 1978 cost $1000. Now, a 4" achro can be had for $300.00. I've got a 120mm f/8.0 achro lens that produces near text-book diffraction images, it cost me $149.00. The 80's-2000's saw huge technological advances that brought automation to telescopes as well as highly complex and corrected eyepieces, compare to before.
Now, six inch apos for $4k, basic 100mm achro OTA's for $200. Now, $8.50 62 deg eyepieces that are getting decent reviews??! A horrifically bad 0.96" Huygens for a s--- department store telescope used to cost more!!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/171836578816...%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 8:05:14 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
People have no idea how the hobby has changed. In the early 1900's, any decent telescope ownership meant you were rich, unless you made it yourself.. In the 50's, a decent scope cost a month's pay. In the late 1970's, Celestron began offering SCT's though independent dealers and things began to get cheaper. A 4" alt-az Unitron achromat in 1978 cost $1000. Now, a 4" achro can be had for $300.00. I've got a 120mm f/8.0 achro lens that produces near text-book diffraction images, it cost me $149.00. The 80's-2000's saw huge technological advances that brought automation to telescopes as well as highly complex and corrected eyepieces, compare to before.
Now, six inch apos for $4k, basic 100mm achro OTA's for $200. Now, $8.50 62 deg eyepieces that are getting decent reviews??! A horrifically bad 0.96" Huygens for a s--- department store telescope used to cost more!!

http://www.ebay.com/itm/171836578816...%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

In late 1974 I bought a Celestron C-8, serial number about #70 or so, with the orange-tube and sand-cast fork, including tripod, for about $1100. It came with (3) eyepieces, and had optics hand-figured by Tom Johnson himself.

It was a really great scope and, along with my treasured Skalnate Pleso Atlas of the Heavens, gave me satisfactory views of thousands and thousands of objects, well beyond the NGC and/or IC catalogs. With experience and dark desert skies, to be sure, I could occasionally get to 15th or 16th magnitude on a great night, on some objects.

It was stolen from my garage in 2001, one of the worst losses of my life.

I see that the approximate equivalent of this telescope sells for about $1600, but now includes go-to with a computer and library of thousands of objects... a pretty good deal, considering the passage of 41 years...

\Paul A

On Wednesday, 8 July 2015 05:42:44 UTC+2, palsing wrote:

In late 1974 I bought a Celestron C-8, serial number about #70 or so, with the orange-tube and sand-cast fork, including tripod, for about $1100. It came with (3) eyepieces, and had optics hand-figured by Tom Johnson himself.

It was stolen from my garage in 2001, one of the worst losses of my life.
a pretty good deal, considering the passage of 41 years...

\Paul A

Theft is inflation proof? I am sorry for your loss.

In 1963 I had my Jack Taylor racing bike stolen by a prison inmate returning from weekend leave. It cost my father £150 back then. Which made the local paper who were tipped off by the police. £150 is worth nearly £3000 now allowing for inflation. For £3000 one can get a really amazing racing bike these days.

When I were a lad, I paid several £GB pounds to a UK mail order, "astro dealer" for a 0.5 dioptre, simple lens of 60mm aperture to make an "aerial" telescope. The only telescope I could possibly afford with my paper round money. I bought some simple lens eyepieces too, with RAS threads, and a matching, brass push-pull focuser. Allowing for UK inflation my first "telescope objective" alone would cost £50 today! Buying secondhand has made things rather more affordable over the years. Though "trickle down" suffers from constant inflation too, it has brought me some very affordable Chinese-made refractors.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/b...nged-1900.html

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 11:05:14 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
People have no idea how the hobby has changed. In the early 1900's, any
decent telescope ownership meant you were rich, unless you made it yourself.
In the 50's, a decent scope cost a month's pay. In the late 1970's, Celestron began offering SCT's though independent dealers and things began to get cheaper.

A 4" alt-az Unitron achromat in 1978 cost $1000.

At that time an RV6 Newt, arguably better, cost approximately $250.

edit

On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 04:14:05 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 11:05:14 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
People have no idea how the hobby has changed. In the early 1900's, any
decent telescope ownership meant you were rich, unless you made it yourself.
In the 50's, a decent scope cost a month's pay. In the late 1970's, Celestron began offering SCT's though independent dealers and things began to get cheaper.

A 4" alt-az Unitron achromat in 1978 cost $1000.

At that time an RV6 Newt, arguably better, cost approximately $250.

For reference, that's about $900-$1000 in 2015 dollars. Maybe double
what an equivalent Newt goes for today? (Was that scope priced with a
mount, or just the tube?)

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 10:33:43 AM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 04:14:05 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

On Tuesday, July 7, 2015 at 11:05:14 PM UTC-4, RichA wrote:
People have no idea how the hobby has changed. In the early 1900's, any
decent telescope ownership meant you were rich, unless you made it yourself.
In the 50's, a decent scope cost a month's pay. In the late 1970's, Celestron began offering SCT's though independent dealers and things began to get cheaper.

A 4" alt-az Unitron achromat in 1978 cost $1000.

At that time an RV6 Newt, arguably better, cost approximately $250.

For reference, that's about $900-$1000 in 2015 dollars. Maybe double
what an equivalent Newt goes for today? (Was that scope priced with a
mount, or just the tube?)

You missed the point, peterson.

Not many people could afford or justify a 4-inch f/15 Unitron refractor back in the '70s and today not many people want one, other than as a collectible perhaps, even assuming that it's any cheaper, adjusted for inflation.

Affording/justifying a 6-inch equatorial Newt at a fraction of the price of the refractor, or a larger Newt or SCT for roughly the same price as the refractor was, and still is, much easier.

Does that explain it well enough for you?

On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 08:43:20 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

At that time an RV6 Newt, arguably better, cost approximately $250.

For reference, that's about $900-$1000 in 2015 dollars. Maybe double
what an equivalent Newt goes for today? (Was that scope priced with a
mount, or just the tube?)

You missed the point, peterson.

Not many people could afford or justify a 4-inch f/15 Unitron refractor back in the '70s and today not many people want one, other than as a collectible perhaps, even assuming that it's any cheaper, adjusted for inflation.

Affording/justifying a 6-inch equatorial Newt at a fraction of the price of the refractor, or a larger Newt or SCT for roughly the same price as the refractor was, and still is, much easier.

Does that explain it well enough for you?

What point? I was just making an observation, and asking a question.

What the hell is wrong with you that you think every response is some
kind of challenge? You're really broken.

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 12:08:06 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 08:43:20 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

At that time an RV6 Newt, arguably better, cost approximately $250.

For reference, that's about $900-$1000 in 2015 dollars. Maybe double
what an equivalent Newt goes for today? (Was that scope priced with a
mount, or just the tube?)

You missed the point, peterson.

Not many people could afford or justify a 4-inch f/15 Unitron refractor back in the '70s and today not many people want one, other than as a collectible perhaps, even assuming that it's any cheaper, adjusted for inflation.

Affording/justifying a 6-inch equatorial Newt at a fraction of the price of the refractor, or a larger Newt or SCT for roughly the same price as the refractor was, and still is, much easier.

Does that explain it well enough for you?

What point? I was just making an observation, and asking a question.

What the hell is wrong with you that you think every response is some
kind of challenge? You're really broken.

Your comment about the cost of modern-day 6-inch Newts was completely irrelevant to the discussion.

A vintage RV6 goes for little more in nominal dollars today than it did in the '70s, since so many of them were sold.

A Unitron 4-inch refractor from the same era now goes for several times the price back then, in nominal dollars, since so few were sold.

People correctly and intuitively saw the RV6 as the better value.

On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 09:25:43 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Your comment about the cost of modern-day 6-inch Newts was completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Hardly. Rich was discussing the cost of astronomical equipment at
different times. How is it irrelevant to consider those costs in terms
of today's dollar?

On Wednesday, July 8, 2015 at 12:35:04 PM UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2015 09:25:43 -0700 (PDT), wsnell01 wrote:

Your comment about the cost of modern-day 6-inch Newts was completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Hardly. Rich was discussing the cost of astronomical equipment at
different times. How is it irrelevant to consider those costs in terms
of today's dollar?

Rich was comparing exquisite 4-inch f/15 Unitrons (apples) with rather less exquisite modern achro OTAs (oranges.)