NavList:

   

Reply

I have attached several photos illustrating my telescope. I noticed
another difference. Photos 6556 and 6560 show a shoulder on the
telescope tube that is not present in your photo and the fork is mounted
on this shoulder. I compared the paint job with that on the other
telescope and you are right, they look different. Thinking about your
theory that they repaired a telescope that had a broken fork, would that
have made sense considering that these telescopes could not have been
that expensive to begin with, why not simply replace it?

gl

On 12/1/2010 12:26 PM, Bill Morris wrote:
>
> Gary
>
> From the second picture that you attached, I would say that your
> telescope has been repainted. The original had a grey hammered finish
> which, when applied correctly, does not show brush strokes and hides
> minor blemishes. I think I can see brush strokes on yours. Properly
> done, you would not expect to see traces of the broken fork because
> they would have been filed away before repainting.
>
> The first linked file shows you the original paint finish.
>
> The second linked file shows the basic construction of the 'scope. The
> eyepiece tube is screwed into the rear of the body and there is a
> knurled shoulder that can be used to lock a new rising piece against a
> shoulder turned on the body. This area is covered by black tape in
> your photo.
>
> The third linked file pictures a posed set-up to show how this would
> be done on the lathe.
>
> Bill Morris
> Pukenui
> New Zealand
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> NavList message boards and member settings: www.fer3.com/NavList
> Members may optionally receive posts by email.
> To cancel email delivery, send a message to NoMail[at]fer3.com
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 
File: 



> 
File: 



> 
File: 



>

File:

File:

File:

File:

File:

File:

File:

   

Reply