Re: ATM "more normal" scope

[Kent Cheatham <cheatham@ionet.net>]

>>...Errrm.... define normal...?
>>And I have to ask.... what advantage do you suggest that "Normal" scopes
>>have..?
----
After thinking about it I give an answer from my point of view (as my scopes
probably look "normal" by his standard).. The 3 parameters for differing
between  a "normal" scope and a professionally looking scope would have to
be ability, time and money. I have "enough" money so I rule it out. Most on
this site seem to have lots of ability  (thru resource if not their own) and
standing on your shoulders gives me lots of ability. Thus I would reason
that  his reference to "normal" scope, is one that requires less time and
thus is not as machined/finished/finessed. I've found on my dob bases that
the difference between my woodworking and making it a work of art is perhaps
10-15% on aesthetics. To get that last 10% will take twice as long on
sanding, staining, cutting, etc. Of course, as long as the actual optics are
good and friction and balance are OK, there is no functional difference
between a doggy looking scope and a beautiful one. Mine look "normal" but
function beautifully only because I have too many other interests to alot
all my time to this area. I was already juggling 3 bowling balls and a
chainsaw...now you guys throw this great new world at me and hand me a
couple million stars to add to the circus (grin). If I had just one more
hour a day ...or maybe two...sigh.

Kent Cheatham
cheatham@ionet.net
--------