NavList:
A Community Devoted to the Preservation and Practice of Celestial Navigation and Other Methods of Traditional Wayfinding
From: Robert Eno
Date: 2015 Feb 3, 10:17 -0700
Very interesting observation Paul. My experience with the C&P is the opposite. I had one years ago and returned it. My results were both abysmal and erratic. It has always been my contention that an adjustable bubble is a must if one is to obtain accurate observations with a bubble attachment. With a larger bubble, there is so much wiggle room in trying to centre the body. Being able to bring the bubble down to a size close to the diameter of the body being observed has, in my experience, yielded much better and more precise measurements.
Can you expand on your comment with respect to the design of the reticle and how it obviates the need for an adjustable bubble? Just so there is no misunderstanding, this is not a cross-examination type question. I am genuinely interested to learn more on this topic, even it if shatters my previously-held beliefs.
Robert
From: NavList@fer3.com [mailto:NavList@fer3.com] On Behalf Of Paul Saffo
Sent: February-03-15 7:32 AM
To: enoid@northwestel.net
Subject: [NavList] Re: Plath bubble sextant on ebay (C&P versus Plath)
It is a C&P bubble horizon and $600 is more or less the going price for them. As you note, it does not have a bubble adjuster, but in my opinion, the design of the reticle makes an adjustment all but unnecessary. I have one like this, plus an A10 bubble converted for a marine sextant (thanks, Bill Morris!) and two Plath models (not Firefly). I'd rank the C&P first, the A10 second, and the Plaths 3rd. To put it another way, I always reach for the C&P first, and the Plaths are gathering dust in a drawer.
-p
