Book Review: The Caldwell Objects

[iceman (Mike)]

Hi All

Trevor (OneOfOne) has kindly written a book review of The Caldwell Objects.

You can read the review on the IceInSpace Reviews page, or directly by clicking on the link below:

The Caldwell Objects

Many thanks to Trevor for writing the review!

If you'd like to submit an article or a review for IceInSpace, it would be much appreciated! Please contact me.

[iceman (Mike)]

Review uploaded.

[glenc (Glen)]

I would like to make three comments on the C list.
1. Please provide both NGC and C numbers when you refer to an object.
The older generation only know the NGC numbers, some of the younger ones only know the C numbers.
2. Unfortunately the Caldwell list omits some very good objects IMO.
3. S&T tried to sell the C cat. as another Messier list but some of the C objects are too faint for Messier to see.
It was a good idea but could have been better IMO.
The book however is excellent.

[Rigel003 (Graeme)]

I treasure this book and the companion volume, "Deepsky Wonders: the Messier Objects" . So much background on each object and excellent sketches of eyepiece views. O'Meara has 2 new books due for publication early in 2007. The first is also in the Deepsky Wonders series and is called" Hidden Treasures" - presumably a roundup of objects not covered in the 1st 2 books. The other is a Herschel 400 Observing Guide. Both are listed and can be preordered on Amazon.

Having said that, I'd personally be happy if the Caldwell numbers would just die a quick death. What arrogance to add your name and new set of numbers to well known objects with perfectly good pre-existing NGC numbers - to the general confusion of all. That C number on my Nexstar handcontroller never gets punched, on principle.

[glenc (Glen)]

"What arrogance to add your name and new set of numbers to well known objects with perfectly good pre-existing NGC numbers."

I am not sure if that was Moore's idea or S&T.

[mickoking]

Originally Posted by glenc

"What arrogance to add your name and new set of numbers to well known objects with perfectly good pre-existing NGC numbers."

I am not sure if that was Moore's idea or S&T.

I concur.

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by Rigel003

Having said that, I'd personally be happy if the Caldwell numbers would just die a quick death. What arrogance to add your name and new set of numbers to well known objects with perfectly good pre-existing NGC numbers - to the general confusion of all. That C number on my Nexstar handcontroller never gets punched, on principle.

I totally concurr, however the pre-existing ngc numbers were, themselves compiled by Dryer from pre-existing catalogues from Herschal etc.

see:

http://www.ngcic.org/steinicke/HNGC/Historic_NGC.htm

This lists the discoverer and the year discovered for all ngc objects.

Dryer doesn't get too many against his name as discoverer. His catalogue is a comprehensive collection of non-stellar objects known up to that time (c 1880). As such, it is the source that should be quoted. There are some subsequent original catalogues (Trumpler, Collinder, P-K..) but the Caldwell is merely a list of "my favourite objects". As such it will never cover a lot of the good stuff that are observational favourites.

I think we need a counter-revolution and insist that the Hartung numbers be quoted for all deep sky objects when referring to them.

[Rigel003 (Graeme)]

Originally Posted by Argonavis

I think we need a counter-revolution and insist that the Hartung numbers be quoted for all deep sky objects when referring to them.

I'm sure that Hartung never had the flair for publicity that Moore did. He probably couldn't foresee how out of hand it would all get thanks to S&T, Meade and Celestron, but I think he would have been quite pleased. I just reread the original article in December 1995 Sky and Telescope and he did have a reasonable rationale - a list of bright DSOs without Messier numbers covering both hemispheres. Moore actually only wrote a couple of paragraphs followed by the listing. The rest of the article is by S & T staff. He did coin the C number concept though.

One of the good things about the list is that it's in order of descending declination so all we have to do is start at the back.

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by Rigel003

He did coin the C number concept though.

and this is the crime - he renamed them. They already had enough numbers, we don't need any moore.

[CoombellKid]

Originally Posted by Argonavis

I think we need a counter-revolution and insist that the Hartung numbers be quoted for all deep sky objects when referring to them.

I'm not sure that Hartung actually attached numbers/letters as in to create
a new catalogue of deepsky objects. The numbers in his book are only
reference numbers that, I suspect were given to them for reference purposes
for the book

But I could be wrong, I have never ever heard anyone refer to an object
by it's Hartung# or call Omega Centuri/Hartung 591. these reference numbers
do not correspond between both books, the second edition has a couple of
hundred objects added during the rewrite by David Malin and David Frew.

Apart from the C argument, I like my copy of Caldwell objects and often
refer to it.

regards,CS sunny days

[DougAdams]

Nice review (only just found it!).

I'm half way through O'Meara's latest in the series - "Hidden Treasures". Very similar in style, but with a light pirate theme!