Geoff

Sorry that you feel this way. I also was once a "newbie", so I probably can understand you view point here, but the expression I have given was I think without malice or putdown - as you say.

I really do think Stephen Saber has produced a very good list of pairs, with about 80% being ones I would consider suitable candidates. However, it is imperative that if information is going to be presented as a astronomical guide, it must be correct as possible. If one was to begin to observe southern double stars it is important that those with smallish telescopes are not infrequently disappointed - else they will not explore the many wonders of their own hobby. There are a number of pairs in this list which I have attempted - even with a very sizeable aperture - to observe over the years but have never quite resolved them adequately.

All quoted double star values and tables are notoriously problematic, because they are often well out-of-date before they are published. Deep-sky objects never really change over ones lifetime. The true beauty of doubles is that they do change - and sometimes quite significantly. One has only to look at Alpha Centauri, which in the 1980's was visible even in small telescopes. Today it is rapidly closing, where small telescopes will have difficulties splitting the famous duo.

Shouldn't people that might become interested in observing doubles have information that will help them learn about their hobby?

As you say, perhaps my diplomacy could have been better placed, and if I have offended you, then I wholeheartedly give my apology.