AO Model? I forget which one it s but it's for sale

[Element 56]

Is it a model 2? I can't remember. Anyway I need to lighten my load so I'm going to list a few instruments that I'll never get to.

This one is straight from the lab I never touched it other than whipping it down and putting a drop of oil here and there. Optically it's excellent and needs nothing. Even the 97x is excellent and I got a surprisingly good image dry. It has a 3.5x which is really nice. Everything moves nothing is seized. The fine focus needs lubricated but it's moving. The course feels good. The interpupillary is a little tight but getting better with use. The condenser moves but needs lubed. The iris is a little tight but with a little love it will loosen up. Every AO from this period that I've owned has had lubricant on the iris and this one is no different. I use CRC contact cleaner and a foam swab to clean these without disassembly and it always does a good job.

The mirror is not factory but it works good and looks fine. Unfortunately there's no mechanical stage but it obviously had one at one time. Right now there's just one stage clip which was the only one I have that fit. I might have a spare b&l stage I can include if I can find it and if it fits.

Cosmetically the paint is good but needs waxed. The knobs have some corrosion so they could use a little time with a mild abrasive.

Comes with a transformer and simple light source.

Price is $65 plus whatever priority mail cost. I will find a box and get a shipping weight tomorrow. US sale only

Kirby

IMG_04022021_194058_(600_x_800_pixel).jpg (59.29 KiB) Viewed 9613 times

IMG_04022021_194109_(600_x_800_pixel).jpg (49.35 KiB) Viewed 9613 times

IMG_04022021_194122_(600_x_800_pixel).jpg (51.14 KiB) Viewed 9613 times

IMG_04022021_194142_(600_x_800_pixel).jpg (44.87 KiB) Viewed 9613 times

IMG_04022021_194135_(600_x_800_pixel).jpg (48.74 KiB) Viewed 9612 times

[Element 56]

Update,

I worked on the fine focus, interpapillary and condenser and got everything working really good.

I do not have a mechanical stage that can be "thrown" on but I do have one that could be added. However, it would require some drilling and threading. If the buyers capable I will throw it in.

Pricing includes shipping in the USA

$85 all in with the mechanical stage

$65 all in as is no mechanical stage

BTW, I never like to restrict shipping to the USA especially with the regulars here but I don't have a lot experience shipping overseas (I have had negative experiences through eBay) so the result is that I usually have to go into the Post Office to get things figured out so the buyer would need to be patient with me. Also with the cost of shipping, this instrument being nothing special and the time it would take to deal with it I don't think it's worth it in this case but I'm willing to look into it as time allows.

Happy Happy!

Kirby

BTW, does anyone know which model this is? It is marked underneath "2-1". Phillip I know you know?

[KurtM]

The old Series 2 has a horseshoe foot, and the Series 4 a lamp built into the base, as you know, so this one's a mystery to me too. I hope Phil or Charles sees this and chimes in.

[KurtM]

The old Series 2 has a "horseshoe" type of foot, and the Series 4 a lamp built into the base, as you know, so this one's a mystery to me too. I hope Phil or Charles sees this and chimes in.

[Charles]

I believe that is an AO1. AO2 has the horseshoe cut out and the AO4 has the built in illuminator. I don't know what an AO3 looked like...maybe Apo knows.

[apochronaut]

Spencer and then later AO/Spencer only partially seemed to have a system when it came to model #'s. They would follow a logical somewhat predictable pattern when they could but occasionally they would reuse the numbers of older no longer manufactured equipment or if a number in a logical sequence was already in use, they would sometimes use a number that seemed unrelated to anything.

There was a model 1 way back in the 20's but I don' t know if it ever was re-used. 3 and 5 became associated with their research stands, so continued with that connection until the discontinuance of them both. Each had two incarnations. Here is an old thread about the 5.
viewtopic.php?t=2689
It does seem logical that the stand above might be a 1. Have you seen this referenced anywhere, Charles?
If not, it might just be an early version of the 2, designed as a mirrored alternate to the 4, made around 1956 or so. They then had second thoughts about abandoning the horseshoe design because of the introduction of the Orthoilluminator. The Orthoilluminator seems to have arrived sometime after 1955 but I can find no reference to it prior to 1958. It isn't in 1955 catalogues. Early illustrations of it show a series 2 mounted on it. In fact the series 2 with the horseshoe shaped base seems expressly designed to fit an Orthoilluminator, with the mirror pin hole set in at a funny angle as though, they thought that a mirror feature might be a good idea too. The 4 has a full Köhler illumination built in, consuming the center of the horseshoe as a casting, similar in concept to the mirrored version pictured here.
It's as though the idea was to get away from the horseshoe design then there were second thoughts based on the Ortho, which offered up some research grade illumination.
That is also the reason that they designed the series 10 with a horseshoe base : and then, 7 illuminator options to go between the legs, with 3 of them designed to bolt in, 3 designed to use a mirror and then the stand designed to sit atop the Orthoilluminator.

[Element 56]

Thank you guys for the information. Seems like an odd ball but it will make a nice instrument for someone.

Regards,
Kirby

[KurtM]

Series 2 on an Ortho-Illuminator

[quantum]

According to a catalog I have seen, the Series 1, and also the Series E1, had only the horseshoe base. The Series 2 and 4, according to that catalog, differed only in the choice of the base--horseshoe or built-in illuminator. That catalog does not have the base shown here at all, but you do see them on eBay from time to time.

The other important difference is that the Series 1 and Series E1 both omit the condenser dovetail, and have a fixed condenser position instead, and so one fewer set of knobs.

The scope shown in this thread has the condenser dovetail, so it seems to be a Series 2 or Series 4, or would be, if it had one of the other bases.

FWIW, I like that base with the mirror, and it makes sense to me because any replacement mirror you put there will be on the optical axis, unlike with the horseshoe base unless you fiddle with how you mount it.

The catalog I saw is on the psneeley site, and if I remember I will try to find some pictures to go with what I am describing.

Perhaps that model base came before, or after, that catalog. BTW, I have seen that style base depicted in drawn silhouette in AO advertisements depicting the history of Spencer microscopes, with a date of 1956 attached to it.

[hans]

Cosmetically the paint is good but needs waxed.

What do you use and what is your process for waxing old microscopes? Same as waxing anything else? I don't really know anything about paint or waxing in general.

[apochronaut]

As of the 1961 catalogue for the AO 2/4 they were referring to the finish as epoxy. It does seem to keep a lustre more than most of what I would think of as an enamel, I have encountered. Doesn't get as dull when really old and abused. A lot of them can be revived to a brilliant polish even when really filthy with a toothbtush and soap and water. I've even removed the optics from a completely tired looking one, scrubbed it with soap water and isopropyl, rinsed it with a garden hose and dried it in the sun. Even the head got the garden hose but it had a couple if wine corks for eyepieces at the time. That's actually a pretty efficient method, if a hot drying method like a broiling summer sun is handy. Ah.....A broiling summer sun. Radiant and overwhelming. Listening to the corn growing. Heat bugs. Locust wings. Crows yelling and pecking tomatoes at dawn. Honeybees drinking water from a bowl. Peaches dropping from a tree, thud.. Excuse me, I got lost for a minute. It's -6 c. here right now.

Enamelled instruments get the wash too but get polished with Plastix, a polish for plastic headlight ienses. Works well. I've used it on the epoxy frames too but they seem to come to life easier, without any polishing agent.9

[quantum]

The PlastX looks similar to a product I bought once to polish the yellowed headlights on an Audi I used to have. I never got around to it, but when I had it in the shop the next time I asked them to polish the headlights. The guy used toothpaste, he said, and I was floored because the headlights looked brand new and clear after that.

So that makes me wonder if toothpaste, Colgate original, say, might also work on an AO10, for example. I think I have an old beat up one to experiment on. . .

PlastX contains aluminum oxide, mineral oil, some solvents, and silicone oil, by the way. (I just looked it up.)

[Element 56]

Cosmetically the paint is good but needs waxed.

What do you use and what is your process for waxing old microscopes? Same as waxing anything else? I don't really know anything about paint or waxing in general.

It's just like waxing a car but obviously you need to be more carful around optics and other precision parts.

I use Pre-Lim surface cleaner and usually apply it with 4x4" gauze or microfiber. It's a mild abrasive and will get almost anything off leaving a shinny surface. After that I use Renaissance Wax or Johnsons Paste Wax. Again clean up with microfiber.

IMO these people make the best restoration, preservation and conservation products on the market today.
https://restorationproduct.com/

A readily available alternative that works really well is mothers car wax. Advantage of this one is it's a one step process.
https://shop.advanceautoparts.com/p/mot ... lsrc=aw.ds

Kirby

[Element 56]

According to a catalog I have seen, the Series 1, and also the Series E1, had only the horseshoe base. The Series 2 and 4, according to that catalog, differed only in the choice of the base--horseshoe or built-in illuminator. That catalog does not have the base shown here at all, but you do see them on eBay from time to time.

The other important difference is that the Series 1 and Series E1 both omit the condenser dovetail, and have a fixed condenser position instead, and so one fewer set of knobs.

The scope shown in this thread has the condenser dovetail, so it seems to be a Series 2 or Series 4, or would be, if it had one of the other bases.

FWIW, I like that base with the mirror, and it makes sense to me because any replacement mirror you put there will be on the optical axis, unlike with the horseshoe base unless you fiddle with how you mount it.

The catalog I saw is on the psneeley site, and if I remember I will try to find some pictures to go with what I am describing.

Perhaps that model base came before, or after, that catalog. BTW, I have seen that style base depicted in drawn silhouette in AO advertisements depicting the history of Spencer microscopes, with a date of 1956 attached to it.

Thanks for the help with identification!

Kirby

[hans]

Thanks Kirby, I may try one of those on the Dynoptic. The paint is not bad overall but has sort of a dry, powdery look after cleaning, and was probably not help by wiping with IPA to disinfect.

[Element 56]

Thanks Kirby, I may try one of those on the Dynoptic. The paint is not bad overall but has sort of a dry, powdery look after cleaning, and was probably not help by wiping with IPA to disinfect.

You have to be really carful with alcohol and some of the other disinfectants. The finish is usually pretty tough but I have also dulled a finish doing the same thing. I've also completely destroyed finishes being to aggressive with cleaning but you live and learn. That's how I learned that Spencer used to silver plate brass before applying their black finish. Opps!

I think you will find it fairly easy to make yours shine again.

Kirby

[quantum]

I don't want to hold myself out to be anything more than a conscientious hobbyist with a technical bent, but I want to offer a different perspective on the idea of waxing a microscope, etc. It seems like a strange concept to me.

I have cleaned up AO Series 10 and AO Series 2/4 scopes, and here is what I do for those particular scopes. The advice would not apply to other scopes, because these both have hard surfaces meant to withstand some laboratory chemicals. The Series 10 is enamel, I think, and the Series 2/4 epoxy.

First, I take off all of the optics: the objectives, the condenser, the viewing head, the illuminator. I would not think of trying to work around any of that except for maybe the slightest touch-up.

The AO 10 manual suggests that xylene is a good solvent to use to clean the exterior (as I remember). And indeed it is. I have found that xylene works great on the Series 2/4 also.

Xylene is a common paint thinner that you can buy at the hardware store. It is one of many components of gasoline, and has a similar but different odor. Follow the precautions for such things and do not breathe it too much, use in a ventilated area, etc. It is kind of like mineral spirits, but I think of it as a notch up in the solvent seriousness.

Xylene will dissolve most things that have found their way onto a scope, and leave you with just the enamel or epoxy. It will not fix dents or deep scratches, of course. I think it is perfectly nice to leave it in that exact state, which is maybe the natural state of a clinical microscope in my imagination.

But if you want it to shine more, or maybe if there are lots of little abrasions or whatnot, I have gone so far as to apply a very, very light coat of plain mineral oil after the xylene step to basic. Just apply it lightly, then get a clean cloth and try very hard to get it all off. In the process, you will leave an extremely thin remnant of the oil that will make it shine some, if that is your thing.

I would not do any of this on a scope from the 1980s, say, an Olympus CH or any of the Nikons. I would just use soap and water, and only if needed, on such things.

The observation about isopropyl dulling the finish is interesting. I wonder if, perhaps, what happened is that isopropyl, being a not very great solvent for many things, simply has engaged with previously-installed wax or other oil, and you are seeing a frothy residue? I would try xylene and see if it goes away.

Do read the precautions. Xylene is not super bad like benzene (which you probably cannot get anyway), but be careful with it. It is flammable. I think of xylene as gasoline, and treat it as if I am using gasoline. In other words, it won't kill me if I touch it, but I do not need to commune with it either. And not every day, and things like that.

[Element 56]

Solvents are over used and misused all the time which is why I rarely if ever advocate their use. For general cleaning I always recommend Dawn dish soap. Waxing after cleaning is simple, fast, safe and effective so I would not see any reason to do otherwise. Disinfection as was spoken of earlier is another matter in which many factors must be considered before proceeding, the first of which would be what was the instrument used for prior and this without regard to the instruments finish.

The Pre-Lim I recommended will remove almost anything (within reason) from a painted surface without damage to the surface finish. However, an overzealous hand can scrub through almost any finish without the help of an abrasive.

Kirby

[quantum]

The commercial product you are using is a combination of a solvent and a buffing agent (abrasive).

I use a solvent sparingly when needed, and use a light touch. Of course soap and water is my first choice. The context of my comment was when one is using a solvent anyway, either explicitly (isopropyl) or implicitly (commercial product for autos or similar).

It is also wise to use a product suggested by the manufacturer in the manual. For the AO10 that is xylene (or soap and water if that is all it needs). For the AO2/4, well, I have never seen a manual but I wanted to say what worked for me.

Could one rub through the enamel of an AO 10 without the help of an abrasive? I doubt it, but I have not tried.

[hans]

I was under the impression wax helps seal/protect, not just cosmetic "shine", so might be useful if I accidentally stripped some protective layer off the finish with the IPA resulting in the powdery look.

[quantum]

I do not think that cured epoxy, or certainly enamel, is soluble in isopropyl alcohol. It could be that paint is, though, and I do not know how that is applied.

Is waxing a microscope a commonly-done thing? I have not heard of it, and not ever read about it in a manual, but if lots of people here do it that would be interesting to know.

The AO10 in particular is designed to withstand common laboratory chemicals. It says so in the manual, so it must be true. I just have a hard time believing that it needs help from wax.

I took a snapshot of an AO2 stand that I just cleaned up--took about five minutes and I think it looks great. It does not try to appear new, but it still shines and it is even older than me (but not by much!). I had to scrunch the snapshot down a bit to get it to upload:

scope2.jpg (295.79 KiB) Viewed 9000 times

[apochronaut]

I have found that IPA does not affect AO finishes newer than those of the 40's. I've used it on series 2/4 ,10/20 and 110/120's. I think these were all an epoxy enamel. The B & L finish on the Dynazooms might not be an epoxy enamel. The Balplan, seems so.

[Stomias]

I have 2 '60's vintage AO Spencer Stereo microscopes (25 & 26) I used IPA on one because it had a heavy glue on the front that looked like remnants of an old badge of some kind. It came off with a bit of work with no adverse effects to the finish....Those finishes are built to last and besides a couple of tiny scratches on both, they look like new at almost 60 y.o.

[quantum]

It is interesting to note that isopropyl alcohol, IPA, is a lot more volatile than xylene. This is important because the solvent does not destroy the oil, and you have to wipe it off with the oil still dissolved,or else the solvent will evaporate and the oil will remain behind, just physically rearranged. Could this be the residue people experience?

I just did a quick experiment. I took two microscope slides and dabbed a bit of petroleum jelly on each. Then one I swabbed with a q-tip wet with IPA, the other with xylene. The higher volatility of the IPA is very apparent--it absconds fast and leaves a whitish residue unless you are quick to wipe it off first. The xylene gives a little more time, unless you actually walk away, there is plenty of time to wipe away the solvent-and-oil combination.

I checked on Wikipedia and indeed IPA is about 4x more volatile than xylene (as indicated by vapor pressure at room temperature), so it makes sense.

[hans]

The finish on the older Dynoptic (viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11856#p98015) does seem softer than the AO stuff I have (series 10 and newer) but I don't know enough to judge whether it is paint or epoxy or whatever.

...the solvent does not destroy the oil, and you have to wipe it off with the oil still dissolved,or else the solvent will evaporate and the oil will remain behind, just physically rearranged. Could this be the residue people experience?

Yeah, especially noticeable when cleaning optics. "Powdery" maybe wasn't a good description, what is left is a dull/matte finish, some areas kind of white-looking, that readily absorbs skin oil. Definitely not a residue.

[Element 56]

The commercial product you are using is a combination of a solvent and a buffing agent (abrasive).

I use a solvent sparingly when needed, and use a light touch. Of course soap and water is my first choice. The context of my comment was when one is using a solvent anyway, either explicitly (isopropyl) or implicitly (commercial product for autos or similar).

It is also wise to use a product suggested by the manufacturer in the manual. For the AO10 that is xylene (or soap and water if that is all it needs). For the AO2/4, well, I have never seen a manual but I wanted to say what worked for me.

Could one rub through the enamel of an AO 10 without the help of an abrasive? I doubt it, but I have not tried.

Yes the Pre-Lim and most other waxes are solvent based.

I don't follow the manufacture recommendations on a 50 or 100 year old microscope but clean your instrument the way you like. There's really no wrong way as long as it gets the job done and you don't over do it as I did early on. I have now completely refurbished more than 50 or 60 instruments and I always wax them. I learned a lot over the years but I also lost a lot of precious time that could have been spent helping people instead of serving my own selfish desires. Anyway wax works well, serves as some protection and gives it a shine.

My comments about rubbing through the finishes are from actual experience but also meant to serve as a word of caution. No I've never rubbed through any gray AO scopes and their finish is pretty tough, however, if you over work an area with ANY wax, cleaner or whatever you can rub through a layer of finish. I once hand buffed (with wax) the top of the legs on the base of some black stand I was working on and it came out really nice except I wasn't able to match the rest of the instruments finish to the same luster. In this case I over did the areas that were easy to access creating an uneven look.

I've made a lot of other mistakes and I probably don't remember half of them. Instrument finishes are a very broad topic so when posting advice publicly you need to do your best to cover your basis otherwise you could talk someone into ruining the finish. The next guy that reads this might just try something we said on a 1870 Voigt & Hochgesang worth thousands of dollars. If he uses alcohol guess what!


Kirby

[quantum]

Hans, yes, I also have noticed that IPA does not work really wonderfully on some optics.

For objectives in particular, I do not think there is universally-valid advice, because the cements are different for different manufacturers, times, or even models. I think it is prudent again to look up what the manufacturer recommended and do that if you can.

For the AO10 series, the manual says use cloth that is moistened, but squeezed almost dry, with either alcohol or xylene. By the context of the time it was written, I assume they probably mean ethanol, not IPA. Back then you could get it easily enough. Nowadays, you have to get a federal license, or repurpose some vodka, or else buy what claims to be nearly pure on eBay if you want ethanol. (I have never messed around with poisoned (i.e. denatured) ethanol.

Anyway, I find that xylene works the best (I get no commission from the xylene companies), followed by ethanol, and IPA does not work very well. This follows the volatility order, which is probably a good clue. In particular, the stuff has to not only be dissolved, but removed. I think that is one reason you want an almost-dry cloth--so it can absorb what you just dissolved. IPA I think is just too volatile. Plus it has too much water usually too.

All of the above is what I personally do for the AO 2/4/10 scopes in particular. I would not try to clean a Zeiss or anything unless I started from scratch and researched it some.

BTW, even the AO objective cements, some of them, are probably soluble in xylene. Yet another reason not to dunk it, and use a cloth squeezed almost dry.

BTW, I have found KimWipes tend to fall apart and leave little strands on lenses. Maybe it is just me.

[quantum]

Another variation of the same idea when cleaning an AO2/4 stand (with the optics far, far away) is to use WD40 on the enamel surface. If it happens that you are taking the condenser dovetail and coarse focus dovetail out to clean and re-lubricate them, you will probably use WD-40 anyway to dissolve the old lube. And it cleans the outside very nicely too.

Although the formulation of WD40 is a trade secret, various analysis and the MSDS indicates that it is basically a set of volatile solvents and a light oil (mineral oil of some kind). So it dissolves and you wipe away the old oil, and you have then also given the exterior a mineral oil rub.

By the way, on the AO2/4, there is a "trick" to remove the condenser dovetail and coarse focus dovetail without upsetting alignment. At the bottom of the base you take out the four hex screws, and. remove the base. Then those two dovetails simply come off by racking them all the way down. And the two sets of knobs come off by rotating them relative to each other (one way tightens, the other way loosens). It is very easy.

This leaves the fine focus assembly in place. That assembly is quite elaborate (but fun to take apart), but if you take it apart you will have to remove the three hard screws on the back and you will then be volunteering for re-aligning the scope, which is a major project I think. I had to get into the fine focus assembly on one of them because it was hardened lube, but all of the others I have seen have been fine.

Also, with the fine focus assembly still in place you can easily check it for proper operation. With the coarse and condenser dovetails removed, you can press on one end of the fine focus assembly, still attached. It should move 2mm, and bounce right back. There is a spring in there that makes it bounce back. If it does not do that, it is gunked up and you have a decision to make about whether to go in and fix it.

These units are fun to work on and, except for the kind of crazy fine focus assembly, quite simple.

[Element 56]

If anyone has any interest the price is reduced to $25 plus freight.
Thanks
Kirby