Looking to buy antique microscope for the first time

[antiqueBME]

Hello everyone

My fiance and I both really love antiques and work in science. He works and loves microscopes. He is defending his PhD soon and I would like to buy him an antique microscope. I am under the budget of about $150 to $200. I have read a few websites, so I am a little worried that I will end up spending a significant amount of money (for us, as of now) on a defective/worthless microscope, if I buy off of ebay. What are some good places where I can reliably buy them from? and some tips on buying from ebay, if that is a good option.

Thanks in advance.

[zzffnn]

Welcome to the forum.

What you want (fully functional antique, $200 budget and first time buyer) is difficult.

You may search for an American Optical (AO) Spencer series 15 or 35 microscope. Something like this (but I am not sure about that seller - you need a 100% positive eBay seller):

http://www.ebay.com/itm/AMERICAN-OPTICA ... Ciid%253A2

Here is a resource for AO microscopes: https://user.xmission.com/~psneeley/Per ... oscope.htm

Better way is buying one from a forum member or reputable dealer, if possible. Check out your local university surplus sales or Craig's List. Be prepared to DIY and repair it.

99.99% of the eBay seller do not know how to use/repair microscopes.

[PeteM]

A bit depends on whether it is the antique look you want or a functional microscope.

Because physicians sometimes have a microscope-collecting hobby, true 100+ year old antique scopes in good shape tend to be expensive. Also not especially optically good compared to scopes after, say, WWII. I've recently passed along an old brass Grunow scope, circa 1890, with a large custom accessories case that was built and used by my great-great-grandfather. It's going to the sixth generation in our family. Looks cool, but I also added more modern stereo and compound scopes for its young caretakers to actually look at things.

You can lesser examples of old brass scopes that look kind of interesting for your budget; but I wouldn't expect them to be satisfying to use.

If a black enamel scopes with pretty decent optics would do I'd suggest Leitz and Nikon scopes in addition to the Spencer/AO models. I've used a Nikon S-KE with phase optics that gives very good images and also a Leitz SM-D Lux with very good images. Both scopes were converted (easily) to LED illumination.

[apochronaut]

PeteM; I can't really agree with you on this one. Many, and probably most microscopes, made after about 1870 or so were capable of producing high quality images, with resolution approaching or equal to that of at least a good quality modern lab microscope. Whether one can achieve high resolution with one, depends on a number of factors. It can happen that , one or more of those factors fails to be met in the setting up of an old microscope, or there is optical deterioration, and it's capability gets downgraded due to that.
The period between 1850 and the end of W.W.I (1918) was a period of great innovation and can be likened to the post W.W. II period or roughly 1950 to 2018 . After 1850, innovations in optical design came fast and such technical solutions such as the achromat, the multi-element understage condenser, the apochromat, the correction collar, plan fields, various immersion techniques, low dispersion glass formulations, and as well, enhanced precision machining, all contributed to the production of tens of thousands of superb instruments upon which most of the basis of the science of bacteriology was built. In the textbooks : Pathogenic Micro-Organisms including Bacteria and Protozoa , 670 pages published in 1910 and A Textbook of Bacteriology , 1190 pages published in 1922 it is clear , just how sophisticated the instruments were, at the disposal of 19th century bacteriologists, for much of the included work was done prior to 1900.....and these are textbooks, not research papers.

There are two technical areas where older microscope optics, fall short of the mark , when compared to modern optics. These are the field of view and the contrast. The challenge in obtaining a wide field with superior peripheral correction can be met in two ways. The first, is by having a wider piece of glass. In this way, the central, more easily corrected area of the lens is bigger, allowing for a broader well corrected field. The second is to be able to effect corrections, through the engineering of lens formula and glass formulations. In the early days of microscopy, the first method was followed. Bausch & Lomb maintained large diameter eyepieces up until about 1910 or so, allowing for a larger diameter field and as well, a look at their objectives, shows a wider glass surface, than an equivalent Spencer objective of the time.
By the time R.M.S. measurements, became almost standard and the adoption of a 23.2mm eyepiece was ubiquitous( about 1900), the field of view had shrunk for many manufacturers, who previously had followed a larger physical format. So, over time, they followed a developmental path with which to get beyond the 16mm or so that was the early practical limit, with a 10x eyepiece. It took some unique glass, and therefore unique lens formulae to get out to the 24mm or so that standard R.M.S. systems are capable of now and most of these have come along since W.W.II.
The other major innovations that blossomed after w.w.II were lens coatings and then computer ray tracing, both of which contributed to enhanced image contrast. Modern optics can have contrast that would have been a dream in 1900 and it is the chief way in which modern microscope images differ from antique microscope images. However, careful manipulation of the illuminator and condenser, can overcome some of the natural contrast defects of older optics( as well as thorough internal cleaning) and some of them can be surprisingly good.

The 1850 to w.w.I period was a time when a great proliferation of companies took place and although most of them were innovative and competitive, some went by the wayside due to an adherence to older designs that no longer met with approval in the marketplace. Some were just too small to be able to support innovation or in some cases, talented innovators left larger firms to strike out on their own, only to find that they were poor businessmen. By 1890, many companies were engineering to the requirements of research biologists who were active consultants in R & D, and the possibilities for small privateers were becoming less and less.

One of the things that fascinates , when it comes to old microscopes, is the brass. While some microscopes were released in polished brass,especially in the 19th century, often the very same model could be had in black enamel. The use of brass was based in practicality, not just a design vogue. Occasionally, hucksters on ebay and there is one notorious one, will strip the enamel from an instrument and offer it as a brass microscope, usually at high prices. In one instance, they stripped an instrument that was never sold as a brass microscope, so it ended up being a combination of brass and bare cast iron. Presumably, the optics have suffered due to such treatment.

The brass in a microscope was not there to be pretty, it just happened that way. Brass is heavier than other easily obtained hard metals and is relatively non-corrosive, two important qualities a microscope should have. Brass is easily machined and polished, and it mates well with other metals, taking direct plating well. Sometimes, as in the case of the high end Spencer microscopes made after the heyday of the brass instrument, brass was still used in the components where extra weight and stability was required, while the main structural components were cast iron or steel. All were eventually painted, anyway.

[charlie g]

Hi, antqueBME, I have vintage stereo , and vintage compound microscopes...you are really sounding like you'd like to gift your guy a 'golden age of biology' instrument..which sits well in a study..as well as one which has great optical function. As your guy is an experienced contemporary microscopist..indeed it's the halo of the golden age you wish to charm him and your study with.

Couple these two (stereo scope, and compound scope), or one of these with an elegant prepared slide (fixed diatoms, fixed deliciously stained botanical or zoologic specimens)..and you have a project which may grow one year at a time! Where are you located? all the best, Charlie Guevara , finger lakes/NY

[zzffnn]

Nikon S (black) microscopes also have an antique look but are not really antique in terms of age. They can be cheap, good quality and easily upgraded though.

Brass scope with a condenser is probably difficult to obtain for $200 and may not be comfortable to use - is your husband comfortable with straight tube monocular? Some microscopists that view live water mounts, myself included, are not used to that design.

[75RR]

I have read a few websites, so I am a little worried that I will end up spending a significant amount of money (for us, as of now) on a defective/worthless microscope, if I buy off of ebay.

A properly working pre 1920s microscope will have had to have been restored - that effectively means that attic bargains are out - which in turn means that your budget is insufficient.
Have you considered getting a boxed set of Victorian slides instead? They should be within your budget.

[antiqueBME]

Thank you everyone for your detailed reply. I found a "worker" microscope from W. & J. George Ltd, Birmingham, which is similar to the worker microscope made by J . Parkes & Son, Birmingham that fits my budget. I understand it is a modest microscope but may be a good place to start with. And I am buying it from a well known antique microscope collector, so it would be more reliable than buying it from ebay from an unknown seller, especially because I am new to this. Please share your thoughts on this.

Also, he is an experimental material scientist who works mostly on SEMs and TEMs but is always fascinated by the elegance and craft of antique microscopes as much as he is by the function itself.

I am extremely overwhelmed at the great response and your enthusiasm. We will stay a part of this board as new microscope enthusiasts.

Thank you

[zzffnn]

Antique BME,

I am glad you did your own research.

Please kindly let us know who your "well known antique microscope collector" is. Other forum members may want to buy from him/her too.

[billbillt]

For those folks with an insatiable desire to learn things, here is a .pdf download of "Pathogenic Bacteria including Bacteria and Protozoa, 1910 " mentioned above:

http://books.googleusercontent.com/book ... oCbE3lZ988

[PeteM]

. . . Many, and probably most microscopes, made after about 1870 or so were capable of producing high quality images, with resolution approaching or equal to that of at least a good quality modern lab microscope. . ..

Could be I came down too hard on the usability of $150 late 1800's scopes.

But, weren't you telling us how much better the 410 series (I've bought a couple around $150) was than the older 110, 10, etc.? And the AO 10 a revelation compared to earlier scopes?

I do agree that some of the old scopes had remarkable innovations, but think a $150 quality brand scope from the past 50 years will generally be more usable than what's generally available in antiques from 150 years ago at that price point. Especially since the top (for their time) antique scopes sell for hundreds to thousands to collectors.

My own experience with really old scopes is limited to two examples, with the Grunow being the best. Beautiful scope and one of the top for its time. But, compared to the modest AO 150 I also gave away, it simply wasn't as usable for me or the kids. Monocular vs. binocular. A two lens versus a four lens turret. No coated lenses and the contrast problems you noted. Narrow apertures and dim images. Tiny fields of view. Short working distances (with kids having problems running into slides). A comparatively primitive condenser with the external illumination harder to set up. Ill-placed stage and focusing controls. That tilting stage. Most annoyingly, a tendency to explore the floaters in my eyes almost as clearly as the specimen on the stage. Its one plus was the extendable tube length.

To me at least, there's an inherent compromise involved in hoping to find a gorgeous brass antique scope, that's a pleasure to use, for around $150 -- though it sounds like the original poster managed to do just fine . It's an attractive scope IMO.

[75RR]

I think that in all likelihood the OP wanted a 'working' microscope in the same spirit that say a vintage typewriter collector would want a 'working' one. It effectively converts the item from being little more than scrap to an antique, adding value and interest to it; yet the owner does not necessarily have plans to use it to write a novel.

[apochronaut]

. . . Many, and probably most microscopes, made after about 1870 or so were capable of producing high quality images, with resolution approaching or equal to that of at least a good quality modern lab microscope. . ..

Could be I came down too hard on the usability of $150 late 1800's scopes.

But, weren't you telling us how much better the 410 series (I've bought a couple around $150) was than the older 110, 10, etc.? And the AO 10 a revelation compared to earlier scopes?

I do agree that some of the old scopes had remarkable innovations, but think a $150 quality brand scope from the past 50 years will generally be more usable than what's generally available in antiques from 150 years ago at that price point. Especially since the top (for their time) antique scopes sell for hundreds to thousands to collectors.

My own experience with really old scopes is limited to two examples, with the Grunow being the best. Beautiful scope and one of the top for its time. But, compared to the modest AO 150 I also gave away, it simply wasn't as usable for me or the kids. Monocular vs. binocular. A two lens versus a four lens turret. No coated lenses and the contrast problems you noted. Narrow apertures and dim images. Tiny fields of view. Short working distances (with kids having problems running into slides). A comparatively primitive condenser with the external illumination harder to set up. Ill-placed stage and focusing controls. That tilting stage. Most annoyingly, a tendency to explore the floaters in my eyes almost as clearly as the specimen on the stage. Its one plus was the extendable tube length.

To me at least, there's an inherent compromise involved in hoping to find a gorgeous brass antique scope, that's a pleasure to use, for around $150 -- though it sounds like the original poster managed to do just fine . It's an attractive scope IMO.

The microscope was for a PhD candidate who works with microscopes, not a child. Yes, the 400 series is a step up from the previous AO short objective system but each microscope has to be viewed as a separate case and each has unique capabilities. Learning to use those capabilities is one of the joys and challenges of microscopy.
With the older AO series 4 160 mm microscope for instance, a microscope that I would in no way choose for routine BF or DF imaging given my other options, I have the unique possibility of using an entire set of 24 diverse phase contrast objectives, 3 contrast types in 3 different contrast levels. With the 400 series, although the quality of imaging is superior, I am limited to 4 dark medium contrast phase objectives, so for phase I will often choose a 60 year old, essentially obsolete microscope. With the Spencer type I- # 5, an antique brass microscope fitted with a 1.4 N.A. achromat offsetting condenser and 3 apochromats, I have the possibility of effecting very easy and fine quality oblique illumination, something done not so easily with the modern instruments. Each is it's own case. The Spencer # 5 , by the way cost 90.00.