What orbs do y'all prefer to use?

I'm mostly interested in aspects in the natal charts for now. I'm not to the point of progressions or transits just yet. I would be very interested to know what you folks with so much more experience than I have prefer to use. If you could tell me your reasoning for your choices as well, I would greatly appreciate it. I know that I have to come to the point of what works for me, but I'm always curious as to how others go about it. Thanks! - Rae

Orbs for aspects

The aspect orbs that I use depends upon the type of chart I am working with.

NATAL: The size of orb used should be somewhat proportional to the number of divisions the aspect relates to in terms of the zodiac circle. The conjunction divides the circle by one so the orb is greatest, perhaps 8 degree would be most common although astrologers of centuries back used 12 or 15 degrees, especially for the Sun and Moon. The opposition divides the circle by two, so its orb will be less, perhaps 6 degrees although I've seen 8 degrees and 4 or 5 degrees used. The trine aspect divides the circle by 3 so the orb used should be less --- 4 or 5 degrees. The square divides the circle by 4 so its orb might only be 3 or four degrees. Sextiles, dividing the circle by six have orbs of only 2 or 3 degrees. All of the minor aspects are typically given one degree orbs.

NATAL charts with the Midpoint system typically use one degree or less orbs.

Secondary PROGRESSIONS and DIRECTED charts will typically work well if you use 2 degree orbs for applying aspects of the Moon, 1.5 degree orbs for Sun, Mercury, Venus, Mars applying and 1 degree separating. Jupiter and Saturn can have 1.5 or 1 degree orbs for applying aspects --- I use 1 degree for applying, 1/2 for separating. For the outer planets I use 1/2 degree orbs.

For Solar, Lunar and Moon-to-Sun RETURN charts the focus is all upon the angles for the most part. 1 degree orbs of a planet to an angle signifies an event happening. 2 or 3 degrees is an influence. Wider aspects are generally ignored

Dave

Orbs are a means of gauging whether two (or more) planets are in aspect and by their very nature are a subjective judgement. In natal work I use the medieval system of 'moieties', which effectively give the 'orb' to the planet, not the aspect. so for me, a sextile between Sun and Moon would have a 'moiety of 14 degrees, whereas that between Mercury and Venus would be 7 degrees. That is the two most important planets get the widest orbs (mainly because they are also the two largest planets by far in terms of visibility from Earth).

There's a good case for arguing that orbs should be attached to planets because it's the planets that are crucial to Astrology. You should be aware that attaching orbs to planets wasn't the original way of detecting aspects (nor for that matter was simple degree separation). Hellenisitic Astrologers used two criteria - sign relationship and degree separation. Thus if I considered my Sun at 29 Libra 45 and Mars at 12 Leo 41, they would have recognised a square relationship, even though no modern author would allow a separation of 17 degrees. They would, however, only treat it as a weak relationship - an 'awareness' and no more. They would give it more emphasis of it was within 15 degrees and a lot of emphasis if it was within 3 degrees - though probably requiring the sign relationship to hold. My current system would not treat the two as a sextile at all, even with the Sun involved, I'd consider it only if it was 12 degrees or less.

The systems from Hellenistc times to modern times have tended to support the idea that the closer the two planets are to 'perfecting' the aspect then the stronger the relationship is. So even if you recognise an aspect, you're not necessarily going to place much emphasis on it if it's at the extreme of your 'orbs' system. My Saturn (21 Leo 8)/Moon (21 Aquarius 18) opposition is partile (same degree) and only 10 minutes apart.

I have come across some Astrologers who don't increase the power with proximity and many if not most modern Astrolgoers don't place any emphasis on whether the aspect is applying or separating - though they might use smaller orbs for separating planets. Personally I do take application into account so an applying orb of 3 degrees is more powerful than a separating orb of 3 degrees but again it's a matter of how you practice Astrology.

A couple of issues that you might think about. Firstly, do you allow out of sign aspects and if so how do you deal with them? Is the Sun at 28 degrees Leo in square with Mars at 3 degrees Scorpio or the Moon at 3 degrees Sagittarius? Modern Astrologers would almost certainly answer 'Yes' in both cases - sign is immaterial to an aspect, only degree separation matters. Yet the nature of aspects derive from the nature of the signs (or more particularly their sign rulers) - so can you have a square between two fire signs, which are naturally in trine?

Finally how do you deal with the outers? Again most modern authors will use the same orbs with them, as they attach the orbs to the aspect. I tend to give very small orbs to the outers, especially if they are the transiting planet (in which case I would use 1 degree or less)

Much thanks!

Oh, Dave and Minderwiz, this is exactly what I was looking for! Not just "this is the orb you should use - so spake the elders", but "here's what I do and why and here's things to think about". It's marvelous and as a student of the art, I do appreciate your experience and opinions.

That said, Minderwiz aptly pointed out something that I had not even considered as I realized that I needed to make some decision on the prickly subject of orbs.

"A couple of issues that you might think about. Firstly, do you allow out of sign aspects and if so how do you deal with them? Is the Sun at 28 degrees Leo in square with Mars at 3 degrees Scorpio or the Moon at 3 degrees Sagittarius? Modern Astrologers would almost certainly answer 'Yes' in both cases - sign is immaterial to an aspect, only degree separation matters. Yet the nature of aspects derive from the nature of the signs (or more particularly their sign rulers) - so can you have a square between two fire signs, which are naturally in trine?"

Oh dear...I'm not at all sure how I feel about out of sign aspects. The course I'm taking (AFA course) says, absolutely, it's all about degree. I'm not sure I agree, especially after Minderwiz brought it up. But then, I'm not sure I disagree, either. The planets are approaching (or retreating from) each other. Mighten that have the "aspect" effect, even if they are in separate signs? Or is the sign the defining factor here? Something that is going to require some further thought on my part, as I figure out how to make this practice of an art my one rather than something rote from a textbook.

Dave, how do you feel about out of sign aspects? I eagerly await anyone else's opinions on these two tricky questions.
As always, I'm grateful for your advice and opinions.
Rae

I wish I had a good consistent and well reasoned answer to the 'out of sign aspect' but I don't. I will consider them if they're close but I tend to reduce the weighting that I attach to them. To me sign matters and the sign not only modifies the planet but it heavily colours the aspect. An aspect between two fire sign planets is from signs that share the same element - the are in accord, so it's difficult to picture how they can be discordant - trines work but do squares by degree? I feel a need to modify my view of the spcecific aspect to allow for sign agreement (or disagreement, as you will come across trines and sextiles from inharmonious signs).

The tradition here is murky. with writers arguing that out of sign aspects 'don't exist' because it's the sign that makes the aspect. However, that throws up a real problem with the conjunction with the Sun. The tradition has a good concept of 'combustion', the planet is totally obscured by the Sun and therefore has much reduced strength. To me that makes sense but the same authors will limit combustion to the same sign. Combustion is a physically observable event (the Hellenistic authors called it phasis, and modern writers will refer to helical setting but the change of sign boundary cannot affect this process. So how come they don't allow out of sign combustion.

It comes down to a situation where I think you have to use your experience and your feeling of what is the best approach in a given situation. and indeed be prepared to modify your 'stock' interpretation in the light of the particular circumstances.

Minderwiz said:

my Sun at 29 Libra 45

Click to expand...

Just an aside: Happy Birthday coming up. I may be firefighting for a few days and not be online.

Oh yeah, Minderwiz, I get your birthday for October 23rd. We shall not forget, not forget... You're almost a fellow Scorpio... to me. I treat border Suns as half this half that.

Out of sign aspects

I may be the wrong astrologer to ask about out-of-sign aspects because I do not generally use signs. So, for me this is not a problem. My opinion is that sign boundaries (cusps) are not cut-and-dried demarcations but that sign influence fades near the end of the sign as the next sign's influence increases. This merging might cover some 3 or 4 degrees or it might be only 1 or 2 degrees depending upon the particular planets in that sign area or even if it is an angular cusp which often is more sharply noted in the interpretive strength of a reading. Dave