# Revell Enterprise...What's in the Box



## miniature sun (May 1, 2005)

One of the guys on the SFM:UK site just posted this....

http://www.scifimodels.org.uk/index.php?option=com_kunena&Itemid=3&func=view&catid=9&id=9370#9370


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Wow, that's....huh.

I like the box.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

I can fill in gridlines if I have too but the shape of the lower saucer is just *udder*ly wrong. That's my biggest beef with it.


----------



## spindrift (Apr 16, 2005)

Where is the Enterprise???
Because what I see isn't really the USS Enterprise TOS ...not sure what went wrong there!!


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

This has FAIL written all over it. Maybe their target audience (kids) will like it, but most serious Star Trek modelers will pass. Makes the old 18" AMT kit look better and better!


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

It's funny, I distinctly remember members right here on this board were celebrating the coming savior to save the Trek franchise, my how the mighty have fallen. The shine is off Revell's apple !


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Trekkriffic said:


> I can fill in gridlines if I have too but the shape of the lower saucer is just *udder*ly wrong. That's my biggest beef with it.


Don't have a cow, man.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Here's the way I look at it.....


*Negatives*

Do I wish the shape was more accurate....yes but I can live with it as it still looks like the Enterprise to me.

Do I wish the gridlines were finer........yes and I'm surprised Revell didn't make them finer seeing as they've brought out some nice aircraft models over the past few years....but I can still live with them.

*PLus Points*

Despite the wide grid lines it still looks quite nicely moulded

Most of the windows and lights are in clear plastic unlike many other Enterprise models

I think of it as more like the cg version of the ship so I'm not looking for a smooth Enterprise like some people.

No model's perfect....ok some are definitely worse than others but I can handle a few inaccuracies as long as the moulding quality is good. 

It looks like an easy build.

Even though I agree that the engraved lines on the Enterprise aren't entirely successful......I still think it's a good thing a model company has attempted to do some engraved lines on a sci fi model and haven't just gone for the bare..."let's leave the modeller engrave their own lines or pencil them in". 

I prefer the more realistic take of what's supposed to be on screen....instead of a model manufacturer doing an exact copy of the studio miniature.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

You know I might still buy it if I saw it at my LHS and could get it for less than 30-40 bucks. I figure you can use putty on the gridlines and do some sanding or fill them in with a thick primer like Mr Surfacer and sand a little less. Might take more than a few coats of primer though. Regarding the shape of the lower saucer, I've heard some say that the it's close to the shape of the smaller 33" studio model which would make it canon. If true I could live with it.


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

It's a model!


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

If I can find it in the US, I'll pick up two or three. To me it's yet another intriguing take on a beloved subject. The inaccuracies don't offend me, glaring as they are... in fact, the overall effect stirs the little kid in me that stayed up late to watch TOS in first run prime time.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Larva said:


> If I can find it in the US, I'll pick up two or three. To me it's yet another intriguing take on a beloved subject. The inaccuracies don't offend me, glaring as they are... in fact, the overall effect stirs the little kid in me that stayed up late to watch TOS in first run prime time.


Now that's being positive!!! :thumbsup:
I like that. 
-Jim


----------



## m jamieson (Dec 18, 2008)

For some unknown reason...I'm still drawn to it!


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Larva said:


> If I can find it in the US, I'll pick up two or three. To me it's yet another intriguing take on a beloved subject. The inaccuracies don't offend me, glaring as they are... in fact, the overall effect stirs the little kid in me that stayed up late to watch TOS in first run prime time.


Hence the comment from some that this kit is targeted more for kids or, in your case, the kid in you. 
And that's perfectly alright in my opinion.


----------



## jaws62666 (Mar 25, 2009)

Larva said:


> If I can find it in the US, I'll pick up two or three. To me it's yet another intriguing take on a beloved subject. The inaccuracies don't offend me, glaring as they are... in fact, the overall effect stirs the little kid in me that stayed up late to watch TOS in first run prime time.


I just got the enterprise and klingon ship from revell on ebay $100 for both shipped to the US I am on the 1701 club to satisfy my accuracy issues. These kits have clear parts to light easier. It is just 2 more ships in the Star trek line of great kits.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

*deleted*


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Someone has gotta say it: execution of those gridlines is total *CRAP!*


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

m jamieson said:


> For some unknown reason...I'm still drawn to it!


LOL, I knew someone was going to go there.


----------



## jaeike (Aug 11, 2005)

I think I'll hold off judgment until I see more photos. Either that thing is waaaay off, or there's some distortion in those photos. I suspect its more of the latter than the former. It may be off, but not that badly.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Ductapeforever said:


> It's funny, I distinctly remember members right here on this board were celebrating the coming savior to save the Trek franchise, my how the mighty have fallen. The shine is off Revell's apple !


Yeah, I was going to say the same thing.
I might go back and look up who those people were.

All those windows are all HUGE. Wow.

Here is some fun reading.....

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=314579&page=1


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

falcondesigns said:


> It's a model!


It's an _inaccurate _model!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Ductapeforever said:


> It's funny, I distinctly remember members right here on this board were celebrating the coming savior to save the Trek franchise, my how the mighty have fallen. The shine is off Revell's apple !


Well, that was hope based on R/G's history of quality and accuracy in pretty much every NON sci-fi subject they've ever done.


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

John P said:


> It's an _inaccurate _model!


There is no such thing as a perfect model.........


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

I don't know about that. I've always though that Christie Brinkley came close.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

John P said:


> Well, that was hope based on R/G's history of quality and accuracy in pretty much every NON sci-fi subject they've ever done.



So how did they blow this one?


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

The same way the judging at the local IPMS gets blown for SF subjects. "We only care about things that actually drove, walked, floated, or flew around the battlefields of World War II. That science fiction cr*p? That's not worth our time."


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Paulbo said:


> I don't know about that. I've always though that Christie Brinkley came close.


Kinda partial to Heidi Klum, meself...


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

falcondesigns said:


> There is no such thing as a perfect model.........


True, but this kit of the Enterprise is very inaccurate when compared to the original filming model. It also doesn't match the CGI version used in the remastered original series (they based the CGI version on the original filming model). At best, it's an interpretation of the ship from TOS, and if that's how you view it, then it's fine. But, if your looking for an accurate kit of the original, you won't give the Revell kit the time of day.

Too bad Revell didn't give the old gal the same attention to detail that they do on their aircraft kits.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Their SW kits pretty much demonstrated how their ST kits would turn out. Why would they put anymore thought into these?


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

I wonder if the "blame" is in the Revell camp (screw 'em, it's only an SF model and doesn't need to be accurate") or the Lucasfilm camp (screw 'em, it's a model that we want to sell fairly cheaply - if people want accuracy we want them to pay through the nose for something that's prebuilt)

EDIT: But that doesn't explain why FineMolds makes their incredible kits.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

I'd buy one of these for, say, ~$20 or so. But not ~$50 or so.

As far as I'm concerned, both of the Revell kits can represent OTHER ships... ie, the Klingon represents a later ship subclass, and the Revell "Heavy Cruiser" might be, for example, what the Kongo or the Yorktown originally looked like.

It's not the Enterprise... but it's not a BAD model, just a model of something similar to but not identical to the Enterprise.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Well, I already knew from previous photos of the model how garish the gridlines on this would be, but aside from that, the thing that really sticks out as looking wrong is the thickness of the saucer rim... it looks WAY thick, lol. And add to that that the neck section looks a bit too tall, and the secondary hull looks just a tad short/stubby. Granted, those two bits could look that way due to the perspective of the parts on the table when the photo was taken, but if anything that saucer rim is way too thick, IMO.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

I don't know... the photos that everyone is hopping all over have so much compression and distortion that you can't see what the model really looks like. 

The detail here is no different than the detailing on Revell's new B-17 so its not like they do engraving different on a plane versus a sci fi kit. Its overdone on both but thats how they do things...

its a model of a fictional subject. It has details that no one can ever agree on anyway like the grid lines. No matter how they did or didn't do them, someone would not be happy.

It seems to have a lot of positive features like more and better clear parts to allow for lighting.

Not sure why people feel they have to buy something they don't like. if you don't like it, buy one of the many other TOS Enterprise kits. 

Its hard to tell excactly what a well build, finished kit will look like based on crappy photos of the laid out sprues.


----------



## harrier1961 (Jun 18, 2009)

Paulbo said:


> I wonder if the "blame" is in the Revell camp (screw 'em, it's only an SF model and doesn't need to be accurate") or the Lucasfilm camp (screw 'em, it's a model that we want to sell fairly cheaply - if people want accuracy we want them to pay through the nose for something that's prebuilt)
> 
> EDIT: But that doesn't explain why FineMolds makes their incredible kits.


Finemolds makes their incredible kits because they (seem) to really not care about the price point. From my understanding, that is the issue here.
IMHO.
Andy


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

falcondesigns said:


> There is no such thing as a perfect model.........


There are such things as _more accurate_ models.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

It's wildly inaccurate. But it looks like a fun build and I actually like the way some of the details (like the rear of the impulse deck) are executed. I have every model of the Seaview, including some insane interpretations from Japan. This is an interpretation that I find entertaining and I will buy one...and I'll also buy Round 2's 1/350. So sue me.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

jbond said:


> It's wildly inaccurate. But it looks like a fun build and I actually like the way some of the details (like the rear of the impulse deck) are executed. I have every model of the Seaview, including some insane interpretations from Japan. This is an interpretation that I find entertaining and I will buy one...and I'll also buy Round 2's 1/350. So sue me.


Damn,..........Gloria Allred is busy!


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

John P said:


> There are such things as _more accurate_ models.


Then buy that,and stop complaining about this one.....................


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

John, is the kit so bad you wouldn't use parts from it for a kitbash? To me, THAT'S the point of departure for a Star Trek kit- whether John P. would use it's parts for a kitbash.



Larry


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

John P said:


> There are such things as _more accurate_ models.


Very true, if your satisfied with the E being 3 cylinders and a saucer. You'll be happy. 

Some of us are a little more picky.


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

I will likely secure a couple of these kits for non-canonical Trek model subjects. Perhaps some of the FASA designs, or the arguably more canon Dreadnaught from Franz Joseph.

I won't build one as The Enterprise


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Better photos of the kit box/parts/decals can be seen here:

http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?t=96519

IMO, you could make this kit as almost any ship in the fleet other then Enterprise. Who's to say the other ships didn't have different primary/secondary hull configurations? But, you can't accurately model it as the Enterprise. It is not accurate to the TOS filming miniature, there's just no getting around that.


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

Wow! Looks like when they made the master they used the wrong end of the scribing tool!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

falcondesigns said:


> Then buy that,and stop complaining about this one.....................


a) Out of all the people posting repeatedly on this thread, you pick me, who has only commented a couple of times, to hit with this self-righteous, self-important, insulting, belligerent and utterly useless comment?

b) Are you NEW to the internet or something?


----------



## Capt. Krik (May 26, 2001)

Looks like an interesting if not accurate kit. I wouldn't mind building one just to see what I could do with it. However the price tag will probably keep me away from it. Had it been priced around $30 or less I would most likely purchase one. I'm guessing though that this will be closer to $60 if not more. Don't care to spend that kind of money on a kit I'm only curious about. I'll wait for the Polar Lights kit.


----------



## jaws62666 (Mar 25, 2009)

Capt. Krik said:


> Looks like an interesting if not accurate kit. I wouldn't mind building one just to see what I could do with it. However the price tag will probably keep me away from it. Had it been priced around $30 or less I would most likely purchase one. I'm guessing though that this will be closer to $60 if not more. Don't care to spend that kind of money on a kit I'm only curious about. I'll wait for the Polar Lights kit.


Yes shipping to the states cost me $100 for the Enterprise and Klingon ship. Models were ok price, it was shipping that hurts from UK


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I've got one on my watch list on eBay, and the shipping cost is only around nine quid, or just under fifteen bucks.

Somebody is doin' a little padding, methinks...


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

this kit is begging for some fire crackers and a clear Consciousness (sp)


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Nah, that's a bit harsh.

I plan on getting one next month, when I have some money again, and posting some comparison pics with one of my growing collection of old 18" AMT's.

And yes, I will be building it as the Enterprise.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

woof359 said:


> this kit is begging for some fire crackers and a clear Consciousness


LOL, now that was a spit on your keyboard moment!


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

...clear conscience?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

CLBrown said:


> I'd buy one of these for, say, ~$20 or so. But not ~$50 or so.
> 
> As far as I'm concerned, both of the Revell kits can represent OTHER ships... ie, the Klingon represents a later ship subclass, and the Revell "Heavy Cruiser" might be, for example, what the Kongo or the Yorktown originally looked like.
> 
> It's not the Enterprise... but it's not a BAD model, just a model of something similar to but not identical to the Enterprise.


I agree. I'll accept it as a different version of the Constitution class but I'm not going to buy it unless the price comes way down.:wave:


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

woof359 said:


> this kit is begging for some fire crackers and a clear Consciousness


It also helps to have a strong Constitution...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

That takes some class....


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Captain April said:


> That takes some class....


I thought this kit was 'Grand Canyon' class, not Constitution?


----------



## spindrift (Apr 16, 2005)

What a piece of crap...if you think this looks like the USS Enterprise from TOS ..well..enjoy it.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

It's close enough for my purposes.

For uberaccuracy, I'll wait for the 1/350.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Edge said:


> I thought this kit was 'Grand Canyon' class, not Constitution?


Hmmm... actually, even though I know you were joking, I LIKE that. 

Hmmm.. the "Grand Canyon Class Heavy Cruiser USS Devil's Canyon?"

Captained by Captain Knievel, no less.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Let's see, what other names would fit in that class?

_Valles Marineris
Snake River
Beggar's Canyon
_


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

John P said:


> It's an _inaccurate _model!


Every single Star Trek model I've seen has some kind of flaw designed into it.
And as for this one I see kitbashing in the works.................


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Saving my coin for R2's 1/350.


----------



## Jiver (Jul 18, 2009)

Omg, back in the ninetees I left military modelbuilding behind me to do SciFi and fantasy because the nitpicking became out of this world.Apparently it must be a highly contagious virus of some kind.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Jiver said:


> Omg, back in the ninetees I left military modelbuilding behind me to do SciFi and fantasy because the nitpicking became out of this world.Apparently it must be a highly contagious virus of some kind.


Well, no, it's endemic to the Otaku mentality. If one is obsessive about something, it follows that this attitude is going to express itself when what 'you' know conflicts with what 'someone else' knows and thin skin and defensive attitude and bully tactics enter the matrix.

It's why they have fights at Soccer (nee Football) games.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

A slightly less "inflammatory" way of saying that would be that "If you care about the subject matter, you'll care about the content and context."

The big problem comes from certain folks concluding that they're the "only reasonable ones" and that everyone else is "nutty," "crazy," "stupid," "wrong," or even "trolls" when talking online.

When, in fact, both sides of the argument are arguing from a position of limited information and knowledge. ie, NEITHER IS ENTIRELY RIGHT OR ENTIRELY WRONG.

The only time this becomes a huge issue is when "party A" starts telling "party B" what they are, or are not, allowed to do.

That's what we're seeing with this Revell kit. Pretty much all of us know it's "wrong," but some of us are looking at the silver lining... in other words, even if this isn't an accurate "Enterprise," it's still an interesting model which is... well... "related" to the Enterprise.

So, some are talking about how to fix it. Some are talking about how to treat is (as something other than the Enterprise, for example). And some are saying that they have no interest in buying it.

So far, all of those positions are perfectly reasonable.

The position which is NOT reasonable, I'd argue, is that of "criticizing those people for having an opinion."

Which, fortunately, hasn't become too much of an issue... yet.


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Hear, hear! 

I think the subject is worth looking into, even with it's known issues when compared to the original filming miniature.

Is it the _Enterprise_? In my opinion, no.

However, it could be a different but similar class of ship. If I am ever fortunate enough to get one, she won't be _Enterprise_. 

The way the lighting capability options have been designed into it is intriguing enough.


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

I've managed to take the stand both for, and against this Revell Star Trek offering... mainly just to keep fanning the flames and see how long these arguments can go on.


----------



## James Tiberius (Oct 23, 2007)

i see it as a stepping stone from TOS to TMP


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Let me throw down my opinion, setting aside the fact I just can't afford a luxury like this at the moment. 

I've been a Trek fan since the show aired. I built (with a lot of help at first, naturally) most every variation of the AMT kit that was ever released. I've done a couple of FJ-style conversions even. That kit is pretty much the standard I go by. 

Now, of course, thanks to the smart and clever folk here I've learned what a lie I was living and what trash that kit was.  No, really, I didn't realize that this aspect was off or that aspect was 'soft' or any of that. There WERE things I sought to correct over the years naturally, like the three pads under the front of the nacelles, the dome on the endcap, the size of the deflector dish (ARRGGGH that always annoyed the heck out of me, when AMT changed that!) and of course dealing with nacelle droop. But in the end, even if you did ZERO mods or fixes, that cranky, crusty AMT kit always LOOKED like the Enterprise. 

This new Revell Germany kit, it doesn't look like the Enterprise. I won't say it's any one thing, to my (recently educated) eye it's a combination of lots of little things. I'm not even talking about the grid lines, just...shapes and contours and...stuff. 

And it's a shame. It really is. I think the INTENT was there to make it right, but something, something went wrong at some stage. It's really too bad.

But, some will love it. maybe some will, in the course of building it, find easy solutions to fix it.

I wonder if the Trek fans over in Germany and elsewhere in Europe are feeling the same as we feel? Think Revell DE is getting angry email and letters? Or is everyone having to do the 'shut up and just buy it' thing because they hope that other kits will appear?


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

James Tiberius said:


> i see it as a stepping stone from TOS to TMP


I can see the logic in that. We never did see the rest of the 5 year mission, one would assume the Enterprise went through a minor refit or two in that time.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

This kit looks about as much like the _Enterprise_ as any other kit that's ever been released - save for the 1/1000 PL kit (which, though not perfect, comes the closest).

It's still another _Enterprise_ kit, though, and I am getting it to add to my collection for the sake of completeness if for no other reason. I plan to build one "stock", and then do some customization on the other one. Perhaps even buying a few more in the future to have some creative fun with.

I'm getting several Klingon ships, too. More for the collection!


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

Jiver said:


> Omg, back in the ninetees I left military modelbuilding behind me to do SciFi and fantasy because the nitpicking became out of this world.Apparently it must be a highly contagious virus of some kind.


Quite true. That's the reason I stopped going to model shows. There are individuals who pick apart everything to death even on fantastic well built models. "there should be 3 rivits per scale inch and this has 4" and other such nonsence. For them it's absolute accuracy or it's crap regardless. 

I still build military models I just don't go to shows anymore. No I never entered any of my builds at any show or contests but seeing other peoples work trashed is just as aggravating for me so I stay away.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

After 3 consecutive IPMS Best of Show wins several years ago, I quit competition because I was becoming that guy that everyone hates to see show up at shows who wins everything. (Yes it sucks). Now I put 'em in for display only.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Never quite got the "competition" bit as far as model-building goes, anyway, personally.

I mean, either you're doing it for pure relaxation, escapism, and FUN... or you're competing with other folks, trying to "win" something.

Frankly, I have no problem whatsoever with someone who's seeking to "win" something being "judged." I do have a problem with the "judging" being done based upon subjective personal biases versus being based upon purely objective quantitative measures, however.

So, to me... I dunno, but I don't see a problem with, if there are two models which are qualitatively both equally highly-skilled builds, but one of which misses something about the real subject matter (say, rivet patterns) while the other gets it right, I believe that the one which gets the research and details right does deserve higher recognition.

Doesn't mean that the model with the incorrect rivet pattern is a bad model... not by any stretch of the imagination. But a model is intended to be a representation of something real (or in the case of the Enterprise, something we're supposed to believe is real when we see it). The closer that the model is to the "real" subject matter, the better rated I think it should be.

In other words... if you don't wanna be judged, don't enter into a competition where you're going to be judged.

Me, I've never entered into a competition. Why? Because I, personally, couldn't care less about what some judges say about my work. I'm doing it for myself. If other folks enjoy what I've done... that's icing on the cake. But if they hate what I've done... that's not really something that bothers me. So... I feel no desire to "compete" with my models. I do occasionally like to "show them off," but even in those cases, that's only relevant when showing them off to people who I know and who's opinions matter to me.

Just my 2cents...


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Also.. hey, this kit isn't perfect... but it could be a lot worse. I mean... does anyone remember this:

http://www.dinkytoys.ch/cgi/Scarce.pl?SuchenNach=0358_0001


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

CLBrown said:


> ...I've never entered into a competition. Why? Because I, personally, couldn't care less about what some judges say about my work. I'm doing it for myself. If other folks enjoy what I've done... that's icing on the cake. But if they hate what I've done... that's not really something that bothers me. So... I feel no desire to "compete" with my models. I do occasionally like to "show them off," but even in those cases, that's only relevant when showing them off to people who I know and who's opinions matter to me.
> 
> Just my 2cents...


This pretty much reflects my thinking about a lot of things I do for enjoyment. Presently I'm involved in making a custom made old-fashioned style Santa Claus suit for me to play Santa at work, around my neighbourhood and my community. I'll be doing it for a couple of local missions and shelters in December as well. I don't do it for money, I won't shill for a mall or stores and I admit I haven't the temperament to be a shopping mall Santa for hours on end with scores of kids either too afraid to speak or acting up or pissing on your pants. But I've enjoyed the role for four years now and it's brought some magic back into Christmas for me.

This is the second homemade suit I've made along these lines and the first one was a hit once folks got over me using brown for the coat rather than candy cane red (the new one will be red, but not bright red). My costume deviates from the more familiar "design" because long ago Santa had no true established look and even today that still applies. But because everyone is having fun no one really comments how it "it doesn't look right." Once in awhile when someone might say "I like the original Santa" I'll reply "which one?" because Coca-Cola _did not_ start Santa wearing a red coat and he had _brown_ boots and belt and gloves. A red coat was already very familiar in the 19th century. He's looked quite a few different ways and still does.

But it's all for fun and if folks are enjoying themselves then it doesn't matter what the details are and how they deviate from some folks' expectations.

Now back to regularly scheduled discussion...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Likewise, my wife builds dollhouses for fun. Almost everyone who sees them tells her she should sell them and make money from it. She points out that it wouldn't be for FUN, then.


----------



## clactonite (Dec 16, 2006)

Having got both the enterprise and the klingon cruiser I have to say that I like them. Since the end of the 1960's there has been the venerable AMT enterprise kit repopped and repopped. 
Then there was the cutaway, a can of worms if ever there was one. 
Then there was the polar lights 1:1000, small, but perfectly formed!
I think this is a nice addition, not absolutely spot on but what is? The Klingon ship is also an interesting rendition which is reminiscent of the one seen on the DS9 trials episode.
I am happy I have got them and am looking forward to building and lighting them. I am sure that when the 1:350 comes out there will be faults with it which will be picked over but in the meantime these are, for me at least, a welcome addition to the star trek styrene genre,

Clactonite


----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)

Both my Enterprise and Cruiser turned up today and remembering all the kerfuffle going on here, I decided to take a close look at the grid lines. Things are not as bad as people make out. Having compared the saucer to the Revell Voyager, the gridlines on my kit are about half the width and depth of those on the Voyager. It seems to have been designed with lighting in mind as the nacelle struts are hollow, all cut outs are supplied with clear plastic and the nav lights look like they'll take a 3mm led easily. The engraving on the Cruiser has the same depth and the panels are engraved only on the top - the panels underside are plain.

If I get chance, I'll try and take a few pictures and post them here if anyone is interested. I'll also try and scan in the instructions as well if there are any takers.

Rob


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

robcomet said:


> Both my Enterprise and Cruiser turned up today and remembering all the kerfuffle going on here, I decided to take a close look at the grid lines. Things are not as bad as people make out. Having compared the saucer to the Revell Voyager, the gridlines on my kit are about half the width and depth of those on the Voyager. It seems to have been designed with lighting in mind as the nacelle struts are hollow, all cut outs are supplied with clear plastic and the nav lights look like they'll take a 3mm led easily. The engraving on the Cruiser has the same depth and the panels are engraved only on the top - the panels underside are plain.
> 
> If I get chance, I'll try and take a few pictures and post them here if anyone is interested. I'll also try and scan in the instructions as well if there are any takers.
> 
> Rob



Interesting what you say about the Revell Voyager. I know you've only just got them but any chance of a few built up shots soon?


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

"If I get chance, I'll try and take a few pictures and post them here if anyone is interested. I'll also try and scan in the instructions as well if there are any takers."

Rob



I'm interested.
-Jim


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

James Tiberius said:


> i see it as a stepping stone from TOS to TMP


True, the saucer especially would be a good start on a "Phase II" Enterprise.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

robcomet said:


> Both my Enterprise and Cruiser turned up today and remembering all the kerfuffle going on here, I decided to take a close look at the grid lines. Things are not as bad as people make out. Having compared the saucer to the Revell Voyager, the gridlines on my kit are about half the width and depth of those on the Voyager. It seems to have been designed with lighting in mind as the nacelle struts are hollow, all cut outs are supplied with clear plastic and the nav lights look like they'll take a 3mm led easily. The engraving on the Cruiser has the same depth and the panels are engraved only on the top - the panels underside are plain.
> 
> If I get chance, I'll try and take a few pictures and post them here if anyone is interested. I'll also try and scan in the instructions as well if there are any takers.
> 
> Rob


Please do. I'm particularly interested in seeing the instruction sheet as a scan... that's one of those things I'd really LIKE to always do before I buy a kit. (I DO read the instruction manual before I buy, say, a new stereo receiver, just for example.)


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

I have not checked for the Star Trek kits but Revell USA has all the Revell and Revell Germany instruction sheets on their web site as PDFs


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

The only two sets of instructions for Enterprise are for two different versions of the aircraft carrier.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

How much would a good coat of paint go towards filling in those gridlines?


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Captain April said:


> How much would a good coat of paint go towards filling in those gridlines?


Here ya go!
http://www.rustoleum.com/CBGProduct.asp?pid=11
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000B6DG7C...e=asn&creative=395097&creativeASIN=B000B6DG7C
-Jim


----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)

Here are the scans of the Revell Enterprise instruction book. They're all clickable thumbs. Pictures of the kit to follow.


----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)




----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)




----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)

The kit pictures are up next. They're not the greatest in the world but the best I could do with the equipment to hand and the time available. I've taken pictures of both sides of the sprues to give you an idea of fixings and details. If there is anything else you guys would like, let me know.

Rob


----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)




----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)




----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)




----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Thanks for the pics! It's an interesting kit in some respects and disappointingly off in others. Some of the window openings look too large. And some of the shapes and proportions are noticeably off. But all this was noticed before.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

robcomet said:


>


The two side images are very revealing about the physical "differences" in this kit. That s a GREAT image... 

Clearly, the secondary hull "hump-back" pointed out earlier isn't present... but looking at the instructions, I can see how it ended up seeming that way.

The front of the secondary hull is even more "speculative" than I thought... that inset ring behind the the "gravitational resonator" (ie, the concentric rings just between the dish and the hull) is pure fantasy... it was never on the real ship (which actually a larger-diameter ring at that location!).

Seems that we either have to treat this as a different ship (which then can let us justify the different structure up there), or replace that entire region with an aftermarket kit.

Also, of interest is that the little ribs just forward of the secondary hull "chevron banners" are not physical details on this kit, but are part of the decals. This, also, would be something that an aftermarket kit would be able to fix. Clearly, a replacement deflector assembly is an absolute MUST for this kit.

The primary hull shape is also... well.. it's "off." But I think I can see what they were trying to do... they were trying to find a compromise between the 3-footer and 11-footer saucer shapes. It's almost a perfect "intermediary step" between the two, isn't it?

Now... ignoring the incorrect shapes, I have to admit, I really like the construction of the kit itself. It seems very easy to modify, very easy to light up with almost no secondary operations required (including installing existing after-market nacelle cap lighting kits!).

I did notice that there are a number of physical details which are represented by decals... ie, the aforementioned ribs, the small lamps on the topside fore nacelles, the secondary lamps adjacent to the main red and green running lights, and so forth. I found this... "odd." I mean, making the physical real details would have been TRIVIAL, seeing how the kit is assembled, so why not do it? It seems that whoever was responsible for tooling this kit was looking at drawings, but never really looked at pictures of the real ("real???") ship.

I have no problem with this being the Potempkin... without modifications, except for replacing the decal-represented physical elements with real physical elements. So, when I buy one, that's what she'll be.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

If the window openings are too large, but the glass is about the right size, we could stuff putty into the hole, then press in the window, and smooth out the putty. The putty would fill the gap.

But as for accuracy, if the 1/1000 TOS E isn't bad, and we expect great things of the 1/350 kit, then the most-accurate _mid-sized_ TOS E kit is still ... um ... the cutaway?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The cutaway requires somewhat major surgery to make accurate.

While this one still misses the mark in some respects, it's still more accurate than the AMT 18" model. So I'll still be building it as the Enterprise (although that'll wait until I have proper space for a proper display; in the meantime, I think I can manage some test fit comparison shots with a similarly test fit AMT).


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Thanks Rob for the photos.

Nicer than the AMT kit is some ways, worse in others. I do like the solution they came up with in regards to installing the engine pylons, looks sturdy.

While I feel that an accurate model of the TOS Enterprise can't be done with this kit, I can understand people that feel differently.

But it can be built as the Potemkin and as a 4th to 5th year mission refitted Enterprise, since both are pure conjecture. If I were to buy the kit, that's how I'd approach it.


----------



## liskorea317 (Mar 27, 2009)

I would just build it as-is, purely for fun, maybe light it a bit and just display it on my desk at work. Most non-modelers wouldn't know it was not that accurate anyway.


----------



## Jiver (Jul 18, 2009)

liskorea317 said:


> I would just build it as-is, purely for fun, maybe light it a bit and just display it on my desk at work. Most non-modelers wouldn't know it was not that accurate anyway.


That's what I call the right attitude:thumbsup:


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

liskorea317 said:


> I would just build it as-is, purely for fun, maybe light it a bit and just display it on my desk at work. Most non-modelers wouldn't know it was not that accurate anyway.




Bravo,...a voice of reason ! If some of you put as much thought into something that actually made a difference in someones life as you have this MODEL of a FICTIONAL vehicle, just imagine what a wonderful world we might life in.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Yes, for those who want something more accurate...wait for the big PL kit........but.....you can always use this for a fictional ship from your own imagination.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

What a bunch of whiners! You don't like this, you don't like that, what happened to buying a model, and just enjoy building it? When you want perfection, you will get disappointment EVERY time!


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Captain April said:


> The cutaway requires somewhat major surgery to make accurate.


Agreed!
Although mine is NOT 100% accurate , it was a fun build.







liskorea317 said:


> I would just build it as-is, purely for fun, maybe light it a bit and just display it on my desk at work. Most non-modelers wouldn't know it was not that accurate anyway.


That's the spirit!
I love the positive attitude towards this kit!
Wish I had the extra $$$ to buy this.
Anyone up for a trade?
-Jim


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

Perfect... no but something to tide us over untill the 350 next year. I may have to get one. Looks like a fun build.

Thanks for the pics!


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

Just bought one from the UK $52.34 shipped. A little pricey but probably not that much more than a current domestic kit. If it were available from US distributors what do you guys think she would sell for? My guess would be arround $35 which is just about what I paid for her. The balance was shipping and some sellers here in the US are just as expensive. All in all not too bad considering she's coming from accross the pond. 

I will build her a a different starship not sure which one. I'm sure JT graphics and others will have alternate decal set for her in the near future.

Could be a Connie from an era not shown in the Star Trek timeline. In the real world ships differ quite a bit from "as Built" to different SLEP's and upgrades. Just look at CVAN-65. She looks quite a bit different than she did when commisioned than she does today.

BTW- Happy Thanksgiving!


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

HabuHunter32 said:


> I will build her a a different starship not sure which one. I'm sure JT graphics and others will have alternate decal set for her in the near future.


Or simply build her as the Potemkin - those decals are part of the kit.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

robcomet said:


>


It's really funny that RoG made the stand mirrored...


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Marco Scheloske said:


> It's really funny that RoG made the stand mirrored...


Probably they were thinking positively when they were making the mold instead of negatively. 
-Jim


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Lloyd Collins said:


> What a bunch of whiners! You don't like this, you don't like that, what happened to buying a model, and just enjoy building it? When you want perfection, you will get disappointment EVERY time!


Modelers want - and enjoy building - _accurate _models more than _inaccurate_ ones, what's so damn hard to understand about that?

We have an international society devoted to it, and books and magazines devoted to providing modelers with photos, drawings and detailing tips to make models of their favorite subjects more accurate. Manufacturers are going to greater and greater lengths to make their kits more and more accurate. In today's modeling world, inaccurate is unacceptable.

If a manufacturer issues a model of Gabreski's P-47D with a Curtiss prop instead of the Hamilton Standard his D-25 had, and a P-47D-40's dorsal fin, it's incorrect. If they issue Danika Patrick's car with the wrong sponsor decals, it's inaccurate. If they issue a figure kit of Han Solo with George Clooney's face, it's inaccurate. Sci fi models, especially models of important, iconic subjects, deserve no less attention to accuracy than real life subjects.

A model kit is like a documentary that you hold in your hand. It should tell the story of the subject accurately. If you watched a doc about a subject you loved and they got many details so blatantly wrong that it was as if they were making crap up out of their butts, you would be angry or disappointed.

It costs a friggin fortune to produce a kit, why in the world wouldn't they spend the research time to get even basic contours right? The Art Asylum _TOY _Enterprise was more accurate than this expensive model kit.

I'm pretty sick of people here calling people whiners when they're simply giving a disappointed opinion about something they hoped would be better than it turned out. You may be willing to accept crap, but not everyone is. Especially in an age when most model kits are more accurate than they've ever been, and when they cost so much.

We're here to_ share opinions_ and _discuss _things, are we not?


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

I have seen and I like the Revell/Germany Star Trek models. I like the way how their Klingon has subtle paneling that is similiar to the Motion Picture Klingon. Would I like that on every Klingon Ship model, no but its interesting. The Enterprise is o.k. and I have asked for 2 of each for Christmas from my sister. Just be greatful in this economy any model company is willing to make anything at all.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Ahhhhh, you feel that Thanksgiving Spirit!!!!! Chill out everyone and eat, eat, eat!!


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

RSN said:


> Ahhhhh, you feel that Thanksgiving Spirit!!!!! Chill out everyone and eat, eat, eat!!


I don't like Turkey, I''ll get a Cheeseburger


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Well, that's my frustration as well. (and I'm kinda surprised Lloyd said that). Revell DE spent a lot of money on this. I have the impression they did do a lot of research, yet somehow not enough or from odd sources or...I just don't know.

This isn't the '60s. A kit of a subject like this doesn't exist in a vacuum, nor is it cranked out with a cynical "Ah, the kids won't know the difference" attitude (or is it, still?). There HAS to be some knowledge of 'what has gone before', doesn't there? A knowledge of the desire for better?

Mind, I don't expect obsessive fiddly work from Revell compared to Tamiya or Hasegawa or Fine Molds or even Bandai, still, just, argh.

OK, see, usually when a model is compromised it's due to cost cutting, an attempt to save money on tooling or limitations imposed by mold tech (those multi-part sliding molds are hella complex and expensive), right? But that doesn't account for a part designed outright incorrectly, a shape not captured like that whole odd choice for the front of the engineering hull.

No, cost cutting is you don't make clear windows or cut them out of the hull parts. Cost cutting is you don't put that inner 'fan' dome inside the bussard collector dome. 

I know, it's crazy, but that engineering hull makes me nuts. I honestly could live with the darn grid lines but that whole thing with the front of the engineering hull just sticks out and slaps my eyes. It's like they made a 2012 Chevy Corvette and decided to put a chrome bumper on the front. 

Ah well.


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

John P said:


> Modelers want - and enjoy building - _accurate _models more than _inaccurate_ ones, what's so damn hard to understand about that?
> 
> We have an international society devoted to it, and books and magazines devoted to providing modelers with photos, drawings and detailing tips to make models of their favorite subjects more accurate. Manufacturers are going to greater and greater lengths to make their kits more and more accurate. In today's modeling world, inaccurate is unacceptable.
> 
> ...


I do it for fun....................................and I've been doing it for 54 years now.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Well, R2 is putting the time, resources and money into their big TOS E and yet it will be completely inaccurate with engraved grid lines..... 

But as they say in "MPATHG"

"Its only a model."
"Shhhh!"


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

John P said:


> Modelers want - and enjoy building - _accurate _models more than _inaccurate_ ones, what's so damn hard to understand about that?
> 
> We have an international society devoted to it, and books and magazines devoted to providing modelers with photos, drawings and detailing tips to make models of their favorite subjects more accurate. Manufacturers are going to greater and greater lengths to make their kits more and more accurate. In today's modeling world, inaccurate is unacceptable.
> 
> ...


Stated very well, I concur.


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

Marco Scheloske said:


> Or simply build her as the Potemkin - those decals are part of the kit.


True. I just want to see what the aftermarket comes up with and I really like JT graphics products. 

Just got an e-mail that my kit has shipped already! Same day as I bought her. Now thats customer service!


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

Solium said:


> Well, R2 is putting the time, resources and money into their big TOS E and yet it will be completely inaccurate with engraved grid lines.....
> 
> But as they say in "MPATHG"
> 
> ...


It's easier to fill grid lines than it is to correct basic shapes. I'll add that the accuracy of the grid lines is more a matter of interpretation, whereas the shapes can be accurately measured based on the existing 11 foot model.


----------



## James Tiberius (Oct 23, 2007)

I honestly can't see anything wrong with the shape of this thing. It looks like the Enterprise, and its good enough for me. I'm not losing any sleep like some people are lol.

I'll laugh when the 350 version comes out and BAM, something is glaringly wrong and the 1k is still more accurate.


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

John P said:


> Modelers want - and enjoy building - _accurate _models more than _inaccurate_ ones, what's so damn hard to understand about that?
> 
> We have an international society devoted to it, and books and magazines devoted to providing modelers with photos, drawings and detailing tips to make models of their favorite subjects more accurate. Manufacturers are going to greater and greater lengths to make their kits more and more accurate. In today's modeling world, inaccurate is unacceptable.
> 
> ...


Well said. I agree for the most part; the comment above could also extend to the gridline debate as well. If I wanted an inaccurate representation of _any_ subject, I'd simply go buy a toy. (Assuming there is one of the subject being discussed.(In this case there is)). 

Personally, I think this kit is okay for those that can't afford the upcoming R2 kit or those that aren't overly concerned with accuracy; but to call people whiners or haters for pointing out the obvious inaccuracies? That's just childish, grade school level behavior.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

All the arguments come from the perceived TONE of the posts going either way. People complaining about the inaccuracies of models tend to throw in lines like "maybe you'll accept crap but I won't"--implying that anyone not up in arms about the problems has no taste or is basically stupid. People not concerned about the problems label the ones complaining as "whiners" etc. When you start name-calling and adopting a tone of outrage implicitly aimed at other people on the board, it shouldn't be surprising that flame wars result.
I love the discussion and analysis here, but not the tone of assumed superiority that usually winds up getting expressed. Many of us do this for fun and relaxation and if you've been building science fiction models for years you've probably built DOZENS of kits that are wildly inaccurate but still proved to be enjoyable, fun builds. But researching and discovering the details of the original subjects is a huge part of the fun and there's no reason people shouldn't enjoy making--and buying--the most accurate models possible. The point is people have different perspectives on this and I don't see why we have to hate on each other because of it. Ask yourself if you aren't insulting dozens of people with the statements in your posts.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Thanks for the pics RobComet! Great info and help in making a decision on this model kit! :thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Yes. I build for fun, too. But a lot of the fun is ending up with an accurate representation of an original subject. Maybe this is more important for aircraft and military modelers who are making miniatures of single, particular, existing vehicles. Maybe I'm bringing that aspect over from also being an aircraft modeler. But the fact is it's important to a lot of people.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> Yes. I build for fun, too. But a lot of the fun is ending up with an accurate representation of an original subject. Maybe this is more important for aircraft and military modelers who are making miniatures of single, particular, existing vehicles. Maybe I'm bringing that aspect over from also being an aircraft modeler. But the fact is it's important to a lot of people.


I agree. Usually, with sci-fi subjects, at least once you get past the research and drawing up the plans, it's just as easy to produce an accurate kit as an inaccurate it.


----------



## James Tiberius (Oct 23, 2007)

Remember its just a model fellas, at the end of the day the only person's opinion that matters is your own. Regardless if you're a hater or a whiner or a rivet counter of a fictional ship. 

I like the model, and couldn't care less about what other people think of it.

Just remember, if you want it "accurate" you have to cut that huge hole on the side and then switch out the deflector dish and Nacells every other 10 minutes or however often you look at it.


----------



## Capt. Krik (May 26, 2001)

My 2cents for what it's worth. It's an interesting model. Had it been an accurate model I would have purchased one or two. At the $50 plus dollars it would cost to purchase one and have it shipped to the states I will pass. Bottom line, if it were accurate I would have bought it at this price. Being inaccurate I'm not willing to spend this much on it.

My opinion is if it had been accurate they would sell a lot more of them. But that's only my opinion and I'm sure Revell has a much better idea than me of what will sell and what won't.


----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Thanks for the pics RobComet! Great info and help in making a decision on this model kit! :thumbsup:


I'm glad that I've been of help to you.

My two pence on this kit - it is a representation of a fictional Constitution Class ship. Whether I name it Enterprise, Potempkin or Roddenberry's Folly, once it's built and lit, my one year old son is gonna love it as a night light!

Rob :wave:


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

robcomet said:


> I'm glad that I've been of help to you.
> 
> My two pence on this kit - it is a representation of a fictional Constitution Class ship. Whether I name it Enterprise, Potempkin or Roddenberry's Folly, once it's built and lit, my one year old son is gonna love it as a night light!
> 
> Rob :wave:


To cool Rob! 
To cool. 
-Jim


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

It's interesting to me that, at least on this thread, people seem to be more forgiving of the final Revell Germany kit and the 1/350 TOS/E gets slammed when it seems to have gotten more right at just the prototype stage.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

fire91bird said:


> It's interesting to me that, at least on this thread, people seem to be more forgiving of the final Revell Germany kit and the 1/350 TOS/E gets slammed when it seems to have gotten more right at just the prototype stage.




Slammed? I haven't seen anyone slamming the 1/350 E.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

"Well, R2 is putting the time, resources and money into their big TOS E and yet it will be completely inaccurate with engraved grid lines..... "


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I stick what I said. No model is ever going to satisfy everyone. That is why we have PE parts, more decals, resin replacement parts, because modelers complain, and want "perfect". I have not built as many models as I would like to do, doing research, fixing this little part, replacing that, after awhile I just started to build them. 

The Enterprise is a nice kit, and will look like the one in the series when finished. If you want museum quality, this kit is not the one. I wish all luck in their quest for the holy grail kit of the Enterprise.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

It's inarguable that the model is inaccurate. I certainly understand why people would choose not to buy it on that basis. But why trash people who see it as a fun build? Most of us have built the terribly inaccurate AMT version multiple times. If you want 100% accuracy, fine--if you don't mind building a not-entirely-accurate kit for the fun of it, fine. I will probably buy this, I have the Master Replicas Enterprise, and I eagerly await the R2 1/350 kit, gridlines and all.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

jbond said:


> "Well, R2 is putting the time, resources and money into their big TOS E and yet it will be completely inaccurate with engraved grid lines..... "


Inaccurate to what? A compromised and flawed filming miniature or the "real" starship that model was supposed to represent?


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Warped9 said:


> Inaccurate to what? A compromised and flawed filming miniature or the "real" starship that model was supposed to represent?


Me thinks he was trying to say that the flawed filming miniature did not have "ENGRAVED" grid lines but they were only "DRAWN" on grid lines. Me thinks.
-Jim


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

JGG1701 said:


> Me thinks he was trying to say that the flawed filming miniature did not have "ENGRAVED" grid lines but they were only "DRAWN" on grid lines. Me thinks.
> -Jim


Yeah, I got that. The lines were drawn on to suggest something. Sometime later when they made a new filming miniature for Phase II those very same time lines were engraved on rather than drawn. Gary and the rest apparently deduced from this that the penciled lines on the TOS filming miniature were meant to represent a physical detail that was too expensive and too impractical to retrofit to the existing model as engraved lines. And if the 1/350 R2 model does indeed have very finely engraved lines then they could likely disappear with one or two coats of paint.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Warped9 said:


> . And if the 1/350 R2 model does indeed have very finely engraved lines then they could likely disappear with one or two coats of paint.


Agreed.:thumbsup:
-Jim


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Warped9 said:


> Yeah, I got that. The lines were drawn on to suggest something. Sometime later when they made a new filming miniature for Phase II those very same time lines were engraved on rather than drawn. Gary and the rest apparently deduced from this that the penciled lines on the TOS filming miniature were meant to represent a physical detail that was too expensive and too impractical to retrofit to the existing model as engraved lines. And if the 1/350 R2 model does indeed have very finely engraved lines then they could likely disappear with one or two coats of paint.


People can deduce all they want. Neither the filming miniature or the Starship on screen had engraved or raised grid lines on the saucer. 

The very fact R2 were/are undecided on engraved or raised grid lines says its their artistic interpretation. Just like the Revell Germany Enterprise is their interpretation of the iconic ship. If they choose to put them on the R2 model, fine. Just don't call it accurate. Its not.


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

Guy Schlicter said:


> I don't like Turkey, I''ll get a Cheeseburger


Pizza and a large fresh veggie salad for me.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Solium said:


> People can deduce all they want. Neither the filming miniature or the Starship on screen had engraved or raised grid lines on the saucer.
> 
> The very fact R2 were/are undecided on engraved or raised grid lines says its their artistic interpretation. Just like the Revell Germany Enterprise is their interpretation of the iconic ship. If they choose to put them on the R2 model, fine. Just don't call it accurate. Its not.


They didn't come across as undecided. They evidently wanted the lines from the start but _only_ if they could get the fineness they wanted. Otherwise they would have not bothered.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Personally, I would've preferred raised lines (easier to remove if you didn't want them), but I can certainly see the logic behind going with engraved lines.

I'm still concerned about the lines on this one, but they're not a deal breaker.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Seashark said:


> Well said. I agree for the most part; the comment above could also extend to the gridline debate as well. If I wanted an inaccurate representation of _any_ subject, I'd simply go buy a toy. (Assuming there is one of the subject being discussed.(In this case there is)).
> 
> Personally, I think this kit is okay for those that can't afford the upcoming R2 kit or those that aren't overly concerned with accuracy; but to call people whiners or haters for pointing out the obvious inaccuracies? That's just childish, grade school level behavior.


As one of those who'd been tarred with that particular brush, I wholeheartedly agree.

It's amazing to see people post nothing in a discussion except for a belittlement of those who seem to actually care about the topic of discussion, isn't it? I have no problem with debating whether or not the R2 model should have engraved gridlines. I have a HUGE problem with those who are on one side of that discussion being harassed and even targeted (and I'm not talking about myself so much, here, as I am about another poster on this BBS, who was CLEARLY targeted on this issue) for having an opinion in disagreement with the "popular consensus."

But the whole reason we're here is that we care about this topic. If we didn't care, we wouldn't be here, would we? And not everyone is going to agree.

In my case, I'm just trying to figure out WHY the Revell kit is "inaccurate." And I really think that, for the most part, it reflects CONSCIOUS CHOICES, not a "lack of research."

I really think that Revell, when getting the go-ahead to make this kit, was faced with a problem - "how do we differentiate our kit from every kit that's been owned by everyone from day one?"

I'm assuming that the instruction sheet views are reasonably accurate representations of the kit. In which case, I'm largely convinced that the thing that Revell has done differently has been to (a) attempt to make a shape-wise compromise between the 11' and 3' saucers, and (b) show a few subtly different bits of installed technology.

I mean, it's very clear that's what they've done with the Klingon ship. They didn't add those details to the Klingon "out of the blue," they added things that make a certain degree of sense as a "transitional design" between the TOS and TMP Klingon ships.

So... we've got a model her which, as far as I can tell, is not SUPPOSED to be a replica of the 11' TOS primary filming miniature, but rather is a "what if" version of the ship, trying to find some happy medium between the TOS 11', TOS 3', and even TAS ship (that's where I'd seen that odd deflector configuration before, by the way!)

I'm a believer that the Enterprise is represented best by the 11' filming-state model, and every other variation (3', repainted Smithsonian 11', TAS, Trials and Tribulations, Through a Mirror Darkly, and TOS Remastered) are, in the end, less relevant than the original-state 11' miniature, overall.

But they decided to do a "let's find a compromise between all of the above," it seems.. and from that basis, it is an interesting effort, I think!

I can't PROVE that's what Revell Germany was trying to do, but it's the only explanation I can find that makes sense... and it does make quite a bit of sense, really, when you think about it, doesn't it?


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

CLBrown said:


> But they decided to do a "let's find a compromise between all of the above," it seems..


That's exactly what they had in mind.


----------



## Seashark (Mar 28, 2006)

CLBrown said:


> As one of those who'd been tarred with that particular brush, I wholeheartedly agree.
> 
> It's amazing to see people post nothing in a discussion except for a belittlement of those who seem to actually care about the topic of discussion, isn't it? I have no problem with debating whether or not the R2 model should have engraved gridlines. I have a HUGE problem with those who are on one side of that discussion being harassed and even targeted (and I'm not talking about myself so much, here, as I am about another poster on this BBS, who was CLEARLY targeted on this issue) for having an opinion in disagreement with the "popular consensus."
> 
> But the whole reason we're here is that we care about this topic. If we didn't care, we wouldn't be here, would we? And not everyone is going to agree.


I've noticed you and a few others getting quite a bit of grief over the original Ent issue. In your case, I can only surmise that it is, in part, because you're one of the more vociferous amongst us; which people seem more prone to targeting. (More noticeable target perhaps?) I must also agree that if we didn't care we wouldn't be here discussing it.

One thing I am certain of is that most of us at _some_ point have found ourselves at the bottom of a dogpile, it's never fun (Unless you get off on that sort of thing) and never is it productive; if anything it drives people away and stagnates any potential discussion. Which could possibly be the desired effect. I'm not saying that's what is going on _here_, just that it is something I've noticed over the years of perusing the net. 

What it really comes down to is respect, plain and simple. Respecting the opinions of others even when we don't share them. Seems pretty simple, but many seem incapable of doing so - for whatever reasons. I'll admit, I've sometimes gone off on someone or shot my text off out of aggravation. We all sometimes have a tendency to leap first and look later. Something to work on, I guess. I wouldn't take it too personally, sometimes you just have to let it slide. 



> I'm a believer that the Enterprise is represented best by the 11' filming-state model, and every other variation (3', repainted Smithsonian 11', TAS, Trials and Tribulations, Through a Mirror Darkly, and TOS Remastered) are, in the end, less relevant than the original-state 11' miniature, overall.


For the most part I agree, if for no other reason than because _that_ is the one I fell for (And longed for in terms of accuracy) as a kid. Thing is, there are quite a few people out there who don't care about the inaccuracies and simply want something that _looks_ (to them) like the Enterprise; I don't begrudge them their feelings, we all have our own yardstick by which we judge things.



> But they decided to do a "let's find a compromise between all of the above," it seems.. and from that basis, it is an interesting effort, I think!
> 
> I can't PROVE that's what Revell Germany was trying to do, but it's the only explanation I can find that makes sense... and it does make quite a bit of sense, really, when you think about it, doesn't it?


As Marco stated, I think you're correct. It would seem to be the case with regard to the saucer. It's certainly not unheard of, the Moebius Seaview is another example; though in that case the options were quite limited where as with the big E, we have a _lot_ more to choose from.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

As an observer of the "Human Condition" and a parent I have this to say on this "debate". I find it interesting that people who like something on these boards, say it with very few words. They simply say, "I like it." For what ever reason, they just want to express their feeling. Then there are those who feel they need to write a ten paragraph reply to "inform" someone that their opinion is "flawed". As a parent, when talking with my kids about things, sometimes they just want to be heard, and not lectured to about their life or their opinion being wrong. Just sayin'. :thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

SUNGOD said:


> Slammed? I haven't seen anyone slamming the 1/350 E.


You must have missed all the screaming a few weeks ago on this and other boards - "Panel lines are inaccurate! The real ones were penciled on, not engraved!!! I will NOT buy a kit with engraved panel lines!!! Only an idiot would buy a kit with engraved panel lines!!!! The people who designed this kit are idiots!!!!!!111! It suxors!!!!!"

To paraphrase.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

John P said:


> You must have missed all the screaming a few weeks ago on this and other boards - "Panel lines are inaccurate! The real ones were penciled on, not engraved!!! I will NOT buy a kit with engraved panel lines!!! Only an idiot would buy a kit with engraved panel lines!!!! The people who designed this kit are idiots!!!!!!111! It suxors!!!!!"
> 
> To paraphrase.


True....I have seen some people saying that yes.


----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)

The only way to get a definitive design of the Enterprise is to get Gene Roddenberry, Matt Jeffries, Robert Justman and Herbert F Solow to sit down and discuss it. Otherwise, we will only ever get someone elses artistic interpretation of the design... 

I'll get me coat!

Rob


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Solium said:


> People can deduce all they want. Neither the filming miniature or the Starship on screen had engraved or raised grid lines on the saucer.
> 
> The very fact R2 were/are undecided on engraved or raised grid lines says its their artistic interpretation. Just like the Revell Germany Enterprise is their interpretation of the iconic ship. If they choose to put them on the R2 model, fine. Just don't call it accurate. Its not.




Well it can be accurate to what it's supposed to be on screen. The lines were drawn on the studio miniature to represent some sort of panel lines were they not?

And some of us prefer a model of what's supposed to be on screen....i.e......a *real* starship with* real *panel lines. 

I had this argument about the Moebius 2001 Clipper. People were saying it was accurate to the studio miniature.....................but my argument was that I find studio miniatures are often very crude close up. 

My argument (and a few other peoples) was that I'd prefer a representation of the 'on screen' ship............again a real ship with real panel lines..........instead of decals or pencilled on lines. 

If you want a smooth Enterprise without engraved lines then ok...........but realise that not all of us want an exact copy of the studio miniature with pencilled on lines. I want the Enterprise to look like it could be a real ship instead of an exact copy of the studio miniature......complete with pencil lines.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

robcomet said:


> The only way to get a definitive design of the Enterprise is to get Gene Roddenberry, Matt Jeffries, Robert Justman and Herbert F Solow to sit down and discuss it. Otherwise, we will only ever get someone elses artistic interpretation of the design...
> 
> I'll get me coat!
> 
> Rob


The flaw in that is the fact that atleast one of those people is dead. Just in case you've forgotten.


----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)

irishtrek said:


> The flaw in that is the fact that atleast one of those people is dead. Just in case you've forgotten.


Three out of the four have passed on. It was my poor attempt at sarcasm!

Seriously though, I stand by my last sentence.



robcomet said:


> Otherwise, we will only ever get someone elses artistic interpretation of the design...


Every single Enterprise kit has been an interpretation of the fictional USS Enterprise. They are all affected by manufacturing limitations, budgetary constraints and artistic interpretation. I just take my piece of plastic and, using my rudimentary skills, craft it into something approximating what I think it should be. This goes for everything I build - Tamiya cars, Airfix planes or Round 2 sci-fi kits.

Rob


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Three of the four, actually, and we have no idea if Solow can even manage a decent stick figure. And for that matter, even Jefferies drew the Enterprise different every time, so he wouldn't be much of a benchmark either.

So, to summarize, the Revell Enterprise appears to be the victim, um, *result *of maybe too much research.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

SUNGOD said:


> Well it can be accurate to what it's supposed to be on screen. The lines were drawn on the studio miniature to represent some sort of panel lines were they not?]


Not necessarily. That's an INFERENCE.

For 1966-1969 TVs, I can guarantee that the lines were not visible. Seeing the original film, you can barely make out a few lines on rare occasions. But the original, intended viewers could never see any lines, or even any hints of lines. You can only see them using modern technology transfers of those images... and even then, just barely. So, I'm not convinced that they were supposed to "represent" anything.

That said, why were they originally added to the model? Well, as someone who cut his teeth, some quarter of a century ago, using conventional pencil-and-vellum drafting techniques, doing drafting work as a means to help pay for college, I understand the purpose of "construction lines" very well. You draw things, using very faint pencil, as a guide for putting on the markings that you WANT people to see. In this case, I see this as being likely a set of "construction lines" put onto that saucer as guides to placing windows, markings, decals, and so forth. THOSE were the things we were supposed to see... the "construction lines" were not.

Later, these were also clearly used as guides for placement of the subtle weathering applied to the model (and I'm not talking about the current abortion of a repaint we see in the Smithsonian, I'm talking about the production paint scheme). So, the presence of a form of subtle "checkerboard" weathering is slightly visible on-screen... but the lines themselves are not.

But, let's assume that there were really supposed to be some form of physical features in those locations. There is ZERO reason to conclude that these features would be engraved lines, instead of concluding that they're flush, surface-mounted features, or that they're raised features. None whatsoever. They could be raised "conduits," or they could be some form of adhesive metallic tape used to conduct deflector energy, or they could be... well... ANYTHING. 

In fact, that last bit... about them being some form of "tape," is the one solution which best approximates what is actually physically present on the model. NO, no one is claiming what R2 sarcastically hinted at... that Apollo's glowy green hand also had a huge, glowy green pencil! But we do know that what's on the model is not either raised lines nor engraved lines.

In my own case, I have accepted that, with very subtle engraved lines (at the 0.1mm width and depth scale), I can easily fill them in. And that is EXACTLY what I"m going to do. I will not build a model of the Enterprise with engraved lines, because neither filming model of the TOS Enterprise had engraved lines.

I WILL paint it, seal it, and then use a very fine drafting pencil with 9H (the hardest available) lead, sharpened to a needle point, to draw very, very faint lines on the saucer, using a flexible ruler as a guide for the radial lines and a compase to draw the circumferential lines. This will be an attempt to replicate the real effect of a 0.2mm fixed-diameter mechanical pencil lead on the 11' saucer. That will give a result which is most closely representative of what the real model had.

Even an 0.1mm etched line in the model is a ludicrously large chasm if considered in "real scale," after all... not something we'd ever see between panels using CONTEMPORARY construction techniques. At 1:350, that would be 35mm wide, or 1.378". So, to say that these are just "paneling gaps" makes no sense. On the other, hand, for "plant on conduit" that size isn't out of the realm of possibility, is it? I've got some about a quarter of that size in my living room, covering up my speaker wiring, after all!

Look... I don't want them. But at a small enough size, they're easy to remove... and for those who do want them, that same size is sufficient to allow them to be kept, for subtle effect, or to even be opened up to "TMP-scale" channels if someone wishes. It's an acceptable COMPROMISE, to let the end-users built the ship as they, individually, want to built it. Not too "painful" for anyone on either side of the debate!


> And some of us prefer a model of what's supposed to be on screen....i.e......a *real* starship with* real *panel lines.


But that's not something you can say, for certain. You just can't. You have chosen to believe that these were what you say that they were... but you can't say anything more than that. You're promoting your PERSONAL OPINION as though it's "fact." But it is not. THERE IS NO "FACT" ON THIS TOPIC AT ALL. The only "fact" is what was seen on-screen, and what was done to the model which was seen on-screen. Everything else, without exception, is purely speculative.

You can believe that these pencil lines are "really" 1 1/2" gaps between hull plates. I do not believe that. Since there is no REAL U.S.S. Enterprise, neither position is "right" or "wrong."


> I had this argument about the Moebius 2001 Clipper. People were saying it was accurate to the studio miniature.....................but my argument was that I find studio miniatures are often very crude close up.


Yes, they are. What we see on-screen is the only thing that really matters.


> My argument (and a few other peoples) was that I'd prefer a representation of the 'on screen' ship............again a real ship with real panel lines..........instead of decals or pencilled on lines.


Except, again, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER THAT THESE THINGS REPRESENT "REAL PANEL LINES."

There really, really isn't. That's an extrapolation, nothing more, nothing less. This is a fictional ship, and those pencil lines were not visible on-screen for the 1966-1969 audience the show was made for. Markings (including weathering) based upon this grid were (usually just BARELY) visible, based upon this invisible set of pencil "construction lines," but the lines themselves were not.

You really need to avoid stating an extrapolation, even one which seems reasonable to you, as though it's "the gospel." That's where this argument gets ugly.


> If you want a smooth Enterprise without engraved lines then ok...........but realise that not all of us want an exact copy of the studio miniature with pencilled on lines.


And nobody is saying you have to have that. Nobody. I've never, once, seen one of the "no gridlines" people say that you're not permitted to have gridlines engraved on your model. Can you show me a quote of that being said?

That's been the big issue with this debate. Those who think "they're right" accusing the other side of doing something that the first party is actually doing. No one has told you that you can't have lines. But you're saying that "the lines are supposed to be there" and thus, you're really saying that "you have to have them or else you're WRONG."

Seriously... take a step back and look at that. You're doing EXACTLY what you're accusing others of doing.

The 0.1mm wide/deep lines are a compromise that will meet most folks' needs... but it's a compromise, nevertheless. It lets all three sides (the "raised lines" folks, of which there are a few, the "flush lines" folks, of which I am one, and the "engraved lines" folks, of which you are one) achieve their goal with minimal extra effort.


> I want the Enterprise to look like it could be a real ship instead of an exact copy of the studio miniature......complete with pencil lines.


Personally, I find it highly unlikely that a "real ship" would have 1 3/8" gaps between its hull plating, especially in several hundred years.

I find it much more plausible that a "real ship" might have some sort of waveguide structure planted onto the hull exterior (think of the antenna in your car, or the "defroster" element, both of which are typically thin "plant-on" elements placed onto the rear window). That makes a lot more practical sense to me than having nearly 1-1/2" gaps between hull plating, personally.

But you know what? THIS SHIP DOESN'T REALLY EXIST. So, there is no one "correct" answer... is there?


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

OMG ! Seriously? Listen to yourselves....


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

OMG....this topic is hilarious!


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

From the ridiculous,to the more ridiculous.........


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

This is what I am sayin'!!


----------



## John F (May 31, 2001)

Has anybody actually started building their revell enterprise yet?


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

This is really getting too *deep*.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Nothing a little putty won't solve.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

CLBrown said:


> Not necessarily. That's an INFERENCE.
> 
> For 1966-1969 TVs, I can guarantee that the lines were not visible. Seeing the original film, you can barely make out a few lines on rare occasions. But the original, intended viewers could never see any lines, or even any hints of lines. You can only see them using modern technology transfers of those images... and even then, just barely. So, I'm not convinced that they were supposed to "represent" anything.
> 
> ...




Exactly............there's no one correct answer and those lines might have been virtually invisible on the tv in the 1960's.....but they were still there on the model at some point. 

Ok, I admit I shouldn't have stated the following quite so robustly*....The lines were drawn on the studio miniature to represent some sort of panel lines were they not?*

But as you say.........unless someone knows otherwise for definite...they could have been drawn on to represent anything.....including engravings on the ship.


----------



## modelmaker 2001 (Sep 6, 2007)

I actually like the thought of building this model to represent another Constitution class starship other than Enterprise. Farragut, Exeter, Intrepid, etc.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

SUNGOD said:


> Exactly............there's no one correct answer and those lines might have been virtually invisible on the tv in the 1960's.....but they were still there on the model at some point.
> 
> Ok, I admit I shouldn't have stated the following quite so robustly*....The lines were drawn on the studio miniature to represent some sort of panel lines were they not?*
> 
> But as you say.........unless someone knows otherwise for definite...they could have been drawn on to represent anything.....including engravings on the ship.


I have no problem with that... and those who want it to be that way have every legitimate right to have their model be that way. Hence, my belief that the 0.1mm lines on the R2 kit are ideal... as a compromise.

In fact, I fully expect to see some build-ups with full, TMP-type "deflector grid" channels. (Which, back to topic, are still quite a bit smaller than those seen on the Revell kit.) But I'll never build a kit like that. In fact, I'd really like the TMP kit to have superfine etched grids, at the scale that's being discussed for the TOS R2 kit. You know, more like the very fine lines that the real miniature had.

Oh, and similarly, the AMT TMP Klingon kit's "deflector plates" are outrageously thick compared to the real miniature. In fact the Revell kit is closer to the TMP miniature in that regard than the AMT kit is.

We've just been inured with the belief that "this is how it is" because we've all built dozens of AMT kits over the years, right?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Any research photos of the Enterprise docked to the International Space Station, or orbit shots taken from the Space Shuttle? NO! It is a fictional spacecraft from a TV series, and the model is a representation of that series filming model. And, I like the way it looks, reminds me of the B&W photos in the Making of Star Trek.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

SUNGOD said:


> .....unless someone knows otherwise for definite...they could have been drawn on to represent anything.....


Exactly. Maybe somebody said "it looks a little empty up there. Can you fix that?" Maybe they were added for scale. Who knows? Include 'em because they're on the miniature, leave 'em off because you couldn't see 'em on TV. They'd be engraved on a kit as a compromise, for those who want them but can't draw them. 

Me, I'd leave them off the 1/1000 build, but I'll putty the grooves and try to draw the gridlines onto the 1/350. 

Really, I don't know why people get so upset about this.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

I still like the way this guy made his "grid lines"
http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=328247&highlight=22''+cutaway&page=2
post #19
-Jim


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

modelmaker 2001 said:


> I actually like the thought of building this model to represent another Constitution class starship other than Enterprise. Farragut, Exeter, Intrepid, etc.


heck, I've always thought that the Constellation for instance started out as say a different class starship other than a Constitution class for one simple reason the NCC number started out as _10_ and not 17 so any of TOS Constitution class ship that had an NCC that started out with somthing other than a 17 were just some older class starships that had been updated to Consitution class starships. Of course exactly what class remains to be seen.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

irishtrek said:


> heck, I've always thought that the Constellation for instance started out as say a different class starship other than a Constitution class for one simple reason the NCC number started out as _10_ and not 17 so any of TOS Constitution class ship that had an NCC that started out with somthing other than a 17 were just some older class starships that had been updated to Consitution class starships. Of course exactly what class remains to be seen.



Nice theory,...truth be told. The original decals in the "18 inch AMT kit" from which the "Constitution" was made only allowed this combination as an option. A well documented story from many source materials. Read up...it does a body good !


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Leave out the "updated to Constitution class starships" bit and that's my theory in a nutshell. The Constellation is one of an older class of starship, _period, full stop._ The pre-1976 version of the AMT model built as is, without modifications, an example of this ship class.

I've been referring to this older class as the Bonhomme Richard class, just to tweak the fanonistas.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

To bring up a previous rejoinder: They could have done "1710" just as easily as "1017." And how did they do the name "USS CONSTELLATION" if they only had the kit decals to work with?


----------



## spindrift (Apr 16, 2005)

Defending this mess of a kit must be theraputic for some of you- it is a disaster and how anyone can conjecture what R/G were thinking or planning is...well... interesting. It says STAR Trek..it has Kirk on the box...it is suppossed to be HIS ship...and it is not! If you think it's a nice kit that is terrific.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> To bring up a previous rejoinder: They could have done "1710" just as easily as "1017." And how did they do the name "USS CONSTELLATION" if they only had the kit decals to work with?


Yeah, I suspect they had more than one kit available. I'm sure there was plenty of money to buy more than one model kit for that or other episodes.

They probably chose the hull number they did to make sure that it was more easily distinguishable from the 1701. Kind of like they reworked the Reliant so that the nacelles were below the ship instead of above so that people in the audience wouldn't mistake it in some shots for the 1701.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

> Kind of like they reworked the Reliant so that the nacelles were below the ship instead of above so that people in the audience wouldn't mistake it in some shots for the 1701.


Actually the Reliant drawings were approved "upside down" because it was signed off upside down. Just like the original Enterprise! The FX guys didn't want to bother Nicholas Meyer with a confirmation on which side was up. So they built it upside down.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

John P said:


> To bring up a previous rejoinder: They could have done "1710" just as easily as "1017." And how did they do the name "USS CONSTELLATION" if they only had the kit decals to work with?


Remember that back in the day, a big screen tv was 19"; most sets weren't even that big and half of them were black and white, with resolution only around 480. 1710 isn't distinct enough from 1701 to make the cut on that small and low res a format.

As for the lettering, that was probably done by hand, with the U.S.S. being the guide on size and shape.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Actually, a 25" console was THE big screen to have in the 1960's!


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Ductapeforever said:


> Nice theory,...truth be told. The original decals in the "18 inch AMT kit" from which the "Constitution" was made only allowed this combination as an option. A well documented story from many source materials. Read up...it does a body good !


I have no need to 'read up' as it were because I have been aware of the fact for atleast 30 years if not more than that, thank you very much.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

John P said:


> To bring up a previous rejoinder: They could have done "1710" just as easily as "1017." And how did they do the name "USS CONSTELLATION" if they only had the kit decals to work with?


One can easily see how they came up with the Extra C for the Constellation, they simply went and used more than one of the AMT 18" kits which leaves another question, where did they get the 2 Ls from for the Connie??? That I think is the only valid question.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Solium said:


> Actually the Reliant drawings were approved "upside down" because it was signed off upside down. Just like the original Enterprise! The FX guys didn't want to bother Nicholas Meyer with a confirmation on which side was up. So they built it upside down.


This is the story I had heard: 



> The Miranda-class USS Reliant was designed by Joe Jennings and Mike Minor and built by Industrial Light and Magic for Star Trek II. The Reliant is the first Federation starship seen in Star Trek that is not a Constitution-class starship. The second DVD within the Director's Cut of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan has an interview with the people who originally designed the Reliant. They mentioned that originally the Reliant was designed to have the warp nacelles above the saucer section, like the Enterprise, but during pre-production one of the Reliant storyboards was displayed upside down. In the end the film production team felt that the nacelles would look much better on the bottom and that casual viewers could better distinguish between the Enterprise and Reliant.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_class_starship


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

irishtrek said:


> One can easily see how they came up with the Extra C for the Constellation, they simply went and used more than one of the AMT 18" kits which leaves another question, where did they get the 2 Ls from for the Connie??? That I think is the only valid question.


The decal letters are all uppercase. It wouldn't have been hard. Just trim a couple of E's.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

spindrift said:


> Defending this mess of a kit must be theraputic for some of you- it is a disaster and how anyone can conjecture what R/G were thinking or planning is...well... interesting. It says STAR Trek..it has Kirk on the box...it is suppossed to be HIS ship...and it is not! If you think it's a nice kit that is terrific.


NOT a "helpful" or "meaningful" post there... and definitely one which qualifies as "attacking the person, not the idea."

You don't like it... good for you. Nobody's going to make you buy it, are they?

I, personally, am totally ambivalent about this kit. I don't "need it" but I don't "hate it" either. It absolutely has some merit, but it absolutely has some flaws, too. And BOTH are significant.

So, we can all bitch and moan, like you seem to be doing... or we can talk about what GOOD can come from it.

What I don't get is why you feel the need to tell those of us who are finding it, if nothing else, a good conversation-starter, that we're wrong for doing so. If you don't like the conversation... don't participate. Seems simple enough to me.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

irishtrek said:


> One can easily see how they came up with the Extra C for the Constellation, they simply went and used more than one of the AMT 18" kits which leaves another question, where did they get the 2 Ls from for the Connie??? That I think is the only valid question.


VERY easy... just trim the top two "legs" off of the letter "E."

Same way you get a "C," by the way. Back in the day, before there were fan-made decal sheets, this was the only way to do it, short of hand-painting (which was also done on occasion).

Slice up existing letters (not used elsewhere) and "jigsaw puzzle" them into other letters.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

spindrift said:


> Defending this mess of a kit must be theraputic for some of you- it is a disaster and how anyone can conjecture what R/G were thinking or planning is...well... interesting. It says STAR Trek..it has Kirk on the box...it is suppossed to be HIS ship...and it is not! If you think it's a nice kit that is terrific.




It might be a disaster to you but it's not to everyone. I for instance wouldn't touch the 1/1000th Polar Lights Enterprise which some people rave about......as I think the detailing on it is useless. 

The Revell E has it's faults yes......but at least it has some detailing on it and there's separate clear plastic parts for the windows and lights....unlike the P.L. 1/1000th kit.


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

Oh my god, is this STILL going on? I've finished three models already


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I don't think everyone has been thoroughly insulted yet...


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

jbond said:


> I don't think everyone has been thoroughly insulted yet...


I just can't work up the energy...or sufficient indignation.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Okay...your mother wears combat boots.

Next.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Okay...your mother wears combat boots.
> 
> Next.


Only when she can't find her slippers.


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

I just built a model of your mother.... and it's got accurate grid lines!

(not intended for anyone in particular)


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

BlackbirdCD said:


> I just built a model of your mother.... and it's got accurate grid lines!
> 
> (not intended for anyone in particular)


I would expect so. She's 80 years old.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Somewhere there is an Etheopian child with a dried tube of cement just wishing he had SOMETHING to build !


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

spindrift said:


> Defending this mess of a kit must be theraputic for some of you- it is a disaster and how anyone can conjecture what R/G were thinking or planning is...well... interesting. It says STAR Trek..it has Kirk on the box...it is suppossed to be HIS ship...and it is not! If you think it's a nice kit that is terrific.


As I stated in a prevouis post a few of TOS Connies may have been different class starships originaly and one of the good things about this kit from RG is the grid lines should make it easier to cut for kitbashing into one of those preConnie designs. Which is one of the reasons I mentioned the idea of the starships getting updated to a newer class. And you are entitled to your opinoin just like the rest of us.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

jbond said:


> I don't think everyone has been thoroughly insulted yet...


I tried, and failed.

I would like to get one, but, not for $50 to $60 on ebay. Besides, as many 1701 models I have, I can do a couple of fleets. Now the 1/350, I really like, engraved lines and all.:thumbsup:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Fifty bucks on ebay is better than a hundred bucks from regular retailers.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

BlackbirdCD said:


> Oh my god, is this STILL going on? I've finished three models already


:lol:


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Last posted on 11/23, left to spend the holiday with family, and came back to find this thread has almost doubled! A lot of posts for a so-so kit (had to say it)!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Whether one likes the kit or not there is evidently a lot of passion regarding the subject matter.


----------



## NTRPRZ (Feb 23, 1999)

Captain April said:


> Okay...your mother wears combat boots.
> 
> Next.


Actually, my mother served in the U.S. Army, so she DID wear combat boots!

Jeff


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I was waiting for someone to chime in with that..


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I look forward to the release of the 1/350 1701, and see how dirty the fan gets.:lol:


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I look forward to the release of the 1/350 1701, and see how dirty the fan gets.:lol:




I'd hate to be on the raw end of that stick ! Just might have to quit Hobby Talk before then !


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

robcomet said:


>


Just to liven this thread up a little bit rolleyes - I'd like to mention that the "A" in CONSTELLATION is the wrong font style. 

By the way, the text used on the _Constellation _studio model was a combination of kit decals and 1/4" rub-on lettering.


----------



## dreadnaught726 (Feb 5, 2011)

You can always fill in the grid lines but unfortunately you can"t fix the lower saucer shape. It is totally wrong and quite noticeable.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> Just to liven this thread up a little bit rolleyes - I'd like to mention that the "A" in CONSTELLATION is the wrong font style.


Yeah, you're right! Good catch! :thumbsup:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/birdofthegalaxy/3698677075/sizes/l/in/photostream/


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I look forward to the release of the 1/350 1701, and see how dirty the fan gets.:lol:


The sad part? R2 could release resin copies of their "engineering test" shown at iHobby, flaws and all, and it's still be a more accurate depiction of the "E". 

I'm reserving two Revell E's for a Franz Joseph Dreadnaught attempt.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Revell Germany obviously wanted to design a "melting-pot" Enterprise. I don't think they ever had any plans to make an accurate depiction of any one version of the big E.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Trek Ace said:


> Just to liven this thread up a little bit rolleyes - I'd like to mention that the "A" in CONSTELLATION is the wrong font style.
> 
> By the way, the text used on the _Constellation _studio model was a combination of kit decals and 1/4" rub-on lettering.


If you look close the dedication plaque decal has the correct font for the A.:wave:


----------



## phicks (Nov 5, 2002)

What's a "plack"?


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Solium said:


> Revell Germany obviously wanted to design a "melting-pot" Enterprise. I don't think they ever had any plans to make an accurate depiction of any one version of the big E.


According to this article (posted previously on another thread) on StarTrek.com, it seems they wanted to make an accurate model of Kirk's Enterprise from TOS:

"It’s important to have reliable material on hand when trying to develop good models. Our Star Trek models are no exception. Detailed views are vital so the development process started in September 2010 with the gathering of original material from the series, digitalized or original. We also collected privately made shots from a model in the Smithsonian and books from the series. The drawings in some books are a bit misleading and not always correct, so sorting it out was very important. Collector guides helped to determine exact forms and curvations."

Guess they used the wrong reference material!

Check the whole article here:

http://www.startrek.com/article/developing-revellundefineds-new-star-trek-model-kits


----------



## spindrift (Apr 16, 2005)

spock62 said:


> According to this article (posted previously on another thread) on StarTrek.com, it seems they wanted to make an accurate model of Kirk's Enterprise from TOS:
> 
> "It’s important to have reliable material on hand when trying to develop good models. Our Star Trek models are no exception. Detailed views are vital so the development process started in September 2010 with the gathering of original material from the series, digitalized or original. We also collected privately made shots from a model in the Smithsonian and books from the series. The drawings in some books are a bit misleading and not always correct, so sorting it out was very important. Collector guides helped to determine exact forms and curvations."
> 
> ...


Yeah what were they smoking? Case closed- they were wanting an ACCURATE E....now tell me what the end result is???


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

spock62 said:


> According to this article (posted previously on another thread) on StarTrek.com, it seems they wanted to make an accurate model of Kirk's Enterprise from TOS:
> 
> "It’s important to have reliable material on hand when trying to develop good models. Our Star Trek models are no exception. Detailed views are vital so the development process started in September 2010 with the gathering of original material from the series, digitalized or original. We also collected privately made shots from a model in the Smithsonian and books from the series. The drawings in some books are a bit misleading and not always correct, so sorting it out was very important. Collector guides helped to determine exact forms and curvations."
> 
> ...


As this is coming from the Project Manager for Revell Germany I stand corrected. I am speechless. I am without speech. Something went horribly wrong along the way :freak:


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Solium said:


> As this is coming from the Project Manager for Revell Germany I stand corrected. I am speechless. I am without speech. Something went horribly wrong along the way :freak:


Well, this means one of three things:

1) The "project manager" doing the interview had little to nothing to do with the actual development of this kit (not atypical... those sent out to do interviews are usually those least familiar with the actual work, because they're the ones most "available," after all), and was basically just "talking out of his... posterior excretory orifice"... while the team doing the work had some totally different perspective on things. (This seems most likely to me, based upon my own personal experiences.)

2) The "project manager" really did have a lot of involvement, but was utterly and completely clueless about the design, and had a team of incompetent designers and engineers working for him. Thus, the work done was intended to be accurate and just totally and completely failed.

3) The "project manager" was outright lying, and knew perfectly well that they were doing something not like the original design, but realized that if he said that, it would cause trouble and, after all, "they're only Star Trek geeks, it's not like they'd ever notice. They'll buy anything with a picture of Doctor Spock, that martian guy with pointy ears, on it!"


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

CLBrown said:


> Well, this means one of three things:
> 
> 1) The "project manager" doing the interview had little to nothing to do with the actual development of this kit (not atypical... those sent out to do interviews are usually those least familiar with the actual work, because they're the ones most "available," after all), and was basically just "talking out of his... posterior excretory orifice"... while the team doing the work had some totally different perspective on things. (This seems most likely to me, based upon my own personal experiences.)
> 
> ...


Yes to all of the above.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

phicks said:


> What's a "plack"?


You can't figure out what a misspelled word means even when it sounds EXACTLY like it would if spelled korrektlee?


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Chiming in late here, I was intrigued with this model & it's size & window cuts, but holy cow are the panel lines deep... :freak:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I, too, was initially intrigued with this kit, particularly given the scale which I think is a good size.

While over the years I came to bemoan the AMT 18 incher I could accept that it was a product of a different and perhaps less demanding time. But that isn't the case anymore. I'm happy with PL's 1/1000 TOS _E_ because although there may be inaccuracies they're not truly obvious (at least not to me) and it looks instantly recognizable with nothing jarring leaping out at me.

The RG kit just has too many errors that are immediately obvious (to me) and as such unacceptable in this day and age.

Will the R2 1/350 be perfect? Probably not, but from the development we're seeing it will be damn close and I doubt any of it's errors will be immediately obvious.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Warped9 said:


> The RG kit just has too many errors that are immediately obvious (to me) and as such unacceptable in this day and age.


Agreed. I'd take the R2 small kit over this one.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

As has been pointed out by others in the know, sometimes the license holder demands certain details, regardless of what it does to the overall accuracy of a given kit (and considering the Voyager kit they put out several years ago, they were quite capable of a much more accurate model than what we're seeing).

I don't think it's unreasonable to picture CBS demanding certain details be overdone to prevent this kit from stealing too much thunder from the much more in demand (and much more expensive) upcoming 1/350 kit.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The 1/350 is going to be the killer kit, the one so many of us have been waiting for for so very long. Just thinking about it, juiced by the periodic updates, makes me feel like a kid again at Christmas.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

Captain April said:


> I don't think it's unreasonable to picture CBS demanding certain details be overdone to prevent this kit from stealing too much thunder from the much more in demand (and much more expensive) upcoming 1/350 kit.


Logical.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Hey Marco,

Obviously you've read these boards and can see what the group here thinks of the kit.
I'm curious what the people in Germany think of the kit and it sounded like you have a 'in' at R/G. I wonder if word got back to them at all?


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

ClubTepes said:


> Hey Marco,
> I'm curious what the people in Germany think of the kit


Well, there are a few here that are pointing out the obvious errors in the kit (I'm on of them). But most of the german modelers are amused about the hot discussion here - they simply don't care and like the kit as it is.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Marco Scheloske said:


> But most of the german modelers are amused about the hot discussion here - they simply don't care and like the kit as it is.


Ah, not "true" diehard fans. :lol:


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Marco Scheloske said:


> But most of the german modelers are amused about the hot discussion here - they simply don't care and like the kit as it is.


It might be that Star Trek is not as "big-a-deal" in Germany as it is in the US. If that's the case, it make's you wonder why ROG decided to make new Star Trek kits to begin with.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

spock62 said:


> It might be that Star Trek is not as "big-a-deal" in Germany as it is in the US. If that's the case, it make's you wonder why ROG decided to make new Star Trek kits to begin with.


Yeah, it certainly seemed like they either missed the demographic, or simply didn't care about the demographic.

The R/G Star Wars models are obviously meant for kids, but thats ok, Star Wars is and will likely always be very popular with kids.

However, 60's Star Trek isn't very popular at all with kids and models marketed to that demographic doesn't make any sense to me at all.


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

I think for some fans, even some die-hard fans, the physical details of the ship are less important than the stories and characters. They are not hardware oriented fans, but are serious fans non-the-less. They don't care that the bridge is in that dome on top of the saucer, or that the radar dish thingy is the ship's main deflector. To this kind of fan the Enterprise is both a setting, and a character in her own right, and like a model, toy, or sculpture of a character, there is room for some artistic license.


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

Larva said:


> I think for some fans, even some die-hard fans, the physical details of the ship are less important than the stories and characters. They are not hardware oriented fans, but are serious fans non-the-less. They don't care that the bridge is in that dome on top of the saucer, or that the radar dish thingy is the ship's main deflector. To this kind of fan the Enterprise is both a setting, and a character in her own right, and like a model, toy, or sculpture of a character, there is room for some artistic license.



well stated, and i agree.

regardless, i still find it EXTREMELY odd that such a model is being released now. i would expect such "artistic license" back in the 60's or even 70's, but today, with so many companies promoting how ACCURATE their replicas are, whether it be a toy figure, a statue, prop replica or even a styrene model kit, it is unusual to see this type of thing.

and even MORE odd that they took such "artistic license" after making all the claims about studying the reference material for accurate design.

just sayin'

ted


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

spock62 said:


> It might be that Star Trek is not as "big-a-deal" in Germany as it is in the US. If that's the case, it make's you wonder why ROG decided to make new Star Trek kits to begin with.


_coughcough*FedCon*coughcough_


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

phicks said:


> What's a "plack"?


I meant to say plaque. I went back and did the edit thingy.:wave:


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> _coughcough*FedCon*coughcough_


Had to Google this since I had never heard of it. Well, I stand corrected, I guess Star Trek is a big deal in Germany. But, it seems, having accurate Star Trek model kits are not!


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

spock62 said:


> Had to Google this since I had never heard of it. Well, I stand corrected, I guess Star Trek is a big deal in Germany. But, it seems, having accurate Star Trek model kits are not!


So much for German engineering huh?


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Germans letting detail and accuracy slide...........
Is the world coming to an end?



Trekkriffic said:


> So much for German engineering huh?


Well, it may not be accurate, but the tolerances are out of this world.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

It looks like the Enterprise to me.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Lloyd Collins said:


> It looks like the Enterprise to me.


That's a particularly bad set of angles to compare. The "sagging sow teet" effect seen on the underside primary hull is really emphasized in that comparison, I'm afraid.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Yeah, wow, that REALLY shows off all the inaccurate contours! Thanks, Lloyd!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> It looks like the Enterprise to me.


Maybe it's more of an FJ version. 

I'm not super-upset that it's not all that accurate since the 1/350th is coming out and the PL version is very accurate, but I am disappointed. 

Grid lines aside, it could have been more accurately contoured to the production version.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> Yeah, wow, that REALLY shows off all the inaccurate contours! Thanks, Lloyd!


Couldn't have said it better myself! Sorry, but it's obvious that the contour of the bottom of the primary hull is way off on the Revell kit.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

CLBrown said:


> The "sagging sow teat" effect seen on the underside primary hull is really emphasized ...


Y'know, I was looking for just the right words for that ...


----------



## Jay Chladek (Apr 17, 2001)

Good grief. I think some of you guys get a bit carried away on things sometimes. One would think we were looking at a FineMolds Millennium Falcon and complaining about the "mandible issue" again.

In any event, I have put together a in box review video and uploaded it to Youtube. So you can look over the parts all you want and get my take on things as I see them. Personally, I am happy with my purchase as I now have an Enterprise I can light pretty easily without having to drill out a bunch of holes. This will tie me over well enough until the Round 2 kit comes out.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Jay Chladek said:


> Good grief. I think some of you guys get a bit carried away on things sometimes.


Fair enough, but in your opinion. In this day and age when expectations are different this kit simply has too many compromises, not in terms of fit and build quality, but in terms of accuracy to the original subject.


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

Nice review Jay,nothing like a squad of "arm chair experts " blowing a lot of hot air and saying nothing.......I'd get one and add it to my collection.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Not too many guys I know interested in sagging teats.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I can remember when this ornament came out and how thrilled fandom was to have it. Most fans are not that picky, just a few. If I had the opportunity to pick up this kit, I would add it to my 'fleet' of ships and I would proudly display is as the Enterprise, no bloody A, B, C orrr D!!:thumbsup:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ I didn't want that even when it was new. Some folks like things to be a certain way. There is nothing wrong with that and it takes nothing away from those who are content with whatever they can get. But I can't give a pass to a kit that is substantially more money (in North America) than the PL 1/1000 kit and yet woefully more inaccurate. It also comes down to voting with your wallet. We all work hard for our money and I choose to be selective (for certain things) where I'll spend my money. I will not reward what I consider work lacking with my hard earned money. The forthcoming R2 1/350 kit will unarguably be substantially more money, but for me it will represent far better value because it will give me pretty much exactly what I want in exchange.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

I actually like this kit a lot. If I didn't have so many Enterprises already, I'd snap one up & just fix all the problems.


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

Warped9 said:


> ^^ I didn't want that even when it was new. Some folks like things to be a certain way. There is nothing wrong with that and it takes nothing away from those who are content with whatever they can get. But I can't give a pass to a kit that is substantially more money (in North America) than the PL 1/1000 kit and yet woefully more inaccurate. It also comes down to voting with your wallet. We all work hard for our money and I choose to be selective (for certain things) where I'll spend my money. I will not reward what I consider work lacking with my hard earned money. The forthcoming R2 1/350 kit will unarguably be substantially more money, but for me it will represent far better value because it will give me pretty much exactly what I want in exchange.


This model was not made for you.This was made for a different market.......not the bloated North American "I know it all" mentality.You don't want it, but you sure spend a lot of time dissing it.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I remember how everyone was thrilled about the PL 1/1000 when seeing test shots, then it came out, the trashing started. The same with the 1/350 refit, and the same will happen when the 1/350 comes out. If you really want 100% accurate, then hold your breath until it happens. I like breathing.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Chrisisall said:


> I actually like this kit a lot. If I didn't have so many Enterprises already, I'd snap one up & just fix all the problems.


In order to fix the saucer bottom will require some major surgery. And with the heavy grid lines molded into this kit one could always paint her the way the Smithsonion has the 11 footer painted now adays.:tongue:
As for the rest of you, would you all like some cheese to go with your whine????? Do _not_ get me wrong for I don't like the blunders designed into this kit any more than the rest of you. But for crying out loud _every one_ is entitled to their own personal opinion even if we don't agree with that opinion.
And I already know I have no room to talk considering the post I mad a couple of days ago regarding what some one posted about the scale of the AMT 18 inch kit, but then again does any one here have any room to talk????? Think about it, and look at it from some one elses point of view and not just your own, ok????


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I remember how everyone was thrilled about the PL 1/1000 when seeing test shots, then it came out, the trashing started. The same with the 1/350 refit, and the same will happen when the 1/350 comes out. If you really want 100% accurate, then hold your breath until it happens. I like breathing.


So true, the complaining has already begun on the 1/350 E. People don't like the grid lines, even though they were represented on the 11 foot minature. They don't want the windows to be the same on both sides because there is a drawing that shows they were different on the left side and that we never saw the left side so they should be different, even though we DID see the left side several times and hey...they were the same as the right! Striving for the best is not wrong, but expecting the best from others when we ourselves are not the best we can be is a setup for disappointment. :thumbsup:


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I remember how everyone was thrilled about the PL 1/1000 when seeing test shots, then it came out, the trashing started. The same with the 1/350 refit, and the same will happen when the 1/350 comes out. If you really want 100% accurate, then hold your breath until it happens. I like breathing.


I don't recall the bashing of which you speak, and I was here for it. At least not nearly at the intensity this kit has generated and deserved.

And I'll likely purchase one or two of these for my own dastardly SF Model purposes. I'm now officially part of both problems:

1.) Supporting the position that while nicely engineered, this kit has major proportional issues that could've been easily avoided given the simple shapes and the wealth of reference material available to even the most lazy internet user.
2.) Supporting Revell buy buying one of these things because I'm a Star Trek dork who just can't turn down another ME-109... sorry Enterprise model.

Now all of you shut up and go build some models :tongue:


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Wow, this IS the thread that keeps on giving. At the risk of adding fuel to an already hot fire, here's a few thoughts:

a) The 11 foot studio prop used on the original series, is the standard by which most modelers use when determining how the TOS Enterprise should look.

b) The Revell kit does not represent the Enterprise as it appeared on TOS.

c) Those of us that were hoping for an accurate model in the same size range as the old AMT kit are disappointed because of reason "b".

d) That doesn't mean the the kit doesn't have any worth or that anyone who likes it/purchases it is a jerk.

e) Trashing another individual on this thread because they don't agree with you is just silly.

f) It's just plastic, maybe we all need to take a step back and get over it.

Personally, I was looking forward to this kit. Revell of Germany has a good reputation for producing quality, accurate kits. Since it is a glue kit and not a snap-fit, pre-painted kit, I assumed it was being treated as a "serious" kit and would be made to the same standards as, say, their aircraft kits. The end result, while not a total waste, is disappointing to say the least. The grid lines don't bother me so much, the contours of the primary/secondary hull being wrong, does. 

I do think this kit will look good once assembled and finished. But, for me, it's just not the Enterprise I saw on TV or in the Smithsonian.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

falcondesigns said:


> This model was not made for you.This was made for a different market.......not the bloated North American "I know it all" mentality.You don't want it, but you sure spend a lot of time dissing it.


Some of us are pointing out what we see as shortcomings in a model kit offered up as accurate. I don't recall anyone saying someone is a jerk or a loser for buying one. Of course one might hear that because we're criticizing the kit and in extent they're hearing criticism of those who choose to buy it. If you like the kit then 10,000 others decrying it shouldn't bother you.

On the flip side why are the critics being called "bloated know-it-alls" because we dissent on a kit that is inferior to something that has already been produced (the PL 1/1000) and for less money?


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> On the flip side why are the critics being called "bloated know-it-alls" because we dissent on a kit that is inferior to something that has already been produced (the PL 1/1000) and for less money?




Have you read some of these threads, we sound like we should be working for wikipedia, some think they hold Ph.D's on these subjects? "Bloated know-it-alls" is a polite way of saying it. If the shoe fits....?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

People are offering up what they know or even just what they believe to be true. That's discussion. You don't have to agree with them and they can even be proven to be wrong down the road. Sure some can get emphatic, but thats the nature of online discussion where nuance and inflection often doesn't come across.

This debate reminds me _somewhat_ of the discussions over on the TrekBBS when ST09 premiered and even before. At times it really felt that if you didn't embrace the film wholeheartedly you could be made to feel like a pariah. The discussions about ENT were similar some years earlier when that series was running.

Suffice to say that I learned to accept being a pariah. :lol:


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Over the years I have made some good friendships here, but I must admit I don't trust anyone here (with few exceptions) for any credible knowledge on any subject that I could quote as a knowledgeable source. Unless I can verify what I read here with at least two sources, I make note of it and continue researching something till I do. I would expect nothing less of any of you to treat any information from me the same way. I can be a gas spewing wind bag at times too.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Ductapeforever said:


> Over the years I have made some good friendships here, but I must admit I don't trust anyone here (with few exceptions) for any credible knowledge on any subject that I could quote as a knowledgeable source. Unless I can verify what I read here with at least two sources, I make note of it and continue researching something till I do. I would expect nothing less of any of you to treat any information from me the same way. I can be a gas spewing wind bag at times too.


If only the news media followed these guidelines!  That is how I treat anything I read. When I build, I am the only source I trust, after I do my own research.:thumbsup:


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

RSN said:


> If only the news media followed these guidelines!  That is how I treat anything I read. When I build, I am the only source I trust, after I do my own research.:thumbsup:


Amen brother!
Healthy debate is what develops into ground breaking ideas, a little comprimise on an issue and a "agree to disagree" mentaltity makes for good friends. However, the mere disagreement with some folks here will buy you a longwinded diatribe akin to a poorly written, vitriol layden ,political attack ad.
An atmosphere I find most distasteful.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Ductapeforever said:


> Over the years I have made some good friendships here, but I must admit I don't trust anyone here (with few exceptions) for any credible knowledge on any subject that I could quote as a knowledgeable source. Unless I can verify what I read here with at least two sources, I make note of it and continue researching something till I do. I would expect nothing less of any of you to treat any information from me the same way. I can be a gas spewing wind bag at times too.


True enough. Over the years I've accepted and repeated things that pretty much everyone accepted as gospel until it was later proved wrong. Hell, looking at the development of the R2 1/350 unfolding I've been surprised to see things I had no idea about even after all these years.


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

258 posts,most having nothing to do with what's in the box.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Thinking "Outside the box" LOL! Thanks to Jay Chladek we now know exactly what's in the box! Great video review !


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Very good and fair video review! :thumbsup:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

One of the sources of research for the Revell 1701 was the 11 footer at the Gift Shop in the Smithsonian. If you really look at it, the grid lines on the lower half of the saucer looks like the ones on the Revell 1701. A poor choice of research, since the ORIGINAL was over enhanced the last time it was RESTORED.


----------



## Jay Chladek (Apr 17, 2001)

Warped9 said:


> Fair enough, but in your opinion. In this day and age when expectations are different this kit simply has too many compromises, not in terms of fit and build quality, but in terms of accuracy to the original subject.


Well of course there will be compromises. Take the 11 footer. One side of the model had NO detailing on it and there were even some shortcuts taken on the nacelles. It was never finished in a form that was perceived to be the "original" Enterprise. By comparison, if a model had been based on the 33 inch model (which is still MIA, but enough images of it exist), people would have slammed the saucer for having some weird looking features (such as a very wide protrusion on the lower saucer contours)because it is not what most modelers are used to. Even when Greg Jein made the all new Enterprise studio model for "Trials and Tribbleations," he didn't get every contour quite right and he was at the top of his game in those years of Trek. Technically you can also say an early long box AMT 18" Enterprise kit is "accurate" as well since one was used to represent the E in a distance shot in "Trouble with Tribbles" and a distance shot of the Constellation from Doomsday Machine was reused for the Excalibur in "Ultimate Computer" (after an image of the 11 footer was seen in the 4 ship fleet shot). 

Now if one were to say that an "accurate" model of the Enterprise is going to be based on one half of the 11 footer (the finished half), then the 1/1000 PL kit is the best in shape at this time. The Round 2 1/350 kit is taking that approach and will likely be the best in terms of shape. As such, yes Revell goofed in a few areas.

The main issue as I see it that people seem to be hacked off on is the price versus what you get in the box from Revell because it doesn't hit their standards for what a kit should be. This kit is a European market exclusive, so of course the price is going to be higher to get it in the USA. Price in Europe is about $35.00 US. Given the amount of plastic in the box, size of subject (equivalent to a twin engine jet aircraft such as a Eurofighter Typhoon), age of the tooling and the price of styrene production, that seems about right. For closer to the $50 that a modeler in the US has to spend to get one, I admit it is a tougher pill to swallow. I made the plunge though because this model will make an excellent testbed for getting my lighting techniques down when the 1/350 kit hits (oversized windows or not). But you do not have to buy it!

So say we did get an "accurate" kit from Revell. What then? Do we ALL have to use exactly the same GM gray color on it when we paint ours? Do we ALL have to lightly draw on a grid on the upper saucer in pencil because it is on the 11 footer and it wouldn't be "accurate" if we didn't? Do we ALL have to put a faint "rust ring" on the saucer? If we all light the model, do we ALL have to motorize the bussard collector fronts because "that is the ONLY WAY..." to do a properly light that area instead of using a LED chaser board? Obviously, the answer is no because we have room for interpretation. Nobody builds models exactly the same. If we did, the results would all look boring because if you see one Enterprise, you would literally "see them all." If we allow each other some room for artistic interpretation as hobbyistsm, why not the model companies? We can always not buy something if we don't like it. Is that really so hard?

I can remember a time when we had no choice in the matter in terms of kits. It was the 18" kit or nothing. Now we have SIX choices for classic Enterprise kits in styrene with a seventh one on the way (technically seven already since the 18" long box and small box kits are a bit different in features). They are in various sizes and offered at various price points. There are so many other SF genres that are lucky to get ONE model, if any.

And to quote Forest Gump... "And that is all I have to say about that."


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

for what it is worth, if i ever bought this kit, i would build it as is out of the box -- seems like WAAAAAAYYYYYYYY too much work to modify it to make it 100% accurate to 11 footer -- or even 99% accurate. i would build it as is and enjoy it for what it is.

the only thing keeping me from this is i already have the AMT, the re-released updated AMT from whoever is doing those (sorry, forgot -- Moebius or Round 2 I suspect) , i also have Polar Lights 1/1000 and the MR and am signed up for the big Round 2.

suffice it to say, i don't have any more space to display anything...had to take some of my models to work because I see them more there than I would at home tucked away in storage.

even then, I would still get one of these, but the $50 price point is the only thing keeping me away - and no, i don't think the price is unreasonable, but with as many Enterprises as I already have and space issues, it does become m ore challenging to rationalize having another.

also, whoever talked about sides of ship looking same, i believe that is because in the original series, they only ever showed just the one side, and when you saw the opposite side, they simply put reverse decals on ship and flipped the image. but i'm guessing this is old news.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Ductapeforever said:


> Have you read some of these threads, we sound like we should be working for wikipedia, some think they hold Ph.D's on these subjects? "Bloated know-it-alls" is a polite way of saying it. If the shoe fits....?


There's a problem with this, though. It's a problem we see in all walks of life, honestly, and this is no different. It's the "pot calling the kettle black" syndrome.

There is definitely an "I'm better than you" attitude coming from a number of folks on this board and yes, recently in this thread. The "shut up and be like me or you're an idiot" mentality" is EVERY BIT AS OFFENSIVE, at LEAST, as any other form of perceived or real obnoxiousness.

Now, insofar as this kit is concerned, I've been clear that I fully intend to buy one, and will built it... just not as the Enterprise. I see it as being a potential "contemporary" to the Enterprise, even though it's clearly not an accurate representation of the Enterprise. 

But there are real, and (to those who think three-dimensionally, which OUGHT to be everyone here, I'd think!) jarring issues. There are only two which are real problems, but they're major... the front secondary hull issue, and the primary hull underside issue. It's not "whining" to point that out... but it IS "whining" for folks to complain about others pointing it out, as far as I'm concerned.

Yes, that's what I'm saying. Those who are whining about "whiners" are the main source of whining in this thread. And the population of this BBS, like most BBS's, is heavily loaded with "bloated know-it-alls."

The tendency to recognize this, or to ignore it, generally comes down to "does that bloated know-it-all agree with me, in my own role as a bloated know-it-all, or does that particular bloated-know-it-all disagree with my own role and position as a bloated-know-it-all?" If the first is true, then the person is a "recognized expert," while if the second is true, then the person is a "bloated know it all."

Here's the thing... if someone is bothering to read and discuss a topic, the odds are better than average that they care about that topic more than the average man-on-the-street will. I'm not sure why that's somehow coming as a surprise to anyone.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Warped9 said:


> People are offering up what they know or even just what they believe to be true. That's discussion. You don't have to agree with them and they can even be proven to be wrong down the road. Sure some can get emphatic, but thats the nature of online discussion where nuance and inflection often doesn't come across.
> 
> This debate reminds me _somewhat_ of the discussions over on the TrekBBS when ST09 premiered and even before. At times it really felt that if you didn't embrace the film wholeheartedly you could be made to feel like a pariah. The discussions about ENT were similar some years earlier when that series was running.
> 
> Suffice to say that I learned to accept being a pariah. :lol:


Well, that was enough to get you flamed (with full BBS management support), that's true... but just try letting anyone know you're not a flaming liberal over there and see what happens!

I finally got fed up with the blatant double-standards, so in response to a particularly loud-mouthed one-off-tv-script-author's antics, I responded by changing my signature line to one of Winston Churchhill's most famous quotes... 


> Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.


There was a huge hue and cry in the "special kids" forum (the so-called "Neutral Zone"), led by that same one-script-wonder guy, over that... and suddenly, mysteriously, I found my account deleted. Ah, well... 

This is the problem with the 'net... it's equal parts "I can do whatever I want without fear of consequences" and "I won't put up with anything that doesn't fit, 100%, with my own perspective."

Me, I'm a big fan of discussion and debate and so forth, and as long as we can talk about the TOPIC, and not devolve into insulting those who we may happen to disagree with, merely because we disagree.. then we're still CIVILIZED. The moment we give that up, we've ceased to be civilized at all, as far as I'm concerned, and are basically behaving like animals.

But hey, that's just me...


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Ductapeforever said:


> Over the years I have made some good friendships here, but I must admit I don't trust anyone here (with few exceptions) for any credible knowledge on any subject that I could quote as a knowledgeable source. Unless I can verify what I read here with at least two sources, I make note of it and continue researching something till I do. I would expect nothing less of any of you to treat any information from me the same way. I can be a gas spewing wind bag at times too.


Well, that's just SMART... 

I served on active military service... US Army Intelligence Corps, assigned to the 7th Infantry Division, during the period encompassing the Panama thing, recovery from the Loma Prietta Earthquake, the first Gulf War, and the "Rodney King riots" (which, for the record, was the worst of the bunch, 'til we got approval to shoot back... then it got very peaceful very quickly).

I mention this because you NEVER trust intel from just one source. Sometimes you have to act on an unconfirmed source, but most of the time, you treat a first report as basically a "tasking" for further collection activities. Only once a piece of intel has been confirmed by multiple, unrelated sources do you treat it as reliable.

So, what you mention is really what ANY intelligent person should do under ANY circumstances. Reagan said it best... "Trust, but verify." :dude:


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Whew, some of you guys can really over complicate a subject!

IMHO: Like I said, for me, how close a kit of the USS Enterprise comes to accurately depicting the 11 footer is how I gauge wither or not the kit is good, bad or indifferent. Actually, it's how I judge any new kit whatever the subject matter, by how close it comes to the original. 

Regarding the Enterprise, I really don't care about the unfinished port side or what was done in other episodes of other Star Trek series or the drawings done by others that are different from the original prop, etc. That just confuses the issue. To me it's simple, does the kit, in this case the Revell kit, accurately portray the original 11 footer as seen in the original series or not. It doesn't. Period. 

For me, especially at the price it would cost to purchase one, that's the deal breaker. But, I can understand why others would purchase the kit. 

Hopefully, we'll start seeing some build-ups of the kit from those who purchased it.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

My point has always been and continues to be that discussing this or any topic is fine,.......within reason. But there are folks who expend an inordinate amount of energy who will (to use a favorite Bill O'Reilly word) spend wasted breath "bloviating" incessantly
over something that is trivial , if challenged or confronted with a discenting opinion , they bombard the reader till they've swayed them to the dark side, or gone on , and on so long that the readers eyes glaze over. I'm sorry, there are far more pressing matters in life than a box of overpriced styrene plastic and bits of colored paper! This is after all nothing more than a pleasant passtime we now call a hobby ,taken by some to the extream.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

> So, what you mention is really what ANY intelligent person should do under ANY circumstances. Reagan said it best... "Trust, but verify."


Yeah I trust the words of the man who gave hundreds of million to his best buddy Osama bin Laden. What this has to do with modelling is beyond me.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Solium said:


> Yeah I trust the words of the man who gave hundreds of million to his best buddy Osama bin Laden. What this has to do with modelling is beyond me.


Careful,...just a friendly reminder that the 'overmoderator' has a 'zero tolerance' policy on politics of any kind, and has warned of permanent 'vacations' from Hobby Talk if violated.

Sorry,....not following that sheep over the cliff !


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Ductapeforever said:


> My point has always been and continues to be that discussing this or any topic is fine,.......within reason. But there are folks who expend an inordinate amount of energy who will (to use a favorite Bill O'Reilly word) spend wasted breath "bloviating" incessantly
> over something that is trivial , if challenged or confronted with a discenting opinion , they bombard the reader till they've swayed them to the dark side, or gone on , and on so long that the readers eyes glaze over. I'm sorry, there are far more pressing matters in life than a box of overpriced styrene plastic and bits of colored paper! This is after all nothing more than a pleasant passtime we now call a hobby ,taken by some to the extream.


We're sharing opinions and that can include how and why we arrived at those opinions.

The subject matter of this discussion happens to mean a lot to a great many people and I think they can be forgiven for getting passionate about it and wanting to talk about it extensively.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Wow, still going.

Pretty simple. I was hoping for a more accurate kit about the same size as the original AMT. Didn't happen. I'm bummed and won't buy it. When I further learn that a lot of research was done and apparently not applied to making the kit, I'm frustrated and confused. When others tell me it looks somewhat similar to the Enterprise and I should just stop whining, I'm mildly annoyed.

It's not that big a deal to me. You like it, great. But the fact that it is wildly inaccurate is not an opinion only held by the so-called know-it-alls. It has obvious accuracy issues which are important enough to me to influence my purchasing decision. I fully realize that most fans of the ship are not as fussy about that as I am and that's just fine. I look forward to seeing your builds.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Solium said:


> Yeah I trust the words of the man who gave hundreds of million to his best buddy Osama bin Laden. What this has to do with modelling is beyond me.


That's because you're hearing something from that part of the universe and reacting "by gut" rather than paying attention to what is being said.

DTF was talking about his (wise) belief in not taking any one person's position on a topic as "gospel" without secondary, unrelated supporting evidence. I agreed with that, and used a well-known truism made by a famous, and (except for a small fringe) widely respected figure in our history as an example of that in non-modeling context.

He was referring to "information about a subject of modeling." And his position makes perfect sense... and I was agreeing with it. If someone makes a claim, you don't automatically disregard it... but you do require secondary source confirmation, and ideally multiple secondary sources.

Case in point - I was unfamiliar with the spacing of the nacelle front tabs... I'd aways assumed (reasonably) that the tabs were spaced 120 degrees apart. Recently, it was pointed out that this was not the case. I did NOT accept this on the basis of an unsupported claim, however. I DID accept it once supporting evidence was provided, and now recognize this as fact. I didn't accuse the person making that statement of being a liar, merely because the statement was in contradiction to information I already had. I just needed additional sourced information to confirm it before I could accept it.

"Trust, but verify."


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

CLBrown said:


> "Trust, but verify."


Supposedly, that was first an old Russian saying.:thumbsup:


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Supposedly, that was first an old Russian saying.:thumbsup:


Russian, are you sure??????? In fact it was first used by the Irish, don't ya know.:tongue::wave:


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

great info from Jay, Never knew about the saucer sky lights. So when you gonna assemble it so we know about fit ?


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Ductapeforever said:


> Careful,...just a friendly reminder that the 'overmoderator' has a 'zero tolerance' policy on politics of any kind, and has warned of permanent 'vacations' from Hobby Talk if violated.
> 
> Sorry,....not following that sheep over the cliff !



Yeah, there were no politics in this thread until I made a comment.  
Me thinks this topic is close to being shut down and locked up. :wave:


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

:beatdeadhorse:I agree, this has run it's course.


----------



## Jay Chladek (Apr 17, 2001)

woof359 said:


> great info from Jay, Never knew about the saucer sky lights. So when you gonna assemble it so we know about fit ?


Well, I've got a Constellation studio scale model I am trying to get done first (built from the 18" long box AMT kit) and I need to save some pesos for a DLM lighting kit. But hopefully if I can get those two things done soon (the Constellation is in the home stretch, you can watch my progress on Youtube BTW) so I can do some work on the Revell kit.

BTW, one thing I noticed about this kit, I have a sneaking suspicion we will see Revell issue it with lights. Reason being is there are two bulkhead pieces that fit inside the secondary hull just behind the navigational deflector. The way the deflector mount is engineered, it looks like somebody could leave it not glued on to open up the insides and fit a small battery pack for an internal light source contained inside these bulkheads. If doing it with normal batteries, a 4 AAA cell battery tray might fit in there for a six volt power source without having to run power wires through the stand. As such, it would not surprise me if Revell does a deluxe version with a similar arrangement.

In my case, I will likely do it as the Enterprise. Besides, I've already got two classic Es in my built collection (a small box 18" model I did over a decade ago and a 1/1000 test shot I did as the Pilot 2 version) so I am not in the camp where I have to have only ONE Enterprise and it has to be perfect. Although when I get to the decal stage, I may get a wild hare and do it as a different ship. We shall see. I am a little tempted to turn the Revell model into the ISS Enterprise with some leftover R2 reissue decals. But I suppose to do that right I would need to get some pilot 2 parts to make it kosher and I would rather do this one OOB. As such, doing it in the Ed Miarecki weathering job seems like a nice compromise.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, nobody's invoked the Nazis yet, so we've got a bit more track to run out.

Like I said upthread, it looks like this model was the victim of too much research, and trying to produce an amalgam of _all_ of the various Enterprise models (eleven footer, three footer, AMT 18", and animated) instead of settling on the eleven footer, circa 1967, as the primary source. The bridge looks like it came from TAS, the underside of the saucer shows some three footer influence, and the grid lines are clearly from the eleven footer in her current state.

BTW, Jay, belated kudos on that article you wrote on the 18" model, it's been invaluable while cruising eBay, along with providing some laughs as I see some grossly mislabled models for sale.


----------



## Borz666 (May 17, 2004)

OK, look at it from my perspective. In the UK the problem is little less black and white.
Do I by the R2 Classic 1:650 E for £27, or The Revell E for £26. the importers of Round2 want £24 pounds for the 1000 PL E for gods sake.

Fortunately I bought a case of PL 1000 E's when they were £9.99, but back to my point. 
I have built the Classic AMT and the Cutaway before but have been lost through time and moves. So I want a quick build of a medium size Grey Lady, Its not so simple for me is it? 

The Revell Kit looks mighty tempting at that price.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

falcondesigns said:


> 258 posts,most having nothing to do with what's in the box.


^Like this one! :freak:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Solium said:


> Yeah I trust the words of the man who gave hundreds of million to his best buddy Osama bin Laden. What this has to do with modelling is beyond me.


The quote was pertinent to the discussion, regardless of its source. Your _response _had nothing whatsoever to do with modeling, and why you made it is beyond _me_.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

irishtrek said:


> Russian, are you sure??????? In fact it was first used by the Irish, don't ya know.:tongue::wave:


Nay, lad! 'Twas the Scots! Och, aye!

IIRC, according to Reagan himself, "trust but verify" was a Russian saying.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Supposedly, that was first an old Russian saying.:thumbsup:


Was it inwented by a little old lady from Leningrad?


----------



## Jay Chladek (Apr 17, 2001)

Captain April said:


> BTW, Jay, belated kudos on that article you wrote on the 18" model, it's been invaluable while cruising eBay, along with providing some laughs as I see some grossly mislabled models for sale.


LOL, my pleasure. I do cruise eBay myself from time to time. I have a slight revision of that article in the works (and I already have some videos up showcasing new stuff I found about the 18" kit). Indeed what some sellers want for small box 18" kits (or late long box versions without lights) makes me wonder what kind of illegal drugs they are smoking. One thing that has been pretty cool to see though is some sellers have been citing my article as reference for what they are selling. That I like.


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

jheilman said:


> Wow, still going.
> 
> Pretty simple. I was hoping for a more accurate kit about the same size as the original AMT. Didn't happen. I'm bummed and won't buy it. When I further learn that a lot of research was done and apparently not applied to making the kit, I'm frustrated and confused. When others tell me it looks somewhat similar to the Enterprise and I should just stop whining, I'm mildly annoyed.
> 
> It's not that big a deal to me. You like it, great. But the fact that it is wildly inaccurate is not an opinion only held by the so-called know-it-alls. It has obvious accuracy issues which are important enough to me to influence my purchasing decision. I fully realize that most fans of the ship are not as fussy about that as I am and that's just fine. I look forward to seeing your builds.


nice, concise and well stated...i agree 100%.

but to keep this thread interesting, allow me to say something about those crazy Republi...what? oops...account shutting down. bye bye...


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

John P said:


> The quote was pertinent to the discussion, regardless of its source. Your _response _had nothing whatsoever to do with modeling, and why you made it is beyond _me_.


BS! It was a really weak attempt at pushing someones personal political garbage onto others while pretending it was otherwise. Quoting your favorite political or social hero IS getting political. When is the last time someone quoted Carter, Frank or Olbermann in a model discussion? Get real!


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

CLBrown said:


> Was it inwented by a little old lady from Leningrad?


Actually it's inwented by a little old and ancient lady from Dublin.


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

Jay Chladek said:


> LOL, my pleasure. I do cruise eBay myself from time to time. I have a slight revision of that article in the works (and I already have some videos up showcasing new stuff I found about the 18" kit). Indeed what some sellers want for small box 18" kits (or late long box versions without lights) makes me wonder what kind of illegal drugs they are smoking. One thing that has been pretty cool to see though is some sellers have been citing my article as reference for what they are selling. That I like.


My thanks as well, it's been a fun article series that I've gone back to several times.

Of course now that it's out there, I know all the rest of you folks are competing with my eBay bids on vintage Enterprise models, and know what to look for :drunk:


----------



## Gordian Knot (Oct 7, 2011)

Ductapeforever said:


> My point has always been and continues to be that discussing this or any topic is fine,.......within reason. But there are folks who expend an inordinate amount of energy who will (to use a favorite Bill O'Reilly word) spend wasted breath "bloviating" incessantly
> over something that is trivial , if challenged or confronted with a discenting opinion , they bombard the reader till they've swayed them to the dark side, or gone on , and on so long that the readers eyes glaze over. I'm sorry, there are far more pressing matters in life than a box of overpriced styrene plastic and bits of colored paper! This is after all nothing more than a pleasant passtime we now call a hobby ,taken by some to the extream.


Agreed. Barney Frank said it best. "They appear to have become so attached to their outrage that they are even more outraged that they won't be able to be outraged anymore."


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Nazis! Nazis! Nazis!


There. Is it locked yet?


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Ductapeforever said:


> My point has always been and continues to be that discussing this or any topic is fine,.......within reason. But there are folks who expend an inordinate amount of energy who will (to use a favorite Bill O'Reilly word) spend wasted breath "bloviating" incessantly
> over something that is trivial , if challenged or confronted with a discenting opinion , they bombard the reader till they've swayed them to the dark side, or gone on , and on so long that the readers eyes glaze over. I'm sorry, there are far more pressing matters in life than a box of overpriced styrene plastic and bits of colored paper! This is after all nothing more than a pleasant passtime we now call a hobby ,taken by some to the extream.


Of course another option might be people like Dilbert's companion. I'm not pointing fingers as I don't know people's motives from a hole in the wall due to the limitations of the forum, but ... :freak:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Wow! My favorite thread at Hobbytalk, better than a Soap Opera. Popcorn, anyone?


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Gordian Knot said:


> Agreed. Barney Frank said it best. "They appear to have become so attached to their outrage that they are even more outraged that they won't be able to be outraged anymore."


And that's another quote which can apply here... no objection from me. 

Of course, as I mentioned before, it seems that the greatest degree of "outrage" being expressed is by those who are putting down other posters, not from those who are talking about the model.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Solium said:


> BS! It was a really weak attempt at pushing someones personal political garbage onto others while pretending it was otherwise. Quoting your favorite political or social hero IS getting political. When is the last time someone quoted Carter, Frank or Olbermann in a model discussion? Get real!


Nonsense.

If I were to say "I am the eggman, I am the eggman, I am the walrus, koo-koo-ka-choo," would you assume that I was going to subsequently force you to swear fealty to the Beatles?

"Trust, but verify" is a quote made famous by Ronald Reagan, and it applies to the topic we were discussing.

The fact that it subsequently caused your head to spin and for split pea soup to cover the walls isn't anyone else's issue but yours. That's a DIFFERENT "Reagan."


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

I have seen many of you in person, so I'm going to jet outta here before the group hug begins ;-)


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

*Please let this thread die!*


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

While I hate to be this strict, there's obviously a reason for it!

NO POLITICS means NO POLITICS!!! 

Thread locked due to that and folks not being able to have a civil, adult discussion. And contrary to what most of you think, I _really_ hate doing this.


----------

