# Star Trek phaser 1



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I just got these from Thingverse.



















Not bad. They have the roughish finish of most 3D printing.
The shape looks to be off a bit, I'll have to compare them to
a few sets of shells I've collected over the years and my DST, 
Hallmark and Wand Phasers

It will probably be a while until I get to them


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Interesting! Boy I bet Roddenberry would have wished he could have had these back in the day. They all seem at first blush to be perfectly acceptable as 'stunt' or 'background' props as-is, probably wouldn't take much to make a couple of those 'hero' quality.

Of course Roddenberry would have s**t a brick if those are like $20 each (or more!)


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Yah, they would make great stunt phasers. 

I took a photo of them with my Hallmark, Wand Co, DST,
and a set of shells made by a member here.










The shape is not bad at all.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Ya know, I wondered. The Hallmark Phaser. How is that? It was one of the 'non-character' Christmas ornaments, right? I recall seeing it and debating picking it up (when it was new, back in the day) but I passed because I assumed it wasn't useful as a prop replica. To quote something, did I err?


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

The Thingaverse phaser is a bit skinny in the rear end, but not bad otherwise.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Steve,

The Hallmark phaser is not bad. Similar to the DST. For the money it was a great deal. I don't know how much they
are going for on ebay. I would not pay more than $20-30 for it.

robn1,

Yes it is too thin in the back but it's also too long by about 1/8 in I would guess. I'm thinking of trimming the back 
of one to see how it looks.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

mach7 said:


> Steve,
> 
> The Hallmark phaser is not bad. Similar to the DST. For the money it was a great deal. I don't know how much they
> are going for on ebay. I would not pay more than $20-30 for it.
> ...


Mach, thanks. I was hoping for a little more detail about the Hallmark Phaser like does it do the same gimmicks as the DST Phaser? I seem to recall the Hallmark had some dialog bits and not just sound effects?

I'm guessing no current mass-produced licensed (whew!) Phaser 1 does the full 'expose sight and extend barrel' gimmick.

As to trimming the back of the Thingmaker Phaser, I'm not sure that's a good idea. I suspect that would throw the proportions all off and end up making it look even more odd. 

I'm constantly amazed by how SUBTLE the design of stuff for Star Trek was. Nothing is as simple as it appears. Both the Phaser and Communicator are the very devil to get exactly right and it doesn't help any that the props themselves had a number of manufacturing variations.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Steve,

Sorry. It does have sound effects/phrases. The button between the indicator and thumbwheel activate them.
The thumbwheel rotates and raises the aspirator/sight and turns on a red LED in the emitter, just like the DST P1.

The Wand Co is the most accurate that I have seen, I have not seen a Masters Replica in person.

No P1 other than the John Long kit extends the clear emitter, The Wand Co emitter is always extended
a bit, but does not move. 

Does that help?

I get your point about trimming the back of the P1, but I'll probably try it as I have an extra one. 
And your right, Matt Jefferies was the master of design! Nothing is as simple as it appears.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Thanks, Mach. It's interesting that in this day and age nobody seems to have tried to make the 'sight' on the P1 actually function. Wah Chang couldn't do it because the crude mechanicals of the day just crammed the shell full, but now, I wager someone could wrangle something involving a mirror or a prism. Natch, one of our members here would probably cobble some mad science together using a cell phone camera, a knockoff iPod display and custom electronics in between.


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

The top view is too narrow, if the side view is also narrow then cutting it down should be fine.

The sight won't work if you want to keep it as is. I tried back in the 90s and the cylindrical shape turns the view upside down. It would require a prism like a camera viewfinder, which I suspect is what Jefferies was thinking of.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

robn1 said:


> The sight won't work if you want to keep it as is. I tried back in the 90s and the cylindrical shape turns the view upside down. It would require a prism like a camera viewfinder, which I suspect is what Jefferies was thinking of.


I've got some antique cameras that use a simple lens + mirror + frosted glass to make a viewfinder. The angles are not good in the phaser for this, so it would take 2 lenses and 2 mirrors to make a backwards Z shaped light path to a frosted screen that pops up, then the image would be right side up...

What that type of viewfinder looks like:


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

The side does narrow too much, so trimming the back should not be an issue. These are hollow so I might need to make a new rear plate. No big deal.

I'm comparing the side profiles and the printed phasers have much more of a curve up front.


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

mach7 said:


> ...I'm comparing the side profiles and the printed phasers have much more of a curve up front.


How does that curve compare to mine? I feel I got too much front curve, but not bad enough to bother redoing it.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

robn1 said:


> How does that curve compare to mine? I feel I got too much front curve, but not bad enough to bother redoing it.



The curve is more pronounced than yours. 
I'll try to get a photo up today.

To my eye yours are the gold standard, I like them better than
any others I have.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

My John Long, the 3D printed, and robn1's shells.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

As strange as it likely sounds, I find the texture on the 3D printed shell to be very interesting. a quick pass with sandpaper and some paint and while not true to the actual props, that could look neat.


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

Thanks for the comparison. I haven't seen a good side view of the printed phaser, funny how the the top is so curvy and the bottom so flat, because the Greg Jein hero is flatter on top. I wonder what reference (if any) was used for this.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

robn1 said:


> Thanks for the comparison. I haven't seen a good side view of the printed phaser, funny how the the top is so curvy and the bottom so flat, because the Greg Jein hero is flatter on top. I wonder what reference (if any) was used for this.


Yah, It's upside down.

My 1st thought was the Starfleet tech manual, but its not the same at all. Maybe an old convention special? or it could be just an eyeballed
WAG.

Steve,

Yes, it's kind of like a non-slip grip.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

There were solid-cast P1...wow, um, 'garage props'? We need a name for finished items that aren't exactly prop replicas so much as 'best guess', that period from the late '60s to some time in the '80s. Like the Pistol Phaser that was all the rage circa '76, as seen on the Tom Snyder 'Tomorrow' program. (good enough that I believe that's who Roddenberry went to for Phasers in the early days of Phase II.) Onward!  *

Back around '78-80 I bought a solid, resin cast, finished P1 at a convention, paid like $25 for it. It's nice but slim and a bit tall. If I could post a darn pic I could display it but something is odd with that feature here lately.

*it was a LONG time before actual, hard data, actual documentation, about Phasers, Communicators et al came to light. My first exposure to 'truth' was an article in the old Star Trek Communicator magazine some time in the '90s, that whole 'secret deal' of getting a hero prop and photographing the living daylights out of it. that's where I first learned of the trigger, the sight, the extending nozzle and stuff.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I agree. Before Hero comm and Trek Prop Zone solid information was very hard to come by.

It's amazing how much information has come out in the last 5 years! And also how many good 
props are available now, both mass produced and garage.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

mach7 said:


> I agree. Before Hero comm and Trek Prop Zone solid information was very hard to come by.
> 
> It's amazing how much information has come out in the last 5 years! And also how many good
> props are available now, both mass produced and garage.


Agreed 100%. Even with flaws (I don't know them all but I'm sure there's some other than the obvious like no moving emitter on the P1 and the oddball curved lines on the side of the P2), I really love my DST Phasers (of course I bought a couple. How could I not? Same as with Communicators and Tricorders). I would have killed for something that decent when I was a little kid, let alone my intense fanboy days of the '70s. Looking at the historical record it seems there were crude attempts at Phasers made by the toy industry at the time but the only one I recall seeing was that Mego Phaser light gun with the HUGE...everything (and that was long after ST was off the air). Not what you want when you make a costume.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I put a coat of XTC-3D on 3 of the phasers.

This is my 1st time using this product. It's a clear epoxy paint that is suposed
to give a smooth surface to 3D printed items.

It is supposed to be self leveling and smooth. 

I do notice a run on one of my phasers, so sanding will be in order. Cure time is 
3 hours.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

mach7 said:


> I put a coat of XTC-3D on 3 of the phasers.
> 
> This is my 1st time using this product. It's a clear epoxy paint that is suposed
> to give a smooth surface to 3D printed items.
> ...


XTC-3D works best when applied in thin coats. When I first started using it I was applying it too thickly. It takes a little practice to get good with it. I use cheap, throw-away 1" foam brushes you can buy in bulk from Hobby Lobby.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Fozzie said:


> XTC-3D works best when applied in thin coats. When I first started using it I was applying it too thickly. It takes a little practice to get good with it. I use cheap, throw-away 1" foam brushes you can buy in bulk from Hobby Lobby.



I'm finding that out. A little goes a long way. I don't think I'll have to buy anymore in my life!

The kit I got had a foam brush in it and thats what i used.

Great stuff, I just need some more practice.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I sanded the phasers and got a coat of filling auto primer.






































You can see how much the XTC filled in the details. I was 
too heavy with it on these. 

The one shell I did not use XTC on is looking not too bad.
The rough surface is filling in well with the auto primer, if I can get
my Zynolyte primer spray tip unclogged it should cover up nicely.

I got some finishing parts from a friend over at TPZ.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Gonna be nifty! 

Ever considered building one 'armed', with the sight part up and the emitter barrel extended? That might be an interesting addition to the 'background prop' shelf.

What I might envision would be adding slats on the side edge of the grid, making it like a camera hood. This would help support the grid as well as block off the space. If you want to get really detailed I would consider using the viewfinder hood of the Polaroid SX-70 as a model.


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

Were those printed with the thumb wheels and B&W buttons in place? It would be much easier to clean up without them. 



Steve H said:


> ...Ever considered building one 'armed', with the sight part up and the emitter barrel extended? That might be an interesting addition to the 'background prop' shelf.
> 
> What I might envision would be adding slats on the side edge of the grid, making it like a camera hood...


That's exactly how they looked. Here's one of my hero builds.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

AH! I've only really played....er, studied, yeah, studied the DST Phaser 1 so my knowledge was lacking. 

Very clean build, Robn1!


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I put a coat of final color on these. My Zynolyte primer nozzle is clogged bad so I'm trying out Tamiya ghost grey.

It looks a tiny bit light to me.



















I just placed the details on to see how it looks. The aspirator/crispy is an old piece I used and removed from an old build.
I'll cut and use the new stuff for these when the time comes.

These will not be 100% accurate, but will make a nice looking piece.


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

They're not bad accuracy wise, pretty close really. That ghost gray almost looks like a good P2 color. I assume it's dark ghost gray and not light, but even dark is kinda light for the P1.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

mach7 said:


> You can see how much the XTC filled in the details. I was too heavy with it on these.


I overdid it with XTC a lot at first. Took me a while to get the hang of it. You're discovering, as I did, that less is more when applying it.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Yup. 

I used it today again on the hypospray. I used much less. I think its better.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

A little progress.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Almost done with these.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I'm calling these done. I had to buy some magnets and an acrylic rod to make an indicator window.

The magnets were used for the triggers and I had to cut the acrylic up for some windows.




























I built these as 2 non working hero's:


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

A non-working Black and white hero:










and a midgrade:










These look good on the shelf, but will never be really
accurate. Still I like them, and at $50 for all 4 I'm
thinking they are a good value.

Edit:

I just noticed that I used midgrade thumbwheels on one hero and the
B&W. Oh well. I used what I had on hand.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

You've done great work on my #1 favourite sci-fi prop of all time!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

So, I've been meaning to ask, what's the genesis/context of that Type 1 that has the buttons instead of the clear dial/wheel? Was that a 'ST Phase II' concept prop or some different technical manual invention?


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

Steve H said:


> So, I've been meaning to ask, what's the genesis/context of that Type 1 that has the buttons instead of the clear dial/wheel? Was that a 'ST Phase II' concept prop or some different technical manual invention?


That's how the phasers originally looked, known as the black and white version. Black body, white handle, and less metal trim. This version only appeared in the first few episodes, before being repainted and fitted with extra detailing.


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

One of the great masters of Phaser 1 has spoken, no need for further comment!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

robn1 said:


> That's how the phasers originally looked, known as the black and white version. Black body, white handle, and less metal trim. This version only appeared in the first few episodes, before being repainted and fitted with extra detailing.




!!!

Huh!

Never, EVER have seen that or even had a hint that existed. So, then, were the Phasers (that is, Hero) otherwise identical, mechanics-wise? Pop up sight hood, extending emitter and so on?


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

robn1 is of course correct! (along with being a phaser expert)

The black and whites did not photograph well so they were given to Wah Chang to rework. 
They were painted grey/dark grey with gunmetal handles. The side rails were added and the silver
rising sight hood.

The mechanicals remained the same.

They photographed much better.


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

Yes the mechanics were there from the beginning. You can even see Spock raise the sight on his phaser in "The Man Trap". All the features were called for in Matt Jefferies' original plans.




Notice that the two small buttons and the sight on the P1 were supposed to be back lit. This never appeared on screen, and may not have even been built in. But the P1 battery mounts directly below the buttons, and the base of the battery clip is a strip of clear plastic, which may have been an attempt to provide lighting.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

robn1 said:


> Yes the mechanics were there from the beginning. You can even see Spock raise the sight on his phaser in "The Man Trap". All the features were called for in Matt Jefferies' original plans.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well, huh again! I've got that 'Star Trek Sketchbook' with Jefferies drawings (and wanted more!) and I've seen the Phaser art (noting that the handle/battery pack is significantly different so I wondered how early a design that was) but I never, somehow, noticed the big difference in the Phaser 1. So now I know.

Reason I asked about the mechanics, I wasn't sure if the silver line around the midpoint was a 'plant on' thing or if it was like the Communicator, a physical plate of metal sandwiched between top and bottom parts. I would figure that if it was a machined plate that would alter the arrangement of the internals. 

But HERE'S my new question and maybe this is actually the answer to an old one! 

Long time ago we were all discussing Phasers (another thread I think) and I brought up something I had read, how early Phasers were provided, manufactured by an unnamed toy company (likely Remco, as they had bought into the license) and they just weren't good enough, looking TOO toy-like, too plain, just not visually exciting. I had asked if anyone had seen ANY pictures of these because they reportedly had been shown in early publicity photographs. Nobody ever said anything. 

See, I had expected something along the lines of other toy guns that Remco was producing at the time, something far too toylike for what Roddenberry was trying to achieve. (but they wouldn't have been too terrible if they were done to the quality of the laser weapons from early Lost In Space, those modified 'Monkey Division' rifle and pistol were pretty nifty looking and I was always sad they never made them into toy guns. onward.) But now, now, reading about this 'Black and White' deal and Wah Chang getting them to 'tune up' and improve them (thus allowing that 'we're renting something Wah Chang had laying around' fib to actually have a tiny bit of truth to it)...

Restate: Could it be the 'black and white' Phasers were the 'too toy like' items that Roddenberry complained about? Because that seems logical to me.


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

Steve H said:


> ...I've got that 'Star Trek Sketchbook' with Jefferies drawings...


Yeah I got that book in the mid 90s, and it's what started my near obsession with the phaser. I had seen the sight raised in a couple of scenes but I didn't know what it was. And there was a photo of a B&W in the poster book with a caption pointing out the "pop-up hood" on "the original _working _phaser", but still no explanation of what the hood was for. The sketchbook plans finally answered that question, but then left me wondering how it worked.

The side rails we added by Wah Chaing, separate strips glued to the outside but meant to be similar to the comm midplates. There was at least one stunt P1 with a silver line painted all the way around, seen clearly in "Dagger Of The Mind", which helped fuel the midplate idea.




Steve H said:


> ...Long time ago we were all discussing Phasers (another thread I think) and I brought up something I had read, how early Phasers were provided, manufactured by an unnamed toy company (likely Remco, as they had bought into the license) and they just weren't good enough, looking TOO toy-like, too plain, just not visually exciting. I had asked if anyone had seen ANY pictures of these because they reportedly had been shown in early publicity photographs. Nobody ever said anything.
> 
> See, I had expected something along the lines of other toy guns that Remco was producing at the time, something far too toylike for what Roddenberry was trying to achieve. (but they wouldn't have been too terrible if they were done to the quality of the laser weapons from early Lost In Space, those modified 'Monkey Division' rifle and pistol were pretty nifty looking and I was always sad they never made them into toy guns. onward.) But now, now, reading about this 'Black and White' deal and Wah Chang getting them to 'tune up' and improve them (thus allowing that 'we're renting something Wah Chang had laying around' fib to actually have a tiny bit of truth to it)...
> 
> Restate: Could it be the 'black and white' Phasers were the 'too toy like' items that Roddenberry complained about? Because that seems logical to me.


Umm, maybe? There are notes in TMOST and in "Inside Star Trek" that mention poor quality "toy like" phasers from the Desilu prop dept. that had to be redone by Wah Chaing. It's clear that the studio shop made the B&Ws, and that Wah refinished them to look better on TV. But the studio guys built them pretty much as drawn, and I think they did a fine job. If they didn't show up well on TV that's a design problem, not the prop dept.'s fault. 

But apparently the production was approached by a toy company that wanted to provide their creation for use on the show, in exchange for merchandising rights. I've never seen anything of it other than the recollection, but I assume they were something along the lines of the Lost In Space guns. Roddenberry was interested in the marketability, and the modular design was based on that in part, but the toys weren't what he had in mind.

The story of toy like props could be a conflation of these two stories, either due to faulty memories or biases, who knows? Guys like Justman and Solow (along with Roddenberry) had so much disdain for the studio that it may have clouded their opinions. Of course the comment about the poor props could also have been in reference to the lasers from the pilots.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Robn1, I also, when considering such things as the 'toy looking Phasers' comment, run it thru my 'Roddenberry likes to tell stories even if they're wrong' filter. 

Sticking it to the network, sticking it to the studio, sticking it to anyone as long as it's not Roddenberry's fault was an operational order of the day for a long, long time. 

Mind, I never had much regard for the 'the Cage' laser pistols. They, and that Communicator, were just plain clumsy. But you have to walk before you can run.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I always understood that the props that Desilu built that were "Toy like" were The Cage lasers. 

I don't know why I thought this, probably something I read long ago. It could easily be wrong.

For me the Phasers are proof of the genius of Matt Jefferies and Wah Chang. The design is very
well thought out and the final finishing have great screen presence, making an iconic weapon/prop.


----------



## Captain Robert April (Jul 5, 2016)

From what I've gathered, the only prop that was actually solicited from a toy manufacturer was the phaser rifle from the second pilot.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Captain Robert April said:


> From what I've gathered, the only prop that was actually solicited from a toy manufacturer was the phaser rifle from the second pilot.


Was it solicited from a toy maker or was it just a man who made prototypes and patterns for toy companies manufactured it?

Granted, that's a very slippery area in and of itself, as in 'might the guy have made the prop in hopes of selling it to a toy company', right?

Thing is, that Phaser rifle really didn't look much like the kind of product Remco made, that really had the 'house style' of a toy gun made by Ideal. 

Altho I have to say, the COLORING was surely of the kind that Remco used in their toys. 

AAHHH where's my time machine I want to go back and talk to these people when it was all new and fresh! 

(and also pick up several cases of every single Monkey Division toy Remco made  )


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

mach7 said:


> I'm calling these done.


Awesome work sir!:nerd:
Let me know when you're ready to part with one of those beauties!:wink2:(REALLY!)
-Jim G.G.


----------



## robn1 (Nov 17, 2012)

The maker of these P1s has made printed P2s as well, looking good.


----------



## Captain Robert April (Jul 5, 2016)




----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Those phasers came out very nice! Great work!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

(snipped the video link for bandwidth concerns for others. Just go up a post or two to see it.  )

I recall snagging pictures from somewhere, maybe here, of the Phaser Rifle that was posted in relation to the auction.

It was interesting to hear the gentleman talking and yes, I think I called it, he worked (or did work under contract) for Ideal. 

If Roddenberry reaching out to Norman Felton on 'Man from U.N.C.L.E.' seems odd (regarding the massively successful 'U.N.C.L.E. GUN toy by Ideal), don't forget that Felton worked with Roddenberry on 'The Lieutenant'. The gentleman in the video (along with others) built the prop gun for U.N.C.L.E. but it was the seldom seen rather unsuccessful 'Mauser 1934' version, not the later, world famous U.N.C.L.E. Special built from a Walther P-38.

SO, OK, I can see years later Roddenberry thinking of the Phaser Rifle as the 'too toy like' prop, and it was used in early publicity photos but never again showed up in the show, so I think, in terms of 'show biz archeology' we have the answer to my long ago question.


----------

