# PL Refit or DeBoer Hulls Refit, Which is more accurate?



## bugs bunny (Dec 1, 2005)

No doubt this subject has been touched before, but they both look accurate to the extreme. I would really like to know which one best resembles the 8 foot filming model?


----------



## capt Locknar (Dec 29, 2002)

Well I have owned both and they both have their good points and bad points. 

I prefer bigger but also cheaper. The Deboer is bigger but much much much more costlier, the PL is just right in price. 

As far as accuracy goes. Well neither one is 100% dead on.


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

Even if the PL model is more accurate, the Deboer looks a lot more real to me. I haven't been blown away by any of the builds of the PL model yet, but some basic assembly and the Deboer looks great. It's probably just the sharpness of the details between the two.


----------



## REL (Sep 30, 2005)

Check out this PL refit from The FX Company , looks like the studio model to me.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

It's a nice model to be sure, with a nice subtle paint job, but a low camera angle with a wide lens (and good depth of field) can contribute a lot to the apparent size of a model in photographs. 

Also, to my eye at least, smaller portholes make the ship look bigger, since we often associate porthole size with person size, and smaller portholes mean smaller people, which mean "bigger ship". And if I recall, the DeBoer portholes are smaller than the PL portholes, making the DeBoer look more like the filming miniature.

Sharpness of details on the DeBoer could be another factor, as Richard mentioned. The PL seems to suffer from a slight bulging of the large deflector grid squares -- almost like large shallow pillows. Check out the personnel hatches on the top of the saucer. They're not as flat as they could be. No big deal, though.


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

She looks great alright!

Hope I can get the lighting as good as this one.
The paint job too looks very good, but why do ppl think that the engineering hull forward section has such a light color in contrast to the strong back?? This is the ….cant remember but quite a lot of ppl portrait her like that. 

She does not look like that! The contrast between the forward section and the strong back is not that stark! Contrary….they are only abit apart from the overall color 

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/STMPent58.jpg

I know it’s a dark picture but you can very well see what I mean.

You can see it better here:
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/STMPent60.jpg
I know this is the bigger section kit for TWOK but you get a better idea how it should be.

Also here: http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/STMPent48.jpg
You can see that there is not such a high contrast between the strongback, forward section and deflector…its almost the same color. 

I know I did not match it perfectly, but that’s what it should look like contrast wise for the Ent-A http://www.culttvman.com/thorsten_scholz_ncc-1701-a_pic_33.html. 


IMHO he should have used to the darkest color he used on the deflector housing to paint the strongback. IMO of course


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

Why are there 4 port holes surrounding the neck docking port?


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Raist3001 said:


> Why are there 4 port holes surrounding the neck docking port?


They're the _lights _ around the port that come on when a shuttle arrives, as far as I can tell.

By the way, here are some really nice DeBoer shots:
http://www.ketzer.com/enterprise/index.html


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

SteveR said:


> They're the _lights _ around the port that come on when a shuttle arrives, as far as I can tell.
> 
> By the way, here are some really nice DeBoer shots:
> http://www.ketzer.com/enterprise/index.html



Are they ports that can be found on the studio model? I can't see any ports here.

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/cSTMPent42.jpg


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

I think they represent the lights that only appear on the closeup of the port when Kirk's shuttle docks with the Enterprise. 

So they're _not _ on the miniature, just on the large scale partial set.


----------



## Raist3001 (Oct 23, 2003)

SteveR said:


> I think they represent the lights that only appear on the closeup of the port when Kirk's shuttle docks with the Enterprise.
> 
> So they're _not _ on the miniature, just on the large scale partial set.



Ahhh...OK. Do they look a bit out of scale though?


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Hmmm .... yep.


----------



## bugs bunny (Dec 1, 2005)

SteveR said:


> http://www.ketzer.com/enterprise/index.html


WOW! That is Awesome! But there is a minor open seam with a light bleed on the top half of the saucer, apart from that it is the most accurate representation of the ship I have seen to date.


----------



## Tyboy4umodels (Apr 26, 2005)

In my opinion the Polar Lights Refit is More accurate,and has a lot more detail to it than the Garage kit,or the DeBoer Refit,and is made so it can be lit a lot easier than the other kits. Thanks Thom for developing such a great and inexpensive kit for us Trekkies. :thumbsup:


----------



## bugs bunny (Dec 1, 2005)

Tyboy4umodels said:


> In my opinion the Polar Lights Refit is More accurate,and has a lot more detail to it than the Garage kit,or the DeBoer Refit,and is made so it can be lit a lot easier than the other kits. Thanks Thom for developing such a great and inexpensive kit for us Trekkies. :thumbsup:



Oh that is absolutely a given. The PL refit is *the* very best Star Trek kit out on the market. This is just a minor comparison of the 2 most accurate kits available to the filming model.


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

Well, that IS a nice build. Thanks for posting that.


----------



## Disillusionist (Apr 19, 2003)

Hmmmm...Just realized I haven't posted any progress pics of my Deboer model here in a long time. Just don't pay any attention to the garbage bag backdrop  

deboer 

I've slowly been doing the pearlescent painting thing on the secondary hull. It's hard to see in the picture but it's there.

As far as the debate as to which is more accurate, the PL or Deboer kit, Andy Probert had a look at my Deboer model at Wonderfest. He found a few minor inaccuracies (most noticeably the green stripe on the dorsal doesn't quite line up under the impulse crystal), but overall seemed quite impressed with it. He felt that the basic shapes and details were correct on the PL, but he was disappointed with how soft the detail is. I'm sure that's why it looks a bit more "toyish". Personally I love both kits, and look forward to building a PL when the "Big One" is finally done......someday :freak:


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Disillusionist said:


> Hmmmm...Just realized I haven't posted any progress pics of my Deboer model here in a long time. Just don't pay any attention to the garbage bag backdrop


I don't know why it is, but that kit is always breathtaking. :thumbsup: 



Disillusionist said:


> ... [Andy Probert] felt that the basic shapes and details were correct on the PL, but he was disappointed with how soft the detail is. I'm sure that's why it looks a bit more "toyish".


No kidding. I'm going to replace the tiny sort-of-random squares with strip styrene, fill in some trenches (on the dorsal and nacelles) and try to do something about the soft "pillowy" grid sections.


----------



## star-art (Jul 5, 2000)

Holy Frak! That DeBoeur (sp?) model is stunning!! In comparison, the PL E looks somewhat "soft" to me. At least that's looking at the raw plastic sitting here on my desk.


Don't get me wrong, it (the PL) is an amazing kit and Thomas did a *fantastic* job. I think it's a miracle we got such accuracy from any manufacturer other than a garage pro. But I can see a major difference in the "crispness" of the details between the two kits.


----------



## REL (Sep 30, 2005)

The DeBoer is very crisp, it's made from the same materials as the studio model and it shows. I think a lot of the crispness and detail gets lost in mass producing them out of styrene plastic. Too bad Thomas can't cast his master in fiberglass. 

I have to say that DeBoer is a beautiful piece. I'm going to have to get one. I should've bid on Capt Locknar's when he had it on ebay, I know he cried like a woman when he had to sell it. :thumbsup:


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

star-art said:


> Don't get me wrong, it (the PL) is an amazing kit and Thomas did a *fantastic* job. I think it's a miracle we got such accuracy from any manufacturer other than a garage pro. But I can see a major difference in the "crispness" of the details between the two kits.


I agree. The PL Refit is a wonderful kit, and if it were not mass-produced, many of us wouldn't have one. Or three. :wave: So while I can accept the lack of crispness as being reasonable, there's nothing to prevent any of us from making a few improvements.


----------



## goose814 (Feb 26, 2002)

> Hmmmm...Just realized I haven't posted any progress pics of my Deboer model here in a long time. Just don't pay any attention to the garbage bag backdrop.


 
That is totally awesome. It really is beautiful. Any more photos of it? Also, can I ask what colors you used for the engine pylon vents, the top of the dorsal vent, around the B-C deck area, and the engineering green. If that's not too much trouble. Thanks. Again, excellent work.


----------



## bigjimslade (Oct 9, 2005)

*One comparison factor*

The DeBoer kit does not have seams on the hull. I have noticed that many builds of the PL kit do not....err....address the seam problem.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Richard Compton said:


> Even if the PL model is more accurate, the Deboer looks a lot more real to me.


Neither one looks real to me. :tongue:
You guys do know Star Trek is just a TV show don'tcha?
[ducks and covers while running out of the room, beer bottles breaking everywhere...]


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

bigjimslade said:


> The DeBoer kit does not have seams on the hull. I have noticed that many builds of the PL kit do not....err....address the seam problem.


What????
You didn't buy the smoothie chase version?????


----------



## Nosirrag (Apr 26, 2005)

Having both the DeBoer and the PL kits, I will now put forth my humble opinion.

The DeBoer kit is great and the surface detail is great -- this is due to a careful mix of epoxy resin and a dental quality "plaster," in other words, stuff similar to the molds they make of your teeth at the dentists office. This is built up a layer at a time with more and more epoxy and fiber making up the "deeper" parts of the model. In the same way your dental molds reveal the fine details of your teeth, the mold of the DeBoer Enterprise is crisp in detail. The surface also sands well and holds scribed lines well. But, don't sand too deep or you start getting into the more "plastic" deeper levels which have a very different texture.

DeBoer's model requires a lot of work. The neck beteen the saucer and the engineering section is unacceptably thin -- although it is reinforced with metal and strong enough to hold the saucer -- it looks puny and throws off the size relationship beteen the neck and the impulse engine vents. I corrected this by layering up styrene on the neck and connection point with the saucer -- making the whole neck about .125 thicker on each side. 

Also, DeBoer's hangar deck is too small and the cut in on the lower secondary hull is too deep. Again, I layered styrene on the cut-in part of the secondary hull -- basically thickening the area were the secondary hull tapers up to the rear landing platform -- I added about 1/4 inch. Then I cut away the original landing platform and sanded everything smooth. This gives me a taller landing bay area, but also required a scratch build on the entire rear of the secondary hull.

Also, you have to build your own interiors on the DeBoer model -- which I did. That's a good two or three months work right there, especially if you build the landing/cargo bay like the PL model.

The impulse engine vents have a problem similar to the PL Enterprise in that they are too "tall" and not "thin" enough. I rebuilt them.

So, DeBoer requires a fair amount of scratch building if you want the cool interiors and you correct some of the problems -- but the larger scale helps in this regard -- everything is about 1/3 larger than the PL model and holds more detail. You can also get your hands in there to work better.

That being said, once you get the thing together, working on it and painting it becomes a serious problem. You can't just pick the thing up and lay it down wherever you want. I built a wide based rolling stand that I could adjust up and down that hooks into the model's support armature. This rig also allowed me to mount the model sideways and vertically. I used a rolling chair to get around, under and on either side of the thing. Get a 12 foot hose for your airbrush -- you'll need it.

Now, that said, the PL Refit is a great model also. It requires little correction and no scratchbuilding. It's got those great interiors. The design is elegant. It goes together well and it is fun to build.

OK, so there is a little "pillowing" on the surface. A light sanding will take care of much of that. Windows too big? Fill them in a little. Panel lines too big -- fill them in too. Rebuild that impulse engine vent -- make it thinner and angle the bottom up. A little Evergreen plastic strips will fix that.

The PL Enterprise is a lot more fun to build and is not as taxing (emotionally and physically) as the DeBoer model. In fact, the DeBoer model requires a serious obsession, a great deal of patience, and dogged determination to persist at all costs and measure daily success in tiny little increments. 

But I've got no regrets. I love them both. I also like the old AMT kit I built. 

My wife wonders why I need a 4-foot Enterprise, a 3-foot Enterprise, and a 2-foot Enterprise. I just tell her I'm crazy.

That is my long winded, humble opinion.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The PL kit also has the distinct advantage of being only $60, as opposed to the DeBoers, which is worth more than my car.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Yeah, that's the real kicker. :freak:


----------



## bugs bunny (Dec 1, 2005)

spe130 said:


> Yeah, that's the real kicker. :freak:


Kicker in the butter! :freak:


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Nosirrag said:


> Having both the DeBoer and the PL kits, I will now put forth my humble opinion.


Thanks for the perspective, Nosirrag.


----------



## Flux Chiller (May 2, 2005)

Nosirrag, please tell us that you have some pictures of your efforts to share with us..


----------



## Disillusionist (Apr 19, 2003)

goose814 said:


> That is totally awesome. It really is beautiful. Any more photos of it? Also, can I ask what colors you used for the engine pylon vents, the top of the dorsal vent, around the B-C deck area, and the engineering green. If that's not too much trouble. Thanks. Again, excellent work.


Thanks! Here's another pic for you.

another one 

What colors of paint did I use? That's a tough one. There was a lot of trial and error, and even now I'm not considering any of it cast in stone. Most of the greens are a mixture of Testors pale green mixed with white and light greys. I also used a bit of duck egg blue in places. The blue on the pylons is a lightened shade of intermediate blue. The blue on the fronts of the nacelles is "french light blue grey" The darker shade of blue around the VIP windows is "french dark blue grey". As for aztecing, I'm using House of Kolor pearl powders (red, green, blue and gold) mixed with clear lacquer. I agree with what Paul Olsen says on his website about the advantages of using laquers for the aztecing. They may stink to high heaven, but they work beautifully. So far I'm very pleased with the results on the secondary hull and look forward to to attacking the saucer. However, Cutting all those darn masks is a royal pain in the posterior :freak:


----------



## Garbaron (Apr 23, 2004)

Finally!

Congrats my friend! You are the FIRST I see who actually got the deflector, forward secondary hull, strong back color scheme correct!


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

It is nice, isn't it?

I'm going to start with the basic color, then add pale greens until I get the mix right, and hopefully it'll look almost as good as Disillusionist's. 

Maybe other modelers erred by starting the mix with green or blue (or not mixing at all), whereas they should have started with the _base _ color then added green or blue in small increments. I could be wrong.


----------

