# The AMT TOS E then and now...



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I built a number of the AMT kits back in the '70s, but my first one (the long box with the new box art and with amber domes and green tinted upper & lower saucer sensor arrays) I got for Christmas in 1970 is the one I recall the most fondly. That said it was a sloppily designed kit for what it needed to be. Still, it transported me to the farthest reaches of imagination. What I remember most was how I felt about it all back then---pure joy. That initial elation gradually faded over the years as I learned how inaccurate the kit really was (the real nail in the coffin was when I acquired FJ's booklet of general plans and began to really see how off those drawings, as well as the AMT kit, were from the ship I saw frequently onscreen).

I built that first kit during Christmas Day and was ecstatic as the ship took form in my hands. I tried to be patient so the glue would dry thoroughly before moving on to the next assembly---patience in an eleven year old isn't that common. 

Today I recognize it as a disappointing kit as seen through an adult's eyes. Although I can recall how I felt so long ago I just can't put myself back into that youthful perspective. When Polar Lights released their (albeit small) 1/1000 kit of the original _Enterprise_ it was a huge leap forward in terms of accuracy, kit design and build quality (ease of build). Although small it is such a superior model to the AMT kit.

And now I've just received a Premiere Edition of the new 1/350 scale _Enterprise_ kit from Round2, forty-two years after my first AMT kit and less than a month before Christmas. There is practically no commonality between this and the old AMT kit...

...except opening the 1/350 box reawakened a feeling I haven't quite felt in forty years. 

The sole other commonality was that the old long box edition of the AMT kit also felt huge to my eleven year old eyes and hands.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Hear,Hear! well spoken , sir!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Then and now through the years.











I know there was a different box art for the previous issue of the AMT kit (a friend of mine had that one), but that isn't the one I first had.

Although I couldn't wait to build my first _Enterprise_ kit I won't be jumping impulsively into building the 1/350. I'm going to take advantage of what little maturity and perspective I've acquired over the years to take my time and build it right the way I want it. It could conceivably take me several months to a year to build it. And I could play my La-La Land TOS soundtrack set while I'm building... 

There is a part of me that still considers building one more AMT kit just for the hell of it.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

With the exception of the latest R2 release (money issues are holding up the purchase of that kit) I can relate to your story. In addition to the kits you mentioned, there is another that I purchased, the Cut-Away model. I was hoping it would be the "definitive" kit of the Enterprise. While better in some ways, it's a bit of a disappointment. Bought it back when it first came out (1995?) and it's still in the box (waiting for aftermarket parts/decals, which won't be purchased anytime soon, unfortunately)!


----------



## Sparky (Feb 21, 2004)

As A kid, I wasn't completely aware of all the inaccuracies of the AMT kit. When it came to the nacelles first drooping and then falling off I sure was aware of the structural defects. Pylon to engineering hull connection was always a disaster every single time I tried to build the kit again. Kept thinking putting on more modeling glue each build would solve the problem.


----------



## johnF (Aug 31, 2010)

Friday night I had my new 1/350 Enterprise laid out on the carpet in my living room checking the parts for any warping.
I got the bright idea to get all my other Enterprise kits, PL 1/1000, old AMT, 22 inch cutaway, and lay them out next to the 1/350 version.
My wife was very amused watching me compare and otherwise “play” with my new and old kits.
Yes I felt like a kid.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

I was so used to seeing my AMT kit and the Franz Joseph plans that when the 1/1000 TOS Enterprise came out it looked wrong, even though it's actually right. :drunk:


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

johnF said:


> I got the bright idea to get all my other Enterprise kits, PL 1/1000, old AMT, 22 inch cutaway, and lay them out next to the 1/350 version.
> 
> Yes I felt like a kid.


I hear ya, and I've also been there.:wave:


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

johnF said:


> Friday night I had my new 1/350 Enterprise laid out on the carpet in my living room checking the parts for any warping.
> I got the bright idea to get all my other Enterprise kits, PL 1/1000, old AMT, 22 inch cutaway, and lay them out next to the 1/350 version.
> My wife was very amused watching me compare and otherwise “play” with my new and old kits.
> Yes I felt like a kid.


When I got my 1st 350Refit, I opened the box and was overcome with maniacal laughter for, like, a half hour! I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I then laid all the parts out across the floor. Now I don't think I have a floor big enough for all the parts of the Refit and TOS!

But, I still like the AMT. I didn't like the 1/1000 as, like Paulbo said, it didn't look right to me. It will be interesting to see the built AMT and 350 next to each other.


----------



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

Then, we built to feed our sense of imagination and the sheer joy of play.

Now we build out of nostalgia and a hope to once again regain that feeling.

While you truly "can never go home again" in the sense that the world of our youth wasn't just a physical place, 

because the home and youth we remember was a combination of both a moment in time; and a point in our naive young lives when we were filled with a sense of what could be . . .

as opposed to a future sense of limitations and responsibilities we learned to impose apon ourselves.

That point may be impossible to recapture as much as we long to do so,
because we know so much now that perhaps we truly are NOT better for knowing . . .

but for a moment we will enjoy this and remember . . .


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Considering price, accuracy, versatility, I think the 1/1000 tos is the best thing out there. Now...I do like my big boy "E" too!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

When it was introduced I did think the 1/1000 too small and I would have preferred something larger. But if I had gotten the 1/1000 (as is) back in the 1970s I'd have been ecstatic.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I bought an original "Long Box" Enterprise from the '60's, lights and all, for about $25.00 on e-bay last year. I am looking forward to putting in a lot of care to make it the best version of that kit I have ever done 45 years. For me, mistakes and all, it is THE version of the Enterprise. It is after all, screen accurate, it was seen in "The Trouble With Tribbles" as the Enterprise in many shots!!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

If I'm not mistaken (and I don't think I am) the shots of the _Enterprise_ orbiting the K7 station in "The Trouble With Tribbles" are of the 11 footer and not the AMT kit. The AMT kit was used for the _Constellation_ in "The Doomsday Machine" and stock footage of that used in subsequent episodes to depict other damaged starships.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> If I'm not mistaken (and I don't think I am) the shots of the _Enterprise_ orbiting the K7 station in "The Trouble With Tribbles" are of the 11 footer and not the AMT kit. The AMT kit was used for the _Constellation_ in "The Doomsday Machine" and stock footage of that used in subsequent episodes to depict other damaged starships.


You are mistaken. the shots of the Enterprise, shown small in the distance, are the AMT kit, as well as the Enterprise in the window outside Lurry's office. The effects department rigged it with a rough light system in the engines to mimic the 11 footer. It made a lot of noise and interfeared with the dialog on set. It can also be seen on the Viewmaster cover with the 3 footer.

Just scroll down a bit and read all about it:
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Constitution_class_model


----------



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

The Constellation does stick out in my mind more prominently because of the surprising way they did closeups on the model.

So Warped9 and RSN are correct about the AMT kit being used onscreen, so in the one sense it is completely screen accurate.

Just not as a version of the studio scratch built filming miniatures.

A long time ago someone in the forum here suggested that a good explanation was that like many warships of the same class, often there is a noticable variance between the first ship produced and the last ship produced(and those in-between) - even though they are the same class and based on the same basic design.

Seems 100% plausible and logical to me.

That's why I am hoping that perhaps someone will not only come up with battle damage parts for a Constellation conversion, but also does a modified A/B deck that will fit in the 1/350th notch and look like the old AMT A/B deck.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

You can rationalize it any way you want, but the Enterprise herself was represented by at least 4 different models on the original series:
1) The 11 footer
2) The 3 footer
3) The AMT kit
4) The 3 inch pewter miniature (The Doomsday Machine)

Each one with major differences but ALL representing the U.S.S. Enterprise. You pick what you like and you build it and be proud of!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The ship in the foreground is the 11 footer. You can tell because of all the lighted windows which none of the other miniatures had.










Other shots where the ship is supposedly behind the K7 station look more like the tiny miniature rather than the 33 incher or the AMT kit.


----------



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

RSN said:


> You can rationalize it any way you want, but the Enterprise herself was represented by at least 4 different models on the original series:
> 1) The 11 footer
> 2) The 3 footer
> 3) The AMT kit
> ...


My point was simply that the AMT models used varied greatly from the other miniatures used - but are still screen accurate.

No rationalizing. Just stating something I think everyone can agree about.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> The ship in the foreground is the 11 footer. You can tell because of all the lighted windows which none of the other miniatures had.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, I know, but my original post stated, correctly, "You are mistaken. the shots of the Enterprise, shown small in the distance, are the AMT kit..."!!:thumbsup:
Your post mistakenly claimed that the 11 footer, not an AMT kit was used in shots orbiting the station. You are still wrong and the link I posted shows you the AMT kit built and used in the episode for the distant shots around the station.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

This is a silly point. Otherwise it would have been pointless for R2 to have invested such a great amount of time, effort, resources and money to produce the kit many of us have been waiting for.

The AMT kit was a quick-and-dirty representation of a ship class because of TOS' time and money constraints for production. 

No matter. It served its purpose and its time is done.


----------



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

RSN said:


> Yes, I know, but my original post stated, correctly, "You are mistaken. the shots of the Enterprise, shown small in the distance, are the AMT kit..."!!:thumbsup:
> Your post mistakenly claimed that the 11 footer, not an AMT kit was used in shots orbiting the station. That is wrong, both were used, as I said.


We all agree that the AMT kit was used onscreen.

Let's just agree to agree.

No one should be expected to be able to qualify every
thing they say so that there is no possible way no one
will ever be able to interpret their statement in any way
but the way they intend it to be interpreted.

Regardless of what model was used at 3:17seconds into an
episode as opposed to what model was used 7:17 second into 
the episode . . .

Not to mention that probably two different models were probably seen
during the opening credits . . .

Everybody here acknowledges that the AMT kit is screen accurate in the
sense it did appear in the original filming of TOS.

Let's not split hairs when basically everyone agrees with one another.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> This is a silly point. Otherwise it would have been pointless for R2 to have invested such a great amount of time, effort, resources and money to produce the kit many of us have been waiting for.
> 
> The AMT kit was a quick-and-dirty representation of a ship class because of TOS' time and money constraints for production.
> 
> No matter. It served its purpose and its time is done.


Not silly, I love the AMT kit and it offers a lot of possibilities at a much lower cost....not to mention it is easier to find shelf space for it. 

As I said, you find what you like and you build it and be proud of it. That is what a hobby is for. For me it is also about learning as much about my subject matter as possible, on top of building the kit! :thumbsup:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> We all agree that the AMT kit was used onscreen.
> 
> Let's just agree to agree.
> 
> ...


I am not "splitting hairs", I was giving facts about a modeling subject and I was then told it was not true. Sorry if I was able to prove what I said beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I don't write things on the internet that I have not researched. :thumbsup:


----------



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

RSN said:


> I am not "splitting hairs", I was giving facts about a modeling subject and I was then told it was not true. Sorry if I was able to prove what I said beyond a shadow of a doubt, but I don't write things on the internet that I have not researched. :thumbsup:



I was pointing out what you both agree about. Not what you were disagreeing about.

It was an attempt to make you realize you two are more in agreement then disagreement.

Yes were correct that the model was used in the K-7 episode.

But had you not focused so intensely on that disagreement you would have noticed that not only did Warped 9 acknowledge he may have been mistaken



Warped9 said:


> If I'm not mistaken (and I don't think I am) the shots of the _Enterprise_ orbiting the K7 station in "The Trouble With Tribbles" are of the 11 footer and not the AMT kit.


he also was totally agreeing with you in the same post, second sentence that it should be considered a screen accurate model when he pointed out



Warped9 said:


> The AMT kit was used for the _Constellation_ in "The Doomsday Machine" and stock footage of that used in subsequent episodes to depict other damaged starships.



I too, am often mistaken and will admit I'm often wrong.
Warped9 admitted the chance that he was upfront,
and in addition offered another example backing up what you were saying
about the AMT kit being a screen accurate model.

So why is there so much discussion of disagreement when we all agree about the model being screen accurate?

Even someone did confuse or was mistaken about a single instance?

You loved the model as a kid and still have a love for it.

As do I.

Warped may have lost interest in it, but there's nothing wrong with that.

I just don't get such a long flurry of posts when everyone is in agreement with one another about the kit's screen accuracy. 

If this issue still seems to be growing more legs after this post,
I'll simply do what in polite society used to referred to as "
allowing a statement to go uncommented apon."

I hope everybody realizes that this should _not_ be a big deal.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Just to be clear:

The 11 footer:










The AMT model:










The AMT model didn't "orbit" the station though the 11-footer did--a bit of an inconsistency. I never understood why it was "orbiting" the station, anyway. There's no gravity so it wouldn't really orbit. Weird.


----------



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

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Just to be clear:
> 
> The 11 footer:
> 
> ...


Agreed.

MGagen has a very interisting take on that he has incorporated into a 3-D animation he has done of the K-7


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

AMT kit ORBITING K-7! :thumbsup:


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I could be wrong, but I believe the AMT model used in Tribbles had lights.

I saw it in the Science Fiction Museum years ago, It's not there now, but it had lighted windows.

I'll look for the photos I took but it might be a few days as I'm not home.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

RSN said:


> AMT kit ORBITING K-7! :thumbsup:












:thumbsup:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Shaw said:


> :thumbsup:


Thank you, my original point exactly! :thumbsup:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

mach7 said:


> I could be wrong, but I believe the AMT model used in Tribbles had lights.
> 
> I saw it in the Science Fiction Museum years ago, It's not there now, but it had lighted windows.
> 
> I'll look for the photos I took but it might be a few days as I'm not home.


You are not wrong, the AMT kit built for "...Tribbles" did have lights to mimic the engine effect of the 11 footer.

Here is the link again if you want to learn more about its use:
http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Constitution_class_model
Just scroll down a bit and you will find it. :thumbsup:


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

First of all, I'm sure that I'm as much of a _rivit counter_ as this place gets, and while the AMT model has it's issues, it is still a great model. I know I built my Round 2 reissue as the Republic to try out a number of different ideas (and to avoid it having to be directly compared to any version of the Enterprise), but I think a very nice model of the Enterprise would be possible with a (relatively short) list of minor changes that I think are within the abilities of most model builders around here.



​
I am quite proud to have my Republic sit next to my last Enterprise (well, be in the same room, next to each other the size difference is sorta noticeable). And with a few additional changes to the primary hull (and the series spheres on the nacelle end caps) I think I could have put forward a beautiful representation of the Enterprise that most fans would have had trouble finding fault with.


More importantly, this model (in both the long and short box forms) has done what few models do anymore... asked the builder to put something of themself into the build. The AMT Enterprise is like the gateway drug to scratch building models! I own a 1/1000 Enterprise kit, have had it since around 2003, and haven't built it. And since the 1/1000 came out, I've noticed that I generally (unless I know the builder) skip threads about building that model, but always read threads about the 18" kit. Builds of the 18" kit almost always have something interesting that the builder is going to try on it, it is almost never built straight out of the box.

I'm sure that there are going to be tons of great 1/350 Enterprise models. But sadly, the main variation between builds will be in the skill level of the builder rather than artistic interpretation. We got a great model kit of the Enterprise, but we also lost the prime motivation many of us had for studying the Enterprise for the last four decades. Young people will build the 1/350 Enterprise without looking at it because they _know_ it is accurate.

There is a place for the AMT Enterprise, and I hope Round 2 keeps the kit around for a long time.



On the History of this model...

The original was designed by Jefferies, and was a nice interpretation considering the flaws built into it (the sag of the original kit wasn't due to gravity). It is important to remember that Jefferies plans varied from drawing to drawing. Just looking at his Phase II drawings, the primary hull contours varied quite a bit. In the case of the AMT kit, he didn't have the original plans (Datin still had those), just the basic measurements. And most of those measurements made it to the AMT kit (using the primary hull diameter as a gauge)...








Had his plans been given to Datin to build up as a smaller studio model, it would have been a nice miniature. Which is why it wasn't surprising to see the production team turn to the kit in the second season. The idea (as mentioned in this thread) was to use the AMT model instead of the 33 inch for distant effects shots because they could light the AMT model. This idea wasn't fully utilized, but the way the screen used AMT Enterprise was built shows that they had taken steps towards that idea while it was being built (remember that the original AMT kit didn't have the clear nacelle domes like the next release, so the clear domes of the studio used model were added by the builders).

Sure, the AMT kit wasn't a replica of the 11 foot model... but the 33 inch Enterprise wasn't a replica of it either. In fact, Jefferies drawings we've seen of the Enterprise (which included the series modifications) still didn't take into account the nacelles being mounted closer together (which he might not have known about) on the two studio models.

So while I know a lot of people want to _lock down_ the design of the Enterprise to the 11 foot model... I think that all these models (3 inch, 18 inch, 33 inch and 11 foot) are important representations of the artists who worked on TOS and how they saw the Enterprise.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Shaw said:


> :thumbsup:


To my eye, the one in the distance looks more like the Catspaw pendant version, as used in "The Doomsday Machine" when the Enterprise was being tractored into the planet killer.

Which would only make sense since the effects for both episodes would be done around the same time, plus the fact that they had the little pewter ship on hand, whereas the AMT Enterprise model was a piece of set dressing, and therefore clear across town from where they did the effects. We all tend to forget that not everything was done on the Desilu lot.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Captain April said:


> To my eye, the one in the distance looks more like the Catspaw pendant version, as used in "The Doomsday Machine" when the Enterprise was being tractored into the planet killer.


Here are the comparison image studies I posted on another site a few years ago when someone else had suggested the same thing...

















The two pendant models had unique proportions that set them apart from the other models. It is also why the 1/2500 scale TOS Enterprise doesn't work well as a Catspaw substitute (even when inside a clear block). It is better to start from scratch with Jefferies' drawings for the pendant models (which is on my _to do_ list).


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I think a comparison might be in order with the AMT model we _know_ was in Mr. Lurry's office window.

It might be safe to say that if it is an AMT model in those shots, it's probably not the _same_ AMT model.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

The only thing that is safe to say is that they weren't added to the shots in the same way (the office shot is of the model in the distance). The other thing is that these models are missing the sag that the AMT kit had built into it, so we would be talking about someone putting considerable time into building them if we were talking about two or more models. The one in the window was shot weeks before the one composited with the K7 in the effects shot, so unless it was destroyed/lost, why not use it?

The model that was part of Jefferies' estate showed structural changes (fixes) to get the model to stand straight (or at least _straighter_ than the AMT kit normally would). If it is the one from the window, we can say for certain it wasn't lost.

So that is why the time line I have of the 18 inch model doesn't currently include multiple models (other than one for the Enterprise and one for the Constellation).


----------



## onigiri (May 27, 2009)

That link leads to a non-article. Theres nothing there.



RSN said:


> You are not wrong, the AMT kit built for "...Tribbles" did have lights to mimic the engine effect of the 11 footer.
> 
> Here is the link again if you want to learn more about its use:
> http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Cons...on_class_model
> Just scroll down a bit and you will find it. :thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Shaw said:


> The only thing that is safe to say is that they weren't added to the shots in the same way (the office shot is of the model in the distance). The other thing is that these models are missing the sag that the AMT kit had built into it, so we would be talking about someone putting considerable time into building them if we were talking about two or more models. The one in the window was shot weeks before the one composited with the K7 in the effects shot, so unless it was destroyed/lost, why not use it?
> 
> The model that was part of Jefferies' estate showed structural changes (fixes) to get the model to stand straight (or at least _straighter_ than the AMT kit normally would). If it is the one from the window, we can say for certain it wasn't lost.
> 
> So that is why the time line I have of the 18 inch model doesn't currently include multiple models (other than one for the Enterprise and one for the Constellation).












This photo has been posted on the internet as the K7 office window AMT model kit. It does look as if it's been fixed up more than the average model kit.


----------



## onigiri (May 27, 2009)

Heres the correct link. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Constitution_class_model


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

onigiri said:


> Heres the correct link. http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Constitution_class_model


Thanks, Onigiri! That's it.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> To my eye, the one in the distance looks more like the Catspaw pendant version, as used in "The Doomsday Machine" when the Enterprise was being tractored into the planet killer.
> 
> Which would only make sense since the effects for both episodes would be done around the same time, plus the fact that they had the little pewter ship on hand, whereas the AMT Enterprise model was a piece of set dressing, and therefore clear across town from where they did the effects. We all tend to forget that not everything was done on the Desilu lot.



I agree with your analysis, sir.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Shaw said:


> The only thing that is safe to say is that they weren't added to the shots in the same way (the office shot is of the model in the distance). The other thing is that these models are missing the sag that the AMT kit had built into it, so we would be talking about someone putting considerable time into building them if we were talking about two or more models. The one in the window was shot weeks before the one composited with the K7 in the effects shot, so unless it was destroyed/lost, why not use it?
> 
> The model that was part of Jefferies' estate showed structural changes (fixes) to get the model to stand straight (or at least _straighter_ than the AMT kit normally would). If it is the one from the window, we can say for certain it wasn't lost.
> 
> So that is why the time line I have of the 18 inch model doesn't currently include multiple models (other than one for the Enterprise and one for the Constellation).


From looking at the photos of the components used to build the K-7 station that were purchased from the Douglas Aircraft Company, I would guess that the AMT kit was shot "live" with the Space Station miniature. From the look of the screen caps, they appear to have the same lighting, when compared to the 11 footer foreground shots. This would have also saved them time and more imprtantly money, (Which is why the office window miniature was most likely used for these shots!).

Looking at the 11 foot shots, I am also wondering if the footage from "Tomorrow is Yesterday" was straightened and reused, to avoid a costly reshoot of la ong distant profile shot?!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Shaw said:


> Here are the comparison image studies I posted on another site a few years ago when someone else had suggested the same thing...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A dead giveaway that you circled that shows the Enterprise on the backside of the station is not the 3 inch metal miniature is the "Intercooler" bumps on the rear of the engines. They are not present on the 3 inch model, but they are on the AMT kit AND the one in "...Tribbles"!! 

Great pictures and great research. A man after my own heart, know your subject matter!! :thumbsup:


----------



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

mach7 said:


> I could be wrong, but I believe the AMT model used in Tribbles had lights.
> 
> I saw it in the Science Fiction Museum years ago, It's not there now, but it had lighted windows.
> 
> I'll look for the photos I took but it might be a few days as I'm not home.


They used both in the episode.

The whole discussion of this began because someone lamented the inaccuracy of the AMT kit versus the Production models.

It was correctly pointed out that the AMT kit was used in a few episodes.
The point being that in that limited sense it is "screen accurate."

The original point of the thread really is about how people remember the kit, and how we learned it was inaccurate compared to the production versions(let me say explicitly since it seems it is now necessary for every statement to be spelled out - either the 11 foot or the 3 footer- don't want someone to start going off about the pewter Enterprise pendant).

The thread got way off of the subject of how we remember the kit - most of us fondly, some of us disillusioned, in comparison with the new kit.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

onigiri said:


> That link leads to a non-article. Theres nothing there.


Sorry, I fixed it in my post so now everyone can go read about the history of this model and its use in the series.
Or here it is again:

http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Constitution_class_model

Live, learn, build and enjoy!!! :thumbsup:


----------



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

RSN said:


> Sorry, I fixed it in my post so now everyone can go read about the history of this model and its use in the series.
> Or here it is again:
> 
> http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Constitution_class_model
> ...


That is an interesting article.

Thanks for posting the link!:thumbsup:


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Well to get into the spirit of building the BIG 1701... and to brush up on my skills, I'm first building the AMT reissue of the original kit. 

Yeah, its not perfect... but its a HUGE part of my modeling history, the very first kit I ever built and something I think we can all agree was a driving force behind this all-new, enormous, and finally accurate 1/350th kit.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

For those who have built the AMT reissue recently, is there any way to incorporate parts of both models together? I was going to get the recent reissue, for the smooth hull and newer decals, to merge with my original '60's release. 

What I want to try and use from the new version are the more tapered warp engines and the secondary hull attachment points. I want to keep as much of the secondary hull from the original release, with the three "clamps" molded in, but use the attachment slots from the reissue.

I think it can be done.....I hope!


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Sounds like that would work... its essentially the same model, just some fixes.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Last post regarding the "Tribbles" models.

The office window model had properly straight nacelles. The one in the effects shot quite clearly did not, making it look more like the Catspaw pendant.

Further, the model wound up in the possession of John Jefferies, Matt's brother and a member of the art department, and, as I pointed out previously, was a set piece, so it's likely that it never left the lot until that fateful day that one of the Jefferies' boys took it home. Rather than ferrying the thing across town to whichever effects house was doing the effects that week, it's far more likely they spent the two bucks to get their own model to have on hand for the next time they needed a really long distance shot of the ship and the three-footer wasn't small enough.

And lastly, the on-set model had lights, the effects model didn't. But the big giveaway is the skewed nacelles. The '68 version of that kit had a serious problem in getting those suckers straight, especially when a concerted effort was made to counter the infamous sag, sometimes making the problem worse. Whoever built the on-set model got it figured out, but the effects guys clearly didn't.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

As stated previously by Shaw, the effects shots were done several weeks after the episode was filmed, time enough for damage to occur, so that is not any kind of definitive proof or indicator. That proof lies in the photo references Shaw posted with details circled that are missing between the 3 inch model and the AMT kit used in "...Tribbles", most notably the intercoolers on the AMT model seen in the distant shots orbiting the station and no intercoolers on the metal miniature. Just how I see it, put the pictures tell the story.

Build on, I can't wait to start my little ole AMT kit and make it proud to be part of such a fine pedigree!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

That just points to it being an AMT model, not the *same* AMT model, and as they only cost a couple of bucks at the time (if that much; probably closer to $1.25), it'd just be easier for all concerned for the effects house to have just sent a kid out with a fiver to get a kit, build it, keep the change, and they have a model of their very own to use whenever.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Nova Designs said:


> Sounds like that would work... its essentially the same model, just some fixes.


That is what I was thinking, I could just cut off the old back halves behind the dorsal and replace them with the reissue back halves with the improved engine mounts. I should just need to put some reinforcing strips along the cut to strengthen it. Really getting excited about this build. I will also have an extra A/B/C deck to play with and get a more rounded contour on them!!!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Captain April said:


> That just points to it being an AMT model, not the *same* AMT model, and as they only cost a couple of bucks at the time (if that much; probably closer to $1.25), it'd just be easier for all concerned for the effects house to have just sent a kid out with a fiver to get a kit, build it, keep the change, and they have a model of their very own to use whenever.


They should have gotten the kid to build it, maybe he would have gotten it straight. I would have done it for them!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

RSN said:


> For those who have built the AMT reissue recently, is there any way to incorporate parts of both models together? I was going to get the recent reissue, for the smooth hull and newer decals, to merge with my original '60's release.
> 
> What I want to try and use from the new version are the more tapered warp engines and the secondary hull attachment points. I want to keep as much of the secondary hull from the original release, with the three "clamps" molded in, but use the attachment slots from the reissue.
> 
> I think it can be done.....I hope!


Shaw can go into better detail, but suffice it to say that there is actually very little that's interchangeable between the newer version and one of the earlier moldings, at least not without embarking on some major surgery.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Captain April said:


> Shaw can go into better detail, but suffice it to say that there is actually very little that's interchangeable between the newer version and one of the earlier moldings, at least not without embarking on some major surgery.


The only thing I really want to use from the reissue is the new engine mounts and engines. I would do a lot of measuring and comparing along with all my draftsman training to determine if it will work before I take a saw to either kit. But any other opinions will be welcome.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, if you're using old nacelles with a newer secondary hull, you can make it work, but it'd be such a loose fit it'd hardly be worth the effort. Newer engines and an older secondary hull would be even more problematic since you'd have to figure out some sort of setup inside the hull to keep the nacelles from flapping in the breeze.

Realistically, the only interchangeable parts are the nacelle endcaps, intercoolers, control reactors, deflector dish, impulse engines, hangar doors, and the upper and lower sensor domes. The saucer and secondary hull components are all newer molds and pretty much incompatible with their prior counterparts without heavy use of a Dremel and/or copious amounts of putty, sanding, and more styrene.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Captain April said:


> Well, if you're using old nacelles with a newer secondary hull, you can make it work, but it'd be such a loose fit it'd hardly be worth the effort. Newer engines and an older secondary hull would be even more problematic since you'd have to figure out some sort of setup inside the hull to keep the nacelles from flapping in the breeze.
> 
> Realistically, the only interchangeable parts are the nacelle endcaps, intercoolers, control reactors, deflector dish, impulse engines, hangar doors, and the upper and lower sensor domes. The saucer and secondary hull components are all newer molds and pretty much incompatible with their prior counterparts without heavy use of a Dremel and/or copious amounts of putty, sanding, and more styrene.


That is why I was thinking that cutting and replacing just the two halves of the upper part of the secondary hull on the original issue and replacing them with matching pieces from the reissue would work. Then I would have the mounts and I could use the new engines as well. They should fit as I don't think the proprtions changed much on the back half the kit from the original to the reissue.

As I said, I will do a lot of checking first before cutting. If that will not work, I will rig a new supports inside for the old engines. This to me is the fun of the hobby!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Here's where I hand it off to our esteemed Mr. Shaw. He did a very intensive structural analysis of the two versions and revealed some rather surprising differences.

I can add, however, that a big part of the problem with the secondary hull, that was never solved with the redo of the molds, is an artifact of the original version. Specifically, that it was initially designed to come apart, so that you could open it up and replace the batteries. When they got rid of the batteries and lights, and the internal rack that held the batteries, they never set up the hull so that it would go together properly and stay together. And when they altered the molds, that was one aspect they utterly failed to address (much like how they inexplicably *kept* the three dimples on the underside of the saucer, which were pretty inexplicable in the first place; they did, however, align them more symmetrically than they were on the original version :freak.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Captain April said:


> Here's where I hand it off to our esteemed Mr. Shaw. He did a very intensive structural analysis of the two versions and revealed some rather surprising differences.
> 
> I can add, however, that a big part of the problem with the secondary hull, that was never solved with the redo of the molds, is an artifact of the original version. Specifically, that it was initially designed to come apart, so that you could open it up and replace the batteries. When they got rid of the batteries and lights, and the internal rack that held the batteries, they never set up the hull so that it would go together properly and stay together. And when they altered the molds, that was one aspect they utterly failed to address (much like how they inexplicably *kept* the three dimples on the underside of the saucer, which were pretty inexplicable in the first place; they did, however, align them more symmetrically than they were on the original version :freak.


I shall await his sage advice, if he chooses to do so.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

And boy, that split in the hull was a GIANT PAIN when you're a young kid and you want those decals on the side. 

(remember: No decal setting stuff. Testors was pretty much the only paint unless you discovered the joys of Pactra. Usually decals were just laid down on the bare plastic. *brrrrrrr*  )


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Steve H said:


> And boy, that split in the hull was a GIANT PAIN when you're a young kid and you want those decals on the side.
> 
> (remember: No decal setting stuff. Testors was pretty much the only paint unless you discovered the joys of Pactra. Usually decals were just laid down on the bare plastic. *brrrrrrr*  )


In the years after those "Good Old" days, I have done a great job getting rid of that pesky seam. I also got good at slightly building up the hull around the clamps at the front of the secondary hull, to give the impression they were recessed.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I generally solved that and other issues by cannibalizing some poor unsuspecting Estes rocket.

I could fix the recessed areas on the secondary hull, replace the missing shuttle homing beacon (another stupid change to the molds), get a better deflector dish, use the cardboard rectangles for the bits under the forward nacelle domes instead of that ridiculous piece, and got some decent running lights for the saucer. And, of course, more accurate decals.

Helluva lot cheaper than one of the resin accurizing kits from Lunar, that's fer danged sure...


----------



## Bullitt3980 (Nov 29, 2011)

My best birthday was my 14th during 1975 and getting 2 Enterprise kits-my step mother commented "Oh you allready got that one"--but I knew the kit had decals to make a fleet of starships so I was so happy. Back in those days my modeling skills included breaking parts from the tree and leaving fingerprints in the plastic from excess glue. I figured the ship looked white to me on tv so no paint was needed--just some ruby red for the nacelles and yellow for the dish. Great fun--Next I had to have a D7 (we called it a Klingon Cruiser back then)--imagine my surprise to open the box containing the Evil enemy of the Federation and its molded in brown styrene. I miss those days when banging the kit together was much more important than filling all the seems and fixating about the kits inacuracies


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I agree, I try to build at least one kit a year straight out of the box with no modification to make it "accurate". It brings the fun back to the hobby.


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

> As A kid, I wasn't completely aware of all the inaccuracies of the AMT kit. When it came to the nacelles first drooping and then falling off I sure was aware of the structural defects. Pylon to engineering hull connection was always a disaster every single time I tried to build the kit again. Kept thinking putting on more modeling glue each build would solve the problem.


Funny that you guys mention this. My Dad has an original Enterprise model 18"er before AMT retooled it with the "Plug in" Pylon supports that hasn't sagged once in the 50+ years since he built it. This is the one with the single styrene "Blade/pylon ends" attachment points.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

RSN said:


> I shall await his sage advice, if he chooses to do so.


I'm a little short on time, but I'll post my comparison picts between the Round 2 reissue and the 1966 AMT kit's secondary hulls. These are so different that it alters the overall length of the model by about half an inch (because the dorsal and support pylon openings are much closer together in the original kit).








The over all nacelle design hadn't changed much... nacelles on both kits have the same amount of taper. Some of the details of the AMT kit are sharper, but the ends of the supports would be weaker. The front and rear end caps are interchangeable between the two kits, but that is because the nacelles' overall dimensions didn't change.








Some of the stuff can be mixed... other stuff, not so much. I know that in my 1966 kit one of the two front end caps fits way better than the other. Consequently, I plan on making a mold of the good one and making two replacements so that I get the best looking build possible. I debated doing the parts in clear amber, but because it is a 1966 kit I'll be doing them in white plastic.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Thank you Shaw. I will definitely pick up a reissue and see what I can do with both of them. In the immortal words of Barney Stinson, "Challenge accepted!"


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Shaw said:


> Here are the comparison image studies I posted on another site a few years ago when someone else had suggested the same thing...
> 
> The two pendant models had unique proportions that set them apart from the other models. It is also why the 1/2500 scale TOS Enterprise doesn't work well as a Catspaw substitute (even when inside a clear block). It is better to start from scratch with Jefferies' drawings for the pendant models (which is on my _to do_ list).


All right, after going back and looking at the pics, you may be correct that it's not the pendant or the four inch model. My problem with it being the AMT kit is that I can't make it match the actual model on some details, specifically where the nacelle struts (which seem too long) join the engineering hull (too close from side to side) and the apparent proportions of the nacelles seem off. I realize the lighting on it was poor but even accounting for that, what is visible just doesn't look right and doesn't look like the AMT kit to me. 




























It's not that big of a deal I suppose if it remains a mystery to me. Just can't get my mind wrapped around it being the AMT kit from the limited perspective on film. I may be wrong . . .


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

RSN said:


> In the years after those "Good Old" days, I have done a great job getting rid of that pesky seam. I also got good at slightly building up the hull around the clamps at the front of the secondary hull, to give the impression they were recessed.


The seam wasn't that much of a problem, unless you wanted to take the batteries out and replace them. 

I was thrilled with the original issue of the Enterprise. Had to have help building it but man did that look GREAT with the sensor domes lit up. 

Then AMT 'refreshed' the kit by adding the amber nacelle domes and two more grain-o-wheat bulbs and my mind was blown.

(mind, at this time I was still hurt and confused that Aurora didn't make a Jupiter II kit.)

I recall clear as day, my mom and I were taking the bus to the local Big Mall and we had a transfer on the way, and it was going to be about an hour for the next bus. We went into a nearby drug store and *WHAM*, the Klingon D-7! I HAD to have it because who knew if we would ever come back to that place later? There were epic battles of Federation Vs. the Klingon Empire for some time thereafter. 

Good times, good times. Brilliant engineering on both kits with the batteries and lights, and the careful work balancing that Klingon ship on a string, the more subtle battery compartment (something the Enterprise could have used, frankly, an ability to hang it, built in like the Klingon), and of course how affordable they were. THAT is a factor I sorely miss.


----------



## onigiri (May 27, 2009)

Shaw-
So, what in your opinion are the most accurate parts from each of the two kits?




Shaw said:


> I'm a little short on time, but I'll post my comparison picts between the Round 2 reissue and the 1966 AMT kit's secondary hulls. These are so different that it alters the overall length of the model by about half an inch (because the dorsal and support pylon openings are much closer together in the original kit).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Shaw, in your last post on this thread you seem to be indicating that the molds for the latest issues of TOS 18" E were done by R2 where as in reality they were orignaly done by AMT many, many years ago.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

irishtrek said:


> Shaw, in your last post on this thread you seem to be indicating that the molds for the latest issues of TOS 18" E were done by R2 where as in reality they were orignaly done by AMT many, many years ago.


Well, in doing research and documentation of this type, it is important to make as clear as possible the source of your data. When I was doing my comparisons, I was using a 1966 AMT (first run) Enterprise kit and a 2008 Round 2 (first run) re-issue kit. The 1966 kit may be part of the broader _long box_ versions of the kit, but changes were made at a number of points between the time that it was first released to the time that they made the _small box_ version (1975). The very next release of the long box version replaced the front nacelle caps with amber ones that were not the same design, and the attachment points of the supports to the secondary hull were altered to accommodate the additional lighting elements. So the first and second run of the model weren't the same model.

Now, while the small box version remained nearly identical from 1975 till it was discontinued in 1996, Round 2 made changes to it before re-issuing the kit in 2008. In addition to removing the grid lines on the primary hull, many of the alignment pins were also removed. The Round 2 re-issue may be (for the most part) the same model, but without a previous short box version to do a proper comparison with, it is best to identify it as I have when collecting data... as the 2008 Round 2 re-issue.





onigiri said:


> Shaw-
> So, what in your opinion are the most accurate parts from each of the two kits?


I'd say that the secondary hull (for details) is better on the original kit (specially the deflector dish and ring assembly). The bridge/B/C deck structure is also nicer (with softer overall curves) even though it is not symmetric (it was obviously hand made). The front nacelle caps on the original are way more like the actual studio models, and would be great if both parts were the same shape. Also the box vents on the rear of the nacelles are nicer on the original, but I understand why they were changed later on (they made getting the part out of the molds harder).

But even with all that, I really enjoyed building the Round 2 re-issue. And the decals and lack of grid lines made up for most of the small box design shortcomings. Knowing how the models are different, and having molds to make unique aspects of the original (like the bridge/B/C deck structure, the front nacelle caps and the deflector dish) and my replacement decal sheet, I could make a reasonable replica of the 1966 version from the Round 2 re-issue.

Because of how rare long box kits are these days, I'm not sure I would want to use one as the basis of making an accurate Enterprise. The long and small box versions are both within striking distance of a nice Enterprise model, but (thanks to Round 2) there will be more small box versions around to experiment on... but the long box versions will be in ever shrinking numbers.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Well, as I said, I have a second run with the amber caps and I am going to try and match the look of what I saw on TV with this kit. It may not be easy and it may not look just like the 11 foot miniature, but it *WILL* be the Enterprise and no one can take that away from her!!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Shaw said:


> Here are the comparison image studies I posted on another site a few years ago when someone else had suggested the same thing...
> 
> The two pendant models had unique proportions that set them apart from the other models. It is also why the 1/2500 scale TOS Enterprise doesn't work well as a Catspaw substitute (even when inside a clear block). It is better to start from scratch with Jefferies' drawings for the pendant models (which is on my _to do_ list).


Okay, after studying some of your photos and notes on the differences between the various issues of the 1701 AMT model kit and looking at the K7 photos again, I'll concede the point. :thumbsup: (Not that this was any kind of real dispute to begin with--just bugged me for some reason on my end. :freak: )

I think you're correct in that it's the AMT kit in the background--not necessarily the same one as used in the office scene but an AMT kit just the same. Studying how the one looked used for the Constellation made me realize the look was within the parameters of the fuzzy images. The modern kits have a bit different look. Both the old and newer versions have plenty of inaccuracies, though. The b/c deck really changed a lot more than I realized.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

I read some where that the original molds for the AMT kit were made of aluminum and after seceral years they got worn out and had to be replaced and are now made of steel which would explain the differences between the first and later runs of this kit.
And when looking at those images on the Trek wiki site provided in a link above there's one shot from the stern of the AMT kit that shows the B-C deck housing with the correct contours of the 11 and 3 foot filming models.


----------



## ViperRecon (Aug 3, 2010)

Captain April said:


> I generally solved that and other issues by cannibalizing some poor unsuspecting Estes rocket.
> 
> I could fix the recessed areas on the secondary hull, replace the missing shuttle homing beacon (another stupid change to the molds), get a better deflector dish, use the cardboard rectangles for the bits under the forward nacelle domes instead of that ridiculous piece, and got some decent running lights for the saucer. And, of course, more accurate decals.
> 
> Helluva lot cheaper than one of the resin accurizing kits from Lunar, that's fer danged sure...


So the Estes rocket is the same size as the AMT kit? I did not know that... Now I wish I still had mine. What other wrongs can splicing one of these into an AMT version fix?

Mark in Okinawa


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

irishtrek said:


> I read some where that the original molds for the AMT kit were made of aluminum and after seceral years they got worn out and had to be replaced and are now made of steel which would explain the differences between the first and later runs of this kit.


Yeah, that's essentially it.



> And when looking at those images on the Trek wiki site provided in a link above there's one shot from the stern of the AMT kit that shows the B-C deck housing with the correct contours of the 11 and 3 foot filming models.


Um...the B/C deck on the AMT model has always been somewhat egg shaped, whereas on both filming miniatures, they've been teardrop shaped, so I'm not sure what you're driving at.



ViperRecon said:


> So the Estes rocket is the same size as the AMT kit? I did not know that... Now I wish I still had mine. What other wrongs can splicing one of these into an AMT version fix?
> 
> Mark in Okinawa


They're close enough for government work. As for what else can be fixed via use of the Estes kit....not much. We're talking vacuform plastic bits, cardboard tubing, and balsa wood. I suppose you could try splicing the B/C deck, but I'm not sure it'd be worth the effort.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

As far as the Estes rocket goes. I did take parts from the rocket and modified one of my AMT builds in the '70's. I cut out and used the A/B/C deck by placing it over the AMT A/B/C deck. It was a long time ago and I know my skills were not what they are now, but to my memory, it fit like a glove! I also removed the more accurate, larger, spheres off the back of the rear engine caps and fit them in place on the AMT kit. The other parts I remember using were the dome over the hangar deeck and I removed the raised navigation lights from the primary hull and glued them to the AMT. The decals are also far more accurate. They included the rectangles for the B/C deck, the red pinstripes and the yellow circle under the secondary hull and I used all of them.

It can be done so if you can find a rocket at a good price, grab it and use it!!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> They're close enough for government work. As for what else can be fixed via use of the Estes kit....not much. We're talking vacuform plastic bits, cardboard tubing, and balsa wood. I suppose you could try splicing the B/C deck, but I'm not sure it'd be worth the effort.


I bought a couple of the Estes kits really cheap years ago and did replace the b/c module on an AMT kit. It's a little too small but looks good and gives a unique but cool look to the model kit. I've done what started out as a quick and dirty build-up but am having to repair the neck after gluing the saucer on a little crooked. Epoxy putty and screws should do the trick.


----------



## Bullitt3980 (Nov 29, 2011)

The Estes decal kit was amazing compared to the AMT. I still baffles my mind how many times AMT spent money on the Enterprise molds but still didn't accurize it properly--I got an 1992 issue and a Estes decal kit--practice time for the 1:350 build


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Back in the day Estes sold a LOT of Enterprise rockets to those of us who wished for more accurate decals. Didn't matter if, technically, the decals were slightly undersized, they did SO MUCH to make the AMT kit look really good.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I just went ahead and bought a bunch of Estes _Enterprise_ and Klingon decals directly from the company, back in the day. Two dozen of each. Much cheaper than buying whole kits just for the decals. I still have several of both.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Captain April said:


> Um...the B/C deck on the AMT model has always been somewhat egg shaped, whereas on both filming miniatures, they've been teardrop shaped, so I'm not sure what you're driving at.


Um, simple go take a good hard look at the b/c deck housing because near as I can tell the contour is the same as the 3 and 11 foot filming models which means that AMT changed more than just the mounting slots for the warp pylons.........


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Without taking sides...

This is the top view of the 1966 AMT primary hull...


_Click to enlarge_​
There are top views of the 33 inch and 11 foot models out there, so I won't include them.

What absolutely changed was the profile of the bridge/B/C deck structure, as can be seen in this contour comparison...








And I'm sure that the reason for this was that the curvature from the base to the bridge wasn't symmetric on the original model.


_Click to enlarge_​
The plans I've been working on (well, was working on, I'll get back to them) will reflect this aspect of the model. The 1975 tooling created vertical walls around the base, which I got rid of in my build of the Republic by lowering the whole structure.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

It's kinda hard to get a good view of the b/c deck in your link there Shaw so I went and clicked on the other one for the Trek wiki scrolled down and enlarged the image of the old AMT kit then pulled out my AMT saucer top along with the PL top and compared them to the image om screen and even thought the AMT part came close the PL part was dead on for the contours of the b/c deck housing.


----------



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

What are your thoughts on the Revell Germany TOS E kit, Shaw?

Captain April mentioned it reminded him of the Franz Joseph designs for some reason. 
Not sure why, but I'm sure there was some reason.

Have you had a chance to look at one of those yet?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

As usual, David's observations and documentation are spot-on.

When I would build the _Enterprise_ kits from the original molds, on some I would add putty and re-contour the left side of the teardrop to match the shape of the right. On later releases, it was necessary to completely re-contour the entire teardrop - which was a _lot_ of work!

When Playmates released their _Enterprise_ toy, I made a mold of the teardrop and bridge, then made replacement parts (for myself). Since the toy was based on the AMT kit, the part fit very well, and saved a lot of time and trouble.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> What are your thoughts on the Revell Germany TOS E kit, Shaw?
> 
> Captain April mentioned it reminded him of the Franz Joseph designs for some reason.
> Not sure why, but I'm sure there was some reason.
> ...


Mainly just a gut feeling, considering the kit seems to be an amalgamation of several versions, most notably the eleven footer, three footer, and animated version. It would make sense if the Revell gang at least took a look or two at the FJ plans.


----------



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

RSN said:


> Well, as I said, I have a second run with the amber caps and I am going to try and match the look of what I saw on TV with this kit. It may not be easy and it may not look just like the 11 foot miniature, but it *WILL* be the Enterprise and no one can take that away from her!!


I've got some amber caps that came in a U.K. edition. The white version in the U.S. long box editions starting with #3 (like the one shown in Shaw's pic) is way more accurate. The amber ones don't seem to fit on the engines right, plus their shields look too short.

If you have any kits with that one around I would suggest making crysal resin copies of it to use with your kit.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I've got some amber caps that came in a U.K. edition. The white version in the U.S. long box editions starting with #3 (like the one shown in Shaw's pic) is way more accurate. The amber ones don't seem to fit on the engines right, plus their shields look too short.
> 
> If you have any kits with that one around I would suggest making crysal resin copies of it to use with your kit.


No, I will be making due with the kit parts. I will be making as few alterations as I can to make this as close to an out of box, yet accurate, Enterprise. About the only thing I will make myself will be new domes on the top and bottom of the primary hull, the rest will be just a bit of sanding and reshaping. Going to be fun!


----------



## NemVia (Jan 6, 2007)

I do remember this kit with great fondness as well. In fact I think I've built 7 or 8 of them total. Most of them wound up being a Constellation after I was tired of repairing the nacells. A few became the FJ scouts and on kit I bought to try to build a FJ Tug. I was even able to capture a few of them on movie film. Still have the shots buried somewhere.
I remember buying those kits at Toys R Us (Back when they had a terrific model selection) for $1.95. This was great because I thought, at the time, it would be so easy to build all 12 ships of the fleet. How times have changed. It would take me more than 12 years to afford 12 R2 kits to build the entire fleet.
I still have 2 of the AMT kits left to build. I bought them about 20 years ago for about $12 ea. But they were a nostalgic part of my growing up with Star Trek and they will always have a significance in my model building memories.
Mark


----------



## publiusr (Jul 27, 2006)

I'm hoping you complete the orthos of the AMT. Those would be nice to frame on their own


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Likewise. I need them for my pre-Constitution class deck plans.


----------

