# Revell/Germany Star Trek kits - latest test shots



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Found this on another model site:

http://www.scalemodelnews.com/2011/10/star-trek-from-revell-test-shots-of.html#more

Inaccuracies aside, I think they look good. What do you guys think?


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

May not be 100% accurate but I like it.
*LET THE BASHING BEGIN!!!*
-Jim


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

The huge lip on the bottom really baffles me. Other than that I think its a great "representation" of the iconic ship.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

It feels very strange to see actual windows cut into the plastic after decades of either drilling fiber optic runs or decals. 

I think I like the stand. It looks steady, supportive and gives the impression one can remove the ship to view the underside of the engineering hull if desired.


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I like the D-7, the hull texture is like what we saw in 'Trials & Tribulations' - a good mix between TMP and TOS.


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I'm not crazy about the way the D-7 panels are done; slightly raised panels as opposed to simple scribed lines would have been cooler. Still interesting to have a version like this however. Should be fun lighting it.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

I like em both. At least the Klingon ship has subtle detailing done it it and I'm glad. Same for the Enterprise, I believe Revell/Germany wants to give these models detail and to tell you the truth I don't mind. It enhances the appearance of both models nicely without being overdone. And also they won't be carbon copies of the A.M.T. kits. I think maybe Revell wants to distinguish their 2 kits. I especially like the detail on the Klingon. I can live with those lines on the Revell Enterprise as well. Guy Schlicter.


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

I have to say I'm impressed. Not with the kits, they're awful, but with everyone here. After explosive arguements, locked threads, and the occasional banning over (ducks head) GRID LINES, everyone seems to be taking a very laid-back approach to these kits. Maybe because we have access to more accurate kits. Maybe because they'll not be available easily in the states. Maybe because the apocolypse is looming large and brotherly love is the way to get through it. All I know is that these models don't represent the ships they're being billed as and you know what? I'm ok with that. Not buying one, but it's all good.

Peace and tranquility....it is the gift of Landru.

Tib


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance .


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Looks good to me!


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Well I think they both look *great* (what the hell OxfordDickie's going on about I don't know...seeing as they're new kits).

The Klingon ship has nice engraved detail on the bridge which I didn't think it was going to have....so that's a bonus and I think the grid lines and engravings on the Enterprise look nice too.....better than I expected.:thumbsup:


----------



## Captain_April (Oct 20, 2002)

I find it bizarre and outlandish that Revell would make such obvious mistakes on a well known subject. A google search would turn up hundreds if not thousands of links to photos and blueprints. It just doesn't make sense.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

Captain_April said:


> I find it bizarre and outlandish that Revell would make such obvious mistakes on a well known subject. A google search would turn up hundreds if not thousands of links to photos and blueprints. It just doesn't make sense.


life doesn't make sense.


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Nice to see the test shots built up, at least we can see what they're looking like now!

In the case of _Enterprise_, the large lower lip has been mentioned and the backwards Starfleet insignia is quite obvious.

One additional thing I noticed is the the entire forward section of the secondary hull - the housing over the "rings" appears to be smaller than it should be. Also, the top sensor dome over the Bridge looks like it's not fitting quite right in there.

Yet on the whole, when you look at this _Enterprise_ at certain angles, the larger saucer lip doesn't seem so bad; in a way, it almost looks like an artistic interpretation even though we know the shape is wrong! 

Haven't noticed any real shaped issues with the Klingon ship from the pictures- yet!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

On the plus side, the backwards insignia should make for a nice cookie mold, or some other baking situation where a proper Enterprise insignia is needed.
:thumbsup:


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

I figured it out! This is going to be the new redesigned JJPrise! :wave:


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

The Klingon looks to be a bit more accurate than the Enterprise. I'd get them if they sold for between 25-30 dollars which probably means I won't be getting either one.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

WarpCore Breach said:


> ...One additional thing I noticed is the the entire forward section of the secondary hull - the housing over the "rings" appears to be smaller than it should be. Also, the top sensor dome over the Bridge looks like it's not fitting quite right in there...



It needs to have more of a taper too, hopefully an aftermarket resin part will be available. Funny, but the Art Asylum TOS Enterprise also has the same mistake. 

These kits seem to be "reimagined" versions of the original series props, somewhat like what we've seen on DS9/Enterprise/Remastered TOS. Looking at it that way, what Revell of Germany has done is fine. For a series accurate Enterprise/Klingon Battle Cruiser, there's always the AMT reissue of the Klingon ship and the Polar Lights 1/1000 and upcoming 1/350 Enterprise kits to be had.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Captain_April said:


> I find it bizarre and outlandish that Revell would make such obvious mistakes on a well known subject. A google search would turn up hundreds if not thousands of links to photos and blueprints. It just doesn't make sense.


Agreed. The forward part of the _E's_ support hull is really wrong. And I don't like the paneling on the D7---that's not the TOS D7 in my view.

Interesting to see, but I'm not buying.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

spock62 said:


> It needs to have more of a taper too, hopefully an aftermarket resin part will be available. Funny, but the Art Asylum TOS Enterprise also has the same mistake.
> 
> These kits seem to be "reimagined" versions of the original series props, somewhat like what we've seen on DS9/Enterprise/Remastered TOS. Looking at it that way, what Revell of Germany has done is fine. For a series accurate Enterprise/Klingon Battle Cruiser, there's always the AMT reissue of the Klingon ship and the Polar Lights 1/1000 and upcoming 1/350 Enterprise kits to be had.




Exactly and that's what some of us have been saying. If people are looking for exact replicas of the 60s models then obviously they're going to be disappointed but these are obviously based more on the cgi versions. 

And as well as the AMT and PL ones you've pointed out...if people want a smooth Enterprise in styrene they can always get the cutaway version.


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

Don't know about everyone else, but I just got a bit of that excited lad-on-the-model aisle of the old variety store, with allowance in pocket burning a hole, and new models to spend it on. To me there's something exciting about these offerings. I'm reminded of the cover art on the James Blish soft cover TOS anthologies.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

SUNGOD said:


> Exactly and that's what some of us have been saying. If people are looking for exact replicas of the 60s models then obviously they're going to be disappointed but these are obviously based more on the cgi versions.


Oh yeah, the cartoony ones. Particularly the badly rendered cgi D7. :roll eyes:

I can't wait for R2's 1/350 TOS _E._ It's gonna embarrass anything else. Hell, I'd rather have PL's 1/1000...which I do.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Warped9 said:


> Oh yeah, the cartoony ones. Particularly the badly rendered cgi D7. :roll eyes:
> 
> I can't wait for R2's 1/350 TOS _E._ It's gonna embarrass anything else. Hell, I'd rather have PL's 1/1000...which I do.




Instead of the grainy, see-through ships that didn't move very realistically in the 60s.

The new cgi might not be perfect but it's still more realistic....like it or not than the original effects now. 

And these new kits might not be perfect also............but give me them any day over the PL ones. At least they've got realistic windows instead of tranfers.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

SUNGOD said:


> IThe new cgi might not be perfect but it's still more realistic...


Says who?


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

Captain April said:


> On the plus side, the backwards insignia should make for a nice cookie mold, or some other baking situation where a proper Enterprise insignia is needed.
> :thumbsup:


Ever the optimist, making lemons into lemonade and inexcusable mistakes into cookie cutters! Guess that's why you're a Captain! 

Tib


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Tiberious said:


> Ever the optimist, making lemons into lemonade and inexcusable mistakes into cookie cutters! Guess that's why you're a Captain!
> 
> Tib


He does what he always does. Gives a kit a fighting chance to survive.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Warped9 said:


> Says who?




Says me.............and I should imagine plenty of other people too.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

SUNGOD said:


> Says me.............and I should imagine plenty of other people too.


Agreed. For the most part, as far as the remastered TOS episodes, the CGI imagery to me still looks too flat, too sharp, too perfect, if that makes any sense. 
I'm not saying there isn't some fine CGI work out there; the ships in _Avatar_ were very well rendered in my opinion.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Trekkriffic said:


> Agreed. For the most part, CGI imagery to me still looks too sharp, too perfect, if that makes any sense.



Yes it does make sense and I can see what you mean. I'm not saying maybe the new cg can't benefit from a few tweaks but I think some people are wearing rose tinted glasses when they're watching some of the original Star Trek fx. 

I love to watch the old fx too but they look very stiff now and you can see things like matte lines........as well as through some of the ships. Same thing with Star Wars. You get all these people saying they hate all George Lucas's tinkering (and I agree some of the story alterations are bad) but some of the new cg fx do look better. I watched an old videotape of the first Star Wars a year or so back and some of the original fx in that look quite ropey now.


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

Over the years, my argument in favor of Trek vs. Wars is that the special effects, while a great storytelling device, wasn't the end-all be-all of science fiction. Now that both have been updated, it's still true in my opinion. I get a kick out of the new CGI scenes.....I dont' feel that they make or break Star Trek and I am glad they put the olds on the BD discs, so I can have my original Trek and still enjoy some flashy CGI too. Do I think that they did a fantastic job???? No....it is too animated, too flat, too clear. I think that had they blurred the 'lens' slightly and put in some more film grain, it might've been more true to the TOS look.....but to each his or her own. Both have their places. As do the models that we've gone OT from 

Tib


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Tiberious said:


> Over the years, my argument in favor of Trek vs. Wars is that the special effects, while a great storytelling device, wasn't the end-all be-all of science fiction. Now that both have been updated, it's still true in my opinion. I get a kick out of the new CGI scenes.....I dont' feel that they make or break Star Trek and I am glad they put the olds on the BD discs, so I can have my original Trek and still enjoy some flashy CGI too. Do I think that they did a fantastic job???? No....it is too animated, too flat, too clear. I think that had they blurred the 'lens' slightly and put in some more film grain, it might've been more true to the TOS look.....but to each his or her own. Both have their places. As do the models that we've gone OT from
> 
> Tib


Maybe they should have grained the new fx slightly but in the future I bet the original live action film sequences will be made high definition anyway as technology's improving all the time. They look remarkably good now considering they were shot in the 60s.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Hello!!! They were shot on celluloid and have already been upgraded to HD.  And while the HD shows some previously unseen detail it also unveils a multitude of production sins no show filmed today could get away with. 

There's such a thing as too much detail.


----------



## Maritain (Jan 16, 2008)

It looks to me like the slope on the underside of the saucer section looks to be off. 
http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r95/Nexus15/RevTrek03f.jpg

It almost looks like from the pic that its totally vertical especially where the windows come in, instead of being slightly angled. It also looks like for lack a better description a sagging "tet." (as the Scottish would say)


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Maritain said:


> It looks to me like the slope on the underside of the saucer section looks to be off.
> http://i142.photobucket.com/albums/r95/Nexus15/RevTrek03f.jpg...


That's the least of its problems


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

IIRC the D-7 TOS with the upper hull panelling was a physical model in DS-9's 'T&T'- and it looked better that the CGI one used in the remastered shows. I enjoyed the feeling of 'so that's what it really looks like when you get up close'. 
The Revell-Germany website talked somewhere about how the model specs were pulled from multiple sources and resolved into the final master. I will be getting a D-7 if I can, I will pass on the TOS-E just because the 1/350 will be close in price and a big bang for the buck.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Maritain said:


> It looks to me like the slope on the underside of the saucer section looks to be off.
> It also looks like for lack a better description a sagging "tet." (as the Scottish would say)


*"We like the Enterprise. We -- we really do.
That sagging old rust bucket is designed like a nursing sow."*










Okay. I added the "nursing sow" bit but the adjective "sagging" was true to the original dialogue...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Well, they both look like toys instead of models, but I'll pick up one of each to be a completist. I'll put a different name on the Conny, 'cause it sure doesn't look (in detail) like the Enterprise. The Klingon can be a D-7b or something, a slightly later model than the smoothie we saw on the show.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I'll get at least a couple each of the _Enterprise_ and D7 kits. I'll build one stock, and one with whatever modifications I feel are necessary to make it more appealing. 

Actually, between the two, I prefer the Klingon Battlecruiser. It appears to be a fairly screen-accurate representation of the Greg Jein model featured in the _DS9_ episode, or even the _Star Trek - Phase II_ Klingon ship. So what if it's not accurate to the original series - that's what the retooled AMT kit is for.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, I've got a buddy up in Yorkshire I could probably pester into getting me a couple of kits...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

^Oh, I'm sure the SSM store will have them


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Warped9 said:


> ^^ Hello!!! They were shot on celluloid and have already been upgraded to HD.  And while the HD shows some previously unseen detail it also unveils a multitude of production sins no show filmed today could get away with.
> 
> There's such a thing as too much detail.



Ok, but parts of the live action still don't look fully HD to me and I have an HD tv. It still looks fuzzy in a few places so maybe they'll be ugraded even further to super high definition or something like that.

You're correct in that there is something as too much detail but what parts are you talking about?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Parts where you can see the wood grain in what's supposed to be a duranium bulkhead, or the string attached to Elaan's dagger that she threw at Kirk, or the seam in Nimoy's pointed ear tips, that sort of thing.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Or the difference in color between Shat's hair and his toup...


----------



## Landru (May 25, 2009)

Tiberious said:


> Peace and tranquility....it is the gift of Landru.
> 
> Tib


It will be..absorbed.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Captain April said:


> Parts where you can see the wood grain in what's supposed to be a duranium bulkhead, or the string attached to Elaan's dagger that she threw at Kirk, or the seam in Nimoy's pointed ear tips, that sort of thing.



I can definitely see that point..........but maybe cg enhancements can sort stuff like that out anyway.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

They didn't use the CG to do that sort of thing.

If they were going to go to that level of detail in correcting goofs, they could've better spent their time and CBS's money correcting the multitude of audio goofs (wrong sound effects, missing sound effects, my fave of the bunch being the omission of Balok's "One minute" that was supposed to be in unison with Sulu's "One minute", thus explaining his retort of "I knew he would.")

Maybe one day, CBS will have a collective aneurism and sell the franchise to George Lucas. Then we'll _*REALLY*_ see some CG enhancements! :devil:


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

..............the horror............the horror...............


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Captain April said:


> Parts where you can see the wood grain in what's supposed to be a duranium bulkhead, or the string attached to Elaan's dagger that she threw at Kirk, or the seam in Nimoy's pointed ear tips, that sort of thing.


The wood grain was an homage to the natural materials that human beings had grown to love over 20k years, and what you thought were strings were, in fact, forcefields generated by the Enterprise to deflect the knife so that it wouldn't actually kill Kirk.

I got nothing for the ears


----------



## Fraley1701 (Sep 3, 2003)

Paulbo said:


> I got nothing for the ears


All about Spock's ears and why there were seams in the originals.






:thumbsup:


----------



## liskorea317 (Mar 27, 2009)

Fraley1701 said:


> All about Spock's ears and why there were seams in the originals.
> 
> http://youtu.be/DoPywuUk9SA
> 
> :thumbsup:


The man is brilliant. I've been watching his half scale scratch build of the original Enterprise.


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

So wait!

This new TOS Enterprise is suppose to be 18.9"? Is it comporable to the AMT 18"er of so many years ago? 

So is this just more "Fodder" for getting the AMT kit more accurized? 

I wonder what the decal sheet will look like? 

If I get one of these, I think I'll just call it the U.S.S. Kongo and number it the good 'ol Franz Joseph way....NCC-1710...or possibly give it the numbers from the second generation of Consititution Class ships from FJ, like the Bonhomme Richard - NCC-1712 - or something.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

MadCap Romanian said:


> So wait!
> 
> This new TOS Enterprise is suppose to be 18.9"? Is it comporable to the AMT 18"er of so many years ago?
> 
> ...


As far as I'm concerned, the "old FJ numbering" is the "real" numbering system.

I don't care what the TNG boys may have tried to justify... for more than twenty years, there was no debate over the numbering of these ships, and there was no reason to "re-number" them except just to be surly.

My uprated USS Lexington (basically the TMP Enterprise with a few small tweaks) uses the FJ nomenclature, and just because someone came along a decade later and tried to claim that those numbers weren't "right" (mainly because Roddenberry, again, was adamant about his desire to overtly contradict anything ever imagined by FJ, or by anyone else but him, but also because the same attitude was shared by lots of other folks on the TNG production crew), I see no reason to treat what they came up with as having any relevance whatsoever.

FJ came first. Fandom accepted this without question, and adopted it as a general rule.

Starships can have three nacelles. The Federation can have warships. And FJ's numbering is correct.

Anyone who tries to tell me otherwise can take a long walk off a short pier.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

Data, that's NOT funny!


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

CLBrown said:


> As far as I'm concerned, the "old FJ numbering" is the "real" numbering system.
> 
> FJ came first. Fandom accepted this without question, and adopted it as a general rule.
> 
> ...



I don't want to be confrontational, I would not wish to change your outlook on anything. Others can and will disagree, but nothing Franz Joeseph published is canon. With the exception of a few of his deck plans nothing (that I am aware of) ever made it to the screen. His book/plans are well done and very interesting, but they are all non canon. The same as all the other Star Trek novels. Interesting, some very good, but all are non canon.

Starships can have 3 nacelles- future Enterprise-D in All Good Things

The Federation can have warships- The Defiant from DS-9

F.J. numbering, not that I'm aware of.

As always this is my view, and as such is important only to me.

As such I will not take a long walk off a short pier.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The fact is nothing published, even reference books by Pocket, is really canon particularly if it's contradicted by onscreen evidence. A lot of the stuff that is essentially conjectural found in the _Star Trek Chronology, the Star Trek Encyclopedia_ and various tech references is no more official than FJ's work.


----------



## Chris Pike (Jul 23, 2005)

I so looked forward to opening the FJ blueprints in around '78? but was more dissapointed the more I studied them and only looked through them once...the numbering system, the "NCC Naval Construction Contract", the engineering set inside the impulse engine!!!, etc etc. No it was all pretty wild conjecture and never canon in my opinion...


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Mach, actually the ship profiles from the Tech Manual DID make it into screen graphics on some of the Bridge monitors in the earlier _Trek_ (2 and 3) movies. But they're hard to see if you don't know what to look for and where to find them... you need to see an enlarged frame capture to make them out. Someone, somewhere, posted just those kind of images somewhere several years ago and of course I have no idea where I saw that.

Also, in the original release of the _The Motion Picture_, the comm traffic at Epsilon 9 clearly gave names and numbers from 2 FJ Scout ships (_Revere_ and _Columbia_) plus a harder to hear - but present on my old VHS copy - of voice traffic identifying the Dreadnought _Entente_. All these references have been excised completely from the Director's Cut of TMP.

People forget that The Technical Manual and the _Enterprise_ blueprints throughout the '70s and partway into the '80s WERE considered "official". The reasons that it fell out of favour are complex and there's a lot of personal and studio politics affecting that. It's proven to be a really polarizing thing and need not be gotten into here at all.

But just for the record... the FJ numbering system is MY preference!


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

If NCC doesn't stand for Naval Construction Contract what DOES it stand for?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

*N*ot *C*anon *C*ertified.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

jbond said:


> If NCC doesn't stand for Naval Construction Contract what DOES it stand for?


My preferred definition is "Navigational Contact Code." But Matt Jefferies was an aviation guy, and in aviation, there is no real significance to the numerical codes used in aircraft callsigns.

So, we have three different options.

I like it being a "navigational contact code" because that makes the most sense in terms of craft broadcasting an identifier (along the lines of a modern "IFF code" - "identification - friend or foe") 

That's somewhat borne out on-screen in TWOK. The tactical display we see when Enterprise and Reliant are spinning around the Regula planetoid shows two "blips" with an ID code next to either.

This also is the only thing that "really" makes sense regarding the re-use of the contact code "1701" to define Enterprise. Each Enterprise (from TOS onwards) carries the same ID code. The suffix is a bookkeeping item, but each Enterprise broadcasts the same ID code.

I'm actually a big fan of the concept that this is actually a somewhat longer code, though... as promoted, among other places, in "Ships of the Starfleet." So, the TOS and TMP Enterprise both would be identified, logically, as "CH1701" (For cruiser, heavy, navigational code 1701).

But the "canon" answer is simply "the number has no meaning we know of."


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Warped9 said:


> *N*ot *C*anon *C*ertified.


LOL!



CLBrown said:


> ...But Matt Jefferies was an aviation guy, and in aviation, there is no real significance to the numerical codes used in aircraft callsigns...


Except that in a plane's "November" number, the "N" stands for North America. (OK, most of the other ones don't mean jack.)


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Well, the letter prefix indicates the country (D for Germany, G for Great Britain, etc), but the rest is nothing more than, basically, a license plate on a car.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I never liked FJ's numbering system. One, because it didn't match up with the numbers we got in TOS, which were all over the map, and two, it was just so blatantly obvious that all he did was copy the decal sheet from the AMT model, and I'd already developed a healthy dislike of that decal sheet.

Besides, the Ballantine edition of the Concordance listed the numbers of the list of Constitution class starships, and they followed Greg Jein's system, which, while admittedly somewhat arbitrary, at least drew upon onscreen material.


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Captain April said:


> I never liked FJ's numbering system. One, because it didn't match up with the numbers we got in TOS, which were all over the map, and two, it was just so blatantly obvious that all he did was copy the decal sheet from the AMT model, and I'd already developed a healthy dislike of that decal sheet.
> 
> Besides, the Ballantine edition of the Concordance listed the numbers of the list of Constitution class starships, and they followed Greg Jein's system, which, while admittedly somewhat arbitrary, at least drew upon onscreen material.


To be nit-picky here.... the ONLY other starship with a discernible name and number was the _Constellation_. Not a single other Conny-class ship shown in TOS ever had a visible number nor referred to with a name/number. The Remastered series DOES NOT COUNT here, btw... 

Okay, there was the _Republic_, that was clear enough. But who said it was a _Constitution_? We just assumed it was.

The Greg Jein system was derived from the chart in Commodore Stone's office in _Court Martial_. But no names were assigned with those numbers. Greg's "logic" - I found his treatise fascinating but an exercise in obscure code and leaps of assumption- is non-existent to match names to numbers so how on earth did that mean that every remaining _Constitution_ class ship was that base at that time?

If you find that completely believable, then fine. But I find the FJ system far better, even with the errors he made in that list. If we go by on-screen evidence, there is essentially none to be had.

Is there any proof that FJ copied the AMT decal sheet? As far as I could tell, AMT copied FJ's work since those decals and the Blueprints came out almost the same time. There may have been some consultations going on that we don't know about. The AMT sheet was crap, I totally agree with you there!! Horrible font, the numbers that were provided didn't make any sense at all and AMT didn't even include a name/number match-up (until the later issues in the late Eighties) - even when the FJ system was busily being denied by "The Powers That Were" at the time. As far as the names of the starships go, they were pulled from "_The Making of Star Trek_" as there was at least one chapter dedicated to the other ships of the _Enterprise_'s class. Also, that sheet lacked all the other hull markings that should have been there and window decals would have helped there immensely... but that's ancient history.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

WarpCore Breach said:


> To be nit-picky here.... the ONLY other starship with a discernible name and number was the _Constellation_. Not a single other Conny-class ship shown in TOS ever had a visible number nor referred to with a name/number. The Remastered series DOES NOT COUNT here, btw...
> 
> Okay, there was the _Republic_, that was clear enough. But who said it was a _Constitution_? We just assumed it was.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I've got to admit that I prefer FJ's system by far. It went to the trouble of attempting to make sense and match up to the TMOST lists of names. And, more than anything, it makes sense. Jein's numbers are all over the place and you do point out the problems there. 

Now, however, we're faced with going with the "standard" which has been based on Jein's for good or bad or going with FJ's system.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

It's hard to reconcile canon from Fan based conjecture based on a Forty-Five year+ old series that was never intended to be studied with such detail all these years later. It's a MODEL from a FICTIONAL series! I tend to hold the older info that has been generally accepted over the years as 'word' Even some of the so called 'canon' sometimes contradicts itself. My two cents,.......just have fun with it.


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

I didn't mean for this to go into the FJ vs GJ realm....I just wanted to know if the models are the same scale.

But if we are going the FJ route...I like that the ship numbers are consistent. With exception of Republic and Constellation, all ships start with 17 and then end with the number. My thoughts are that Republic and Constellation might have been famous ships like Enterprise was and may also have carried their numbers across from previous predecessor ships...much like Enterprise became 1701, then 1701-A, -B, -C, -D..... The other ships from the fleet start with Consitiution and go from there.

Also, with them being consistent, that means that they would have built the Constitution first, the Enterprise second, the Farragut third, etc. 

GJ's numbers are all over the map and I can't be satisfied putting a 1600 number on any Contitution Class ship. It just seems wrong to me.

Also, Warp Core Breech missed that the U.S.S. Constitution was suppose to be the class star ship, (1700) and that one was shown on screen, but as a drawing. (I believe it was compaired to the Klingon ship in one of the Kirk/Klingon conflict episodes.)


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The AMT model, with that atrocious decal sheet, beat FJ's stuff to market by at least three years.

And the Constellation should be enough evidence that the registry numbers are not anywhere close to sequential.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Captain April said:


> The AMT model, with that atrocious decal sheet, beat FJ's stuff to market by at least three years.
> 
> And the Constellation should be enough evidence that the registry numbers are not anywhere close to sequential.


Untrue.

The original decal sheet did not have "numbers for every ship in the fleet" and used a much more accurate typeface.

I remember, quite vividly, when the new release of the kit came out. It was in one of the small boxes, and proudly proclaimed that the new decal sheet let you "build every ship in the fleet." 

The source of the numbers and the list of ships used on that sheet was the FJ material. This was no secret.

_______________

Now, we know why the Constellation was built as it was. They had only the existing AMT kit decal sheet, and they re-arranged it.

Look at the original episode. Look at the typefont on the Constellation. It's the right font, and it's the KIT DECAL SHEET being used.

_______________

Personally, I wish that they'd gone with 1707, or 1710, or 1717, or even (theoretically) 1770, 1771, or 1777. Heck, they could have made it the Constitution and had it be 1700. But the production team felt that, with low-resolution TV sets, it was important that the audience not be confused as to which ship is which (as if the audience couldn't tell the difference due to which was an 11' miniature and which was an AMT kit, and as if the audience would pay attention to the numbers on the hull).

Now, this had long since been explained by fandom, well before Jein's scheme was widely known, much less "canonized." The idea was that the Constellation had been built much earlier and "uprated" to be of the same general configuration as the Enterprise. (I remember these discussion back in the early and mid 1970s, mainly in "letters" pages of various fanzines and magazines. In fact, the first time I read this, I believe it was in the letters section of an issue of Starlog, though I might be mistaken.)

I've always preferred that explanation. The first ship to be used as a testbed for some of the tech used on the 1700 was an earlier ship class. The 1700 was the first new-build ship of its configuration. The ship which had been used as a testbed was later modified (keeping the "test components" but with major hull reconstruction) into a ship much like the other Constitution-class ships, though with a few dimensional variations 

(Even at that point, lot of people had recognized the basic errors in the AMT kit... no taper in the warp nacelles and the squared off bridge and B/C-deck superstructure, were the main known issues at the time... and remember, this was before they refurbished the AMT kit to have tapered nacelles.)

Now, today, there's another widely accepted explanation which competes with this idea... that being that the Constellation wasn't even the same class of ship... perhaps it was a similar, but older, prior class? But I prefer the "old" explanation better.

Frankly, either of those makes more sense to me than Jein's chart ever will.

________________

But regardless... the fact remains that virtually all fandom accepted the FJ chart, and virtually no one even knew about young Greg Jein's idea for many, many years.

He eventually got a gig working on Trek, and started lobbying for his own chart, and yes, eventually he managed to "implement it" on top of what most of us had accepted for quite a few years.

But his logic is terribly flawed. The worst flaw, frankly, is how he chose to assume that the ships on Commodore Stone's chart reflected ONLY CONSTITUTION CLASS SHIPS. That is just... silly. The sort of thing you believe if you've never considered that there might be other types of ships in the Federation.

But we KNOW that there are other classes of ships. We even have on-screen dialog confirming that. (I'm thinking, in particular, of Captain Merrick, the fellow who tried to live up to the saying "When in Rome...") So why anyone would assume, in contradiction to all logic, that there are only twelve ships in the entire UFP Starfleet, is just stunning to me. "A thousand planets, and spreading out" but only twelve ships in existence? REALLY?

Sorry, Greg Jein is a good guy, and a good model builder, but he screwed this one up royally, and then fell in love with his own idea so strongly that he eventually force-fed it to the rest of us, logic, or "tradition" for that matter, be damned.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Some of you people have way too much time on your hands. You should get a hobby.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Ductapeforever said:


> You should get a hobby.


:roll:

-Jim


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

CLBrown said:


> Untrue.
> 
> The original decal sheet did not have "numbers for every ship in the fleet" and used a much more accurate typeface.
> 
> ...


Logically stated and reflecting my own thoughts as well. :thumbsup:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

The Constellation in "The Doomsday Machine" had the registry number of NCC-1017 because the FX department had the budget and time to go and buy *ONE* AMT kit with *ONE* set of decals, to make a fast and dirty ship to film. With only *ONE* set of decals, they had to rearrange the numbers to be different from the Enterprise. With only 0-1-1-7 to use, they chose the number 1017. I don't think the idea of building a "Time Machine", travel 45 years into the future to consult with people who overanalyze a low budget, (Yes it was. We love it, but that is a fact!), TV show feel about the number, occurred to them!

It is like being a "Leonard" in a room full of "Sheldons" sometimes!


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

RSN said:


> The Constellation in "The Doomsday Machine" had the registry number of NCC-1017 because the FX department had the budget and time to go and buy *ONE* AMT kit with *ONE* set of decals, to make a fast and dirty ship to film. With only *ONE* set of decals, they had to rearrange the numbers to be different from the Enterprise. With only 0-1-1-7 to use, they chose the number 1017. I don't think the idea of building a "Time Machine", travel 45 years into the future to consult with people who overanalyze a low budget, (Yes it was. We love it, but that is a fact!), TV show feel about the number, occurred to them!
> 
> It is like being a "Leonard" in a room full of "Sheldons" sometimes!


You left out the cost of the BIC lighter, though! :dude:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

CLBrown said:


> You left out the cost of the BIC lighter, though! :dude:


Everyone smoked back then, so I am sure threre was one around and they didn't need to dip into petty cash! :thumbsup:


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I wouldn't say Jein's argument is TERRIBLY flawed--it's not unreasonable to assume that the chart in Stone's office relates to just Constitution-class ships--the biggest, most powerful starships and the "prime movers" in Starfleet. There's no indication that Stone is overseeing the entire Starfleet, but it might make sense that he's in charge of the 12 most important vessels in the fleet. Kirk says "there are only 12 like it in the fleet" at one point--that doesn't mean there are only 12 warp driven ships in Starfleet, but only 12 this large and sophisticated, just like the U.S. Navy has a limited number of massive aircraft carriers.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

CLBrown said:


> Untrue.
> 
> The original decal sheet did not have "numbers for every ship in the fleet" and used a much more accurate typeface.


*BZZZZZT!!

*Pay attention, 007. I did not say anything about the original decal sheet.

Try again.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

jbond said:


> I wouldn't say Jein's argument is TERRIBLY flawed--it's not unreasonable to assume that the chart in Stone's office relates to just Constitution-class ships--the biggest, most powerful starships and the "prime movers" in Starfleet. There's no indication that Stone is overseeing the entire Starfleet, but it might make sense that he's in charge of the 12 most important vessels in the fleet. Kirk says "there are only 12 like it in the fleet" at one point--that doesn't mean there are only 12 warp driven ships in Starfleet, but only 12 this large and sophisticated, just like the U.S. Navy has a limited number of massive aircraft carriers.


Commodore Stone is a field base commander, and his post is not "Fleet HQ." If Stone was "Chief of Operations, Starfleet" (as Kirk was supposed to have been in TMP), you'd expect him to have full control over the entire fleet, but I see no reason to conclude that a field-base commander would have control over the fleet at all.

At MOST, he would have full control over ships which were "permanently attached" to his post... in which case, this would almost certainly not include ANY of the twelve "exploratory heavy cruisers" like the Enterprise, whose missions were to "go where no man has gone before" rather than to stay close to a particular local base.

And we know that it appears (though this is not 100% certain) that the primary role of Stone's command was that of a repair base. So, it's much more reasonable to assume that Stone's wall chart was actually a list of the ships currently at the base for repair or servicing.

It's incredibly unlikely that all twelve "exploratory heavy cruisers" would be at that one location at that one time, all undergoing servicing. Not merely because this would mean that none were actually DOING ANYTHING at that point, but also because it would be a ludicrous risk... "Pearl Harbor" on a galactic scale.

So, I can't accept that.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Captain April said:


> *BZZZZZT!!
> 
> *Pay attention, 007. I did not say anything about the original decal sheet.
> 
> Try again.


You said that the "all the ships in the fleet" decal sheet pre-dated FJ's work.

When, exactly, do you believe that the "build every ship in the fleet" decal sheet came out, and when, exactly, do you believe that FJ first published his list?

From the COMMERCIAL release of the "Star Trek Blueprints" (which were released after the original work was done, of course)

Illustrator: Franz Joseph
Copyright: 1973
ISBN: 0345258215

And the "new decal sheet" came out with the first "small box" release of the kit, which was in 1975.

See this page for more info on the history of the AMT Enterprise kit...

http://culttvman.com/main/?p=3665


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

"Knock, knonk, knonk, Penny! Knock, knonk, knonk, Penny! Knock, knonk, knonk, Penny!"


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

CLBrown said:


> You left out the cost of the BIC lighter, though! :dude:


Except the BIC lighter didn't come out until 1973 :wave:


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Paulbo said:


> Except the BIC lighter didn't come out until 1973 :wave:


I surrender...


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Can anyone say 'Zippo ?'


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Ductapeforever said:


> Can anyone say 'Zippo ?'


No, but I can say Zeppo!!!
-Jim


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

:thumbsup:


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

The original decal sheet is important in the sense that it was the only thing available when the original Constellation model for the show was made. There was only ONE ship name/number of course. The font for that sheet was far more accurate than the later sheet provided in the '70s releases.

I don't have my Blueprints nor Tech Manual handy right now, so I couldn't comment on publication dates, but it does appear that the "build all the ships of the fleet" sheet did in fact come after the blueprints; just exactly when may still be open to interpretation. But that sheet was poorly designed; the font only approximated the font it should have been (and poorly at that) plus whoever designed it started at "-01" and counted up to "'-14". Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy!!! Now, of course it is possible to get the correct numbers as per FJ but it takes some rearranging. Same if you want to do the GJ version.

It's clear that there are some very polarized opinions on which is correct and which isn't. But if you go ONLY from the original, unaltered source material there is very little to go by. I'm just disappointed that I can't get decal sheets for the FJ numbering system for the old AMT kit.


----------



## MadCap Romanian (Oct 29, 2005)

You'll just have to do the ol' "Cut and Wiggle" technique!:thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

If they used the kit decal sheet, and that's the excuse for only have a 1, a 7, a 0 and another 1 to play with... how did they accomplish the "U.S.S. CONSTELLATION" lettering?


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Just thinking that myself.:freak:

If they created their own decals for the name, they could have easily added some extra numbers in the mix. Maybe they had some dry transfer letters that were the same font and size?


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Point taken!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Wrongo, that decal sheet appeared with the long box releases around 1972. I know, because that was the first Enterprise model I got.



> From "*A History of the AMT Enterprise Model by Jay Chladek part 3"*
> 
> *Long Box version 5, Kit #S951
> 
> *The most significant change was in this model was to the decal sheet, as it marked the first appearance of the decal sheet which contained markings to do the entire fleet of Constitution class starships. This “fleet” sheet featured an inaccurate looking font and the artwork would remain in use with no major changes until the final small box kits were issued almost two decades later. One reason for this change was probably the publication of Franz Joseph’s Starfleet Technical Manual, which occurred at about the same time and included the names and NCC numbers for other Constitution class vessels, providing inspiration for modelers wanting to do more then just a model of the Enterprise.


Try again.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Wrongo, that decal sheet appeared with the long box releases around 1972. I know, because that was the first Enterprise model I got.
> 
> Try again.


I remember getting the long box model with the "build the entire fleet" decals. I think this occurred after they took the lighting out of the model kit as some sort of compensation.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Captain April said:


> Wrongo, that decal sheet appeared with the long box releases around 1972. I know, because that was the first Enterprise model I got.
> 
> Try again.


Nice selective quoting.

Here's another quote from that page:


> This may be the final long box kit issue, but my example of this kit came with no box so this is just an assumption on my part. It could perhaps be a small box kit, but the parts in the kit support the evidence that this was probably a long box kit and will be noted as such until evidence proves otherwise.


And this practice is also mentioned more than once in the document:


> There may be examples of the first unlighted kits still containing all the plastic parts from the previous issues for a lighted kit, but no bulbs or metal battery tabs as AMT has shown evidence of wanting to use up their stock of older parts before phasing in newer ones


SO... we have Jay saying that he has a kit with NO BOX which he "believes" was a long-box kit, with the new decals, but he is not certain about this. And we have a number of examples of where AMT used up existing stock of instruction sheets, boxes, parts, etc, etc, when transitioning from one set to another.

And, of course, we have the COPYRIGHT date of 1973 for the first commercial release of the Star Trek blueprints. And FJ first (personally) published them, selling them at a convention more than a year before that, before the publishing house decided to make them a formally-published item, so he came up with that list no later than mid-1972. How long did he work on creating these prints? Do you assume it took him only a few hours?

So... 

You can keep pretending to be flawless and errorless, or you can pull out your own PROOF of your "unipeachable claim" that FJ stole those from AMT.

PROVE YOUR CLAIM. You're awfully damned cocky. Give us some evidence, pal.

When did you buy that first model? How old were you at that time? WHAT YEAR WAS IT?

Can you show us the model? Do you have any photos with it in the picture? Anything at all?

You really do need to start DISCUSSING. I'm getting tired of your "CRA is always right and if you don't agree with CRA you're stupid" tone.

You have a position. Fine, let's discuss it. Make your point. Support your claim. DISCUSS.

I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. I've made my case. Why don't you make yours?


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I remember getting the long box model with the "build the entire fleet" decals. I think this occurred after they took the lighting out of the model kit as some sort of compensation.


Do you remember your age when you bought this, and/or what year you got it?

Mainly the important point is... was it before, or after, the publication of FJ's commercial version of the Star Trek Blueprints in 1973?


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

I want to thank CL Brown for taking this message board argument to the next level!


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

jbond said:


> I want to thank CL Brown for taking this message board argument to the next level!


All I'm trying to do is develop the timeline. It MAY be possible that some long-box kits were sold post-1973. I'm not certain.

But we know... I have a physical set of prints which prove it, AND an ISBN code which any of you can use to confirm my claim... that FJ published his prints (with the list of ships and their NCC codes) in 1973.

So, if someone can prove that AMT provided that sheet in 1972, or early 1973 for that matter, then the argument MIGHT hold some weight that FJ "stole" his scheme from the AMT kit.

But accusing the man of "stealing" from AMT is not a trivial statement, and no matter how much CRA may be on-record as hating FJ and everything FJ did, this is not something he can get away with without supporting his position with something besides snarkiness.

My first Enterprise kit was built in 1972, when I was six years old. My dad actually built it, even though it was "mine." (The joys of fatherhood, huh?) It had the original decals, was "long box," and had amber nacelle caps, but no lights. It had the triangular base, without the switch. It was molded in pure white.

The next kit I purchased came in 1975, and was one of the first "small box kits." There was a sticker on the plastic wrapper, proudly proclaiming the addition of "new decal sheets" by which you could build "Every ship in the fleet." I was, at the time, nine years old and in the fourth grade. It was in white plastic again, but almost an "eggshell" tone. The nacelle domes were still the one-piece versions with the three attached "shields." I still have that one, albeit in a box in storage, today.

I later bought three additional versions, all of which were blue plastic and were the "final" version. I customized those to be the TOS series ship, and the two pilot ships, using mod parts created by Thomas Sasser and sold through Lunar Models. I also bought custom decals, and didn't use the AMT/Ertl-supplied decals.

But I know that in late 1972, the kits had the original decals, and that in 1975, AMT was making a big deal of promoting their "new" decal sheets."

My dad was an engineer, as I am, and encouraged me along this path. So he got me a set of the first-generation Enterprise blueprints, which I got under the tree on Christmas of 1973, just before my seventh birthday. And I still have those, and thus I know with absolute certainty that they list the original FJ ship sequence.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

That's along time ago and my recall is very murky on this issue. My first AMT kit was a long box with the new cover (a picture of the model rather than artwork) and it had lights in both saucer and engines (with amber domes). It was a Christmas present in 1970 when I was 11. Time passes slowly when you're a kid and it seemed like forever until FJ's blueprints came out. But as to which came first: FJ's blueprints or the new AMT decal sheet, I really can't remember. I think it would have been around 1973, but which actually came first I'm stumped.


----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)

RSN said:


> It is like being a "Leonard" in a room full of "Sheldons" sometimes!


So........

Everybody looking forward to the Revell Enterprise kit coming out?


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

I am. I am a bit of a completist, so despite the oversized windows and other issues, I am planning on getting Enterprise and D7.

Re: blueprints, etc. My first Enterprise kit was a long box in 1969. It had the orange nacelle caps, green sensor domes and was lit in those 4 places. The switch was built into the rotating antenna support structure, as were the batteries in the secondary hull. CLBrown mentions a light switch built into the base? Neat idea, but never really ran into that. I do remember a friend had the light up Klingon cruiser, which had a plastic throw lever switch in the bottom of the ship to turn it on and off. I wanted one, but my Dad said no, one was enough!

BTW, I so over-glued the engines to the hull that the thin hollowed tabs melted away and gave my model a serious case of drooping engines....


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Got the model when the animated series was still on NBC, so I was around nine at the time. Blueprints were not out yet (Ballantine didn't print the mass market version until 1975).


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

The animated show was on during the 1973/1974 season. (And despite some flaws, I generally consider it to be good storytelling and "good Star Trek.") 

So, you got a kit in between the fall of 1973 and the summer of 1974 which had the new decals... interesting.

FJ created his prints in 1972 and, as mentioned before, put them on sale (in limited quantities) in 1973. As you said, the "mass market" version (which was in every Waldenbooks in the country) was out in late 1975, (in time for the Christmas shopping season) with the tech manual seeing its first release at the same time.

So, the timing is still a bit vague, it would seem, but still leans in favor of FJ as far as I'm concerned.
__________________________

Re: the Revell kits... provided I can get them for a reasonable price (unlike, say, the Finemolds Falcon which I desperately wanted, but wasn't willing to pay that much for!), I'm sure I'll buy them both. But I'm not overly impressed so far, and they may just end up on my "maybe someday I'll get around to them" shelf, alongside my Cardassian ship and my clear Ambassador class and my DS9 and so forth...

By contrast, I've already come up with a large portion of my "pre-build shopping list" for the R2 Big "E," and have my builds planned out. (I'm gonna do two, but the "Cary's version" is coming first, with the "filming model" version (barring production shortcuts obviously) likely to end up on the "maybe next year" stack.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

CLBrown said:


> Do you remember your age when you bought this, and/or what year you got it?
> 
> Mainly the important point is... was it before, or after, the publication of FJ's commercial version of the Star Trek Blueprints in 1973?


I was 11 or 12--I think it was late 1973 or early 1974.


----------



## charonjr (Mar 27, 2000)

A friend of my Mom's gave me a rolled up set of the FJ plans in 74. He'd taken his set and put two sheets on a blueprinter to make the copies. It was sooo cool and official looking!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

So the big question is when did AMT switch to that *blech* decal sheet? I'm thinking '72.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

CLBrown said:


> The animated show was on during the 1973/1974 season. (And despite some flaws, I generally consider it to be good storytelling and "good Star Trek.")
> 
> So, you got a kit in between the fall of 1973 and the summer of 1974 which had the new decals... interesting.
> 
> ...


My impression is that the starship names came from the memos from TMOST page 165 and that FJ had the same source. Simply matching up the numbers starting with 1700 for Constitution is not rocket science. The coincidence of FJ's numbering and the numbers included (though not matched up to the names, IIRC) in the decals of the long boxes is not necessarily indicating to me that FJ got his numbering from the decals or that the decals were derived from FJ's work. Someone may find some documentation one way or the other but it's still a minor point, IMHO.

The fact that FJ went to some trouble to include the oddball number for the Constellation whereas the decal sheet just threw out a bunch of 1700-1714 numbers seems to indicate that FJ went to the original sources rather than relying on the decals--if they were out first. The fact that the oddball number of the Constellation was not included in the decals as such indicates that the decals did not rely on FJ's work even if FJ's work was already out there and available:


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Have to agree with both CL and the Perfessor. My sequence of events was quite different, as things tended to be in Canada...  I got my first _Enterprise_ in 1970 - but I have to admit that I am not entirely certain of the year. It was put out by Aurora, but I can no longer prove it as the instruction sheet is many decades gone. I would have been 12 in '70. I still have that model; badly damaged, needing some parts substituted from a wrecked early AMT kit but repairable.

I got my first small box _Enterprise_ in '73 as a replacement for by then long-broken Aurora _Enterprise_. Aside from the fact that it did not have the internal lighting system, it was pretty much identical to the Aurora version. Neither one had the clear nacelle domes. This model was molded in pure white and had the new decal sheet. I got later _Enterprise_ kits that were the revised style; all were molded in that very light grey and I never even saw - let alone heard of - the blue molded ones.

I got the Blueprints and the Tech Manual as Xmas gifts in '75. I cherished them greatly and still have them today.

My first Klingon ship was purchased in '71; it was the AMT kit and lighted. I still have that one, too, although like that first _Enterprise_, it needs lots of repairs.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Ya know, I realize that trying to put a timeline together is logical and helpful, but really? Context helps so much more.

a. AMT was much more 'connected' with its fans back then. Don't forget that 'Stephen Whitfield' was (IIRC) working for AMT and became a big fan of the show while writing 'the making of ST' and had solid connections to Roddenberry. Back in the day everyone who did things for Star Trek (in a fannish way that is) sent copies to Roddenberry for the approval of the Great Bird of the Galaxy. I have no doubt that FJ sent those early blueprints to Roddenberry.

In the hobby industry it's always nice to be able to 'refresh' a kit with minimal cost. Being able to promote a new decal sheet was one way to refresh the kit. I have no doubt that the FJ work was passed on to AMT. Why not? At that point in time FJ was violating copyright, right? While Roddenberry and Paramount had a 'wink and a nod' view of such things it still was a violation, if someone decided to make an issue of it. Of course once they got to the ST:TMP time such casual, friendly views vanished. 

So it's logical to assume those early pre-Ballantine blueprints touched off the idea of the 'fleet' decal sheet, which then was 'confirmed' by the mass-market (and hence legitimizing) publishing of the blueprints and Tech Manual.

See? not so complex once context is taken into account. One advantage of being a fan thru that whole period.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I don't ever recall an _Enterprise_ kit made by Aurora. My long box kit in 1970 was an AMT box. I had been on the lookout for an _Enterprise_ model or toy in the summer and fall of 1970 and finally spotted it in the toy section on the lower level of a W.H. Smith store at Cloverdale Mall in Etobicoke, Ontario. I was with my mother shopping and I made a point of pointing it out to her.  I'll never forget how excited I felt opening it under the tree at Christmas along with the Klingon ship which I hadn't seen before.

Some above comments have jogged my memory. I recall wondering why the new decal sheet did not reflect the distinctive numbers of 1017 and 1371 as was clearly established onscreen. Granted 1017 was the only other one besides 1701 that we actually ever saw. It then struck me that while using the 1700 series of numbers for the _Enterprise's_ sister ships made sense I also thought the decal sheet was put together in such a way was for simplicity's sake.

My impression is the new decal sheet came along before I got my hands on FJ's blueprints. In those days I was hot on the lookout for anything new related to _Star Trek_ and I noticed the blueprints and then later (a year later?) the _Technical Manual_ on the shelves of W.H. Smith at Square One in Mississauga almost as soon as they came out. But I didn't know until recently that FJ's work first came along in 1972. That does indeed make the timeline murkier. I agree both FJ and AMT could have each been working from similar source materiel only FJ seemed to have put more thought into it, reflected by his acknowledging the numbers 1017 and 1371. The decal sheet doesn't really have a clear sense of order to to and you could arrange the numbers in whatever manner you liked.



Steve H said:


> So it's logical to assume those early pre-Ballantine blueprints touched off the idea of the 'fleet' decal sheet, which then was 'confirmed' by the mass-market (and hence legitimizing) publishing of the blueprints and Tech Manual.


Makes sense to me.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

If memory serves Aurora had the overseas/UK distro of the AMT Enterprise. I seem to recall something about them having duplicate tooling over in England.

It would be logical for someone in Canada in the '60s to have gotten that, esp. if they were shopping at a UK based department store.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Steve H said:


> If memory serves Aurora had the overseas/UK distro of the AMT Enterprise. I seem to recall something about them having duplicate tooling over in England.
> 
> It would be logical for someone in Canada in the '60s to have gotten that, esp. if they were shopping at a UK based department store.


I think that is correct from the histories I've read of the model kits. The Mr. Spock kit was done by Aurora in a deal involving the distribution rights in different countries.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I think that is correct from the histories I've read of the model kits. The Mr. Spock kit was done by Aurora in a deal involving the distribution rights in different countries.


I want to be clear here because I always seek to learn.


You're saying the Mr. Spock kit was designed (proto at least, maybe even tooling?) by the Aurora team as a form of payment in addition to I assume the licensing fees? That actually makes sense given the time. And it explains a figure kit which, to my memory, AMT just didn't otherwise do. 

That Spock kit always did have an Aurora vibe to it, to me at least. Huh!

(trading product for rights clearly wasn't new to AMT, recall the providence of the Klingon ship and the Shuttle.)

cool. I learn new things.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Sounds plausible. Which is probably as close as we're gonna get with this one.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Steve H said:


> If memory serves Aurora had the overseas/UK distro of the AMT Enterprise. I seem to recall something about them having duplicate tooling over in England.
> 
> It would be logical for someone in Canada in the '60s to have gotten that, esp. if they were shopping at a UK based department store.


In the article I linked to earlier, the Aurora kits are discussed. They are the AMT kits but there are some differences. Jay mentioned several unique differences in his article, but primarily these are apparent errors (such as instructions sheets talking about lighting for a kit which had no "lighting" parts included and so forth).

Only the Aurora version was technically "available" in Canada, but I presume that many small hobby shop owners would order from US-based distributors (or just pick up from larger US-based shops?)... the US/Canada border has never been especially secure, has it?


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Oops, just as a clarification, I should add that I may have gotten my first small box TOS E no earlier than '73- it could have been in '74. It was a long time ago - and while I do remember working on it and even where, the exact year is kind of vague and of course subject to errors in memory.

The reason for my commentary is that during those years, I was utterly unaware of the work being done by Mr. Joseph until his work was released. At the time, they did have the official blessings of Paramount and GR (I think his signature even appears on the detail boxes of the blueprints). These days, the work he put into creating both products would be considered copyright infringement, which really didn't exist at that time like it does today. Also, being where I was also meant that even the availability of information that conventions were happening, other people producing work building on the by-then canceled TOS series just wasn't there. I was well and truly in the dark until models, blueprints, etc actually showed up in stores did I know anything about those products!

Since the revised decal sheet and the blueprints did come out about the same time, I think I would have assumed that both AMT and FJ had access to the same materials.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

The Aurora kits in Canada is a new one for me because all I ever saw were AMT kits. But is it possible different shops could have ordered from different sources?


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Re: the Aurora kits, check out near the bottom of page four of the article I linked to earlier... here's a direct link to p. 4.

http://culttvman.com/main/?p=3699


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

CLBrown said:


> Re: the Aurora kits, check out near the bottom of page four of the article I linked to earlier... here's a direct link to p. 4.
> 
> http://culttvman.com/main/?p=3699


Curious, because as I said I've never seen any Aurora issues and I've always lived in the Greater Toronto Area...until recently. It's possible the earlier issues could have been by Aurora and then later ones reverted back to AMT. And like I said my first kit was a long box lighted issue (with the model on the cover instead of art) in December, 1970.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Warped9 said:


> Curious, because as I said I've never seen any Aurora issues and I've always lived in the Greater Toronto Area...until recently. It's possible the earlier issues could have been by Aurora and then later ones reverted back to AMT. And like I said my first kit was a long box lighted issue (with the model on the cover instead of art) in December, 1970.


Well, again, it may have been a matter of where, which store it was bought at. A small shop, like a local drug store or hardware store or hobby shop may well have sourced from an American distributor and hence AMT kits, while a department store chain or '5 and dime' or discount store with it's parent company based in England may well have sourced from over there, hence Aurora. The model kits in that case would have been just one small item compared to the bulk goods such as clothing or specific brand 'soft goods' items.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ My first kit came from W.H. Smith which was a major chain up until the '80s.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

In Toronto, at least, we had Aurora kits then AMT kits.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

I did a quick bit of research into Aurora, and discovered this tidbit:


> Aurora’s founders retired in the late 1960s and the company was sold to outside investors in 1969. After expanding into the toys and games market with limited success, the new owners sold the company to Nabisco in 1971. Nabisco in turn sold the model kit division in 1977 to Aurora’s one-time rival Monogram.


So, it looks like maybe when Nabisco bought Aurora, the UK/Canada thing may have gone by the wayside?

Now, I also learned something I had no idea of, while researching this... but it does make sense (can anyone confirm this claim?):


> In the late 1990s and early 2000s, toy and hobby company Playing Mantis created a division called Polar Lights (as a reference to "aurora") which reissued some of Aurora’s most popular kits. Other companies reissuing earlier Aurora kits include Moebius, Atlantis and Monarch. For example, Moebius has reissued the large kit of the submarine 'Seaview' from the 1960s 'Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea' TV show. Polar Lights, Monarch and Moebius all use an oval logo reminiscent of the earlier Aurora style, while Atlantis (see Zorro re-issue), is using a similar oval design, though divided into four sections.


It makes perfect sense that "Polar Lights" as a name was chosen as "Aurora without a trademark infringement."

That was probably due to this bit...


> In the 1990s, the family of Joseph Giammarino announced the return of Aurora Plastics Corporation as a manufacturer of hobby kits under the name LAPCO, or "Lost Aurora Plastics Corporation", with a product line to include reverse engineered reissues of long gone kits. Nothing came of this. Again in 2007, Giammarino's family announced the return of Aurora, with their first offerings stated to include aircraft and figure kits from their original 1960s line (Giammarino 2007). But the models still have not come to pass, the phone number for the company has been disconnected, and the website has not been updated since 2007.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

SteveR said:


> In Toronto, at least, we had Aurora kits then AMT kits.


That is just weird. Etobicoke is just outside of Toronto.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

It's also possible that this was around the time that AMT got distribution rights in Canada.

Jus' sayin'...


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Captain April said:


> It's also possible that this was around the time that AMT got distribution rights in Canada.
> 
> Jus' sayin'...


Which might have been tied to the Lesney (Matchbox) buyout of AMT. I had completely forgotten that part. But that was late '70s.

So, who knows? I wasn't there, I was busy being a 1st gen Trekker down in the States.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Captain April said:


> It's also possible that this was around the time that AMT got distribution rights in Canada.
> 
> Jus' sayin'...


Could be. I know that when I got my kit at Christmas not long after a school friend got one as well for his birthday or something. And yet his kit came in one of the earlier issue boxes with the artwork, only at the time I had no idea it was a previous issue. I thought it was new and different packaging. But I can't recall if it was an Aurora marked box. I just know all my Trek kits have always had AMT on the box until the new PL 1/1000 kits a few years ago.


----------



## Stimpson J. Cat (Nov 11, 2003)

Not my scale but handsome models. :thumbsup:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

CLBrown said:


> I did a quick bit of research into Aurora, and discovered this tidbit:So, it looks like maybe when Nabisco bought Aurora, the UK/Canada thing may have gone by the wayside?
> 
> Now, I also learned something I had no idea of, while researching this... but it does make sense (can anyone confirm this claim?):It makes perfect sense that "Polar Lights" as a name was chosen as "Aurora without a trademark infringement."
> 
> That was probably due to this bit...


In this article the author states:

"For example, Moebius has reissued the large kit of the submarine 'Seaview' from the 1960s 'Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea' TV show."

This is not true, so for me it calls into question the accuracy of any other "facts" he may cite! :thumbsup:


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

RSN said:


> In this article the author states:
> 
> "For example, Moebius has reissued the large kit of the submarine 'Seaview' from the 1960s 'Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea' TV show."
> 
> This is not true, so for me it calls into question the accuracy of any other "facts" he may site! :thumbsup:


That's not untrue. Depends on what you call large.

Lots of good PL history in this article, which confirms that the name was a tribute to Aurora. 

http://technology.inc.com/2000/03/01/the-thing-that-would-not-die/

And the Giammarinos did not emerge until PL was well into its run, just like they they didn't return for a second run at the trough until Moebius was going good.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Kit said:


> That's not untrue. Depends on what you call large.
> 
> Lots of good PL history in this article, which confirms that the name was a tribute to Aurora.
> 
> ...


It is UNTRUE no matter HOW you define large. Moebius has not re-popped ANY old Aurora "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" kits. Their 36" Seaview, which I consider large, was all new and NEVER produced by Aurora, as for their 12" Seaview, that was a 100% new tooling, agian with NO Aurora connection. 

So, as I said, he was wrong about his statment concerning Moebius, so I take the rest of his comments with a grain of salt! :thumbsup:


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

A glowing example why you need to DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK and don't believe everything you read.......especially HERE !


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

RSN said:


> It is UNTRUE no matter HOW you define large. Moebius has not re-popped ANY old Aurora "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" kits. Their 36" Seaview, which I consider large, was all new and NEVER produced by Aurora, as for their 12" Seaview, that was a 100% new tooling, agian with NO Aurora connection.
> 
> So, as I said, he was wrong about his statment concerning Moebius, so I take the rest of his comments with a grain of salt! :thumbsup:


True, it didn't re-release an Aurora kit, but I wouldn't say the 12" Seaview has no connection to Aurora. It's a corrected update of the Aurora kit, right down to the base. Pretty clear that Moebius has always had Aurora in its sights, too. First release was Jekyll, the last of the 1/8 monsters to be re-popped, and the Green Lantern packaging is quite a tribute.

Also, if you threw away every article that got something wrong, you might as forget everything you read and see. Seemed like a forgiveable mistake to me, not worth condemning the whole piece of work over.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

The mini SEAVIEW was a completely 'NEW' tool from an original modern mold, not a re-pop or a back-engineered kit, and had NOTHING to do with Aurora other than subject matter.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Kit said:


> True, it didn't re-release an Aurora kit, but I wouldn't say the 12" Seaview has no connection to Aurora. It's a corrected update of the Aurora kit, right down to the base. Pretty clear that Moebius has always had Aurora in its sights, too. First release was Jekyll, the last of the 1/8 monsters to be re-popped, and the Green Lantern packaging is quite a tribute.
> 
> Also, if you threw away every article that got something wrong, you might as forget everything you read and see. Seemed like a forgiveable mistake to me, not worth condemning the whole piece of work over.


I didn't say I was "...condemning the whole piece of work...". What I said was, it calls into question the accuracy of any other "facts" and that I was taking it with a grain of salt. If you are unfamiliar with that phrase, it means not to believe something unless you can find another source, or evidence, to prove a point of view! :thumbsup:


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

Ductapeforever said:


> The mini SEAVIEW was a completely 'NEW' tool from an original modern mold, not a re-pop or a back-engineered kit, and had NOTHING to do with Aurora other than subject matter.


Right. It was a competely new mold that accurized the Aurora kit and included a similar base in tribute to Aurora, in line with Moebius's clear affection for and inspiration from Aurora.


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

RSN said:


> I didn't say I was "...condemning the whole piece of work...". What I said was, it calls into question the accuracy of any other "facts" and that I was taking it with a grain of salt. If you are unfamiliar with that phrase, it means not to believe something unless you can find another source, or evidence, to prove a point of view! :thumbsup:


I took your tone to mean that you considered the information in the article to be without merit since that fact was not quite correct. What I meant was that the fact you zeroed in on as wrong had enough truth to it that you could see where the writer might have heard something along those lines, and maybe it didn't need to render the whole thing worthless. For example, let's say someone at Moebius said, "For those who want a smaller Seaview, but are dismayed by the inaccuracy of the Aurora kit, we accurized it in a new version." 

No offense meant, just talking. 

Have you got a link to that article?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Because if I know that statement is 100% wrong, what basis do I have to trust his other statements without doing my research? That is all I am saying.:thumbsup:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

RSN said:


> In this article the author states:
> 
> "For example, Moebius has reissued the large kit of the submarine 'Seaview' from the 1960s 'Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea' TV show."
> 
> This is not true, so for me it calls into question the accuracy of any other "facts" he may cite! :thumbsup:


(fixed that for ya)

Yeah, I think I gotta go along with this. That's a statement so factually incorrect there's just no two ways around it. I mean, change it to 'issued' and I think problem solved, but either way it says something lazy is going on there...

Otherwise what next? "Unknown to many, Moebius actually took the large Seaview kit manufactured by Midori in Japan and reverse engineered it to produce their large kit" or something?

(I feel the need to point out that this is a mock quote and not anything actually in that wiki page. I wrote that for humor purposes.)

Which, if you've ever seen ANY of the Seaview kits produced by Midori that 'statement' should send you into fits of uncontrollable laughter


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Kit said:


> Right. It was a competely new mold that accurized the Aurora kit and included a similar base in tribute to Aurora, in line with Moebius's clear affection for and inspiration from Aurora.


This may be picking a nit Kit, but I'm not sure you can say that Moebius "accurized" the Aurora kit. The Aurora kit was of the 8 window movie Seaview while Moebius kit is of the 4 window TV sub. So two different subs really. The bases are similar though so I'll give you that.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Were the two versions of Seaview actually totally different filming miniatures? I thought that the series version was just a "rework" of the movie version. The change in window structure seems to be to have been mainly to make it more visible on 1960s-era TV sets, as were the rest of the changes. But I'm not a scholar on this particular subject, and only know about it tangentially.


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

Trekkriffic said:


> This may be picking a nit Kit, but I'm not sure you can say that Moebius "accurized" the Aurora kit. The Aurora kit was of the 8 window movie Seaview while Moebius kit is of the 4 window TV sub. So two different subs really. The bases are similar though so I'll give you that.


All I was trying to say was that the kit referenced Aurora.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

There were two different miniatures (8 and 17 feet long) that were both retrofitted between seasons 1 and 2 to accomodate the redesigned bridge/observation lounge and the Flying Sub bay.

The Moebius 1:350 scale kit is FAR more accurate a represenation of the Seaview even ignoring differences introduced during the "refit". And the two kits are only of approximately the same scale.


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

So it doesn't reference Aurora, Paul?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Kit said:


> So it doesn't reference Aurora, Paul?


For Pete's sake, the original quote was Moebius REISSUED Aurora's "large" (Which never existed!), Seaview kit. Not referenced or payed tribute to or anything else you want to call it to be right. The fact is the original statement that I singled out was WRONG. Let it go!


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

So.............what does any of this have to do with Revell DE Star Trek kits?


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Actually, it DOES link into the Revell kit, I think.

Why?

Because the Seaview kits being mentioned above seem to be related in the same way that the old AMT kit relates to the new Revell kit. Similar scale, but totally separate tooling.

The real question, I suppose, is "is this new Revell kit a significant improvement over the AMT kit?"

In some ways, it seems to be. In other ways, not so much. I HATE the "canyon grid" on the Enterprise kit, and I hate the horrible errors in the front of the secondary hull, and I get the feeling (from the images I've seen) that the saucer's shape may be off pretty badly as well.

So... the AMT and Revell kits are equivalent, and the Revell kit is likely going to end up "replacing" the AMT kit (now Round2) in much the same way that the Mobius kit has replaced the Aurora kit.

That's how I, personally, see this all being tied together.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

CLBrown said:


> Actually, it DOES link into the Revell kit, I think.
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...


::golf clap::

Well done! Yes, it does fit that way. One might also make a case for the kerfluffle between the PL and Moebius Jupiter II kits, where it seems that somehow, in some manner, regardless of the advertising there was some feeling out there in the world (not here because we am smrat  ) that the Moebius kit was just a reissue of the PL kit or...something. 

Has there been any actual physical test shot of the Revell Germany kit? If it's all still CG there's always room for hope.

I'd really be much more excited if this kit was going to be under $20 and available everywhere model kits are sold (hardware stores, drug stores, discount stores, hobby and toy stores...oh wait, this isn't 1969...)


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

McGuckin Hardware in Boulder, Colorado still has a decent model selection.

But then, that is one bigass store...


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

In the first post of his thread, a link was provided to the site where the "test shots" can be viewed.

It has big gridlines, and the shapes of the underside primary hull and fore-end secondary hull are pretty significantly "wrong." I think, overall, the AMT kit's saucer shape looks better, but the TOP of the new saucer looks better than the AMT kit.

http://www.scalemodelnews.com/2011/10/star-trek-from-revell-test-shots-of.html#more


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

CLBrown said:


> In the first post of his thread, a link was provided to the site where the "test shots" can be viewed.
> 
> It has big gridlines, and the shapes of the underside primary hull and fore-end secondary hull are pretty significantly "wrong." I think, overall, the AMT kit's saucer shape looks better, but the TOP of the new saucer looks better than the AMT kit.
> 
> http://www.scalemodelnews.com/2011/10/star-trek-from-revell-test-shots-of.html#more


Yeah, yeah, sorry, it had slipped my mind, even commenting on seeing actual windows instead of the usual decals. Sheesh!

Thing is, I guess my eyes aren't trained well enough to spot those issues right off. Again, if it was under $20 USD and easily available I'd think it was OK and buy it like mad. Given that neither of those is actually operable or reality ...


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

RSN, the large Seaview is 39 inches long, not 36 inches. This calls into question everything else you've stated, if not your very existence itself.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

jbond said:


> RSN, the large Seaview is 39 inches long, not 36 inches. This calls into question everything else you've stated, if not your very existence itself.


 Good for you, you did some homework and got facts! My work is done.......now maybe I can finish the interior on that *39"* Seaview I am working on, and complete the build! :thumbsup:


----------



## Bradleyfett (Jan 22, 2003)

Steve H said:


> I'd really be much more excited if this kit was going to be under $20 and available everywhere model kits are sold (hardware stores, drug stores, discount stores, hobby and toy stores...oh wait, this isn't 1969...)


 
Can you imagine if it was? With that kind of exposure, kids might actually discover the hobby of model building!

Mark


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Bradleyfett said:


> Can you imagine if it was? With that kind of exposure, kids might actually discover the hobby of model building!
> 
> Mark


Don't totally count this out...

That's another great parallel with the AMT/Aurora discussion. These were two totally-separate companies, largely in competition with each other, but they were able to arrive at a mutually-beneficial arrangement... 

Who knows? Round 2, having the US licence, and Revell, having the EU/Canada license, could easily agree to a limited mutual-distribution deal for each others' kits, couldn't they?

I doubt R2 would object to this, from what I know of the company... can't say for certain, but it seems unlikely. As for Revell (EU), that's something I can't comment on, except to say that they didn't really seem to object very much to having their kits purchased in the EU and shipped third-party to the USA, so I don't think that they'd have a problem with selling a few more kits here through a partnership, do you?

In any case, I don't expect these to sell for more than, say $25.00. If they do... they won't sell any, but if they're under $25, and ideally under $20, they'll sell like hotcakes.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

CBS would have a big say in any cross sales. and from what I hear CBS is very hard nose and intransigent when it comes to Trek. I asked Jamie about this on the R2 blog a while ago and he said "no" RG had it's kits in Europe and R2 has it's kits in North America, And there would be no kit swapping/sales between the two entities.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Bradleyfett said:


> Can you imagine if it was? With that kind of exposure, kids might actually discover the hobby of model building!
> 
> Mark


And let's not discount the power of actual advertising! Why, I recall a time when comic books ALWAYS had an ad from some company or another, most often Aurora but Monogram was right in there as was Revell. 

Not to mention the 'secondary' ads when some company would buy adspace in something like The Monster Times or Famous Monsters and they'd promote various genre kits. I discovered the Aurora Movie Monsters line that way and sent off for my King Ghidora and Rodan. Never saw them in a store around my parts. 

Yeah, low price, mass distribution, promotion. Guess THAT nonsense isn't taught or considered anymore, huh? What backward thinking I must be stuck in!


----------

