# Sci Fi & Fantasy Modeller #27



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Just got this in from CultTVMan. Part II of Gary Kerr's article on the 1:350 _Enterprise _project is great. There's also an article by Jamie, and an _Enterprise-E_ build that looks really interesting.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Just ordered mine. Can't wait to see it.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Excellent articles by both Gary and Jamie. Congratulations to both of you. Lots of details about the shuttlecraft hangar, pilot particulars and the kit parts. Another home run for the team!

Can't wait for part three to arrive in January.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

I pre-ordered mine directly from publisher. It's on the way.


----------



## jaws62666 (Mar 25, 2009)

Mines in my mailbox waiting


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

I ordered mine from the publisher. They took payment from paypal but no issue or email. I'm not worried, this happened last issue.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

I'm pouring over it now, but it's kind of annoying that everytime the word "hangar deck" is used, it in italics. Along with seemingly every other part name such as_ bussard collector, impulse deck _etc...


----------



## Joeysaddress (Jun 16, 2006)

mach7 said:


> I ordered mine from the publisher. They took payment from paypal but no issue or email. I'm not worried, this happened last issue.


I also pre-ordered on Sept 17 and didn't get a "now shipping" email like I did with issue 26. I shot them an email yesterday and the promptly replied that it shipped last week and should be here in the next few days. 

Knowing that some of you have it already is driving me crazy!


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Guys...
There's no "e" in the word *hangar*!

OK?

:thumbsup:


----------



## Joeysaddress (Jun 16, 2006)

*No wire hangers....EVER!*



KUROK said:


> Guys...
> There's no "e" in the word *hangar*!
> 
> OK?
> ...


Try telling that to Christina Crawford!


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

*"no wire hangars, ever!!"*


----------



## miniature sun (May 1, 2005)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> I'm pouring over it now, but it's kind of annoying that everytime the word "hanger deck" is used, it in italics. Along with seemingly every other part name such as_ bussard collector, impulse deck _etc...


From my own experience of writing for them, they pretty much printed what I sent with only minor editing so I guess the italics originated with the author...


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

miniature sun said:


> From my own experience of writing for them, they pretty much printed what I sent with only minor editing so I guess the italics originated with the author...


Nope - I only italicized the titles of TV shows & movies. I don't know what happened.

Gary


----------



## harrier1961 (Jun 18, 2009)

Gary K said:


> Nope - I only italicized the titles of TV shows & movies. I don't know what happened.
> 
> Gary


Great article Gary; even better than part 1!
Andy


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

Gary! 

Your articles are mind blowing, I never thought I'd learn so much about something I thought I already knew :freak:

If you would induge me a little further, What are your experiences with the 11footer regarding the blue dorsal? You list it as only appearing on the pilot version, were you able to see any remaining color on the neck when you had the saucer removed during the renovation?

I've always thought it was just a spill over from the bluescreen stage reflecting on the dorsal to make it _look_ blue, because it seemed an odd choice to paint it blue knowing it would be shot against blue.

I'd be keen to hear your thoughts on the matter

Signed,
an acolyte


----------



## Bernard Guignar (Sep 9, 2006)

Ordered the issue yesterday from Cultman looking forward to reading it.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> Gary!
> 
> Your articles are mind blowing, I never thought I'd learn so much about something I thought I already knew :freak:
> 
> ...


For the first pilot, they shot the model against a black background, probably to save a few steps in creating mattes for the optical printer, but since the process wasn't refined enough in 1964 (as opposed to 1979, when Doug Trumbull did essentially the same thing in TMP), they switched to bluescreen with the second pilot.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

In case anybody is interested, I emailed Mike Reccia today. Seems Part 3 of the TOS E article is twice as long as a normal article, so Mike is splitting it in half and making a 4-part article. If this keeps up, the article may end up being as long as a Stephen King novel!

Gary


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Gary K said:


> In case anybody is interested, I emailed Mike Reccia today. Seems Part 3 of the TOS E article is twice as long as a normal article, so Mike is splitting it in half and making a 4-part article. If this keeps up, the article may end up being as long as a Stephen King novel!
> 
> Gary


I'm sure I'm not the first to say this, but maybe they should consider collecting them in their own volume as a special issue. It surely deserves it.

I need to get these issues, I just have that heartache of considering $25 for a magazine...


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Considering the record spike in sales of the past two issues, I can imagine that Mike would want to extend this series of articles to as many issues as possible.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

...and then turn into a 12 part movie directed by Peter Jackson


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Fantastic article and I am ready for a 3 and 4 part 

Gary I sure hope you are planning doing a similar article on the Galileo project!! This is all great info and shows how dedicated you, Jamie, Bob, and everyone else were in making the most accurate representation of the Enterprise!


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Actually, I really enjoyed that article about the Medusa/Perseus scuplt in volume #26.
If it goes to a four-parter, fine by me!


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> Gary!
> 
> Your articles are mind blowing, I never thought I'd learn so much about something I thought I already knew :freak:
> 
> ...


Thanks for the compliments. Back in 1991-92, neither Ed Miarecki nor I knew about the blue dorsal, but I didn't notice anything unusual on the dorsal, and I don't *think* Ed did any forensic sanding of the dorsal to see if there were any older layers of paint that hadn't been sanded off prior to any earlier repaint jobs. 

It's been mentioned earlier, but the 1st Pilot model was hung from wires and shot against a black backdrop. Matt Jefferies told Mike Okuda who told me that Jefferies originally wanted a glossy finish on the model to reflect stars & planets, and the dorsal would have made a perfect screen to reflect off-screen artwork (a glossy saucer, nacelles, or sec hull would have reflected the studio lights). I've seen some unpublished photos from the 11-footer's rollout, and the metallic blue finish is quite obvious. 

When they switched to bluescreen for the 2nd pilot they repainted the dorsal a flat powder blue that wouldn't interfere with the bluescreen (similar to how they used powder blue on the Refit model). Once you know the powder blue dorsal is on the 2nd Pilot model, its presence is very noticeable.

Gary


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

Gary K said:


> When they switched to bluescreen for the 2nd pilot they repainted the dorsal a flat powder blue that wouldn't interfere with the bluescreen (similar to how they used powder blue on the Refit model). Once you know the powder blue dorsal is on the 2nd Pilot model, its presence is very noticeable.



Welcome back, Gary! We missed you! Fantastic article!


Anyway, it's very nice to hear all of this--I spent a lot of time trying to convince people a few years back that the blue neck of both pilot versions was real. Good to know that I was right!


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

*dorsol*

the entire dorsol or just the leading edge ?


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

:woohoo: My magazine has just arrived. I know that because I was hiding on top of the tree of my front yard, watching.  Eh, Eh .. I was up there for a week. :freak:


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

woof359 said:


> the entire dorsol or just the leading edge ?


The entire dorsal on both Pilot versions was blue, while the leading edge of the Production version's dorsal was a bluish-greenish-grayish color.

Gary


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Gary K said:


> The entire dorsal on both Pilot versions was blue, while the leading edge of the Production version's dorsal was a *bluish-greenish-grayish* color.
> 
> Gary


Hummm... yeah... exactly... exactly...


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

To this day I am still impressed and amazed at how subtle the paint on the Enterprise turned out, and the detailing. I'm glad this has been documented for all time! 

I also wish there was someone around my parts that carried the mag. *sigh*

Hey, stoopid question! Does the kit include the Phaser Cannon for the lower dome as an option part?


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Steve H said:


> To this day I am still impressed and amazed at how subtle the paint on the Enterprise turned out, and the detailing. I'm glad this has been documented for all time!


I'm still impressed and amazed at the amount of paint I wasted while I was making the color chips for Jamie!



Steve H said:


> I also wish there was someone around my parts that carried the mag. *sigh*


There's always the Internet...



Steve H said:


> Hey, stoopid question! Does the kit include the Phaser Cannon for the lower dome as an option part?


The pointy thing on the sensor dome nipple, whatever its supposed to be, is standard on the Production version kit.

Gary


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Gary,

Have you seen Gregatron's excellent build with the blue dorsal? and if so how close does it look to the photo's you have seen? 

While I kept an open mind, I was skeptical of Gregatron's claim. 

I'm glad to see this settled, Thanks for brining this to our attention Gregatron!

One final question, for the last refurbish was the Enterprise sanded down to bare structure? or was some of the old paint left on the dorsal? If so during the next refurbish maybe we could get an idea of the exact color used.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Fernando Mureb said:


> Hummm... yeah... exactly... exactly...


Don't be confused! When I mixed the color of the dorsal's leading edge for Jamie I started with gray hull paint and slowly added small amounts of deep, muted shades of green and blue until I had a bluish-green tone that was distinct (but not TOO distinct) from the hull color. I went through LOTS of paint until I got the color just right.

Gary


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Steve H said:


> I'm sure I'm not the first to say this, but maybe they should consider collecting them in their own volume as a special issue. It surely deserves it.
> 
> I need to get these issues, I just have that heartache of considering $25 for a magazine...


Megafrakkindittoes to that!


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

My thoughts exactly (and I think I took an earlier drubbing about it too) but an all in one guide book to coincide with the release of the kit would have been my first choice. 
Buying four issues of a magazine I can ill afford at any time would have been my last.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Well, there would always be that delicate question: how many magazines they would sell if the only issue was about a Star Trek model? Would it pay the costs? If you were the editor would you take the risks? 

Have already occurred to us that the guys who like the other subjects that make up the magazine may be subsidizing the subject on the Enterprise model kit? Perhaps, however great the number of fans we think we are, we are not so big to the point of, alone, support an entire issue. Maybe we do not have the strength to sustain even small parcels of four editions. Just my thoughts.


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

mach7 said:


> Gary,
> 
> Have you seen Gregatron's excellent build with the blue dorsal? and if so how close does it look to the photo's you have seen?
> 
> ...




I live to serve! 


The link in my signature will take you to my blog, which has lots of info and photos on my builds (and Big E talk in general). It's due for some revisions, in no small part because of Gary's incredible work.

Here's a photo of my second pilot build. 












Personally, I think the blue is a bit too intense--my _Constitution_ looks closer, to my eye.











Also, I'm still not entirely convinced that the strip on the front of the production dorsal wasn't still a blue-ish color, retained from the second pilot color scheme.


My pilot models could probably use a few tweaks, with the new info that's come to light. But, I'm glad to see that I was right about a lot of stuff--and that research paid off!


Interesting to see in the magazine article's diagrams that the rows of black dots on the second pilot rear nacelle endcaps appear to have been hexagons. Hmmm.

And I never noticed that the ring of hull-colored paint was missing from the base of the hangar beacon dome for the pilot versions!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Fernando Mureb said:


> Well, there would always be that delicate question: how many magazines they would sell if the only issue was about a Star Trek model? Would it pay the costs? If you were the editor would you take the risks?
> 
> Have already occurred to us that the guys who like the other subjects that make up the magazine may be subsidizing the subject on the Enterprise model kit? Perhaps, however great the number of fans we think we are, we are not so big to the point of, alone, support an entire issue. Maybe we do not have the strength to sustain even small parcels of four editions. Just my thoughts.


Well, I see both sides, I think. There would be a fear that if word of a collected volume was going to come out that would cannibalize sales of the issues containing parts 3 and 4, because evidence *seems* to indicate that sales of the issues with the first two parts are way up over the norm. 

Mind, those sales MAY be driven by scalpers hoping to make a killing on the secondary market because of some 'buzz' about how wanted and 'rare' the mag is. So if the publisher has thoughts that the sales level will sustain, they're in for a rude awakening.

Clearly, one way or the other, the articles on the new Enterprise are driving sales.

Now, saying that, it would be crazy to NOT republish the articles in one volume. It's a perfect add-on sale for the kit for a retailer, it's a sales tool to get one excited by the kit, it's a great item for someone, a Trek fan who while he may not build the kit would at least dream of it, and love to dig into the lore and legend of the original series model. A collected volume would be an 'evergreen' that, by constant availability, act as a check on the scalper market and an intro to the regular magazine.

for that matter, a collected volume of the Irwin Allen kits would probably be a good idea. I'm sure there's data on the Seaview that had to fall by the wayside due to space limitations. 

Right now I'm going thru a real tough patch. Ponying up $25 x 4 for the mags with the Enterprise articles, once I would have done that without even thinking about it. Nowadays, that's hard money. OTOH, next year, say they do a collected volume at $25, THAT I could probably swing. I suspect I'm not the only person here who has this thought process going on. 

Saying all that, I am very glad this is such a success for both Gary and the magazine. And again, I am so very glad all this detail and information has been collected, deduced and discovered. 

(my take on the Blue Dorsal? I think it's exactly the same reason as the coloring on the Klingon ship. It's SHADING, intentional bold artificial shading to make sure the dorsal stays as a distinct shape between the saucer and the engineering hull. It's a way to keep the degrading of the image due to processing down and make it 'pop' on the famous low-res B&W TVs of the day. It's like eye shadow. Makeup. Accent. Does that mean that on the 'real' Enterprise it should be blue? Obviously, subject to massive debate.  )


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Steve H said:


> Well, I see both sides, I think. *There would be a fear that if word of a collected volume was going to come out that would cannibalize sales of the issues containing parts 3 and 4*, because evidence *seems* to indicate that sales of the issues with the first two parts are way up over the norm.
> 
> Mind, those sales MAY be driven by scalpers hoping to make a killing on the secondary market because of some 'buzz' about how wanted and 'rare' the mag is. So if the publisher has thoughts that the sales level will sustain, they're in for a rude awakening.
> 
> ...


Whispering: just between you and me, I agree. Maybe after the last issue.


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

I, too, was skeptical of the blue dorsal. Now I'm convinced, and would love to know how close it was to Gregatron's version. Greg, kudos on the good work. Also want to say what a pleasure these discussions are when they're like this, without rancor or pompous over-detailed declarations. This is good stuff. So glad you're back, Gary.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Kit said:


> I, too, was skeptical of the blue dorsal. Now I'm convinced, and would love to know how close it was to Gregatron's version. Greg, kudos on the good work. Also want to say what a pleasure these discussions are when they're like this, without rancor or pompous over-detailed declarations. This is good stuff. So glad you're back, Gary.


It's really difficult to accurately judge colors in photographs, but that being said, I think the blue on the dorsal in Gregatron's 2nd Pilot model is a bit too intense, and I'd mix in some gray to change it from sky blue to a powder blue (similar to some of the shades they used on the Refit years later).

The exact color they used on the 1st Pilot dorsal is more problematic, even in some of the non-published photos that I've seen, but it appears to have been a metallic version of powder blue with a glossy clearcoat over it. 

Lastly, I've done a ton of research on the Production version's dorsal, including (of course) more unpublished snapshots, and the leading edge definitely had a component of green in it - like I said earlier, a greenish-bluish-grayish color.

Gary


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

Gary K said:


> It's really difficult to accurately judge colors in photographs, but that being said, I think the blue on the dorsal in Gregatron's 2nd Pilot model is a bit too intense, and I'd mix in some gray to change it from sky blue to a powder blue (similar to some of the shades they used on the Refit years later).



Totally agree!

I was more successful with the model in the second photo, where I added more of the base color to the blue. Subtle is better, especially at that scale. If I were to do it now, I'd get better results, I think.


But, hey, that's how we learn!


Who knows? Maybe I'll go back and make some revisions to those models!

The white intercooler revelation was a shocker! But, with that info at hand, it's now plain as day. Sometimes you have to be _looking_ for something before you find it!


It looks like my theory that the second pilot Bridge's side rectangles were illuminated cutouts (rather than yellow markings) was also wrong. I figured there was a 50/50 chance that I was wrong about that, based on the limited images available for that area.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Gregatron said:


> The white intercooler revelation was a shocker! But, with that info at hand, it's now plain as day. Sometimes you have to be _looking_ for something before you find it!


Plus the "white" PIlot impulse decks. These objects have been hiding in plan sight all these years, and yet we didn't notice them till now. Makes me want to get my eyes checked!

Gary


----------



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

Anyone have links to the publisher's sale sites?

And maybe a list of the issues that these and other interesting Trek articles have appeared?

Sad to say that non-modeling and non-Trek stuff have kept me pre-occuppied for most of the last couple of years.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Try here.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Fernando Mureb said:


> Whispering: just between you and me, I agree. Maybe after the last issue.


Works for me. :thumbsup:


----------



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

Fernando Mureb said:


> Try here.


Thanks!:thumbsup:


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

Just received mine from CultTV and yeah...15 pgs of material for $27.....
Think I'll stop here and use the $ to buy paint for the kit when it arrives.
BTW..page 60 shows a graphic of the hangar bay doors....you do realize the 1st pilot version did not have the clam shell grooves...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Shouldn't be any harder to smooth those over than those dreaded grid lines....


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

pagni said:


> page 60 shows a graphic of the hangar bay doors....you do realize the 1st pilot version did not have the clam shell grooves...


I'm reasonably sure that the diagram in question was intended to focus on other, specific details (specifically, the dome light), and that the hangar doors were not supposed to represent the first pilot version.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

pagni said:


> Just received mine from CultTV and yeah...15 pgs of material for $27.....
> Think I'll stop here and use the $ to buy paint for the kit when it arrives.
> BTW..page 60 shows a graphic of the hangar bay doors....you do realize the 1st pilot version did not have the clam shell grooves...


Actually, the hangar bay doors on Richard Datin's original Enterprise plans have seams. This makes sense since, otherwise, the doors couldn't theoretically open. On the Pilot versions the seams were barely visible (even in the sharpest photos) and were probably drawn on in pencil - sound familiar?  Wider, engraved lines were added during the conversion into the 11-footer.

Jamie opted to include a set of open doors and a set of closed doors with the kit, rather than doors with normal seams and a set with almost invisible seams.

Gary


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

Wow.

I'm sure this kit will serve as something of a historical document/archaeology lesson regarding the Big E and its variants. I would hope you'll be sharing more secrets once the kit is out, Gary! 

Each little gem so far has been fascinating! So many little tidbits we've taken for granted for so long are being dispelled.


Certainly, there are ideas about the real model that I've taken for granted, or have assumed/hoped to be true. But, I won't allow my own feelings and aesthetic sense to get in the way of facts. Truth is truth. I'm flexible, and more than happy to admit when I'm wrong.


Unfortunately, some hobbyists are egocentric and stubborn enough to refuse to give up viewpoints they've had for decades when new info comes out.


It should be interesting to see what other little surprises and revelations are in store for us, so very soon!


The hobby has come so far since the days of the AMT kit. And it's amazing that, after literally decades of research, theories, and arguments, so much has come to light about the specifics of that legendary model. 

So many people have done so much work, trying to pin down those hard-to-discern areas of the _Enterprise_--people like Alan Everhart, William McCullars, Thomas Sasser, etc., etc., etc, etc. 


And, of course, Gary!


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Thanks, Gary, the info is really appreciated! The TOS Enterprise is one of my all time favorites and this kit is "right up my alley" ...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I hope when they collect up these articles into one volume, it'll be available in more places than the magazine appears to be.


----------



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

Gary K said:


> Actually, the hangar bay doors on Richard Datin's original Enterprise plans have seams. This makes sense since, otherwise, the doors couldn't theoretically open. On the Pilot versions the seams were barely visible (even in the sharpest photos) and were probably drawn on in pencil - sound familiar?  Wider, engraved lines were added during the conversion into the 11-footer.
> 
> Jamie opted to include a set of open doors and a set of closed doors with the kit, rather than doors with normal seams and a set with almost invisible seams.
> 
> Gary



He found the shuttlebay miniature plans!?!

Fantastic!

I had corresponded with him to discuss that and his K-7 space station several years ago and he wasn't sure if he still had them.

Glad to know they are out there and being preserved.

Hope he's okay!

The man was and is a true artist, churning out work after work at a time when he probably didn't get a lot of recognition.

Here's to you, Mr. Datin!:thumbsup:


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

*Datin*

Mr. Datin sadly passed away January of last year.


----------



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

pagni said:


> Mr. Datin sadly passed away January of last year.


 He will be missed.

Godspeed Mr. Datin...


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> He found the shuttlebay miniature plans!?!
> 
> Fantastic!


No such luck. The drawings of the hangar bay doors were part of the plan view of the sec hull, not plans of the hangar bay miniature. FYI, Greg Jein said that years ago he did a major search for the miniature at some huge warehouse, but came up empty-handed. Hopefully the hangar bay plans will eventually turn up somewhere, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Gary


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

My suspicion is that the hangar miniature was trashed a loooooooong time ago, and probably wasn't built all that sturdily to begin with.


----------



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

Gary K said:


> No such luck. The drawings of the hangar bay doors were part of the plan view of the sec hull, not plans of the hangar bay miniature. FYI, Greg Jein said that years ago he did a major search for the miniature at some huge warehouse, but came up empty-handed. Hopefully the hangar bay plans will eventually turn up somewhere, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
> 
> Gary


Sorry to hear that.

I had hoped that at some point after I had corresponded with him he had found and given them, or at least a copy of it, to you for preservation. 

He had also mentioned he thought that he had some rough sketches given to him by Jefferies of the K-7 space station, that they had a lot of desired details and notes but weren't really blueprints.

But more then anything I'm sorry to hear of his passing.
He will be missed.

I hope that if he has any surviving family that they know/knew that the man probably has a ton of sketches, slides and artwork within what he described as piles and piles of long forgotten stuff.

Not only might it help preserve some Trek history, at auction they might be able to recoop some of any of their final expenses.

Whatever the outcome of that though, again - Mr. Datin will be missed.

Godspeed Richard Datin!


----------



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

Captain April said:


> My suspicion is that the hangar miniature was trashed a loooooooong time ago, and probably wasn't built all that sturdily to begin with.


You never know. 

I remember reading a Wired magazine interview of Majel Barret in which she said she believed Gene had unwisely loaned the smaller TOS E miniature to a friend - but that she doesn't have any idea where it is now.

Which kinda indicates to me there is a good chance she either knows who it was but doesn't want to get into it with a family friend, 

or that since Gene had sold all the rights to Trek away they might have been afraid the studio would try to take it back and stashed it somewhere.

I believe the studio did take back a D-7 he had in his possession in order to work with it for the then plans to Reboot the series. So such fears might have been greatly warranted.

You remember it was loaned to a friend but either can't remember who, 
or if she does remember, can't be bothered to ask them where property that valuable is?

Something doesn't add up about that.

There's a very strong possibility that the Shuttlebay miniature was destroyed.

But if the shuttlebay miniature or the smaller TOS E still exist I have a feeling it won't resurface for public scrutiny until the copyrights on TOS expire. 

Used to be 70 years, but I'm not sure what it is now as they changed the law a few years back...


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I am not a lawyer, but I believe that due to the various versions of ST over the years the copyright is probably extended further, due to 'grandfathering'. It's one of the reasons Disney has been doing 'continuations' of their key films.

As to missing models and all, we may NEVER know. Gene may have given out the small Enterprise as a 'peace offering' for one of his deals gone wrong or to salve someone's hurt feelings. 

There may well be all manner of things tucked away. Recall all the secrecy over the reveal of the hero Phaser prop. Recall Matt J's self surprise over finding he still had his shooting stage sets mockup. 

As to the passing of Mr. Datin, I would wish to also give my well wishes. I didn't even know who he was until recently but I wish he could have been celebrated more and, (yes I'm selfish) someone had sat with him and gotten his story on paper, his tales and memories about Star Trek. I also selfishly hope all those plans and notes and such are preserved, safe and maybe published someday.

It would surely be a worthy companion to Gary's work I think.


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

There were a number of people in communication with Mr. Datin prior to his passing, I know I certainly let him know how much I appreciated him as an "unsung hero" I think he was pretty much aware, but people sought both him and Wah Chang somewhat late in life...


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I remember reading a Wired magazine interview of Majel Barret in which she said she believed Gene had unwisely loaned the smaller TOS E miniature to a friend - but that she doesn't have any idea where it is now.
> 
> Which kinda indicates to me there is a good chance she either knows who it was but doesn't want to get into it with a family friend,
> 
> or that since Gene had sold all the rights to Trek away they might have been afraid the studio would try to take it back and stashed it somewhere.


There is no mystery about where the 33 inch TOS Enterprise went, in 1978 Roddenberry loaned it to _Robert Abel and Associates_ who were working on _Star Trek: The Motion Picture_, and the model wasn't returned. My understanding is that Roddenberry did asked Bob Abel about the model, but that Abel was unaware of it's whereabouts. As both Roddenberry and Abel are no longer with us, this was as far as I had pursued the matter. I'm sure that Abel knew who was working under him (and with the model) at the time, but if he wasn't able to nail down the location of the model for Roddenberry and Roddenberry wasn't willing to push Abel further on the matter, that makes it hard to pursue it any further this many decades later.

As for the legal disposition of the model, considering pressure put on me (someone who wasn't a party to any of this) about it's final whereabouts, I sure wouldn't want to be the person who has it if it is still around today.


----------



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

Shaw said:


> There is no mystery about where the 33 inch TOS Enterprise went, in 1978 Roddenberry loaned it to _Robert Abel and Associates_ who were working on _Star Trek: The Motion Picture_, and the model wasn't returned. My understanding is that Roddenberry did asked Bob Abel about the model, but that Abel was unaware of it's whereabouts. As both Roddenberry and Abel are no longer with us, this was as far as I had pursued the matter. I'm sure that Abel knew who was working under him (and with the model) at the time, but if he wasn't able to nail down the location of the model for Roddenberry and Roddenberry wasn't willing to push Abel further on the matter, that makes it hard to pursue it any further this many decades later.
> 
> As for the legal disposition of the model, considering pressure put on me (someone who wasn't a party to any of this) about it's final whereabouts, I sure wouldn't want to be the person who has it if it is still around today.


Thanks for filling in some of the blanks for me, Shaw. :thumbsup:

The Wired article was the second time I heard that Roddenberry had loaned it to a friend and never got it back, the first time I heard Majel Barrett say it directly in an interview.

It just struck me as odd that Roddenberry would not have pushed to get it back.

But considering Paraborg ended up keeping the D-7 they asked Roddenberry for(isn't that the one that ended up in the Smithsonian?), maybe it's understandable that nobody was dying to pin down it's location. Chances are he wouldn't have gotten to keep it anyway.

Thanks for all the great information, Shaw!


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I, too, wish to thank Mr. Shaw for his work and dedication and encourage him to write HIS stuff down and give copies to trusted friends lest indifferent fate pull some crap, ya know?

But here's where I get yelled at. I'm not sure about that story about the 33" Enterprise and being loaned to Robert Abel's company for ST:TMP.

I mean, really, what would they DO with it? It's 1979, they're not going to laser scan it to make a digital model. They're not going to use it as a 'placeholder' so they can program the motion control camera's moves, so when the actual filming model is ready they can just lock it down and *zoop* shoot, they're not going to use it for pre-viz. Heck, they were using GI Joe's 'Bulletman' to pre-viz the 'Spock Spacewalk' scene, they don't need a 33" legacy TV model for that, a slapped together AMT Enterprise kit would do as well. 

What I think is, Roddenberry did something with the 33" Enterprise and used "I gave it to Robert Abel for the movie" as an excuse to deflect attention. It seems, as we learn piece by piece, Roddenberry pulled that kind of crap constantly.

I think if he had given it to Shatner, Kelly or Nimoy we'd have heard about it by now. I doubt he gave it to any of the women he had relations with. 

It went somewhere, and I strongly suspect Majel knew where. From all indications she put up with all kinds of stuff that...well, nevermind. Past is past. She seemed to know everything going on and was able to be blind when it was needful. The fate of the 33" Enterprise may well have been one of those things.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Okay, so I didn't answer the other part of *Chuck_P.R.*'s post because it tends to lead to conclusions I'd (personally) rather not think about.



Chuck_P.R. said:


> I believe the studio did take back a D-7 he had in his possession in order to work with it for the then plans to Reboot the series. So such fears might have been greatly warranted.


The Klingon model you are talking about was originally Matt Jefferies' and he donated it to the Smithsonian in the mid 70's. And just like the 33 inch Enterprise, it was requested to be used as a reference source.

Any argument for why an AMT Enterprise model would have sufficed would have been even stronger as to why an AMT Klingon model would have done just as well... neither model kits were considered sufficient, so the actual filming models were provided.

So, while the 33 inch Enterprise didn't make it home, the Klingon did... just not in one piece. The model had been disassembled to be "studied" and was returned as a box of parts. So if the Klingon model had been broken up, there is the possibility that the same was done to the Enterprise. And the odds are that the people under Abel didn't think it had any value and tossed it when they were finished "studying" it. 


There are plenty of stories/ideas about the fate of the original Enterprise, and I spent quite a bit of time chasing down many of them. But the only one with evidence and witnesses was the one I was also forced to give as a notarized statement. If others wish to try and follow up further on this, they are more than welcome to... but I don't want to be involved in it any more. I was looking to have a replica of the model, and I can do that now without digging any deeper.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I guess my thing is, I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea and the reality of the times circa 1978. 

So RA&A take one of the Klingon D7 models to 'study', and as part of that they break it apart? How does that help anything? I mean, even if we take the thought "they wanted to see how it went together" what purpose does that serve, unless for whatever reason they thought to do a 'pull' off the shapes and...what? Build the new filming models from the hypothetical molds?

It just doesn't make that much sense. It does make SOME sense, if looked at in very focused and specific ways but overall, I dunno.

And then the same with the 33" Enterprise? Maybe? Torn to shreds for a similar idea? It just doesn't fit. Something is missing. 

Here's what I'm walking through, tell me how wrong I am anybody.

Take original model. Break it down. Pull molds. Cast skins in fiberglas in order to create a master to modify the models to fit the changes for the movie. Pull new molds. cast skins for actual filming models. 

I don't see any real time saving or money saving there Vs. sculpting up the changed ships from scratch and then pulling molds for skins. Now, mind, if it was me, myself, working on a similar project at home I WOULD do it that way because I'm crap at original sculpting but pretty good at modifying an existing thing. But it's time consuming and pretty darn inefficient , to my mind. 

What am I missing? What part of the complicated and still untold history of Phase II, ST:TMP and RA&A am I missing? I recall the 'common wisdom' from the day that RA&A had spent millions and hadn't produced a single foot of usable footage, so...


----------



## onigiri (May 27, 2009)

The D7 was taken apart and MOLDED. Thats all Im prepared to say on that particular hot potato.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

onigiri said:


> The D7 was taken apart and MOLDED. Thats all Im prepared to say on that particular hot potato.


Thanks for that, and I apologize to one and all for seemingly violating some taboo with this line of discussion. 

I'm kind of getting this vibe of "You don't know who you're messing with, man, you don't KNOW! They'll kill me if I say anything!" that's over and above people who can't talk due to NDAs, who can't even mention they're UNDER a NDA. Or something. Something more than the usual 'internet drama' that can go on when some point is questioned 

Anyway, I thought I remember some effects stage footage somewhere of Klingon D7s being blown up for the V'GER attack, and that seems like a place that pulling molds off the original model would fit into the timeline.

Hey, you know, at least they didn't cover the original model with jellied gasoline and guncotton and set on fire for an effect!

So, to warp this somewhat back on topic, if PL/R2 decides to make a 1/350 Klingon D7, are we going to get as epic a 'making of' series of articles?


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Steve H said:


> Thanks for that, and I apologize to one and all for seemingly violating some taboo with this line of discussion.
> 
> I'm kind of getting this vibe of "You don't know who you're messing with, man, you don't KNOW! They'll kill me if I say anything!" that's over and above people who can't talk due to NDAs, who can't even mention they're UNDER a NDA. Or something. Something more than the usual 'internet drama' that can go on when some point is questioned


Well, don't take this the wrong way... but why ask these questions on a message board?

When I started researching this back in 2007, I pieced together what I could (cross checking the data against other sources) and then, with the gaps in the data well defined, started asking people who might know the information I was looking for. This is something that you could easily do as well.

But from what I'm gathering, you seem to have a preexisting narrative about why the model is missing, and anything that doesn't fit that narrative is suspect. Which is fine, but it means (to me) that you aren't really interested in researching facts that are unknown, you are only interested in supporting what you already believe happened.

You talk about motivations, but we are posting in a thread based on the prime motivation. The Enterprise, built in 1964 (both models), seen on TV in countless reruns, donated (the 11 foot model) to the Smithsonian in 1974 and put on public display... but wasn't accurately documented until Gary Kerr started his work in 1992 or so. Of course someone looking for a good reference for the Enterprise would ask if they could study the only model that could be easily handled and was accessible (most likely sitting in front of Abel in Roddenberry's office during a conversation about getting up to speed on Star Trek).

This doesn't require over thinking... but maybe it does require some memory of the fact that decades after the show was off the air, even AMT/ERTL was using the best fan based plans of the Enterprise at the time to build a new kit of the TOS Enterprise (the 22 inch cutaway)... and we all know how accurate it is. So yeah, why wouldn't someone want what was thought to be a one-quarter scale duplicate of the 11 foot model as a reference?


As for my issues... you suggested that I write this stuff down, but I have and share as much data as I can (much of which has been quoted over at Memory Alpha). But apparently someone somewhere got the idea that I had found and gotten access to the 33 inch model... which I have not. My plans and replicas of the 33 inch model are from studies of the photographs of the model before it went missing. And I stopped looking for the model when I found out that not only did Roddenberry loan it to Abel, but also did make an attempt to get it back. And now that both men are no longer with us, that was as far as I took it.

I don't make any money on this stuff, so while I don't mind setting the record straight on the history, I get nervous when people start trying to alter it to fit a personal narrative because that is pretty much what someone somewhere did (implying that I must have had access to the 33 inch model) that caused me a lot of grief.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

And allow me to apologize to Mr. Shaw directly.

I ask questions on a BBS, THIS BBS, and this thread in particular because a. I've come to trust the people here as reasoned, rational and mature (well, mostly  ), and clearly there are people who actually know things, which is attractive and frankly addictive. b. the sheer volume of that information, the concentration of it makes it much more digestible. c. Frankly, I suck at searching. I don't like having to register for every little dinky (or big) BBS out there and plowing thru 990 post threads. So, yes, call me lazy I guess. 

I have no preexisting narrative other than knowing that Roddenberry was...well, we know. I seek education and when something comes up that seems to not make sense, I ask questions. 

As above, it makes sense (in the context of the time, not in our historical preservation sense) that the Klingon ship would be broken down and molds pulled off it. There's a logical timeline and some tatters of evidence, in addition to the fact that the model WAS returned. I'm just not seeing why the same thing may have happened to the 33" Enterprise. The logic doesn't hold for me, as I see it with the facts presented. So, either I'm missing something which I freely admit is likely, or there are assumptions being made that may not hold. 

I don't know people. I'm not in California so I can't truck around in search of folks. It's not a burning quest, it's just a question in my mind. 

And I don't think I actually questioned Mr. Shaw's motivations, I may have inferred that with my inept writing, but that's not the intent. 

So, my motivation. I am a complete, total whore for 'behind the scenes' books. I love to know the pain, sweat, blood that goes into the entertainment I enjoy. I would love a nice multi-hundred page hardcover on "the complete, for-reals, no s**t history of the Enterprise from first drawing in 1964 to the making of the 1/350 model kit". I would buy that book. I would tell others to buy that book. That's what I want. I hope that's reasonable enough.


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

Steve H said:


> And allow me to apologize to Mr. Shaw directly.
> 
> I ask questions on a BBS, THIS BBS, and this thread in particular because a. I've come to trust the people here as reasoned, rational and mature (well, mostly  ), and clearly there are people who actually know things, which is attractive and frankly addictive. b. the sheer volume of that information, the concentration of it makes it much more digestible. c. Frankly, I suck at searching. I don't like having to register for every little dinky (or big) BBS out there and plowing thru 990 post threads. So, yes, call me lazy I guess.
> 
> ...


Oh...if only there would there be such a book ....It is so high time for an updated, definitive, hard bound reissue of the Making Of Star Trek, with all of the material that has been gathering dust and appreciative eyes in personal,"for your eyes only" collections... and believe me, they're out there.
And forgive me, but NOT some glossy craptastic Okuda/Reeves conglomerate of "rare"...LOL yeah right... stills that have been officiallly sanctioned by CBS/Paramount but the REAL unseen production material that IS out there.
just sayin'


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

pagni said:


> Oh...if only there would there be such a book ....It is so high time for an updated, definitive, hard bound reissue of the Making Of Star Trek, with all of the material that has been gathering dust and appreciative eyes in personal,"for your eyes only" collections... and believe me, they're out there.
> And forgive me, but NOT some glossy craptastic Okuda/Reeves conglomerate of "rare"...LOL yeah right... stills that have been officiallly sanctioned by CBS/Paramount but the REAL unseen production material that IS out there.
> just sayin'


As yet another aside, the recently published 'Star Trek the complete unauthorized history' by Robert Greenberger is, sadly, NOT that book. My expectations were set way too high. It's not a bad book but it could have used a little stronger editorial hand. There's a vast, deep story about the history of ST FANS that's an undercurrent here that is, pardon, fascinating, but not what the book says it's about.

The worst aspect is, due to being not approved by TPTB, there's no use of any actual Star Trek images, it's all random, and I mean RANDOM pictures of various collectables, most of those being fairly recent. It's a great advert for the old Playmates toys and stuff make by the Thinkgeek website.  If the pictures had, in some way, in some vague way been actually tied to what was written on the page I wouldn't have minded. 

I learned little, and what there was wasn't of great depth. I did finally learn some of the shenanigans Roddenberry pulled during the early days of TNG that led to so many angry feelings and staff fleeing but, again, wanted more. It's not a BAD book but it's not at all worth paying full retail for. Just my opinion. 

I wish Whitfield/Poe hadn't passed on, I would have loved to have him do a re-write of his Making of Star Trek. 

Which is why I want Gary's and Mr. Shaw's work in a book on my shelf.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

has there ever been one of those huge coffee table books of Stat Trek ? Im not a big fan of the Ships of the Line calendars, the seam down the middle of the pictures takes a lot away from them, that and who has a calendar that hangs sideways (-:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Steve H said:


> I, too, wish to thank Mr. Shaw for his work and dedication and encourage him to write HIS stuff down and give copies to trusted friends lest indifferent fate pull some crap, ya know?
> 
> But here's where I get yelled at. I'm not sure about that story about the 33" Enterprise and being loaned to Robert Abel's company for ST:TMP.
> 
> ...


That does sound a lot like Roddenberry, so I suppose it's possible. Then again, he could've loaned the model to Abel to assist in the redesign; after all, it's not like Jefferies' take was the only one they looked at. Does the name Ralph McQuarrie ring a bell? For all we know, it could be buried in Brick Price's garage, completely forgotten about, not far from those molds for the Phase II model.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Shaw said:


> Well, don't take this the wrong way... but why ask these questions on a message board?
> 
> When I started researching this back in 2007, I pieced together what I could (cross checking the data against other sources) and then, with the gaps in the data well defined, started asking people who might know the information I was looking for. This is something that you could easily do as well.
> 
> ...


Okay, new theory. Whoever Abel had working on the model, while trying to dismantle it, wound up destroying it in the process, and rather then admit this to Roddenberry, quietly disposed of it and stonewalled Gene when he asked for his one-of-a-kind artifact from the original series *back.*

So, perhaps, it's still around, in the form of a bunch of broken wooden parts in a hat box buried in Brick Price's garage, but quite possibly got tossed out with the next days trash. If we're really lucky, some lucky fanboy who was working as a garbage collector at the time saw the pieces, retrieved them, and cobbled them back together, not realizing what he's got.

Personally, I think someone should take Shaw's plans and whip up a new one to present to Rod Roddenberry, since that's probably the closest he's ever gonna get to getting that piece of his childhood back.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

woof359 said:


> has there ever been one of those huge coffee table books of Stat Trek ? Im not a big fan of the Ships of the Line calendars, the seam down the middle of the pictures takes a lot away from them, that and who has a calendar that hangs sideways (-:


Well, it depends on how you define 'coffee table book' of course but to my memory there was a couple that should fit.

'The Art of Star Trek' by Judith and Garfield Reeves-Stevens (1995). Not a bad book, they did a good job giving Andrew Probert his props, some love for Jefferies and Chang and such, a taste of Phase II, but it's all so thin, not nearly enough pictures or drawings. At $50 (MSRP when published) it was, to my mind, about a '7' (scale 1-10 with 10 being MUST HAVE ESSENTIAL) on my value to money scale. 

'Star Trek-Where No One Has Gone Before- A History in Pictures' by J.M.Dillard (1994) This one was pretty good, at least from a history perspective, and there was more fannish input in the production so the photos selected are interesting, but it's really light from the model builder's point of view. At $45 (MSRP when published) it's a bit better value so 7.5 for me.

'Star Trek The Next Generation-The Continuing Mission, a tenth anniversary tribute' by the Reeves-Stevens (1997) This is pretty good for the model builder and prop maker, otherwise pretty sanitized and fluffy. $35 (MSRP when published) makes this a really good value. I would wish with all my heart for an identical volume produced for the original series, but that would involve a time machine I fear... call it a solid 8.5.

'Star Trek Vault- 40 Years from the Archives' by Scott Tipton (2011) The only non-Pocket Books publication, it tries to cover so much ground in not enough pages. Not really that useful for the model builder, the big sell point of the '(license name) Vault' series are the little goodies slipped into the pages, such as replica posters, blueprints, other paper goods. $40 (MSRP) is a pretty high price to pay for what's inside, OTOH it does have pictures of some items that I'd never seen good pics of such as the Mego toy Enterprise Bridge from ST:TMP, so from that perspective it has value. Call it a decent 7 just for historical context.

Of course this list doesn't touch the large number or 'trade paperback' publications.


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

And all of those books (as well as Star Trek 365) are woefully short in the rarity dept. After 45 + years it gets tiresome seeing the same publicity material over and over again. Does CBS Paramount only allow access to one file cabinet of historical material ?!
There has yet to be a definitive "coffee table book" produced.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

pagni said:


> And all of those books (as well as Star Trek 365) are woefully short in the rarity dept. After 45 + years it gets tiresome seeing the same publicity material over and over again. Does CBS Paramount only allow access to one file cabinet of historical material ?!
> There has yet to be a definitive "coffee table book" produced.


Yeah.

You know, there's enough older and smart people here, I want to throw this out and see what comes up.

I recall, years ago, seeing a solicitation in the book trade for a forthcoming book on Star Trek Phase II, written by Allan Asherman. It was a legit solicit from Pocket Books, had a street date, ISBN and price. I knew Asherman's writings from all the way back to The Monster Times so I knew he would have the real deal info, he had the 'street cred' and the connections. 

And the book never came out.

Then years later (1997) the Reeves-Stevens came out with their version. It has good stuff but MOST of the book is script drafts. Useful from a historical preservation perspective but...well...it's not pics of stuff. 

So, I wonder, did Paramount take Asherman's manuscript and hand it to the Reeves-Stevens to be sanitized (smoothing over all the nonsense caused by Paramount themselves for one?) or ? Anyone know?


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Captain April said:


> Okay, new theory. Whoever Abel had working on the model, while trying to dismantle it, wound up destroying it in the process, and rather then admit this to Roddenberry, quietly disposed of it and stonewalled Gene when he asked for his one-of-a-kind artifact from the original series *back.*
> 
> So, perhaps, it's still around, in the form of a bunch of broken wooden parts in a hat box buried in Brick Price's garage, but quite possibly got tossed out with the next days trash. If we're really lucky, some lucky fanboy who was working as a garbage collector at the time saw the pieces, retrieved them, and cobbled them back together, not realizing what he's got.
> 
> Personally, I think someone should take Shaw's plans and whip up a new one to present to Rod Roddenberry, since that's probably the closest he's ever gonna get to getting that piece of his childhood back.


:lol::roll::lol::roll::lol:


----------



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

Shaw said:


> Okay, so I didn't answer the other part of *Chuck_P.R.*'s post because it tends to lead to conclusions I'd (personally) rather not think about.
> 
> 
> The Klingon model you are talking about was originally Matt Jefferies' and he donated it to the Smithsonian in the mid 70's. And just like the 33 inch Enterprise, it was requested to be used as a reference source.
> ...


Again, thanks for providing even more info, Shaw.

With all the monicker use on the various boards combined with my having to relearn who is who as I sometimes am forced to not visit for extended periods to deal with the more mundane world around us.

I hadn't known about your connection to the events previously though I've always remembered over the years that whatever the Trek subject being discussed you have always provided a ton of information and help.

For that I am extremely gratefull.

Just as importantly, I am sorry if I inadvertently stirred up a subject or experiences you would have rather not gone into.

For that I sincerely apologize.




Part of my perspective on the situation came from when Paramount took a hard line on it's Trek property starting in the latter half of the 70's that I remember quite distinctly.

A friend of mine got harrassed about reselling film clips from dailies that Roddenberry had sold him.

He was told the clips were never sold to him legally to begin with. That the clips had been paid for by Paramount and legally they could sue to have them returned - but would be satisfied as long as he stopped selling them.

Gene apparently was selling tons of stuff through Lincoln Enterprises that wasn't really kosher.

So I always wondered if Roddenberry legally owned the model to begin with. 

It's possible that Paramount officially presented the model to him as a gift of course, but unless they put that in writing I would have been worried about it be taken back if I were him.

The experiences that Paramount brought by clamping down on fan produced and traded stuff back then has undoubtibly clouded my views a bit on this.

While Paramount might have had the legal right to shut down all the fan stuff, they turned conventions that were tremendous fun and much more sociable and turned them way more commercial and boring then they once were.

And they did it just before the first movie was made. Which I thought was another slap in the face, because if fans hadn't made up their own Trek entertainment for almost a decade they wouldn't have had a sellable movie to begin with!!!

But I ramble.

I just wanted to explain a bit my own reason for assumptions I still should not have made.

Making those assumptions were still my fault.



On the Klingon model . . .


Thanks for the clarification, Shaw.

I was obviously wrong about who had had the Klingon model.

And wrong about it not getting back to it's owner before ending up in the Smithsonian.

My mistake.


I had heard and read tons of stories about how it had been borrowed, torn into parts and ended up being given to the Smithsonian where it supposedly spent a lot of time not even being displayed(being displayed now I wonder?)

But I had never heard it was given back before being donated; so I assumed it was just never returned before being donated.

That's on me for making that mistaken assumption. I was wrong.


----------



## spawndude (Nov 28, 2007)

Who knows!!! Maybe one day it will turn up on "American Pickers" buried under a ton of junk in an old barn put there by someones grandpa that bought it from a really strange fellow who claimed to be from Hollywood!


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Steve H said:


> And allow me to apologize to Mr. Shaw directly.



_- and - _​


Chuck_P.R. said:


> ...
> 
> For that I sincerely apologize.


No apologies necessary... You guys didn't cause any of the stuff that happened to me, I just wanted you to know where I was coming from.



I'd love to write a book focusing on the art and artists behind Star Trek. It always seemed to me that most of the books focused their attentions to the writers, producers, and actors, but barely touched on the contribution of those who designed and build the miniatures, sets and props. I mean the thought and attention to detail that people like Jefferies put into the original series was amazing for a television show at the time (though he did have almost two years between the start of production of the first pilot and the series making it to air to ponder this stuff). And what I've found so far in my research is that all of that was taken to another level with Phase II (but people had an idea of how popular Star Trek was by this time).

But yeah, a book where photos and scans of original materials along with illustrations and recreations (physical and CGI) to highlight the incredible job these guys did would be a fun project. From my own (limited) experiences discussing things with these people, I know I would jump at the opportunity/excuse to get to know them all a little better. :thumbsup:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

The only thing I would worry about (in hindsight) concerning Phase II was how much the staff was borrowing from the Franz Joseph Tech Manual. I seem to recall a picture somewhere that the Phasers Roddenberry conned someone to making for free (ok, cheap shot.) were these beautiful, smooth, well engineered and almost exactly like the 'tech specs' from the Tech Manual, not a remaking of the original series hero prop. They took advantage of advances available in '77/78 with high power strobe for the 'key light' and so on. 

(these were different from the Phaser seen on the 'trek roundtable' episode of the 'Tomorrow' show earlier, which was a fan made and sold prop)

And then, reportedly, they mysteriously vanished. Huh. 

I thought the Star Trek Sketchbook did an OK job of showcasing everyone but so thin! So very thin and sanitized.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Steve H said:


> The only thing I would worry about (in hindsight) concerning Phase II was how much the staff was borrowing from the Franz Joseph Tech Manual. I seem to recall a picture somewhere that the Phasers Roddenberry conned someone to making for free (ok, cheap shot.) were these beautiful, smooth, well engineered and almost exactly like the 'tech specs' from the Tech Manual, not a remaking of the original series hero prop. They took advantage of advances available in '77/78 with high power strobe for the 'key light' and so on.


Actually, I've found very little Franz Joseph stuff in Phase II (none so far, actually). These were the props made for Phase II... Phaser and Communicator.

It is the popular perception of Phase II being either polluted by fan works or having been largely incomplete (because most of the published photos are of incomplete aspects) that I've been working towards trying to fix. Phase II was TOS done with time, care and additional funds... like I said, taken to another level. And that popular perception is what has kept the artist who worked on Phase II from getting the credit they deserve.

I mean why weren't the hero props of Phase II highlighted in _Star Trek Phase II: The Lost Series_? That book did a massive disservice to the artists who worked on Phase II (but then again, it was a book by writers mainly about writers and producers... with scripts and story treatments to fill up most of the book). And similarly the Planet Hollywood model undercut the quality of workmanship that was put into the Phase II Enterprise model.

There is a ton of great Star Trek stuff that the fans haven't seen... and largely don't even know is there.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Shaw said:


> Actually, I've found very little Franz Joseph stuff in Phase II (none so far, actually). These were the props made for Phase II... Phaser and Communicator.
> 
> It is the popular perception of Phase II being either polluted by fan works or having been largely incomplete (because most of the published photos are of incomplete aspects) that I've been working towards trying to fix. Phase II was TOS done with time, care and additional funds... like I said, taken to another level. And that popular perception is what has kept the artist who worked on Phase II from getting the credit they deserve.
> 
> ...


I wouldn't use the word 'polluted' by the FJ stuff, but 'influenced' with the undercurrent that it was accurate to the original works, which it wasn't.

See, I see a good amount of FJ in that Phaser (and yes, that's the one I remember! The construction looks excellent to my eye). While the trigger on the PII is more in line with TOS than the FJ twin squares, you can see that the trigger on the PI is moved to that 'little light' between the two wheels, with the assumption that the ridged wheel is the 'setting' and the other wheel is just a power level gauge. These was assumptions we ALL made back then, finally codified by the FJ Tech Manual, and of course as we all know NOW, it's completely and totally wrong. 

(well, modify that. 'we all thought' that the PI trigger was that bar under the grid, which we now know is the cover for the sighting device)

I've long been struggling with just what was what with Phase II. All the 'official' photos I've seen in recent history show a crude, unfinished production, a long, long ways from being polished enough to start shooting (and thus, easy to change for use in TMP) and yet, if failing memory serves, active production, shooting, for Phase II was just weeks from starting when Paramount pulled the plug and shifted gears for ST:TMP. Logic says things had to be much more finalized and finished. 

There clearly is history that needs to be preserved and I would spend monies on books about all this.


----------

