# PL 1/350 TOS Enterprise: Gary Kerr's research of the original studio miniature



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

I have just received an e-mail from Mike Reccia.
Look at this: :woohoo:

Volume Twenty-Six of Sci.fi & fantasy modeller promises genre modellers an exciting, exclusive menu of reviews and features, including a special section offering major coverage of and previewing the biggest kit event of 2012 - Polar Lights' 1/350th. Enterprise. 

Volume Twenty-Six's includes:

*Polar Lights 1/350 Enterprise exclusive: Gary Kerr on researching the original studio miniatures and blueprinting the new release - amazing facts and photographs!
Polar Lights 1/350 Enterprise exclusive: A detailed build of the new kit!
Polar Lights 1/350 Enterprise exclusive: Overview of the first test-shot and kit production progress report!*​


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

And when is this issue going on sale?


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Their website says July 20.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

This would be nice to have. Hopefully my LHS carries it. All the bookstores around here are closed!


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Ooooh... I'm definitely in, thanks for the heads up!


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Nova Designs said:


> Ooooh... I'm definitely in, thanks for the heads up!


You are very welcome, Sir.

I've already pre-ordered mine. Gary's articles about the Moebius Jupiter 2 (volumes 17, 18 and 19) were amazing and I don't expect less this time.


----------



## swbell3 (Jun 6, 2005)

Sounds like the update emails, recycled as magazine articles.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

swbell3 said:


> Sounds like the update emails, recycled as magazine articles.


Well if that is all it is, then why should we order it?
-Jim


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

JGG1701 said:


> Well if that is all it is, then why should we order it?
> -Jim


Because less than 1 % of the public have access to these!


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

I hate to contradict the people who have already concluded that the article is simply a rehash of the 1701 Club updates, but my article is way more than that. It's the full "making of" story of the kit, told from my viewpoint, in at least two (and probably three) parts with numerous unpublished illustrations. Part 1 will detail the history & evolution of my Enterprise plans, including the "Trials & Tribble-ation" plans, the 1991-92 restoration, the Remastered series, the Master Replicas Enterprise, and the full-size Galileo mock-up. I'm still writing Part 2, but it will cover the early stages of the development of the 1:350 Polar Lights kit, while the probable Part 3 will go into great detail re. the production of the final kit. For completeness' sake the third part will probably touch on the bow light & grid line debates, which were covered in a 1701 Club update, but that that's just tough.

The other two articles are all-new, too, and include a review of the first test shot, plus Jim Small's story of building the 1st test shots, as well as his contributions to planning the kit.

Gary


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

^^^^

Gary, don't forget, I've got cookies waiting for you.


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

Fantastic, Gary! Looking forward to it!


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

I was in my LHS today and asked if he carried sci-fi & fantasy modeller magazine and he said he didn't but then he asked what issue and when the issue would be out and I told him so he said he'd see if his distrinbutor could get it for me! Fingers crossed.


----------



## phicks (Nov 5, 2002)

Sic fi and Fantasy Modeller can be ordered by any comic book store, but you need to tell them in advance so they order enough copies. They might ask for a down payment too.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

CultTVMan also carries it, as well as FabGearUSA.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Cult and FabGearUSA eh? Cool. I may need to order a few more things along with this.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

I received mine yesterday. 

This magazine is something that makes your jaw drop!

I am not a very well informed person when it comes to the "Enterprise" although a lifelong fan so, I was completely crazy when I saw the pictures.

Man... what incredible pictures of the old lady "in person"!!!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Got mine. Felt like I was 13 years old again!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Looks like a trip to Colpar Hobbies in order once I get paid...


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Couldn't pry that magazine out of my hands when it arrived! Fantastic photos and great articles!

(I hope they printed extra copies...this issue is gonna SELL!)


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

I just ordered my copy from the SSM store... Too much good stuff to pass up!


----------



## phicks (Nov 5, 2002)

Is this issue available in comic book stores yet? I asked my LCS to order me a copy but have not seen it yet. If they can't get it, I need to order a copy online before it is sold out.


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

phicks said:


> Is this issue available in comic book stores yet? I asked my LCS to order me a copy but have not seen it yet. If they can't get it, I need to order a copy online before it is sold out.


I checked Amazon and it was out... the SSM store only had 8 left after I got one.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I already have two copies that I ordered online. A third will come to my local shop, but they are usually several weeks after the release date. I would imagine that this issue, and perhaps the following two, will sell out quickly. You should get them while you can.


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

I went to the SSM store to buy but couldn't break with the $ for just a magazine, too much. Hoping to find one down the road for a bit less. Planning to mostly copy my MR 'E' with very few execptions.

If someone sees these for the mid-teens cost-wise please let us know!

Thanks,

Tib (The Cheap)


----------



## trekfan (Dec 17, 2006)

CultTVMan is currently out of stock.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

trekfan said:


> CultTVMan is currently out of stock.


Wow!
Great magazine. I just received mine today from Cult.:thumbsup:
-Jim


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Tiberious said:


> I went to the SSM store to buy but couldn't break with the $ for just a magazine, too much. Hoping to find one down the road for a bit less. Planning to mostly copy my MR 'E' with very few execptions.
> 
> If someone sees these for the mid-teens cost-wise please let us know!
> 
> ...


This edition has 34 pages dedicated to the research of Gary Kerr and other topics related to the PL 1/350 TOS E. 

Believe me, it's worth every penny. :wave:


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

I have NO doubt, but due to be laid off at the end of Sep, gotta stretch my buck!

I may give in....

Tib


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Tiberious said:


> I have NO doubt, but due to be laid off at the end of Sep, gotta stretch my buck!
> 
> I may give in....
> 
> Tib


Sometimes a modelers gotta do what a modelers gotta do..........
-Jim


----------



## BatToys (Feb 4, 2002)

I bought mine on eBay.

Gary, I appreciate all your hard work.


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

Yes, phenomenal articles! Thanks for finally telling us your story, Gary!

And it would appear that the story isn't over. Didn't I read something somewhere about this being a two- or three-part series of articles? Which means the next few issues of the mag will have even more TOS goodness!


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Gregatron said:


> Yes, phenomenal articles! Thanks for finally telling us your story, Gary!
> 
> And it would appear that the story isn't over. Didn't I read something somewhere about this being a two- or three-part series of articles? Which means the next few issues of the mag will have even more TOS goodness!


Yep. The next installment, which I emailed to SF&FM yesterday, will detail what went on behind-the-scenes during the year between the semi-announcement of the kit and the official start of production. The 3rd part will be the meat & potatoes of the trilogy, with all the details of the actual production process.

Gary


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I think I speak for the masses here when I say, *SQUEEEE!!!!*


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

And I think I can speak for everyone when saying we all wish we coud have been there with you!


----------



## portland182 (Jul 19, 2003)

Click on the cover to see example pages

http://www.scififantasymodeller.co.uk/English/welcome.php

Jim


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

I realize it's all marketing (and greed) but it would have been nice to have the entire three part article in ONE special issue, rather than three.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

pagni said:


> I realize it's all marketing (and greed) but it would have been nice to have the entire three part article in ONE special issue, rather than three.


FYI, dealing with serious family medical problems and work on other, unannounced models have consumed most of my time so far this year, and spreading the article over three issues has eased the time crunch. At least the delay has allowed the entire story of PL's TOS Enterprise to be told.

Gary


----------



## RossW (Jan 12, 2000)

Real life is way more important than this - take care of yourself and your family, Gary. I for one look forward to reading this incredible journey over the three parts planned.


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

Gary, I sure hope that the medical issues resolve quickly and in the best way possible. This RL stuff sure gets in the way of our fun! Thanks for sharing with us (as always!)

Jim


----------



## cbear (Aug 15, 2000)

Nice article, Gary. Looking forward to the the rest. All your work is much appreciated!

Chuck


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Opus Penguin said:


> And I think I can speak for everyone when saying we all wish we coud have been there with you!


Yeah! Oh, the envy! In a good sense, of course.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

If the three part article was all in one issue then it wouldn't be a three part article!

And I bet the magazine had other peoples' articles to run too. (flips thru mag). Yup, lookit that! A magazine with multiple articles by multiple people. How bout that? Greedy bastards.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

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


----------



## spawndude (Nov 28, 2007)

Tiberious said:


> I went to the SSM store to buy but couldn't break with the $ for just a magazine, too much. Hoping to find one down the road for a bit less. Planning to mostly copy my MR 'E' with very few execptions.
> 
> If someone sees these for the mid-teens cost-wise please let us know!
> 
> ...


I too find it difficult to part with the $$

I've been following these for almost 2 years and trust me you will be EXTREMELY lucky to find em for much less than $25-$30 shipped.

I will agree however that they are worth every penny.


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

Fernando Mureb said:


> This edition has 34 pages dedicated to the research of Gary Kerr and other topics related to the PL 1/350 TOS E.
> 
> Believe me, it's worth every penny. :wave:


Could you, or someone please tell me how many photos (appx) there are of the oroginal E before I plunk down my cash for this? Moneys really tight right now and I'd really appreciate it.


----------



## Model Man (Oct 1, 2007)

Tiberious said:


> ...Hoping to find one down the road for a bit less.
> Tib (The Cheap)


This is one magazine that doesn't depreciate. You might find one for $20-$25 a couple years from now.


----------



## phicks (Nov 5, 2002)

People knock over liquor stores to finance purchases of SFFM. Do not be penny wise, pound foolish. Just buy it.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Hunch said:


> Could you, or someone please tell me how many photos (appx) there are of the oroginal E before I plunk down my cash for this? Moneys really tight right now and I'd really appreciate it.


I think the photographs are very good overall and the close-up shots are fantastic. Your mileage may vary, but here's what you get:

Gary Kerr seated with partial _Enterprise _in background
Pre-1991 restoration shot, aft and slightly below and to the side
Pre-1991 restoration shot, aft and slight above
Saucer just after uncrating
Interior of nacelle
Close-up of the texture on the impulse deck
Close-up end of nacelle
Close-up dish and pennant
Close-up hanger bay doors
Close-up bridge (Decks A, B, C)
Close-up impulse deck
Interior shuttlecraft
Exterior shuttle being restored
_Enterprise _being uncrated (2 shots)
Kerr Measuring the saucer
Measuring the dish
Making tracings of the rear saucer windows
Close-up of warp nacelle pylon being measured
Another shot of ship in crate (nice shot from above)
Close-up of saucer from bow looking aft
Shot of DS9 _Enterprise _upside down for filming (aft)
Shot of DS9 _Enterprise _upside down for filming (side)

There are also 46 photos related to the new 1:350 kit.


----------



## Larrold (May 14, 2012)

I ordered one from the SSM store the other day and today received volume 24 instead. Very disappointed! When I ordered they had 8 in stock, but now the store says vol. 26 is out of stock. I emailed them about it right away--sure hope they can find a spare really quick or I'll be very upset!

I'm sure it was an honest mistake, but I'm worried that I've wasted my money if they are unable to restock and send me what I ordered. I don't seem to have very good luck ordering from online retailers!


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Larrold said:


> ...I emailed them about it right away--sure hope they can find a spare really quick or I'll be very upset!
> 
> I'm sure it was an honest mistake, but I'm worried that I've wasted my money if they are unable to restock and send me what I ordered...


John is a stand up guy. Assuming it was a fulfilment mistake he'll take care of it ASAP. Of course this issue got bought up from every retailer quite quickly so it may be a week or two before you receive your issue.


----------



## Larrold (May 14, 2012)

I have no doubt that it'll get resolved, but I was really looking forward to this one! I had my whole weekend planned around it!


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Gave it a quick looksee before I went to work. Hoping to have time this weekend to actually have a good sit down & read it.:thumbsup:
-Jim


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

If you're passionate about this subject, you really need to 'blind buy' this. You won't be disappointed, seriously. Tom was right about this issue not depreciating. I have a serious feeling that it will quickly sell out and the value will skyrocket.

I bought three copies (two online, one locally), so that I can have one as a 'reader' copy, and two to put away. I plan to do the same with the other two issues.


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

Larrold said:


> I ordered one from the SSM store the other day and today received volume 24 instead. Very disappointed! When I ordered they had 8 in stock, but now the store says vol. 26 is out of stock. I emailed them about it right away--sure hope they can find a spare really quick or I'll be very upset!
> 
> I'm sure it was an honest mistake, but I'm worried that I've wasted my money if they are unable to restock and send me what I ordered. I don't seem to have very good luck ordering from online retailers!


I had the exact same issue.. I ordered 26, got 24 instead. I called John and he got it sorted out and the correct issue in the mail to me. I simply put the wrong one back in the envelope and "return to sender".


----------



## pagni (Mar 20, 1999)

Gary K said:


> FYI, dealing with serious family medical problems and work on other, unannounced models have consumed most of my time so far this year, and spreading the article over three issues has eased the time crunch. At least the delay has allowed the entire story of PL's TOS Enterprise to be told.
> 
> Gary


Apologies to you if you feel I somehow slighted you and your hard work.
My contention was with the publisher NOT the author.
.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Just ordered mine online. Cost me (with shipping) $33 Canadian, but I don't buy many of these so it's okay.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

So far, having read the article twice, what struck me the most was the extreme care that R2 is devoting to the accuracy and to the smallest details.  It seems that it is not just a labor of love, but a strong desire to gift us modellers with a foolproof kit. :thumbsup:


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Warped9 said:


> Just ordered mine online. Cost me (with shipping) $33 Canadian, but I don't buy many of these so it's okay.


can I ask where?

Amazon and cult both have it backordered and Powell's does not list it at all.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

mach7 said:


> can I ask where?
> 
> Amazon and cult both have it backordered and Powell's does not list it at all.


Go to fabgearusa

Since this site caters heavily to Gerry Anderson stuff perhaps it's not surprising Trek fans could have overlooked it. The issue does have a _UFO_ related article in it.

I figure it'll take about a week or so for my order to arrive.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Fernando Mureb said:


> So far, having read the article twice, what struck me the most was the extreme care that R2 is devoting to the accuracy and to the smallest details.  It seems that it is not just a labor of love, but a strong desire to gift us modellers with a foolproof kit. :thumbsup:


I got the same impression. You can't read that article without coming away with the impression that this is kit is going to really be something special.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

You can see some of the pages on a PDF file online. What few photos are shown do whet the appetite.


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

Thank you Fozzie. Sounds like I'm going to have to bite the bullet on this one, too good to pass up!:thumbsup:


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Warped9 said:


> Go to fabgearusa
> 
> Since this site caters heavily to Gerry Anderson stuff perhaps it's not surprising Trek fans could have overlooked it. The issue does have a _UFO_ related article in it.
> 
> I figure it'll take about a week or so for my order to arrive.


Thank you kindly


----------



## portland182 (Jul 19, 2003)

You can also order direct from the publishers...

http://www.scififantasymodeller.co.uk/English/shop.php?PHPSESSID=483ce9faba2546a58ab4d42b8d251c70

Jim


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Thanks guys,

I just bought it from the publisher. $32 and change shipped.

Fab gear wanted $36 shipped.


----------



## Joeysaddress (Jun 16, 2006)

I ordered direct yesterday and got an email today telling me that it has shipped via air mail and I should have my copy in 7 business days. I can't wait.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Deleted.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Joeysaddress said:


> I ordered direct yesterday and got an email today telling me that it has shipped via air mail and I should have my copy in 7 business days. I can't wait.


Hmm, I ordered direct also, got PayPal confirmation of payment but I did not get anything from the publisher saying it was shipped.


----------



## Joeysaddress (Jun 16, 2006)

Hi Joseph
*
Thank you for your order - the book will be sent to you by airmail tomorrow and the normal transit time to the States is 7 working days.
*
With kind regards
*
Jane

This was the email that I received.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

mach7 said:


> Hmm, I ordered direct also, got PayPal confirmation of payment but I did not get anything from the publisher saying it was shipped.


I already bought several editions from Mike. I have not always received a shipping report, but all the magazines always arrived on time.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I just got my confirmation that my order has actually shipped. I'm eager to get it.


----------



## Jim NCC1701A (Nov 6, 2000)

Mine shipped from SSM 6 days ago, should be getting it soon.


----------



## phicks (Nov 5, 2002)

My local comic store checked with Diamond Distribution today, and this issue is back stocked....to December. Yeeaahhhh, I just ordered it straight from the SFFM website. 

Gary - Do you know if parts 2 and 3 of your article will appear in issues 27 and 28, or is that not yet decided?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

phicks said:


> Gary - Do you know if parts 2 and 3 of your article will appear in issues 27 and 28, or is that not yet decided?


Good question. I was wondering that myself.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

phicks said:


> Gary - Do you know if parts 2 and 3 of your article will appear in issues 27 and 28, or is that not yet decided?


I've just sent Pt 2 to Mike Reccia, so it'll be in Vol 27 for sure. If I can finish writing Pt 3 (the meat & potatoes of the story) by the deadline, then it'll be in Vol 28. Hmm... meat & potatoes sound pretty good right now.

Gary


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

This mag is kinda new to me. How often does it publish? (in other words, when does part 2 come out! )


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

John P said:


> This mag is kinda new to me. How often does it publish? (in other words, when does part 2 come out! )


I don't know the exact publication dates, but it's a quarterly publication, which means a new issue roughly every 3 months.

Gary


----------



## Bay7 (Nov 8, 1999)

Gary, in the article you mention the cancelled Enterprises book - did you exhaustively record the dimensions for the enterprise B,C too?

Its a shame it got cancelled, I bet it would have become a model builders bible. 

It would be interesting to see how the plans of the original E measure up to the effort that Revell just put out - we know its wrong but it'd be great to know just how wrong!

Great job - I could have sworn the picture of your shuttle craft was CGI. Got a long wait for the 2nd and 3rd parts but i can't wait!

anyone know how much this beauty will cost once it hits the shelves?

Steve


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Gary K said:


> I don't know the exact publication dates, but it's a quarterly publication, which means a new issue roughly every 3 months.
> 
> Gary


So long to wait!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Gary K said:


> I don't know the exact publication dates, but it's a quarterly publication, which means a new issue roughly every 3 months.
> 
> Gary


So the next issue will be coming out around the same time as the kit itself? That's around the end of October or thereabouts, or did I miss something?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Correct.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I ordered mine direct too, thanks for the link! excited to read it!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I just got an email notice that culttvman has a received a few more issues of SFFM #26 issues in stock if anyone is still looking to order.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

I got my copy from FabGearUSA.com
WOW! If you are a fan of the TOS E, this issue is a must have!
Thanks Gary, E. James, and all!


----------



## phicks (Nov 5, 2002)

KUROK said:


> I got my copy from FagGearUSA.QUOTE]
> 
> Ummmm......OK. I think I'll wait until I'm home from work to check out that particular website!


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

This is in stock again at Cult's store. I had it in my card but the nearly $10 in shipping for a MAGAZINE was too much for my credibility to accept....sad, I really wanted this.

Anyhow, it's there for you folks willing to overpay for shipping! 

Tib


----------



## veedubb67 (Jul 11, 2003)

It's not your typical magazine, it's 100 pages and bound like a book. Big and heavy too - weighs 1.1 lbs.

Picked it up from Steve at IPMS Nationals. Definitely worth the money!

Rob
Iwata Padawan


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

Thanks for the info. Still if I want to overpay for shipping I'd get it on Ebay 

Just wanted to let folks know it was there, since a lot of people are looking for it. I'll keep an eye out for it but expect I'll have to do without it.

Tib


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

John P said:


> So long to wait!


Au contraire. It takes a surprisingly long time to perform research & reconstruct a timeline of events before I can even begin writing - all while tying up loose ends on the TOS E kit, working on new kits, and dealing with "life". Three months ain't long enough! 

Gary


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Well, sure, for YOU! :lol:


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

KUROK said:


> I got my copy from FagGearUSA.
> WOW! If you are a fan of the TOS E, this issue is a must have!
> Thanks Gary, E. James, and all!


It's FabGearUSA.com, you pillock...!

Here's a link:

http://fabgearusa.com/


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

THAT is the funniest thing I've seen all day.

Thanks for the yucks!


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Gary K said:


> Au contraire. It takes a surprisingly long time to perform research & reconstruct a timeline of events before I can even begin writing - all while tying up loose ends on the TOS E kit, working on new kits, and dealing with "life". Three months ain't long enough!
> 
> Gary


Lucky guy! :wave:


----------



## enterprise_fan (May 23, 2004)

I got the same notice from CultTVman. When I found out the magazine was "out of stock" on most on line sites I went a looking for it locally. None of the book stores in my area had it or could find it at their suppliers. I even checked out the UK publisher to order it but could not get a dollars vs pounds price. Went back to CultTVman and got on the waiting list for a second chance at the magazine. I only had to wait two days for the good news. Money order will be on its way in the morning (I don't have a credit card).


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

Glad it worked out for you trying to revise my outlook on that shipping cost but it seems doubtful.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

i got mine last Monday from FAbgear usa, came in a bout a week


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

Shipping was the same there, I checked. thanks though!


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Gemini1999 said:


> It's FabGearUSA.com, you pillock...!
> 
> Here's a link:
> 
> http://fabgearusa.com/


OOOOps!  That is the funniest typo I have ever made. Didn't mean to derail the thread...still love the book.
Had to go to urban dictionary to figure out what a pillock means. I shall respond by calling you a plonker!


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

SFFM charges £14.95 for the magazzine and £5 for shipping (this amounts, more or less, $10 for it to cross the Atlantic).


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

I pulled the trigger on this one. Now I wait for my wife to find the paypal trail to nail me to the wall. Sure hope its worth it!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I ordered mine from Fabgear a bit over a week ago should it should be arriving anytime now.


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

You guys had me talked into it but Cult's sold out again. Hopefully SSM Store will get it back in stock!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Tiberious said:


> You guys had me talked into it but Cult's sold out again. Hopefully SSM Store will get it back in stock!


Now that you're convinced when it gets restocked don't hesitate.


----------



## enterprise_fan (May 23, 2004)

I just hope I got my order in on time before they ran out from the second restock.


----------



## John F (May 31, 2001)

I ordered one direct from the publisher, got a shipping confirmation email about 10 days ago but haven't received it yet


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

John F said:


> I ordered one direct from the publisher, got a shipping confirmation email about 10 days ago but haven't received it yet


Yeah, I start counting from when I get the notice it's been shipped. I'm hoping it gets here soon because I'm anxious to see it.


----------



## John F (May 31, 2001)

John F said:


> I ordered one direct from the publisher, got a shipping confirmation email about 10 days ago but haven't received it yet


 
Got it yesterday.


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

SSM has it back in stock, sans the one I ordered.

Just FYI.

Tib


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

CultTVMan has it back in stock for 7 dollars off the published price. Got my notification yesterday and placed my order. Need to mail in payment now.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Good to see that you're getting this Steve.
You won't be disappointed. Also Cult is taking PRE-orders. for the next issue (part 2)
-Jim


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

JGG1701 said:


> Good to see that you're getting this Steve.
> You won't be disappointed. Also Cult is taking PRE-orders. for the next issue (part 2)
> -Jim


Yeah. I just couldn't resist. I figure I would've ended up kicking myself for years down the road if I'd passed this issue up. Really looking forward to getting it now.


----------



## RossW (Jan 12, 2000)

I just pre-ordered #27 from Steve - can't wait!


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

I'm still waiting for mine to come in from the publisher, should be here any day now...:dude:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Hunch said:


> I'm still waiting for mine to come in, ...should be here any day now.


Same.


----------



## mach7 (Mar 25, 2002)

Ditto


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Finally got mine in the mail just now from FabGear. The pictures alone are great. I _sooo_ can't wait to read this.

The stuff on the _UFO_ Interceptor looks interesting, too.


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

Just finished reading mine cover to cover last night! You guys are _really_ gonna like the Enterprise articles. :thumbsup:

This is the first issue I've ever bought of Sci-Fi & Fantasy or even seen for that matter, and I'm impressed. It's a quality publication. 

Issue 27 will be the second issue I _will_ buy!

hal9001-


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

hal9001 said:


> Just finished reading mine cover to cover last night! You guys are _really_ gonna like the Enterprise articles. :thumbsup:
> 
> This is the first issue I've ever bought of Sci-Fi & Fantasy or even seen for that matter, and I'm impressed. It's a quality publication.
> 
> ...


I'm going to need a pair of rubber gloves when I get mine. Sweaty palms you know?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Okay, I just finished reading everything related to the development of the 1/350 TOS _E..._

_Phew!_ I can't recall the last time I was so engrossed in an article. Part of me wanted to race ahead while another held me to catch hint every word. Gary has evidently put a lot of his heart and soul into an accurate TOS _E_ and it shows. The photographs of the forthcoming kit are breathtaking. The attention to minute detail and accuracy are incredible.

One thing that comes across even in quickie f/x shots of the first kit build-up (the one seen at Wonderfest 2012) is how much more impressive this looks compared to what you see in TOS-R, at least to my eyes. Hell, it's a real model, an actual physical object for light to play on its surfaces naturally. The large scale of the model also helps impart a real sense of mass. It's no surprise the original 11 footer made us feel we were looking at a truly massive object. I can imagine seeing this model assembled in front of you should be impressive.

These articles have neat bits of trivia included regarding details we might otherwise never be privy to, such as how a slight innaccuracy found its way onto the PL 1/1000 TOS _E_ but would hardly be noticeable at such a small scale. Another was that Gary actually had an opportunity to get some measurements and photos of the original full-size shuttlecraft mock-up (so he's already got some start on the 1/32 scale _Galileo)_ :thumbsup: 

The other remark was that Lynne Miller (then owner) said Matt Jefferies had told her the mock-up was only 3/4 scale. The mock-up is only about 22ft. long so that means the real shuttlecraft is 29-1/3ft. long? Really? I find this revelation rather goes against the grain for me---I don't wish to misbelieve anyone, but this nugget really catches me by surprise. A 29ft. shuttlecraft strikes me as just a bit too large to be accommodated properly within the _Enterprise's_ hangar facilities. I had my shuttlecraft drawings at 28ft. once and still found that too big to accept. I'm afraid I'll have to see/hear more supportive evidence to buy it whole.

Nonetheless these articles and pics were well worth the wait and I can't wait to read the followup articles in the next two issues.


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

Trekkriffic said:


> I'm going to need a pair of rubber gloves when I get mine. Sweaty palms you know?


Actually you just might! The finish on the cover is a really nice matt finish. Looks great, but it's the type finish that can scuff kinda easily and show staines. Luckily I have rather dry hands, but yeah, I too want to keep it in the pristine condition I got it in! GREAT PICTURES of the "old gal".

hal9001-


----------



## phicks (Nov 5, 2002)

I am in Washington right now, and will see the TOS Enterprise with my own eyes for the first time later this week. Can't wait!


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Warped9 said:


> The other remark was that Lynne Miller (then owner) said Matt Jefferies had told her the mock-up was only 3/4 scale. The mock-up is only about 22ft. long so that means the real shuttlecraft is 29-1/3ft. long? Really? I find this revelation rather goes against the grain for me---I don't wish to misbelieve anyone, but this nugget really catches me by surprise. A 29ft. shuttlecraft strikes me as just a bit too large to be accommodated properly within the _Enterprise's_ hangar facilities. I had my shuttlecraft drawings at 28ft. once and still found that too big to accept. I'm afraid I'll have to see/hear more supportive evidence to buy it whole.


That mock-up has barely 5 ft of headroom inside, and if it was 3/4 scale then a "full-size" shuttle would have about 6'-8" of headroom, which matches better with the interior set. A 30 ft shuttle would fit in the oversized hangar bay set we saw on TV, but the problem is that this set was practically double the size of the available space inside the "real" ship (I'm talking about a ship that fits the given 947 ft length - not some imaginary Enterprise that exists only in my head). Actually, a 22 ft shuttle would find a "real" hangar bay cramped. Part 2 of my article will have illustrations that show what I'm talking about. 

You've got to relax and take what was shown on the series with a grain of salt. The primary purpose of these sets & props was to assisit in the telling of stories, and not to serve as a primer on 23th century engineering techniques.

Gary


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Oh, no question. Part of the fun as a fan is trying to interpret and make some sense of a lot of conflicting information and deciding what gets how much weight.


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

A fictitious craft, that fits in a fictitious hanger bay of a fictitious ship. Isn't science fiction great? You can make a watermelon fit inside a grape!

Gery, fantastic article by the way. Enjoyed it immensely.

hal9001-


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Considering that hangar deck set was a forced perspective miniature, I'd take it with several large grains of salt.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Captain April said:


> Considering that hangar deck set was a forced perspective miniature, I'd take it with several large grains of salt.


Actually the set doesn't appear to be a forced perspective miniature in the unpublished photos I've seen, and the walls & ceiling simply follow the curvature of the tapered secondary hull. Looking into the miniature from the aft end, I don't see any evidence of distortion in the height or shapes of the observation corridors, control booths, or wall alcoves. It's possible that they used a wider angle lens during filming to enhance the apparent size of the miniature.

Gary


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Well I don't think it's likely the flight deck can be as large as it appears onscreen or in the drawings seen in _The Making Of Star Trek._ That would mean the space would extend underneath the support pylons. Is that realistically credible even partway under the pylons? Those struts are massive and there'd have to be robust support structure in there even with advanced 23rd century tech.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Warped9 said:


> Well I don't think it's likely the flight deck can be as large as it appears onscreen or in the drawings seen in _The Making Of Star Trek._ That would mean the space would extend underneath the support pylons. Is that realistically credible even partway under the pylons? Those struts are massive and there'd have to be robust support structure in there even with advanced 23rd century tech.


Remember what I said earlier: take all these designs with a grain of salt. The sets were simply supposed to look cool & help them tell their stories, and they took liberties with the designs whenever they felt that it was necessary. I honestly don't think Matt Jefferies worried as much about his designs as the Hobby Talkers do. 

Gary


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Gary K said:


> I honestly don't think Matt Jefferies worried as much about his designs as the Hobby Talkers do.
> 
> Gary


A safe assumption. 

...but we enjoy our peculiar type of insanity. :lol:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Gary K said:


> Actually the set doesn't appear to be a forced perspective miniature in the unpublished photos I've seen, and the walls & ceiling simply follow the curvature of the tapered secondary hull. Looking into the miniature from the aft end, I don't see any evidence of distortion in the height or shapes of the observation corridors, control booths, or wall alcoves. It's possible that they used a wider angle lens during filming to enhance the apparent size of the miniature.
> 
> Gary


If that miniature set followed the lines of that cross section drawing, then it most definitely was a forced perspective set. Note the observation corridor, with its aftward slant and narrowing, along with those clamshell doors curving way further out than the miniature and a forward bulkhead that would wind up _forward_ of the nacelle struts. Besides the structural issues, this contradicts Jefferies' cross section of the ship overall, where the it's clear that the hangar deck is completely aft of the struts.

There has also been some frame-by-frame analysis, using the movement of the shuttle miniature, showing how the lines on the deck aren't parallel, but start to converge the further back you go.


----------



## phicks (Nov 5, 2002)

Saw the Big E today at the Smithsonian, and what a thrill. Took about 20 of my own "unpublished" photos. Looking forward to the R2 kit even more!


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

phicks said:


> Saw the Big E today at the Smithsonian, and what a thrill. Took about 20 of my own "unpublished" photos. Looking forward to the R2 kit even more!


So does that mean you plan on building your 1/1350 as a Miarecki-prise?


----------



## Bernard Guignar (Sep 9, 2006)

Got my notice from Cultman that the magazine and book that I ordered from him shipped on Monday Looking forward to reading the article. :thumbsup:


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Captain April said:


> If that miniature set followed the lines of that cross section drawing, then it most definitely was a forced perspective set. Note the observation corridor, with its aftward slant and narrowing, along with those clamshell doors curving way further out than the miniature and a forward bulkhead that would wind up _forward_ of the nacelle struts. Besides the structural issues, this contradicts Jefferies' cross section of the ship overall, where the it's clear that the hangar deck is completely aft of the struts.
> 
> There has also been some frame-by-frame analysis, using the movement of the shuttle miniature, showing how the lines on the deck aren't parallel, but start to converge the further back you go.


Sorry, but the frame-by-frame analysis is not correct. I'm looking at clear snapshots taken from the aft end of the miniature, opposite the normal view, using a normal focal length lens. The lines in the deck are definitely parallel, and there are no signs of forced-perspective distortions of the observation corridors. The cross-section drawing in "The Making of Star Trek" is not a construction blueprint, and I'm fairly certain that the drawing in TMOST was "massaged" for public consumption.

Like I've said before, the sets & miniatures were created to help tell a story - and their designs don't necessarily mesh with one another.

Gary


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, then, I'd like to posit a theory: The drawing that wound up TMoST was of a _planned_ forced perspective miniature set, while Richard Datin and his crew built a more evenly proportioned miniature set of indeterminate scale, that may or may not fit within the confines of the ship, depending on which set of drawings you consult.


----------



## phicks (Nov 5, 2002)

Trekkriffic said:


> So does that mean you plan on building your 1/1350 as a Miarecki-prise?


Brrrr...no. Just no. The Big E looks far darker in person than it ever did on screen, but everyone knows that from all the photos on the net. The panel markings however don't look as severe in person as they do in photos. 

But why isn't the Klingon D7 on display in the same case?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Because it's only about two and a half feet long, and the difference in size would be a bit jarring. At least that'd be my explanation if I was in charge. Frankly, I think they just don't particularly care.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Captain April said:


> Well, then, I'd like to posit a theory: The drawing that wound up TMoST was of a _planned_ forced perspective miniature set, while Richard Datin and his crew built a more evenly proportioned miniature set of indeterminate scale, that may or may not fit within the confines of the ship, depending on which set of drawings you consult.


I don't see any need to bring the concept of forced perspective into the discussion. In my opinion the simplest & more likely explanation is that Matt Jefferies designed an oversized hangar bay set that would look impressive on TV, and Datin & Co. built it. On an expensive and important set as this Datin wouldn't have done anything on his own. The hangar bay set's exact size/shape wasn't critical because it didn't have to tie in with any other parts of the ship. 

Later on Jefferies drafted plans of the Enterprise & Galileo either for TMoST and/or for Majel to sell through Lincoln Enterprises. Unlike the plans for the miniature hangar bay set, these drawings had to appear to fit within the confines of the ship's hull. Jefferies had to cheat and gradually reduce the heights of the upper level corridors so the twin control booths wuold align properly with the aft bulkhead; otherwise, the booths would be positioned too high to fit. If you look closely, nothing else in the cross-section drawing suggests forced-perspective - the heights of the lower level side alcoves are constant. 

Gary


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

My belief is that the bulk of those drawings that showed up in TMoST were done for press kits and stuff along those lines. In any case, that hangar deck drawing is seriously wonky compared to the other schematics.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Captain April said:


> My belief is that the bulk of those drawings that showed up in TMoST were done for press kits and stuff along those lines. In any case, that hangar deck drawing is seriously wonky compared to the other schematics.


Very true. What I wouldn't give for a copy of the original studio plans of the hangar bay set....

Gary


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Gary K said:


> I honestly don't think Matt Jefferies worried as much about his designs as the Hobby Talkers do.


I'm sure Jefferies worried about his designs a great deal, but more within the context of effective 20th century production design as opposed to effective 23rd century spaceship engineering. 

At any rate, the episodes in question were intended to be viewed once, maybe twice, by audiences. The notion that fans would viewing, and reviewing, and debating, and analyzing TOS designs nearly a half century later would have been incomprehensible to Jefferies back in `65.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> The notion that fans would viewing, and reviewing, and debating, and analyzing TOS designs nearly a half century later would have been incomprehensible to Jefferies back in `65.


Yeah, I don't think that would have occurred to anyone working on TOS.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

I'd like to interject two points:

I corresponded with Richard Datin about this and asked him about the apparent forced-perspective features of the TMOST Hangar drawing. He said, unequivocally, that the Hangar miniature he built was not in forced-perspective. I've seen the same pictures Gary refers to and they support this view.

I am not convinced that we know the full story behind the TMOST Hangar and Shuttle drawings (when they were drawn and what they represent), but I suspect the Hangar drawing _is_ of a proposed minitaure set design. The convergent lines may have been a forced-perspective feature, or they may have merely been a ploy to open up the business end of the set to allow more light to pour in around a bulky camera rig. If you want to see Matt Jefferies' true concept of the "real" hangar deck, all you need do is consult the detailed Phase II scale cross section he left us. It almost fits, as is, into the TOS-E. (<-- note the word, _almost_).

M.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Yep, all very true... 

1) Matt Jefferies was a very smart guy, and paid a lot more attention to the Enterprise than the demands of a late-1960s TV series probably legitimately called for, because (like many of us) he ENJOYED HIS WORK, and wanted it to make sense.

2) That said, nobody likely ever imagined that any of what they produced would be seen more than once or twice, during first run (and subsequent same-broadcast-year rerun) airings. And I'm sure that they had no clue that we'd be here, using our figurative sliderules, to figure out what things were.

3) None of what we have really fits together perfectly. It all requires SOME form of compromise. In my case, I've "compromised" by subtly upsizing the starship, and have found that everything seems to work out perfectly by having done so. But this is not the only possible solution.

I can say that "it works out perfectly" because I have modeled the landing bay (my own preference for the term... the "hangar deck" is where small craft are stored, one deck down) inside of my own Enterprise, set up a "virtual camera" inside the ship" (located slightly forward of the bay's front bulkhead, which I have to render invisible to make this work, mind you) and can, by tweaking the "virtual lens" of the virtual camera, exactly replicate the on-screen shot, with "full scale" discrepancies measurable in inches, rather than feet, all around.

This was one of three areas which forced my hand in determining my upscaling size, in fact... with deck heights (and window level spacing) being one of the other most significant points.

Interestingly, with my "upscaling," the outboard windows adjacent to the landing bay observation galleries actually line up with the galleries themselves, without any need for a "step-up" or "step-down" as well.

But this required a BIG "compromise"... or, perhaps you may say, two. First, the ship simply cannot be 947'. That's a "non-starter" for many, many people. And second, you have to ignore certain things seen in the "remastered" episodes, showing the forward region of this facility (which is then underneath the pylons). The first is a big issue, the second less so, but both are issues that simply have to be "compromised" on in order to make that particular solution work.

What we can all agree on is that the work Jefferies did, no matter how impressive and well-thought-out, is not a "final design" state, and was never intended to be treated as such. We should treat it as a strong starting point, but I have no doubt that Jefferies would not object to having his work expanded upon, and made "real," even if it requires some elements of his earlier work to be... "scrubbed." That's how real design work inevitably goes.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

*CL*, I couldn't care less with what TOS-R did. I quite like your take on the ship primarily because it makes everything work as it's supposed to work.

BTW do you have any schematics and deck plans of your hangar bay on hand you could email me? What I'd like are a familiar cross-section view along the centerline as well as a view looking forward, a view looking aft and a deck plan. I'd like to superimpose my shuttlecraft onto those views to see how it all works visually.

At your convenience, of course.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

MGagen said:


> I'd like to interject two points:
> 
> I corresponded with Richard Datin about this and asked him about the apparent forced-perspective features of the TMOST Hangar drawing. He said, unequivocally, that the Hangar miniature he built was not in forced-perspective. I've seen the same pictures Gary refers to and they support this view.
> 
> ...


Do we have any hard figures as to the size of the miniature set?


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

CLBrown said:


> Yep, all very true...
> 
> 1) Matt Jefferies was a very smart guy, and paid a lot more attention to the Enterprise than the demands of a late-1960s TV series probably legitimately called for, because (like many of us) he ENJOYED HIS WORK, and wanted it to make sense.
> 
> ...


A simpler explanation would be that a foot became a slightly different measurement 200 years into the future.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Which doesn't change what *CLBrown* had to do make it work.

The 947ft. figure for the ship's length has never been stated onscreen in TOS or TAS, the only sources that would have any real validity. It might have _appeared_ onscreen on a poorly visible schematic shown on a briefing room tri-screen in TOS' "The _Enterprise_ Incident." It's the same schematic seen in the pages of _The Making Of Star Trek,_ but while you can recognize the image you certainly can't read anything from it. The 947ft. figure only appears in a few reference books which carry only as much weight as one is willing to give it. But, like *CL* says, it's become pretty much gospel to some people.

The scale of the 11ft. miniature (if you can call an 11ft. model "miniature") is also a debatable issue. It doesn't fit a generally accept scale if the ship is supposed to 947ft. It's tied into the fact the ship was originally supposed to be 540ft then GR decided they needed a larger ship, only the design had already been established. But instead of just doubling the scale which would have given us a ship of 1080ft. someone (MJ?) came up with 947ft. Ever since people have been trying to figure out the 11 footer's exact scale.

*CLBrown's* 1040ft. figure is a good compromise, but I'm not sure he concerned himself so much with scale as with actual size.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Hei Guys.

#27 available for preorder here.


----------

