# Star Trek kits



## Steve CultTVman Iverson (Jan 1, 1970)

Didn't AMT make Star Trek kits?

Cult


----------



## grantf (Feb 2, 2004)

Steve CultTVman Iverson said:


> Didn't AMT make Star Trek kits?
> 
> Cult


No! they actually never did, Fact!


----------



## hankster (Jan 1, 1998)

They did Star Wars kits.


----------



## Darkhunter (Dec 17, 2003)

grantf said:


> No! they actually never did, Fact!


Fact, I have at least ten STAR TREK kits with the AMT / Ertl logo sitting on a shelf!!


----------



## capt Locknar (Dec 29, 2002)

Funny, I have several sitting here with AMT logo's On them too.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Steve CultTVman Iverson said:


> Didn't AMT make Star Trek kits?
> 
> Cult


Very funny,Steve!:lol:


----------



## jwrjr (Oct 31, 2003)

I also have some Trek kits with 'AMT' written on them.


----------



## grantf (Feb 2, 2004)

FACT: star trek modelers can't take a joke. FACT!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

What's the actual brand-name history? 

I know it was just "AMT" when they made the original E, the Klingon, the shuttle, the Romulan, the K-7, the bridge, the exploration kit, and the Leif Ericsson in the 60s.

Didn't it become, officially, "AMT/Ertl" before they made any of the later Trek kits?


----------



## Jokerman (Oct 6, 2004)

John P said:


> What's the actual brand-name history?
> 
> I know it was just "AMT" when they made the original E, the Klingon, the shuttle, the Romulan, the K-7, the bridge, the exploration kit, and the Leif Ericsson in the 60s.
> 
> Didn't it become, officially, "AMT/Ertl" before they made any of the later Trek kits?


The were actually AMT/Lensey/Matchbox, or something like that around the time ST:TMP came out. Then Ertl bought AMT.


----------



## Darkhunter (Dec 17, 2003)

grantf said:


> FACT: star trek modelers can't take a joke. FACT!


Sometimes, on these boards, you never know if someone is being serious. 
I'm just glad to see AMT here!!


----------



## phrankenstign (Nov 29, 1999)

grantf said:


> FACT: star trek modelers can't take a joke. FACT!


 FACT: Non-star trek modelers can take a joke. FACT!


----------



## ken072359 (Aug 1, 2003)

phrankenstign said:


> FACT: Non-star trek modelers can take a joke. FACT!



Oh Really !?!?!

Maybe some people would be happy with a board called "Everything BUT Star Trek Modeling" ???


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I AM a Star Trek modeler, an I knew Steve was just having fun.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

My name is John and ... I'm a ... Star Trek modeler.

Everyone: "Hi Joooohn."


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I'm a Star Trek modeler but I've been dry two years now.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I'm a Star Trek modeler but I've been dry two years now.


You need to get wet again. Star Trek models coming!:thumbsup:


----------



## Babaganoosh (Dec 16, 2004)

Steve CultTVman Iverson said:


> Didn't AMT make Star Trek kits?
> 
> Cult



Short answer: No

Slightly longer answer: Nope. Because of the high level of innacuracies of the Trek kits they produced, they might as well have been considered non-canon ergo, not trek kits. They didn't bother to check to see what the actual studio model had compared to what their kit had. They never bothered to make any good, quality kits for people spending their hard-earned cash on. Name one accurate, decent trek kit out there produced by AMT. Ya can't, because one doesn't exist. 

Thank goodness Sasser and Polar Lights got together to make some decent Trek kits worthy of my money!

maybe now that Polar Lights and AMT are in it together, PL might be able to show AMT a thing or two about quality model making. You don't see PL taking a butter knife to the mold of a semi-decent kit. 

Here's your soapbox back.


----------



## starmanmm (Mar 19, 2000)

This has been a waste of band width.


----------



## ham1963 (May 4, 2001)

*I thought that AMT made bicycles:roll:*


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Babaganoosh said:


> maybe now that Polar Lights and AMT are in it together, PL might be able to show AMT a thing or two about quality model making.


 You talk about them like they're still separate entities, rather than brand names that have been assimilated by a huge conglomerate with, maybe, one guy in chrage of keeping track of each little brand name. What you're really saying is "Maybe now that Racing Champions and Racing Champions are in it together...."


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

ham1963 said:


> *I thought that AMT made bicycles*


I think you're right! I used to own one.


----------



## Whiter (Nov 16, 2000)

I think that was AMF.....as in adios mother _______


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^Oh, yeah. I think the 'F' was a little worn away on my bike.


----------



## lonfan (Feb 11, 2001)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> ^^Oh, yeah. I think the 'F' was a little worn away on my bike.


So Perfesser, that would be like "V'ger" Voyager Right?  Still Talkin' Star Trek!
Sorry

JOHN/LONFAN


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Sure AMT Star Trek kits were not always accurate, but if you stand back away from the models, they look good.


----------



## MonsterModelMan (Dec 20, 2000)

Is that like referring to it as a 6 by 60?
A 6 six pack and 60 feet away?

MMM


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

lonfan said:


> So Perfesser, that would be like "V'ger" Voyager Right?  Still Talkin' Star Trek!
> Sorry


 :lol: Yeah, there was some charring!

Oddly enough, I had a bike that was named 'Voyager'. I thought it was a good name and named a fictional starship I created after it. I even made a mission badge with the name on it as well as numerous drawings.

BTW: does anyone doubt that there was a product tie-in/product placement when they named the ship _Star Trek Voyager_ and there was a Plymouth mini-van advertised during the series?


----------



## heiki (Aug 8, 1999)

Aurora made the molds for the Enterprise, Klingon Ship, and Mr. Spock. Sold them in England under the Aurora name as well.

AMT made the full size Shuttle craft for the show and paid for the Klingon prop

Aluminin Model Toys-AMT


----------



## mb1k (May 6, 2002)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I'm a Star Trek modeler but I've been dry two years now.


Hi, my name is Joe ...and I'm a Star Trek _assembler_.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

OMG this is a funny thread!


----------



## xr4sam (Dec 9, 1999)

I've been dry for a long time, but, I gotta tell ya, ain't a day goes by that I don't have the urge to open up one of them old boxes, and pull out my Xacto and bottle of Tenax...I can't go on...it's too hard...


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I like to blow up models. It works better than building them. AMT models go boom better than PL. I wonder why? What were we talking about? I was not here, so don't tell anybody. Got to go now. Bye Bye. :freak: 





I got up too early again, don't pay attention to me. :lol:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

If only AMT had had someone like Thomas Sasser to build their prototypes!  

We'd all be singing the praises of AMT right now if they had.


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

ham1963 said:


> *I thought that AMT made bicycles:roll:*


thought that was AMF? 

But they also made Bowling machines and Harley Davidsons. I won't ride an AMF HD because it can't pass a Bowling alley!


----------



## DL Matthys (May 8, 2004)

Watch it Tholian!

It so happens my 25 year old HD FXS Low Rider is running just fine. AMF is still affixed on the sides of the tanks. Still mostly stock but with a S&S Carb. Man... that ol ' pony loves to run!

DON"T YOU DARE INSULT MY IRON HORSE! You... you web spinning little twit. 

(I also have a great scooter mechanic at my service named Casey) 


DLM


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

DL Matthys said:


> Watch it Tholian!
> 
> It so happens my 25 year old HD FXS Low Rider is running just fine. AMF is still affixed on the sides of the tanks. Still mostly stock but with a S&S Carb. Man... that ol ' pony loves to run!
> 
> ...



Web spinning twit? LOL Love that one. :jest: 

Well, can't say that I ever had one (AMF that is), but I do know that AMF almost bankrupt the company, because they were better making bowling machines.
BUt I guess a HD is an HD. I miss my Electo-Glide.
Had to trade it in on my son. Tell him everyday that I am still reconsidering on getting it back! :wave:


----------



## ham1963 (May 4, 2001)

I was a Schwinn man myself you just can't beat a Orange Crate for jumping :wave:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

This is the first model I have finished since I got back into modeling this year. AMT 3 ship set starship. I made this the Exeter, after Starship Exeter fanfilm. The decals I made from scans and resizing what I had on hand. When I build others I will buy JTGraphics decals. The shot was made on a crappy digi-camera. I will try to get better pictures later. :wave:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

VERY nice, Lloyd! Be sure to start up your own thread with many pictures of the models!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Thanks! When I get more pictures I will.


----------



## flyingfrets (Oct 19, 2001)

John P said:


> You talk about them like they're still separate entities, rather than brand names that have been assimilated by a huge conglomerate


Assimilated? *MY GOD JOHN...YOU'VE LET THEIR SECRET OUT...RC2 ARE ACTUALLY THE BORG!!!*


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Of that I have no doubt! :lol:


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

Lloyd Collins said:


> This is the first model I have finished since I got back into modeling this year. AMT 3 ship set starship. I made this the Exeter, after Starship Exeter fanfilm. The decals I made from scans and resizing what I had on hand. When I build others I will buy JTGraphics decals. The shot was made on a crappy digi-camera. I will try to get better pictures later. :wave:



For someone who has said he has been out of the loop so long, to make such a nice model!

I think it is a ruse Boys. Run for your lives, it is another Expert Modeler!

AAAAAaaahhhhhhhhaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh! :freak:


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Thanks Tholian! I have a long way to be an expert, but I do take my time to make me happy with the model. I am so picky, if I like it then, I am sure other will too.


----------



## BATBOB (Jul 14, 2003)

Welcome back Lloyd. I started modelling again 2 years ago.


----------



## ken072359 (Aug 1, 2003)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> :BTW: does anyone doubt that there was a product tie-in/product placement when they named the ship _Star Trek Voyager_ and there was a Plymouth mini-van advertised during the series?



Yes, that reminds me of the NFL playoffs last season when the Ravens played the Titans. As soon as a commerical for the Nissan Titan came on, I knew the game was over. There was no way the league or Nissan would let the Ravens win because there was too much of a financial stake in not having both "Titans" looking good. 

Yea, my 100th post. Do I get a cookie?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

*ST AMT advertisement*

http://photos.hobbytalk.com/showphoto.php?photo=3828&sort=2&cat=500&page=1
I found this ad in the Feb. 1976 issue of Quasimodo's Monster Magazine.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

Babaganoosh wrote:


> _Name one accurate, decent trek kit out there produced by AMT. Ya can't, because one doesn't exist. _


Do you mean the original company? Or the AMT/ERTL line?
Either way, I think the 18" *U.S.S. ENTERPRISE  * was very good.
What about the *U.S.S. EXCELSIOR*? That was a good kit.



> Thank goodness Sasser and Polar Lights got together to make some decent Trek kits worthy of my money!


Really? The 1/1000 *U.S.S. ENTERPRISE* isn't that great. The nacelle struts connect in a horrible way. And this "worthy" kit was made by a company that couldn't even be bothered putting details into it. Just a set of decals and stickers. What's the matter? Engine grills are too tough to mold? Windows too hard to sculpt?

So, all you need to make you happy is a smooth shape and a thousand decals to imply features?

Please stop bashing AMT, ERTL or whatever.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

:freak:
Holy crap, Frank, can you _be _any wronger?

The 18" AMT Enterprise, in ts many incarnations, has never been anything remotely accurate. Okay, it was roughly the same _shape _as the Enterprise, but its inaccuracies are legion, and aftermarket garage companies have made a bundle over the years marketing resin correction sets for it. It was first issued in an era of modeling when perfect accuracy was low on the list of model kit features, especially on a kit designed to appeal to pre-teen boys.

The PL Enterprise was mastered using years of research by many fans, now nit-picky adults, using tons of accurate research material, including the original effects model (which I doubt AMT did more than glance at). What are talking about with the engine grills? It has them molded in on the nacelle parts for the production version. The pilot version nacelles are smooth because the grills weren't added on the real effect model until the series went into production. The PL kit provides parts for _both_ versions, unlike any other TOS E kit ever made. It was decided to use decals for the windows because the window pattern _changed _between the two versions of the effects model. Yes, the nacelles are a bit awkward to assemble. Yet just about everybody on Hobby Talk who's built the model has figured it out, and few people have actually complained. It's a model kit, you're _supposed _to use modeling skills to build it.

The Ertl Excelsior is a good kit? Well, it's not _horrible_, but hey - _it doesn't have ANY windows_, not even as decals! Howzcum you ain't bitching about _that_? :lol: It has a horrible raised grid pattern all over it that most people choose to sand off, and the saucer edge is rendered as an unfinished step-pattern that's supposed to be smooth - lazy work by the patternmaker, just like on the edges of their Reliant kit. btw, if it's not completely against your philosophy, you can buy window decals for it from JTGraphics at Federation Models.

Why the defensiveness over criticism of AMT/Ertl's Trek kits? It's well known half of them were garbage, frankly. Some were okay. And some were pretty darn good. Their quality varied greatly and there's no point in denying it if you're holding a crappy Defiant or a mediocre Reliant in your hands. But the Ent-C was _fantastic_, their Ent-E pretty damn good. I _love _their Ent-D kit, even with the massive carved grid lines. The refit Ent-A kit is horribley inaccurate, and covered with a hideous pattern of shingles. And the original E was terribley inaccurate.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

John P said:


> :freak:
> Holy crap, Frank, can you _be _any wronger?


"Don't mince words, Bones; what do you _really_ think?"
:lol:

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

sbaxter said:


> "Don't mince words, Bones; what do you _really_ think?"



ARRRRRRGH! You beat me to it! That's my standard response now to JohnP's rants. :lol:


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

The Enterprise C wasn't too bad, as were the Runabout and Klingon Bird of Prey. They had some shortcomings, but overall they are very nice model kits.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

When I was a kid, I wasn't very "picky".
I was just happy to have a model of the ENTERPRISE in my hands !


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

The engine grills I referred to were the Impulse Engine grills.

At least the AMT/ERTL model has molded features there.

PL only has a sticker. (or decal.)

The windows changed during the show? Fine. Just mold some into the hull.
_Any _ windows.

If you have to have every little detail exactly like the production model, you'll never be happy. As you pointed out, the ship changed during the show's run. How many versions of the thing are you going to build to keep up?




> The Ertl Excelsior is a good kit? Well, it's not horrible, but hey - it doesn't have ANY windows, not even as decals! Howzcum you ain't bitching about that?


  OK, it has been ten years since I built mine. I forgot.  


However, my point was that the AMT/ERTL kits, although not perfectly accurate, are decent kits. They are fun to build. As for the problems, isn't that part of the fun? "How can I fix this? How can I make it better?"



> It's a model kit, you're _supposed_ to use modeling skills to build it.


The Bandai Enterprise is nearly perfect. It is accurate. It has an excellent paint scheme, AND lights!
How fun is it to build a Bandai Enterprise? You pull it out of the box and snap it together. That is for someone who doesn't build models. Or an introduction to model building.

AMT/ERTL made all these ships available to us for a low price. They were good kits, fairly large in size, and easy to build.

I built the 18" Enterprise for years.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

CaptFrank said:


> The engine grills I referred to were the Impulse Engine grills.{/quote]
> Again, there were a couple of different versions, represented with decals. The option would have been a second impulse part. I guess Thomas flipped a coin, and decided on decals. I have no problem there, as it allows some conjectural variations, and the aftermarket decal makers have jumped on that. JTGraphics' sheets have a half dozen different impulse configurations for kitbashing.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

If you read back to Babaganoosh's post, and glean the overall mood from all the posts, the attitude is one of hostility and bashing of AMT/ERTL kits.

I was trying to illustrate that they were not slabs of garbage, but good kits worth building.


Thomas flipped a coin and went for decals?
Is this how PL truly operated?
It's no wonder they're gone.

Two sets of nacelles, but two tiny impulse decks would have been cost prohibitive?


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

> I've just finished my 10th kitbash, with about a dozen kits in storage to build more. I haven't even built it as the Enterprise yet!


So what difference does it make if the kit is accurate or not?!

You haven't even built the Enterprise yet? Then why need such accurate models?

The AMT/ERTL Enterprise is great for kitbashing.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I don't know that he _*literally *_flipped a coin, I was just saying it was a choice, and the designer suggested it, and PL agreed, and you're the only one I've heard complain so far.

PL is gone because they were a division of an extrememly profitable corporation which bigger company bought out, a bigger compnay that didn't necessarily _want _the PL division itself.

Everyone ackowledges that AMT/Ertl made good AND bad models, and so should you if you want to be honest. If someone went off on them being _all _bad, they were incorrect and they bear correction for their misstatement, but it's certainly nothing to get all pissy over. There's no need to go off on PL, Tom Sasser, Dave Metzner, and those of us that _like _the PL E, in some kind of immature "oh _yeah_!?" rebuttal.


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

It depends on how you define "bad".

They were a representation of the ships seen in STAR TREK.
What's wrong with that?

_(They weren't 100% accurate to the studio filming model. How am I going to be able to kitbash 20 completely different fictional non-canon ships with those kits?!!)_



> some kind of immature "oh yeah!?" rebuttal.


Really?



> Ya know, I never pick a post apart like this - I usually consider it rude, and I don't mean to be. But man, you seem to be askin' for it!


Sounds like an "oh, yeah?!" rebuttal, too.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

CaptFrank said:


> It depends on how you define "bad".


 Well, I ain't JohnP, nor do I play him on TV or in the movies - he does that well enough for himself! - but _I_ define "bad" as something along the lines of "requires LOTS of fixing to make accurate" where model kits are concerned. Can you point out an actual flaw on the three PL kits that's as bad as the wrongly shaped B/C deck on the 18" Enterprise kit? Sure, the PL D-7 first run had a bad alignment problem w/the connecting boom, but it's easily corrected w/o having to completely rebuild the thing - unlike the B/C deck. Your issue w/the impulse vent decals is just plain nitpicking, IMO. Especially for that scale. 

Your issue w/the windows makes no sense in light of your constant praising of the ERTL kits for their "accuracy", yet you get a choice of accurately depicting one of two different window configurations? 


> They were a representation of the ships seen in STAR TREK.
> What's wrong with that?


 Not a thing. The PL kits are actually much better, more accurate representations, tho. What's wrong with _that_...? 
_



(They weren't 100% accurate to the studio filming model. How am I going to be able to kitbash 20 completely different fictional non-canon ships with those kits?!!)

Click to expand...

_Huh...?


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

*sigh*


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

I was not defending the AMT/ERTL kits on the basis of accuracy, rather, on the basis that they were good kits. They are not the garbage other post-ers seem to insist.

Here is a hypothetical situation for you:

You are building the ECTO-1 car from the movie "Ghostbusters".

Intead of a set of four tire rims and little rubber wheels, the manufacturer gives you four grey disks. To simulate tires, they also give you decals (and stickers!) of tires with rims/hub caps that look just like the actual tires on the car from the movie.
Bonus: They also give you a decal that looks like the tires from ECTO - 1A, from "Ghostbusters II".

Hypothetical situation 2:

You're building the Seaview from "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea".
The box the kit comes in says something like: "Able to build either the movie version, or the television version."
You find a blank, round bow and two decals depicting the windows from each submarine.

Question: Considering these two situations, would you describe the kits as "Accurate"?

Question 2: Would you want to build them?




> Quote:
> (They weren't 100% accurate to the studio filming model. How am I going to be able to kitbash 20 completely different fictional non-canon ships with those kits?!!)
> 
> 
> Huh...?


I'll be more obvious with my sarcasm. I was trying to suggest that this would be the response of some of those super-anal modelers. This seems to be the contradictory position they have taken: The models are not completely (as close as possible) accurate to the studio model, yet they kitbash something new, thereby negating the need for total accuracy because they have made up an unseen ship.

If your response to that is: "They are building authorized conversions.", Then I say, "Why the demand for a kit that precisely copies the studio model, if you aren't going to build that ship?"

And if you wonder why I keep using "they", it's because I don't know everyone's name. I'm new here!

Modeling is a three dimensional thing. 
Decals are two dimensional.
If the wave of the future in model kit production is feature-less plastic with a thousand decals, then I may as well be building paper models printed from my computer. (Settle down you paper builders! I mean no offense! I have built paper models, too!)


Isn't the point of this HOBBY to have fun?
If one obsesses over minutiae related to accuracy, how can one enjoy oneself?

And again, I imagine someone will claim I am doing that now.
Actually, I am trying to win this debate! :tongue:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

CaptFrank said:


> If one obsesses over minutiae related to accuracy, how can one enjoy oneself?


Gee! I don't know about anyone else, but that's *exactly *how I have the most fun! :thumbsup:


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

Hey Perfesser!
Should I send you an ERTL kit? 
Then you could have fun all day!  


As far as the Polar Lights _*STAR TREK * _ kits,

I have 6 1/1000 U.S.S. ENTERPRISE's
2 KLINGON D-7's
2 1/350 NX-01's

Whenever I see them in any  store, I buy them.
They are great kits. 
Fun! :thumbsup:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

CaptFrank said:


> Hey Perfesser!
> Should I send you an ERTL kit?
> Then you could have fun all day!


I'm most pleased when I find the model matches the details. :thumbsup: I enjoy the other kits, too, however.


----------



## BATBOB (Jul 14, 2003)

I would love Polar Lights to continue to develop Star Trek kits. If don't, I'd settle for them to re-release the AMT versions. I just don't want to walk into a hobby store and find nothing....like what happened when I got back into the hobby about 2 years ago.

Building cars and planes doesn't really interest me.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

CaptFrank said:


> I was not defending the AMT/ERTL kits on the basis of accuracy, rather, on the basis that they were good kits. They are not the garbage other post-ers seem to insist.


 Have you tried to build the Defiant yet? It's one of the crappiest model kits ever produced. It's not fun to build, and it takes more effort to correct the flaws and fit problems than even most anal modelers find enjoyable.

The Reliant? The patternmakers couldn't even be bothered to finish smoothing the side panels, and the saucer is too thin by a whopping 25%.

As we've said, the rest may have few or no problems in terms of building, which I suppose can qualify them for your "good kit" label, but most of them have too many inaccuracies to make them "good kits" in the eyes of many of us who desire accuracy.

Let's take Trumpeter's 1/32 Wildcat as another example. The fit and finish is perfect! From a build standpoint, it's a "good kit." From an accuracy standpoint, it gets most of the shapes of the actual airplane completely wrong! It was SO inaccurate that modelers and magazine critiques drove trumpeter to recall it and completely redo the molds. So was is it a good model? It built fine! It was a POS in terms of 'looking right" though.



> Here is a hypothetical situation for you:
> *snip* yaddayada


 Specious comparison. The reason for the decals on the PL E are its small size, As Thomas once pointed out in defending his choice, each window is 1mm X 2mm. The impulse exhausts are also tiny. in both their versions. On a larger kit, yes, they would be engraved into the plastic, and I think you'll find they WILL be on the 1/350 refit.

Ecto 1's wheels are quite a bit bigger, wouldn't ya say? Kind of precludes the thought of using decals. Seaview's windows are sufficiently bigger that it would make more sense to cut them out. Plus, the whole nose shape changes between its 2 versions.

What you're doing here is agruing by extremes - taking a weak argument and finding exaggerated examples in an attempt to make a point. And failing, btw .



> I'll be more obvious with my sarcasm. I was trying to suggest that this would be the response of some of those super-anal modelers. This seems to be the contradictory position they have taken: The models are not completely (as close as possible) accurate to the studio model, yet they kitbash something new, thereby negating the need for total accuracy because they have made up an unseen ship.
> 
> If your response to that is: "They are building authorized conversions.", Then I say, "Why the demand for a kit that precisely copies the studio model, if you aren't going to build that ship?"


 Because most people who care WILL build the main ship (I will too eventually) (probably). So why NOT make it accurate?



> And if you wonder why I keep using "they", it's because I don't know everyone's name. I'm new here!


 Nice way to say hi - start a pissing match! 



> Modeling is a three dimensional thing.
> Decals are two dimensional.


 At 1/1000 scale, exactly how 3-dimensional will a 1mm X 2mm window that's supposed to be flush with the hull be? :freak:



> Isn't the point of this HOBBY to have fun?


 I'm having a _ball_, myself.



> If one obsesses over minutiae related to accuracy, how can one enjoy oneself?


 That's exactly what most modelers get off on. Otherwise there wouldn't be aftermarket companies that make accurizing resin detail sets and more accurate decals. Are you're saying you don't CARE if a model is accurate as long as it's easy to build? then why do you care if the windows are engraved or decals?



> And again, I imagine someone will claim I am doing that now.
> Actually, I am trying to win this debate! :tongue:


 'taint a debate. It started as a pissing match and has devolved into a pointless argument. Basically someone hurt your feelings by putting down something you liked, and you want revenge by putting down something you believe everyone else likes.


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

CaptFrank said:


> Question 2: Would you want to build them?


I would!



CaptFrank said:


> Actually, I am trying to win this debate! :tongue:


What Debate? I would assume it is all Opinion. Because in a debate, there is usually an outcome or a win of some sort, and you will get no win here. LOL

Griff is right, the AMT/ERTL Enterprise was made way out of accuracy. Does it make a bad model, for accuracy? Yes. Does it make a bad model to build because you like building models? No. There are Anal-Modelers out there how can bash a model to the point that because it has seams, it is inaccurate.

The PL kits are as accurate as corporate America will allow to pay for. You have to consider that no matter how much Thomas may explain to, and tell PL how the kit should be made to make it as accurate as possible, They still want to make a Profit. So they could have three Star Ships with the Hulls already cut with the windows set for all three versions, but the box would almost be as big as the NX-01. So they do with what they can do, and fix it with decals.

You have to admit, that it is somewhat a big difference, and a welcome site that a kit comes with the ability to have four different versions of a ship. Not to many kits have ability like that! 
So if you like to debate how this kit is bad because of this or that, you will be here a long time worrying about such things when you could be out building the kits.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

*"CaptFrank", *

I'm not trying to be a jerk about all of this, but I really do feel that you're stirring up trouble w/your dogged loyalty to the AMT/ERTL kits argument. Whether you mean to your not - and I'll take it at face value that you don't mean to make anyone angry. 

The ERTL Refit kit is wholly inaccurate in any of it's incarnations - 1/537 or 1/2500. The proportions of the saucer, secondary hull and nacelles do not agree with each other, varying anywhere from 1/520-ish to 1/535-ish for scale. And then they didn't add all the phaser emplacements, the lower primary hull landing leg doors are the incorrect shape, not in the right place and one set is missing! The lower planetary array is the wrong shape, one of the docking doors isn't there and the one present is the wrong shape and the phasers are in the wrong deflector grids. And then w/the release of the ST:II kit, they added that hull plating pattern! 

Does that make me hate the kit or refuse to buy it? 

Hell no! I've built 7 of the 1/537 kits as "straight Refit's" in my life and a dozen of the 1/2500 kits. It does make me highly frustrated that ERTL didn't get it right the first time. Same w/the 1/635 scale 18" kit. However, I've still got close to a dozen unopened ERTL Refit kits in my stash and intend to build one of them as the Ultimate Anal Refit just to prove to myself that an almost 100% accurate model can be built out of what to me is a pig of a kit. 

Then Polar Lights comes along and gives us their beautifully detailed 1/1000 scale kits. At this scale, flush windows for the model are best represented with decals. I supposed that PL could have had them etched into the hull surface, but that likely would have jacked up the cost of the masters and molds, which would translate in to a price increase. You'd also then have to fight w/the paints filling in those etched lines. They'd be a real bitch to work on if they'd included those windows as individual pieces, too. 

For your hypothetical comparisons, the only comment I can make is "What scales are we talking here?" If the ECTO-1 is standard car scale (1/24?), then it'd be pretty stupid to replace the standard tired detail w/decals. However, if we were talking 1/144 scale, I'd have no problems with a decal, as it would probably make the kits construction LOTS easier. Same w/the Seaview - it would depend on the scale. *shrug* 

Word of advice to a newbie, and you can obviously take it or not, but it's free.  Try to develop a thicker skin. It ain't always easy, as there are some jerks out there who get off on stirring up trouble. But if it gets you so worked up that you feel you have to win a debate like this, where the facts pretty much speak for themselves, you might want to step away from the 'puter and go work on a model. It _almost_ always works for me.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^ Well said, Griff :thumbsup: 

As for the windows, it should be pointed out that the 3-footer special effects model used in the show had painted-on windows--pretty much equivalent to the use of decals. The large production model also had some painted windows.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

....and the Klingon Battlecruiser's windows were ALL painted on.


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

Griffworks
Word of advice to a newbie said:


> almost[/i] always works for me.


[Gabby Johnson from Blazing Sattles]_*Revarrrnd!!!*_[/gabby]


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

> _What Debate? I would assume it is all Opinion. Because in a debate, there is usually an outcome or a win of some sort, and *you will get no win here*. LOL_


Do you mean me personally, or just any person using these boards?


In either case, I would like to say: You PL fans win.
I give up.

Let me just say, I am a STAR TREK fan. 
I am also a model builder. I enjoy building something.
The STAR TREK kits that I have bought and assembled over the last 30 years are good kits. They look like the ships I see on my 13" TV.
That's all I need. 
I built two DEFIANT kits. I didn't have a problem with either of them.
They look fine.

My point about the windows and Impulse engines was that the PL kit is not the perfect kit it is touted as being. 
Yes, it is the best version of the NCC-1701 I have ever bought, but it is not the be-all and end-all of model kits.


You builders need a level of accuracy and detail that is 100%. There is nothing wrong with that, And I think that is great! Your desire forces the "bar" to be raised by the model manufacturers. As a result, we sometimes get better kits.


If anything less than perfect is garbage, then I agree that ALL AMT/ERTL kits
are garbage.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

*Sigh*.... 

No need to get all pissy about it, dude. I mean, aren't you the one who said it was a debate...?


----------



## CaptFrank (Jan 29, 2005)

> *Sigh*....
> 
> _No need to get all pissy about it, dude. I mean, aren't you the one who said it was a debate...?[/_QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## grantf (Feb 2, 2004)

true he did try to wave a white flag earlier. is it all over now?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I think the 13" tv may be a clue as to why you think the old kits look all right. :lol:


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Hehehe, John, you card!


----------



## Captain America (Sep 9, 2002)

CaptFrank said:


> > *Sigh*....
> >
> > _No need to get all pissy about it, dude. I mean, aren't you the one who said it was a debate...?[/_QUOTE]
> >
> ...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain America said:


> It's a slang term meaning 'angry' or 'bent out of shape', etc. AFAIK.
> :wave:
> 
> The 18" OS E STILL has a lot of potential, if tweaked/updated somewhat.
> ...



Hey! I LIKE youridea: a revised 18" 1701. 

An accurate bridge would be nice (if they could replace the saucer top and bottom and supply a separate bridge piece). The whole model in clear plastic would be cool! An accurate deflector, etc. If nothing else, you could make some great looking FJ ships from it with FJ decals.


----------



## lonfan (Feb 11, 2001)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> :lol: Yeah, there was some charring!
> 
> Oddly enough, I had a bike that was named 'Voyager'. I thought it was a good name and named a fictional starship I created after it. I even made a mission badge with the name on it as well as numerous drawings.
> 
> BTW: does anyone doubt that there was a product tie-in/product placement when they named the ship _Star Trek Voyager_ and there was a Plymouth mini-van advertised during the series?


Hey Perfesser - ya' know there is a Real Automobile called an "Aurora" as well!!! Cool huh?
JOHN/LONFAN


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

Hey, don't forget about Enterprise Rent-A-Car... :freak:


----------



## Mage66 (Mar 9, 2002)

*AMT kits are 100% Screen Accurate...*

The AMT Enterprise actually appeared on screen several times...

1. As the U.S.S. Constellation in the "Doomsday Machine".
2. In the background in the Window in Lurie's Office in "The Trouble with Tribbles".

So, that kit is 100% Screen accurate and Canon.

(LOL!)

And the Klingon Cruiser kit was planographed off the original screen used model. And the kit ALSO appeared in the Window of Lurie's Office in Space Station D7 in "The Trouble with Tribbles".


----------



## F91 (Mar 3, 2002)

I actually saw "the Trouble with Tribbles" Enterprise yesterday, talk about a wreck! Granted it's been a while but man, Mine looked that good back then! Saw the Jein "Trials and Tribblations" E too.



Mage66 said:


> The AMT Enterprise actually appeared on screen several times...
> 
> 1. As the U.S.S. Constellation in the "Doomsday Machine".
> 2. In the background in the Window in Lurie's Office in "The Trouble with Tribbles".
> ...


----------



## mactrek (Mar 30, 2004)

It was also the Starship Excalibur in "The Ultimate Computer" (a re-use of the Constellation footage).


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

mactrek said:


> It was also the Starship Excalibur in "The Ultimate Computer" (a re-use of the Constellation footage).



Good point. Looks like the _Excalibur _and _Constellation _were the same sub-class variant of the _Constitution _class.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Mage66 said:


> And the Klingon Cruiser kit was planographed off the original screen used model. And the kit ALSO appeared in the Window of Lurie's Office in Space Station D7 in "The Trouble with Tribbles".


The Klingon model was never used in "Tribbles". It didn't exist until the third season. The Klingon kit never made an appearance on the original show. Only the _Enterprise_ kit was seen outside of Lurry's office.


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

Yea, I was wondering what he was talking about too!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

I wonder what or if, RC2 will put out next year for the 40th anniversary of TOS.


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

Probably the same models they have, except in Chrome. LOL

I notice a lot of model companies will do that to save money. Makes a big splash, but just a little touch up to make you say .... Whewww!!!

LOL


----------



## Old_McDonald (Jul 5, 2002)

Lloyd Collins said:


> I wonder what or if, RC2 will put out next year for the 40th anniversary of TOS.


Probably a model car with a star trek decal


----------



## drbubba43 (Mar 24, 2005)

I have one issue with the PL E. Well two really. The first is the size. I want a 350th! (c'mon Tom!) The second, and this is my real complaint. Why were the triangle thingies on the bottom of the primary hull done so heavy handed. Especially since they were not on two of the three versions of the ship? 

I'd have prefered decals.

As for the 18"E. I think it is a good kit. It isn't really accurate and it has some build issues. Takes a tube of bondo to make it look good, but I really like the kit. Better than the PL kit. I won't justify it. (Really, I can't justify it.) Maybe it is the size. There is just a quality to the kit when it is built well that is compelling to me.

There is no doubt some of the ERTL kits had some major issuesand that PL has produced better kits of both E's, but I guess I can kind of sympathise with Capt. Frank in that sometimes some of the ERTL bashing does get a bit ummmmmm -- tedious. 

Ray


----------

