# TOS Enterprise/The Great Grid Lines Debate



## iriseye (Sep 21, 2010)

Note to Moderator: If this topic is out of line or should be placed somewhere else, please feel free to do so.

Background: On Friday, July 26, I received an e-mail from Round 2. I know that several threads on the new 1:350 here were side-tracked on the debate of how the Enterprise crew was fed, and whether there should be grid lines on the new kit. In fact, the original thread was shut down.

The e-mail deals with this issue (grid lines), but I have yet to see any comments here in HobbyTalk, as this appeared to be a large issue to some. 

I don't even know if all members of the 1701 Club received this e-mail concerning the issue, as no comments have been made here. 

For those that have, thoughts?


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

I did not get an e-mail, but I did see their blog post about the topic.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

I did not get an e-mail either...........................
-Jim


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Do we really want to open this can of worms again?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, it's gonna get opened sooner or later, so we might as well get it over with...


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

The heck with the grid lines, will the underside of the saucer have the three dimples like the AMT kit? Because that's history, man, history.


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

Why fuss about something that is almost literally nothing? Jaimie said that if they can't do them so they look like pencil lines, then they won't do them. That means they may not happen at all, and if they do, a light sanding will erase them from your model. Even the most inexperienced of us here can sand a little to get rid of a "feature" if we don't want it on our model. After all, a lot of us sanded off the trademark info on the first issue of 1/1000 TOS Enterprises without much fuss.

Larry


----------



## iriseye (Sep 21, 2010)

> I did not get an e-mail, but I did see their blog post about the topic.


I should have stated that I received an e-mail from Round 2 linking me to their newsletter/blog.



> Do we really want to open this can of worms again?


I don't really, but I was surprised that since I received the e-mail, there has been zero, zilch, zip discussion here of 1) the e-mail and 2) Round 2's blog posting. 

In the blog posting they do give the pro's and con's of each side of the debate. 

Usually when something like that happens, you find it here (HobbyTalk) first.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

LGFugate said:


> Why fuss about something that is almost literally nothing? Jaimie said that if they can't do them so they look like pencil lines, then they won't do them. That means they may not happen at all, and if they do, a light sanding will erase them from your model. Even the most inexperienced of us here can sand a little to get rid of a "feature" if we don't want it on our model. After all, a lot of us sanded off the trademark info on the first issue of 1/1000 TOS Enterprises without much fuss.
> 
> Larry


This.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

I'll reiterate that I am vehemently against any gridlines on this ship, and if they are on it, I may not purchase one. I just want Round 2 to know that... if I am asked to pay over a hundred bucks for a kit, I don't want one with useless grdlines that I'll have to spend even more time and energy getting rid of... money also, if a 3rd party smoothie saucer is made. So I'm telling Round 2, for anyone there who cares to listen, if we get a smoothie, I will certainly buy one, and might even buy 2, so I can do a pilot version... but if we get gridlines, I won't purchase even one.


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

Well, since there's been no official email to club members, this is a non issue right now to me.

If R2 wants to start the debate, they should ask the club members first, IMHO.

Personally, I don't care if they have lines or not, but some feel mildly irritated at the thought.

:wave:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Well, I have gotten an E-mail from the 1701 club, on July 18th, and it includes notes Gary has made on the drawings for tooling and it does have gridlines. I say "SO WHAT", if they are there, I will buy the kit, if they are not......I will buy the kit. Makes no nevermind to me!


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

John Duncan said:


> Well, since there's been no official email to club members, this is a non issue right now to me...


The first email was sent a couple of weeks ago and has already been discussed at length, including offers to forward it (that were requested to stop by PL): http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=333046


----------



## Spockr (Sep 14, 2009)

Their blog post says that they aren't sure about having the grid lines yet. Its not at all clear why they think they should be there since they state 'our mission is to create a representation of Matt Jeffries’ design in support of what was shown onscreen.'

But consider:

1. Grid lines we never shown on screen right?

2. They went the extra mile to remove them from the AMT repop so why add them here.

3. Para-quoting 'If we put them (grid lines) on they will be so subtle that they wont be hard to remove if a modeler doesn't want them'

Looks like a pretty much non-starter feature so why would they consider it? 
Somehow this 'debate' just seems like a way to draw attention.

I tend to build my my Enterprises how I remember them looking on screen so if they are on the kit I purchase I'll just remove them since I never saw them.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Spockr said:


> Their blog post says that they aren't sure about having the grid lines yet. Its not at all clear why they think they should be there since they state 'our mission is to create a representation of Matt Jeffries’ design in support of what was shown onscreen.'
> 
> But consider:
> 
> ...


Those grid lines were raised.

There is a difference.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

My understanding is the gridlines were pencil so technically they were there on screen, just too faint to see them at TV film grain resolution. I still have pictures saved from the IDIC page showing them on the 11 footer. For a 1:350 scale model, if they are able to engrave them very very thin or not at all that would be okay. I can draw them in myself lightly with pencil. I definitely can't stand raised panel lines.


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

Paulbo said:


> The first email was sent a couple of weeks ago and has already been discussed at length, including offers to forward it (that were requested to stop by PL): http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=333046


Oh, I got the first email. I was just say'n that there was no email about grid lines. :wave:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Spockr said:


> Their blog post says that they aren't sure about having the grid lines yet. Its not at all clear why they think they should be there since they state 'our mission is to create a representation of Matt Jeffries’ design in support of what was shown onscreen.'
> 
> But consider:
> 
> 1. Grid lines we never shown on screen right?



Yes, they were:
http://tos.trekcore.com/gallery/albums/2x06/doomsdaymachine_146.jpg


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Steve Mavronis said:


> My understanding is the gridlines were pencil so technically they were there on screen, just too faint to see them at TV film grain resolution. I still have pictures saved from the IDIC page showing them on the 11 footer. For a 1:350 scale model, if they are able to engrave them very very thin or not at all that would be okay. I can draw them in myself lightly with pencil. I definitely can't stand raised panel lines.


Exactly... the gridlines on the 11-footer were penciled in... thus they were NOT part of the model itself, lol. If Round 2 wants to make the model accurate to what Jefferies did, there will be no gridlines.

And just an FYI to anyone posting links to TrekCore... the hotlinking doesn't work... you get an error message when clicking it.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Yes, but Jeffries drew his blueprints WITH gridlines. So for all those who say the windows should be asymmetrical because of these same drawings, then the gridlines ARE an original designed element. BAZINGA!!!!!


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

Ah, but the blueprints were drawn by Jefferies based on the model as it was at the time (with grid and asymmetrical windows), circa 1966, as a guide for the AMT model, apparently.

In Jefferies' original conception, there were no gridlines and no windows. Both were added at Roddenberry's request. First the windows, and later the grid.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

So is the model to be based on original conception or as it existed when it was actually filmed?

I really don't see what the problem is.  They've already told us their plans and intentions: if they can't get the subtle effect they want then there will be no etched lines.

This is going to be the _most accurately detailed_ model of the TOS _E_ ever done. I, for one, am grateful that we're finally going to get this kit and one of this calibre. I think it's going to work out fine. And yet even *if* it has this one small flaw then that is *nothing* compared to what had to be done to make the old AMT kit even _remotely_ accurate.

To me this sounds like some are overly anxious and even condemning R2 before we even have a shred of evidence of whether the gridline issue will work as planned or not. I'm long past getting worked up over things I cannot control or automatically expecting the worst when I have insufficient evidence to support such an expectation.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Gregatron said:


> Ah, but the blueprints were drawn by Jefferies based on the model as it was at the time (with grid and assymetrical windows), circa 1966, as a guide for the AMT model, apparently.
> 
> In Jefferies' original conception, there were no gridlines and no windows. Both were added at Roddenberry's request. First the windows, and later the grid.


^

Right, and according to what I hear of Round 2's thinking, they want to reproduce what the original Jefferies model was like, so that means no gridlines.

http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpre...03/kg_star-trek_tos_1701_studio_model-001.jpg

The lines visible on the 11-footer restoration photos are VERY faint, and penciled in, so absolutely NOTHING is engraved on the 11-foot model. Also, no gridlines were engraved on the 1/650 model put out a while ago. Thus, Round 2 should leave the gridlines OFF the 1/350 model.

And the windows are asymmetrical on the 11-footer.


----------



## btbrush (Sep 20, 2010)

Adding recessed lines to an existing kit is pretty much impossible. Recessed lines on a model would be leetle,tiny blades of raised steel in the mold, which means new tooling. Whereas raised lines can easily be engraved in a mold. So get out your pencil or sand them off. Your call. Now go to sleep.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Sorry to tell you guys but Matt Jeffries designs came BEFORE the model, chicken and the egg!


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

Ductapeforever said:


> Sorry to tell you guys but Matt Jeffries designs came BEFORE the model, chicken and the egg!


You can't just go by that, Matt J. was working under Roddenberry's direction. 
And the story is the production version didn't have them either, at the time the model was delivered to the studio. Keep in mind both versions of the pilots didn't have grid lines. Roddenberry insisted they be applied to the model, so they were applied as lightly as they could get away with(so it wouldn't be obvious on camera). Which shows somebody would have rather not have them seen.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Here is 'THE' word, straight from the source:

“First of all, the engraved grid lines on the TOS E's are NOT errors. PL's & my intent is to make a model of the STARSHIP Enterprise - not an exact replica of a crude wood & plastic prop made for a low-rated TV show in the mid-60's. What are those pencil lines on the 11-footer supposed to represent - lines of graphite drawn on a starship with Starfleet's giant space pencil? No, they were supposed to represent grid lines, and when they modified the Pilot ship into the Production version the only thing that mattered was that they *looked* like engraved lines on TV. Btw, while the pencil lines look like engraved lines on film, in person the pencil lines on the 11-footer's saucer look like pencil lines. The moral of the story is that different mediums - film vs styrene - require different solutions. Just because pencil lines looked okay on TV, that doesn't necessarily mean that pencil lines will look equally okay in person on a plastic kit.” 
In a similar situation, both Andrew Probert and Rick Sternbach recently urged me to go with the designer's intent, not just the cheap prop they built. With that in mind, I noticed that Jefferies conspicuously included grid lines on the plans of the TOS ship that first appeared in The Making of Star Trek. He thought that they should be more than thin pencil lines. 
Next I looked at the design of the Enterprise model that was built for the proposed Phase 2 TV series. Unlike the ST-TMP version, the Phase 2 ship was supposed to be (and actually looked like) an updated version of the original ship. Matt Jefferies was in charge of updating the ship, and he wrote: “
"Basically, what I did to it was change the power units, and make a slight change in the struts that supported them. I gave the main hull a taper, then I went flat-sided and thin with the power units, rather than keeping the cylindrical shape. Trying to work out the logic of the refit, I knew a lot of the equipment inside would change, but I didn't see that there would be any need to change the exterior of the saucer. Certainly, though, the engines would be a primary thing to change. Part of the theory of the ship's design in the first place was that we didn't know what these powerful things were or how devastating it would be if anything went awry, so that's why we kept them away from the crew. And that meant they could be easily changed if you had to replace one." 
“The budget for the original series was miniscule, considering the intended scope of the series. That's why they couldn't afford to add windows to the left side of the 11-foot model, only 3 or the 4 rectangular panels on the upper saucer were lit, and why they conspicuously omitted the portside flat panel on the sec hull. Engraving grid lines on the existing saucer would be less-than-desirable for a couple reasons: first, engraving uniform lines on such a large-curved surface would have been extremely difficult. Witness the botched engraving of the 3 rings on the underside of the saucer. Second, scribing lines on the saucer would entail re-painting & re-detailing the entire saucer, which wouldn't be cheap. Pencil lines were simply the most expedient and cheapest way to add grid lines, and even then the concentric grid lines weren't concentric and the spacing of the radial grid lines was irregular. So, in short, the Enterprise was intended to have finely raised
grid lines, although the budget wouldn’t allow it.
The budget for the Phase 2 Enterprise model was much larger since the Enterprise was one of the "stars" of the show, and the details & finish on the model had to withstand much closer scrutiny from the camera. Matt Jefferies designed the revamped Enterprise, and Brick Price built the model. If you look at photos of the model, you can see that the gridlines looked just like the ones they later added to the ST-TMP model. These grids are what Matt Jefferies intended in the first place, so they should be a part of the kit. Of course, the grid lines should resemble finely raised lines, rather than soft-edged trenches that make the saucer look like it's covered with ceramic tiles. 
There are practical reasons for including grid lines on the kit: they're useful for aligning decals, and much of the weathering on the saucer (plus the tan arc on the upper saucer) is aligned with the grid lines. We're making an effort to make the kit's design flexible enough that everybody can build the Enterprise that they see it in their minds. Remember the debate over whether or not to mirror the side windows on the saucer? I persuaded PL to mirror the windows and include a diagram showing which windows to cover up if the modeler wants to replicate the 11-footer. It's a lot simpler to putty & paint over some windows than to carve new openings in the hull. We're attempting to do something similar with the grid lines - to make it possible to go with either grid option without doing an inordinate amount of work. If somebody doesn't want raised or engraved lines, then they can easily sand them off , or fill them - much more easily than somebody could take a featureless saucer and draw perfectly uniform pencil lines across the top of the saucer, down then sides, and across the curvy bottom. Engraving perfectly uniform lines & rings on a "smoothie" is probably beyond the capabilities of most modelers. I would point out that the "Trials & Tribble-ations" Ent model DID have engraved grid lines. 
Seriously, the grid lines in the CG model are not representative of the actual grids, and the factory in Hong Kong IS capable of producing super thin lines.” 

Thank You Gary for the confirmation!

Oh,and if anyone is curious where I stand on the issue....take it or leave it. I voted 'Don't Care'. .............now back to your regularly schedualed tread!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, if they can pull it off, great.

I suppose the question now should be raised or engraved...


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

Since they seem so hell bent on putting lines on the model. 
Somewhere an MR E might have an industrial accident.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Between raised or engraved I go with engraved. Raised just wouldn't look right.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I had Frosted Flakes for breakfast.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

MMMmmmm Frosted Strawberry Pop Tarts!


----------



## [email protected] (Feb 1, 2001)

I had Jell-o today.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Sounds like Gary's comments should quiet all of us "Armchair Experts" of the Enterprise. (But he did back up my view of both the gridlines and the symetrical windows, which was unexpected!) Gonna be a loooooong year!


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

No matter how much time and effort is put into an accurate kit this iconic, there is going to be a bunch of people upset it was not done differently. They have two real choices- don't buy the kit in the first place or Mod it until they are happy.
I, for one, am just delighted/astonished the kit is actually going to be produced after the way things were looking at the beginning.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> I had Jell-o today.


Go to bed old man!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I look forward to the people who say they won't buy it if it has gridlines sitting in the dark and grumbling while the rest of us enjoy our wonderful new model kit.

:devil:


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

They will have their bitterness to keep them company.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I just hope the instruction sheet is folded in half, not a three way, accordion, fold. If it is a 3 fold, well I will............:thumbsup:

(Come on, if we can't laugh at ourselves, what fun is life!)


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

It sounds like the solution, whatever it may be, raised, engraved, or otherwise will be a minor issue. I will wait for the kit so I may look it over and then decide on a course of action...if any.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

It's gonna be a great kit. This is a minor issue that can always be done to taste by the modeler putting it together.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

And since Gary is the "expert" behind the horrid atrocity that is the Smithsonian model's uber-weathering job, I don't consider him any sort of expert in any way shape or form. Maybe he should watch an episode of TOS or two before claiming to have a grain of knowledge on the subject matter.

There were no engraved gridlines on the 11-foot model. Fact. End of story. If Round 2 truly wants to be faithful to that original wood model, this kit won't have the lines.


----------



## harrier1961 (Jun 18, 2009)

And if they were to be faithful to the 11 foot model, they'd have wires on the port side, and seams that seem to be coming apart on the warp engines.

Sheeesh. Round2 said that there were going to be faithful to what the 11-foot modeler was supposed to represent - a "real" starship dude.

Andy.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Having seen the quality of Gary's work for Moebius on their various Irwin Allen kits, that are true works of art, I have NO doubt that this will be THE BEST model of the Enterprise EVER!


----------



## LGFugate (Sep 11, 2000)

BolianAdmiral, Where did you see that Gary was responsible for the attrocious refurb of the NASM Enterprise? That was Ed Miarecki, seen here working on it: http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=8672

Larry


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

BolianAdmiral said:


> And since Gary is the "expert" behind the horrid atrocity that is the Smithsonian model's uber-weathering job, I don't consider him any sort of expert in any way shape or form. Maybe he should watch an episode of TOS or two before claiming to have a grain of knowledge on the subject matter.
> 
> There were no engraved gridlines on the 11-foot model. Fact. End of story. If Round 2 truly wants to be faithful to that original wood model, this kit won't have the lines.


You Sir are patently wrong. Ed Miereki (spelling) was responsible for the 11 foot restoration, not Gary Kerr. By the way, Flaming will get you banned permanently from this forum. Respectfully, get your facts straight.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

I'm not flaming. Get your fact straight.


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

Another of those famous "experts " we have around here...........I trust Gary to do an excellent job on this kit,the rest is just hot air.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

Since it's not going to be an 11 foot wood model kit, I'm not buying one, just not accurate enough for me.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

On the subject of expertise, Gary could be the expert on the Smithsonian Enterprise without having been responsible for its look ... just like someone could be an expert on Vincent Van Gogh without having painted any of VG's paintings.
So there's no reason to slam Gary.

Anyway, gridlines or not, I'm buying one. Life's too short.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

If the box lid is glossy instead of matte finish like the old AMT kits, then I'm not buying it!


----------



## John Duncan (Jan 27, 2001)

Ok, put the gas cans away guys. Let's not get this thread locked. We all have our opinions about the kit. There's no reason to fight over it this far ahead. Save the battle for when we see a test shot.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

RSN said:


> I just hope the instruction sheet is folded in half, not a three way, accordion, fold. If it is a 3 fold, well I will............:thumbsup:
> 
> (Come on, if we can't laugh at ourselves, what fun is life!)


If they're folded at all. I won't buy it. I'm sooooooooooo tired of ironing instruction sheets. Don't even get me started on "starch or no starch."

But seriously... it's been a long time coming. Good days, these.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

BolianAdmiral said:


> And since Gary is the "expert" behind the horrid atrocity that is the Smithsonian model's uber-weathering job, I don't consider him any sort of expert in any way shape or form...





BolianAdmiral said:


> I'm not flaming. Get your fact straight.


Gary was invited to document the Enterprise "miniature"* prior to "restoration"**. He was not actively involved in the restoration itself. Get YOUR facts straight.

* I put miniature in quotes because that is one big heck-o model!

* I put restoration in quotes because I agree that the weathering was completely overdone.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Paulbo said:


> Gary was invited to *document* the Enterprise "miniature"* prior to "restoration"**. He was not actively involved in the restoration itself.


this.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Since Gary is one of those lucky few to have actually examined the model itself, in person, with his own two hands and his own Mk I eyeballs, I defer to him a great deal regarding what's what on the ol' girl.

Frankly, I may repost that note from him with some added paragraph breaks; as it is, it's kind of tough to read.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

For those of us with aging eyes (with comments interspersed...):



Ductapeforever said:


> Here is 'THE' word, straight from the source:
> 
> “First of all, the engraved grid lines on the TOS E's are NOT errors. PL's & my intent is to make a model of the STARSHIP Enterprise - not an exact replica of a crude wood & plastic prop made for a low-rated TV show in the mid-60's.


To clarify, the show could hardly be considered "low-rated" before it had even aired. Not to mention that it'd be a serious lack of professionalism on the part of the model makers to do slipshod work simply because the show they're working for, i.e., paying them, didn't happen to be beating "Gomer Pyle, USMC" in the overnights.



> What are those pencil lines on the 11-footer supposed to represent - lines of graphite drawn on a starship with Starfleet's giant space pencil? No, they were supposed to represent grid lines, and when they modified the Pilot ship into the Production version the only thing that mattered was that they *looked* like engraved lines on TV. Btw, while the pencil lines look like engraved lines on film, in person the pencil lines on the 11-footer's saucer look like pencil lines. The moral of the story is that different mediums - film vs styrene - require different solutions. Just because pencil lines looked okay on TV, that doesn't necessarily mean that pencil lines will look equally okay in person on a plastic kit.


Excellent point.



> In a similar situation, both Andrew Probert and Rick Sternbach recently urged me to go with the designer's intent, not just the cheap prop they built.


Any chance someone could dig up the cost of the eleven footer, and how much that would be in today's dollars? I'm sorry, but there's a big difference between low budget and inadequately budgeted. Star Trek never had enough money for what they were trying to do, but that doesn't change the fact that, at the time, it was one of, if not THE, most expensive show on television (which is one of the reasons it was always in danger of canellation; it's not just a matter of ratings, it's a matter of whether the ratings are high enough to justify the expense {Ex: the original Battlestar Galactica, a Top 25 show that was canned because the ratings weren't high enough to justify the $1 million per episode...which is the rough inflation-adjusted budget for the first two seasons of Star Trek]).



> With that in mind, I noticed that Jefferies conspicuously included grid lines on the plans of the TOS ship that first appeared in The Making of Star Trek. He thought that they should be more than thin pencil lines.


It might be more accurate to say that Gene Roddenberry wanted those lines there. If left to his own devices, Jefferies would've had a completely smooth hull. Not even windows. But, since it was, in the end, GR's ship...



> Next I looked at the design of the Enterprise model that was built for the proposed Phase 2 TV series. Unlike the ST-TMP version, the Phase 2 ship was supposed to be (and actually looked like) an updated version of the original ship. Matt Jefferies was in charge of updating the ship, and he wrote:
> 
> _"Basically, what I did to it was change the power units, and make a slight change in the struts that supported them. I gave the main hull a taper, then I went flat-sided and thin with the power units, rather than keeping the cylindrical shape. Trying to work out the logic of the refit, I knew a lot of the equipment inside would change, but I didn't see that there would be any need to change the exterior of the saucer. Certainly, though, the engines would be a primary thing to change. Part of the theory of the ship's design in the first place was that we didn't know what these powerful things were or how devastating it would be if anything went awry, so that's why we kept them away from the crew. And that meant they could be easily changed if you had to replace one."_
> 
> ...


It's also got an erroneous forward bow light. :freak:



> "Seriously, the grid lines in the CG model are not representative of the actual grids, and the factory in Hong Kong IS capable of producing super thin lines.”


If they can pull 'em off, I got no gripe.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

btbrush said:


> Adding recessed lines to an existing kit is pretty much impossible. Recessed lines on a model would be leetle,tiny blades of raised steel in the mold, which means new tooling.


IIRC, that's exactly what AMT did when they added recessed panel lines to the original "smoothie" _Enterprise_ Refit. The molds were machined just a fraction of a millimeter deeper, leaving the panel lines at the original depth. Result: Honkin' ugly, out-of-scale, recessed panel lines.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

I don't know if I can take a whole 'nother year of this. Really, hasn't everything that can be said about this topic been said? There must be other really interesting things about this model that we can talk about...!


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Interesting they are are making a model of the "Starship Enterprise" and not a model of the "Filming Model Starship Enterprise" Still It's not hard to extrapolate that the unseen side would mirror the filming side. But apparently there is ton of debate on that alone.

Once you get into that frame of mind, then many will have a difference of opinion of what was seen on screen and what was intended to be seen on screen. :freak:

If it "looks like" the Enterprise its good enough for me.


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

It's...*ahem*...a fine line to tread.

Should the model represent the theoretical starship, or the filming model itself, with its specific quirks, textures, and materials? I should think the former is the correct answer, but defining what is on the "real" ship and what is a quirk of the model is difficult. Obviously, MR went with penciled lines.

Personally, I have no problem if R2 is doing the grid. It wouldn't be hard to elmininate it if one wanted to. Better too much detail than too little. It's sort of in the same vein as the inaccurate, engraved lines on the dorsal and nacelles of the 1/1000 TOS kit.

At the very least, a purist could fill the gridlines, then pencil on their own, or use aftermarket decals.


It's something to ponder, though. Was the penciled grid intended as a quick solution for representing engraved lines? Was it supposed to represent _raised_ lines (as on the AMT kit)? Or would the theoretical ship have a "flat" grid (sort of like the heating elements in a car's rear windshield) that was neither engraved nor raised?


----------



## Landru (May 25, 2009)

After taking this long to form an opinion on this... I've decided that I'd rather pencil the lines on, as this model really won't be all that large. Keep in mind that it is slightly smaller than the refit. The TOSer has less surface area, especially with the saucer.

At this size, the model will look fine if there were no lines at all, and will look just as good with some pencil ones. So no lines for me.

I also think we are forgetting that there were ONLY pencil lines drawn on the saucer at Desilu in the 60's, and none on the rest of the ship.

However there are some truly hilarious view points from some of the more TOS-purist members of the board.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

John Duncan said:


> Ok, put the gas cans away guys. Let's not get this thread locked. We all have our opinions about the kit. There's no reason to fight over it this far ahead. Save the battle for when we see a test shot.


There shouldn't be ANY battle at all. We have no say in the design of this kit.
And rightly so, with such differing opinions nothing would ever be sent for tooling. Gary Kerr's expertise on the subject shouldn't be in question. I trust his judgement. If we can't remain civil, and engage in family friendly debate without insulting and slandering someone, then you can all put up with it as this is not the place for me.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Ductapeforever said:


> Here is 'THE' word, straight from the source:
> 
> “Engraving grid lines on the existing saucer would be less-than-desirable for a couple reasons:
> 
> ...


If these words do not clearly demonstrate common sense, rationality and good will, so I do not know what these words mean.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Landru said:


> After taking this long to form an opinion on this... I've decided that I'd rather pencil the lines on, as this model really won't be all that large. Keep in mind that it is slightly smaller than the refit. The TOSer has less surface area, especially with the saucer.
> 
> At this size, the model will look fine if there were no lines at all, and will look just as good with some pencil ones. So no lines for me.
> 
> ...


I've often been seen as a TOS purist and yet I'm all right with the lines assuming they can get the subtle effect they want.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

The Gumby and Pokey patrol of Trekers against Gridlines!

Sometimes you just have to laugh at the absurdities in all the chaos!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The only justification you need to mirror both sides is the reversed decals, so obviously the producers felt both sides looked the same.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

I've said my bit... and it's obvious that some here disagree with my view. That's okay. As I said before... if they DO engrave the lines on the kit, I'll most likely not buy one, and wait until a third-party builder makes a smoothie version, and get that one. I'm just trying to understand why people are so willing to accept the engraved lines, when these are the same modelers who take such care to make sure the arboretum is just so, on the 1/350 refit, and who go to the lengths to superdetail tiny travel pods smaller than pennies, and who are already considering putting tiny bridge interiors on their TOS 1/350... if you're going for that level of uber-accuracy, why not go all the way?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

BolianAdmiral said:


> I'm just trying to understand why people are so willing to accept the engraved lines, when these are the same modelers who take such care to make sure the arboretum is just so, on the 1/350 refit, and who go to the lengths to superdetail tiny travel pods smaller than pennies, and who are already considering putting tiny bridge interiors on their TOS 1/350... if you're going for that level of uber-accuracy, why not go all the way?


Because it's been established and verified that those "penciled in" lines on the filming miniature were indeed put there to represent a physical feature that otherwise would have been too costly to add any other way without repainting and re-detailing the entire saucer. And as it has already been said PL's intent to is to recreate the STARSHIP _Enterprise_ and not a television series filming prop.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

BolianAdmiral said:


> As I said before... if they DO engrave the lines on the kit, I'll most likely not buy one, and wait until a third-party builder makes a smoothie version, and get that one.


I'll buy the one that you don't.

If the lines are there and I don't want them, I can easily remove them.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Ductapeforever said:


> The Gumby and Pokey patrol of Trekers against Gridlines!
> 
> Sometimes you just have to laugh at the absurdities in all the chaos!


LOL:lol:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I bought a beam compass in case they don't put the grids on.
And a bottle of champagne in case they do, to toast the people who will be sitting in their basements in the dark grumbling without a really cool new model.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

my two quatloos,

make the saucer smooth and include a paper template as part of the instructions that one can use as a guide for drawing the grid on if one so wishes


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

It's an interesting discussion for sure, whether folks are trying to replicate the filming miniature or what the miniature depicts. Personally, I'd prefer the grid lines be present but I'm more concerned with things that would actually be hard to fix, like the profiles and shapes - and I think they've got that covered. Those that are so adamant against the grid lines in favor of pencil lines, do you want the left side like the filming model? If no, then what are you trying to reproduce? 

I'll also repeat others who have noted that it's far easier to remove the lines than to add them.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

See, I want a model of the starship USS Enterprise, not a pedantic reproduction of the filming miniature used to represent it.

The starship Enterprise had a grid on its saucer. The _model _used pencil lines to represent this grid. On the "real" starship, they'd have been, most likely, seams between panels. On modern plastic model kits, seams between panels are represented by lightly engraved lines.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

fire91bird said:


> It's an interesting discussion for sure, whether folks are trying to replicate the filming miniature or what the miniature depicts. Personally, I'd prefer the grid lines be present but I'm more concerned with things that would actually be hard to fix, like the profiles and shapes - and I think they've got that covered. Those that are so adamant against the grid lines in favor of pencil lines, do you want the left side like the filming model? If no, then what are you trying to reproduce?
> 
> I'll also repeat others who have noted that it's far easier to remove the lines than to add them.


It's easier to remove them if they're raised. you can sand them down or chisel them off. 

If you have to fill them in, it's gonna be a bigger job getting the putty all smoothed out and even.


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> It's easier to remove them if they're raised. you can sand them down or chisel them off.
> 
> If you have to fill them in, it's gonna be a bigger job getting the putty all smoothed out and even.


Well, my own experience has been it's a lot harder to scribe panel lines than to fill them in, but your mileage may vary, as they say.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> It's easier to remove them if they're raised. you can sand them down or chisel them off.
> If you have to fill them in, it's gonna be a bigger job getting the putty all smoothed out and even.


Well ... both jobs are easy until you get to the end, then they get equally finicky. Maybe. As for the filling, assuming the grooves are thin, it may be possible to overfill slightly and slide a narrow blade over the surface to cut off the excess; or use a fingertip moistened with denatured alcohol; or mask the edges of the groove with masking tape to prevent excess... or for the curves, maybe use a custom-cut vinyl mask?  There should be a few ways to make the filling easier.


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> It's easier to remove them if they're raised. you can sand them down or chisel them off.
> 
> If you have to fill them in, it's gonna be a bigger job getting the putty all smoothed out and even.


Not really.....streched spruce to thin wire like pieces,glue in grooves,sand smooth.No putty.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

You simply thin putty (like Nitro Stan) to the consistency of paint. Then, you apply it with a brush along the grid lines to fill them in, let dry, and sand smooth. A good coat of primer over that, and you'll never know the grid or panel line was ever there. Easy.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

I'm swamped working on various projects, so rather than reply to a number of postings, I thought I'd make one posting to address a number of points. Here goes... 

1. I spent three days examining & measuring the 11-foot model at Ed Miarecki's house before his restoration team arrived. I helped take apart the model and examine its construction, but left well before any official restoration began.

2. I did not mean to impugn the workmanship of the crew that built the 11-footer. It's a simple fact that in Hollywood there is never enough time or money to suit the crews in the model shops. Models are generally built only to be good enough for their intended purpose - there are no museum-quality replicas accurate to 1/1000". For example, a friend of mine in ILM's model shop told me that the original Excelsior model curved to the left, and they had to stick coins in the ship's neck to prop up the saggy saucer. 

I don't know how to precisely characterize the money that was available for the model, but I think it's safe to say that they weren't exactly rolling in dough. Everyone realizes that the left side of the model was basically unfinished, but I was amazed that they even left off one of the three plates on the underside of the front end of each nacelle. I mean, they were already fabricating 4 identical plates that were smaller than a typical paperback book. Would it break the budget to make two more? Apparently so. They applied weathering or a suggestion of panel lines to the 1st Pilot model, but limited it to the area of the saucer that would be visible in the zoom-in shot at the beginning of "The Cage" and left the rest of the model untouched.

It's a well-documented fact that the 11-foot Enterprise is less than perfect: the saucer isn't quite round, no two profiles of the lower saucer are the same, the grid lines weren't applied symmetrically, etc. None of that mattered because the model looked okay on the TV screen. The model was originally built simply as a prop for an unsold TV pilot, and I'm fairly certain that nobody in the construction crew imagined in their wildest dreams that over 40 years later the model would practically become a religious icon and that a bunch of crazy people would be fixated on every square inch of the model.

3. The bow light... It was there. I popped it out, held it in my hand, and examined it. It was 1" in diameter and was made from the same milky piece of acrylic as the three rectangular lighted panels on top of the saucer. Here it is, with a streak of weathering running across it:











The only question is how brightly the panel should be illuminated. Two bulbs illuminated the three round panels (sensors??) on the front of the saucer - sometimes imperfectly so. Look at this shot from "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield". The center light is noticeably dimmer than the two lights flanking it, the stbd light is only partially illuminated, and the upper bow light isn't visible. 











The 1" opening in the top of the saucer restricts access, and I suspect that the technicians simply screwed the two bulbs into their sockets, then stuffed them into the access hole. Sometimes the bulbs properly illuminated the three lights, and sometimes not. How much you illuminate the "bow light" is a personal preference, but the fact remains that the milky white panel should be present on any replicas of the ship.

4. Before anybody tries to accurately judge the color of the ship or complains that such & such feature wasn't "real" because it wasn't visible on their TV screens, consider this: the spfx footage of the Enterprise made many trips through the optical printer, degrading the image quality each time. Even the blood-red insignia on the model often came across as a muddled reddish-gray color. If you extrapolate the reddish-gray insignia back to their actual blood-red color, then you can get an idea of what the model looked like sitting in the studio. And beware of relying too heavily on NASM photos of the 11-footer for reference. Features seen in photos taken from the first restoration onwards are all suspect, so tread carefully.

5. There's the eternal question of whether or not all the windows & other features on the stbd side of the ship should be precisely mirrored on the left side. Some say the fact that they used mirrored image footage to show the left side of the ship proves this, but I think it was probably more a case of "We can save money by flipping the negative, and who's going to notice or care?" The window arrangement is dependant upon the internal layout of the ship, and I doubt that the rooms on either side of an actual research vessel/warship would be mirror images of one another. But we have evidence for both sides of the issue, so I say people are free to do whatever they want with the windows. 

6. Lastly, different people have different expectations of how various aspects of the ship will be portrayed and how contradictory features will be resolved. One model can't possibly satisfy everyone's expectations, but we're making an effort to reach a compromise and enable people to easily modify the model to match the Enterprise that exists in their minds eye.

Some people, though, won't be happy unless the company designs the model EXACTLY as they demand. To those people, and you know who you are, let me say that I feel your pain. We ALL feel your pain. Over and over and over again. We get it. Now please get a grip and move on with your life.

And that's my two-cents. Gotta get back to work.

Gary


----------



## harrier1961 (Jun 18, 2009)

Well said Gary.
And btw, thanks for all of your outstanding effort!!

Andy.
:thumbsup:


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Thanks, Gary for your comments and insight! :thumbsup:


----------



## Bobj812 (Jun 15, 2009)

Honestly, I want my model to look like what it's supposed to be: a Starship. I have no interest in making it look like an exact copy of a _model_ used for the show. I will do my weathering as what we saw on the show, to be sure, and faint engraved lines will help me do that. 
I understand having a passion for the subject. I don't understand stubborn and bullying attitudes with it's "my way or the highway" proclamations.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Gary K said:


> I'm swamped working on various projects, so rather than reply to a number of postings, I thought I'd make one posting to address a number of points. Here goes...
> 
> 1. I spent three days examining & measuring the 11-foot model at Ed Miarecki's house before his restoration team arrived. I helped take apart the model and examine its construction, but left well before any official restoration began.
> 
> ...


Thanks, Gary. It can't be more clear than that. :thumbsup:

I'm going to trust these folks to get it it right. That said I'll add one little thing.

If they make a smoothie then I'm going to leave it as such and not add any grid lines.

If they add _raised_ gridlines then in all likelihood I'll remove them.

If they add fine _engraved_ lines then I'll leave it as is.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Hear hear, Gary.

Lou - now that Tamiya's primers are poised to get on our shelves again, you can just paint it into the grooves then use one of those hard Q-tips* soaked in rubbing alcohol to smooth them out. Another sprayed on layer of primer and the polishing you'd be doing anyway will remove all traces of them.

Same technique as Mr. Surfacer, but I find Tamiya easier to get hold of.

* I get them for $3/75 in the cosmetics aisle rather than $8/20 for the Tamiya brand in the hobby store.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

> I don't know how to precisely characterize the money that was available for the model, but I think it's safe to say that they weren't exactly rolling in dough.


IIRC, wasn't the final bill upon delivery from the model shop somewhere around $3,000?


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

And, OOO, look at those nice grid lines!


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I just think after years of clamboring for a TOS-E 1/350 kit to have a easily removed surface detail be a sudden deal killer for some builders is bizarre.
This is the kit everyone went crazy about when it was announced and then cancelled/limbo'ed- it is actually going to be made after all these years. 
Round 2 is producing this kit for maximum appeal which equals sales. There will be some flaws and the eventual enhancment/sccurizing kits to follow. 
No kit is going to perfect with everyone- that is what makes the personal builds interesting.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

John P said:


> IIRC, wasn't the final bill upon delivery from the model shop somewhere around $3,000?


I don't remember off the top of my head, but the two clear acrylic nacelle domes were $15, and it cost a whopping $2.50 to sandblast them and make them translucent.

Gary


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Richard Baker said:


> I just think after years of clamboring for a TOS-E 1/350 kit to have a easily removed surface detail be a sudden deal killer for some builders is bizarre.


Not considering the price. As I have stated before, if this were the 1/1000 model or the 18" model, I would care less what they do with it, because they only cost 12 or 25 bucks... but if I'm to spend over 140 bucks for a model kit, I will only do it if I consider it accurate enough, and if they decide to go with the engraved lines, that will be 140 bucks they'll never see. I would rather wait, and spend that money on a third-party smoothie kit when one is available, then give Round 2 the money for an inaccurate non-smoothie kit.

Again, that's just my position... the price of this kit is just too much for me to be "oh well, whatever" about it... especially considering that Round 2 seems to be testing the waters regarding market reaction to their updates... that makes me think they want to watch our reactions to certain things, so I'm making it clear that if they go with gridlines, they won't get my money. If they get rid of them, they WILL get my money.

There are MANY numbers of modelers out there who are not posters on internet modeling forums such as this one, and who are just "casual" fans of the show, who will simply want to build a big model of the ship, and maybe have the money to burn to do it. But as I said, the bulk of people who post in forums like this, and threads like this, are the people who like to superdetail and "trick out" their big kits with lights, microscopic travel pods, and teeny-tiny bridges with fiber-optic lights for buttons, lol... so we're the ones who will really care about small details. As such, Round 2 knows that this niche of the market is the one that will likely yield the most repeat buyers of the kit.


----------



## USS Atlantis (Feb 23, 2008)

Gary,

Great info and glad you're the one doing all this for us

As far as the grid lines - include them

Removing them is a simple matter (thinned putty, Mr Surfacer/Tamiya/etc) - I'll keep them as a valid indication of construction technique


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Not to put too much of a nit on the pic...but we waited 45 years for a kit of the old girl this size, and due to the astronomical cost to produce this kit (No pun intended) it will most likely be another 45 years waiting for some other company to do a 'smoothie'. Aftermarket you say, do you have any idea the cost to hollow cast in resin an upper and lower primary hull at sixteen inches in diameter? Better buy two of the Round 2 kits and sand or fill the offending lines, it will be lots cheaper.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

The lines on the neck and nacelles of the 1/1000 kit are very soft and rounded.
If they can do petite lines as are found on say, a 1/48 scale Tamiya airplane kit, I'm all in on that! Put 'em on.
Please do not do soft, sloppy engraved lines....


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

Lou Dalmaso said:


> It's easier to remove them if they're raised. you can sand them down or chisel them off.
> 
> If you have to fill them in, it's gonna be a bigger job getting the putty all smoothed out and even.


I've used both of these techniques, both have had negative results. 

I have to say this. 

Both modelers and kit makers love to make this stuff far harder than it needs to be. 
Why? I have no clue. I guess it's some justification to spend to spend time on this stuff, or it's an attempt to to impress people. 

Sanding off a raised grid on a contoured surface? You can't use a sanding block, nor is doing it by hand a good idea. Because your trying to remove something above the surface your trying to preserve. Which can't be dome because no mater what your going to have high and low spots on the surface of the model. 

Filling in the groves is better as long as you use something that's softer than the styrene. Anything harder and you will have the same problem. I can think of several products for this, the more expensive is Magic Sculpt. Since it's water based it would be real easy to get into the groves, and still clean off(before it's cured). The other is Bondo glazing putty, it's cheap and filling in stuff like the grids is what it's designed to do. 

I think the best solution would be to have the model smooth. Because its a whole lot easier to apply the grids to a raw surface. It will take far less time than filling in or sanding a surface smooth. Mainly because you don't have to spend the time to prepare the surface before priming. 

Now I'm going to pass along a trick I learned from a friend. He hasn't been around here for a while, some of you might know him(REL). 

You guys want to do good scribing, here it is. 
On a model like the TOS E you find the center of the saucer. You place a pin or something that will be on the center of the model. Place a strip of styrene right aside the pin(it has to be flexable, to match the contour), when your happy where you want to draw the line, tape down the styrene strip on the opposite side(using blue tape(painter's tape)). Then draw your line, or flip over your x-acto and lightly trace the non taped side of the styrene strip. Keep going over the same line until you reach the desired depth. 
The circles would be a little more difficult, but not by much. To create a compass is as complex as taping a couple of pencils to a stick. You make your measurement from tip to tip. This I would recommend drawing out the circles on the model first, to get an idea of what you want to do. 
To do scribing, a compass is best, but there are many low cost ways of cutting circles into the surface of the model. One of the easiest is to screw the x-acto on the edge of a stick, with something to sit in the center hole, and do not force it, use the backside of the blade. 

These guys really have their work cut out for them. I wouldn't want to be in Round 2(Polar Lights) shoes, this model is like a member of the family. People will take it personally if things are not right. But another thing to keep in mind, 80% of these kits are not going to be built. Even less are going to see completion.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Ductapeforever said:


> Not to put too much of a nit on the pic...but we waited 45 years for a kit of the old girl this size, and due to the astronomical cost to produce this kit (No pun intended) it will most likely be another 45 years waiting for some other company to do a 'smoothie'. Aftermarket you say, do you have any idea the cost to hollow cast in resin an upper and lower primary hull at sixteen inches in diameter? Better buy two of the Round 2 kits and sand or fill the offending lines, it will be lots cheaper.


Actually, I'm pretty certain that aftermarket companies will pretty soon after this kit's release be churning out smoothie parts to fix what Round 2 got wrong (if it goes with gridlines), as well as other parts, like pilot-era endcaps for the nacelles, for those who didn't buy the premium kit, and so on. So yeah... I can wait.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Atemylunch said:


> I've used both of these techniques, both have had negative results.
> 
> I have to say this.
> 
> ...


Great post, and a good method for penciling in the lines, as well.

I'll again submit the example of the Custom Replicas 1/650 kit, which was regarded by many as "the ultimate" Enterprise kit, and the most accurate... that one also, did not have any engraved lines. I don't recall anyone questioning it's accuracy (or lack of, depending how you look at it) because of this.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

To eliminate grid lines, the entire saucer would have to be replaced with a similar resin part. Did I also metion the three to four extra pounds of weight added to the model or the 'steel' armature needed to support it. Not to mention the cost for the armature. Seriously, wouldn't it just be easier to remove the grid from the hull and build the rest of the kit to suit your taste. It won't take as much work as you might think. Just thinking practicaly.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

I'm neither for or against grid lines. I think Round 2's choice to include them is sound and will seem to please the majority of modelers wishes. I don't foresee any difficulty in removing them if I so choose or leave 'em if I like the look. Hey guys, can't we waste oxygen on some other pointless detail? Come on, who's spoiling for a new battle over the 36 degree Bridge offset? How about the base color debate? Me neither, I've grown tired of endlessly beating dead horses, Hey......I've got a spankin chipper idea...I think I'll go BUILD something.........


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Gary K said:


> 3. The bow light... It was there. I popped it out, held it in my hand, and examined it. It was 1" in diameter and was made from the same milky piece of acrylic as the three rectangular lighted panels on top of the saucer. Here it is, with a streak of weathering running across it:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't say there wasn't an opening there. What I'm saying, and what the pics you've selected actually prove, is that it wasn't a light. It was an access port to the light in the bow, painted the same color as the hull, and sometimes got pounded in a scrunch too far, resulting in a slight indentation.

What appears to have happened is that prior to the Smithsonian getting her, that part was lost, along with the deflector dish, and replaced by a clear piece. I also suspect that's what happened to some of the rectangular bits on the underside of the Bussards, they were either lost or possibly canninbalized by the prop guys at Paramount prior to donation.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

BolianAdmiral said:


> ...but if I'm to spend over 140 bucks for a model kit, I will only do it if I consider it accurate enough...


My friend this is what has me confused. Of course the decision is yours, but please bear with me for a moment.

As cherished as it is the 11ft. filming miniature was an incomplete and somewhat rough approximation, even in its heyday, of what it was supposed to _represent:_ a far future interstellar starship. Those who have actually seen the model firsthand and studied it and even those involved in its construction have said that there were errors and rough work in its construction and finish. Not much was thought of that simply because filming the model for television managed to mask or obscure a great many of the model's shortcomings. In effect _*the filming miniature itself is an inaccurate and incomplete representation of what it was supposed to represent.*_ Even Matt Jefferies, the model's designer, has acknowledged that.

And now R2 is attempting to do (albeit on a smaller scale) what Matt Jefferies and the original _Star Trek_ production crew were unable to do because of a lack of time, money and resource: _create an accurate representation of the starship MJ and staff intended all along._ _Star Trek's_ production crew had to constantly compromise and make do with what little resources they had at hand to create an acceptably convincing _illusion_ for television. R2 does not intend and cannot compromise because they are aiming for an accurate representation that will not have the benefit of television's illusionary veil. It has to stand up to close scrutiny, and as well it should for a 1/350 scale model costing us $140.

Note, too, that to fabricate a 1/350 scale model of the same subject _from scratch_ would likely cost you more than $140. Also consider that not only will the major components have to be fabricated from scratch but all the exhaustive detailing will have to be as well. That's an incredible challenge for even experienced scratchbuild modelers. There's also the matter of having authentic resources at hand to ensure the accuracy of the detailing. Note also that my point is not to detract form those who would enjoy the challenge of building from scratch. Such examples can already be found online.

I know I would be greatly challenged to build an accurate model of the _Enterprise_ from scratch. And yet R2 is going to provide one for me with all of the hardest work already done. From my perspective such a model priced at $140 is a bargain.

Your issue is that you don't believe the model will be accurate. And yet that is where you are in error in terms of what Matt Jefferies and the series production staff intended the filming miniature to represent. Your issue is that you want the model to represent the image you see in your mind's eye, but that image is _your_ idealized idea and not truly representative of what the filming miniature's designer and builders intended.

Do what you wish. But I know how much you love the original series and how much you like the fictional _Enterprise._ Consider what you might deprive yourself of simply because something isn't _exactly_ the way you want it. Because the very truth is that there is very little if anything in life that is ever exactly as we want it.

Believe me, I know what it is to get worked up over something I believe is really important, even if it's only to me. But over the years I've learned that it's easier to direct my energy toward fixing something I think might be off rather being anxious over something I have no control over.

Assuming everything else on this model will be correct then I can happily live with correcting one small error if I feel it's there. I should also add---and I'm sure I'm not the only one---that over the years my belief about what was accurate on the original filming miniature changed and evolved as I learned more and more about it. I, too, once believed the gridlines (as but one example) were wrong and inaccurate. But I cannot argue with irrefutable evidence.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Captain April said:


> I didn't say there wasn't an opening there. What I'm saying, and what the pics you've selected actually prove, is that it wasn't a light. It was an access port to the light in the bow, painted the same color as the hull, and sometimes got pounded in a scrunch too far, resulting in a slight indentation.
> 
> What appears to have happened is that prior to the Smithsonian getting her, that part was lost, along with the deflector dish, and replaced by a clear piece. I also suspect that's what happened to some of the rectangular bits on the underside of the Bussards, they were either lost or possibly canninbalized by the prop guys at Paramount prior to donation.


The studio model originally had two plates per nacelle, as seen in various behind-the-scenes shots and in a few episodes, such as "The Alternative Factor". By the time the model arrived at the NASM it only had one plate per nacelle. 

The "bow light" was *not* painted the same color as the hull, since you can clearly see in the first photo that the panel is illuminated, albeit dimly. You can also see it dimly glowing in "The Tholian Web". In an unpublished behind-the-scenes photo I have the round panel appears to be made of the same frosted, milky looking acrylic as the rectangular panels. It reminds me of the plastic in one of my gallon milk jugs. All the panels were present in 1974, but when the model arrived at the NASM the round panel was still there, although the 3 rectagular panels were either lost or had been removed for storage. 

Whether you want to call it an "access panel", "bow light", "bow light that didn't really light up very well", the fact emains that it should have the same appearance as the rectangular panels. The degree to which you illuminate it, if at all, is up to the modeler.

Gary


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Hmm...maybe it's a skylight?


----------



## USS Atlantis (Feb 23, 2008)

I personally think it's another beacon light - remember that the Refit had one front-center of the primary hull

I think the TOS also had one, just that the lousy transmission (60's TV tech) didn't let us see it clearly


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

BolianAdmiral said:


> And since Gary is the "expert" behind the horrid atrocity that is the Smithsonian model's uber-weathering job, I don't consider him any sort of expert in any way shape or form. Maybe he should watch an episode of TOS or two before claiming to have a grain of knowledge on the subject matter.
> 
> There were no engraved gridlines on the 11-foot model. Fact. End of story. If Round 2 truly wants to be faithful to that original wood model, this kit won't have the lines.


You'll want to Re-Read the TOS for Hobby Talk. What you've done here is to insult a very intelligent, highly valued member of Hobby Talk. I don't know Gary Kerr personally nor professionally, but his reputation as an industry professional proceeds him. 

This is the last warning you get from me. From this point further, any other TROLLING posts will not be tolerated. This is beyond a difference if opinion. Next time I'll give you a 7 Day BAN. 

Now, back to the subject at hand. EVERYONE needs to remember to respect the opinions of others, whether we agree with them or not. I'd hate to have to lock yet another thread.


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Big deal.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Dude, if you want to get into a dual with the moderators be my guest, but please don't get another thread locked because of your rude statements. Some of us actually enjoy the debate. This kind of behavior isn't welcome here.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

BolianAdmiral said:


> Big deal.


Well, that's an awesome attitude.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

BolianAdmiral said:


> Big deal.


Perhaps a PERMANENT vacation would better suit your attitude?


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

"wait until a third-party builder makes a smoothie version"

Considering the size of the saucer, I just don't see this happening. Even if someone does, it will cost more than the original kit.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

<umpire>You're outta here!</umpire>


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Shame, we really tried to be accomodating. Hate to see it. Okay Boys and Girls....everybody else make nice!


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

... and that's all it needs to be. You guys can debate all day long. Stop acting like an civilly and see where it gets you. 

Play ball!


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Thanks Jeff.


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

Gary K said:


> They applied weathering or a suggestion of panel lines to the 1st Pilot model, but limited it to the area of the saucer that would be visible in the zoom-in shot at the beginning of "The Cage" and left the rest of the model untouched.
> 
> Gary



As always, thanks for chiming in, Gary!


However, I must dispute the section of your post quoted above. My research indicates that there was indeed weathering on the lower saucer, sensor/deflector dish, secondary hull, etc.--not _just_ on the upper saucer and bridge dome. Although the weathering is most _prominent_ on the upper saucer.



And as for the bow light controversy...hmm. I need to look into that some more. There's some compelling evidence for both sides of the argument, I think.


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

Gary K said:


> In an unpublished behind-the-scenes photo I have the round panel appears to be made of the same frosted, milky looking acrylic as the rectangular panels. It reminds me of the plastic in one of my gallon milk jugs. All the panels were present in 1974, but when the model arrived at the NASM the round panel was still there, although the 3 rectagular panels were either lost or had been removed for storage.
> Gary



Can you tell us the vintage of this photo?

In the various NASM photos from the model's initial arrival and early restorations, the area in question doesn't appear to be translucent, even when the rest of the lights are operating. The panel doesn't appear to have truly become a full-fledged light (without weathering, etc.) until the '91 restoration.


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

John P said:


> The starship Enterprise had a grid on its saucer. The _model _used pencil lines to represent this grid. On the "real" starship, they'd have been, most likely, seams between panels.


FWIW, Franz Joseph’s blueprints say the gridlines are deflector shield emitters.



John P said:


> Gary K said:
> 
> 
> > . . . I don't know how to precisely characterize the money that was available for the model, but I think it's safe to say that they weren't exactly rolling in dough.
> ...


According to Memory Alpha, the 11-foot model was built at a cost of approximately $6,000 (about $42,000 in today’s money).


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Gregatron said:


> Can you tell us the vintage of this photo?
> 
> In the various NASM photos from the model's initial arrival and early restorations, the area in question doesn't appear to be translucent, even when the rest of the lights are operating. The panel doesn't appear to have truly become a full-fledged light (without weathering, etc.) until the '91 restoration.


I don't know the date of the photo, which is from a private collection, but it shows the Production version and was taken sometime after the miniature hangar bay set was built. I don't think there's anything too complicated going on here: they cut four access openings for the side saucer lighting and used the same translucent material for all the panels. 

Like I said before, the rectangular panels were missing in photos of the model when it arrived at the NASM, but the round opening at the bow was covered. When I examined the model in 1991 the round panel was noticeably more translucent than the rectangular panels. The rectangular panels appeared more translucent in the1960s photo and matched the appearance of the material in the 1991 round panel, which leads me to believe that the current rectangular panels are replacements. 

When I removed the 1" round panel I could see a considerable thickness of wood underneath, creating, in effect, a vertical wooden tunnel. The two light bulbs in the bow were off to the sides, and the wooden tunnel prevented light from shining directly on the plastic covering. Consequently, the panel was only dimly illuminated by light reflecting up the tunnel. I don't understand - doesn't anybody else see the dimly lit translucent panel, resting on an inner lip, with a streak of weathering across it?










I don't know if the round panel was supposed to be a light or if it was supposed to by anything in particular, other than a bit of interesting detail on top of the saucer. All I know is that there was a round, translucent panel near the bow, and it was dimly lit from below. And on that note, I have to quit. I've got a ton of work to do before I go to bed.

Gary


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

On these photos I can clearly see that feature so it's accurate to include it on the model. Is that circular transparency flush with the upper surface of the saucer or is it slightly convex in shape, slightly domed?

These photos also show something else: those gridlines will have to be very subtle and fine indeed to be apparently flush with the hull except when seen from very close up. It's why I'd rather seen engraved lines rather than raised.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

This CGI illustration is the look I'm after. The other two pics show the 'Rust Ring and Bow light.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Let's take a look at that opening shot from "The Tholian Web":

(And I apologize for the size, but it's important.)










Now that looks pretty unlit to me.


----------



## Landru (May 25, 2009)

I'm not actually fussed if it has engraved lines or not, from where I'm standing, its really not hard to fill in some detail. I think we've all delt with faaaaar worse..


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Warped9 said:


> On these photos I can clearly see that feature so it's accurate to include it on the model. Is that circular transparency flush with the upper surface of the saucer or is it slightly convex in shape, slightly domed?
> 
> These photos also show something else: those gridlines will have to be very subtle and fine indeed to be apparently flush with the hull except when seen from very close up. It's why I'd rather seen engraved lines rather than raised.


The round panel is perfectly flat and lies just a hair below the surface of the saucer - essentially flush at 1/350 scale. 

Gary


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Just out of curiosity. I thought this design was well vetted when they produced the 1/1000. And I thought the 1/1000 was considered spot on accurate. So why are we debating "details" at this point in time? All the same, fascinating stuff.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Solium said:


> Just out of curiosity. I thought this design was well vetted when they produced the 1/1000. And I thought the 1/1000 was considered spot on accurate. So why are we debating "details" at this point in time? All the same, fascinating stuff.


As I understand it according to Thomas Sasser there are some things a bit off on the 1/1000. I'm not sure if they're manufacturing errors or deliberate inaccuracies. Of course it would have been really pushing it to try including very fine gridlines on a 1/1000 scale model. At that scale such detail is effectively invisible.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Captain April said:


> Let's take a look at that opening shot from "The Tholian Web":
> 
> Now that looks pretty unlit to me.


Okay, you can't see a dimly lit feature in an underexposed photo. Here's a better exposure from "The Tholian Web" where you CAN see the panel in the lower right corner of the photo:










Look, I don't have time to get drawn into any silly arguments, so this has to be my last word on the subject. There is a translucent access panel at the bow. It is visible in my reference photos, and I've held in my hand. It was dimly illuminated by reflected light coming up through the wooden tunnel below, and was mostly drowned out by intense studio lighting. The grayish appearing 1" panel doesn't show up well against a gray hull, esp. with spfx image degredation. The panel is what it is. I don't know what the builders intended it to be, if anything. And I'm outta here.

Gary


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Hmm, is it me or did things suddenly get a lot more civil here? Ahh.

Gary - long-time fan of your research. I have no worries that this kit will be worth the wait. Lines or no lines, matters very little to me as I've stated before. 

The bow light has been an interesting debate over the years for sure. 

What do you say to the suggestion that there were a couple amber and green windows present on the ship. Notably on the aft dorsal and aft secondary hull? Really there or a trick of optical processing?

And I'm happy to see that the kit will not replicate some of the restoration errors such as the incorrect inboard nacelle gridwork. This piece screams for a photoetch upgrade. Likewise the inboard pylon gridwork.

The MR Enterprise had accuracy issues (minor) as well. But, until now, it was the best representation of the ship at a reasonably large scale. This is going to be a great kit and a boon to TOS Trek modelers.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

jheilman said:


> Hmm, is it me or did things suddenly get a lot more civil here? Ahh.
> 
> What do you say to the suggestion that there were a couple amber and green windows present on the ship. Notably on the aft dorsal and aft secondary hull? Really there or a trick of optical processing?


The green & amber/orange windows really are there - chunks of Plexiglas embedded in the hull. In addition there's some detail behind two other windows on the dorsal - a piece of what appears to be window screen and a leftover piece of nacelle pylon grid.

Gary


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

Gary, your'e the man when it comes to the TOS E in my book. I don't understand how people can debate fact when Gary has held these parts in his hand? If he said he took a milky clear plug from the front of the saucer why can't we just accept that as fact? You can clearly see this plug in some pictures, some you can't. If you can see it in some pics doesn't that mean it rally is there? Are we all this anal about this ship? 

It's going to be a 3 foot model, not an 11 foot replica. It's going to be plastic, not plywood. It's going to be idealized, not all wonky. It's going to be built with love and attention to detail, not built up and left unfinished for lack of money and time.

I'm buying one regardless if it has grids or a clear plug and I'm going to enjoy it!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

We know there were variations in window placement and number of windows from first then second pilot versions and then to the series production version. But there were other variations as well. One that comes immediately to mind are the running lights. More specifically I'm thinking of the lower running lights on the underside of the saucer.

"The Cage" version doesn't seem to show any running lights at all, but in the WNMHGB we do see running lights yet on the underside of the saucer's edge we see them set back further aft along the saucer edge. On the series production version the lower running lights are aligned with the upper ones on the topside edge of the saucer. I'm assuming the Premier Edition will include the means to replicate the pilot version arrangement of the running lights. Although we don't actually see running lights on the first pilot version we could assume they were similar to the WNMHGB arrangement.

I'm looking at this because I'm seriously considering building a Cage version of the ship yet one that incorporates some details that they didn't have time or money to add until the second pilot and later the series version. Running lights and inboard nacelle details are the most prominent things I'm considering.


----------



## Fernando Mureb (Nov 12, 2006)

Ductapeforever said:


> This CGI illustration is the look I'm after. The other two pics show the 'Rust Ring and Bow light.


Wow!! Great suggestion Duct! Thanks for share those pics.:thumbsup:


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

<flounder>Oh, boy, is this great!</flounder>


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

More CGI renderings for the look I'm going for.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

robiwon said:


> ...I don't understand how people can debate fact when Gary has held these parts in his hand?...


Happens all the time. A buddy brought a photograph of an actual, unrestored U-boat to a club meeting and some d*ck said that the rivet pattern was all wrong. When told it was a photo of a real sub, not a model, he refused to back down.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Ductapeforever said:


> More CGI renderings for the look I'm going for.


Hm. Kinda sloppy, random-looking paneling, isn't it?



Paulbo said:


> Happens all the time. A buddy brought a photograph of an actual, unrestored U-boat to a club meeting and some d*ck said that the rivet pattern was all wrong. When told it was a photo of a real sub, not a model, he refused to back down.


:lol: I've met those guys!


----------



## sgariepy (Jun 20, 2003)

Warped9 said:


> We know there were variations in window placement and number of windows from first then second pilot versions and then to the series production version. But there were other variations as well. One that comes immediately to mind are the running lights. More specifically I'm thinking of the lower running lights on the underside of the saucer.
> 
> "The Cage" version doesn't seem to show any running lights at all, but in the WNMHGB we do see running lights yet on the underside of the saucer's edge we see them set back further aft along the saucer edge. On the series production version the lower running lights are aligned with the upper ones on the topside edge of the saucer. I'm assuming the Premier Edition will include the means to replicate the pilot version arrangement of the running lights. Although we don't actually see running lights on the first pilot version we could assume they were similar to the WNMHGB arrangement.
> 
> I'm looking at this because I'm seriously considering building a Cage version of the ship yet one that incorporates some details that they didn't have time or money to add until the second pilot and later the series version. Running lights and inboard nacelle details are the most prominent things I'm considering.


In addition to that, in the original opening scene (which i just watched again to make sure I am not throwing crap at anybody) the middle light of those 3 sensors if you wish in the front center of the model is flashing in sync with the underside running lights. This was on the second pilot model I believe and I'm starting to wonder if that bow light wasn't there flashing in sync at the same time. I seem to vaguely recall seeing something like that. But I may be wrong. Good observations Warped9.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

John P said:


> Hm. Kinda sloppy, random-looking paneling, isn't it?
> 
> 
> LOL, John the jury's still out on the aztecing idea. Other than that, I like the rest of the overall presentation. They didn't aztec in the original series, not even the remastered, I'm on the fence, but the look is something to ponder.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

The remastered CG ship does have an ill-advised metal plating effect you can see at certain angles. I dinna like it.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Gary K said:


> Okay, you can't see a dimly lit feature in an underexposed photo. Here's a better exposure from "The Tholian Web" where you CAN see the panel in the lower right corner of the photo:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If they wanted it to be a light, it would've been a very simple matter to just *not* paint over it.

I'm now beginning to wonder if, during one of the Smithsonian's previous restorations attempts, they popped out that plug and, thinking it was just really dirty, "cleaned it off". So, while the saucer surface remains untouched, it's now sporting a new bow light that wasn't lit previously.

As for why use translucent material for the plug if it wasn't supposed to be lit, there could be a number of factors. Availability of materials, whether the plexi would shrug off the heat better than something opaque, how much easier it is to find a slightly translucent plug than an opaque one painted the same as the hull when it's time to change a hard-to-get light bulb, etc.


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

It seems to me that this plug is in fact present, even if you can't see it all the time. Wouldn't it be easy enough to either fill it in/paint over it or for those who want it, leave it as a bow light? This is assuming that this light will be included into the kit, that is.

There is so much about the on-screen ship that is open to personal interpretation, due in to no small part to the degrading of the film image during the FX/ optical process used at the time that I really don't see why the presence of this light - or not- should be so contentious. Either leave it in or get rid of it on your model! :wave:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

If it was meant to be or was translucent during production then that is how I'll leave it. If it was painted over during production then it's a feature or external hatch or something and I'll treat it as such. Either way it's simply one of those interesting physical features that TV resolution of the era obscured, but the feature is indeed there.

I'm still not wholly decided on whether the windows on the saucer rim will be totally symmetrical or not---still weighing it. One idea I do like, even though it is something of a retcon, is including a gangway hatch on the port side saucer rim. We never saw the left side of the filming miniature so it is open to conjecture, but it was a distinctive feature on the TMP refit and strikes me as something that could likely have already existed in the ship's earlier configurations.


----------



## Prologic9 (Dec 4, 2009)

I don't see the point in debating the circular access panel on the bow. It was obviously there, whether you want to light it or not can simply be up to the builder. I personally don't think it's meant to be seen, but I would like to have it all the same to hide. 

I will say that there ARE other representations of the Enterprise. The 3-foot model doesn't feature a bow "light" and it has symmetrical windows. This was a canon representation of the ship used on the show, and it clearly answers a few questions the full-size model can't. It makes no sense to ignore it.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Prologic9 said:


> I will say that there ARE other representations of the Enterprise. The 3-foot model doesn't feature a bow "light" and it has symmetrical windows. This was a canon representation of the ship used on the show, and it clearly answers a few questions the full-size model can't. It makes no sense to ignore it.


That's a very good point. We know reversed decals were used to allow them to flip the negative and thus depict the usually unseen port side. Sure it was a quick-and-easy fix to show something otherwise impossible to show, but it does suggest both sides of the ship were mostly symmetrical. The 3ft. filming miniature was finished all around and further argues both sides were mostly symmetrical.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

John P said:


> The remastered CG ship does have an ill-advised metal plating effect you can see at certain angles. I dinna like it.


Aye,.... it makes her look like a flying brickyard!


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> One idea I do like, even though it is something of a retcon, is including a gangway hatch on the port side saucer rim. We never saw the left side of the filming miniature so it is open to conjecture, but it was a distinctive feature on the TMP refit and strikes me as something that could likely have already existed in the ship's earlier configurations.


I was thinking the same thing, it may not be canon but it is a logical feature I do like. Who knows what they may have intended for this side of the model originally?


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Another possibility that the so called 'bow light' is actually an access hatch to the outside of the saucer as was seen in ST/TMP! Isn't this 'fun' boys and girls?


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

I would liketo see some of the CGI renderings used toward the end ot the TOS-Remastered shows. THey kept refining the model and I liked that look.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Gary K, asked me to share a detail with you guys. The now famous 'Rust Ring' is in actuality only a partial. It only occupies five grid segments on either side of the 'bow .light'
Gary is getting a little busy so I'll forward anything he discusses with me.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Gary K said:


> And I'm outta here.
> Gary





jheilman said:


> Hmm, is it me or did things suddenly get a lot more civil here? Ahh.


Gary - through unfortunate timing, my above quote followed your entry. Just to verify, I WAS NOT referring to your entry in any way. I was still typing mine when yours was posted. I was referring to the recently banned. 

Great to see confirmation on the green and amber windows. I included them on my CG model from way back because Petri hinted at them. Or he gave me specific scenes to study. Maybe both. But, were the plex pieces different colors, or were there isolated green and amber lights behind them? I'm betting different color plex. Much simpler to light. 

I had previously heard about the mesh behind a window or two. I love the details.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

jheilman said:


> Gary - through unfortunate timing, my above quote followed your entry. Just to verify, I WAS NOT referring to your entry in any way. I was still typing mine when yours was posted. I was referring to the recently banned.


Big deal! 



jheilman said:


> Great to see confirmation on the green and amber windows. I included them on my CG model from way back because Petri hinted at them. Or he gave me specific scenes to study. Maybe both. But, were the plex pieces different colors, or were there isolated green and amber lights behind them? I'm betting different color plex. Much simpler to light.
> 
> I had previously heard about the mesh behind a window or two. I love the details.


You are correct, sir! The windows were chunks of colored plex.

Gary


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

Gary K said:


> The green & amber/orange windows really are there - chunks of Plexiglas embedded in the hull. In addition there's some detail behind two other windows on the dorsal - a piece of what appears to be window screen and a leftover piece of nacelle pylon grid.
> 
> Gary



Wowzers--guess I was wrong about those areas!


----------



## Gregatron (Mar 29, 2008)

Warped9 said:


> We know there were variations in window placement and number of windows from first then second pilot versions and then to the series production version. But there were other variations as well. One that comes immediately to mind are the running lights. More specifically I'm thinking of the lower running lights on the underside of the saucer.
> 
> "The Cage" version doesn't seem to show any running lights at all, but in the WNMHGB we do see running lights yet on the underside of the saucer's edge we see them set back further aft along the saucer edge. On the series production version the lower running lights are aligned with the upper ones on the topside edge of the saucer. I'm assuming the Premier Edition will include the means to replicate the pilot version arrangement of the running lights. Although we don't actually see running lights on the first pilot version we could assume they were similar to the WNMHGB arrangement.
> 
> I'm looking at this because I'm seriously considering building a Cage version of the ship yet one that incorporates some details that they didn't have time or money to add until the second pilot and later the series version. Running lights and inboard nacelle details are the most prominent things I'm considering.



The first pilot version also had those teeny fake lights at 3:00 and 9:00 on top and bottom saucer. The upper saucer's faux lights remain on the model to this day, right next to the big blinkers, while the lower saucer's faux lights were replaced by the big, working blinkers.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

RSN said:


> Sounds like Gary's comments should quiet all of us "Armchair Experts" of the Enterprise. (But he did back up my view of both the gridlines and the symetrical windows, which was unexpected!) Gonna be a loooooong year!


I'm just a little bit "edgy" about the overly-fawning tone I keep hearing about Gary Kerr.

Yes, he's one of the people who've had direct access to the original filming model, and yes, he's collected a fair amount of historical information as well. So he can be treated as "AN authoritative source."

But, he's also a human being, with clear personal preferences and ideas, which may or may not align with anyone else's. He was party to at least part of the disastrous "restoration" that gave us the current horrific paint job, after all, wasn't he? (Yes, I know he didn't do the painting himself, but still... he had some involvement with the process as a whole.)

SO... let's be very careful about treating Gary Kerr as "the High Priest of Enterprise-i-ness" as some folks seem to be doing today.

He has great knowledge of shapes... but I'd argue that his knowledge is by no means "complete." There are things you can get from a physical inspection of a model... angles, sizes, etc... where I'd treat him as utterly authoritative. But there are other areas... curved shapes and the like... that can't be measured without special techniques (laser scanners and the like, which were NOT USED during that "restoration inspection," were they?)

So... treat him as a resource, but not as "THE RESOURCE." And realize that the Enterprise which exists in his mind "ought to have gridlines" but that does not make it "true," it only makes it "Gary Kerr's preference."


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

CLBrown said:


> ...He was party to at least part of the disastrous "restoration" that gave us the current horrific paint job, after all, wasn't he? (Yes, I know he didn't do the painting himself, but still... he had some involvement with the process as a whole.)...


What part of (I'm paraphrasing) "I helped take it apart and measured it, then left before the restoration team arrive" do you not understand?

Also, apparently you have absolutely no idea how actual measurements are taken in the real world. My brother has done about a dozen HABS/HAER measurement sets and they have to be to with 1/64" ... including the one he did on the hulk of a half submerged sunken ship where the only things left to measure were the half rotten ribs. (You don't just stick a ruler up against something and say "it's about 12 inches", you triangulate between known points and obtain amazingly high accuracies in 3 dimensions.)

Lasers do not make accuracy. Careful measurements make accuracy.

As was repeatedly said to Bolian Admiral: check your facts.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Just repeat to yourself: It's just a show, I should really just relax!


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Ductapeforever said:


> This CGI illustration is the look I'm after. The other two pics show the 'Rust Ring and Bow light.


There was a "rust ring," no question... and a lot of other weathering on the upper primary hull (and elsewhere) as well.

Since R2 is going to be putting out a "weathering decal set," it seems to me that the smart thing is to incorporate any "grid lines" into that decal set. And before anyone goes off half-cocked... I did not say "1/16 of an inch solid black lines." I mean very light, metallic-grey (perhaps "steel?") ink lines in about 0.010" width. This will require a very high-quality decal printing process... but will be a lot less expensive (and a lot more "screen-accurate") than the laborious process of making raised lines in the tool (which give engraved lines in the plastic)

As far as the thing you're all calling a "bow light," let's be blunt... we do not know what this is, nor what it was intended to be. All we know is that there was a removable block of mass in that location which, if removed, would give access to the front-facing circular shapes as well (which I consider to be forward scanners).

We also know that there are no shots from the series which show this lit up, or at least not VISIBLY lit. By contrast, we see the rectangular shapes clearly lit up (or rather, we see 3 of 4 lit up!).

I actually plan to have this lit on my own version... because I decided that it's an upwards-facing scanner device. That also lets us explain why it's seldom seen lit up... it would only be "lit" when it's in use! Think of it as a proximity sensor, like the radar altimeter on a helicopter... only in use when the craft is low to the ground. Maybe this is only used when the ship is docking at a starbase?

Or maybe the shape is some sort of umbilical attachment point, again for docking? Or maybe it's an access hatch for swapping out replaceable elements for those three forward scanners?

WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE. All we know is that there's a circular white spot in that location, and it doesn't seem to have been lit on-screen.

Anything beyond that is pure speculation. Just like calling the triangular shapes on the primary hull underside "landing gear covers" is PURE SPECULATION and should not be treated as such by the "powers which be" (as far as I'm concerned, those are transporter emitters, not landing legs!)


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

jheilman said:


> Gary - through unfortunate timing, my above quote followed your entry. Just to verify, I WAS NOT referring to your entry in any way. I was still typing mine when yours was posted. I was referring to the recently banned.
> 
> Great to see confirmation on the green and amber windows. I included them on my CG model from way back because Petri hinted at them. Or he gave me specific scenes to study. Maybe both. But, were the plex pieces different colors, or were there isolated green and amber lights behind them? I'm betting different color plex. Much simpler to light.
> 
> I had previously heard about the mesh behind a window or two. I love the details.


I think that "making derogatory comments" (even if it's about someone "recently banned") is, itself, a violation of the terms of service for this place, now, isn't it?


> 1. Treat everyone with respect. While we all may not agree with what everyone's opinion, many people come here to get different opinions. Because someone does not agree with you does not mean you should get nasty with them. Treat others with respect and you will earn everyone’s respect in return.


If someone did something wrong, hey, that's not "license to do it back," is it? It strikes me that this sort of comment is every bit as much of a violation as the person who was given the "banning" was guilty of.

So... if this site is run properly, you should be getting your own warning for this. Rules must be applied equally to all parties, or they're not rules at all, are they?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I wouldn't want to even think about trying to apply gridlines as a decal. No way and no how. I'd leave them off.

At no time did Gary Kerr imply he was infallible, but he has carefully studied the 11 footer firsthand. I'd say that makes him more of an authority than a lot of us who have only seen the filming miniature onscreen through the veil of faded f/x prints and low CRT television resolution.

Calling the upper saucer detail a bow light is really nothing more than a shorthand form of description so we all understand what is being discussed. I also don't accept it as a bow light _per se_ simply because it isn't domed light the port and starboard running lights. I can accept it as a hatch or a sensor of some type. But I'm not bothered by anyone referring to it as a bow light for the sake of specifying what detail they're talking about.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Paulbo said:


> What part of (I'm paraphrasing) "I helped take it apart and measured it, then left before the restoration team arrive" do you not understand?


Paul, what part of "keeping a civil tone" do you not understand?

He has an opinion, and he has information, and both of those are of value, but only one is inviolable. Actual physical photos, and actual physical measurements, are of great use.

But there are people here who are acting as though he cannot be questioned, and that's disturbing. People are giving him the same "God of Trekkiness" treatment which fans have given other figures in this ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESS for years. Hell, until Shatner's SNL bit, he was treated as "The Captain" by lots of folks... and afterwards, those same folks would have been happy to burn him at the stake.

All I'm saying is that his information should be used, and valued, but we need to keep a separation between "facts" and "opinion," even if the person whose opinion we're listening to is someone who has some helpful facts in his toolbox as well.


> Also, apparently you have absolutely no idea how actual measurements are taken in the real world. My brother has done about a dozen HABS/HAER measurement sets and they have to be to with 1/64" ... including the one he did on the hulk of a half submerged sunken ship where the only things left to measure were the half rotten ribs. (You don't just stick a ruler up against something and say "it's about 12 inches", you triangulate between known points and obtain amazingly high accuracies in 3 dimensions.)


Why in the world are you being so snotty? Seriously. "Absolutely no idea?"

Paul, I have a hell of a good idea... this is something I do in my job regularly. We use CMMs and laser scanners and the like to collect "point cloud data" which we then use, through interpretive software, to regenerate surface data which can then be used either for inspection or for "reverse engineering" of parts not originally designed by my team.

You can talk about what your brother does, and that's fine. I can talk about what I, and the other engineers I work with, do every day. I'm not talking about "rocket science" here. This is COMMON PRACTICE, and is the only way to get truly accurate representations of shapes where you don't have the source design data.


> Lasers do not make accuracy. Careful measurements make accuracy.


And how, exactly, do you propose to take "careful measurements" to get the exact curvature of the primary hull upper and lower surfaces?

Please, since you think you know everything about this and I know nothing at all... explain it to me. Give me a step-by-step walkthrough of how you propose inspecting that shape and getting it "right," and what tools you'd use to accomplish that. I'll wait.


> As was repeatedly said to Bolian Admiral: check your facts.


This is what I do for a living. My "facts" are quite well-established.

You might want to dial back the attitude.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

OMG ! can't we just discuss THE MODEL? Stop the damn fighting!


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Warped9 said:


> I wouldn't want to even think about trying to apply gridlines as a decal. No way and no how. I'd leave them off.


Well, I'm not talking about "just the gridlines."

We KNOW that there is going to be a "weathering decal set." It is entirely reasonable to assume that this will include the weathering streaks, the "rust ring," and the like. Whether it reflects the best possible reproduction of the filming state of the model, or the "as seen in the smithsonian today" version, it still unclear (though we know what we'd prefer, I'm certain!).

If there is going to be a big decal sheet with the primary hull weathering... it really only makes sense to have the lines on those sheets, doesn't it?

I can see why you'd want to avoid a decal sheet with nothing but gridlines, though... and that's not what I was suggesting.


> At no time did Gary Kerr imply he was infallible, but he has carefully studied the 11 footer firsthand. I'd say that makes him more of an authority than a lot of us who have only seen the filming miniature onscreen through the veil of faded f/x prints and low CRT television resolution.


Oh, no question... and I know that he has not, HIMSELF, called himself that. I was not saying anything about him... only about the "overly fawning" treatment that a subset of those who post here, or elsewhere, seem to be showing. I just wanted to bring him back down to the same planet as the rest of us in the eyes of those people who are, evidently, in the process of elevating him to Godhood.

For the record, most people who are elevated to that level in somebody else's eyes end up hating it eventually. Better to think of him as a fellow fan with a lot of expertise. But not to treat him as an "unimpeachable, unquestionable source" as some seem to be doing.

That's all I'm sayin...


> Calling the upper saucer detail a bow light is really nothing more than a shorthand form of description so we all understand what is being discussed. I also don't accept it as a bow light _per se_ simply because it isn't domed light the port and starboard running lights. I can accept it as a hatch or a sensor of some type. But I'm not bothered by anyone referring to it as a bow light for the sake of specifying what detail they're talking about.


I do wonder if, perhaps, they planned on having a light like those on the port and starboard, but ended up leaving it out. The diameter from the P-hull center, and the diameter of the shape itself, does tend to lend itself to that assumption.

Maybe they put it in, then realized that from certain angles it ended up looking like a "clown nose" on the final ship and they removed it?


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

CLBrown said:


> I'm just a little bit "edgy" about the overly-fawning tone I keep hearing about Gary Kerr.
> 
> He has great knowledge of shapes... but I'd argue that his knowledge is by no means "complete." There are things you can get from a physical inspection of a model... angles, sizes, etc... where I'd treat him as utterly authoritative. But there are other areas... curved shapes and the like... that can't be measured without special techniques (laser scanners and the like, which were NOT USED during that "restoration inspection," were they?)


Seriously, I don't know what your problem is, storming in here with a series of heated posts. Are you STILL angry about grid lines on the model? 

Btw, you said, "But there are other areas... curved shapes and the like... that can't be measured without special techniques (laser scanners and the like, which were NOT USED during that "restoration inspection," were they?)"

Trust me, Mr. Smarty Pants, there ARE ways to measure curves (and to doublecheck them) that don't involve laser scanners - just as I pointed out to you on the Starship Modeler board that the leading edge of the control reactor CAN be straight.

I suggest that you check your attitude at the door so interested parties can discuss the topic civilly.

Gary


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

I am still on the fence of how to paint the old girl. Part of me wants to recreate the look of the filming miniature, i.e. the rust ring and gridlines on the primary hull. Another part of me wants to have it look like it did on TV when I watched it as a child, uniform grey in color with no visible gridlines. Glad we have a year to decide! I am just greatful I will get a chance to build it. 

Thank you Gary, for all your work on this project as well as those for Moebius. It is easy to criticize, but saying "Thank You" gets overlooked far too often in life.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

I can only hope and prey this thread gets LOCKED, and no one is allowed to open another.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Gary K said:


> Seriously, I don't know what your problem is, storming in here with a series of heated posts. Are you STILL angry about grid lines on the model?
> 
> Btw, you said, "But there are other areas... curved shapes and the like... that can't be measured without special techniques (laser scanners and the like, which were NOT USED during that "restoration inspection," were they?)"
> 
> ...


I am discussing it civilly. I'm not "posting a series of heated posts." Nothing "heated" about anything I've said. On the other hand, it sure seemed "heated" for you to say what you just said, didn't it?

Gary, you know perfectly well that there are pencil lines on the filming model. You know perfectly well that these were not engraved lines. You, personally, believe that these were intended to represent engraved lines. But this is your opinion, not "hard fact."

Are you actually offended that I stated that you may not be the all-knowing oracle of all matters Enterprise? You're a fan... and you have good information in your toolbox, as I said. But you're not the "sole owner" of this idea any more than anyone else is.

Put another way... you're a lucky guy who has, through some talent and through some good fortune, gotten a gig that most of us envy. But you need a degree of humbleness, and my comment above was focused on that. You need to remember that you have great RESPONSIBILITY here, not "great authority."

And really... "Mr. Smarty Pants?" :drunk:


----------



## iriseye (Sep 21, 2010)

If I recall correctly, it had to do with grid lines.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Just curious as to how many of us here had the opportunity to actually touch, study, and examine the construction of the filming miniature? 

I thought so!

I would say that makes Gary an expert on the subject, more than any of us who have seen the model on TV or hanging in the Smithsonian.

No, I don't worship Gary as some kind of "Trek God". I Worship only One, and, no offense Gary, you are no Him. What I do know is how to respect the opinions of someone who knows what he is talking about, not someone who is jealous that his life has denied him the same path Gary has traveled!


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

CL Brown - From your tone, I gather you and Bolian Admiral are friends - and I know you both from back when I used to frequent TrekBBS. All I'm going to say at this time is "lose the attitude". Specifically where GaryK is concerned. He's done nothing but offer his insight on his hands-on experiences w/the original filming model, yet you take him to task over what he's said, as well as insult those who make mention to his knowledge. 

It ends. 'Nuff Said. 

NO MORE GRIDLINE THREADS, NO MORE TALK ABOUT GRIDLINES UNTIL 1 SEPTEMBER! 

We'll see at that time if a discussion on the subject can stand back up in an adult fashion.


----------

