# What color is the Enterprise?



## J2 builder (Apr 8, 2012)

The instructions from my 1/350 TMP kit suggest pearlescent white. I don't see the ship as white in the movies. To me it looks like a gray-ish, silver-ish sort of metallic color. Certainly the original series ship was a light gray color...wasn't it? Does anyone know the actual color, per canon or whatever, for both of these vessels?


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Oh boy.

The TMP Enterprise is an amazingly complex pattern of white primer, with an aztec pattern of iridescent colors painted over the top of the white.

There are some really good articles out there that I don't have the links to at the moment.


----------



## J2 builder (Apr 8, 2012)

ClubTepes said:


> Oh boy.
> 
> The TMP Enterprise is an amazingly complex pattern of white primer, with an aztec pattern of iridescent colors painted over the top of the white.
> 
> There are some really good articles out there that I don't have the links to at the moment.


Thanks, I'm aware of the aztec pattern. The kit comes with decals for that, I want to know what base color to start with. Basically the instructions say, 1)paint white, 2)apply aztec decals, 3)then dull clear coat...done. I'm just afraid it's not that simple.


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

J2 builder said:


> I'm just afraid it's not that simple.


Sure it is........
-Jim


----------



## kenlee (Feb 11, 2010)

J2 builder said:


> Thanks, I'm aware of the aztec pattern. The kit comes with decals for that, I want to know what base color to start with. Basically the instructions say, 1)paint white, 2)apply aztec decals, 3)then dull clear coat...done. I'm just afraid it's not that simple.


This comes from the cloudster website:

What Color is it? This is a question often heard among fans of this ship. Having seen it with my own eyes I can tell you with authority that the ship is white overall. Not different shades, just white. The panels which appear to be different shades are actually just different amounts of gloss or flat finish, the basic color underneath is white. Some of the panels also included a pearlescent finish which introduces a reddish cast when seen from certain angles. There are some areas that have different colors, most trim colors were light blue and medium blue with red pin stripes and yellow boxes where phaser banks were mounted. There was also a very very light blue dusting applied in some areas, almost like weathering. This was particularly visible on the forward portions of the engine nacelles. Below is a link to the color photo survey of the model after it was retired.

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STMPEnterprise/ColorPhotos/STMPEnterpriseColor.htm


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

J2 builder said:


> Thanks, I'm aware of the aztec pattern. The kit comes with decals for that, I want to know what base color to start with. Basically the instructions say, 1)paint white, 2)apply aztec decals, 3)then dull clear coat...done. I'm just afraid it's not that simple.


The base color of the Enterprise in ST:TMP is white, as seen on film. Starting with ST: II, the ship was dulled down to prevent reflections from the pearlescent paint job in the first movie. It started coming off as a light gray from then on. Find a look you like and match it.There is no wrong way to paint it, just make it look like how you want it to look!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

RSN said:


> The base color of the Enterprise in ST:TMP is white, as seen on film. Starting with ST: II, the ship was dulled down to prevent reflections from the pearlescent paint job in the first movie. It started coming off as a light gray from then on. Find a look you like and match it.There is no wrong way to paint it, just make it look like how you want it to look!! :thumbsup:


Hey your advice just helped me out too. I am currently working on a Star Trek IV Enterprise A and I'm going to do that. Find colors that please me to use them to detail my model. .


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Guy Schlicter said:


> Hey your advice just helped me out too. I am currently working on a Star Trek IV Enterprise A and I'm going to do that. Find colors that please me to use them to detail my model. .


Only way to go. There are a million experts who will each tell you their's is THE only way to paint it right. I just use my own eye to tell me the colors.


----------



## J2 builder (Apr 8, 2012)

RSN said:


> The base color of the Enterprise in ST:TMP is white, as seen on film. Starting with ST: II, the ship was dulled down to prevent reflections from the pearlescent paint job in the first movie. It started coming off as a light gray from then on. Find a look you like and match it.There is no wrong way to paint it, just make it look like how you want it to look!! :thumbsup:


You're right, I'm over-thinking the details, everyone should build it the way that makes them happy. It was just a surprise to find out the ship was white, since that's not the way I remember it from the movies, and I was afraid the aztec decals wouldn't look right if I picked a different base color. But I may darken it up some, I want to go with the dulled down look from ST:II 

I know I don't want to build it as the 1701-A...No bloody A, B, C, or D. I don't like all of the blue on this version. No Kirk-commanded ship should be duck-egg blue...the only thing they left off was the pink bows. Perhaps that's why the 1701-A was such a lemon in the later movies, and why Scotty made the comment, "They don't build 'em like they usta" :jest:


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I shall also be a little bit pedantic for a moment and point out that looking at pictures on the internet, there are SO many variables at work (starting with the kind of monitor you have and cascading from there) that really, really, paint the beast in a way that YOU like. Heck, powder blue with white highlights to copy the look of faded early '70s syndication prints. why not?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

J2 builder said:


> You're right, I'm over-thinking the details, everyone should build it the way that makes them happy. It was just a surprise to find out the ship was white, since that's not the way I remember it from the movies, and I was afraid the aztec decals wouldn't look right if I picked a different base color. But I may darken it up some, I want to go with the dulled down look from ST:II
> 
> I know I don't want to build it as the 1701-A...No bloody A, B, C, or D. I don't like all of the blue on this version. No Kirk-commanded ship should be duck-egg blue...the only thing they left off was the pink bows. Perhaps that's why the 1701-A was such a lemon in the later movies, and why Scotty made the comment, "They don't build 'em like they usta" :jest:


There is a great shot of the secondary hull in ST: II when the Enterprise pulls up along side Regula 1. It comes off as very gray with almost no aztec pattern visible, instead it looks as though panel lines have been drawn on in pencil. The beauty fly-by shot following the opening credits in ST:III also gives some good close-ups of the paint looking gray.


----------



## Lee Staton (May 13, 2000)

And the step-by-step article by the guy who did the paint job for the first movie (which ILM later painted over), is still out on the Internet here:

http://www.olsenart.com/strek.html

It's an informative and fun read, no matter what colors you wind up choosing for your own kit.

Lee


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

RSN said:


> The base color of the Enterprise in ST:TMP is white, as seen on film. Starting with ST: II, the ship was dulled down to prevent reflections from the pearlescent paint job in the first movie. It started coming off as a light gray from then on. Find a look you like and match it.There is no wrong way to paint it, just make it look like how you want it to look!! :thumbsup:


Exactly!

There are always two different answers to this short of question:

1) How was the actual, physical model painted? (And remember, there are frequently multiple models, and not all are painted identically... so this is on a "per-miniature" basis.)

2) What does it look like on-screen?

For me, I see the TMP Enterprise as being made of some very "white" metal, though Andrew Probert has stated that he always envisioned it as being some sort of ceramic composite. In the end, it's made up of "pictures on a screen" so you can choose whatever approach you prefer.

I'm trying to figure out the best means to achieve the appearance I want for my TOS Enterprise right now. I want it to be visually indistinguishable from the ship seen on my TV set, but to be "more real." (Think of the image you see on your screen as "shot through gauze" in other words!)

In the end, as has been stated, there's no "right" or "wrong" answer as long as the model looks "right" to you (and, of course, to those whom you'll show it off to!)

There are quite a few pages ON THIS VERY WEBSITE which go on, at length, about how to paint this ship. I strongly recommend searching the site, rather than starting a whole new thread to dig into this. In particular, I'd recommend you look up a thread started by a member who goes by "TrekModeler" here, where he shows extensive photographs of his work replicating the on-screen appearance, with side-by-size images of his build-up and the images from the film... they're nearly indistinguishable!

In the end, it seems that yes, (a) a base coat of perlescent white (automotive laquer), with thin layers of iridescent paints of various hues atop that... that is, if you really want to replicate the "as seen on-screen" appearance from TMP.

If you want to use the "aztec decals," you'll likely just want to go with a very, very pale grey (nearly, but not quite, white... ) and the decals atop that. 

In the end... the only person who can tell you what's "right" is YOU. But, if you want to know how the studio model was painted... you should listen to what people are telling you. And yes... it was painted white.

EDIT: Here's the thread I was referring to above:

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=273113


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

And I thought this was going to be another philosophical discussion on the TOS color.:tongue:


----------



## J2 builder (Apr 8, 2012)

How's this for philosophy, one gray one, one white one....DONE!


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

J2 builder said:


> The instructions from my 1/350 TMP kit suggest pearlescent white. I don't see the ship as white in the movies. To me it looks like a gray-ish, silver-ish sort of metallic color. Certainly the original series ship was a light gray color...wasn't it? Does anyone know the actual color, per canon or whatever, for both of these vessels?


The question you need to decide upon is, do you want it to look the way it does in person or the way it does on screen????? Because any space craft is going to look different on screen than it does when it is sitting right in front of you due to the lighting the fx guys use for filming.


----------



## J2 builder (Apr 8, 2012)

irishtrek said:


> The question you need to decide upon is, do you want it to look the way it does in person or the way it does on screen????? Because any space craft is going to look different on screen than it does when it is sitting right in front of you due to the lighting the fx guys use for filming.


In my mind the only "real" Enterprise is what we see on the screen. It is a vessel over 900 feet long, weighs a million metric tons and can travel hundreds of times faster than light. But sadly since the Enterprise is fictitious one can never see the real thing.

As you said the miniatures used for filming only approximate the real ship because their appearance can change based on lighting, etc. Whatever color it appears to be on screen must be the color the film-makers intended the ship to be. The actual real life color of the filming model is irrelevant...just my opinion.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Over the years I have painted my refit, that was the original model in question on this thread, both white and light gray. It depended which ship I was trying to duplicate from which film. As I said, for ST:TMP I have always painted it a base coat of white, with light gray detailing. For ST: II or III, I have painted it in light gray with darker gray details. I have been very happy with the look of both of them, they capture the impression the films have given me of how they should look.

I have often speculated that since the Enterprise in ST:TMP was not ready for space, the aztec pattern was an undercoat. THe ship registries were added so she could go fight V'GER, but after that mission, she was given a slight coat of light gray to finish he off and that is what we see in ST: II.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

In another thread, we decided to paint it purple and sparkley!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

John P said:


> In another thread, we decided to paint it purple and sparkley!


----------



## Bradleyfett (Jan 22, 2003)

Momentary side-track:

Congrats to everyone for responding to the (what some would call) newbie question with an informative, concise and friendly discussion instead of turning it into a snark-fest. THAT is the way to perpetuate this hobby!

Carry on.

M


----------



## Richard Baker (Aug 8, 2006)

RSN said:


> I have often speculated that since the Enterprise in ST:TMP was not ready for space, the aztec pattern was an undercoat. THe ship registries were added so she could go fight V'GER, but after that mission, she was given a slight coat of light gray to finish he off and that is what we see in ST: II.


I wish I could remember where I read it, but the Motion Piture version was described as bare metal with the prismatic aztecing caused by how the different metal plate's structures diffracted light. After it's return from the V'Ger mission it was finished off with the hull finishes normally used.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Richard Baker said:


> I wish I could remember where I read it, but the Motion Piture version was described as bare metal with the prismatic aztecing caused by how the different metal plate's structures diffracted light. After it's return from the V'Ger mission it was finished off with the hull finishes normally used.


Is that from one of the novels written over the years? It has always made more sense to me that way, if you try to find reasons for why things look different in a fantasy world.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

John P said:


> In another thread, we decided to paint it purple and sparkley!


Well... "decided" is not yet the case... gotta see if I can convince Christi to agree to her part on this, as suggested elsewhere!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I'm thinking go with a gloss white and let the aztec decals take care of the flat areas.

Not a perfect theory, but it's a starting point.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Richard Baker said:


> I wish I could remember where I read it, but the Motion Piture version was described as bare metal with the prismatic aztecing caused by how the different metal plate's structures diffracted light. After it's return from the V'Ger mission it was finished off with the hull finishes normally used.


If memory serves, this was a line in the TMP novelization, supposedly written by Roddenberry, but as I understood, really "ghost-written" by someone else, with "additions" by Roddenberry (mainly social commentary and the like).

I'm pretty sure that the idea that this ship was "unpainted" was one of the observations that Kirk made in the novelization, and I'd suspect that this was one of the Roddenberry "contributions."

I have that book... but it's stored away, inside of a sealed "book carton" box, and I have no real desire to go crack it open right now. But maybe someone else can confirm/deny my recollections?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

My recollection is that the unpainted notion came from "Mr. Scott's Guide To the Enterprise". The idea was apparently to save weight, like was done with the main fuel tank for the space shuttles.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Captain April said:


> My recollection is that the unpainted notion came from "Mr. Scott's Guide To the Enterprise". The idea was apparently to save weight, like was done with the main fuel tank for the space shuttles.


This I do recall. It was minus it's customary "thermocoat" or some such.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> This I do recall. It was minus it's customary "thermocoat" or some such.


Direct quote from the book in question:

"In order to save adding many tons of mass to the vessel, it was decided, for the first time ever (in Star Fleet history), not to paint a Federation vessel with the customary light-gray thermocoat. In fact, Enterprise's pearlescent, bare-alloy appearance was so favorably received that Star Fleet has eliminated thermocoat from all vessels of 90,000 tons and above."

If Scotty says it, it must be true!


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

John P said:


> This I do recall. It was minus it's customary "thermocoat" or some such.


I remember the term "thermocoat" used as well. I don't remember the text exactly, but the omission of the thermocoat wasn't left out due to practical reasons such as weight. It was due to circumstances during the refit.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Well, that all makes the back-story that I created for myself seem correct. As I posted earlier, They only had time to paint the registry markings before going to face V'GER and in ST: II it appered more gray and less shiny because they had put the final top coat on. I know all the "real world" reasons for it, I just made an "in universe" one as well.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Guys, there is a flaw in the slaw about saving weight in outer space, it makes no difference what a ship weighs because there is no gravity in outer space!!


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

irishtrek said:


> Guys, there is a flaw in the slaw about saving weight in outer space, it makes no difference what a ship weighs because there is no gravity in outer space!!


I think the weight thing is just BS from people who don't know science. To me it would have just been that they didn't have time to finish it in ST: TMP and that a light gray over-coat was always intended and then added later.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

irishtrek said:


> Guys, there is a flaw in the slaw about saving weight in outer space, it makes no difference what a ship weighs because there is no gravity in outer space!!


Uh... TOTAL AND COMPLETE NONSENSE.

Did you even take basic physics?

Here's one of the most fundamental equations associated with kinematics and dynamics: F = m . a

Force equals mass times acceleration.

"Weight" is simply the force seen by a mass, based upon the acceleration provided by gravity. If "gravity" is zero, then yes, "weight" is also zero.

But MASS is what we're talking about. The two aren't the same thing. Mass exists in space. And FORCE exists in space. And yes, when "gravity" exists in space, the force known as "weight" exists as well. For example, objects in orbit are being affected by gravity, by definition, and thus have weight. It's just the case that there are two equal and opposing forces... the "weight" of the object, pulling it towards Earth, and the "centripetal force" caused by the object moving in circles around the planet, which cancel each other out

Let's carry the "paint" example to an extreme. Suppose that the mass of paint applied to the ship were, somehow, to equal 10% of the mass of the ship.

The result would be that you'd require 10% more thrust force to achieve the same level of acceleration. Which means burning a lot more fuel to achieve the same result.

Basic "High school science class" stuff here, guys.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

CLBrown said:


> It's just the case that there are two equal and opposing forces ... the "weight" of the object, pulling it towards Earth, and the "centripetal force" caused by the object moving in circles around the planet, which cancel each other out.


I think you mean "inertia", not "centripetal force". 

http://suite101.com/article/centripetal-forces-and-centrifugal-effects-a130094


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Not really. The virtual "centrifugal force" is an exact balance to the real "centripetal force." But yeah, from a purely newtonian frame of references, this is correct. From the standpoint of the object in orbit (which is not really "newtonian" internally), yeah.

I didn't want to go on a full-length dissertation... but I couldn't let the "add more material, it doesn't matter, cause it's SPACE" thing to go unchallenged.


----------



## Blufusion (Jan 30, 2010)

*The painting of the STTMP Modeel.*

I know we all want to be correct to what we saw on the screen. But it's just a model. Most people that you show it too will not even know or care about what pearleasant color it was in the movie they will usually be impressed by the wary it was built and by the light that are in it. There are more things in life than this discussion that has been beaten to death.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Blufusion said:


> I know we all want to be correct to what we saw on the screen. But it's just a model. Most people that you show it too will not even know or care about what pearleasant color it was in the movie they will usually be impressed by the wary it was built and by the light that are in it. There are more things in life than this discussion that has been beaten to death.


What? As far as I'm aware, no one is being forced to read this or participate in it. Why would anyone want to stifle conversation?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Blufusion said:


> I know we all want to be correct to what we saw on the screen. But it's just a model. Most people that you show it too will not even know or care about what pearleasant color it was in the movie they will usually be impressed by the wary it was built and by the light that are in it. There are more things in life than this discussion that has been beaten to death.


Yes there are and in those arenas, they are discussed at great length. If you open a post on Hobby Talk that is about "What color the Enterprise is", you find a discussion about that here! :thumbsup:


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

CLBrown said:


> I didn't want to go on a full-length dissertation...


No dissertation needed ... you just mixed up "centrifugal" and "centripetal" in your original post: you said that "weight" and "centripetal" forces cancel each other out, but they really serve the same function: to keep the orbiting object from shooting off into space. 

(I just used "inertia" instead of "centrifugal" for the reasons you mentioned in your second post.)

I promise not to extend this any further.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

RSN said:


> If you open a post on Hobby Talk that is about "What color the Enterprise is", you find a discussion about that here! :thumbsup:


_*WHAT?*_ When did we start matching topic titles to the thread contents? Did I miss a memo?


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

jheilman said:


> _*WHAT?*_ When did we start matching topic titles to the thread contents? Did I miss a memo?


Yup.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

RSN said:


> Yes there are and in those arenas, they are discussed at great length. If you open a post on Hobby Talk that is about "What color the Enterprise is", you find a discussion about that here! :thumbsup:


Yeah. Imagine that.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

RSN said:


> Yup.


Logic? Reason? Rationality?

I'm very, very afraid... :freak:


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

CLBrown said:


> Logic? Reason? Rationality?
> 
> I'm very, very afraid... :freak:


Law of averages.........had to happen. I am just as shocked as everyone else that it happened to us!!


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Captain April said:


> My recollection is that the unpainted notion came from "Mr. Scott's Guide To the Enterprise". The idea was apparently to save weight, like was done with the main fuel tank for the space shuttles.


There is that, but I'm still pretty sure that the line I'm thinking of was in the TMP novelization. A line in the book, supposedly a thought in Kirk's head, about how the hull of the ship looked during the "inspection" run. I barely remember the book, because it was... well, it made the movie seem fast-paced and exciting by comparison. Roddenberry (or whoever his ghost-writer was) did a remarkably poor job of writing that... though I HAVE read worse over the years.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Blufusion said:


> I know we all want to be correct to what we saw on the screen. But it's just a model. Most people that you show it too will not even know or care about what pearleasant color it was in the movie they will usually be impressed by the wary it was built and by the light that are in it. There are more things in life than this discussion that has been beaten to death.


Go stand in the Borg cubicle until your geek card has recharged. Its battery is obviously low.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Sorry, but back when I went to high school I don't recall them having what to me is obviously advanced science classes, atfer all I'm almost 58 years young.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

jheilman said:


> _*WHAT?*_ When did we start matching topic titles to the thread contents? Did I miss a memo?



Yes, ........and your TPS reports are the wrong format ! LOL !


----------

