# Revell/Germany Original U.S.S. Enterprise reviewed.



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

Hi Folks, I saw the recent edition of Finescale Modeler yesterday and the Original Starship Enterprise model from Revell/Germany was reviewed. The guy who reviewed it I remember also reviewed the Enterprise E model when it came out in late 1997. He said the decals are some of the best hes ever seen it a Trek kit and he gave the Enterprise model very high praise as one of the best ever produced and I have to agree. He painted it with a mix of Tamiya JN Light Gray as I recall he had 3 photos of his assembled model. He also addressed the fact that the model has those engraved panel lines all over the model and he said he knows some people don't like them. He also said the lines were drawn on the Original studio model. I plan to pick up this copy because I have the Revell Enterprise. Its worth checking out and Happy 46th to our beloved Star Trek. Today it premiered on NBC 46 years ago. Guy Schlicter.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Good review, but he didn't mention the outrageous inaccuracies that we've all noted. I guess FSM's readers wouldn't care about that.


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

I had to pass on it myself. I felt like the trenches made it look too much like a die cast.

HAL9001-


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

For me it was the shape problems...especially that lip on the lower saucer.


----------



## djnick66 (May 2, 2008)

FSM is, for the most part, a joke as far as anything half way serious is concerned. I can't think of any review that was particularly critical even if the reviewed kit has well known, obvious issues.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Finescale Modeler kit reviews of Sci-Fi kits are usually not all that good, it seems the reviewers don't know the subjects that well. As for the kit, Revell of Germany dropped the ball big time here. They had a chance to produce a modern, accurate kit of the Enterprise that would effectively replace the old AMT kit. Instead, they made a kit with so many inaccuracies that it's laughable. Seeing that it costs just under $60 for the kit (shipped from England or thru Starship Modeler), I'd rather put that money towards getting the Round 2 big E.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Aside from the accuracy issues, the kit is very well engineered, and serves as a primer for building the larger and truly accurate PL 1/350 kit. The parts breakout is very similar in many areas, and allows for very solid construction. It also is allowing me to rehearse many of the ideas I will use to build the larger PL model, including lighting layouts (using the new 'strip' LEDs) and other techniques I plan to incorporate. 

I have found that many of those who are most vocally critical of the kit don't actually own one. Although not screen accurate, it's a very good kit and has already served me well with my plans for the PL hero kit, and I look forward to finishing and displaying it. I also have a second one (and three of the Revell Klingon ships) that I have plans for.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Can't answer for anyone else, but as for me, I never said the Revell kit is not well engineered. From what I've heard and seen of the kit, it is. All I'm saying is, IMO, for what you have to pay, considering how inaccurate it is, the kit is not worth the price if your just looking for a kit of the Enterprise to make. But, that's just me, I can understand why someone else would feel differently. If the kit was readily available here in the states, say between $30-$40 plus tax, I might pick one up just for the heck of it. But, at $60+, it's a no go for me.

Also, why would anyone have to own the kit before having an opinion on it? It's been out for a while now and has been reviewed/discussed on this and other forums and magazines several times, with photos that clearly show how the kit looks, unassembled and assembled. With all of this, anyone can make a decision as to wither or not they like the kit, without having to purchase it first. That's what a review it for.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

It is sad because there really isn't any excuse for this model's inaccuracies. The 22 inch cutaway was based on the best available plans at the time (by Allen Everheart), but by the time the 1/1000 kit was released (around 2003) there was plenty of good reference information available for producing accurate kits. The Revell kit, at worst, shouldn't have been far off of the accuracy of the 1/1000 kit… but ended up with about the same accuracy as the 22 inch cutaway.

I'd love to hear the story behind the designing of this kit. I can only guess that the designer didn't have access to the internet, because there has been no shortage of fairly accurate plans of the 11 foot model on the net for more than a decade.

Of course the answer to "why" is likely the simplest one… the designer most likely had no previous (or very little) Star Trek background and the design was researched and finished in about two months (from September 2010 to November 2010). That is an unreasonably short period for someone who is not familiar with the nuances of the Enterprise to get up to speed and produce a design of not only the starship, but a model kit of it. Had the designer been given a little more breathing room in his schedule, I'm sure some attempts to reach out to the community for input would have been possible and the accuracy would have improved.

I wouldn't want to compare the design and development of the 1/350 TOS Enterprise to this one (as that wouldn't be a fair comparison), but it can be compared (unfavorably) to the design and development of the 1/1000 TOS Enterprise 9 years earlier by Polar Lights/Playing Mantis (an early mock up of that model can be seen here).

I'm not saying that effort wasn't expended on this kit, I'm sure quite a bit was (and is evident in the quality of the construction by all accounts). But what was most likely needed to make this kit better was time for the designer to get to know the subject… and I'd guess that that was time that Revell wasn't willing to give.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

spock62 said:


> Can't answer for anyone else, but as for me, I never said the Revell kit is not well engineered. From what I've heard and seen of the kit, it is. All I'm saying is, IMO, for what you have to pay, considering how inaccurate it is, the kit is not worth the price if your just looking for a kit of the Enterprise to make. But, that's just me, I can understand why someone else would feel differently. If the kit was readily available here in the states, say between $30-$40 plus tax, I might pick one up just for the heck of it. But, at $60+, it's a no go for me.


I paid $39.99 each for mine at HobbyTown.













spock62 said:


> Also, why would anyone have to own the kit before having an opinion on it? It's been out for a while now and has been reviewed/discussed on this and other forums and magazines several times, with photos that clearly show how the kit looks, unassembled and assembled. With all of this, anyone can make a decision as to wither or not they like the kit, without having to purchase it first. That's what a review it for.


I had a rather low opinion of the kit as well - very much influenced by other online reviewers. That changed when I actually purchased the kits. Now, the inaccuracies haven't changed, nor my echoing what others have said about them. But, once I examined the kit first-hand, and began using it as a testbed for the upcoming PL kit, my opinion changed and I was quite happy that I made the purchase, along with the Klingon ships, which I like even more.

If you choose not to purchase one, that is up to you. I made the choice, despite all of the reviews and concerns, and am very glad that I did.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

For me, I can appreciate the Revell kit just fine... as the Potemkin. Just not as the Enterprise.

I can also accept the AMT kit as the Constellation.

Just like in real life, where different ships of the same class may have noticably different shapes, but identical (or at least nearly so) operational capabilities.

Different shipyards, different equipment vendors, but identical requirements definitions.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> I paid $39.99 each for mine at HobbyTown.


I was just at my local HobbyTown (Sanford, FL) last week and they didn't have this kit. In fact, I've been there several times since the kit was released and have never seen this kit for sale. Isn't it only for release in Europe? Was this a special order?


----------



## Chrisisall (May 12, 2011)

hal9001 said:


> I had to pass on it myself. I felt like the trenches made it look too much like a die cast.


LOL, yeah.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I'll resurrect my thread on the subject once that replacement part comes in, but accuracy issues aside, I rather like it. It's certainly more of a challenge than the AMT kit, which I like to describe as something any one of us could literally build blindfolded.


----------



## jaws62666 (Mar 25, 2009)

Trek Ace said:


> I paid $39.99 each for mine at HobbyTown.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I just finished the D7. I think it looks great. I have the Enterprise as well. Dont know when I will do that as I am waiting for the 1/350 Big E 

http://www.hobbytalk.com/bbs1/showthread.php?t=373140


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

This was very poorly researched crap. A for effort, F for execution. Try again Revell, ...or better yet, wait for the 350 TOS 'E' to see how a starship is DONE!


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

One thing about the Revell 1701 kit... the mistakes they made with the secondary hull are not unique to that kit. I recently took a close look at my 22" "cutaway" (I never built it, mind you, because although some elements were improved from the 18"... too many were just WRONG.)

The bizarre errors on the front of the secondary hull, found on the Revell kit, are also present on the Ertl 22" cutaway.

I also noticed that the primary hull "top" has a clear seam between the flat region and the "humped up" region on both kits, unlike the as-seen-on-screen ship. I didn't review the underside primary hull (that was at the bottom of the box and I didn't feel like having to repack the whole thing... I JUST took off the lid to look inside!)

I wonder... was reviewing that kit a key element of their "research" for this kit?

Anyone have a "stock" version of the 22" cutaway, or some good photos of one, we can do a completely built-up comparison from?

If so... Hmmm... making a model (Revell) based upon a model (Ertl 22"), based upon a model (AMT 18"), based upon a model (11' filming mini, 3' filming mini, maybe even "little Enteprise on a chain" filming mini")?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The point's been made several times that this kit doesn't suffer from insufficient research, it suffers from too much research, and trying to amalgamize too many different versions into one kit. Some bits are from the eleven footer, some from the three footer, some from the animated version, and some nuggets from the CGI version.

What we got was a big ol' dish of Starship Hash. How tasty it is depends on you.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Captain April said:


> The point's been made several times that this kit doesn't suffer from insufficient research, it suffers from too much research, and trying to amalgamize too many different versions into one kit. Some bits are from the eleven footer, some from the three footer, some from the animated version, and some nuggets from the CGI version.
> 
> What we got was a big ol' dish of Starship Hash. How tasty it is depends on you.


Sort of like putting a chocolate creme pie into a blender with some smoked salmon...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Hey, it has possibilities. Depending on the ratio of salmon to pie, of course...


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

CLBrown said:


> Sort of like putting a chocolate creme pie into a blender with some smoked salmon...


That's just nasty.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

CLBrown said:


> Sort of like putting a chocolate creme pie into a blender with some smoked salmon...


Nice ANALogy. I could see Dan Akroyd mixing that up right now...


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

CLBrown said:


> Sort of like putting a chocolate creme pie into a blender with some smoked salmon...


"I-i-it tastes like FEET!"


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Gemini1999 said:


> "I-i-it tastes like FEET!"


OMG! Ross.......!


----------



## Gemini1999 (Sep 25, 2008)

Ductapeforever said:


> OMG! Ross.......!


I hoped that someone would pick up on that quote...


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Captain April said:


> I'll resurrect my thread on the subject once that replacement part comes in, but accuracy issues aside, I rather like it. It's certainly more of a challenge than the AMT kit, which I like to describe as something any one of us could literally build blindfolded.


Probably best to look at it that way too!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

One of us should to a video of doing just that, building an AMT kit blindfolded, right down to the fiddleybits, and post it on YouTube.


----------



## Scorpitat (Oct 7, 2004)

Can't we just video Dan Akroyd putting the kit in a blender? :wave::thumbsup:


----------



## scifiguy67 (Jan 18, 2011)

well the this kit is going to be my 3 footer & the1/350 is going to be my 11footer!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

spock62 said:


> Can't answer for anyone else, but as for me, I never said the Revell kit is not well engineered. From what I've heard and seen of the kit, it is. All I'm saying is, IMO, for what you have to pay, considering how inaccurate it is, the kit is not worth the price if your just looking for a kit of the Enterprise to make. But, that's just me, I can understand why someone else would feel differently. If the kit was readily available here in the states, say between $30-$40 plus tax, I might pick one up just for the heck of it. But, at $60+, it's a no go for me.
> 
> Also, why would anyone have to own the kit before having an opinion on it? It's been out for a while now and has been reviewed/discussed on this and other forums and magazines several times, with photos that clearly show how the kit looks, unassembled and assembled. With all of this, anyone can make a decision as to wither or not they like the kit, without having to purchase it first. That's what a review it for.


I agree with your take on the situation--in spades! :thumbsup:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The opinion carries more weight when the opinion holder has direct experience in the matter, in this case, actually building the thing, or at least handling it close up in your own widdle hands.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> The opinion carries more weight when the opinion holder has direct experience in the matter, in this case, actually building the thing, or at least handling it close up in your own widdle hands.


In my first post, I was talking about the kit being inaccurate. While handling/building a kit helps you to appreciate how well it may or may not go together, neither is needed to see wither or not a kit is accurate as long as there are good photos available. In the case of the Revell Enterprise kit, there are plenty of photos of the finished, production kit out there. Many can be found on this forum. Others can be found on other forums, blogs and magazines. When you compare what Revell did, against the original, 11 foot prop used on the show, it is quite obvious that the kit is inaccurate. While it is better in some respects compared to the old AMT kit, the Revell kit has more then it's share of faults.

Since I have pretty good eyesight and can clearly see the differences between the Revell kit and the original prop on my computer monitor, why would I need to hold it in, as you put it, my "widdle" hands? Again, my original post was directed at the inaccuracy of the kit, not on how well it's engineered. To me, this is the beauty of internet forums/blogs and modeler mags, the reviews/discussions can help me decide wither or not a kit is worth purchasing BEFORE I make the purchase and possibly waste my money if the kit doesn't live up to my expectations.

Notice I said me, not you. If you feel that the kit is worth the money, buy it. What's the big deal that some of us have a different opinion of this kit than you (and others) do?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I really don't care one way or the other. As it is, this issue was already bashed into a fine paste several months ago when all we had to go on were pics of test shots, along with the reasons why certain things came out on the kit as they did, so it's a case of "asked and answered, move along, counselor" as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> I really don't care one way or the other. As it is, this issue was already bashed into a fine paste several months ago when all we had to go on were pics of test shots, along with the reasons why certain things came out on the kit as they did, so it's a case of "asked and answered, move along, counselor" as far as I'm concerned.


If you don't care, one way or the other, why keep posting on this thread? You should take your own advice: move along.


----------



## Maritain (Jan 16, 2008)

I just got my kit in the mail today from SSM. I was critical of it too, and yes it does warrant it when compared to the USS Enterprise for accuracy, or lack thereof. But as a kit in itself or as just a "starship" I like it. It does have a lot more detail the the old AMT 18 inch kit and I think that's pretty neat. I like the grids lines, mainly for a starting point to do a Aztec type paint job on it. The windows will be great for adding a lighting system. I also like the bridge and b and c decks. Plus the nacelle detail I think it nice for the size of the kit and it's price. The decals look to be very nice as well. 
I am looking forward to seeing what I can do with it and see if I can make a decent "starship" out of it.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Maritain said:


> I just got my kit in the mail today from SSM. I was critical of it too, and yes it does warrant it when compared to the USS Enterprise for accuracy, or lack thereof. But as a kit in itself or as just a "starship" I like it. It does have a lot more detail the the old AMT 18 inch kit and I think that's pretty neat. I like the grids lines, mainly for a starting point to do a Aztec type paint job on it. The windows will be great for adding a lighting system. I also like the bridge and b and c decks. Plus the nacelle detail I think it nice for the size of the kit and it's price. The decals look to be very nice as well.
> I am looking forward to seeing what I can do with it and see if I can make a decent "starship" out of it.


As far as I can tell (I don't have the Revell Enterprise yet, only the Klingon)... the main issues with this kit have to do with the front of the secondary hull and the underside of the primary hull. Both are BADLY off. The secondary hull front seems, I've now noticed, to be an exact replication of the same flawed "take" which the Ertl 22" cut-away showed in that area... meaning both referenced the same "bad" reference material, or Revell referenced the earlier Ertl 22" kit. I'm not sure WHERE they came up with the bizarrely-incorrect underside. I can easily see why they put on the gridlines (hate them as I may), and should I build that kit (which is seeming more and more likely) I'll certainly fill those in.

I'd love to hear your own analysis. Are there any other areas which strike you as especially "wrong" or particularly "nice" as far as this kit goes?

I'm going to build it... as the Potemkin. And I may build one last "Classic AMT" kit as the Constellation (pre-doomsday-machine). Both will have to be done to the same level of work as the new Round2 kit, though... if they're going to sit alongside it, that is. I'm leaning towards having the Enterprise be built at San Francisco naval yards, with Constellation built at a European yard, and Potemkin will be built at Utopia Planitia. Different dockyards, different details... but identical specs, identical capabilities, and identical "servicing requirements." Which is all which is REALLY required for ships to be considered part of a class. They need not be visually indistinguishable, after all. Just "functionally interchangeable."


----------



## Maritain (Jan 16, 2008)

CLBrown said:


> I'd love to hear your own analysis. Are there any other areas which strike you as especially "wrong" or particularly "nice" as far as this kit goes?"


Well the fact the housing that the deflector dish goes into isn't angled/tapered at all it seems, bugs me the most, aesthetics are definitely lost there. The rest I can live with if...

... I try to look at the model on it's own right and not compare too much to the original filming model and when I do that I have to say I like it. Again for the reasons stated before, for what it is in itself I think it has a lot to offer.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

CLBrown said:


> I'm going to build it... as the Potemkin. And I may build one last "Classic AMT" kit as the Constellation (pre-doomsday-machine). Both will have to be done to the same level of work as the new Round2 kit, though... if they're going to sit alongside it, that is. I'm leaning towards having the Enterprise be built at San Francisco naval yards, with Constellation built at a European yard, and Potemkin will be built at Utopia Planitia. Different dockyards, different details... but identical specs, identical capabilities, and identical "servicing requirements." Which is all which is REALLY required for ships to be considered part of a class. They need not be visually indistinguishable, after all. Just "functionally interchangeable."


That's a truly open-minded way to approach it! I like it!:wave:


----------

