# MR TOS E FEP pics



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2006)

That's Master Replicas' The Original Series Enterprise First Engineering Prototype pics.

Here's a first look at what's coming. Technically I think it's 1/4 Studio Scale since it's not 11 foot long.

http://masterreplicas.com/pub/enterprisedevelopment1.jpg

http://masterreplicas.com/pub/enterprisedevelopment2.jpg

http://masterreplicas.com/pub/enterprisedevelopment3.jpg

http://masterreplicas.com/pub/enterprisedevelopment4.jpg

Barry


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Hey that's looking very promising!


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Very nice , very nice. :thumbsup: 
Any more info?


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Cool! Wish it would come in kit form!


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

I hope they plug those screw holes when it's released, because they just don't look right and if you have to do it your self then any warranty would be void.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Also looks like metal supports of the nacelle pylons. No drooping!


----------



## schmidtjv (Apr 7, 2004)

This Master Replicas TOS Enterprise will finally remove the ugly nightmare of the Unobtainiium POS Enterprise!

The pictures are of the engineering prototype, the final product will not have the screw-holes. :thumbsup: 

John


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Now, THAT'S the way you do a display model!

Solidly built with quality workmanship and materials. It'll be worth every penny.

BTW, here's three more pics:

http://masterreplicas.com/pub/enterprisedevelopment5.jpg

http://masterreplicas.com/pub/enterprisedevelopment6.jpg

http://masterreplicas.com/pub/enterprisedevelopment7.jpg


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

I'm thinking, what, $1,500.00 for a finished replica? MR produces fantastic work, but cheap they're not.

Between the Falcon and the Enterprise (not to mention the vintage Disneyland Monorail) the next few months are shaping up to be more taxing than usual on the pocketbook.

No Wonderfest for me this year. Air-fare from L.A. to Louisville is insane, and I'd rather spend my $ on the aforementioned replicas.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Agreed!

Any preliminary idea of price for the E?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Great ideas in those photos for modifying or scratchbuilding!


----------



## Darth Humorous (Dec 6, 2001)

Good Heavens is that sweet!

Mark


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Schweet! 

Sux about not making WF, Carson! 'Course, I say that and I prolly won't even be back to The World when WF kicks off, so it's not like I'd be around to buy you a beer anyhow. Maybe next year? Or perhaps you should think about going to Chicago in August to make the Starship Modeler 10th Anniversary 'Lesterfest' Celebration. Airfare might be a lot cheaper. It'll also be a much smaller crowd w/more time to BS w/folks if you're of a mind to.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Griffworks said:


> Sux about not making WF, Carson!


I can fly to London (!) cheaper than I can fly to Louisville. Maybe next year...



Griffworks said:


> Or perhaps you should think about going to Chicago in August to make the Starship Modeler 10th Anniversary 'Lesterfest' Celebration.


Hmmmm... reasonable airfare... jazz... ribs... spaceship models... 

That may be an offer I can't refuse. I'll look into it.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Carson Dyle said:


> I can fly to London (!) cheaper than I can fly to Louisville.


I know the feeling. I had the option of flying from LA to New Orleans (pre-Katrina) last summer for a week. I balked because the airfare was astronomical (plus I had an opportunity to go to Vegas for a week).

Now, because of Katrina, I wish I had gone.

However, I digress.

My schedule will prevent me from attending Wonderfest yet again this year. But, I guess I can instead spend the money on a couple of nice original _Enterprise_ display pieces from Master Replicas. :lol:

Pity that I couldn't have spent the same amount on several dozen 1/350 model kits of the same scale, had a certain model company not have been sold and dissolved.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Did you say 1/4 scale to the studio model?

Ok lets se here.

134 in. divide by 4 = 33.5 in.

Ok

33.5 in. X 350 = 11,725 in.

11,725 in. divide by 12 = 977.08 ft.

Sounds DARN close to 1/350 scale to me.

May just have to spring for this puppy.

I know these guys make great product, but I really hope they decided to make it 1/350 scale to make up for the absense of a PL 1/350 TOS Enterprise.


----------



## schmidtjv (Apr 7, 2004)

According to my local MR rep, the price will be about $1,200, the internet exclusive pilot version will be about $1,300, and the assault (Trek V-VI)phaser will be about $450.

Pricey, but compared to what I got from Unobtainium, IMHO, well worth it.

John
Saving my pennies now.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

$1,200! Ouch. But about what I was expecting. I really hope that I can afford one.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Price is steep no question and many will stay way because of that. But looks like they are doing their homework so will be worth it if you ask me. Im betting the paint will be the greatest point of argument for accuracy, rust ring, grid lines, all the usual suspects people battle over. 

I'm ready to order thats for sure.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

OMG! That is truly just too damn cool. If it turns out as we all hope I seriously have to find a way to get one.

:thumbsup:


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I guess the next question is, how many will they offer?


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

ClubTepes said:


> Did you say 1/4 scale to the studio model?
> 
> Ok lets se here.
> 
> ...


For your information, just in case you don't already know that is, there were not 1 but 2 filming models, the one in the Smithsonian and a 33" that was detailed on both sides not just 1.
Gene Roddenberry was able to keep the small one after ST was cancelled, he then loaned it out to somebody years ago aand never saw it again.
According to book the Making of Star Trek the Enterprise is supposed to be 947ft. long, that equels out to 11364inches= 350 is 32.468571 inches.
And 947ft. is the same as 288.6 meters.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2006)

The MR TOS E is 1/350th scale. It's approximately 32.47 inches long.

Barry


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

Very nice but.........
MR Enterprise top front 

I don't remember the red and green lights on top of the warp engines. Was this just the pilot or 1st season?


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

There were small lights there for sure on the original, but they were not really lit much if at all. These LEDs look too large to represent them correctly and I dont know if they were red and green. But its a prototype afterall.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2006)

There are little domes on the top of the nacelles above the lit end caps on the 11 foot Enterprise and on the smaller three foot one.

The smaller model that is seen in publicity pics with William Shatner holding it, looks to have the same small domes and they appear to be red and green. They didn't light on the smaller model.

The ones on the MR prototype as noted are too large and that issue is being addressed. Overall the lighting effects look cool on the model.

It's a strange thing but the simplicity of the TOS E makes it look like a piece of elegant sculpture. I like it a lot.

Barry


----------



## Matt houston (Mar 31, 2005)

Will the nacell "fan blades" spin?


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

Pretty damn impressive!


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2006)

The nacelles have fan blades in them that spin. Yes 

Barry


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

[email protected] said:


> The MR TOS E is 1/350th scale. It's approximately 32.47 inches long.
> 
> Barry


If thats the case, then I'm in. Looks like I'm selling my motorcycle. (Haven't really ridden it since I became a dad).


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

No!!! You can't sell your motorcycle! Get another job!


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

I hafta say, if anyone other than MR was producing this particular replica I'd write us all off as deluded suckers (knock on wood). 

That said, I've done a fair amount of business with these guys over the last few years (if my wife knew how much she'd hit me over the head with a board), and I've been consistantly impressed with their work. From a Quality Control standpoint they're doing something right, Going Where No High-End Replica-Maker Has Managed to Go Before.

With the possible exception of their Hand Phaser (which is a work of Geek Art IMO) the TOS Enterprise is probably the most technically challenging product MR has ever had to "get right." For fans, collectors, and assorted nostalgia-fueled Pop Culture nuts, this is the Holy Grail; a detailed functioning replica of the most famous (ficticious) spaceship ever concocted. And while the Responsible Adult in me feels silly for getting so worked up about what is essentially an expensive toy, the Trek-loving Kid in me is giddy with anticipation. 

Here's hoping...

By the way, has MR hinted at a projected release date yet?


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

CessnaDriver said:


> Price is steep no question and many will stay way because of that. But looks like they are doing their homework so will be worth it if you ask me. Im betting the paint will be the greatest point of argument for accuracy, rust ring, grid lines, all the usual suspects people battle over.
> 
> I'm ready to order thats for sure.


 
*God NO!!!!!!!!!*

*PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE! IF ANYONE FROM MasterReplicas IS LISTENING PLEASE, *
*NO "MR. ED" RUST RINGS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*

HELL NO! 

At most maybe some barely perceptible lines on the top of the saucer *with no ridiculous "rust rings" ANYWHERE!!!!!*

*PLEASE DON'T PUT LINES ANYWHERE ELSE* BUT THE TOP OF THE SAUCER, JUST LIKE THE PRODUCTION MODEL, *AND ZERO RUST RINGS ANYWHERE!!!!*

*PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE!* 

Don't be a horse's butt! Please, no "Mr. Ed" rust rings!


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I think the key word you are looking for here regarding the "rust rings" or any other weathering and detail represented is 'subtlety'.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Less is more, less is more , less is more, when it comes to a lot of this stuff.

and quite frankly if they are in doubt, I hope they omit it and modellers can add these things at will.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2006)

Here's some more inside information that might help put your minds at ease.

Famed Star Trek production illustrator John Eaves, at work on the MR TOS paint master.

http://masterreplicas.com/pub/enterprisedevelopment8.jpg

http://masterreplicas.com/pub/enterprisedevelopment9.jpg

Barry


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Eaves particpation is welcome news indeed. Thanks for the update.


----------



## Mariner Class (Aug 22, 2005)

Great. Now the model is ruined.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Sure would like to have listened in on the discussions on how they are going to paint her. So how does it work? they create a painted master and give the that and colors to be used to the manufacturer and say make a few thousand like this?


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2006)

Pretty much.

The paint master is used as a "proof." The artists at the factory use it as a guide to teach themselves how to accurately copy the paint work onto all the replica Enterprises.

Barry


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Any idea of what kind of 'Run' they are doing????


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2006)

The run size will be announced shortly. It's along the lines of what Master Replicas have done with their other Studio Scale models.

Barry


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Man look at Eaves blowing through the airbrush... you'd think MR could afford a decent compressor for the guy!


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

I hope MR allows some interviews with the principal folks in charge at some point, I would love to hear the details on this products development.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

The model is going to be beautiful without a doubt and MR has always turned out high quality products, worth the price (eventhough I can't afford them) but...

...it is sad to see in the photos on this thread that they missed some of the subtleties in the detail of the channel that runs along the inboard side of the warp nacelles. Of course the lack of these small touches will by no means detract from the look or overall quality of this very fine product. It will however mean that it cannot be claimed to be "the ulitimate" version of this ship.

It will definitely be well worth the asking price IMO, with or without those details.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

*inboard details*

Oh, I wouldn't give up hope yet, it's possible the detail just hasn't been attached or painted yet at the stage of construction in the pic.

They were pretty quick to correct those honkin' big lights atop the front of the nacelles.

I think it may be a wee bit early to second guess.

Looking good so far, let's see if/when it makes it to the shelf.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I agree... its way too soon to tell. The thing is being painted, so I'd expect not everything to be there, or to be masked somehow.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Nova Designs said:


> I agree... its way too soon to tell. The thing is being painted, so I'd expect not everything to be there, or to be masked somehow.



...and it is still a prototype he is painting. Im sure they must do several to get the look right. And Im sure they want to get some kind of product photos up on the web page too. I appreciate the openess that MR is doing by sharing the photos.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Additional pix have been posted to the MR Enterprise blog...

http://masterreplicas.com/customer/blogs/blogs_list.php

Nice to be kept in the loop.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2006)

I'm not sure what missing channel pieces are being refered to, but rest assured they've covered every detail on this piece. Bear in mind the parts may have been removed for painting.

They'll be more pics I'm sure as progress develops.

Barry


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

One things for sure, ain't no way that baby is going to have warp droop syndrome!


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Not missing pieces, incorrect shapes. As I said before, it isn't a major problem. In fact, I wasn't aware of these details myself until about a week ago and I've been studying pictures of this ship for years.

It is a fact that the human brain takes in visual information and jumps to conclusions in order to speed up the processing of data. This effect is what prevents us from noticing details that are subtle in nature. Things that are not parallel appear to be at first glance or things that have subtle curves appear flat, etc. This is what was missed in the channel detail, not missing parts. My study of the available pictures of the small filming miniature indicate that it does not have one of the two missing details I'm seeing in the MR photos. This is one of those little differences between the big model and the small one. Like I said before, this is a pretty small ommission and probably something 99% of the fans are unaware of so it will not affect anyones enjoyment of the MR product.

The only way for me to describe what I am seeing is to post sketches, which I may do if the others here want me too.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Well, my curiosity is piqued, post away! ;0


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

You may prevent a possible ommission of details by posting, MR folks probably follow these boards. They are still early on in the process, Im sure they can make changes to the final product if they missed some smaller details. Though if they have the experts advising them as we have been told, Im sure they wont miss anything.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Great close up pics here of the areas in question of the original 11 footer....

http://www.mjtsc.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/new/1701.htm


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> This is what was missed in the channel detail, not missing parts. My study of the available pictures of the small filming miniature . . .


If I'm not mistaken, the model will represent the 11 footer but at the scale of the 34" miniature.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2006)

Thanks for posting those pics. Rest assured the metal patterns and details are known 

Barry


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Any word on which lights will blink, and if some windows will be dark?

As Balok said,......... a thousand questions! LOL


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2006)

The windows that were lit will be lit and the windows that were dark will be dark. I think that's what you wanted to hear? 

Barry


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Yeah thats great. Unless they want to make one window turn off and on with "The Clapper".


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

the only real difference that I am aware of between the 3-footer and the 11-footer concerning that channel in the inside of the nacelles is that at the back the "frame" for the grills (if we can call it that) has a different shape at the back end.

On the 11 footer, its nearly square, tapering slighly, and on the 3 footer the end comes nearly to a triangular point.

Like this:
I much prefer what has been most seen, the 11-footer.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2006)

The pics of the eleven footer that were posted show the model AFTER it was refurbished by Ed Miarecki.

The metal on the inside nacelles was replaced with a new piece. The new piece does NOT feature the same design as what was there originally. How do we know this? The guy who supplied the new material is consulting on the MR Enterrpise.

Barry


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Man that is awesome! this thing is gonna rock if that much attention to detail is being payed. I get the feeling that the people who own MR are serious TOS fans.

Sucks they cant sell a kit for modellers though, But I understand the licensing involved. 

Jeez, I knew the last smithsonian restoration got the paint wrong, and Ive known for years that several parts were missing when she arrived at the smithsonian orginally. But I didnt know that they were replacing original parts with inaccurate ones. Sad. I sure hope the original gets the care she deserves someday and truly restored to screen accuracy.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2006)

And just a few more pics to keep everyone hopefully excited 

http://masterreplicas.com/pub/enterprisedevelopment15.jpg

http://masterreplicas.com/pub/enterprisedevelopment16.jpg

http://masterreplicas.com/pub/enterprisedevelopment17.jpg

http://masterreplicas.com/pub/enterprisedevelopment18.jpg

Barry


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

What does everyone think of the weathering?

I like it. 

Wonder if they will do gridlines or not.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

the weathering looks nice and subtle. However the base color looks too light.
Is that the final color choice?


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2006)

The colors are pretty correct. There's some experimentation going on to "scale" the look down to this 1/350th representation. The weathering is more subtle than that shown, and the top hull lines will be GENTLY inscribed onto the top surface.

Barry


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

I post this only as long as everyone here keeps in mind that I stated clearly that this is a MINOR detail only and not of real importance. It is a nit, and a small one at that. I was going to post a sketch originally but then I thought that a true drafting view would be more useful, so here is the area as plotted in a CAD program. Remember too that I stated before that I wasn't aware myself of the relationships between these shapes and what the outlines mean until I plotted it out last week. This is what I think was missed on the MR model:

First, this is a comparison photo of the aft end of channel outlines of the MR model seen above and that of 11 foot model seen below (the red box in the image was only for alignment purposes):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/pwbroad/Engine_Nacelle_Channel_Comparison_0.jpg

Below is the CAD elevation view showing the two possible outlines. The first, seen in red, is what I believe was the original intent of the studio draftsmen, a nice constant curve. This feature is created by the intersection of the conical body of the nacelle with the bevelled surface angling up at the aft end of the channel. What I also believe is that the studio draftsmen originally showed that bevelled surface to be a flat plane, which is how I believe MR has modelled it. What I discovered when I plotted it out in the CAD environment however is that the nice constant curve cannot be created by a flat plane. The actual edge that is created by a flat plane is also shown in blue in the view below.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/pwbroad/Warp_Nacelle_Channel_Profile_Test_0.jpg

The only way to achieve the constant curve is by using a bevelled surface which begins to curve at the point where it first intersects the conical body, as seen below in red. The flat plane used to create the other profile above is also shown again in blue below.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/pwbroad/Warp_Nacelle_Channel_Plan_Test_01.jpg

If the folks at MR could post a better picture of this area, it might show that I'm wrong about their version. This is just how it looks to me based on what I can see in the small photos so far.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

[email protected] said:


> The colors are pretty correct. There's some experimentation going on to "scale" the look down to this 1/350th representation. The weathering is more subtle than that shown, and the top hull lines will be GENTLY inscribed onto the top surface.
> 
> Barry


I'm well aware about the practice of 'scaling' color. But this is taking 'atmosphere' into account. Since there is no atmosphere in space I wonder about the validity of this idea.

I agree, the color looks a little light to me as well.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

ClubTepes said:


> I'm well aware about the practice of 'scaling' color. But this is taking 'atmosphere' into account. Since there is no atmosphere in space I wonder about the validity of this idea.
> 
> I agree, the color looks a little light to me as well.


According to Datin, the 3-footer and the 11-footer were painted the same color.

Such scaling differences could be, IMHO, compensated for with lighting.


----------



## portland182 (Jul 19, 2003)

Do the nacelle rear caps look too dark to anyone else?

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STEnterprise/ent27.jpg

The rings behind the front of the nacelles and the rear end caps appear the same color on the MR version.
In photos (some) the rings look near black and the caps are much lighter than them.

The same for the 'linear accelerator' yhing on the top side of the saucer.

Cheers

Jim


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

X15-A2 said:


> What I discovered when I plotted it out in the CAD environment however is that the nice constant curve cannot be created by a flat plane. The actual edge that is created by a flat plane is also shown in blue in the view below.
> 
> The only way to achieve the constant curve is by using a bevelled surface which begins to curve at the point where it first intersects the conical body, as seen below in red. The flat plane used to create the other profile above is also shown again in blue below.


I ran into the exact same problem when I built my CG miniature... most of the plans I have seen (and I have seen a lot) offer a flat line (like your blue one) in the top view as the profile of that cutaway at the rear. Working in 2D there's no way they could know that its physically impossible to reconcile that with the side view's semi-circular curve. Only in 3D do you really see that. 

So, I agree with you on that one for sure! Good eye. :thumbsup:


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

The question I have is this, does the eleven foot model actually have a curved bevel plane? The available photos are lit in such a way that you can't really tell (no shadows to highlight the contour (or lack of one)).

Hey Nova, I figured it out in 2D... :tongue: 

He he!

But thanks, its good to know that others have seen this too. Like I said before, it is subtle but as you say, it is physically impossible to achieve that outline with a flat plane.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

[email protected] said:


> The metal on the inside nacelles was replaced with a new piece. The new piece does NOT feature the same design as what was there originally.
> 
> Barry


I must say that I really dislike unattributed comments like this. While it does look like the metal grills have been replaced on the 11-foot model, where is the proof that the hole pattern is different? So far all we have is your claim. Prove it by showing us a pre-restoration photo which illustrates the old hole pattern.

MR may turn out a model which they claim is "the ultimate" but if they make changes to the details as they are known today, they better be able to back them up with proof that those changes are justified, beyond that of someone's claim. Otherwise, they will be seen as simply trying to foist something inaccurate off on the customers as being accurate.

Educate us.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2006)

The "claim" comes from the man who supplied Ed Miarecki the metal pieces for the refit. He's working on the MR Enterprise project. The patterned piece for the refit that had a pattern that was close to what he believed to have been originally there. He now has better reference pictures that show the pattern to be subtly different.

As had been said all along, these are in progress pics of the First Engineering Prototype. Much of what you are seeing as off in your estimation has already been addressed. The pics were released for fun and to let people know that this model is in the works.

It's great that you're bringing your critical eye to it, the team involved are picking it to death too. As I said at the beginning, this will, fngers crossed, hopefully be the "definitive" representation of the original E. But whether everyone will ever agree on that, is doubtful.

Barry


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

All that being said... it won't stop me from buying one!


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Nova Designs said:


> All that being said... it won't stop me from buying one!



I hope it gets people excited about modeling too.
I think the original AMT E kit was the highest selling kit in history, at least I read that somewhere once. God knows I built jillions of em as a kid. 

I hope MR is kinda keeping track of all their development disucssions. I would love to hear the details, I hope they do some interview articles with the team working on it at some point.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Due to various uncertainties and lack of clarity in the old film stock and photographs, it may be impossible to get absolutely every detail correct as the model appeared when being filmed. Whatever product is turned out will have to be, to at least a small degree, yet another interpretation of the Enterprise.

I don't really have a problem with that. MR raised some hackles with its interpretation of the STOS hand phaser. Especially controversial was the pattern chosen for the phaser 1. I don't mean to get started off on a side track--I only mention this to point out that, despite what to many is a nit to pick, they still came out with an excellent product that I'm proud to own. Personally, I consider this to be an authentic variation though perhaps not the one I wish they'd've chosen. It was a case where a decision had to be made, they made what they thought was the best decision based on the examples and research they had to choose from and I appreciate them for that action.

If I buy their 1701 and discover that there are any features that I consider to be a variation from the original, I suppose I'm more than free to alter it to my heart's content.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Show us a photo of the original grill pattern (on the studio model).


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2006)

I well understand and appreciate your healthy skepticism. I've passed on your concerns as you've raised them because of your knowledge and obvious love for the Enterprise model, and the team provided me with the answers I've given here.

Some of the photographs MR have access to are from a private collection and MR do not have the rights to publish them. I realise this doesn't answer your specific concern, and for that I apologise.

Barry


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Phil,

For what it's worth, I ran across the same issue on the nacelle trench when I was building my own digital model several years ago. You are quite correct about your diagnosis of the shape of the angled "ramp" not being truly flat (at least past the beginning of the cutout curve). 

I believe the true shape is more like the "ramp" started out flat but didn't meet up with the cut out all around -- so it was puttied up into a gentle variable curve along the aft edge. Your posted photo of the area on the real model seems to show this in that there is what looks like a deepening shadow visible just before the ramp meets the center of the curve (as if it is curving out to meet it).

M.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hey Mark,

Its good to hear from you again! It has been a while. My guess is that the trench/channel was drawn with a semi-circle front and rear end profile and that the model builders went ahead and cut a hole into the nacelle body with that profile. Then the front was just puttied-up, as you suggest, while the rear was built with the flat ramp but it was then discovered that the ramp would not meet the cutout so the curved face was intoduced as a way of preserving the outer profile.

Unless someone actually plotted it out ahead of time, they would not know that the shape as drawn could not be built. That would probably represent a level of work that they did not have time for in the Art Dept.

As I said before, it is a minor detail but it is one of a wide range of subtle little details on this ship which makes it very difficult to document it accurately.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2006)

Some folks have been wondering on the size of the MR TOS Enterprise model. Here are a couple of pics to give you some idea. It is 1/350th scale.

http://masterreplicas.com/pub/enterprisedevelopment19.jpg

http://masterreplicas.com/pub/enterprisedevelopment20.jpg

http://masterreplicas.com/pub/enterprisedevelopment21.jpg

Barry


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

ack! I see the copper ring painted on the secondary hull!

I hope they give out the exact matching paint info. Cuz I will paint over that on mine.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Fantastic!

What an incredible 1/350 model kit that would have made! :sigh:


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

Trek Ace said:


> Fantastic!
> 
> What an incredible 1/350 model kit that would have made! :sigh:


Perhaps,

Perhaps after the planed run has sold, a 'unassembled' version might be sold.
Minus lighting ans so forth.

Even at $200.00 they could get plenty of additional sales.

AMT/Ertl has their heads up their butts.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

They would probably need an entirely seperate license for that.

But at least almost all the R & D would be done.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> The colors are pretty correct. There's some experimentation going on to "scale" the look down to this 1/350th representation. The weathering is more subtle than that shown, and the top hull lines will be GENTLY inscribed onto the top surface.
> 
> Barry


Stop the experimenting. There is no weather in space.
Regardless of the unforgivable things that "Mr. Ed" did to the original TOS E.



ClubTepes said:


> I'm well aware about the practice of 'scaling' color. But this is taking 'atmosphere' into account. Since there is no atmosphere in space I wonder about the validity of this idea.


I agree. I would strongly prefer no weathering anywhere on the model.

The grid lines on the top of the saucer only, with none elsewhere.

Grid lines appearing all over the original TOS, as well as weathering, 

was a reinterpretation forwarded by "Mr. Ed" who refinished the original 11 foot model.

No matter how great an artist he may or may not be, HE DID ONE HELL OF A "HATCHET JOB", for want of a better phrase, ON HIS REFINISHING OF THE TOS E.

*Please don't follow the lead of a man* who countless fans *are still very pissed off at* for his childish and selfish reinterpretation of the original Enterprise we grew up knowing and loving.

I don't know of anyone I've ever talked to or corresponded with that likes what he did to the model's finish.

*PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PASS ON THIS CONCERN* *----- NO "MR. ED" WEATHERING!!!!!*


*P.S. I do like the color, though. It should be lighter then the studio model, because what was seen onscreen with the studio lights blasting her was almost dull white, not dark grey. I'm all for painting her as she was usually seen onscreen, a grey so light it was almost white.*


----------



## mechinyun (Feb 23, 2004)

Aye!!!! No whack ass "restoration" look. I think we are all on the same boat on this one.

The weathering? Leave it off. If the buyer of the enterprise wants to add it, let them. Dont force it on us though.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

CessnaDriver said:


> Great close up pics here of the areas in question of the original 11 footer....
> 
> http://www.mjtsc.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/new/1701.htm


 
Great pics!

Has anyone else ever noticed this *big, honking protruding light* just forward of the 1837 mark before?

http://www.mjtsc.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/new/images/image62.jpg

If it's original, I wouldn't mind it being left off the MR version.


----------



## REL (Sep 30, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> Some folks have been wondering on the size of the MR TOS Enterprise model. Here are a couple of pics to give you some idea. It is 1/350th scale.
> 
> http://masterreplicas.com/pub/enterprisedevelopment19.jpg
> 
> ...


Awesome!


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Great pics!
> 
> Has anyone else ever noticed this *big, honking protruding light* just forward of the 1837 mark before?
> 
> ...



Its a blinking strobe light seen in many episodes.
It just looks big in that picture. Its not that bad.


----------



## schmidtjv (Apr 7, 2004)

About that copper ring...

Can anyone shed some light on that copper ring seen behind the main dish?
http://masterreplicas.com/pub/enterprisedevelopment21.jpg

In my own semi-limited research over the years, I've never come across it, and have found no real photographic evidence of it-
http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STEnterprise/11footMiniature.htm

I guess the real reason it really bothers me is that the first place I recall seeing it was on the (...resist homicidal urges...nooo, I'm not bitter) Unobtainium abomination.

John


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> I must say that I really dislike unattributed comments like this. While it does look like the metal grills have been replaced on the 11-foot model, where is the proof that the hole pattern is different? So far all we have is your claim. Prove it by showing us a pre-restoration photo which illustrates the old hole pattern.
> 
> MR may turn out a model which they claim is "the ultimate" but if they make changes to the details as they are known today, they better be able to back them up with proof that those changes are justified, beyond that of someone's claim. Otherwise, they will be seen as simply trying to foist something inaccurate off on the customers as being accurate.
> 
> Educate us.





[email protected] said:


> The "claim" comes from the man who supplied Ed Miarecki the metal pieces for the refit. He's working on the MR Enterprise project. The patterned piece for the refit that had a pattern that was close to what he believed to have been originally there. He now has better reference pictures that show the pattern to be subtly different.
> 
> As had been said all along, these are in progress pics of the First Engineering Prototype. Much of what you are seeing as off in your estimation has already been addressed. The pics were released for fun and to let people know that this model is in the works.
> 
> ...


I'm confused, Phil. I thought the only thing we had to go on was photos to match the original translucent domes.

I remember reading an article back in the 70's that showed the original spinning parts as they arrived at the Smithsonian. I believe it may have been one of the original Star Trek poster books. The original parts were damaged and allegedly discarded and replaced with a pair of solid painted nacelles until the "Mr. Ed" refinishing.

I didn't think the Smithsonian still had the original translucent ones, but that theory is based on my memory of on an article written back in the 70's so I very well could be mistaken, due to either an inaccuracy in the article or my own imperfect memory of the info.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

CessnaDriver said:


> It just looks big in that picture. Its not that bad.


Sounds like what my mom told me about a big honking pimple my 9th grade photographer captured in my school picture...

They both still look way unattractive to me...

I hope they don't color it yellow...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> The colors are pretty correct. There's some experimentation going on to "scale" the look down to this 1/350th representation. The weathering is more subtle than that shown, and the top hull lines will be GENTLY inscribed onto the top surface.
> 
> Barry


Stop the experimenting. There is no weather in space.
Regardless of the unforgivable things that "Mr. Ed" did to the original TOS E.



ClubTepes said:


> I'm well aware about the practice of 'scaling' color. But this is taking 'atmosphere' into account. Since there is no atmosphere in space I wonder about the validity of this idea.


I agree. I would strongly prefer no weathering anywhere on the model.

The grid lines on the top of the saucer only, with none elsewhere.

Grid lines appearing all over the original TOS, as well as weathering, 

was a reinterpretation forwarded by "Mr. Ed" who refinished the original 11 foot model.

No matter how great an artist he may or may not be, HE DID ONE HELL OF A "HATCHET JOB", for want of a better phrase, ON HIS REFINISHING OF THE TOS E.

*Please don't follow the lead of a man* who countless fans *are still very pissed off at* for his childish and selfish reinterpretation of the original Enterprise we grew up knowing and loving.

I don't know of anyone I've ever talked to or corresponded with that likes what he did to the model's finish.

*Barry, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PASS ON THIS CONCERN* *----- NO "MR. ED" WEATHERING!!!!!*


*P.S. I do like the color, though. It should be lighter then the studio model, because what was seen onscreen with the studio lights blasting her was almost dull white, not dark grey. I'm all for painting her as she was usually seen onscreen, a grey so light it was almost white.*

*By the way, I do sincerely appreciate you sharing this info and photos with us. I hope you continue to pass on our concerns as well as express to everyone working on the project that out "nits" and "picks" aren't meant to express a lack of appreciation, only to help you guys improve the product, which should help everyone become as satisfied as possible and hopefully boost your profits a bit, as well as MR's already great reputation...*


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

schmidtjv said:


> About that copper ring...
> 
> Can anyone shed some light on that copper ring seen behind the main dish?
> http://masterreplicas.com/pub/enterprisedevelopment21.jpg
> ...


I will paint over it if they leave it on the final product.
I believe it is a product of light and shadows in some pictures that modellers over the years have incorporated into their work and never truly was there. 

But YES! Lets associate that copper ring with the Unobtainium and that will help our cause to get it removed! LOL


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Sounds like what my mom told me about a big honking pimple my 9th grade photographer captured in my school picture...
> 
> They both still look way unattractive to me...
> 
> I hope they don't color it yellow...


It is what it is and it is what the studio model was detailed with. 
Keep in mind that picture you posted is of an 11 foot model, everything is going to look huge in an up close picture like that one. On TV you hardly notice it and then it must be blinking to even see it. 
When it is scaled down to the size of the MR it will look just like any of the other lights even smaller. Its actually much much smaller then the red and green lights on the top of the saucer (those are oversized really in my opinion on the studio model even but it is what it is).


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Thanks for the update pics, Barry!

Is that the Greek God Apollo grabbing the saucer in the last pic?


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

On that copper colored ring behind the deflector, you can see a hint of it in this pic. IMHO I really don't like it that much.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2006)

The 11 foot Enterprise was actually covered in weathering. It was not pristine. The limitations of lenses and the photo-chemical processes of the time when shooting the effects sequences tended to wash out the details.

The MR Enterprise will be finished how the team believe it to have been originally. I really need to re-emphasize that this is a work in progress, what you're seeing in those "for scale" pictures isn't even close to the final look, so please bear that in mind.

Barry


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

[email protected] said:


> The 11 foot Enterprise was actually covered in weathering. It was not pristine. The limitations of lenses and the photo-chemical processes of the time when shooting the effects sequences tended to wash out the details.
> 
> The MR Enterprise will be finished how the team believe it to have been originally. I really need to re-emphasize that this is a work in progress, what you're seeing in those "for scale" pictures isn't even close to the final look, so please bear that in mind.
> 
> Barry



Yeah I know they are proto pics, but I enjoy the "freaking out" over obscure details process myself. Its half the fun. Plus helps pass the time until it is available. Why I just half suspect some sadistic MR guy painted that ring on purpose just to watch the fun! I would of! :tongue:


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Here are the often referenced mess o studio pics.........

http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STEnterprise/11footMiniature.htm

I would bet anything it is shadow, and possibly....maybe some weathering, but certainly not a dark copper painted ring.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

CessnaDriver said:


> I would bet anything it is shadow, and possibly....maybe some weathering, but certainly not a dark copper painted ring.


Agreed.


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

schmidtjv said:


> About that copper ring...
> 
> Can anyone shed some light on that copper ring seen behind the main dish?
> http://masterreplicas.com/pub/enterprisedevelopment21.jpg
> ...


The inner rings on the 11 ft model were painted copper, the outer ring was painted the color of the ship. The lighting and shadows made the copper apear black or dark gray. The Starfleet Assembly Manual(s) pointed it out, and a few of the old post cards sold at the conventions showed the copper ring colors clearly.

Once you know about it you see the color pop up in a lot of shots.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

swhite228 said:


> ...the outer ring was painted the color of the ship.


I suspect the copperization of the outer ring can be traced to the Miarecki restoration of the 11-footer. Curiously, Greg Jein chose to include this on the 1701 he built for "Trials and Tribbilations."

By the way Barry, since you obviously have connections at Master Replicas you might want to inform their blog guys that Disney is NOT producing a remake of "20,000 Leagues Under The Sea". NewLine Cinema is.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> The 11 foot Enterprise was actually covered in weathering. It was not pristine. The limitations of lenses and the photo-chemical processes of the time when shooting the effects sequences tended to wash out the details.
> 
> The MR Enterprise will be finished how the team believe it to have been originally. I really need to re-emphasize that this is a work in progress, what you're seeing in those "for scale" pictures isn't even close to the final look, so please bear that in mind.
> 
> Barry


Thanks for the response.

I might be able to live with a ridiculously light amount of weathering.

*However, if the weathering was virtually invisible to the TV viewer as you have conceeded/explained, then I believe it should be virtually invisible on the model too.*

Your display model, I believe, should NOT be as darkly gray and weathered as she may have been in a studio virtually none of us ever visited or saw under normal room lighting.

*Remember most fans want to see her as they remember her*, *not as she may have looked as a studio miniature they never got to see* in normal lighting in person.

Please consider this in your discussions/decisions.

We want her as we saw her on TV, not the way only a few dozen industry insiders got to see her...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Carson Dyle said:


> I suspect the copperization of the outer ring can be traced to the Miarecki restoration of the 11-footer. Curiously, Greg Jein chose to include this on the 1701 he built for "Trials and Tribbilations."


From what I've read, you're exactly right. Supposedly after sanding, there was discovered underneath some layers of paint a reddish color paint there.

IMHO, from a 'scientific' and 'logical' review of all the observable evidence, there is not enough to justify putting the copper ring there.

There are some good photos of the 11 footer showing some definite grid patterns and weathering but I agree that it should be relatively light. 

As detailed as the 3 footer was (and, incidentally, it initially had many of the details that were later added to the production version of the 11 footer) it did not have grid lines suggesting that, for that scale, such details would not be apparent to a viewer at a scale distance.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

I like the amount of weathering I have seen so far on the protos. 
Enough to not notice from across the room, and enough to notice upon closer inspection. I do want to see the details that were there all along when Im up close to it that TV could not show us. If it was on the studio model I want the same thing just scaled down accordingly. 
I wont have a spotlight on this thing, it will be in normal room lighting, if not a little darker then that. I imagine that is most peoples homes. 

I think if they go with a less is more attitude, (not to the point of ommission however) they will nail it.

Now, will the guys in Hong Kong get all these subtle things close enough?
I hope they give them time to practice and get feedback on their work. 

I am pleased with the other MR TOS products so far, I expect that will continue.


----------



## schmidtjv (Apr 7, 2004)

Thanks everybody for the postings on my question about the copper ring, you've solved that mystery for me!

And thank you Barry for continuing to keep us updated and posting the images of the ship as it is progressing, and most of all, thank you to all those at MR who are working on making this stunning replica.

(OK, I'll stop gushing now)

John


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2006)

Hey, I love the debate.

I do work for MR, so the info I give is pretty much up to the minute, barring any misunderstandings I may add into the mix.  The paint work is very much a work in progress. One of the guys working on this project worked on the restoration of the E with Ed. Miarecki, and he scrupulously detailed the forensics of taking that bird apart and putting her back together. I was pretty much gobsmacked at the photographic and video reference.

I love the fact that you guys are all debating the finer points, the guys working on it did the exact same. When I ask them questions they give me pretty definite answers.

As to how the model will eventually look? Hopefully, as people here agree, right to the eye. The look they're aiming for is the "Enterprise," as she existed. However that's predicated on trying to get 11 foot's worth of details onto a 32.47" long model... You adjust to the eye.

Barry


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> The look they're aiming for is the "Enterprise," as she existed. However that's predicated on trying to get 11 foot's worth of details onto a 32.47" long model... You adjust to the eye.


Clearly it's not an exact science, but it's nice to know an effort is being made to strike a balance between the ship as it appeared on screen and the miniature as it (originally) appeared in person.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> We want her as we saw her on TV, not the way only a few dozen industry insiders got to see her...


If _that's_ what you want, invest in one of those old aluminum Christmas tree illuminators for your model. You know, those spotlights with the rotating disk containing varous color filters. That way your model can have all the variable color casts we all saw on TV due to erratic color timing when the film was composited... :devil: 

As for me, I want one that matches the actual model (in it's prime).

M.


----------



## Matt houston (Mar 31, 2005)

*Similar*

Its amazing how similar it looks to the Unobtainium version...much better built of coarse!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

MGagen said:


> If _that's_ what you want, invest in one of those old aluminum Christmas tree illuminators for your model. You know, those spotlights with the rotating disk containing varous color filters. That way your model can have all the variable color casts we all saw on TV due to erratic color timing when the film was composited... :devil:
> 
> As for me, I want one that matches the actual model (in it's prime).
> 
> M.


Yep, I know the color casts were not the same in every shot.

However the ship color was consistently *lighter* onscreen then the studio model in person, tinting aside.



MGagen said:


> As for me, I want one that matches the actual model (in it's prime).
> 
> M.


So by applying the same logic you used to suggest the christmas light disks, then you *must* want a big, honking metal pipe coming out of the port side, with the portside almost completely unfinished, complete with miniaturized duct tape holding the wires out of camera view?:devil:


I hope you are writing Mark's wish list down, Barry. Don't forget the mini-duct tape!


I guess there is no accounting for taste... :lol:


----------



## marc111 (Nov 10, 2005)

I really like the nice job they are doing, but I was disapointed to see actual motors and gears used in the nacelles. Shelling out this amount of money I would want to know that all of its features would really last. They should be doing solid state lighting effects throughout for longitivity, not motors.

My two cents,
Mark


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

marc111 said:


> I really like the nice job they are doing, but I was disapointed to see actual motors and gears used in the nacelles. Shelling out this amount of money I would want to know that all of its features would really last. They should be doing solid state lighting effects throughout for longitivity, not motors.
> 
> My two cents,
> Mark


While it may not be designed/wired that way now, they could design the motor/nacelle housing so it has a PC plug where the power wires enter the back of the motor. Then design it so the nacelle, it's outer ring and three shields pull out of the front of the warp nacelles along with the motor.

You could then plug in a replacement motor, etc.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> While it may not be designed/wired that way now, they could design the motor/nacelle housing so it has a PC plug where the power wires enter the back of the motor. Then design it so the nacelle, it's outer ring and three shields pull out of the front of the warp nacelles along with the motor.
> 
> You could then plug in a replacement motor, etc.



Yes, I was thinking the same thing. There is a natural seam area that would be invisible when mated that would work great. You dont even need a plug, just tight enought fit to hold it all in place and long enough wires to be able to pull it out far enough to unsolder.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

You are right, of course, that it would not NEED a plug, but I quiver in fear at the idea of bringing a heated soldering iron within ten feet of a $1200 model.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I WANT the motors in mine. Solid-state electronics, no matter how cleverly designed, cannot possibly duplicate the subtlety of movement and effect like the motors can.

As to the weathering, some of what was on the model was not paint, therefore not permanent. The model was sometimes "made up" for certain shots where the camera would push in extremely close, not unlike an actor or actress would be for their closeups. Although, instead of Max Factor, chalks would be used. This was necessary in order to maintain the feeling of "scale" and to give a sense of depth and detail. There was also additional weathering added during the still photo sessions that wasn't there for the shooting of the master stage elements. If you look closely at some of the low-angle flybys, you will see dirt not only around the infamous "ring", but also on the fronts of the two boxes on the bottom and right side of the lower hull.

BTW, what's this I hear about "erratic" color timing?


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Ahhh, if Scotty could climb up in the Jeffries tubes, you can handle a wee soldering iron. Just have a little scotch and you'll do fine laddie.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Matt houston said:


> Its amazing how similar it looks to the Unobtainium version...much better built of coarse!


I might be wrong but isn't that spine connected to the impulse engine supposed to be orientated more horizontal on the saucer top? The angle looks funny in that shot.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> I WANT the motors in mine. Solid-state electronics, no matter how cleverly designed, cannot possibly duplicate the subtlety of movement and effect like the motors can.


I agree. Though I hope they are designed to be removable/replacable, as you could probably tell by my post above.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Steve Mavronis said:


> I might be wrong but isn't that spine connected to the impulse engine supposed to be orientated more horizontal on the saucer top? The angle looks funny in that shot.


Based on the base it looks like an Unobtainium E. So the correct answer would be...


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Wow, I never realized how far off the upper contours of the Unobtainium E Primary Hull were until now.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I was thinking more along the lines "who the heck cares? They're all twisted mounds of resin or on their way their anyway..."

But Phil's answer is also accurate.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> So by applying the same logic you used to suggest the christmas light disks, then you *must* want a big, honking metal pipe coming out of the port side, with the portside almost completely unfinished, complete with miniaturized duct tape holding the wires out of camera view?:devil:



_Touché_


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Trek Ace said:


> BTW, what's this I hear about "erratic" color timing?


Oops . . . sorry, I didn't mean to step on any toes! 

On the subject of the temporary chalk weathering: Per usual, Trek Ace, you are a fountain of hitherto unknown information. You speak with such authority and have at your command so much first hand information that you simply _must_ have been connected with the show in some way. Can you give us at least a little hint about the nature your involvement? I understand your desire for anonymity, but surely you can give us a little hint...

M.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

X15-A2 said:


> Wow, I never realized how far off the upper contours of the Unobtainium E Primary Hull were until now.



Not to mention how long the nacelles are. Now wonder they sag so badly! :wave:


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

MGagen said:


> Oops . . . sorry, I didn't mean to step on any toes!
> 
> On the subject of the temporary chalk weathering: Per usual, Trek Ace, you are a fountain of hitherto unknown information. You speak with such authority and have at your command so much first hand information that you simply _must_ have been connected with the show in some way. Can you give us at least a little hint about the nature your involvement? I understand your desire for anonymity, but surely you can give us a little hint...
> 
> M.


I think a have a pic of Trek Ace and Gene Roddenberry in the same shot around here somewhere...


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I found it! Or at least a link to it.

Roddenberry is the guy in the middle in the white dress shirt.
Trek Ace is one of the guys standing next to him, a little less visible...


http://www.cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STShuttlecraft/DVDimages/14_StarTrek_TOS_130.jpg


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

My main pet peeve, which keeps cropping up, is that constantly appearing forward nav light, *which doesn't belong!*

I direct your attention to the following:










As for just what the color of that ring was, here's probably the clearest pics available of that area of the ship...



To be perfectly honest, it does look like it was painted copper.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

In my opinion, it is a trick of light and shadow and problems of the photography of the time causing incorrect colors to show up, and possibly as someone here has said, light weathering. 

It just wasnt there on any clear shot of the area. Not even the 3 footer had it.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)




----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)




----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Physically that damn bow light was there, but it seems it was never illuminated, or maybe the bulb burnt out. I have seen it lit up on smithsonian pics though. You can see a hint of it in the arrival pic at the smithsonian pic above, that is was there. 


Fairly recent photo. supposedly the last restoration they did not monkey with the top of the saucer.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Came across this, since this area was of interest earlier thought I would post.....

http://employees.csbsju.edu/rsorensen/modelcitizen/trekships/constitution/


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

CessnaDriver said:


> Physically that damn bow light was there, but it seems it was never illuminated, or maybe the bulb burnt out. I have seen it lit up on smithsonian pics though. You can see a hint of it in the arrival pic at the smithsonian pic above, that is was there.
> 
> 
> Fairly recent photo. supposedly the last restoration they did not monkey with the top of the saucer.


Here's where things get a tad complicated.

Yes, the circular hole is original, but it was never a light. It was an access port for the light behind those three circular ports on the bow, and was painted and weathered the same as the hull.

The problem is that at some undetermined point in the model's lifetime, that little round piece was lost, and some mental midget replaced it with a clear piece and made it a light.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

A little something from the esteemed Wm. S. McCullars, The IDIC Page - 1972 Voyage.

Amongst the fascinating trivia, we get to see what are probably the last good pics of the ship post-production, pre-Smithsonian manhandling (I discount the afore-referenced pics showing the model from the pilot footage, since the changes from pilot to production have been well documented, as well as those after the NASM got their mitts on her, since they thoroughly mucked up the paint job when they got ahold of her and did their own sporactic "restorations.")

The matter of that ring is still debatable, but leaning heavily towards the same gray as the rest of the ship (but, as I said, that's still debatable). As for that forward light, not that the ship is all lit up -- no forward light.

My conclusion is that the forward light is a product of Smithsonian mishandling, reinforced by nearly thirty years of subliminal reinforcement by the Franz Joseph blueprints, which is one of the first depictions of the ship to feature a forward running light. Folks just learned to expect a forward light after a while, to the point where some folks, even when faced with actual screen caps from the show which show that there was no forward light, will still make excuses for this rather newly developed discrepancy.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Well one good thing. Either way MR goes with these issues, the mighty airbrush and a skilled modeller can take care of it to suit themselves or a client. Assuming the bow "light" is flush. 

Fascinating the minutia that is generated by this 40 year old model!


----------



## portland182 (Jul 19, 2003)

Cessna

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the copper ring was added for season 3.

Looking at the 3 ft version, the pilot version, and shots from seasons 1 & 2, and the Smithsonian version will never show the ring.

Cheers

Jim


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

another thing I wonder about is which lights will blink?
Ive seen that some were blinking early on and then went to steady at some point and vice versa. 

Ive seen the "homing beacon" above the hanger blinking and the center light on the very front three blinking too, and those funky three in a row on each side on the bottom saucer a quarter way to the back if I am recalling correctly. I would rather they were steady and the red and green nav lights blink. 

Im sure there are others too. 

There was even a window light right by the hanger Ive seen blink off like someone turned of the light in the room in one slow pass of the ship during the opening credits of some episodes. 


on and on it goes!


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

The "copper ring" as it is referred to was never a solid copper "stripe" as represented on the "refurbished" studio model or on the Unobtainium piece. It was there as shading, and it was not just around the ring, as I stated before, but also around the outside edges and fronts of the side and bottom boxes on the lower hull. If you look carefully, you will see this in some of the low-angle flyby shots where the camera pushes in close. It was originally applied in the first season and could be seen to the end of the series. Before the model was put on display in the Smithsonian, much of the weathering was "cleaned" off or painted over during the first "restoration" in the mid seventies.

The ring on the top was added later much later, when there was an emphasis on creating very slow, gentle trucks into the big dome. The camera would linger a lot longer on those areas and more subtle shading and detail was necessary to hold scale.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I discount any claim of third season renovations, since there didn't seem to be any new effects footage shot of the ship past the second season, and not bloody much then. The vast majority of the effects elements were shot during the first season, including what seems to be the strongest evidence for that copper ring, the sequence in "Space Seed".

Keep in mind that the studio lighting for the model wasn't particularly strong, lest they overpower the model's internal lighting and what little surface detail there was, making the ship look even more like a cheesy model than its ignorant detractors claim. Motion control wasn't even in its infancy at this point, it was downright embryonic. In fact, the way the model was shot was more akin to stop-motion animation, stopping and starting the camera frequently thorughout the shot; I'm still not sure of all the reasons why, but that's the way they did it. And it was done in one camera pass, as opposed to five or six motion control passes in a modern Star Trek show.

In other words, except for some differences in color (like the precise shade of gray), how the ship looked on the screen was, generally, how it looked under normal lighting conditions. Just compare the various candid non-stuido shots with the competed effects footage, and there's really very little difference.

As for blinking lights, yeah, I've seen that bow light flash, when it was in its "Where No Man Has Gone Before" configuration, but I've never seen the homing beacon flash, nor the groups of three lights on the underside of the saucer. The nav lights blinked constantly, however.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Captain April said:


> I discount any claim of third season renovations, since there didn't seem to be any new effects footage shot of the ship past the second season, and not bloody much then.
> 
> *Untrue.*
> 
> ...


Just wanted to set the record straight.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

If there was any effects work done with the model in the third season, it was wasted film, since there wasn't a single shot of the Enterprise that wasn't originally filmed during either the first or second season, mostly the first (with the remotely possible exception of the long distance shot in "The Enterprise Incident", where the ship is surrounded by the three Romulan D-7's).

As for use of the stop-motion stuff, well, they did occasionally use effects shots from the first pilot, so there ya go.

As for the relative lighting of the model, in light of this revelation about the film stock used, I think what we might be dealing with is relatively slow film combined with bright lighting resulting in the ship looking pretty much the same as if you were face to, um, hull under normal light. Again, just compare a snapshot of the upper saucer while at the Smithsonian (pre-Miraecki; recent flash photos kinda skew the results) and the effects shots, and it really doesn't any more or less detailed in either picture.


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

You missed one, Trek Ace!



Captain April said:


> The nav lights blinked constantly, however.


Not constantly. Check the nav lights in the episode 'The Immunity Syndrome' at about 17:40 in. You will see something surprising. Barry, I'd bet Gary hasn't noticed that detail also.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Could I at least get some backup on that matter of the nonexistant forward light?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I doubt it.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

*I'm still not convinced of the copper band.*

Here is the portion of the above photo posted by Captain April showing the deflector area. This pic has had some of the noise uniformly cleaned up by the paint shop program:













Here is the same area with the band from directly behind the deflector dish added to where the 1991 Smithsonian refit put one:









Compare the two photos. It seems to me that the model would have looked more like the bottom photo if indeed there'd been a copper band there to begin with. 

It looks like heavy weathering in the top photo. Note that the weathering didn't extend as heavily to the bottom portion of the hull.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

I am very curious to hear more of weathering methods used during the shoot.
Dusting the model as if with make-up on an actor. 

Now if true, that would explain why the top shows more darker area then the sides and bottom.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

ThomasModels said:


> You missed one, Trek Ace!
> 
> Not constantly. Check the nav lights in the episode 'The Immunity Syndrome' at about 17:40 in. You will see something surprising. Barry, I'd bet Gary hasn't noticed that detail also.



Ok, I just looked at that bit.

Now that WAS weird! there is a white light there too it seems??? 

ARGH. 

Scotty was mucking with the lights!

And the both look red when they arent white. Maybe the lights were so intense they appear white on film until they start to fade out a bit.
But one should be green like on top. 



http://home.san.rr.com/maxxq/e1.BMP

http://home.san.rr.com/maxxq/e2.BMP

[http://home.san.rr.com/maxxq/e3.BMP


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

ThomasModels said:


> You missed one, Trek Ace!
> 
> Not constantly. Check the nav lights in the episode 'The Immunity Syndrome' at about 17:40 in. You will see something surprising. Barry, I'd bet Gary hasn't noticed that detail also.


Not until one of the guys working for Master Replicas pointed this out last December. Of course, you're referring to the multi-colored nav lights on the bottom of the saucer. 

If you look carefully, you'll see the color sequence is actually white-red-off-cyan-white-red-off-cyan etc. Apparently, the shot was separated into three color components in post-processing, and the red one got out of sync and is lagging behind. The blinking light near the hangar bay has the same problem. There's also a red "ghost" image of the windows trailing slightly behind, too.

Years ago, I read a TOS script treatment (in the original "Making of Star Trek" book??) where a transporter malfunction caused a character to become more & more out of sync with time. To create the effect, they would have used multiple color separations printed slightly out-of-register. If the camera was locked down, you wouldn't notice anything unusual; however, if the character moved, you'd see strobe-like multicolor images trailing behind him. Their plan was to print the color seps more & more out of register, as the character's condition worsened.

At any rate, it looks like the red & blue blinkies in "Immunity Syndrome" were just a slip-up in post production.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Here's where things get a tad complicated.
> 
> Yes, the circular hole is original, but it was never a light. It was an access port for the light behind those three circular ports on the bow, and was painted and weathered the same as the hull.
> 
> The problem is that at some undetermined point in the model's lifetime, that little round piece was lost, and some mental midget replaced it with a clear piece and made it a light.


Sure about that?

I'm fairly sure I have a ridiculously old Lincoln Enterprises 35mm slide around here that shows it lit...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

^ My source is one Thomas Sasser. Presumably, he found this out while doing research for the PL model.

Besides, I defy _*anyone*_ to produce one screencap from the original series showing that sucker lit up. Provided my DVD ROM is working, I can produce a few thousand showing that it wasn't.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Gary K said:


> Years ago, I read a TOS script treatment (in the original "Making of Star Trek" book??) where a transporter malfunction caused a character to become more & more out of sync with time. To create the effect, they would have used multiple color separations printed slightly out-of-register. If the camera was locked down, you wouldn't notice anything unusual; however, if the character moved, you'd see strobe-like multicolor images trailing behind him. Their plan was to print the color seps more & more out of register, as the character's condition worsened.


That would be one of David Gerrold's pitches, "The Protracted Man", IIRC.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

The effect that Gary was describing was actually tried as a subjective alien POV shot in one episode. It was dropped out of the final cut, though. I can't recall which one that was.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The only filmed episode where that might even remotely fit is "Wink of an Eye."

Otherwise, it sounds more like a detail from Gerrold's pitch.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Captain April said:


> The only filmed episode where that might even remotely fit is "Wink of an Eye."
> 
> Otherwise, it sounds more like a detail from Gerrold's pitch.


"Otherwise?"

So you're saying the effect was never filmed because you think it would only remotely fit in in the episode "Wink of an Eye?" 

Just trying to figure out why you're questioning Trek Ace's statement with phrases like "the only filmed episode where that might even remotely fit ..."

Perhaps you're suggesting that it too resembles an effect perhaps first described in a Gerrold script, or that also ended up in Gerrold's script?

Honestly trying to figure out what you're trying to say here.

Either the effect was tested and filmed as he said, or it wasn't.

Don't know what you mean by ""the only filmed episode where that might even remotely fit ..." and "Otherwise."

Maybe you just meant that it might have been pitched by Gerrold "too" or by Gerrold "originally?"


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Captain April said:


> ^ My source is one Thomas Sasser. Presumably, he found this out while doing research for the PL model.
> 
> Besides, I defy _*anyone*_ to produce one screencap from the original series showing that sucker lit up. Provided my DVD ROM is working, I can produce a few thousand showing that it wasn't.


Here are my 2-cents about the bow light:

The Enterprise model wasn't self-illuminated until the so-called 2nd Pilot version. At that time, they cut 3 rectangular openings in the top of the saucer and used them as access ports for the lights that illuminated the side windows. The openings were covered with translucent white plastic panels. At the bow, they had a blinking white bulb protruding from the front of the saucer, with a black circle (either paint or decal) on either side.

During the conversion into the Production version, 3 clear Plexiglas "sensors" were installed in the front of the saucer. A circular access hole (1" in diameter) was cut into the upper surface of the saucer and was covered with the same translucent plastic they used for the 3 lighted rectangles. All 4 plastic covers are flush with the hull, and are held in place by friction. Thanks to my strong fingernails, I could easily pop the pieces off. 

So the bow light DID illuminate (at least *sometimes*), although I don't know for sure why it was so dim. I speculate that it's because the bulb did not always align with the relatively small access port above.

You can barely see the light in the opening sequence of "The Tholian Web." I'm sure I've seen it in other shots, but I'll let others follow up 'cause it's late and I have a pile of bills to pay before I go to bed.

Gary


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I just watched "The Tholian Web". No light.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> "Otherwise?"
> 
> So you're saying the effect was never filmed because you think it would only remotely fit in in the episode "Wink of an Eye?"
> 
> ...


Let's take a breath.

It was described to us as a perspective shot from an alien POV.

The only filmed episode that comes to mind where such a shot seems appropriate is "Wink of an Eye", possibly one of the transition scenes, where one of the characters is either accelerated or decelerated.

*OTHERWISE,* what we're dealing with is not a filmed scene, but a half-remembered reference to Gerrold's pitch (c'mon, we've all read those old books, how many of us can remember all the details after all these years?), which _did_ include such a scene, where we get a peek at the POV of the afflicted crewman, and the scene is very much like what was described.

Now, maybe they tried something along those lines following Gerrold's pitch in '67. He was still pitching stories and doing occasional tweaks to scripts, he might've suggested it himself.

Personally, I'm leaning towards the half-remembered detail from the pitch printed in Gerrold's "Trouble With Tribbles" book, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. At least on this one.


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Gary K said:


> If you look carefully, you'll see the color sequence is actually white-red-off-cyan-white-red-off-cyan etc. Apparently, the shot was separated into three color components in post-processing, and the red one got out of sync and is lagging behind. The blinking light near the hangar bay has the same problem. There's also a red "ghost" image of the windows trailing slightly behind, too.
> 
> ....At any rate, it looks like the red & blue blinkies in "Immunity Syndrome" were just a slip-up in post production.


 I don't think so.

If I don't know or am not sure of something, I check it out with people in the field who do know their stuff so I won't accidentally pass along uninformed or incorrect information.

While working on a project last summer, I caught this and ran it by a friend who has 25 years in television and professional video experience behind him. He agreed that it was not an optical processing error. The plate is clean across the entire model with no bleed thru and the edges clearly defined.

There are clearly three light shifts coming from what would appear to be three separate sources inside of each dome...green-white-red-off-green-white-red-off.... That is not an artifact of optical processing. If it were, the image would be so far out of whack across the whole and not isolated to the small lower port and starboard running lights. All lighting, including the "red ghost image of the windows trailing slightly behind" would be so overblown with a highly visable red double image, it would be easily and clearly seen. It isn't. Add to that, the ship is slowly moving forward, toward camera.

There are other shots in other eps of her with the 'fluctuating' nav lights, but that shot in that episode is the cleanest with all three colors clearly seen.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Captain April said:


> I just watched "The Tholian Web". No light.


Check again. The bow light is *barely* visible at the tail end of the sequence. Here's a better view, taken just before they began filming the Production version.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Let's take a breath.


My breathing is just fine. 

I'm simply bewildered at how many people these days have been raised to be unable to distinquish between something as basic as matters of occurence and matters of conjecture. 

I blame it on a supposedly modern academic culture that has coddled youth into thinking things like there is no wrong answer, we shouldn't look at education as a competition, their opinion is just as valuable as anyone else's.

All nonsense. There are such things as credentials, education is and should be a proving ground for the real competion - life, and there is such a thing as a wrong answer.




Captain April said:


> Now, maybe they tried something along those lines following Gerrold's pitch in '67. He was still pitching stories and doing occasional tweaks to scripts, he might've suggested it himself.
> 
> Personally, I'm leaning towards the half-remembered detail from the pitch printed in Gerrold's "Trouble With Tribbles" book, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. At least on this one.


Leaning towards what?

A choice between a guess you have about whether or not someone filmed a sequence as a response to some writer's pitch, as opposed to someone who says they filmed that effect once as part of an episode?

So if someone who was there's statement doesn't dovetail your guess, then it's unlikely something they say was filmed for a particular purpose could have been filmed for exactly the purpose the person says it was filmed for? 


You're not the only one guilty of it, but let's call a guess a guess instead of treating it as fact or talking about leaning this way or that.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with guessing as long as you call it a guess and are willing to change your mind when new information(like a first hand account from someone who was there) comes along.

If someone who was there says something was filmed as part of an episode why you would continue to make up explanations when someone has already explained what actually happened is beyond me.

I have enough faith in Trek Ace to know he'd remember if the sequence wasn't part of a produced episode that simply ended up getting cut out.

It's no one's responsibility to prove obvious conjecture wrong, nor does it make a bit of sense to dismiss what someone who was there said happened because it doesn't comfortably fit into a guess.




This whole issue reminds me of the French philosophes who would actually debate things like how many teeth a horse had.

Instead of getting a bunch of the animals together and going "straight to the horse's mouth" for the info.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> This whole issue reminds me of the French philosophes who would actually debate things like how many teeth a horse had. Instead of getting a bunch of the animals together and going "straight to the horse's mouth" for the info.


After you brought it up I just had to know!

From http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=713157

"In the year of our Lord 1432, there arose a grievous quarrel among
the brethren over the number of teeth in the mouth of a horse. For 13
days the disputation raged without ceasing...".


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

I think the compositing effect TrekAce described sounds more like something they might have tried for the Medusa in "Is There In Truth No Beauty" rather than "Wink of an Eye."

And I'll always take the word of someone who was there "on the ground" over any after-the-fact speculation -- even my own.

A big thank you to Gary Kerr for the nice closeup of the round bow port (or whatever it is). It does lead to another question, though: Trek Ace says the rust ring on the primary hull was added much later, when they began doing the truck shots over the saucer. Yet here it is plainly visible in the shot Gary posted. If he's correct about this shot dating from just before they began filming the production version, how does this square with TrekAce's recollection? Inquiring minds want to know...

M.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

MGagen said:


> A big thank you to Gary Kerr for the nice closeup of the round bow port (or whatever it is). It does lead to another question, though: Trek Ace says the rust ring on the primary hull was added much later, when they began doing the truck shots over the saucer. Yet here it is plainly visible in the shot Gary posted. If he's correct about this shot dating from just before they began filming the production version, how does this square with TrekAce's recollection? Inquiring minds want to know...


The shot of the bow light is a closeup from a series of b&w photos that I refer to as the "beauty shots". The full shot, which shows the entire ship, appeared in the Dec 1967 issue of "Model Car & Science" magazine. You can see some of the other "beauty shots" at Phil Broad's great site http://cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STEnterprise/11footMiniature.htm.

As you can see, these photos represent the Production version of the Enterprise - but take a look at the 3/4 view of the model at http://cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STEnterprise/ent38.jpg. Note that the "NCC-1701" decal on the starboard underside of the saucer has not yet been flipped to make it more readable. As far as I know, all footage of the Production version features the "flipped" version of the decals, so that's why I think these photos represent the pre-filming Production version.

The tan/rust-colored arc apparently was on the Production version, from the beginning; however, I wouldn't get too stressed over the exact date that this detail or that detail appeared on the model. A friend at the ILM model shop told me that every time they hauled the refit Enterprise model out of storage, they'd have to repaint damaged areas and replace missing parts & decals. I suspect that this was the case with the original Enterprise model, too, and that the model probably went through a continuing evolution over the years.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Upon further examination, it looks as though the deflector assembly is not pushed back into the secondary hull enough at the top.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Thanks, Gary, for the extra info. I wouldn't say I'm "stressed" about when the detail appeared -- just curious. I'm a long time student of the model and had always thought the "rust band" had appeared with the series revision. TrekAce's comment seemed to imply it was applied some time later in the production. That would be a tidbit of surprising new information for me. 

I'm glad to have your confirmation about the source of the "bow light" image. Pix from that session have a few other interesting anomalies as well. One of them is a mystery surrounding the lighting effect on the engine domes. In those photos, the domes seem to be lit with the Christmas lights and mirror bits (hence the sparkly effect) but without the "fan blade" shadows. My personal theory about this detail is a follows:


Richard Datin describes the dome lighting he created for the model as incorporating a spun aluminum bowl with slots cut into it for the light to shine through.


Craig Thompson, who "borrowed" the model from the studio in 1972 for a school display, describes the lighting as using a clear plastic inner dome with black lines marked on them.


I posit that the original mostly-opaque dome with slots for light did not allow enough light to pass through to the domes. They were replaced by the clear domes with black lines before the series filming began. The images from the photo shoot we're discussing date from the brief time between, and show the domes with no inner dome in place.

Of course, the new inner domes were installed, and the reversed decal adjusted, before any series footage was filmed. Any comments on this theory from those in the know? Gary? TrekAce? Thomas?

M.


----------



## spacecraft guy (Aug 16, 2003)

Captain April said:


> If there was any effects work done with the model in the third season, it was wasted film, since there wasn't a single shot of the Enterprise that wasn't originally filmed during either the first or second season, mostly the first (with the remotely possible exception of the long distance shot in "The Enterprise Incident", where the ship is surrounded by the three Romulan D-7's).



Huh?! 

Just off the top of my head I remember the new Enterprise fly-by shots in the third season, the close-up shots of the underside of the saucer section in "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield."


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Gary K said:


> Check again. The bow light is *barely* visible at the tail end of the sequence. Here's a better view, taken just before they began filming the Production version.


Looks more like an indentation, like they pushed the plug in a tad too far. It also looks like the weathering goes across that piece as well, which would bolster the point that it was painted just like the rest of the hull.

As for the "before they began filming the Production version," the whole point _is_ the production version.

I'll check "The Tholian Web" again, but I know I didn't see any light when I watched it the other night.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Gary K said:


> The shot of the bow light is a closeup from a series of b&w photos that I refer to as the "beauty shots". The full shot, which shows the entire ship, appeared in the Dec 1967 issue of "Model Car & Science" magazine. You can see some of the other "beauty shots" at Phil Broad's great site http://cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STEnterprise/11footMiniature.htm.
> 
> As you can see, these photos represent the Production version of the Enterprise - but take a look at the 3/4 view of the model at http://cloudster.com/Sets&Vehicles/STEnterprise/ent38.jpg. Note that the "NCC-1701" decal on the starboard underside of the saucer has not yet been flipped to make it more readable. As far as I know, all footage of the Production version features the "flipped" version of the decals, so that's why I think these photos represent the pre-filming Production version.
> 
> The tan/rust-colored arc apparently was on the Production version, from the beginning; however, I wouldn't get too stressed over the exact date that this detail or that detail appeared on the model. A friend at the ILM model shop told me that every time they hauled the refit Enterprise model out of storage, they'd have to repaint damaged areas and replace missing parts & decals. I suspect that this was the case with the original Enterprise model, too, and that the model probably went through a continuing evolution over the years.


The lighting effects in the nacelles also looks a bit like the slotted dome setup MGagen described.

I also recently saw an extreme closeup pic of the lower sensor dome, possibly from this period in the model's history, that showed some sort of barrel or nozzle sticking out of the little nub on the bottom. Phaser emitter, perhaps?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

spacecraft guy said:


> Huh?!
> 
> Just off the top of my head I remember the new Enterprise fly-by shots in the third season, the close-up shots of the underside of the saucer section in "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield."


I'll check that one out, but I don't recall any new flyby shots.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Yes. The 3rd season did have new flyby shots that are distinguishable from the first two seasons.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Captain April said:


> I also recently saw an extreme closeup pic of the lower sensor dome, possibly from this period in the model's history, that showed some sort of barrel or nozzle sticking out of the little nub on the bottom. Phaser emitter, perhaps?


Always wondered about that myself. This feature appears (appeared) on the Unobtanium miniature as well, but I'm unclear as to its original origins.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Carson Dyle said:


> Always wondered about that myself. This feature [sticking out of the "nipple" on the bottom of the lower sensor dome - GK] appears (appeared) on the Unobtanium miniature as well, but I'm unclear as to its original origins.


Both the "nipple" and the unnamed feature first appeared on the Production version, and are visible in a couple of the b&w "beauty shots" that I've mentioned previously. The feature consists of a short, silvery "barrel" with a red grain-of-wheat bulb sticking out the end. I have NO idea what it's supposed to be!

In the late 70s, Trek guru Doug Drexler saw the feature when he inspected the 11-ft Enterprise in preparation for his Poster Book article. He says the barrel was missing, but the red bulb was still there, hanging from its two wires.

Check out the opening scene in "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield", which features an extreme zoom-in to the lower sensor dome. You can see the red light bulb on the feature, as well as scribing on the sensor dome, itself.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Anyone know the true nature of those tiny little "lights" or "bumps" or whatever they are on top of the nacelles just behind the domes?


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Hey Gary K,

Would you be willing to let me add that upper bow-to-stern B&W beauty shot to the others on my site? I know everyone here would love to see it and I would be happy to credit it as "from the collection of Gary Kerr". Send me an email when you get the chance.

Phil Broad


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

CessnaDriver said:


> Anyone know the true nature of those tiny little "lights" or "bumps" or whatever they are on top of the nacelles just behind the domes?


I assume they were supposed to be lights, since on the 3 ft model, they were red & green, the same as the nav lights on the saucer. The originals were missing when I first examined the 11-footer in 1991. Judging from the high-res closeups of the "beauty shots" I've seen, the lights look suspiciously like the lights they used on the tricorder & communicator props (that is, a small light set in a metal bezel), and I wouldn't be surprised to learn that that's what they were. As far as I know, they were never illuminated.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

X15-A2 said:


> Hey Gary K,
> 
> Would you be willing to let me add that upper bow-to-stern B&W beauty shot to the others on my site? I know everyone here would love to see it and I would be happy to credit it as "from the collection of Gary Kerr". Send me an email when you get the chance.
> 
> Phil Broad


I dunno about Gary, but I'd love to see the entire picture, especially since this seems to something of a "lost era" in the model's history, even though it was probably only a matter of days or weeks.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

More no copper band:










This shot is a close up from the side view footage of the 1701 in "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield." I still don't see anything there behind the deflector array housing indicating that there was a copper or red band.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

I think it is simply a combination of weathering applied and shadow.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> This shot is a close up from the side view footage of the 1701 in "Let That Be Your Last Battlefield." I still don't see anything there behind the deflector array housing indicating that there was a copper or red band.


You don't? I do. Granted, it's faint -- but all the colors in that shot are pretty washed-out. Look at the red and yellow pennant visible in that shot -- the red is pretty dull and the yellow is difficult to identify as such based solely on that shot.

I fooled around with it in Photoshop using the LAB colorspace. I boosted the contrast of the color channels an equal amount on each extreme. This doesn't change one color to another; it intensifies saturation and increases color contrast -- in other words, two different shades of red become both more saturated and more obviously different, but it doesn't change blue to red or anything like that. I cannot say _why_ there's a band of color there that is closer to copper/red in this image, only that it seems to be there.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

sbaxter, I'll post a few more images from that footage to show what I'm talking about. IIRC, I chose the one that looked the "reddest" there. Light can be misleading, especially when cast on an object that is then put in front of a background by opitical compositing.

The closest I'd think that it is to being reddish is perhaps a slight tint from paint underneath but the top coat is clearly hull color there and certainly no copperish band matching the bands around the deflector array.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

I think we all can agree the early smithsonian pics show hull color there and no copper ring at all. 

I took one of those pics that showed a little something there and cranked up the color saturation WAAAAY up.












And check this cloudster shot........its dirty just in front of the ring.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

CessnaDriver said:


> I think we all can agree the early smithsonian pics show hull color there and no copper ring at all.QUOTE]
> 
> For all the complaining about Ed Miarecki's restoration effort, people have not heaped near enough scorn on the the truly awful job done by the first restorers. Among other things, not only did these geniuses obliterate all the original paint job, save for the upper saucer, they also used somebody's old salad bowl as a replacement for the deflector dish and added the blinking, blood-red hemispheres to the fwd ends of the nacelles.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I agree with your opinion about Rogay, Gary. They did a lousy job on "restoring" the model. However, despite the apparent dismay that the Smithsonian seemed to express at the results, they still showed a total disrespect for the model and its history when, during the second commissioned "restoration" they requested that the "unsightly" exposed wiring be removed and imbedded within the model, thereby totally destroying any visible representation of how it originally appeared during the run of the series.
I certainly don't have to rehash my opinion on the heavy-handed and historically inaccurate paint job that was splattered on its surface.

My dismay with the Smithsonian does not just regard the disrespect they have shown toward the _Enterprise_, but other historical artifacts as well. But, that is another story.

On another note, I do remember now which episode had the POV color records printed out-of-sync. It was _I, Mudd_.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> sbaxter, I'll post a few more images from that footage to show what I'm talking about. IIRC, I chose the one that looked the "reddest" there. Light can be misleading, especially when cast on an object that is then put in front of a background by opitical compositing.
> 
> The closest I'd think that it is to being reddish is perhaps a slight tint from paint underneath but the top coat is clearly hull color there and certainly no copperish band matching the bands around the deflector array.


If I put it on a model, I make it very faint. It's one of the few paint features which looks right to my eye if it's there or not. I don't really feel passionate about it either way, to be honest, and reproducing it on a model is tricky -- it's difficult to make it subtle enough to look right (presuming you think it looks right at all). I know what you mean about lighting being misleading, but in this particular case I think the color cast only supports my impression that it is there. There's a strong blue/green cast, which should negate red tones to a degree. That it still appears to be present suggests it was really there, at least at one time.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

sbaxter said:


> If I put it on a model, I make it very faint. It's one of the few paint features which looks right to my eye if it's there or not.


I don't blame you, there. In all honesty, it looks GREAT there--a terrific added feature--and is canon to the 1991 restoration, after all


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I don't blame you, there. In all honesty, it looks GREAT there--a terrific added feature--and is canon to the 1991 restoration, after all


To be honest, I usually use Greg Jein's model from DS9's "Trials and Tribbleations" as my main reference -- it is also canon and much better reference photos of it exist -- and it looks great.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

sbaxter said:


> To be honest, I usually use Greg Jein's model from DS9's "Trials and Tribbleations" as my main reference -- it is also canon and much better reference photos of it exist -- and it looks great.
> 
> Qapla'
> 
> SSB


As far as I'm concerned that's as valid as any version. It's very close to the original in almost all respects and the differences are often improvements.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Here she is before the smith' did anything to her....

I know its black and white but still useful....


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> As far as I'm concerned that's as valid as any version. It's very close to the original in almost all respects and the differences are often improvements.


I agree. In addition to scribing grid lines on the model, Greg also installed orange lights in the impulse vents. Too bad they didn't film the model with the vent lights illuminated.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

As both Trek Ace and Gary K. are still following this discussion, can I get "youse guys'" opinion on the theory I outlined up thread? It's an attempt to explain the discrepancy between the state of the engine dome lighting when Datin installed it and its state after the series ended. I think the way it looks in the "not quite completed" series update photo session is a clue:



MGagen said:


> Pix from that session have a few other interesting anomalies as well. One of them is a mystery surrounding the lighting effect on the engine domes. In those photos, the domes seem to be lit with the Christmas lights and mirror bits (hence the sparkly effect) but without the "fan blade" shadows. My personal theory about this detail is a follows:
> 
> 
> Richard Datin describes the dome lighting he created for the model as incorporating a spun aluminum bowl with slots cut into it for the light to shine through.
> ...


Am I on to something, or simply off my nut?

M.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Sounds reasonable to me, M!

Too bad we don't have some documentation, photographic or otherwise, of the opaque dome with the slots.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Okay, here are the photo close-ups I was referring to earlier:

1. Here is the photograph with just the noise cleaned up:










2. Here is the photograph clarified:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Trek Ace said:


> On another note, I do remember now which episode had the POV color records printed out-of-sync. It was _I, Mudd_.


Okay, I can see that. The perspective of the androids as they're starting to malfunction. Also, David Gerrold did some rewrite work on that one, so that's probably where that gag came from.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Sounds reasonable to me, M!
> 
> Too bad we don't have some documentation, photographic or otherwise, of the opaque dome with the slots.


It would explain the look of the nacelles in those not-quite-production-version pics, though.

Pity they're b/w. Would've been nice to see that effect in color.


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Sounds reasonable to me, M!
> 
> Too bad we don't have some documentation, photographic or otherwise, of the opaque dome with the slots.


I can help a little with that. I have corresponded with Mr. Datin a few times over the years and here is what he told me on the subject:



> *Richard Datin*, from a private email of October 14, '04:
> 
> "The domes were of clear plexiglas, finely sandblasted (frosted) to obscure any details inside. I don't recall installing any broken mirror pieces (that was done later by one of the special effects studios for an enhanced effect), but the dome was illuminated by a set of miniature Christmas Tree lights (I don't recall if they were white, or clear or colored bulbs) affixed to the inside surface of the nacelle pod. Over the lights I placed a spun aluminium dome shaped disk of which I cut a series of slots radiating out from its center (the effect was similar to a fan) all around."


I outlined my theory from memory, but now I re-read Datin's email, I see that the mirror bits were not part of his original setup. I should have stated it:


Documented -- Datin installs frosted outer dome, opaque inner dome with slots, and Christmas lights during model's series revision.


Conjecture -- Because the effect is too dim, the studio dicards opaque inner dome and adds mirror bits. Photo session on black background yields photos in question.


Conjecture -- Studio makes a few more changes to model: Adds clear inner dome with dark stripes, reverses registration number on bottom of saucer, etc. Series filming begins.


Documented -- Craig Thompson borrows model for school display in 1972 and finds lighting setup consisting of Christmas lights, mirror bits, a clear inner dome with dark stripes and a frosted outer dome.

How does that theory hold up? Can you shed any light on this, *Trek Ace*?

M.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> It would explain the look of the nacelles in those not-quite-production-version pics, though.


Yeah! I bet that's it! :thumbsup: I've always thought they didn't look quite "right."


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

*Just for fun...*

I'll venture out and take pictures.

Cessna Driver's post of the big model & company out front of the old Production Models' shop over in Burbank prompted me to grab a pic of the location as it appears today.










As you can see, not much has changed. Other than the cars and a security fence across the street, it still looks pretty much the same as it did some 40+ years ago. :sigh:


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Except there is no longer an eleven foor starship sitting on the curb. :double sigh:


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

I wonder what people thought driving by that day????

Cool pic!


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Very neato pic, there Trek Ace! 

It's fascinating to see the cracks that have appeared in the sidewalk over time and the other stuff that has NOT changed.


----------



## The IDIC Page (Oct 20, 2000)

*Production Models Shop*

Hey Trek Ace,

Thanks for posting the present-day shot of the street in front of Production Models Shop. Is the original PMS building still there? BTW, here's a shot I've posted here several times over the years of the infamous bow light on the 11-footer.

William
The IDIC Page


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

The phantom band is something I've never seen mentioned before and I'm pretty much convinced that it's just a lighting or weathering artifact. Or dirt. 
What I have seen before but have never seen mentioned is a phantom scallop. It is quite clearly visible in a post Smith 1 restoration photo in the 1st edition of FSM's Famous Spaceships of Fact and Fantasy. I'm sorry that this is such a crappy copy but it's been hit with overspray. But you can still see the scallop. The scallop was also included in blueprints by Allen Everhart provided by David Merriman in the April 92 issue of Scale Modeller. 
Were these scallops a product of the Smith 1 restore or did they actually exist?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

This old blue element is a bit grainy and contrasty, but you can see the shading here. It extends around the sides and front edges of the right and bottom boxes as well. It is not as dark as depicted here, and not a solid stripe. Much more subtle. 










The _Enterprise_ was not a brand-new ship in Kirk's time. The model was "aged" somewhat with subtle weathering, shading and 'airflow' lines like a well-used jet aircraft would exhibit. This also helped sell the scale and the reality - to give the ship some history, like it's been out there for a while.


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

starseeker said:


> The phantom band is something I've never seen mentioned before and I'm pretty much convinced that it's just a lighting or weathering artifact. Or dirt.
> What I have seen before but have never seen mentioned is a phantom scallop. It is quite clearly visible in a post Smith 1 restoration photo in the 1st edition of FSM's Famous Spaceships of Fact and Fantasy. I'm sorry that this is such a crappy copy but it's been hit with overspray. But you can still see the scallop. The scallop was also included in blueprints by Allen Everhart provided by David Merriman in the April 92 issue of Scale Modeller.
> Were these scallops a product of the Smith 1 restore or did they actually exist?


The scallops are there, but you're not supposed to see them. The secondary hull is wooden and is built somewhat like a barrel, with lengths of wood formed around several circular bulkheads. The scallops are merely the seams between the staves that were exposed when they lathed the final contour of the secondary hull. Like I said, you weren't *supposed* to see the seams, but they opened up as the wood shrank & swelled over the years.


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Similar plank lines also appear on the sides near the aft under and around the pylons. several more lines are visable around the hangar bay alcove and porch.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Most enjoyable thread all around.

Here is a schematic created by my good friend Charles Adams a while ago. 










I have seen photos that confirm his findings on the inboard nacelle screens. Due to prior agreements, I can't post them. Why Miarecki changed it is still a mystery. Perhaps the original could not be removed without ruining it. It was soft punched brass and he may have needed to remove it as part of the restoration.

As for the forward saucer nav light, I agree with Captain April in that it was an access area and not ever intended to be a visible light. 

I believe the copper ring aft of the dish assembly on the secondary hull was there, but not as blatant as the MR. Any pics from the Smithsonian on this subject are irrelevant as they "restored" the ship prior to exhibition. Yes, I agree that it doesn't seem apparent on that B&W shot of the ship being uncrated at the Smithsonian. Not sure on this.

Would love to have Trek Ace or Gary follow up on MGagen's direct questions. Come on guys. At least say "no comment." Something. 

And Phil, not that you need further confirmation, but I fould the exact same issue with the inboard nacelle trench when I built my 3D Enterprise. The boolean cutout did not render the proper profile with a flat intersecting plane. It was only after I altered it significantly that the proper shape was seen. Good catch.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

jheilman said:


> As for the forward saucer nav light, I agree with Captain April in that it was an access area and not ever intended to be a visible light.


*THANK YOU!!* In fact, I just rewatched the opening shot from "The Tholian Web" again, frame by frame, and yes, just before the bow is out of the frame, you can just _baaaaaarrrrrrrely_ see what looks like a shallow round indentaion, like, as I said earlier, someone had tapped in the plug just a tad too far. It most definitely was _*not*_ lit.



> I believe the copper ring aft of the dish assembly on the secondary hull was there, but not as blatant as the MR. Any pics from the Smithsonian on this subject are irrelevant as they "restored" the ship prior to exhibition. Yes, I agree that it doesn't seem apparent on that B&W shot of the ship being uncrated at the Smithsonian. Not sure on this.


I'm leaning towards heavy weathering. Something like that would tend to get a bit more intense with that sort of surface area and protrusions.

I'll take a closer look at that cleaned up "Space Seed" pic...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Gary K said:


> The scallops are there, but you're not supposed to see them. The secondary hull is wooden and is built somewhat like a barrel, with lengths of wood formed around several circular bulkheads. The scallops are merely the seams between the staves that were exposed when they lathed the final contour of the secondary hull. Like I said, you weren't *supposed* to see the seams, but they opened up as the wood shrank & swelled over the years.


Fascinating! Great info--thanks! :thumbsup: I had no idea about those.


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

This is a nice thread. I agree with the statements made that if the copper ring is made up, it's still a nice detail. It makes the terracing stand out nicely. Though, I would make it somewhat fainter than some have.

Trek Ace seems to have worked on the original show? Is he not talking about this? What's the problem?

I also want to encourage anyone with "private collections" of photos and whatnot to share them. Don't be stingy! Who's this guy that helped on the restoration, that has all these pictures the MR guy referred to. That's not Gary is it? 

Finally, would people here be interested in starting a Wiki about the Enterprise? There are a lot of websites and even Star Trek wikis (Memory-Alpha) out there, but it might be cool to let people with information come together and post data and interesting information, that can also be group edited/formatted, focusing on the Enterprise. Uploading pictures or links to pictures, etc.

A little p.s. since this is my first post in a little while. I might be changing my screename to Lt. Washburn soon...so if you see that guy posting around here, that's me.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Richard, wasn't Washburn Mr. Scott's assistant on "The Doomsday Machine?"


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

Gary K said:


> The scallops are there, but you're not supposed to see them. The secondary hull is wooden and is built somewhat like a barrel, with lengths of wood formed around several circular bulkheads. The scallops are merely the seams between the staves that were exposed when they lathed the final contour of the secondary hull. Like I said, you weren't *supposed* to see the seams, but they opened up as the wood shrank & swelled over the years.



Very cool! I have wondered about those for years . 
I agree, this is a great thread. What an amazing amount of info you all have collected over the years!


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

jheilman said:


> Most enjoyable thread all around.
> I have seen photos that confirm his findings on the inboard nacelle screens. Due to prior agreements, I can't post them. Why Miarecki changed it is still a mystery. Perhaps the original could not be removed without ruining it. It was soft punched brass and he may have needed to remove it as part of the restoration.


The inboard nacelle grills were stainless steel, with holes stamped in them. The starboard nacelle didn't have an inboard trench, like the port nacelle did; however, they *suggested* a trench through the judicious use of paint and surface-mounted features (check the shots of the Enterprise approaching K-7 in "The Trouble With Tribbles"). The stbd grills vanished sometime between the end of production and before the model went on public display at the NASM.

In 1991, the model arrived at Ed Miarecki's shop somewhat later than planned, although his deadline remained the same. The Smithsomian wanted Ed to recreate the features on the stbd nacelle. Time was running out and Ed didn't have time to recreate the original grills from scratch, so he removed the original grills and installed new ones on both nacelles so at least they'd match.



jheilman said:


> As for the forward saucer nav light, I agree with Captain April in that it was an access area and not ever intended to be a visible light


IMO, they intended the access hole to to a light. If they didn't want it to be visible, they could have painted the cover to match the hull paint, and NOBODY would ever have noticed it. Since it was made of the same translucent plastic as the rectangular lights, I'm guessing that they wanted it to be seen, as it would look "cool". 

As for the light being barely visible, this was probably just the constraints of engineering. Watch the shot of the Enterprise leaving K-7 in the tribbles episode, and you'll see that the center sensor light is much dimmer than the lights that flank it. Presumably, there was some internal structural/lighting issue that caused problems with even illumination of the nav light & sensors. In addition, a streak of weathering partially obscures the nav light.



jheilman said:


> I believe the copper ring aft of the dish assembly on the secondary hull was there, but not as blatant as the MR. Any pics from the Smithsonian on this subject are irrelevant as they "restored" the ship prior to exhibition. Yes, I agree that it doesn't seem apparent on that B&W shot of the ship being uncrated at the Smithsonian. Not sure on this.


Don't worry: this issue has already been adressed and corrected at Master Replicas. The ring IS visible in the uncrating shot, but it's not very obvious since it was only lightly weathered onto the model. Likewise, the tan arc on the upper saucer is much more obvious in person (or in color photos) than in the b&w uncrating shot.



jheilman said:


> Would love to have Trek Ace or Gary follow up on MGagen's direct questions. Come on guys. At least say "no comment." Something.


Okay - I don't know nuthin' 'bout no domes. The details of the interior of the nacelle domes remain as the major unsolved mystery for me. All I know is what I hear & read.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Thank you Mr. Kerr for that wealth of info. Much appreciated. 

Stainless steel you say? Never would have suspected that. The starboard grills being lost explains why both were replaced. Mystery solved there.

And thanks for replying about the nacelle dome lights. Further info needed here. Maybe someday?


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

+1 Thanks a lot Gary! Its always a good day when you learn a little more cool info about your favorite starship.


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

jheilman said:


> Richard, wasn't Washburn Mr. Scott's assistant on "The Doomsday Machine?"


 Yes. The actor has the same name as me, so I picked him for a handle.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

A few scattered comments.

From what I can tell, and what Thomas said when this subject came up over on TrekBBS, that plug _was_ painted the same as the rest of the hull, and weathered. The only shot where it appears at all seems to be that approach sequence, and then only because it's not 100% flush with the surface (and even then, you have to be looking for it to see it at all). If they wanted it to light up, it would've been a childishly simple matter of not painting the thing in the first place and maybe adding a properly folded piece of white cardboard as a reflector.

And in the "it's amazing what you can observe just by looking", it turns out that the homing beacon _did_ flash, in the second pilot configuration. All these years of watching that same flyby and I only just noticed it (going through a marathon with the DVD sets; they're due back at the library by Monday).


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

A few more tidbits and observations...

Here's a brief history of the model, courtesy of this glorious site here.










I still take issue with the forward bow light, but I will concede that it quite possibly was originally intended as such, then for whatever reason it was painted over. 

As for that mysterious ring, I've looked at about a half dozen different pics from that "Space Seed" sequence, and it looks different in each one. In some, it looks rather coppery, in others it looks like the same gray as the rest of the ship.

I'm gonna conclude that it's all a trick of the lighting combined with the weathering of the model, and correct my blueprints accordingly.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Oh. My. God. How has this site eluded me? Thanks so much for posting!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

As for that bit about the distorted color separation footage from "I, Mudd"....










Let it never be said I'm not willing to admit I'm wrong, once presented with conclusive evidence.

I still say this was a case of David Gerrold trying to reuse an idea from his pitch for "The Protracted Man".


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

What's interesting is I was just at that page before I read about the shot, and then it showed up just after I read the reference to it here. That's no coincidence is it?


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Probably not a coincidence.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Great site! A little hard to copy the reference photographs, but a great site nonetheless.


----------



## Matt houston (Mar 31, 2005)

Any more info or pics from the new Master Replicas E?
When will it be released and what's the price?


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

> *From http://startrekhistory.com/restoration/bluescreen.html*
> 
> Nacelles: solid wood "power nodules" with spikes replaced with frosted plexiglas domes with inner surface painted transparent orange, plus motorized vanes and blinking Christmas lights added behind the dome.


This passage is a mystery. Datin states that the dome was clear plexi, sandblasted on the inside, when he finished with it. Craig Thompson states that when he borrowed it in '72 the domes were clear frosted plexi. Neither describe any paint or tinting. I have read a few unattributed claims that the dome was tinted red or orange or amber, but how can we square this with the before and after descriptions?

*Trek Ace*, we really need to hear from you on this issue (and my inner dome swap theory)...

M.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

There was a brass colored(pretty sure it was brass) metal screening inside too.

That must have had some effect on the lighting, though not enough to give it a red or deep orange tint though...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

For the most part, the domes looked reddish orange because of the deterioration of the film stock, but after the restoration process for the last DVD release, it was pretty evident that the only red and/or orange came from any red and orange lights inside the domes.

Maybe the orange tinted domes were only with the slotted aluminum domes underneath...?


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2006)

Here are some in progress shots of the MR TOS E paint master.

http://masterreplicas.com/pub/enterprisedevelopment22.jpg

http://masterreplicas.com/pub/enterprisedevelopment23.jpg

http://masterreplicas.com/pub/enterprisedevelopment24.jpg

As you can see the weathering is very subtle indeed. The copper ring (dark red) that everyone seemed so offended by has been blended in, though on the flash pictures it looks much more vivid than it appears to the eye.

The nacelles on the paint master lack their electronic units and the "fan blades" are just placeholder lines on this model.

Hope you guys enjoy them.

Barry


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Oh man, I'm droolin here!

A question though, is the leading edge of the saucer neck painted a darker shade of gray? It doesn't look like it.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

any updates as to release date/price? (im already putting away the $.... i can always wait an extra couple months for that surgery......)


----------



## jimmydog (May 7, 2005)

amazing! give us a hint about the release date, please!


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2006)

The leading edge of the neck connecting the engineering hull to the saucer is a subtly darker shade of grey. The flash photography tends to bleach out all the details.

The price and release dates will be announced shortly.

Barry


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

That darker section of the Primary Hull pylon should be a shade of blue rather than grey. The entire pylon was originally blue but it got repainted after it was reworked to include practical lighting (I imagine that it was scuffed up when they were cutting out the windows and mounting lenses in there). Instead of matching the original blue color when they were done, they simply painted over most of it with the same hull color the rest of the ship had, leaving a blue leading edge. See the shots below for a comparison of before and after:










After:


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

B[email protected] said:


> Here are some in progress shots of the MR TOS E paint master.
> 
> http://masterreplicas.com/pub/enterprisedevelopment22.jpg
> 
> ...


I want, I want, I WAAAANT!

I guess I'm just gonna have t' rob a bank or something.


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> That darker section of the Primary Hull pylon should be a shade of blue rather than grey. The entire pylon was originally blue but it got repainted after it was reworked to include practical lighting


Interesting... the original hull/ pylon color variation reminds me of the sort of subtle but distinct differences found on the Klingon miniature. Clearly the model makers were using every trick they could (within reason) to create an illusion of increased scale.


----------



## hiyata99 (Sep 19, 2003)

I spoke with a gent who actually saw the nacelle domes whilst they were apart.....he was 12 yrs old at the time. At the time he said that the inner dome was clear and looked like a salad bowl that had black painted lines...I suppose they could have been tape as well. 

I believe that the inner workings changed throughout the seasons. I also believe that the inner domes were clear and that any "orange" you see is from the internal lights.

As you can see in this 1:1 replica the outer dome is frosted (internally) and the inner dome is clear yet it has a nice orangish glow. It's not perfect....when I get some more time I'll have to finishe it off.

http://users.rcn.com/murarogm/Temp/MVI_1722.wmv


"This passage is a mystery. Datin states that the dome was clear plexi, sandblasted on the inside, when he finished with it. Craig Thompson states that when he borrowed it in '72 the domes were clear frosted plexi. Neither describe any paint or tinting. I have read a few unattributed claims that the dome was tinted red or orange or amber, but how can we square this with the before and after descriptions?"


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Greetings Hiyata99. I remember many a post from you in the old phaser threads. Very impressive mock-up there. You say 1:1 with the original 11-footer? Are you building the complete ship?


----------



## James B. Elliott (Jan 29, 2001)

*heretical suggestions*

While the MR TOS Enterprise is well underway and I really like what I've seen so far. It seems like MR will come as close as possible to the production version, though still leave some room for debate. Be that as it may, I'll put out a few heretical ideas (that I've posted elsewhere and that are not my own, but taken from various moderls, both real and virtual, around the net) about what I'd like to see in the 1701.

First with regards to the nacelle bussards, I'd rather see multi-colored LEDs in a chase pattern than spinning fan blades (I know this is against cannon, that's why I called them heretical ideas). Even better than the LEDs would be something that would make the bussards look like they had plasma inside, an effect like the one in this picture (this also shows how nice the saucer looks without the top front circular light, but that's another story):










I'm not sure how that would be done, but it would look nice, in my opinion. Maybe two tiny plasma globes with frosted red glass








Though that would probably sky rocket the price if it's even possible.

It would also be nice if the nacelle grid:









had the soft blue glow behind it that shows up in the NX-01 and all TNG versions of the Enterprise. That is, when the lights of this ship is on, the inner part of the nacelle glows blue.

Finally on the nacelles, it would also be nice if the spherical part of the endcaps were translucent and glowed softly. Something along the lines of this picture:









It would be nice if the impluse engines also gave off a soft red or red/orange glow along the lines of the Bandai refit model









I hope that MR skips the tiny gun turret on the underside of the saucer section (though it looks like they haven't based on the latest photos) and goes with phasers and photon torpedoes that are built into the dome on the bottom of the saucer section. There were some nice CG pictures of this on the Trek Art Star Trek BBS a few years ago. It would be nifty is there was a laser (yeah I know we wouldn't see the beams if the air wasn't dusty or moist) that shot out of that part too.

A nice effect would be to have some light "bleed through" around the markings, sort of like the effect that Art Asylum got (accidentally) with their version of the NX-01.

The opening and closing clam shell doors of the shuttle bay with a finished interior would be nice. Part of that was done by David Merriman, though he just used a piece that could be pulled off the model. The effect was nice:








Doug Girling also did a nice job and even had a tiny shuttle craft:









A viewable and complete bridge would be nice too, as done by Mike Scott









I think that's about it. I'm sure that none of these ideas will show up on the finished product and I'll still love it, but it's fun to think about.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

While those are some interesting concepts, if I were shelling out the $1500+ (just a guess) for an Enterprise replica, I want it to be as accurate to an idealized version of the original shooting miniature as possible. Idealized in the sense that I don't want the shortcomings of the original duplicated such as an unfinished port side and the like.


----------



## hiyata99 (Sep 19, 2003)

Hi John,

Yes it's 1:1 to the original...actually just a hair larger. No I'm not building an enterprise but I will be buying one.  I built the nacelle model as a study while phasepistol and I were researching the nacelle effect for the initial MR specs. Unfortunately the condensed clip I posted isn't as good as the original file that is just way too large to post.

Given the talent that's working on the model & effects I know that we'll be seeing a fantastic replica of the E in all her glory.

And I agree. I would want an enterprise that was as close to the idealized studio model as possible. Except for maybe the nacelle grills glowing blue.....I once heard a rumor that they had originally wanted those grills to glow blue on the original but there was no way to do that without breaking a budget....which was a standard for that show. :lol


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

how many models are in the edition? (how soon should we get in line before theyre all snapped up?)

i think this thread shows that dispite the price this is going to be a remarkably popular piece


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

hiyata99 said:


> I would want an enterprise that was as close to the idealized studio model as possible. Except for maybe the nacelle grills glowing blue.....I once heard a rumor that they had originally wanted those grills to glow blue on the original but there was no way to do that without breaking a budget....which was a standard for that show.


Yeah if that could be confirmed, it would be an interesting lighting option a la NX-01 glowing grills. On the TOS Enterprise that effect would have been cool!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Absolutely no way would I want the contemporary Trek blue glow along the nacelles. It was interesting when new yet now whenever I see it it looks so gimicky just for the sake of having more _kewl_ lighting f/x. No thank you. Leave her as she's supposed to be.


----------



## jimmydog (May 7, 2005)

I like the idea of a viewable shuttle bay and bridge.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Warped9 said:


> Absolutely no way would I want the contemporary Trek blue glow along the nacelles.


Yeah I'd rather keep the Enterprise as shown in the TOS too as the final version of it in the series. It was just an interesting historical model delelopment tidbit said that they originally wanted the grills to glow but didn't implement it. That is if the story is even true?


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ IIRC I believe GR would have liked some sort of lighting effect (although not specified) to show when the ship was in warp or something, but MJ and RJ said it was simply too expensive and time consuming to do at the time or something to that effect.


----------



## hiyata99 (Sep 19, 2003)

Well, they won't be giving that blue glow so I wouldn't worry about it. But, if we were in a mirror universe and...if they were going to add the blue glow, I would think a switch would be added so it can be turned off if your a purist and on for the coolness. The best of both universes!


----------



## Mariner Class (Aug 22, 2005)

They _could_ make a clear plastic kit version, allowing enthusaists to build their own 1701 to their hearts content.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Mariner Class said:


> They _could_ make a clear plastic kit version, allowing enthusaists to build their own 1701 to their hearts content.


Yeah if when a 1:350 TOS Enterprise kit appears, it would be cool to do one as the final TOS production version and another as an movie-era Enterprise using the original shape but updated with surface detailing and glowing grills. I kind of wish they would have done that instead of ending up with the 1701-A version we all know. Both are cool designs but my heart will always have a permanent place for the TOS version!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Unfortunately, there'd be a license fight with RC2.

Would it be asking too much for the two companies to team up and put out something like that jointly?


----------



## James B. Elliott (Jan 29, 2001)

I can't say I'm surprised by the replies. Hence the "heretical" part.  I'll be more than happy to own the version of TOS NCC-1701 that MR puts out. The idea of a switch that goes transforms the model from the idealized production version to the idealized "hindsight" version is just great! The best of both worlds. 

There are arguements to be made for all of the modifications in the spirit of "what they would have done if they could have." The blue glow is certianly consistent with the NX-01 and all the other NCC-1701x's. I'm pretty sure that I read on this very forum years ago that the glow on the end caps was an idea that the original modelers had, but didn't do. Again, it's heretical, but the blinking lights and spinning fan blades always struck me as kind of cheesey and an as close an approximation to the "plasma globe look" as the modelers could get. The impulse engines were lit blue in the "Through a Mirror Darkly" episode of Enterprise (which also skipped the forward top light on the saucer).

The one thing I'd never want to see on TOS NCC-1701 is "aztecking." One of the hallmarks of advanced technology is being able to make large pieces of material. If the aztecking is supposed to be the effect of several plates that are assembled together to form a large section, then that's not as technologically advanced as if the section was a single large piece. I know the aztecking also gives the illusion of scale, but it's not consistent with high tech. The smooth surface of TOS NCC-1701 is really fantastic. I'll accept the grids on the top of the saucer as the deflector emitter, but I really don't want to see any other grid lines or aztecking.

On a similar topic, I'm not sure the weathering makes sense either. If the Enterprise ran into debris traveling at any "realistic" speed (i.e. anything but standard planetary orbital speed) the ship would sustain a lot more damage than the weathering shows. Hence the idea that the three forward circular lights were the "navigational deflectors" that swept debris out of the path of the Enterprise. I suppose the weathering could be some sort of radiation damage incurred in warp or maybe it's really dirty in planetary orbits and Scotty is lax about cleaning the hull, but both seem unlikely since the deflectors can deflect radiation and Scotty wouldn't let the Enterprise be confused with a garbage scow. In any case, I'd much rather have a clean TOS NCC-1701.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Weathering also comes from heating effects (such as during low passes through an atmosphere), which is how I always interpreted the texturing seen on the big model.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

X15-A2 said:


> Weathering also comes from heating effects (such as during low passes through an atmosphere) . . .


Agreed: I've always figured it was the effects of gas


----------



## James B. Elliott (Jan 29, 2001)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> Agreed: I've always figured it was the effects of gas


Well, if it was gas from outside, wouldn't the forward navagation deflectors easily deflect any gas from any atmosphere?

Now if you're saying it was gas from inside the ship, or from the crew, that's another matter. But, I didn't think people had gas any more in the 23rd century.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

You would think that deflectors would cover it yet we hear reports on the show of "skin temperatures", of course they may have been refering to "Lt. VaVoom" entering the Bridge...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

James B. Elliott said:


> . . . I didn't think people had gas any more in the 23rd century.


They still have gas--it just smells like roses by the late 22nd century. :thumbsup:


----------



## Refit (Oct 24, 2005)

James B. Elliott said:


> The one thing I'd never want to see on TOS NCC-1701 is "aztecking." One of the hallmarks of advanced technology is being able to make large pieces of material. If the aztecking is supposed to be the effect of several plates that are assembled together to form a large section, then that's not as technologically advanced as if the section was a single large piece. I know the aztecking also gives the illusion of scale, but it's not consistent with high tech. The smooth surface of TOS NCC-1701 is really fantastic. I'll accept the grids on the top of the saucer as the deflector emitter, but I really don't want to see any other grid lines or aztecking.


Firstly, I want to say that I've enjoyed this thread a great deal.

In regards to the above quote, I think that author Shane Johnson's superb book "Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise" (page 13, seventh paragraph) offered an excellent explanation for why the refit Enterprise displays the "aztec" hull pattern, and why the T.O.S. Enterprise "lacks" this feature;



> During the refit, Enterprise was given an additional, though minor, footnote in Star Fleet history. In order to save adding many tons of mass to the vessel, it was decided, for the first time ever, not to paint a Federation vessel with the customary light-grey 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 metric tons and above.


In my mind, the original series Enterprise indeed had the hundreds of individual hull plates, but no one ever saw them as they were obscured.... painted over with "thermocoat".

Also, the Enterprise is (theoretically) an enormous construct. When viewed from the perspective of the sheer size of the thing, the hull plating (as relates to the refit) already consists of "large pieces of material", when compared to the size of a man, at least. And, when it comes time to repair/replace worn/damaged sections of the hull plating, it would be much more expedient/cost effective to replace a comparatively small area, which encompasses only the specific worn/damaged section, as opposed to replacing an entire "large piece of material" that would cover a much greater area. Just seems more economically/manipulatively practical to me.



James B. Elliott said:


> On a similar topic, I'm not sure the weathering makes sense either. If the Enterprise ran into debris traveling at any "realistic" speed (i.e. anything but standard planetary orbital speed) the ship would sustain a lot more damage than the weathering shows. Hence the idea that the three forward circular lights were the "navigational deflectors" that swept debris out of the path of the Enterprise. I suppose the weathering could be some sort of radiation damage incurred in warp.... I'd much rather have a clean TOS NCC-1701.


As often as the T.O.S. Enterprise was exposed to things "blowing up" (ships, atomic war heads, radiation emitting probes, etc.) at "point blank range" and the like, is it any wonder that the hull exhibited signs of "weathering"? By rights, the hull should've been virtually blackened from it all.

Still, I can understand why anyone would want a "clean" version of the miniature for display.

Wayne


----------



## Mariner Class (Aug 22, 2005)

As to the possiblity of aztecing, there's the not-too-often-considered possiblity of the pattern being a tattoo or sorts, only for visual identification from backround objects. The skin could be virtually one piece, but there are some pigment variations around the top layers of skin.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

My theory has always been that the aztecing is actually part of an alien technology grafted into the hull plating so that living tissue grows reptilian-like scales to protect the paint job underneath. :freak:


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Aztec plating is designed for hull breach protection from explosions internal or external. 
If one area is breached it will not carry to other sections and will expend energy along a controlled path layed out by the aztecing.


If ya cant boggle 'em with brilliance.......


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Aztec plating resulted because some engineer thought it wuz mighty purty!


----------



## James B. Elliott (Jan 29, 2001)

Nice bit about the painting of the 1701 and not painting of the refit. It seems sort of silly to me. Given that technology involved, a few coats of paint or not seems insignificant.



> Also, the Enterprise is (theoretically) an enormous construct. When viewed from the perspective of the sheer size of the thing, the hull plating (as relates to the refit) already consists of "large pieces of material", when compared to the size of a man, at least. And, when it comes time to repair/replace worn/damaged sections of the hull plating, it would be much more expedient/cost effective to replace a comparatively small area, which encompasses only the specific worn/damaged section, as opposed to replacing an entire "large piece of material" that would cover a much greater area. Just seems more economically/manipulatively practical to me.


I've thought about the access problem as well. Given transporter technology, access should be fairly easy. Just beam in a person, or beam away some of the hull (beam it back later) or use the transporter to beam the old piece of equipment out and beam in a new piece. In fact the transporter only needs the patter of the piece of equipment and could easily generate it using energy from the engines. Also it seems that it's more likely that any equipment that needed repair would be made accessible from the interior of the ship since exterior access would involve dealing with an environment with no atmosphere etc., where as interior access is easier on that level.

It's true that the "plates" we see on the refit are huge, but fabricating complete nacelle "shells" and the full saucer shell would indicate even greater technolagical capabilites. Thus the NX-01 would have plates, but the TOS 1701 and beyond wouldn't.

In terms of 21rst century sensibilities the notions of practicality mentioned above ring true. But given the level of technology demonstrated on TOS, that's not necessarily true.



> By rights, the hull should've been virtually blackened from it all.


 That's true, given the ubiquitous failure of the deflectors I suppose the slight weathering that's going to appear on the MR version is really inadequate.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Even today huge ships are built in massive sections called "mega-lifts". Modern Destroyers are built in sections, sliced up like a loaf of bread, and each section (about 30-40 feet long) is totally finished inside, including furniture, before being welded together. By the era of TOS Star Trek, each hull could easily be made as one piece. Even if they are not, the sections outlined by the original hull plating lines seen on the Primary Hull are small, even by todays standards. To suggest that the hulls would really need to be made of even smaller parts, as indicated by the more recent "Aztecing" patterns, is not very realistic in my opinion (although I do agree that it looks cool). If anything, those sections would be even larger than the original hull plating lines indicate (so-called "deflector grid") or one-piece hulls (more likely).

It was stated by Matt Jefferies that all maintenance work was designed to take place inside the ship so exterior access points would be bare minimum. That is why the TOS "E" was NOT covered with stenciling (unlike the way the later "refits" were portrayed).


----------



## Mariner Class (Aug 22, 2005)

Actually, the ship may be built in one solid mass, but is designed to be cut/transported up into sections for emergency access. There's also the issue of having interchangable parts, like new nacelles and other minor modifications (much like the evolution of the 1701 from The Cage to The Corbomite Manuver.)


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Matt Jefferies stated that the major hulls were meant to be removeable. The Warp nacelles were not only capable of being replaced, they could be jetisoned in the event of malfunction because they were so dangerous (that is why the "Warp Drives" are isolated in totally separate structures in the first place). The Primary Hull was also capable of separating from the rest of the ship and operating independently on a limited basis as a lifeboat. Thus each major section was designed to be replaced along existing join lines. He also said that the ship was built on the ground and "sections transported into orbit" for final assembly but he never stated how big those "sections" were or how they were moved. I doubt any ship would be "designed to be cut up" for any reason, in the same way that tanks, submarines and planes are not designed to be cut up. In the case of an aircraft there may be indications of where to cut to gain "safe" access for crash rescue purposes but that is not the same as being designed to be cut up. A large submarine is perhaps the best example to draw from, if it doesn't make sense to do on a sub then it probably doesn't make sense on a starship as well.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^ Very sound reasoning!

I think the best way to have approached this whole attempt to give the models scale would have been to look at the stretching of the skin over the support framework members underneath. Look at a modern ship and you'll see that the waves have pounded the skin in somewhat in between the frames and overall gives an impression of scale if applied to a model. This may not make a whole lot of sense on a starship but then again, why not?

I think the grid lines on the original ship help convey this impression somewhat.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Grid lines do not impart any true sense of scale. Besides all I ever needed to know was that the ship was big and how it was presented. TOS' f/x somehow managed to convey a sense of mass and respectable size simply through how the ship was presented. In TNG we had a more detailed ship and yet rarely did the ship really seem large and substantial.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2006)

Attendees at WonderFest this weekend will get a first "in the flesh" look at the MR TOS Enterprise.

John Eaves will be there along with the First Engineering Prototype so be sure to check it out.

As to progress reports, I saw the latest prototype for the nacelle lighting boards yesterday and they looked pretty darn sweet, mimicking the on screen look of the series with nice flecks of colour in amongst the amber lights.

Barry


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Can't wait to see it!


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Oh man, I wish I could be there!


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Cool! Somebody take lots of pics for the travel challenged.

On the nacelle lighting. On screen the fan blades are a bit shadowy, and besides just simply rotating, they dance a little bit back and forth because of the blinking lights. Has that subtle effect been captured by the current solution? Spacing of the inner dome to the outer and the fan blade width seem to me to be the key to this effect.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

CessnaDriver said:


> . . . Spacing of the inner dome to the outer and the fan blade width seem to me to be the key to this effect.


I think you've got a very good point there. The effect of the Jein 1701 wasn't really all that close to the original.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

"Phase pistol" has collected these imaged stabilized movies of the original nacelles in action.......

http://homepage.mac.com/ktate/vidgallery.html

You can see the shadows of the fans blades "dancing" in many of them.

The doomsday one shows it best since its spinning slow. 

When its spinning fast its not very noticable. 

So I wonder what the RPM of the MR will be too.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

CessnaDriver said:


> Aztec plating is designed for hull breach protection from explosions internal or external.
> If one area is breached it will not carry to other sections and will expend energy along a controlled path layed out by the aztecing.
> 
> 
> If ya cant boggle 'em with brilliance.......


 
John P. posted a pic of a modern transport and troop carrying hovercraft that does indeed have aztecing.

Anymore info on that craft or remember the name John P.?

Maybe if we find out what todays' reason for aztecing we'll be able to figure out tommorrows'? (hopefully without getting anyone to violate security clearances, etc).


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

It could be a radar absorbing coating/pattern. So maybe the aztec is part of the Enterprise's defense system? Subspace/scan jammer? Could be a reasonable explanation.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I think that the "dancing" effect you guys are seeing is a moire between the rate of spin of the blades and the frame rate of the film.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

We have no idea what the original looked like to the naked eye. So MR has an out if they dont please everyone thats for sure.


----------



## Steve Mavronis (Oct 14, 2001)

Well isn't the original mechanism still intact in the 11 footer? Maybe during the next restoration they could enable the actual effect if possible!


----------



## Refit (Oct 24, 2005)

James B. Elliott said:


> Given that technology involved, a few coats of paint or not seems insignificant.


Insignificant in which way (in terms of mass, or appearance)? I mean, we're not talking about just "a few coats of paint" here. We're talking about a few coats of "_*Thermocoat!*_" Hell, _everyone_ knows that Thermocoat is and does a _lot_ more than a mere "paint" _ever_ could!  But seriously, coating a large ship's hull with some form of dense, specialized medium could easily increase a vessels gross weight by tons.



James B. Elliott said:


> I've thought about the access problem as well. Given transporter technology, access should be fairly easy. Just beam in a person, or beam away some of the hull (beam it back later) or use the transporter to beam the old piece of equipment out and beam in a new piece. In fact the transporter only needs the patter of the piece of equipment and could easily generate it using energy from the engines. Also it seems that it's more likely that any equipment that needed repair would be made accessible from the interior of the ship since exterior access would involve dealing with an environment with no atmosphere etc., where as interior access is easier on that level.


Some intriguing points! As stated, transporter technology would be an absolutely ideal medium for starship construction (as well as any _other_ variety of construction one could name). Virtually the entire vessel could be constructed in this way, although we've never actually seen a starship under this method of construction on-screen.

I recall reading in the "_Construction Chronology_" section of the "_Star Trek: The Next Generation Technical Manual_" (authored by _Rick Sternbach_ and _Michael Okuda_, and endorsed by _Gene Roddenberry_) that the outer-hull of the Galaxy-class Enterprise consists of "phaser-welded" sections of a blend of (I believe) Tri-titanium and Neutronium (don't quote me on that last one).

Be that as it may, knowing that _all_ metals exhibit "grain", perhaps it was discovered to be of some structural/technological (as might relate to warp-factor velocities) advantage to weld (or by means of a dedicated, specialized, industrial, construction-specific, sub-atomic resolution, transporter system) these sections of hull "skin" in these very precise sizes and shapes, arrayed at right angles in relation to one another's orientation, vis-a-vis an (more or less) exact orientation upon the vessel's super-structure (and they _are_, for the greater part, very similar from _TMP_ refit through the various movie "_A_" incarnations) might account for the "pearlescent" motif of the hull of _TMP_ Enterprise refit, presenting an almost "woven" appearance in relation to the hull's "aztec" pattern orientation. Also, perhaps the hull "skin" is more than one layer thick, with reinforcing, over-lapping "grains"?

At any rate, being assembled via "teleportation" might further explain why the hull "aztecing" appears to be utterly seamless, even upon extremely close visual inspection.

Speculation ad infinitum.



James B. Elliott said:


> It's true that the "plates" we see on the refit are huge, but fabricating complete nacelle "shells" and the full saucer shell would indicate even greater technolagical capabilites.


And might be reckoned by the same speculative processes employed above.



James B. Elliott said:


> But given the level of technology demonstrated on TOS, that's not necessarily true.


Nor is it necessarily _un_true. But, it sure is fun to ponder and discuss, and I thank you. :hat: :roll:  


Wayne


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Steve Mavronis said:


> Well isn't the original mechanism still intact in the 11 footer? Maybe during the next restoration they could enable the actual effect if possible!


Actually, no. The original lighting system, fan blades and nacelle dome caps were missing from the ship when the Smithsonian acquired it in the mid-seventies. They initially put bright red caps on which looked horrible. Miarecki recreated the lighting system in the 1991 restoration, but we don't know the precise "guts" of the nacelle domes.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

So any new, updated info on likely release date and new info on probable costs?
*(preferably from someone in the know rather then just everyone's guess? no offense intended to anyone) *


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

wonderfest pics of the paint master here.....

http://www.rpf.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=111023


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Sorry, not official pricing info (that has not been disclosed), but rumors from a good source at Wonderfest predicts from $2000 to $2500.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

So why are there two different size ships in the pics?


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

$2000 to $2500.

Ouch!

Dang. I hope not. Buzz used to be around 1400.


The other lighted large ship is not the MR product, you can read about it here...

http://squaremodels.netfirms.com/


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Short version is that the 66" ship is an incredible build-up of the very limited edition Custom Replicas kit from John Key. John Eaves (Trek ship designer extraordinaire) brought the MR paint-study model in to the special exhibits room at Wonderfest to temporarily display next to it for comparison and decided to leave it as it was drawing so much attention. Here's a pic of Sean Sides and his 66" E along with John Eaves and the MR paint master. A thrill to talk with them both and to see the two ships side by side. I took a couple hundred pics at Wonderfest Saturday. The vast majority of them were of these two Enterprises. And I'm OK with that. :thumbsup:


----------



## capt Locknar (Dec 29, 2002)

The little flyer I picked up at WF also said a limited run of 2000 peices.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

jheilman said:


> Short version is that the 66" ship is an incredible build-up of the very limited edition Custom Replicas kit from John Key. John Eaves (Trek ship designer extraordinaire) brought the MR paint-study model in to the special exhibits room at Wonderfest to temporarily display next to it for comparison and decided to leave it as it was drawing so much attention. Here's a pic of Sean Sides and his 66" E along with John Eaves and the MR paint master. A thrill to talk with them both and to see the two ships side by side. I took a couple hundred pics at Wonderfest Saturday. The vast majority of them were of these two Enterprises. And I'm OK with that. :thumbsup:


Sean was out here in Denver for Starfest last month, and while that model is absolutely incredible, I did pester him a bit about that forward running light (hence my renewed enthusiasm for stamping out this longstanding misconception  ). As stated above, great guy and an oustanding modelmaker.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

CessnaDriver said:


> wonderfest pics of the paint master here.....
> 
> http://www.rpf.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=111023


Damn, that is nice.


----------



## Lou Dalmaso (Jul 13, 2004)

*A reversal of reality*

Imagine these two guys having to kneel for ANYBODY! 
It definately should be the other way around.

Thanks Sean for putting up with all of the stalking

Lou


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Yep, the bow light issue came up. He says it absolutely was there. I'm still leaning toward it being an access panel to the forward lights.


----------



## [email protected] (Apr 14, 2006)

The price of the Limited Edition Enterprise will be nowhere near $2000, so let's nip that one in the bud before folks start worrying they won't be able to afford the model.

What is 2000 is the complete edition size. The prices and edition types will be announced shortly.

Barry


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

THAT is great news. Whew, my wallet is much happier now, Thanks!


----------



## jimmydog (May 7, 2005)

Glad to hear that, Barry. At that price point, you'd definitely have lost this potential customer.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Now watch the price be $1999.00 

Seriously, the prototype is very impressive! Can't wait to see it come out.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

[email protected] said:


> The price of the Limited Edition Enterprise will be nowhere near $2000, so let's nip that one in the bud before folks start worrying they won't be able to afford the model.
> 
> What is 2000 is the complete edition size. The prices and edition types will be announced shortly.
> 
> Barry


Thanks Barry!

I am so desperate to know more about this I dropped $60 yesterday to join the MR collectors society. The $100 buck off coupon will end up making it a good investment, though I really mostly joined expecting to get a ton of insider info emailed to me.

No info yet, but I don't think they've processed my order yet either.

I'm hoping the info will be offered mostly electronically rather then by paper newsletter as they are not yet delivering 3rd class mail, flyers, etc to New Orleans yet. Though some magazines are being delivered now.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Okay, so how much is the thing gonna be?


----------



## jimmydog (May 7, 2005)

Maybe somebody "in the know" could at least tell us if "soon" means we'll get the answers we're waiting for within a week, a month, by the end of summer ... what's the time frame?


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

Can someone remind me what the CR cost when it was being sold?

I don't know if it was a good idea to put the MR next to that...it looks dinky in comparison! Good, but dinky. I want the CR!


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

I've been reading some of the discussion a couple pages back about changes to TOS ways of doing things....man, I'm glad I didn't grow up on the show like some of you. I think I'd get pretty annoyed too. So, I'm glad that I can be more philosophical about some of this stuff. I grew up on TNG, so things were already substantially changed when I was introduced to it. I'll give one example though of a principal of ship design that gets me...I'm not even sure if it was supported by actual canon or statements by Jefferies or anyone...



X15-A2 said:


> Matt Jefferies stated that the major hulls were meant to be removeable. The Warp nacelles were not only capable of being replaced, they could be jetisoned in the event of malfunction because they were so dangerous (that is why the "Warp Drives" are isolated in totally separate structures in the first place).


 I'd heard this when I was young and got the idea in my head that they weren't just dangerous, say if they exploded or something, but that just during general operation they were dangerous. Like being next to some kind of radiation or something. That's why when ships like the Defiant were introduced, I was always a little standoffish to them. I like the ship fine now, but generally I prefer ships to have their nacelles on pylons away from the main parts of the ship.



X15-A2 said:


> I doubt any ship would be "designed to be cut up" for any reason, in the same way that tanks, submarines and planes are not designed to be cut up. In the case of an aircraft there may be indications of where to cut to gain "safe" access for crash rescue purposes but that is not the same as being designed to be cut up. A large submarine is perhaps the best example to draw from, if it doesn't make sense to do on a sub then it probably doesn't make sense on a starship as well.


 I understand what you're saying, but also think it's interesting to point out that planes are routinely lengthened by cutting the in half and adding extra fuselage. It can get extreme with the Boeing guppy planes, for instance. I recently saw a program that one of the newer subs in the US Navy is designed to be cut in half to have huge components retrofitted into the ship to update them in the future. It was specifically designed to be cut open. I get what you're saying, which is different, but I just thought it was interesting.

Also, in reference to another point, I think that the blue glow on the nacelles is one those things that can truely be "invisible" if it's not desired. If all you're talking about is putting lights behind the grills, I don't think something like that would be noticed if it was lit up. It would probably just look "stock."


----------



## Ruckdog (Jan 17, 2006)

> I understand what you're saying, but also think it's interesting to point out that planes are routinely lengthened by cutting the in half and adding extra fuselage. It can get extreme with the Boeing guppy planes, for instance. I recently saw a program that one of the newer subs in the US Navy is designed to be cut in half to have huge components retrofitted into the ship to update them in the future. It was specifically designed to be cut open. I get what you're saying, which is different, but I just thought it was interesting.


Actually, it is not just the newer subs. The first SSBN (The USS George Washington) was created by taking a fast attack (SSN), cutting it in half, and inserting a missile compartment. Right now, I'm training on an old SSBN that has gone through the reverse process, where the missile tubes were cut out and the front and back halves were smooshed together to create something called a Moored Training Ship.

I guess the point is that even a large and technicaly complex platform like a nuclear submarine can undergo enourmous structural and functional changes given enough time, money, and manpower.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

Ruckdog said:


> Actually, it is not just the newer subs. The first SSBN (The USS George Washington) was created by taking a fast attack (SSN), cutting it in half, and inserting a missile compartment. Right now, I'm training on an old SSBN that has gone through the reverse process, where the missile tubes were cut out and the front and back halves were smooshed together to create something called a Moored Training Ship.
> 
> I guess the point is that even a large and technicaly complex platform like a nuclear submarine can undergo enourmous structural and functional changes given enough time, money, and manpower.



Also, when any major piece of interal equipment gets replaced in a surface ship, or submarine... they cut the hull open to access them. Things like the turbine electrical generators are built as drop in units and once you get them in.. you have to cut a hole big enought to get them out when you replace them.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

So how much is the Enterprise going to cost?


----------



## nc-wilm-fx (May 30, 2006)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Thanks Barry!
> 
> I am so desperate to know more about this I dropped $60 yesterday to join the MR collectors society. The $100 buck off coupon will end up making it a good investment, though I really mostly joined expecting to get a ton of insider info emailed to me.
> 
> ...



I just joined the MR Collectors Society too for the same reason. 
Will Collectors Society members get to purchase the studio scale Enterprise in advance before it is sold to the general public?
Does anyone think the studio scale Enterprise will quickly sell out?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

That depends on _how much the bloody thing costs!_


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Pricing and dates are in!

$1199

Collectors Society On Sale:
June 13, 2006
( 9:00 am Pacific Time)

General Public On Sale Date:
June 15, 2006
(9:00 am Pacific Time)

Expected to Begin Shipping:
Winter 2006
In 1966 a five-year mission to explore strange new worlds began on television. The starship carrying this brave band of cosmic adventurers was named the U.S.S. Enterprise. While her mission was cut short to only three years, the ship and her noble crew sailed on into history and the legend was born. 

To commemorate the 40th anniversary of her maiden voyage, Master Replicas proudly launches the definitive model of the U.S.S. Enterprise. 

Designed directly from measurements taken from a detailed study of the original eleven-foot miniature, our approximately 1/350th scale model authentically recreates the exact contours and geometry of possibly the most famous spacecraft ever of fact or fantasy. 

Our spectacular replica features - 
Dimensions and geometry taken from the surviving studio miniature 
Reproduced at 1/350th scale (Approximately 32.46” long) 
Internal metal armature ensures long term structural integrity 
Durable injection molded ABS construction 
Full-illumination including warp drive nacelle lighting effects 
Authentic television series paint scheme 
Universal AC Power Adapter (USA plug) 
Display stand 
Limited edition numbered plaque 
Certificate of Authenticity 

With only 1250 pieces available, this highly sought after 40th anniversary collectible is sure to become as troublesome to find as a shipload of tribbles. 

So prepare to go to red alert and place your order… It’s the logical thing to do. 

NCC 1701 U.S.S. Enterprise Studio Scale Model 

In further celebration of Star Trek’s 40th anniversary we’re offering a signature edition of our U.S.S. Enterprise model accompanied by a special plaque signed by BOTH Star Trek legends, William Shatner AND Leonard Nimoy. 

Limited to only 500 pieces, this special anniversary edition offers the famous captain and first officer’s signatures accompanying their equally famous ship won’t last long. 

Batten yours down before an armada of Klingons appears off the starboard bow. 
$1499 

Collectors Society On Sale:
June 13, 2006
( 9:00 am Pacific Time)

General Public On Sale Date: 
June 15, 2006
(9:00 am Pacific Time)

Expected to Begin Shipping:
Winter 2006 

NCC 1701 U.S.S. Enterprise Studio Scale Model 

$1999

Collectors Society On Sale:
June 13, 2006
( 9:00 am Pacific Time)

General Public On Sale Date:
June 15, 2006 
(9:00 am Pacific Time)

Expected to Begin Shipping:
Winter 2006 
As the premier collectible of Star Trek’s 40th anniversary we’re offering a once in a lifetime Special 40th Anniversary Commemorative Signature Edition of our U.S.S. Enterprise model. Not only will you get our sensational replica, but you’ll receive a special plaque signed by all of the surviving bridge crew-members from the original series - William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, Nichelle Nichols, George Takei and Walter Koenig. 

This ultimate Star Trek collectible is limited to an ultra low edition size of only 250 pieces and is sure to sell out fast. So prepare to go to warp ten today and secure this very special piece of Star Trek history. 

Product Specifications subject to change without notice. 

® & © 2006 CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved. 
STAR TREK and Related Marks are Trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. 

Coming Soon... 
Scoundrel? I like that… A Collectors Society exclusive. 

Your crew at Master Replicas. 

www.masterreplicas.com or call 1-866-REPLIKA 
To unsubscribe, click here


----------



## schmidtjv (Apr 7, 2004)

WOO HOO!!!

I think the Collectors Society is about to get a huge bump in membership!

John


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

I see someone else DID get their email too!

Considering how long they take to recognize you as a member muchless mail you your coupons I don't know that joining will be helpfull, schmidtjv. 

I emailed to complain that I still haven't gotten my coupons from a few weeks ago when I joined. It also took several days to originally acknowledge my membership.

The "membership kit" has been held up by a lack of the .45 scale lightsaber they include, so I have no $100 off coupon yet. 

I'm hoping it won't be a problem when I order. I'll let you guys know what they say.


----------



## mactrek (Mar 30, 2004)

Is there a problem with their site? 

I can't find anything on it about this ...


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

You dont need a physical coupon.
They emailed me them when I joined. So they should provide that over the phone if they havent emailed them to you...............

"Your Collectors Society benefits begin immediately! Simply enter the coupon number you wish to use in
the Promotion Code box when placing your order."


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Nice pricing! I will definitely be getting one of these, maybe even signed by Shatner and Nimoy


----------



## Carson Dyle (May 7, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> I emailed to complain that I still haven't gotten my coupons from a few weeks ago when I joined. It also took several days to originally acknowledge my membership. I'm hoping it won't be a problem when I order.


The day I joined M.R.'s Collector's Society (or whatever it's called) I bought one of their Disneyland Monorail replicas, and I had no trouble at all receiving the promised discount. And while I too have yet to get anything in the mail by way of a membership package I doubt this will keep me from getting the discount when I purchase one of their Enterprise replicas.

I've done a lot of business with these guys over the years, and I've never once encountered a problem.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

I would suggest people be sure to login to their MR accounts and make sure that process is smooth ahead of time.


----------



## schmidtjv (Apr 7, 2004)

After 12 minutes of hitting redial, and another 8 minutes of being on hold, I finally got through to MR.

Order placed.

WOO HOO!

John


----------



## James B. Elliott (Jan 29, 2001)

Ordered mine online at 9:01am CA time! Wa-hoo!


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

James B. Elliott said:


> Ordered mine online at 9:01am CA time! Wa-hoo!



same here, easy queezy. 

Now the loooong wait.


----------



## Nosirrag (Apr 26, 2005)

The model looks beautiful. I would still like to build my own. I guess, as I get older, the building of the model is more important than having the model.

Either way, you all have done beautiful work and it looks great!.


----------



## mactrek (Mar 30, 2004)

Just placed my order on-line!! Woo-Hoo!! 

:tongue: :wave:


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Excellent! Will be a great day when it arrives. Bug eyed family members looking on like were nuts opening that huuuuge box.


----------



## mactrek (Mar 30, 2004)

Ain't that the truth!!

With my luck, this will be one of the worst winters on record and the UPS truck will crash... :freak:


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

mactrek said:


> Ain't that the truth!!
> 
> With my luck, this will be one of the worst winters on record and the UPS truck will crash... :freak:



No worries. You just end with a USS Constellation model instead!


----------



## mactrek (Mar 30, 2004)

... But since that one *was* an AMT/Ertl model, it won't be accurate!!! :drunk:


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I ordered mine this morning. I hope it doesn't arrive while I'm in Vegas for Christmas and New Years.


----------



## Joeysaddress (Jun 16, 2006)

*Bridge and secondary hull strobe question for Barry*

Hey Barry. On the Unobtainium E, the two red lights on the sides of the bridge dome were just painted on. It also lacked the small white strobe light that was on the back end of the secondary hull near the hanger deck. Will the MR version have these details and will they be lit?


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

John Eaves brought on of them to Wnderfest.

Looks great. 

There are a couple goofy seams around the hangar deck shroud, but probably shouldn't be there in the production run.

Ok, time to bit the bullet.


----------



## Joeysaddress (Jun 16, 2006)

*Can you post a few more of the "hundred pics" you took????*



jheilman said:


> Short version is that the 66" ship is an incredible build-up of the very limited edition Custom Replicas kit from John Key. John Eaves (Trek ship designer extraordinaire) brought the MR paint-study model in to the special exhibits room at Wonderfest to temporarily display next to it for comparison and decided to leave it as it was drawing so much attention. Here's a pic of Sean Sides and his 66" E along with John Eaves and the MR paint master. A thrill to talk with them both and to see the two ships side by side. I took a couple hundred pics at Wonderfest Saturday. The vast majority of them were of these two Enterprises. And I'm OK with that. :thumbsup:


could you please post a few more of the pics that you took at Wonderfest...closeups would be nice!!!


----------



## star-art (Jul 5, 2000)

He He. . . Check _these_ out:

http://www.rpf.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=112009


----------



## schmidtjv (Apr 7, 2004)

HOLY GREAT GALACTIC GLOBULAR CLUSTERS!

...And that's still just the prototype!

John


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Wow, beautiful photographs!


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Sorry I mislead, but most of the pics I took were of Sean's jumbo Enterprise. But, here's a few more of the MR E.


----------



## Joeysaddress (Jun 16, 2006)

*Thanks for the additional pics!!!*

Thanks for the additional pics. The close ups really give me a better idea of how heavy/light the weathering is. I ordered mine yesterday and I don't know how I'm gonna manage to survive until it arrives. Feel free to post some of Sean's ship as well. I'm sure everyone would appreciate more shots of it as well. :thumbsup:


----------



## Joeysaddress (Jun 16, 2006)

*Will it be top heavy?*

Do you think the stand is a little to tall. I hope it's not top heavy. Also...if the stand it that tall, it will make it a little more difficult to built an acrylic display box for it.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Im wondering if the ship can be removed from the stand entirely?
Does the stand shaft have an electrical connector that mates inside and can be unplugged?

Or is the stand shaft permanantly attached to ship?

My only real concern now is that Hong Kong can replicate the subtleties of the paint master consistantly over a couple thousand of these.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Seeing these just makes me want to cry that I cannot afford one of these beauties.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Warped9 said:


> Seeing these just makes me want to cry that I cannot afford one of these beauties.


Here is the cheapest Ive seen so far.....

http://www.alteregocomics.com/store/catalog/Studio_Scale_NCC1701_USS_Enterprise-p-3180.html

free shipping in the US, not sure on sales tax, depends on the states involved. And they dont charge the full amount until it ships in winter, dont know if any of this helps but it might make it possible for some who need a little price break on it.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

It's a beautiful replica. My only nit is that the ribs in the nacelle domes appear to distinct. If they were farther away from the outer domes or if the domes where less transparaent it may make the effect more subtle. A small nit to be sure.


----------



## TrekFX (Apr 15, 2004)

Once spinning, maybe they'll blend well.


----------



## Joeysaddress (Jun 16, 2006)

Regarding the fan blades. I think Barry said that on this test paint version, the actual motors and blade assembly were not present yet. What we see with the orange background and black lines is a "place holder" for photographic purposes. Before he mentioned that, I too was concerned that the blade were not only too close, but also not thick enough. Maybe he can grab us some pics of the finished blade assembly when they are complete.


----------



## mactrek (Mar 30, 2004)

To me, the fan blades look to be correct in both size and number ... albeit a bit too distinct ... but as it has been said, those are not the actual fixtures. My personal thought is that the blades should be virtually undetectable when the model is not lit up.

The thing that's bothering me is that bow light ... When mine arrives, that thing is history! Yes, there was a panel there ... but it was not lit. That light did not show up on screen as a lit panel in any original series footage. It finally turned up as a light after the miniature was turned over to the NASM in 1974 and they replaced or lost the original panel.

From the IDIC page circa 1972:









A screen capture from "The Trouble With tribbles"


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

I think the secret of the fan blades it to make them shadowy by not putting them so close to the outer dome, and as some of the lights flash inside, the shadows shift a little bit too. 

Subtle stuff, and not sure how well you could capture it anyways on a smaller model then the studio scale. 

We are all eager to see the lit ship soon!


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Yes, the size and number of blades is correct, but the subtlety isn't quite right yet.


----------



## Joeysaddress (Jun 16, 2006)

Hey Barry...still wondering...will the red navigation lights on the sides of the bridge dome be lighted? They were not on my Unobtainium E. Also, will the MR E have the white strobes on the secondary hull near the hanger deck?


----------



## jimmydog (May 7, 2005)

Is there any chance MR will reconsider the length of that support rod? that looks way too long to me, esp. if you want to have a display case built.


----------



## Joeysaddress (Jun 16, 2006)

Someone commented that they didn't see how MR's would be able to have the detailed paint job of the FEP on the actual run. Having seen their other Studio Scale replicas, I think that will not be a problem. It seems that their sourcing is with highly skilled artisans that can reproduce in mass. Fingers crossed!!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

To anyone reading this from MR or who can pass on my concerns to MR in person, I have to say I sincerely hope they tone down and/or eliminate the "weathering."

I know this is just a preliminary test paint job, but some of the weathering is worse then that done by "Mr. Ed" did to the 11 foot original, once you factor in the difference in scale.

Especially, what is with these heavy black 6 or 7 streaks on the top front of the saucer??????



jheilman said:


>


 
Please please please get rid of these and even consider significantly toning down the coloring differences in the saucer plates.

Definitely the streaks of black should go and be forever forgotten.

Since the E didn't do a ton of unshielded/undeflected atmospheric flight the weathering from atmoshperic flight would never occur.

If we accept that the deflector systems and shields enable the ship to travel at the speeds discussed in the series then space dust would not touch the ship even at sub warp speeds.

If the E ran into "space dust" at that speed even dust striking the hull would penetrate through the ship, fill it with micro holes or larger to the point where the entire ship would fall apart the first time it struck a cloud of space dust capable of being responsible for such "weathering."

The only proven detail on the original was pencil thin lines(pencil thin at a size of 11 feet!). 

I trust that Trek Ace is correct about the production crew sometimes temporarily powdering and darkening certain areas to make them more filmable.

But none of those subtle temorary "makeup" applications even approach what is seen in the picks above.^^^

Consider that this is supposed to be a 947 foot ship.

Those 6 or 7 black weathering streaks would be dozens and dozens of feet wide and tremendously long if one where to adjust their width to a "real world" scale.

Other then just appling razor thin plate lines on the top of the saucer and no where else, please forget about these weathering attempts altogether.

If someone wants to attempt it, let them buy one and do it after the fact.

There was zero heavy weathering on the original ship as seen onscreen, please don't force all of the customers who don't want exaggerated weathering that never existed on the original to have to attempt to remove a bad paint job that should never be placed on the MR version.

All this ham-handed weathering was started by Mr. Ed. 

Please let it stop there and die as an approach to painting this model.

Rediculously heavy weathering lines never existed on the 11 foot model.
Mr. Ed did a tremoundously bad job that thousands and thousands of fans are upset about until this day and for the forseeable future.

Don't gone down the Mr. Ed path.

It's a road better marked "Dead End" and closed for all eternity.



I'm sure that I'm not the only person who feels this way, but I'll not assume and would like to hear other's opinions on this(as I'm sure perhaps some people from MR would as well).

I'm of the opinion that it would be way better to let those who want such heavy weathering add it...

Rather then forcing customers who don't want to see a "Mr. Ed" style finish on their models have to try and ignore or remove such a ham-handed paint job.

It's way easier to add paint or weathering to a model.

Successfully removing only parts of paint job from a finished, decaled, sealed model is more then a little bit risky, if not impossible.

Maybe if we were talking about a $80 prepainted kit like the Bandai's someone might want to attempt it.

But how many people will want to risk screwing up a $1200 display piece even if the paint job ends up with horribly exaggerated weathering?


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

^ Would you like some decaf? Your chair tilted back? Some Ambien??


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

GLU Sniffah said:


> ^ Would you like some decaf? Your chair tilted back? Some Ambien??


Warm milk and some Ambien would hit the spot right about now... :lol:


----------



## schmidtjv (Apr 7, 2004)

While what Ed Miarecki did to the Enterprise was indeed an abomination (don't know the guy, but I acutally feel sorry for him for all the flak he's taken over it), significant weathering DID exist on the original 11-foot filming model.

Here are two screencaps showing about as much weathering as the fx of the day would allow to be seen, and yes, it's there. 



















And here is a photograph I scanned from the December 1967 issue of Model Car & Science magazine. It included photographs taken of the 11-foot miniature, and clearly, the weathering is there.










Hope this helps,
John


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

Wow, I thought I was the only one that thought the E would not have any weathering. For the same reason. Now to say the paint job would match the original is fine. But to say that this is what would happen in flight is wrong. 
When is ST based on reality? 

There is another reason that the E would not have the weathering.

Do you really think that Mr Scott or Kirk would let their lady look like that. 
There would be a bunch of red shirts out there, making sure the hull is polished. 
Real ships are being cleaned and painted all the time. I don't think this tradition would change. 
With all this said I would not change the MR model. 
If I ever build my own I will paint it the way I want. You guys can paint your ships the way you want.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Yeah, the streaks are a bit much, because, in my opinion, they call attention to themselves. Also, it looks as if the ship just went through a big dirt ball and the crew hasn't had time to take her in. 

I like the rest of the weathering that gives the ship some sense of scale, though.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

The ship dipped into an atmosphere a couple of times and nearly burned up in one at least once. So, there's the rationale. The streaks also impart the impression of great speed as well as a sense of scale. The _"it looks fast even when standing still"_ idea.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Man what is with all this whining and insisting that MR change things? Its a PROP, not a model kit. And its up to MR and Paramount to decide how they want to represent the ship. Not any of us. They aren't posting photos here to solicit _our_ input, only as a courtesy to us to show how they are constructing their prop.

Even we all disagree somewhat on how the thing should look--everyone who builds this models does it differently--so why should they consider us as a resource? I'm kinda hoping MR isn't following this thread any longer or listening to anyone's "advice" or they'll just end up confused and frustrated. They have contracted the experts that they need to do this as well as possible. Nothing will ever be perfect to the way the ship looked in the 60s because that ship doesn't exist anymore. And I don't think anyone but the purists would really be happy with that anyway because the ship was only half-completed with wires hanging off and running over the surface.

Stop all the whining please. If you do like their interpretation then order one of these fine props. If not, then GO BUILD YOUR OWN VERSION! :wave:


----------



## JGG1701 (Nov 9, 2004)

Warped9 said:


> Seeing these just makes me want to cry that I cannot afford one of these beauties.


Ditto !!!


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Enterprise was on a FIVE year mission.

Compare one of our shuttles today when brand new and after just a few flights.

Enterprise went into a giant Amoeba for chrisakes! Battles with other starships too!

Whipped around the sun and into a time warp, entered the earths atmosphere as already mentioned.

She earned being dirty!

And the weathering gives a sense of scale too.


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

> Compare one of our shuttles today when brand new and after just a few flights.


The shuttle is rebuilt after each flight. 

Acording to the ST universe. The E uses deflectiors to deflect any object from coliding with the ship, and big objects are not as big a problem as the little objects. That is because there are more of them. Anything that would leave scorch marks would in effect destroy the ship. 

For those of you that didn't read my last post. 


> Do you really think that Mr Scott or Kirk would let their lady look like that.


Even on a five year mission, you would still clean the ship.


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

> Even on a five year mission, you would still clean the ship.


 During yard periods.

Often times, underway, a ship can get very beat-up looking for whatever reason ( during six-MONTH missions ). Ship's company will do the required preventative maintenance and/or repairs as needed, but a complete hull clean/paint/rework would happen while in the yards.

What do I base this opinion on? My own experiences in the USN. Granted, spacecraft are a horse of a (slightly) different color in that there won't be corrosion due to salt air and seawater, jet exhaust stains or rust or dents due to wave action or other factors.

But in the scenario that Starfleet presents, PMs/repairs/Yard Periods will all still apply.

Considering all the hazards Enterprise went through ( between yard periods ), some hull wear is inevitable.

( Besides...it was just *gasp* a television show!! )


----------



## schmidtjv (Apr 7, 2004)

As fun as debating the fictional maintenance procedures on a fictional ship can be, I hope I was helpful in answering that weathering was indeed on the original 11 foot original, and that Master Replicas is indeed doing an outstanding job in duplicating it.

John
"Take it easy kid, it's only a movie" - Ham Salad, Hardware Wars.


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

I agree it is just a TV show. 
We should be talking about the model. Not the actual fictional starship.
But then it is fun to stir the pot.



> Considering all the hazards Enterprise went through ( between yard periods ), some hull wear is inevitable.


It is the future we have no idea what/how you would even clean a starship. 
Much less to say what it is built of, and how. (I don't think it would have any grid lines) It wouldn't be built like the steel cans we build today. 
With all the trek-techno-bable I would think the E would have a built in system to keep it clean. 
I do like the idea of a few red-shirts out there scrubbing the ship.


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Atemylunch said:


> The shuttle is rebuilt after each flight.


Oh my no, yes some things are removed and reworked and reinstalled or replaced like the main engines, but most things stay put. Most tiles stay installed for instance, often even patched with special putty! Streaks from the previous re-entry clearly visable on tiles and thermal blankets. 
The fresh black tiles turn to dark grey. 

Here is Discovery as she appeared being delivered to the Vehicle Assembly building recently.......


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

CessnaDriver said:


> Enterprise was on a FIVE year mission.
> 
> Compare one of our shuttles today when brand new and after just a few flights.
> 
> ...


SOME of the weathering may. But not primarily what I was most upset with.
Namely the six or seven streaks on the top front of the saucer.

There is no way they are to scale or do anything but detract from the scale of the ship. Those streaks might be to scale on a 1/12th scale aircraft model, but not on 1/350th scale model.

The streaks are way too wide, and considering where they are positioned - at one of the most looked at attention grabbing parts of the ship - I don't think they would look good even if they were to scale. 

Pretty much all the rest of what I've seen on the ship I can live with and rationalize.

But those 6 or 7 streaks on the top front part of the saucer look bad, really bad.

They don't look like weathering. They look like an eight year old's attempt to make it look weathered.

The six or seven streaks I'm talking about look like they were applied with a big spray can of Krylon paint. They are way out of scale.

The rest of the weathering looks okay, has been implecably executed and well done. Even though I'm not a fan of weathering I can appreciate it and live with it.

The rest of the ship so far seems great. But I think anyone looking at these wide black streaks I was gripping about would conclude they look bad. 

Especially considering it's one of the most often looked at and viewed part of the ship. Even the guys who hired Mr. Ed made it a point to tell him to keep away from changing that part.

But these streaks on the front top of the saucer look really bad:



jheilman said:


>


 

The rest of the painting is incredibly well done and to scale. But those streaks make an otherwise fantastic model look like someone's son got a hold of it with a spray can and decided to "improve" it.

They make a superb model look not so superb.

That's my two cents. Feel free to disagree about them. Maybe if they were made up of tremendously narrower smaller and lighter(to a believable scale) I might feel differently. 

But as of now I think they look terrible.

I hope they are left off. Anyone who wants to duplicate the same look later should be able to add them by simply buying a big spray can of Krylon.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

schmidtjv said:


> While what Ed Miarecki did to the Enterprise was indeed an abomination (don't know the guy, but I acutally feel sorry for him for all the flak he's taken over it), significant weathering DID exist on the original 11-foot filming model.
> 
> Here are two screencaps showing about as much weathering as the fx of the day would allow to be seen, and yes, it's there.
> 
> ...


There was some streaking, but if you checkout the photo I've quoted above you'll see that it was composed of tremendously thinner lines then seen in the MR pictures.

And I'd also say that they show up to an even lesser degree onscreen.

The lines on the MR replica are made up of 6 or 7 very very wide lines. Way too wide to be believable as weathering on a ship of that scale.

I do appreciate the pics though.

Perhaps once HD DVD players become more popular Paramount will drag out a few 35mm copies of the series and convert them to HD. Perhaps then our views of the model will change as more detail is visible onscreen.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

schmidtjv said:


> And here is a photograph I scanned from the December 1967 issue of Model Car & Science magazine. It included photographs taken of the 11-foot miniature, and clearly, the weathering is there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Any more of these photographs you could scan in for us poor shlubs?


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

Atemylunch said:


> I agree it is just a TV show.
> We should be talking about the model. Not the actual fictional starship.
> But then it is fun to stir the pot.


Sure. To a point.




> It is the future we have no idea what/how you would even clean a starship.
> Much less to say what it is built of, and how. (I don't think it would have any grid lines) It wouldn't be built like the steel cans we build today.
> With all the trek-techno-bable I would think the E would have a built in system to keep it clean.
> I do like the idea of a few red-shirts out there scrubbing the ship.


Forget it. It ain't worth debating.

However...never mind in The Wrath Of Khan we see some schmuck in a maintenence suit giving Starfleet Command's Simulator Building a clean sweepdown.  

The Navy is the Navy. At sea or in space.


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

> *There was some streaking,* but if you checkout the photo I've quoted above you'll see that it was composed of tremendously thinner lines then seen in the MR pictures.


Please...no one submit images of their underwear!


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Posted by "Phase Pistol" over at replica prop forum, comparing the MR paint master to the original studio model....


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

> The Navy is the Navy. At sea or in space.


 :lol: 



> Please...no one submit images of their underwear!


Thank God we are not in the automotive section. 
(Hope you get it)


----------



## GLU Sniffah (Apr 15, 2005)

^ I got it.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> Any more of these photographs you could scan in for us poor shlubs?


Yeah! What Captain April said!

Thanks for the photos of the original, John. Those are very nice. I haven't seen them before. Is there a bigger version of the 1967 Model Car & Science magazine photo available?


----------



## schmidtjv (Apr 7, 2004)

The orginal two page article had two photos, one per page. I've scanned both pages and put them up on my own site since they would be too big to post here. By the way, the 2nd and 3rd columns of the article on page 1 are reversed, so read accordingly.

The name of the article is "Space Queen"

Would I kid you?

http://www.hotink.com/wacky/mcs.html

I hope everyone enjoys them!
John


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

I enjoyed the "retarded ethiopian goat grower" comment in the article.

I'm sure they lost those subscribers though back then and were soundly rebuked by the goat growers. Times have changed.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

It is a mistake for MR to include the round "light" on the front upper centerline of the Primary Hull. It is clear from Gary Kerr's description of the model that that particular feature is an access hatch for the bulb illuminating the three front search lights and when the Model Car Science photo is examined closely, you can clearly see that the "hatch" is simply missing. As shot for the show, that "light" never appeared because the hatch was in place. At most it should only be a circular panel line. Details, details...


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

schmidtjv said:


> The orginal two page article had two photos, one per page. I've scanned both pages and put them up on my own site since they would be too big to post here. By the way, the 2nd and 3rd columns of the article on page 1 are reversed, so read accordingly.
> 
> The name of the article is "Space Queen"
> 
> ...


Great, Schmidt! Thanks for that article!

BTW: I *AM *a retarded goat grower and I didn't take offense.


----------



## Ohio_Southpaw (Apr 26, 2005)

How does one grow goats? I can never get them to stay in the ground once I plant them......


----------



## CessnaDriver (Apr 27, 2005)

Ohio_Southpaw said:


> How does one grow goats? I can never get them to stay in the ground once I plant them......


Well, it was the sixties and the glue fumes were pretty strong then.


----------



## Atemylunch (Jan 16, 2006)

False Alarm


----------



## nc-wilm-fx (May 30, 2006)

Atemylunch said:


> Just got this from MR...
> 
> Great News! The product listed below is now on its way to our distribution center in the U.S. You will be receiving another e-mail when the product arrives and is ready to ship-this is just to inform you that the following order is in line for processing.
> 
> ...



I got the same email and is for the 2006 Master Replicas Collectors Society Membership kit. I hope the studio scale Enterprise follows soon after.


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

CessnaDriver said:


> Ok, I just looked at that bit.
> 
> Now that WAS weird! there is a white light there too it seems???
> 
> ...


Hey! These links are dead!


Oh . . . wait. This is from 2006.

Nevermind!


----------



## Chuck_P.R. (Jun 8, 2003)

ThomasModels said:


> You missed one, Trek Ace!
> 
> Not constantly. Check the nav lights in the episode 'The Immunity Syndrome' at about 17:40 in. You will see something surprising. . . .



So exactly what colors should the underside port and starboard running lights be? Same as the top, clear, or multicolored?

Not just throwing this out for the quoted poster. Gary Kerr, Trek Ace or anyone else who wants to weigh in on this please do.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

I know the thread is old, and the MR Enterprise is now as old news as it once was exciting news, mostly due to the PL kit release, but not being an expert modeler I for one feel very happy and fortunate to have been able to obtain a MR Enterprise model! These days they seem to be costing an arm and a leg! And even though it has a few flaws--the slightly sagging saucer section, the incorrect shuttle door deck detail, the lit circular panel at the front of the saucer top, and the oily inner domes phenomenon being the most notable--the amazing overall quality of this model with its ultra smooth finish, no decals, effective dome spinning effect, and great lighting, is something to behold.


----------

