# Update from Round 3 - October 19, 2011



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Mockup model has arrived!

All I can say for now us WOW!!!


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

I only had a couple of minutes to look at the mockup photos before work this morning but it looks pretty sweet! :thumbsup:


----------



## jgoldsack (Apr 26, 2004)

and I could barely tell there were gridlines either....


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

The photos make me want to go to Chicago and see it up close.


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

Very exciting! Couldn't make out the upper saucer gridlines in the email.... had to enlarge the browser page before they appeared faintly. The saucer-rim gridlines, visible in the first close-up pic, appear well executed and will become quite faint after paint is applied I think. The window cut-outs look great! Very crisp. I'm hoping some aftermarket entrepreneur puts out clean nacelle domes. The fan-blade ridges on the inside of the kit domes are too obvious for my taste. And the three-bracket attachment detail thingys look too big, but that's a simple shave-down by hand correction. LOVE the direction this kit is going, and totally enjoy getting the inside baseball aspect of engineering and proofing each stage of production.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Round 3 is doing an Enterprise Model kit?


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

What REALLY impresses me is that Jamie and crew are sharing both their pros and cons on what's happening with the model. This kind of honesty is, at least by me, SO appreciated as it lets us continue to see into what goes into designing a model of this quality and attention to detail. The long-term integrity of the structure is SO significant in a model with so little actual support inherant in the design.

Knowing that they're so focused on the issues at hand allow me the freedom to give my minor gripe about the ugly stand, which I hope gets addressed  And it IS a minor gripe, not a showstopper by any means!

Primary hull looks fantastic! Nacelle caps, I expect, are a prototype for the final product....time will tell.

Tib


----------



## HabuHunter32 (Aug 22, 2009)

These updates are far more informative than I expected! Honesty from a corporate entity of any kind is refreshing indeed! It's obvious to me we are all on good hands on this one!


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

I'm interested


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

(links removed at Round 2's request)


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

Looking forward to more releases from Star Trek.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Larva said:


> Very exciting! Couldn't make out the upper saucer gridlines in the email.... had to enlarge the browser page before they appeared faintly. The saucer-rim gridlines, visible in the first close-up pic, appear well executed and will become quite faint after paint is applied I think. The window cut-outs look great! Very crisp. I'm hoping some aftermarket entrepreneur puts out clean nacelle domes. The fan-blade ridges on the inside of the kit domes are too obvious for my taste. And the three-bracket attachment detail thingys look too big, but that's a simple shave-down by hand correction. LOVE the direction this kit is going, and totally enjoy getting the inside baseball aspect of engineering and proofing each stage of production.


The "fan blades" are on a separate piece, inside of the outer dome (see the last update which shows this clearly). You don't have to use them at all, unless you want the "lighting kit."

I fully expect the final dome to be provided with a frosted texture (like the real miniature had) which will mask the appearance of the "fan blades" quite a bit. You can just see everything now, because this dome is not frosted yet.

I wouldn't worry about that, honestly.


----------



## Guy Schlicter (May 3, 2004)

Looking Forward to the Enterprise C model


----------



## jbond (Aug 29, 2002)

Frosted plastic would be great although I'm not really expecting it (the refit and any number of Trek kits could have greatly benefited from that but I've never seen it done on a Trek kit that I can remember). I'll be very pleasantly surprised if it happens (and granted on this project it's possible they'll go that extra mile). But if they don't it's still easy to get a great frosted effect with glass frost spray.


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

I have no worries about any of this kit.... just first impressions. The team is going in the right direction and appear dedicated to making corrections to the structural engineering. Yes, I see now that the inner fanblade dome is a separate piece. Excellent. Thanks for that reminder.


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

Floquil flat will also frost the dome. I used it on my latest build.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

jbond said:


> Frosted plastic would be great although I'm not really expecting it (the refit and any number of Trek kits could have greatly benefited from that but I've never seen it done on a Trek kit that I can remember). I'll be very pleasantly surprised if it happens (and granted on this project it's possible they'll go that extra mile). But if they don't it's still easy to get a great frosted effect with glass frost spray.


It's actually pretty straightforward to create texturing on molded parts. It's done through either "sandblasting" or an etch process. It adds only a very small additional cost to the part. ("Organic" textures, like "leather simulation" or "wood-grain" or the like are much harder to implement, of course).

Here are a couple of basic refs regarding surface finish for plastic parts.

http://www.dsm.com/en_US/html/dep/surfacefinish.htm

http://store.plasticsindustry.org/s...pec=&CFTOKEN=17976234&continue=1&SEARCH_TYPE=


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

love it.

i also prefer the simple elegance of the stand shown...but hey, that's just me.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Having seen the stand in the CAD model, I believe that the stand they're using now is not the part they plan to use. The diameter of the part they're using is much smaller than that seen in the CAD model. I believe that the part they're using is likely an existing part (from a smaller model).


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

Not to be a stick in the mud, but R2 has asked those in the 1701 Club not to repost parts of the newsletter, that probably includes posting the pictures. I sure would hate for them to cancel the newsletter because people don't respect their wishes.


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Solium said:


> Round 3 is doing an Enterprise Model kit?


Oops. I thought that was the update number.


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

robiwon said:


> Not to be a stick in the mud, but R2 has asked those in the 1701 Club not to repost parts of the newsletter, that probably includes posting the pictures. I sure would hate for them to cancel the newsletter because people don't respect their wishes.


Your kidding right?It's a MODEL,not state secrets!


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

WOW. Thanks for posting the photos, Larva. R2 is exceeding my expectations with this kit. Is that a representation of the original prop's spinning lights & mirrors under the domes!? I'm surprised that they added panel lines to the lower saucer too. No big deal, easy to fill, but they are not on the original prop. Overall, very impressive. Makes the upcoming Revell kit look crude and cheap.

Didn't sign up for the premium kit since I want just the production version (assuming my financial status will be better by then), so while I appreciate the photos, please don't get in trouble if it's not allowed (by R2).


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Love it.
Dreams do come true and I can't wait to get several of these!


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

falcondesigns said:


> Your kidding right?It's a MODEL,not state secrets!


R2 has asked that because this is supposed to be an _exclusive_ to the people who signed up to be a part of the club that they respect their wish to not share the the contents of the newsletter. Discussion of the contents is O.K. but not to show the pics and drawings and such. It kind of makes it _not_ very special to those who did sign up because it was supposed to be _exclusive_ to them.


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

robiwon said:


> R2 has asked that because this is supposed to be an _exclusive_ to the people who signed up to be a part of the club that they respect their wish to not share the the contents of the newsletter. Discussion of the contents is O.K. but not to show the pics and drawings and such. It kind of makes it _not_ very special to those who did sign up because it was supposed to be _exclusive_ to them.


what's the secret handshake? Your actually justifing this grand marketing scam?Please understand I do not live my life by what R2 says,and I think a few also do not share you joy in segregating themsleves from the rest of the world....

and the rest of the world is pretty upset that only people in the U.S. get to play in this little playground.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

falcondesigns said:


> what's the secret handshake? Your actually justifing this grand marketing scam?Please understand I do not live my life by what R2 says,and I think a few also do not share you joy in segregating themsleves from the rest of the world....
> 
> and the rest of the world is pretty upset that only people in the U.S. get to play in this little playground.


Well, it's not as if you won't get to play with the model at pretty much the same time the rest of us do.

Round 2 has done something pretty smart here, IMHO. They've gotten us all to act as free "ambassadors" for them. We'll wear the T-shirts, and we'll talk about it via word-of-mouth, but there will also be a sense of HUNGER among a lot of other folks. I've only worn my shirt in public once, but I got asked about it three times... granted, two of the three were at "Best Buy" (aka "geeky-land," according to my "significant other") but still...

What Round 2 wants to get from this is (a) an idea what the end-customers (in particular, the most rabid of us) want from this model... and (b) some free advertising and related PR.

What Round 2 CANNOT, LEGALLY, do, is engage in business re: this kit in regions where they have no legal authorization to do so.

So, if you have a problem with the rules... contact CBS and/or Paramount and/or their parent-company-of-the-week. Complaining to Round2 is a waste of breath, and complaining that we're obeying the rules that we agreed to follow is troublesome as well.

I've talked... at length, in fact... about this kit, as have some others. I've followed the letter of the agreement, explicitly, but I've still provided "word of mouth advertising" for Round2 by discussing things in the level that I have.

I'm sorry if it bothers you that those of us who agreed (even if in only a morally-binding, but not legally-binding, way) to follow certain rules actually choose to do as we promised to do.

I'm sure that there will be plenty of info about the final kit once it's closer to release. And in the meantime, you can get MOST of the info you're really looking for by reading the threads about it.

But this early stage isn't really for our benefit, it's for Round 2's benefit. They're getting feedback from a subset of their "rabid fan base" purchasing segment, and they're getting advertising in their legally-permitted marketing region. Nobody should have any illusions to the contrary at this point, should they?


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

falcondesigns said:


> what's the secret handshake? Your actually justifing this grand marketing scam? Please understand I do not live my life by what R2 says,and I think a few also do not share your joy in segregating themsleves from the rest of the world....
> 
> and the rest of the world is pretty upset that only people in the U.S. get to play in this little playground.


Living my life by what R2 says? Um, no, just respecting what they asked me to do because they offered me an exclusive. That's the whole _point_ of an _exclusive_ isn't it?

I guess some people can't be happy for others.


----------



## Prologic9 (Dec 4, 2009)

You can read all of the updates directly on Round2's website. They're just trying to make it fun, don't blow things out of proportion. 

http://www.round2models.com/1701club/updates/0003/


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Prologic9 said:


> You can read all of the updates directly on Round2's website. They're just trying to make it fun, don't blow things out of proportion.
> 
> http://www.round2models.com/1701club/updates/0003/


You know RC2 does not like members posting their updates, right?


----------



## Prologic9 (Dec 4, 2009)

Opus Penguin said:


> You know RC2 does not like members posting their updates, right?


I didn't post the update, they did.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

Prologic9 said:


> You can read all of the updates directly on Round2's website. They're just trying to make it fun, don't blow things out of proportion.


Sorry, that's the newsletter you posted. That is not on the website, I just checked.

Mods maybe delete _copyrighted _material that those posting it have no permission from R2 to do so? I think I'm begginning to see how this site and some members operate when they don't get pampered and have someone hold their hand saying "don't worry, it'll be O.K. you can get a model later".


----------



## Trekkriffic (Mar 20, 2007)

I have to say I'm impressed by what I can see in the pics. Looks to be very accurate.


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

Since when does R2 not sell Star Trek models outside the United States?,since they decided to sell 1701 special edtion models to only people in the U.S. I doubt very much that is was CBS/Paramount who came up with the idea of selling a special edtion item,they would want to sell as many models as they could under their licence.If there is proof that it was the licence holder that came up with this,I'd like to see it.I'm happy that we're getting the model,I'm not happy about the way R2 is going about it.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

Round 2 states on their website that they can only sell this kit in the US and Canada. R2 does not have a ST license to sell to other countries. Distributers may sell them outside of the US but they would technicaly be a bootleg sale. The Revel of Germany kits will not be _officially_ for sale in the US thru RoG. But, distributers will, of course, send them over here. That's all part of the licensing agreement that both parties agreed to in the end.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Falcondesigns,

Chill out, buddy. The reason that R2 is permitted to sell only in a certain market is the same reason that Revell (Germany) is permitted to sell in another market. Each has the rights to a certain geographical region. Period.

This doesn't mean you can't buy the kit once available, but you'll have to order it from a US-based distributorship, meaning you'll have to pay the "markup." Just like any of us here in the States will have to pay that extra markup to buy any of the Revell Germany Trek kits.

Round 2 can sell OTHER products (non-trek) in other markets, depending on where they have the legal rights to sell those products. It all has to do with the terms that they agreed to when obtaining the rights to produce/sell products, from the intellectual property owners. Which, in this case, is CBS Television.

CBS sold the rights to produce and sell Trek models in Europe to Revell Germany. They sold the rights to sell Trek models in the US (and possibly Canada?) to Round 2.

This really isn't hard to understand. It's not some grand conspiracy designed to be mean to you. It's just normal business.

EDIT: I just saw that you're in Puerto Rico. That's sort of a grey area, but I believe that PR is considered, from this standpoint, to be a "US territory" so you should be entirely able to join, and buy, this kit. So... just sign up and be done with it!


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

Several threads on the Polar Lights Enterprise are running simultaneously, so rather than post dozens of replies and wear out my welcome, I thought I'd consolidate my comments into one statement and cross-post it in each thread. Just a thought, but would it be possible to consolidate all the commentary into one thread? Anyhow, here are my two-cents:

1. Probably the most important info to disseminate: the grid lines on the styrene kit will be thinner than those on the current mock-up. 

2. If there's any confusion, the 11-footer had grids on the top, sides, and bottom of the saucer - not just on the top.

3. The bridge and the teardrop-shaped structure below it were completely repainted during the 1991-92 restoration. The rest of the upper saucer is still untouched.

4. We know the 3 tabs that hold the mock-up's domes in place are too thick. I've got excellent photos of the original acrylic tabs, and the model's tabs will be fixed so they match the originals.

5. Fine textures, like the diamond pattern inside the intercooler loops, are not on the mock-up and will be added during tooling. I'm not sure what texture PL has planned for the domes, but you could do a pretty good job with some 600-grit sandpaper. FYI, Richard Datin said that he purchased two clear 7" domes for $15 and had them finely sandblasted by Abrasive Art to be translucent for $2.50.

6. The Chinese made some parts opaque instead of clear on the mock-up, but they'll be corrected.

7. To clarify about the triangles under the saucer: on the 11-footer the long sides of the triangles are engraved, with gray trim on the inside edges, and a curved half-round is screwed to the base of the triangle. The original series never delved as deeply into the technical details as the later shows did, but eleven years ago William McCullars said to me that Richard Datin had told him that the triangles were supposed to be part of the emergency landing gear. I recently asked William if he could find that in writing, but unfortunately, William couldn't find that in an email from Datin and thinks that Datin told him this over the phone. 

I suspect that in reality, curved half-rounds were screwed to the bases of the triangles because they fit the curved hull much better than a straight "hinge" would have. Try gluing a straight rod to the lower hull of an 18" Enterprise kit and you'll see what I mean. If this were a real spaceship, the actual hinge mechanism would probably be located safely inside the outer hull, like the landing gear on the space shuttle and modern aircraft. As for the function of the half-rounds - I wouldn't be surprised if they were there because they looked cool. I know professional model makers and designers in Hollywood & at ILM, and believe me, "because it looks cool" plays an important part of the spaceship design process.  

Landing gear doesn't necessarily have to support the saucer. I was corresponding with a well-known Star Trek designer a few years ago, and he hypothesized that the expendable lower sensor dome would bear the brunt of the saucer's weight, similar to the case with the C-57D, and the landing gear would merely have to brace the saucer and keep it from tipping over. 

Lending credence to the TOS E's theoretical landing gear is the fact that the Refit had 4 landing pads on the underside of the saucer - and the Refit didn't have any transporter emitters, which weren't "invented" until The Next Gen debuted eighteen years after TOS went off the air. Of course, a modeler is free to assign a name or a theoretical function to any part of his own model.

8. The Franz Joseph blueprints are interesting in their own right, but they weren't published until 1975 and can't be used to retroactively "prove" the existence and/or locations of rooms and other features on the 1960s ship.

Gary


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

At last count, there are still around 300 slots open. Be warned, though, all they have left are red shirts.


----------



## Hunch (Apr 6, 2003)

Its a thing of beauty...


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

Gary's post above is fascinating.... always with the new information! Great stuff! Looks like I'm once again in the triangular-shapes-are-emergency-landing-gear camp.


----------



## Fraley1701 (Sep 3, 2003)

robiwon said:


> R2 has asked that because this is supposed to be an _exclusive_ to the people who signed up to be a part of the club that they respect their wish to not share the the contents of the newsletter. Discussion of the contents is O.K. but not to show the pics and drawings and such. It kind of makes it _not_ very special to those who did sign up because it was supposed to be _exclusive_ to them.



I agree with you Robiwon. Stated at the bottom of each news letter;

™ & © 2011 CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved. STAR TREK and related marks are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc.

*Redistribution of the contents of this email is strictly prohibited. ©2011 Round 2, LLC*

But ultimately it's up to Round 2 to police any infractions against their copyrighted material. :thumbsup:


----------



## scottnkat (May 11, 2006)

I, too, agree with Robiwon - regardless of whether or not Round 2 polices their policy, we agreed to the terms of the agreement when we all signed up. As such, while it may not be legally binding at all, it would be morally and ethically wrong to go back on our agreement at our own whim. It also ruins the whole "exclusive" bit if the information and pictures are shared with everybody.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

And, there are 300 slots in the club still available, so, c'mon, guys, sign up, get a shirt, get yer own damn updates! And get off my lawn!


----------



## Seaview (Feb 18, 2004)

:hat: I've got my shirt, I'm getting the updates, and I'll be getting the model, and I ain't complaining. :wave:


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

Thank You. "And that's all I have to say about that".


----------



## iriseye (Sep 21, 2010)

Originally posted by *robiwon*:



> Mods maybe delete copyrighted material that those posting it have no permission from R2 to do so?


Please.


----------



## JamesInNC (Sep 17, 2011)

scottnkat said:


> I, too, agree with Robiwon - regardless of whether or not Round 2 polices their policy, we agreed to the terms of the agreement when we all signed up. As such, while it may not be legally binding at all, it would be morally and ethically wrong to go back on our agreement at our own whim. It also ruins the whole "exclusive" bit if the information and pictures are shared with everybody.


I absolutely agree that we who joined the club should abide by R2's terms. It's ethically correct.

I also agree the club is a clear marketing plan. Isn't it curious that the photos and updates are available to the public if you have the link? Interesting that it isn't password protected so only club members can View the content.

So the club doesn't really feel that exclusive at all.

James


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Gary K said:


> ...2. If there's any confusion, the 11-footer had grids on the top, sides, and bottom of the saucer - not just on the top...
> 
> Gary


Not trying to be difficult, but according to photos on this site:

http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=8672

the saucer had grids only on it's top. The photos showing the bottom and sides don't have the grids and they look like they were taken before restoration. Were the sides/bottom repainted prior to these photos?


----------



## Prologic9 (Dec 4, 2009)

spock62 said:


> Not trying to be difficult, but according to photos on this site:
> 
> http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=8672
> 
> the saucer had grids only on it's top. The photos showing the bottom and sides don't have the grids and they look like they were taken before restoration. Were the sides/bottom repainted prior to these photos?


I see gridlines on the bottom, look again. You can see he's in the process of cleaning the bottom of the saucer, so the grid has been removed in areas.

Here's a clear example;

http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpre...03/kg_star-trek_tos_1701_studio_model-011.jpg


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Some of you should read back through some of these threads, a few of you are so serious about this model, you sound like you're developing a cure for cancer. I think Shatner said it best when speaking before a bunch of Geeks at a Trek convention.....


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

spock62 said:


> Not trying to be difficult, but according to photos on this site:
> 
> http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=8672
> 
> the saucer had grids only on it's top. The photos showing the bottom and sides don't have the grids and they look like they were taken before restoration. Were the sides/bottom repainted prior to these photos?


The original saucer was completely covered in grid lines, as verified in his-res contemporary photos. In 1974, Rogay, Inc. performed the first "restoration" on the 11-footer, and they repainted the entire model - except for the upper saucer - and obliterated all the weathering and grid lines. When I helped disassemble the 11-footer in 1991, a few of the grid lines on the sides & lower half of the saucer were still faintly visible through Rogay's gray paint.

Gary


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

It'd be nice if the Smithsonian would release more of the pictures they took of the model when they first got it.

It'd certainly answer a lot of questions.


----------



## Maritain (Jan 16, 2008)

Man does that mock-up look great! I can't wait for this one to come out, I'll be getting two right off the bat.


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

Ductapeforever said:


> Some of you should read back through some of these threads, a few of you are so serious about this model, you sound like you're developing a cure for cancer. I think Shatner said it best when speaking before a bunch of Geeks at a Trek convention.....


Thank You.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

Maritain said:


> Man does that mock-up look great!


I really could go mad over that. I understand the licensing issue that prohibits R2 from selling this model in Germany (or Europe at all) directly, but WHY can't they share the developing of that model with overseas modelers?!?


----------



## PhantomStranger (Apr 20, 2009)

Hi guys. First I want to thank everyone for their interest in the kit. As far as reposting materials from our (Round 2's) updates, we clearly state our copyright in every one. In each instance that I have found people reposting or suggesting that they will repost, I have contacted the person directly in private and asked kindly not to do so. In every case they have complied and edited posts when necessary. I greatly appreciate their willingness to do so. Is it an honor system? Yes, it most definitely is. It is a CLUB. Anyone in the US and Canada are free to join if what we are offering sounds appealing to you.

Re: our territorial limitations. We have permission to sell Star Trek products within the US and Canada. Every licensing deal is different. Different territorial rights are negotiated based on the amount of royalty (and the availability of the territory) paid to a given licensor. Sometimes we get rights to all of North America, some are limited to US & Canada, some are limited to just the US and some are worldwide deals. In most cases the agreements are exclusive meaning the licensor can not sign a deal with another company for the same territory. That's all just FYI. It may seem unfair but it isn't something we can change. Believe me, I would sell around the world if I could.


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

Figures, the one photo I didn't check out does show faint grid lines! Thanks for pointing it out, Prologic9. 

And thanks Gary for the back-history of the ship (not to mention everything else you've done to help make this kit a reality) explaining, and hopefully putting to rest, the grid line debate.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

And *THANK YOU *,PhantomStranger! :thumbsup:

Oh, and is it done yet? is it done yet? is it done yet? is it done yet? is it done yet? is it done yet?:wave:


----------



## WarpCore Breach (Apr 27, 2005)

Thanks for chiming in Phantom Stranger! It is a pleasure when you can take time from your busy schedule to offer up some clarifications.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

falcondesigns said:


> what's the secret handshake? Your actually justifing this grand marketing scam?Please understand I do not live my life by what R2 says,and I think a few also do not share you joy in segregating themsleves from the rest of the world....
> 
> and the rest of the world is pretty upset that only people in the U.S. get to play in this little playground.



This is the way the business world works, Round 2 can't help the limitations they must operate under, anyone haveing a problem with the licensing can argue about it with Paramount Studios Legal Division when they come to your door with a C & D, or court order over copyright infringement. Paramount doesn't give an Ardvarks rear end what the rest of the world thinks ! Cry me a river !


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

PhantomStranger said:


> Re: our territorial limitations. *snip* It may seem unfair but it isn't something we can change. Believe me, I would sell around the world if I could.


I didn't complain about the availability of your upcoming model. I fully understand that. BUT I complain about the impossibility for overseas fans of the ship and your company to get those informations you're sharing with the club members. We here can't become those, because of this licensing issue - but, oh, how much do we wish to be informed about the progress, too! I mean: You KNOW that importing this kit by ourself is not a problem. It is also not illegal. So why not share this informations with us? Why not a "club membership light", not officially tied to the purchase of a kit? This is something I simply can't understand.


----------



## BlackbirdCD (Oct 31, 2003)

Marco Scheloske said:


> I didn't complain about the availability of your upcoming model. I fully understand that. BUT I complain about the impossibility for overseas fans of the ship and your company to get those informations you're sharing with the club members. We here can't become those, because of this licensing issue - but, oh, how much do we wish to be informed about the progress, too! I mean: You KNOW that importing this kit by ourself is not a problem. It is also not illegal. So why not share this informations with us? Why not a "club membership light", not officially tied to the purchase of a kit? This is something I simply can't understand.


The information gets out, you'll see it. I'm currently having issues getting the latest updates because we had to change home email addresses. Hasn't stopped the flow of information.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Round 2 has no problem with discussion of the information, but posting propriatory drawings, diagrams, and photos of Copyrighted material are strictly prohibited by LAW !
Doing so will incur the legal wrath of Round 2 and Paramount Legal Teams. The backlash of all of this can endanger licensing of any furthur Trek properties, so I recommend for true fans to respect the perameters of Round 2's license agreement with Paramount Pictures.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

I don't get all the outrage. I didn't pre-order so I don't get to see the propitiatory updates either. As far as our friends across the pond. You know I can't watch any of the videos on the UK Doctor Who website right? It's the way the system works.


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

Ductapeforever said:


> Round 2 has no problem with discussion of the information, but posting propriatory drawings, diagrams, and photos of Copyrighted material are strictly prohibited by LAW !


You too don't get my point: I simply wish I could subscribe to their newsletter about the model also, even if I can not buy it from Round 2 directly later.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Marco Scheloske said:


> You too don't get my point: I simply wish I could subscribe to their newsletter about the model also, even if I can not buy it from Round 2 directly later.


I understand fully Marco, when I was stationed in Europe in the military, I got used to certain products and services only available over there. To this day I wish I had access to them, but alas that's not the way International trade works. Note: I too think it sucks I can't watch Dr. Who episodes from the British website. BBC America is a sad representation of the real deal. BBC 1 ,BBC 2, BBC 3 etc., etc.BBC ROCKS !


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

Ductapeforever said:


> Round 2 has no problem with discussion of the information, but posting propriatory drawings, diagrams, and photos of Copyrighted material are strictly prohibited by LAW !
> Doing so will incur the legal wrath of Round 2 and Paramount Legal Teams. The backlash of all of this can endanger licensing of any furthur Trek properties, so I recommend for true fans to respect the perameters of Round 2's license agreement with Paramount Pictures.


That I would like to see.............


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

Ductapeforever said:


> Round 2 has no problem with discussion of the information, but posting propriatory drawings, diagrams, and photos of Copyrighted material are strictly prohibited by LAW !
> Doing so will incur the legal wrath of Round 2 and Paramount Legal Teams. The backlash of all of this can endanger licensing of any furthur Trek properties, so I recommend for true fans to respect the perameters of Round 2's license agreement with Paramount Pictures.


I'd love to see that! I can see the meeting at Paramount now; studio heads, surrounded by their high-priced attorneys, gathered around an iPad, irate because photos of a mockup were posted on Hobbytalk! "Why, those stinkers," they'd say. "That's the last time we'll allow anyone to reproduce the Enterprise if this is going to happen!"

Geez, what's next? cats and dogs living together?


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Solium said:


> I don't get all the outrage. I didn't pre-order so I don't get to see the propitiatory updates either. As far as our friends across the pond. You know I can't watch any of the videos on the UK Doctor Who website right? It's the way the system works.


And to this day, I STILL can't legally get "Blake's Seven" here in the USA... which drives me nuts. There are plenty of crappy bootleg copies transcoded (and overcompressed) you can find online if you look, but I want a real, official DVD set of Blake's Seven.

Life sucks sometimes...


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Kit said:


> I'd love to see that! I can see the meeting at Paramount now; studio heads, surrounded by their high-priced attorneys, gathered around an iPad, irate because photos of a mockup were posted on Hobbytalk! "Why, those stinkers," they'd say. "That's the last time we'll allow anyone to reproduce the Enterprise if this is going to happen!"
> 
> Geez, what's next? cats and dogs living together?


I get the impression some of you guys don't remember what happened back in the late 80s and early 90s, then?

There were tons of "fan publishing" works built up around the Trek world. Books, garage kits models, you name it... a whole "mini-economy."

Paramount legal killed virtually all of this. The model business was almost destroyed until AMT/Ertl shut down their production... as many here can probably attest to first-hand! Anyone who actually made a "complete kit" was served... though you could get plenty of "aftermarket addons" which kept this little cottage-industry afload. The publishing side was eliminated entirely.

So... mock this if you wish, but PPC legal has a history of doing exactly what was just discussed. It may seem unreasonable, and it may be unreasonable, but that doesn't mean it's not so.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Yeah some ppl don't get it. They take these things very seriously. No, they won't go after the "offenders" on the board, but they could very well take out their displeasure with Round 2. (Regardless if Round 2 is at fault or not)


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

CLBrown said:


> I get the impression some of you guys don't remember what happened back in the late 80s and early 90s, then?
> 
> There were tons of "fan publishing" works built up around the Trek world. Books, garage kits models, you name it... a whole "mini-economy."
> 
> ...


Cary,


Paramount went after the garage producers who were building a cottage industry with unlicensed properties, and the self-publishers putting out fan material is commercial packaging. They were making a business out of unlicensed properties, and it got big enough to catch the attention of attorneys whose job it is to prove they're vigilant. 

The way it works, a holder can sacrifice a copyright on a property if the holder fails to defend it vigorously. Paramount did not go after AMT/Ertl. Model companies were in flux, and the Trek license was fading until Next Gen prompted new kits. And let's face it, there's been barely a day in our lifetimes when we couldn't easily get some sort of licensed styrene TOS E kit. 

It's literally ridiculous to start screaming about lawyers because someone posted the updates on a bulletin board. Now, if I had a commercial site, and I re-posted the content as my own, that would be a violation worth noticing. But by your thinking, I'm violating a copyright every time I buy a magazine and then lend it for free to a friend!

If Round 2 sends me an email, I'm perfectly free to forward it to anyone I like, and to quote passages in an article under fair use.

Having said that, Round 2 has asked it be kept private. Posting it may be rude, but it's certainly not cause for guns and lawyers.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

"© 2011 CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved. STAR TREK and related marks are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc.

Redistribution of the contents of this email is strictly prohibited. ©2011 Round 2, LLC"

These words are at the bottom of the e-mail. To me its meaning is clear. I suppose there will always be those who believe they are always the exception and are not bound by moral, much less legal, obligations or restrictions.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

There have been some b&w studio shots of the 11 footer, taken when the show was in production, floating around over the years and some of those shots clearly show the gridlines as having been there back in the day.


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

A copyrighted email may not be legally forwarded if notice has been given to that effect -- *except* under fair use, when the intent is criticism, education, or research -- and that includes some discussion.

If you intend tomake money from it, though, strictly verboten. 

From the UNH website:

Fair use.
Fair use is one of the most important, and least clear cut, limits to copyright. It permits some use of others' works even without approval. But when? Words like "fair" or "reasonable" cannot be precisely defined, but here are a few benchmarks. 
Uses that advance public interests such as criticism, education or scholarship are favored -- particularly if little of another's work is copied. Uses that generate income or interfere with a copyright owner's income are not. Fairness also means crediting original artists or authors. (A teacher who copied, without credit, much of another's course materials was found to infringe.)

Commercial uses of another's work are also disfavored. For example, anyone who uses, without explicit permission, others' work to suggest that they endorse some commercial product is asking for trouble! Yet, not all commercial uses are forbidden. Most magazines and newspapers are operated for profit; that they are not automatically precluded from fair use has been made clear by the U.S. Supreme Court.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Having been a former 'Garage kit' and fan publication producer, I have been on the recieving end of this, so I know of which I speak. Those of you familiar with my Jupiter 2 detail guide may have wondered why I haven't done more; two words, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT ! Not knowing anything about the legal ramifications of this issue, I was given a crash course when Paramount Pictures Inc. stopped my planned modeling guide for the Polar Lights 350 scale TOS Enterprise. So,...don't think something is too small to escape their radar, or not worth it for their lawyers to pursue. And to add insult to injury I wasn't even asking any money for the guides !
I had also been forwarding the Club 1701 updates in the past to several of you here on this board includeing some of our 'International' friends and was 'politely' asked by Round 2 to STOP, at risk was my membership and reservation of my kit, now don't get me wrong, I like you guys, but when it comes down to brass tacks....you can all fend for yourselves because I WANT MY KIT !


----------



## Fraley1701 (Sep 3, 2003)

Here is a link to a non-copyrighted picture posted by Starship Modeler (credit) on Twitter. The mock-up is on display at i-Hobby.

http://twitpic.com/73784l#.TqBz3F3ng-s.twitter :thumbsup:


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Fair use does not mean you can republish or re-distribute the entire email and all the photos within. Which is exactly what happened. Also sharing this information without commentary is not fair use. 

Fair use also implies one is "reporting" on something. Your a publisher, writer, critic, news person. That is why fair use of copyrighted material does not apply to fan-zines. Which was the way fans tried to circulate copyright material in the 70's and 80's.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Ductapeforever said:


> Having been a former 'Garage kit' and fan publication producer, I have been on the recieving end of this, so I know of which I speak. Those of you familiar with my Jupiter 2 detail guide may have wondered why I haven't done more; two words, COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT ! Not knowing anything about the legal ramifications of this issue, I was given a crash course when Paramount Pictures Inc. stopped my planned modeling guide for the Polar Lights 350 scale TOS Enterprise. So,...don't think something is too small to escape their radar, or not worth it for their lawyers to pursue. And to add insult to injury I wasn't even asking any money for the guides !
> I had also been forwarding the Club 1701 updates in the past to several of you here on this board includeing some of our 'International' friends and was 'politely' asked by Round 2 to STOP, at risk was my membership and reservation of my kit, now don't get me wrong, I like you guys, but when it comes down to brass tacks....you can all fend for yourselves because I WANT MY KIT !


Yep, this is actually quite common. It may be reasonable, it may be unreasonable... that's not the issue. The issue is that it's TRUE.

Particularly when you're dealing with lawyers who have no personal interest in the subject matter, but who are paid to "defend from any possible IP infringement," and that's what they get paid (and get EVALUATED) for doing... they're gonna do everything that they can.

The "letter of the law" in this regard is quite constraining, and anywhere that someone thinks that money may be at stake, it WILL get pursued.

Your "guide" for example... they don't want you to publish it without their approval, whether for cost or for free, because if you do so, this MIGHT bite into some later, "for profit" version of the same thing.

Now, for those who have questioned this.. I do not agree with the practice, so please stop "arguing with me" on this point. I think it's STUPID for PPC/CBS to do this. I see it as essentially "free advertising" which will actually make their current, for-profit products MORE PROFITABLE, not less.

We have evidence of this... the days of the "fan pub" Trek materials preceded the re-advent of "official" Trek materials, and the days of the most profitable "official" Trek publishing OVERLAP with the days of the most profitable "fan publishing." In other words, there was no REAL "harm" done to PPC's interests by fan-publishing or "garage-kit" makers or the like... none whatsoever. It HELPED, and ended up putting more money into PPC's pockets, frankly.

I'm telling you what IS. Not what "I wish things were." And we all know that there are people here (including DTF) who have been stung by the very issue we're discussing...


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Same here. I'm not saying what should be, or what is right or wrong. This is the reality of the situation. 

They would and should protect their copyright at all costs. It dosent matter if your going to make money off of it or not. Or if your just sharing it for free. Once they let it slide once, they open the flood doors where the copyright holder looses all control over their intellectual property. 

Their not trying to be meanies. They either keep tight control over their copyright or they inadvertently give it all away. And who wants to loose total control of their property?


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

i never relized the were other domes behind the hanger bay observation dome ? looking good (-:


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

woof359 said:


> i never relized the were other domes behind the hanger bay observation dome ? looking good (-:


I think you mean "in front of" don't you?

There are three items... a larger, reddish lamp, and two smaller lamps flanking it (which I believe are green, but can't be certain of... they could just as easily be pure white).

Here's my best representation of these in my own model:



Note that there is an error in that image which I have since corrected. I mistakenly believed that the nacelle pylons had a primarily rectangular shape, but discovered that they actually have nearly full-round leading and trailing edges. This was an easy fix... I simply had to adjust the inside and outside radii in these locations, so my model is now up-to-date in this regard as well, but I didn't feel like recapturing this image.

As I said, I'm not certain of the color of the two items I show here as green, but I'm pretty certain of the location and size. My best reference was a high-res B&W image, and of course some screen-captures which I used to TRY to identify the real color.

I'd love to know the REAL color of those two lamps. Gary, care to chime in?


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

CLBrown said:


> I think you mean "in front of" don't you?
> 
> There are three items... a larger, reddish lamp, and two smaller lamps flanking it (which I believe are green, but can't be certain of... they could just as easily be pure white).
> 
> ...


The two lights are green, and they're flush with the hull. The red light should be slightly taller and has a slightly larger base. You should delete the nearby portholes, too. They were uncovered during the 1991-92 restoration, but are clearly NOT visible in any of the hi-res beauty shots I have. Looks like they were installed during the conversion to the Production version, but somebody changed their mind and had the ports painted over.

Gary


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

CLBrown said:


> And to this day, I STILL can't legally get "Blake's Seven" here in the USA... which drives me nuts. There are plenty of crappy bootleg copies transcoded (and overcompressed) you can find online if you look, but I want a real, official DVD set of Blake's Seven.
> 
> Life sucks sometimes...


Have you tried Canada?


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Captain April said:


> Have you tried Canada?


Well, it's a "Region 2 only" availability issue, and it's only available in PAL.

It would be POSSIBLE for me to strip out the regional protection... that's trivial, really, though I don't really want to do that. And it's entirely possible to transcode PAL-encoded video into NTSC.

But, the problem is that such transcoding is a non-trivial problem. PAL and NTSC have different framerates, so you're stuck with having to alter the frame count, which either involves some really complex frame-to-frame interpolation (and a VERY long transcoding time, though this is what publishers typically do), or merely repeating frames every so often (which can result in "judder" in the video image)... OR, I suppose, just playing the existing frame count at the faster playback rate (which results in something not quite as bad as a typical "Benny Hill chase" but still is quite annoying).

The "bootleg" versions are given this sort of treatment... generally the "juddery" version. But that matter little, since they also are heavily compressed, to fit WAAAAY too many episodes on a single disk. (Yes, I bought a set in China a while back... which is actually higher quality than most you can find over here, but were still pretty poor.)

I really want a real, "official" release, in NTSC, in either region-free or region-1.

Better yet, I'd love to have it on BD. Who knows, by the time we get Cameron's stuff on BD, we might also get Blake's Seven?


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Gary K said:


> The two lights are green, and they're flush with the hull. The red light should be slightly taller and has a slightly larger base. You should delete the nearby portholes, too. They were uncovered during the 1991-92 restoration, but are clearly NOT visible in any of the hi-res beauty shots I have. Looks like they were installed during the conversion to the Production version, but somebody changed their mind and had the ports painted over.


Thanks, Gary.

The guys over at TrekBBS know this, but most of you guys here likely do not... this is my own "Cary's version" of the ship, and is not intended to be a 100% accurate replica of the screen model, but rather my effort to make a "real" ship that is essentially indistinguishable from the screen model (and screen sets) but which is fully practical (provided we allow for a few "magic generators" here and there, obviously!).

As such, "Cary's take on the 1701" has a few deviations from the real miniature. The only major points are the addition of some "fine detail" on the surface, representing retractable hatches (phasers, torpedos, etc), a subtle change to the bridge (altering the height and shape of the bridge lift tube in a very small way), and of course having real interiors throughout (many of which can be seen through the windows). Oh, and I altered the height of the observation gallery in the landing bay a small amount to make it line up with the rest of my decklines.

You can see examples of my "retractable hatches" here... six phaser ports, and the two forward torpedo tubes.

(And yes, I have a full layout for deck 10, including "Balance of Terror"'s phaser control room, a torpedo magazine, phaser capacitors, etc.)

The biggest difference, really, is that my ship is 1067' feet long, not 947' feet long. That was determined by my efforts to try to fit everything in, as seen on-screen (including on-screen deck heights) and to have it all match up with the window placement. While a few window positions are slightly shifted, they're effectively where they are in the miniature, but everything aligns perfectly. I'm (personally) completely convinced that 1067' is the "real size" of this ship... unless the humans of Trek's future are all a lot shorter than we are today. :freak:

I plan to build two copies of the Round2 kit... one which will be "Cary's version" and another which will be "totally screen-accurate" (and since I'll have two, the second one may even have the full "production state" including lack of nacelle trench, exposed wires, etc!) The first will be done ASAP... the second will likely come along later.

**********

To your points...

I'll upscale the red lamp as you suggest. I suppose it makes sense to have it be the same OD as the green lamps, huh?

And about those... I have to say that, despite knowing now that they don't perfectly match the model, I like the green lamps as they are, slightly above surface. At least as long as I view them as lamps, that is, so I suspect I'll leave those as they are. (On the other hand, if they were some form of sensor device, that's a whole 'nother matter... hmmm...)

As for the two portholes... very, very interesting. I knew that they were there... but was not aware of them having been "painted over." Of course, even painted over, there'd be SOME detail on the model, albeit very subtle.

In my "Cary's Enterprise," I'm going to leave them as well, because I've already set up "sensor equipment bays" inside of each. But I may treat these as if they have "shutters" (as all windows, including sensor windows, likely have) to help it match up with what you've just told me. That should both match the "real miniature" and also fit with my ideas on the ship.

In my version, all the round windows are "sensor ports" while all the rectangular ones are "people viewing ports." These two locations provide coverage which no other sensor ports really cover. So, I really like having them there.

I'd have never known this info otherwise, so thanks! :thumbsup:


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

Kit said:


> I'd love to see that! I can see the meeting at Paramount now; studio heads, surrounded by their high-priced attorneys, gathered around an iPad, irate because photos of a mockup were posted on Hobbytalk! "Why, those stinkers," they'd say. "That's the last time we'll allow anyone to reproduce the Enterprise if this is going to happen!"
> 
> Geez, what's next? cats and dogs living together?


No, but what could happen is this, "Why, those stinkers, " they'd say. "That's the last time we'll allow any updates for anyone to see ahead of time, because some people just can't be trusted". 

And then _no one knows _what's in the works until it hits the shelves, just like in the olden days. It's happened before, and can happen again. People just don't realize that this is a lot more important than just a model company putting out a model of a fake spaceship. There's a lot of people, money, contracts, licensing, etc behind this. And for people to get all bent out of shape because they don't want to respect what is in the newsletter
are just inviting the powers that be to shut us all out. To think that this is just trivial and silly just really don't understand the buisness world.


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

robiwon said:


> No, but what could happen is this, "Why, those stinkers, " they'd say. "That's the last time we'll allow any updates for anyone to see ahead of time, because some people just can't be trusted".
> 
> And then _no one knows _what's in the works until it hits the shelves, just like in the olden days. It's happened before, and can happen again. People just don't realize that this is a lot more important than just a model company putting out a model of a fake spaceship. There's a lot of people, money, contracts, licensing, etc behind this. And for people to get all bent out of shape because they don't want to respect what is in the newsletter
> are just inviting the powers that be to shut us all out. To think that this is just trivial and silly just really don't understand the buisness world.


We are the powers that be...............not the corporations


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

falcondesigns said:


> We are the powers that be...............not the corporations


Then you put YOUR money on the line, you buy the licensing rights, you take the risks of business, you listen to people complain about how you do things, and produce your own kit! :thumbsup:


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

robiwon said:


> No, but what could happen is this, "Why, those stinkers, " they'd say. "That's the last time we'll allow any updates for anyone to see ahead of time, because some people just can't be trusted".
> 
> And then _no one knows _what's in the works until it hits the shelves, just like in the olden days. It's happened before, and can happen again. People just don't realize that this is a lot more important than just a model company putting out a model of a fake spaceship. There's a lot of people, money, contracts, licensing, etc behind this. And for people to get all bent out of shape because they don't want to respect what is in the newsletter
> are just inviting the powers that be to shut us all out. To think that this is just trivial and silly just really don't understand the buisness world.


Do you understand that last sentence is insulting? Let me try to say this politely, because there's no reason for us to fight. If I considered copyright issues trivial or silly, I couldn't do my job. My disagreement with you is over your reaction to the postings, which I think you meant as threatening and extreme. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

To be truthful, the updates seem to be circulating pretty widely outside of anything on Hobbytalk, and I've seen them even though I'm not a club member. I don't want to be a club member, but I'm really looking forward to the kit, I'm interested in it, and I expect to buy it. 

It appears to me that forwarding the full emails, or posting them in full without commentary, does indeed violate the copyright, because Round 2 has posted its requirement that they not be forwarded. However, some quoting and reposting is covered under fair use. There's nothing under fair use that requires someone to be a journalist, as far as I know. I also think the Trek license remains unthreatened by the activity here,and that Round 2 will continue the updates because the people there want to do so. The updates are a fine showcase for their work.

I also apologize to those who are done with this discussion of copyright, and I promise I am, too. I don't like it when threads that interest me are hijacked. CL, I request that among your interesting observations, you continue to be more open to two-way discussion, as you have been recently, and I'll ask that you start separate threads for long discussions of your version of the E. Speaking only for me, that will make them a pleasure. And I'll tell you I feel the same way about a '70s show called Banyon as you do about Blake's 7.


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

Not wanting to fight or argue either. However, and I will say this politely as well. And I am not angry, just passionate.  

It all comes down to this. R2 asked for the Club members to keep the newsletters to themselves. Some don't want to as they feel they don't have to listen to R2. Others complain that they can't get the newsletter because they don't live in the US or Canada. Well to all of those people, I'm very sorry for you. There's nothing anyone here can do about it. Post the newsletters if you want. But remember, R2 has asked us not to. 

If people continue, R2 may act on this and stop the newsletters altogether because of the "I don't care what they say" attitude. And if that happens, whose to blame?

With that, I think I'm done with this. I'm going to go work on my Predator costume for a while. 

:wave:


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

This newsletter/update issue all boils down to this: ever heard of one bad apple spoils the bunch? Every 'rebel without a cause' who defys Round 2's request to not forward or post the information runs the risk off ruining this special club , not only for the legitimate members of the club but for themselves. Round 2 has a presence here on the board, and can decide to simply not offer ANY further updates. As has been stated before, they have no obligation to supply information on any of their products , and do so out of trust and respect. If you wish to go back to the days of not knowing anything in advance of a kit, just continuing doing what your doing. Buy don't cry when the information all drys up. Members here already ruined the relationship with Moebius here on the board, please don't do so with Round 2.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I'd better cancel that billboard I rented, then.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

John P said:


> I'd better cancel that billboard I rented, then.


John, you have an uncanny way of bringing humor to any situation.:thumbsup: I hope one day to meet you in person. You 've got to be a laugh riot !


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Ductapeforever said:


> This newsletter/update issue all boils down to this: ever heard of one bad apple spoils the bunch? Every 'rebel without a cause' who defys Round 2's request to not forward or post the information runs the risk off ruining this special club , not only for the legitimate members of the club but for themselves. Round 2 has a presence here on the board, and can decide to simply not offer ANY further updates. As has been stated before, they have no obligation to supply information on any of their products , and do so out of trust and respect. If you wish to go back to the days of not knowing anything in advance of a kit, just continuing doing what your doing. Buy don't cry when the information all drys up. Members here already ruined the relationship with Moebius here on the board, please don't do so with Round 2.




From what I've seen I don't agree about members being the ones who ruined the relationship with Moebius on here (I think thicker skins were required there on their part) but agree about this R2 thing. If they've asked members not to share this info then people should respect that.

I want to see the info too but R2 have obviously done this for a reason.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Remember folks we're not prohibited from talking about the information in the updates, just from posting pics, diagrams, drawings, and 3D renderings, or the update in it's entirety, which by the way are all the intelectual property of our very own Gary Kerr, the originator of the info in the first place. The information will get out there, as most of us here are happy to share


----------



## Tiberious (Nov 20, 2001)

We've seens such good examples of people with integrity, not joining the club as they couldn't firmly commit to buying.... I think those of us on the list should do no less and honor our agreement not to distribute the contents of the newsletter.

Really, all the discussion stemming from each edition is really worthwhile and of benefit to all, 'club' members and not. So we all benefit and given that R2 really seems to be listening, we also get a better kit.

My 2 (and only 2) cents....

Tib


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

falcondesigns said:


> We are the powers that be...............not the corporations


We are the customers. Round 2 is the service provider. CBS/Paramount (depending on which part of the franchise, right now) is the intellectual property owner.

Round 2, and CBS, want our money. We want a product. This is a BUSINESS TRANSACTION. All three parties to this transaction have things that they want, things that they require, and things that they're permitted, or not permitted, to do.

Your comment seems to be more than a little bit naive, and unjustifiably hostile. I'd say the term "overtly confrontational" would not be out of place. (You're not currently occupying a park near Wall Street, are you???)

You are not ENTITLED to anything. You're really not. CBS, and Round2, do not OWE you anything whatsoever. Now, the moment you enter into a transaction with them, they owe you certain things, and you owe them certain things.

In my case, I made certain promises to Round 2, and through Round 2 to CBS, and they made certain promises to me. It's an EXCHANGE of promises and resposibilities.

Neither is legally binding, really... as discussed earlier. We CAN break our obligations. But then again, so can they... even going so far as to cancel the kit entirely, or to shut down the "1701 club," or to discontinue the newsletters, or so forth.

You're in Puerto Rico, which is a "US territory." In general, PR is treated (in legal terms) as being part of the USA where these matters are concerned, meaning you are entirely eligible to join this club and get these newsletters yourself.

So, what reason is there for you, personally, to have not joined? What is keeping you from signing up, and receiving this "special insider information" which is the reward they provide to us in exchange for our making moral commitments to the purchase of this kit?

Do you not want to buy it? Are you financially incapable of buying it? I'm sincerely curious. Your hostility seems... misplaced. And I really don't think we need an "Occupy Round 2" protest, do you?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Bottom line: They have very politely asked us not to distribute the pics. Don't be a douchebag.


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

Captain April said:


> Bottom line: They have very politely asked us not to distribute the pics. Don't be a douchebag.


This is the smartest, sharpest argument I have seen here. I'm not being sarcastic. Nice and short and to the point, too. Well done.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Captain April said:


> Bottom line: They have very politely asked us not to distribute the pics. Don't be a douchebag.


Yes. This should be obvious, it's well-stated, and it's the way most of us feel, I think.


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

CLBrown said:


> We are the customers. Round 2 is the service provider. CBS/Paramount (depending on which part of the franchise, right now) is the intellectual property owner.
> 
> Round 2, and CBS, want our money. We want a product. This is a BUSINESS TRANSACTION. All three parties to this transaction have things that they want, things that they require, and things that they're permitted, or not permitted, to do.
> 
> ...


Thank you for your nice comments.....

I will buy the production kit when that comes out,I have no need to do the first or second pilot versions of the kit,so no club for me.....
I could care less if I get the scoop on this kit,I'll get the scoop when I 
open the box.Some poster here and on other boards,who live in Europe and Asia
have express frustration for not being able to participate in this little folly.
I have been in the hobby business for 45 years,in retail,design and development,production,and manufacturing.
I've lived in P.R. for two years now,I was born in New York City and have Yankee blood in me.
I am allways hostile,it is my nature........


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

falcondesigns said:


> I've lived in P.R. for two years now,I was born in New York City and have Yankee blood in me.
> I am allways hostile,it is my nature........


I was in San Juan in '05. Very beautiful there. My wifes ex-husband is from P.R. We've been invited to visit the family (were all friends!) this Christmas. Not sure where in P.R. though.

But, back on topic.......


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

Let me know if you come,we can have a friendly chat.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

falcondesigns said:


> ...I am allways hostile,it is my nature........


"Always"? Hmmm - I enjoyed "Bamboo Saucer" ... am I supposed to believe that you sent it to me as a hostile gesture? :wave:


----------



## falcondesigns (Oct 30, 2002)

Paulbo said:


> "Always"? Hmmm - I enjoyed "Bamboo Saucer" ... am I supposed to believe that you sent it to me as a hostile gesture? :wave:


Yes,that was very hostile of me........


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

falcondesigns said:


> Let me know if you come,we can have a friendly chat.


If we decide to head down there I'll keep you posted on when and where. Always enjoy meeting fellow modelers from the forums!

And now, back to arguing... I mean discussing the new TOS E!


----------



## drmcoy (Nov 18, 2004)

i have no dog in this race, but it seems ABSURD to me that ANYONE would send out pictures via the internet and NOT expect that they would be posted elsewhere.

Yes, I realize this does not justify the pictures being posted elsewhere if the supplier of those pics requested that they NOT be reposted, but come on...really? Did they REALLY think the pics wouldn't be reposted?

Geeesh.

It's a MODEL.

A bunch of plastic.

Look, I signed up to buy this model. I am EXCITED to see progress pictures. I did not repost ANY pictures, but I think it is BEYOND absurd to get bent out of shape over ANY of this...and it is WAY BEYOND ABSURD for ANYONE to think that pictures that are sent via email or internet will not show up elsewhere regardless of how firmly or politely someone asks to NOT repost them.

If this truly is a major concern to Round 2, the solution is obvious.

My humble who really cares anyways two cents.

t


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

drmcoy said:


> If this truly is a major concern to Round 2, the solution is obvious.
> 
> My humble who really cares anyways two cents.


And that is precisely the attitude that may get the newsletter shut down, or no updates for anyone, or even a further removal of R2 from posting any news on the message boards. 
People agreed not to repost anything from the newsletter when they signed up. People are breaking that agreement. What should R2 do when people repost copyrighted material without permission? Keep sending it out? Send a PM to them? Or stop sending it out altogether?


Be careful what you wish for, we may* all *have to pay the price!


----------



## RogueJ (Oct 29, 2000)

I suddenly feel I'm in the middle of "The Big Bang Theory". "Rock - Paper - Scissors - lizard - SPOCK!"

oh well. onward.


----------



## Husker Adama (Sep 1, 2011)

Well, not to argue either way, but 1701 isn't really meant to be shared with everyone, but then again, Round 2 put up the mock up of the Model at a recent show for Everyone and their uncle to see.


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

SUNGOD said:


> From what I've seen I don't agree about members being the ones who ruined the relationship with Moebius on here (I think thicker skins were required there on their part) but agree about this R2 thing. If they've asked members not to share this info then people should respect that.
> 
> I want to see the info too but R2 have obviously done this for a reason.


Naw, I'm pretty sure the members did it.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

ClubTepes said:


> Naw, I'm pretty sure the members did it.


Yup. With the heaps of steaming **** that was dumped on them, it's a wonder it took Frank and Dave as long to bail as it did.

"I DEMAND to know why X was done this way instead of the totally impractical and costly way that I outlined in my 3 page diatribe last week that had no punctuation or capitalization, was filled with spelling and grammar mistakes and ... was posted after the kit was in production."

"What the **** is wrong with you people in that kit Y isn't exact to 8 decimal places ... even though the filming miniature wasn't even good to 2?"

"Everybody knows that in the fan produced episode 'Danger Beneath the Waves', the Z was shown to have extensible fromulators. They should have been included. You people ****."

While these aren't direct quotes, they give the flavor.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Ah, the memories...


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

ClubTepes said:


> Naw, I'm pretty sure the members did it.




Again, from what I've seen about that thread and as to why they left....model companies should realise that people are going to point out the negatives as well as the positives on these sites and in my opinion......develop thicker skins.

Especially as 99% of the comments about them on here have been positive anyway.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Paulbo said:


> Yup. With the heaps of steaming **** that was dumped on them, it's a wonder it took Frank and Dave as long to bail as it did.
> 
> "I DEMAND to know why X was done this way instead of the totally impractical and costly way that I outlined in my 3 page diatribe last week that had no punctuation or capitalization, was filled with spelling and grammar mistakes and ... was posted after the kit was in production."
> 
> ...





Come on.....that's a total exagerration. Most of the comments about them were positive and unless I've missed something....I've never personally seen anything really bad said about them.


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Paulbo said:


> Yup. With the heaps of steaming **** that was dumped on them, it's a wonder it took Frank and Dave as long to bail as it did.


Most ppl were expressing their likes/dislikes and opinions on things. I don't consider that dumping on Moebius. Just for example ppl were disappointed with their original Iron Man and Frankenstein Monster kits. Now Moebius are producing much better versions of the same subjects. Yet forum members got "hell" for making any sort of "negative" comments justified or not.
Edit: Right on Sungod.


----------



## SUNGOD (Jan 20, 2006)

Solium said:


> Most ppl were expressing their likes/dislikes and opinions on things. I don't consider that dumping on Moebius. Just for example ppl were disappointed with their original Iron Man and Frankenstein Monster kits. Now Moebius are producing much better versions of the same subjects. Yet forum members got "hell" for making any sort of "negative" comments justified or not.
> Edit: Right on Sungod.



Exactly. There was maybe one or two silly comments here and there but the rest of the conversations I've seen were people using these forums (which is surely what they're for) to express their opinions both negative and positive. 

If people were hurling insults then I could understand....but as far as I could see they weren't.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Solium said:


> Most ppl were expressing their likes/dislikes and opinions on things. I don't consider that dumping on Moebius. Just for example ppl were disappointed with their original Iron Man and Frankenstein Monster kits. Now Moebius are producing much better versions of the same subjects. Yet forum members got "hell" for making any sort of "negative" comments justified or not.
> Edit: Right on Sungod.


Moebius was under the restraints of the Universal and Marvel marketing departments for final approval on those two kits. What you got was what the rights holder wanted you to have, not Moebius. They explained that many times, but people still complained like it was Moebius' fault. I would be ticked off too if I were them! If they choose not to post here, I understand.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

It was the constant complaining about various aspects of the model designs and poses that were 'OUT OF THEIR CONTROL' and the amaturish attempts at 'arm chair designing' that prompted the Moebius exodus. They felt cornered and that they couldn't please anybody, no matter how hard they tried.


----------



## fire91bird (Feb 3, 2008)

Ductapeforever said:


> They felt cornered and that they couldn't please anybody, no matter how hard they tried.


I think this is what it boiled down to.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Yes, they were exagerations, but unfortunately not by a whole heck of a lot.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

Here's an example: Back when Horizon was producing vinyl figure kits for Batman Returns, Michael Keaton had the right of approval on the look of his likeness. Horizon had to re-sculpt the head several times before Keaton approved the likeness.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

Try puttings yourselves in their shoes, how would you like to have your product you've only just announced 'nitpicked' to death when the project was still in concept stages. To have your design team questioned on their accuracy by overly zealous, self described 'experts' who rely on non-cannonical references produced by other overly zealous 'fanboys' who got their information from questionable sources ,yet presented the info in 'fan based' publications developed by less than knowledgable 'fanboys' who got their information from even less credible sources . Look back on some of these threads and realize just how childish and immature you sound. Learn a little about the subject your voiceing your opinion over 'before' you open your pie hole and stick your foot in it !


----------



## spock62 (Aug 13, 2003)

SUNGOD said:


> Again, from what I've seen about that thread and as to why they left....model companies should realise that people are going to point out the negatives as well as the positives on these sites and in my opinion......develop thicker skins.
> 
> Especially as 99% of the comments about them on here have been positive anyway.


I couldn't agree more with this viewpoint.

In my opinion, these modeling forums should be about open discussions on models/model companies, both positive and negative. But I do agree that any negative opinions should be reasonable. A kit with a major part (i.e. face, cockpit) that is way off, is a reasonable complaint. Having a problem with a kit that has panel lines one millimeter off, or an issue that is easily fixable, isn't, IMHO. Unfortunately, what most would consider a reasonable complaint, is unreasonable for others. 

Any opinions expressed shouldn't become personal attacks on individuals posting or individuals working for/owning model companies. In other words, keep it civil. I don't see how anyone, including the owners of Moebius or other model companies would have a problem with that. 

As for members being the ones that "ruined" the relationship of Moebius with this forum, if that is true, then yes, they (Frank & company) need to grow thicker skins. Funny thing is, as has been mentioned, it seems 99% of the comments are positive, not bad if you ask me. To suggest that the 1% of us, who are not totally happy with some aspect of their kits, has forced them to leave this forum doesn't make sense. No one forced them off, they chose to leave.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Seems to me thin skin is not limited to model companies. All too often when a different point of view is offered here, the original poster seems to take it as a personal attack and becomes belligerent, as if there is only one point of view. Moebius can be followed and talked to on Facebook. I know there are many here who are afraid they will lose their soul if they use Facebook, but if you just want to see updates, you can go to the bottom of the Moebius website and see what is going on on Facebook without damaging themselves! Not being here has not harmed Moebius in any way, as their new kit announcements show, they are producing new kits at a tremendous rate. 

I thought this was supposed to be about the Round 2 Enterprise?!!!!!


----------



## Mr. Wabac (Nov 9, 2002)

Paulbo said:


> "Everybody knows that in the fan produced episode 'Danger Beneath the Waves', the Z was shown to have extensible fromulators."


Actually, it wasn't "Danger Beneath the Waves" it was the third season twelve-part episode "Return of the Despotigons" and it was only hinted that the fromulators were actually extensible. It was only in the official fan-produced blueprints they were shown as extensible.

So is Round2 making a model ?


----------



## liskorea317 (Mar 27, 2009)

Mr. Wabac said:


> Actually, it wasn't "Danger Beneath the Waves" it was the third season twelve-part episode "Return of the Despotigons" and it was only hinted that the fromulators were actually extensible. It was only in the official fan-produced blueprints they were shown as extensible.
> 
> So is Round2 making a model ?


Oh I remember that show!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Wasn't Michael Ansara in that one?


----------



## Mr. Wabac (Nov 9, 2002)

Just Michael. Sara was busy.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

This thread has officially disintegrated into crap !


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

I agree!:thumbsup:


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

Ductapeforever said:


> This thread has officially disintegrated into crap !


Maybe we can revive it. CultTVMan has posted several pictures of the prototype which he took at iHobbyExpo here. The old girl is looking mighty fine. The only thing that looks even slightly wrong to my eye is the flat rectangle on the side of the secondary hull where the pennant runs. It seems to be a little more deeply inset into the side...but maybe it is supposed to be. I'm certainly no expert on the 11 footer.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

That mock-up alone can show details many of us might not have even been aware of before. I know the engraved lines on the mock-up aren't what they're aiming for, but even currently as is they look much better than anything else I've seen and certainly far better than what Revell Germany has done (particularly for a smaller scale model).


----------



## liskorea317 (Mar 27, 2009)

Ductapeforever said:


> This thread has officially disintegrated into crap !


Just trying to lighten the mood.:wave:


----------



## liskorea317 (Mar 27, 2009)

Fozzie said:


> Maybe we can revive it. CultTVMan has posted several pictures of the prototype which he took at iHobbyExpo here. The old girl is looking mighty fine. The only thing that looks even slightly wrong to my eye is the flat rectangle on the side of the secondary hull where the pennant runs. It seems to be a little more deeply inset into the side...but maybe it is supposed to be. I'm certainly no expert on the 11 footer.



The nacelles are also crooked, a mistake made in China but Round 2 says they are rectifying everything. I think its in good hands and should be a fabulous kit! I personally can't wait!


----------



## robiwon (Oct 20, 2006)

It's definately looking the part so far. Grid lines are not bad either. Heck I would be happy if it came out as is, with straight nacelles of course.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

liskorea317 said:


> The nacelles are also crooked, a mistake made in China but Round 2 says they are rectifying everything. I think its in good hands and should be a fabulous kit! I personally can't wait!


Not sure if it was a mistake in China, but rather the heavier material that was used for this prototype. I think that is what was said in their update. Either way, you are right, Round 2 said not to worry about it, it will be fixed in the final product. Looking good indeed!! :thumbsup:


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

I wonder if they will release the lighting kit and photoetch at the same time as the product release or if not, how long it will be. I don't want to build mine until I have the kits. I am quite excited about having the fan blades spin in the nacelles.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Fozzie said:


> Maybe we can revive it. CultTVMan has posted several pictures of the prototype which he took at iHobbyExpo here. The old girl is looking mighty fine. The only thing that looks even slightly wrong to my eye is the flat rectangle on the side of the secondary hull where the pennant runs. It seems to be a little more deeply inset into the side...but maybe it is supposed to be. I'm certainly no expert on the 11 footer.


Well, the inset areas there are essentially identical to what I created when I made my own 3D Enterprise in Pro/ENGINEER. I'm actually quite happy to see that, with the exception of a few areas where I INTENTIONALLY deviated from the production model, what I see here and what I developed are effectively identical. (I altered the shape of the B/C deck superstructure at the aft to be a bit less "pointy," and I altered the height and diameter of the bridge lift tube to permit a lift car to actually fit in properly, and I altered the landing bay doors to be nesting... ie, you can see stepping between adjacent segments. Oh, and I did some very subtle repositioning of windows to make them line up with decklines more effectively, but this is literally impossible to see unless you do a HD overlay of the rendered image with the on-screen model, and then it's still quite subtle.)

I never had any doubts about the quality of the model's shapes... and as long as the gridlines are miniscule, my concerns re: them are mostly allayed. And, as mentioned, the "sagging" you see here has already been addressed by Gary's input to the Chinese engineering team, though it can still be improved beyond what he proposed, and also as mentioned, the fact that the material is not the design-intent material (AND that it's not even actually glued together) is a bit part of the "Saggy" appearance you see here now.

I will have a very robust internal framework in my build-up, made from hardwood. But it should be pretty straightforward to make improvements to the design to enhance the robustness of the assembly, well beyond what you see here.

EDIT: You can see the "side notch" here pretty clearly.. the shape and depth on my model is effectively identical to what is seen on the Round2 kit:




And regarding the changes I made, you can see them here, and see why I'm doing them as I'm doing them, 

The B/C deck superstructure and the bridge lift tube:




The landing bay doors:


----------



## Radiodugger (Sep 27, 2011)

Hi guys! 

I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread! All of it. You made me laugh, I got angry, then reading some more, I calmed down, understanding it better, etc.. I agree with some things, disagree with others, but that's how I roll! 

I love the new model! I'll be watching for it. I don't need exclusive access, or secret peeks. I'll happily wait until release time. I know about the 11-footer, but exactly how many filming miniatures were there in TOS?

Radio Doug


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

I found one more image I'd forgotten about.. this shows all four of these (the bay doors, the bridge lift, the rounded aft B/C deck structure... AND the depth of the "side box grooves.")

Note how deep the "side box grooves" really are.


----------



## Mr. Wabac (Nov 9, 2002)

For the most part, there was only one filming miniature during the run of the original series, which was the 11 footer. There was a smaller 3 foot model used in the pilots, plus of course the AMT kit used in "The Doomsday Machine", possibly another one for "The Trouble with Tribbles".

Hey, I'm back on topic !


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The eleven footer was the primary effects miniature used. The three footer was mainly intended as merely a proof-of-concept model before moving on towards the construction of the eleven footer, but got drafted into onscreen service for the high speed flybys (the quality of which the CGI versions failed to match) and in the first pilot because the big model just wasn't quite ready yet (the eleven footer was only used in one shot in "The Cage", that zoom-in on the bridge). It also got the nod for the scene in "Requiem For Methuselah" when Flint shrinks the Enterprise down to a tabletop model.

As for others, an AMT model was used in the window of Mr. Lurry's office on K-7 in "The Trouble With Tribbles" (that model is now in the Science Fiction museum in Seattle) and the little pendant from "Catspaw" was used in "The Doomsday Machine" for the viewscreen shot of the Enterprise moving in on the planet killer.

I'm not counting the AMT model used for the Constellation, because it's the Constellation, not the Enterprise.  I do wonder whatever happened to that model, though.


----------



## Fraley1701 (Sep 3, 2003)

Captain April said:


> I'm not counting the AMT model used for the Constellation, because it's the Constellation, not the Enterprise.  I do wonder whatever happened to that model, though.


It was consumed by the planet killer silly! Don't you watch TV?  :thumbsup:


----------



## Radiodugger (Sep 27, 2011)

Awesome, guys! Thank you!


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

How about "Tomorrow is Yesterday"?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

What about it?


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Wasn't there a shot of the Enterprise in low orbit, in the atmosphere? Which model was used for that shot?


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

SteveR said:


> Wasn't there a shot of the Enterprise in low orbit, in the atmosphere? Which model was used for that shot?


Wasn't that the small model Shatner and Nimoy held in publicity shots?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

The three footer was used for part of that sequence, the eleven footer for the other part.


----------



## woof359 (Apr 27, 2003)

Gary K said:


> The two lights are green, and they're flush with the hull. The red light should be slightly taller and has a slightly larger base. You should delete the nearby portholes, too. They were uncovered during the 1991-92 restoration, but are clearly NOT visible in any of the hi-res beauty shots I have. Looks like they were installed during the conversion to the Production version, but somebody changed their mind and had the ports painted over.
> 
> Gary


I never knew of these before. are they on the old AMT kit ?


----------



## Gary K (Aug 26, 2002)

woof359 said:


> I never knew of these before. are they on the old AMT kit ?


No - and besides, the AMT kit only had an approximation of the 11-footer's actual window pattern.

Gary


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

The AMT kit only had an approximation of the whole dang ship!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well put.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

John P said:


> The AMT kit only had an approximation of the whole dang ship!


Of course, so is the Round 2 model. And, really, so was the 11-footer, when you get right down to it. They're just BETTER approximations!


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

CLBrown said:


> Of course, so is the Round 2 model. And, really, so was the 11-footer, when you get right down to it. They're just BETTER approximations!


An excellent point. 

I still have somewhere an 18" inch TOS E AMT kit that I built and painted white, many years ago, when I was a kid. In those days, before IDIC and the Internet, it looked right to me. Maybe it was suggested by the white plastic, but I thought the thing was white. I have no idea how I didn't see it better in my mind's eye.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Maybe because half the time, the directions said to paint the thing white.


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

I watched the original series in first run on a small black n white TV and the ship sure looked white as snow to me. I never would have considered painting my first model of it, in 1968, gray. Even where it looked off white, the effect looked like an under exposure. I was also surprised to learn, later, that the Jupiter 2 was silver, not white.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Kit said:


> I still have somewhere an 18" inch TOS E AMT kit that I built and _painted_ white, many years ago, when I was a kid.


You painted yours?


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

SteveR said:


> You painted yours?


I seem to remember painting the top of the primary hull like a chess board back in the mid '70s.

What was I thinking? 

(Of course, they were cheap as chips back then so painting them like the Partridge family van wasn't a bad thing.)


----------



## Marco Scheloske (May 16, 2000)

Larva said:


> I watched the original series in first run on a small black n white TV and the ship sure looked white as snow to me. I never would have considered painting my first model of it, in 1968, gray. Even where it looked off white, the effect looked like an under exposure.


Same here.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

I, too, also thought the ship was white until I saw some colour stills. I initially started watching the show in b&w and then in colour about a year later.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

CLBrown said:


> Of course, so is the Round 2 model. And, really, so was the 11-footer, when you get right down to it. They're just BETTER approximations!


Pedantic, but accurate. :lol:


----------



## Spockr (Sep 14, 2009)

SteveR said:


> You painted yours?


I painted mine Testor's copper, with a brush, because Testor's copper was my favorite paint and well, just because I could. 

Regatds,
MattL


----------



## Joel (Jul 27, 1999)

Spockr said:


> I painted mine Testor's copper, with a brush, because Testor's copper was my favorite paint and well, just because I could.
> 
> Regatds,
> MattL


 How long did it take for the fingerprint stains to show up?


----------



## Kit (Jul 9, 2009)

John P said:


> Pedantic, but accurate. :lol:


Not to mention punctilious.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Joel said:


> How long did it take for the fingerprint stains to show up?


He, he! I'm old enough to get that one.
Good one...and true!


----------



## swhite228 (Dec 31, 2003)

Starship Modeler has posted a lot of photos of the prototype from IHobby Chicago here.
http://www.starshipmodeler.com/EVENTS/jl_2k11ihobby.htm


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Has everyone seen this:

http://www.therpf.com/f11/studio-half-scale-tos-enterprise-scratch-build-98400/

Pretty impressive.


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

swhite228 said:


> Starship Modeler has posted a lot of photos of the prototype from IHobby Chicago here.
> http://www.starshipmodeler.com/EVENTS/jl_2k11ihobby.htm


Great series of photos here. Getting a clearer view of the gridlines. I think Gary said that the final gridlines would be less pronounced than those seen on this prototype. The bridge seems too conical in some close ups, but that is probably an effect of lighting. Just loving the window treatments!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Edge said:


> Has everyone seen this:
> 
> http://www.therpf.com/f11/studio-half-scale-tos-enterprise-scratch-build-98400/
> 
> Pretty impressive.


Now *THAT* is serious dedication. :thumbsup:


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

Larva said:


> Great series of photos here. Getting a clearer view of the gridlines. I think Gary said that the final gridlines would be less pronounced than those seen on this prototype. The bridge seems too conical in some close ups, but that is probably an effect of lighting. Just loving the window treatments!


I hope so, the crew could play hop scotch over those "grid lines".


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Warped9 said:


> Now *THAT* is serious dedication. :thumbsup:


Aye... his model is quite impressive... you can download HD video logs of his build effort off of YouTube.


----------



## Larry523 (Feb 16, 2010)

I just read on Steve Neill's build thread over on RPF that he and nearly the entire former Trek Art Department have pitched to the Smithsonian the idea of them restoring the 11-footer to her former glory. Apparently the extensive documentation of Steve's half-studio-scale build has persuaded the NASM folks to at least consider the idea. They're going to open the case and do a formal survey of the model to assess the idea. Let's keep our fingers crossed that they decide to do it!


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

Larry523 said:


> I just read on Steve Neill's build thread over on RPF that he and nearly the entire former Trek Art Department have pitched to the Smithsonian the idea of them restoring the 11-footer to her former glory. Apparently the extensive documentation of Steve's half-studio-scale build has persuaded the NASM folks to at least consider the idea. They're going to open the case and do a formal survey of the model to assess the idea. Let's keep our fingers crossed that they decide to do it!


This is awesome news and I hope it goes their way.


----------



## Fozzie (May 25, 2009)

R2 said that anyone who went to iHobby wearing a 1701 Club shirt could get a sneak preview of something cool. I hope it was the lighting kit for the nacelles with the spinning blades. Does anyone know what was behind the curtain?


----------



## BolianAdmiral (Feb 24, 2009)

Larry523 said:


> I just read on Steve Neill's build thread over on RPF that he and nearly the entire former Trek Art Department have pitched to the Smithsonian the idea of them restoring the 11-footer to her former glory. Apparently the extensive documentation of Steve's half-studio-scale build has persuaded the NASM folks to at least consider the idea. They're going to open the case and do a formal survey of the model to assess the idea. Let's keep our fingers crossed that they decide to do it!


Thank the Gods, if it happens... wash off all that wretched and horrid kindergarten weathering job that sullied the grand lady, and return her to her former clean TOS glory.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Oh I hope this comes true!!! AND I hope they have it lit up when on display.


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

Opus Penguin said:


> Oh I hope this comes true!!! AND I hope they have it lit up when on display.


... with some bridge sound effects in the background ... quiet, though ... and it has to be a proper display: museum-like, in a darkened room.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

This time, they'd better cover up that damn bow light.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Are you completely sure that the light was "covered up" in the first place? I know that it doesn't show up as brightly lit, but I see no indication that the thing was ever painted over.

We know why the circle is there... for access to the lamp bulb underneath (the one that lights the three front-facing circles, which I treat as the forward scanners).

But what if there was just some "light blocking" feature on the INSIDE, and there was never paint on the outside?

I've looked at the best-quality images I can find, both from screen-caps and from production stills, and I can see the circle. It seems to be a lighter shade than the hull anytime we see it, but I can see no evidence either way as to whether it was painted opaque or if the light was just not directly underneath it.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

It sure as hell wasn't lit.


----------



## Landru (May 25, 2009)

Captain April said:


> It sure as hell wasn't lit.


It was lit dimly :wave:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Only by accident.


----------



## Landru (May 25, 2009)

Captain April said:


> Only by accident.


But it _was_ lit:wave:


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Was it?










I don't see any light.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

There... Are... Four... Lights!!!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

What hump?


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

All bow light controversy aside, this shot is amazingly captivating. It's very interesting to look at the screen capture image with the knowledge of the unfinished port side, the "rust ring," the pencilled gridlines and weathering.... and still be moved by the overall impression of shape, design, form and illusion that makes this ship more than a ship. To me, at least, it doesn't look like a model. It's a starship!


----------



## Landru (May 25, 2009)

April, there are photographs of the model that were taken during the production of the show that are in private collections and not in circulation, Gary Kerr has access to some of these and therefore has much better references than we do. He is positive that it was lit, either intentionally or not but it is there. 

Also, the reason the light is not very visible in that photo (as side from the quality) is because the lighting channel that is carved out in the saucer for that light is quite deep, so any light emissions would really only be visible from higher positions; as opposed to lower bow shots like the one you posted.

It's my belief that this lighting channel is probably a simple access point for the three lights at the bow of the saucer section. If this is true, it is reasonable to assume that there is no light bulb installed specifically to light up the top bow light (hence the dim lighting) So any luminance that we see is just light bleed from the three forward lights. 

It's any ones guess as to why this hatch is covered with a transparent door. Perhaps it's to hide the fact that it _is_ an access point by making it look like a window, or something else. This would make some sort of sense, since the clear window/door was covered in weathering... But I'm really not sure about this side of it. 

Can any one remember what Gary Kerr said about the logic of the forward light?


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

IIRC from the MR 1701 discussion, the top bow light was said to be not a light but an access point for the bow front bulb(s). The round cover was meant to be closed and the E was filmed that way, hence no top bow light. At another time, the round cover was either jostled out of position or lost and the E was also filmed that way, hence a top bow light or round glow in other footage. "Correct" is no light, but on screen shots apparently also included the glow from inside, tho' I have no idea anymore which episodes. Modellers choice.


----------



## starseeker (Feb 1, 2006)

There were a couple other questions on this thread that these images, I believe four from the late, hugely lamented IDIC page and one from the MR thread here..


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

^^ Yep, the lines are quite apparent in those shots.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Nobody, as far as I'm aware, has ever questioned the presence of fine pencil lines on the topside of the 11' model. They are very fine, however. Their presence is more evidence due to the subtle weathering effects than due to the lines themselves, I think. On-screen, this weathering pattern was just barely visible, and the lines were never visible. Transferring the old film into higher resolutions than broadcast television "reveals" elements which were never visible, nor ever intended to be visible, I'd argue.

Still, I have every intention of having very, very fine pencil lines on my model. Made with a very sharp, #9H drafting lead. They'll be just barely "subliminally" visible, but they will be there.

The same "subtle weathering" was visible on the saucer underside, though less so than on the top side. You can't really see the LINES, though, only the paint-color variations between regions (as the weathering seems to have been "masked" along those super-fine pencil lines).


----------



## Larva (Jun 8, 2005)

Starseeker, thanks for posting those pics from the old IDIC pages. The high contrast black and whites are wonderfully revealing.


----------



## starmanmm (Mar 19, 2000)

A couple of questions.... starseeker, what exactly am I looking for in the 4th pic?

And this discussion of "lit or not lit".... is the discussion about what looks like a light on top of the saucer that is located towards the front?


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

It's the port/aft area of the upper saucer showing the gridlines.

Yes, I think the lit/unlit discussion is regarding the upper bow light on the saucer. It's either an access panel never meant to be lit, or an access panel that was also meant to be "slightly" lit.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

Yep, Starman... 

We know that there is a lighter-colored circle near the bow. It's believed (but not proven) that at some point there was an intention of putting an actual "bow light" in that location. Mainly, that's driven by the fact that the size and location of this circle pretty well matches the red and green lamps to port and starboard.

We do know that this was the only way to access and replace the front lamp (which lit the three forward-facing circular windows... which I treat as the main forward scanners) in the production state of the model. We know that the physical item there is a plexiglass "cork" (a rough cylinder with a slight taper) which was placed into that hole.

We know that it was made from the same frosted, clear state as all the other windows and so forth.

We know that in some images, it does appear to be lit. In the Smithsonian today, it is definitely lit, but that's post-"restoration" and that tells us very little. We also know that in some other images it definitely does not appear to be lit.

The real debate is not if it existed, but rather:

1) Was it painted opaque white?
2) Was it backlit (by the same bulb as was used to light the three forward scanner windows)?
3) Was there some sort of "internal light block" which prevented direct lighting, even though it remained clear?

I'm inclined to believe that it was #3. But there's no hard evidence supporting that over either of the other options, as far as I'm aware.


----------



## Ductapeforever (Mar 6, 2008)

On a real Naval vessel it would serve as a white Bow light as surmised, logically explained. No need to overthink it.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

If it was intended to be lit, it would've been very clearly lit. It wasn't, so it wasn't intended to be.


----------



## RSN (Jul 29, 2008)

Question. 

The three lit rectangles on top of the hull correspond with the windows on the edge, were they also there originally to allow access to the bulbs lighting the edge windows? I ask this because the only rectangle represented by painting it on, has no lights on the corresponding edge. If this is the reason for those lit rectangles, then one could apply that to the circle on the bow and that it was intended to be lit. Possibly the bulb shifted and no one moved it back. 

Just some musings and observations.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Those lit rectangles only bolster my point. They wanted them lit, so they were very clearly lit. Lighting that plug on the bow would be child's play, but they didn't, so I think it's pretty clear that it wasn't intended to be lit.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Unless they were HOPING the light from the bow lights would be enough to light it, and when it didn't work as planned, they decided to skip it and move on.


----------



## starmanmm (Mar 19, 2000)

John P wrote:


> Unless they were HOPING the light from the bow lights would be enough to light it, and when it didn't work as planned, they decided to skip it and move on.


So... in other words.... If it works it works... if it doesn't it doesn't.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Budget + schedule = compromise. :shrug:


----------



## JeffG (May 10, 2004)

I seriously doubt that they put as much thought into this as we are. They did have other stuff to do as well. It totally makes sense that they could only allow a certain amount of time to some things.


----------



## CLBrown (Sep 8, 2010)

I have my own suspicion re: the "bow light." I have this due to having built a kit, years ago, with an exposed bulb there.

In the most common view of the ship... from underneath, looking aft and across, the two top lamps aren't visible. But, the front one is (or rather, would be)

The end result is that the ship looked like it had a zit on it's nose... or that it was a very stunted unicorn... or something like that, anyway.

Bottom line... it was visible from the most common "underside" views in a way that made it look silly (to my judgement, anyway).

Now, if it had been a very small lamp, that would be a different matter. But those two big port/starboard lamps we're familiar with are pretty big. Put one of those on the "nose" of the ship, and it just looks silly. At least, in my opinion.

I strongly suspect that they planned to put one of those in that location at some point. I base that solely upon the fact that the location and size is effectively identical to the two existing "big bulb" lamps, and not due to any "inside info." But it sure does seem to fit all the facts at hand.

And I can easily imagine the folks taking one look at it and saying "that's gotta go!"


----------



## Solium (Apr 24, 2005)

JeffG said:


> I seriously doubt that they put as much thought into this as we are. They did have other stuff to do as well. It totally makes sense that they could only allow a certain amount of time to some things.



Keep in mind this was broadcast on a grainy 12 inch television screen! So yeah, they most certainly didn't put as much thought into all the details.


----------

