# 21 Years Later



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

Went to DC this weekend Past. There was a Figure Show down in Virginia and decided to head down so I could enter my Pieces. Wasn’t really planning to go to this Show, but my Buddy Doc told me that the National Capital Model Soldier Society would be holding this show and he was going. I thought I would go, take my Boys with me and then head to D.C. They never saw Washington and I so much wanted them to see the Smithsonian Space and Air Museum.
So we headed down and I set up for the show, grabbed the kids and went on the Metro to D.C. 
We walked around the Whole area and viewed all the different Displays. While looking, I did want to see the 11-foot Model Starship Enterprise that they had on display there. After walking back and forth, and not being able to locate it, I went to information and asked where it was. This woman and boy both gave me blank stares and said they had no idea. They looked up on the computer and in the their directory and said nothing was coming up. They then told me that some displays circuit the country and it may be gone to some other museum.
So I was quite depressed. It was long ago that I got to see the model and really wanted to find it again. I was hoping that they might have it displayed in the American History Museum of the Smithsonian. I know they display Fonzie’s Jacket, and Archie and Edith’s Chair. So maybe there would be some hope in locating it over there.
So before leaving the Museum, I told the group to maybe head down to the Gift shop to see what they had for sale. The Gift shop I came to find out had a basement area and as I emerged from the escalator, I saw it and was stunned!

The Starship Enterprise is on Display in the gift shop. I was so happy that I would be able to see it again. And at the same time, I was so pissed that the two morons upstairs had no idea where this ship was.

I took a whole Bunch of pictures of the ship, and of course the boys were busting my Chops saying that it is only a model. But they don’t understand that this is my Childhood in front of me. I loved Star Trek and the part I loved the most was that Starship. So to see it again 21 years later brought a little tear to my eye. Makes me wonder if it will be another 21 years until I see it again, or if I will even be here then. LOL

So I took photos, and studied it a little more in detail than in 1984. It was a bit closer to me and I could look at things a little more up close, even though it was behind glass. It would have been real nice to see it lit up, but the woman there working said she has never saw it lit since she has been working there.

*So here I am on July 2, 1984 under the Ship where it used to hang on the second floor of The Smithsonian.*










*And here is a Picture of the ship and me 21 years later on August 20, 2005. As you can see by the Photo, the Ship and I have changed quite a bit in 21 years! LOL*










*Another thing I didn’t have with me 21 years ago were my two boys. They were not even a glimmer in my eye then.*










So I got to see the ship, and I was able to show the boys what the Old series Model looked like. They both were amazed that it was so big. Don’t think they expected it to be that large, but I guess for special effects for those days, the bigger, the better it looked.

It was also neat to see the original stand that the Big “E” used to stand on, as it is displayed right next to the model.

I did notice that the Warp engine on the Far side, or Drivers side if you would like to say, is sagging down a little compared to the other. Not sure if that has been like that long ago, or it is just starting from its years of being displayed. Hope it is something they can fix.

Well, just thought I would share that with you all, it was a neat experience for me.

And By the way, I got a Silver (2nd) for my Darth Vader at the Figure show.

TTYL


----------



## ProfKSergeev (Aug 29, 2003)

Thanks for the story and the photos! I think that the original 1701 is personally important to a lot of people here, just as it is to you.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Thanks for the photos, Tholian! Glad your sons got to see the REAL Enterprise. I hope to before I get beamed up. I know it was a thrill for you, and glad you got to see the lady again. 

Congratulations on your silver at the figure show! :thumbsup:


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

I thought you guys would enjoy that story.

Here are some more pictures of the ship for you to see.


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)




----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)




----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)




----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

Lloyd Collins said:


> Thanks for the photos, Tholian! Glad your sons got to see the REAL Enterprise. I hope to before I get beamed up. I know it was a thrill for you, and glad you got to see the lady again.
> 
> Congratulations on your silver at the figure show! :thumbsup:


Thanks, Darth was happy about it! :tongue:


----------



## ProfKSergeev (Aug 29, 2003)

Thanks for the new photos, Tholian. BTW, I believe the 1701 has been on display near the gift shop for several years now. Nice to know it's in a protective case and not just in the open air or buried in storage God knows where. It sure would be nice if Paramount would see fit to display some of the other studio models; I'd love to be able to see the 1701-D in person, for example.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

AWESOME! Those are so crisp and clear! 
A couple of years ago, my brother took some photos and video of the Enterprise, like you did. But I am seeing your photos first. Still waiting to see my brothers.
It is a shame that the lights were not on. That would have been fantastic to see.


----------



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

Thank you for the incredibly clear pics, Tholian!

I'm truly sadened by them though. It's good that at least the model has been preserved and still exists.

But whoever the guy was who went crazy adding his own interpretation to the model should never be allowed near her again!

Those ridiculously thick plate lines(that were never seen on the secondary hull, pylons or underside of the saucer) are horrible! Even if such lines did exist, the ones he added look ridiculously out of scale. The ones on the top of the saucer were barely perceptible.

I remember reading an article about the restoration in Sci-Fi modeling magazine and the pics in it must have been deliberately toned down by the magazine as not to upset the readers! The ship never looked that tacky in the magazine!

And who did that weathering?

I'm assuming they hired a professional to do the restoration, it looks like someone came behind him thinking the heavy ass plating lines weren't ugly enough and decided to do some "weathering" with cans of Krylon spray paint!

Look at the rediculous red and grey spray weathering around the nacelles and on the pylons and around the sensor ring! It looks like a vandal broke into the Smithsonian!
Look especially at the nacelles shield plates(red spray) and the sensor ring!

This is truly sad. 


n.b. By the way thanks again for the pics, Tholian. I had heard countless people rant about the restoration but based on the pics I had seen in Sci-Fi magazine, I thought they were greatly exaggerating. These are the first really good full color pics taken under normal flash that shows what was done so accurately. Now I know the people who were upset were not exaggerating.


----------



## lonfan (Feb 11, 2001)

THOLIAN - How the Heck did ya' Avoid the Glare of the Display Case in your Pics? I went to take some Pics of the Keaton Batmobile back in 1989 and except for 1 or 2 ALL my pics ended up as Just Bursts of Glare! Well Done. Oh and I don't remember that "weathering" or Dark Grey lookin' lines on the Ship (Gridlines?) Even when I used to Go EVERY other Weekend (back in the 80's also) I don't recall those Lines.

JOHN/LONFAN


----------



## BATBOB (Jul 14, 2003)

Whoa Tholian, the old girl aged better than you. Just kidding. Your pictures look great. One of these days I'll have to make it down from the great, white, north to see her in person.

Unlike alot of people, I don't mind the second restoration as much as the first. At least the second guy got the sensor dish and bussard domes right. 

Too bad they didn't consult with Matt Jefferies when they did the 2nd restoration. Matt would've told them how she looked.


----------



## Prowler901 (Jun 27, 2005)

That must've been awesome! I'm hoping to get to see her someday myself. Must make the trip out to DC with my three boys. My middle son loves the original series almost as much as I do. Our favorite episode is "Balance of Terror".

But, I must agree with Chuck. That paint job is all wrong.


----------



## klgonsneedbotox (Jun 8, 2005)

Thanks for the pics and it's great that you got to share a time like that with your boys.

I have to agree with the restoration comments...I NEVER liked those way overstated grid lines on the lower saucer. For one thing, they LOOK fake and two, they are not symmetrical (I hope I am not offending anyone...). Honestly, if I did that work on the original E, I would ask if I could repaint it for free.

At least Greg Jein did the TOS E justice with his studio model for DS9 Trials and Tribble-ations. It was a good example of how adding additional detail (in the form of grid lines) could be good looking and believable. Here's a link to the one of the IDIC pages for it - 

http://members.aol.com/WMccullars/tribbles.html


----------



## capt Locknar (Dec 29, 2002)

Wow thanks for the great photos. Its nice seeing her still going lol.

Kind of looks like a drydock she is in.


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

Long time Star Trek special effects artitst Ed Miarecki did the restoration work for the Smithsonian. Here's his web site: http://www.edmiarecki.com/

He's no slouch when it comes to creating special effects miniatures and restoring many of the old ones like ships from Battlestar Galactica and Buck Rogers, I think the job done on the Enterprise miniature was a huge mis-read as to what fandom expected of it. Who knows how much of it falls on the clients shoulders and how much of it falls on Ed's. I do with they'd fix it though. She deserves better.


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

ProfKSergeev said:


> Thanks for the new photos, Tholian. BTW, I believe the 1701 has been on display near the gift shop for several years now. Nice to know it's in a protective case and not just in the open air or buried in storage God knows where. It sure would be nice if Paramount would see fit to display some of the other studio models; I'd love to be able to see the 1701-D in person, for example.
> 
> Lauren Oliver


Yea, I found out, and also remembered reading about how it was going to be in the Gift Shop after they had that initial Display. Dumby Me!



Chuck_P.R. said:


> And who did that weathering?


There is a Whole Article about it at the "IDIC Page” It explains the three times it was restored, and what it looked like when the Smithsonian got it. I believe from the Article that the only part of the ship that has been untouched in all the restorations is the top of the Saucer section. It has only been cleaned up, and nothing more.
You can see all this at http://members.aol.com/IDICPage/main.html




lonfan said:


> THOLIAN - How the Heck did ya' Avoid the Glare of the Display Case in your Pics? I went to take some Pics of the Keaton Batmobile back in 1989 and except for 1 or 2 ALL my pics ended up as Just Bursts of Glare! Well Done. Oh and I don't remember that "weathering" or Dark Grey lookin' lines on the Ship (Gridlines?) Even when I used to Go EVERY other Weekend (back in the 80's also) I don't recall those Lines.


The Trick is to never aim the flash directly parallel with the Glass; you need to be off on an angle. Doing this has the Flash reflect off and go the opposite way. Works nice and you have to take a couple to make sure it comes out right. I did get some with the Flash in it as well, just adjusted the angle and it worked.



BATBOB said:


> Whoa Tholian, the old girl aged better than you. Just kidding. Your pictures look great. One of these days I'll have to make it down from the great, white, north to see her in person.
> Unlike alot of people, I don't mind the second restoration as much as the first. At least the second guy got the sensor dish and bussard domes right.
> Too bad they didn't consult with Matt Jefferies when they did the 2nd restoration. Matt would've told them how she looked.


Well, I would look better too if they stuck me behind glass. LOL

But as for the restoration, actually it is the third time that this new look came about. The picture of me with the earlier ship is back when the opposite side had Duct Tape covering all the wires. It was restored a 2nd time with basically the same colors and the tape was removed.

All these pictures are only the ones I had taken that I thought looked good, Tonight I will post all the photos I did except for the ones that came out really crappy. LOL

So look later and they will be up.

Thanks guys for all the Great comments.


----------



## 1701ALover (Apr 29, 2004)

Thanks, Tholian!! Great pics!

I got to see her in person in 1989, on a jr. high class trip to DC. She was still hanging WAAAY up high, and it was really dark in the hall where she was displayed, so none of the pics I took turned out...the camera I was using didn't have a working flash, and it had one of those lenses that, no matter how close you get, makes everything look like it's a mile away! The two pics that turned out even half-way decent were still really dark and grainy. Oh, well...I hope to get back to DC and see her again, even in her current, oddly-painted guise. I'd also really love to see the 8'4" refit model in person, if even only for a few minutes...what a happy boy I'd be!


----------



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

Ignatz said:


> Long time Star Trek special effects artitst Ed Miarecki did the restoration work for the Smithsonian. Here's his web site: http://www.edmiarecki.com/
> 
> He's no slouch when it comes to creating special effects miniatures and restoring many of the old ones like ships from Battlestar Galactica and Buck Rogers, I think the job done on the Enterprise miniature was a huge mis-read as to what fandom expected of it. Who knows how much of it falls on the clients shoulders and how much of it falls on Ed's. I do with they'd fix it though. She deserves better.


Thanks Ignatz.

I remembered that a very famous effects/miniature guy had done the work. Probably a half dozen or so times I had read the guys' name but just couldn't remember which of a couple of guys it was.

I intentionally didn't stop myself from commenting to look it up, as I was so appalled I wanted to chime in with my honest opinion before I prejudiced and self-censored my remarks.

Now that I've done some checking I must indeed admit that Ed Miarecki is an incredibly talented artist.

I honestly can't figure out what happened here though. It's a travesty. Those heavy cross-section and weathering lines look spray painted on.

The man has done some great work and perhaps someday he or someone else will be able to reverse the finishing job. He did an excellent job retooling the sensor dish and a couple of other physical pieces better then the first restoration - that is undeniable.

But the paintjob looks so bad, as if done by a 12 year old via Krylon spray paint, that those improvements are almost lost to the eye because of glaringly bad painting/weathering. 

Again the guy is a great artist. However, you could be the best restorer in the world, having done a thousand great restorations, but if you screwed up the Mona-Lisa in the process of restoring it all that sticks out in one's mind is that you screwed up the Mona-Lisa.


----------



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

lonfan said:


> THOLIAN - How the Heck did ya' Avoid the Glare of the Display Case in your Pics? I went to take some Pics of the Keaton Batmobile back in 1989 and except for 1 or 2 ALL my pics ended up as Just Bursts of Glare! Well Done. Oh and I don't remember that "weathering" or Dark Grey lookin' lines on the Ship (Gridlines?) Even when I used to Go EVERY other Weekend (back in the 80's also) I don't recall those Lines.
> 
> JOHN/LONFAN


Not to try and speak for Tholian, but based what I see in the pics he angled the camera sharply enough so the glare, for the most part bounced in a different direction instead of back towards the camera.

Perhaps he used an even better method - an adjustable polarizing filter.
What it does is diffuse and change the angle of the light coming back to the lense. An adjustable polarizer has an outer ring that can be turned after screwing it on in order to change the angle of light hitting the lense even more radically then just a simple non-adjustable polarizer. So get an adjustable polarizer - usually a blue tint rather then warming polarizer(red tint) gives better overall color results.


Checkout the difference they can make here:
www.tiffen.com/hi-res/Polarizer-Compare.jpg

Again, I wouldn't recommend the warming polarizer(red tint)
look at the third image here and you'll see why:

www.tiffen.com/hi-res/Pol---Pol-&-Enhancing-Compa.jpg

Here is a list of polarizers Tiffen has that should be matched to the thread size of your camera. Remember to get an adjustable one(Tiffen calls it a "circular" polarizer - which can a little confusing considering they are all circular in shape.)

http://www.tiffen.com/results.html?search_type_no=349&tablename=filters&family=Tiffen+Filters&search_filter_format=Screw-In

P.S. Tiffen even has some adapters it makes for certain cameras, such as very inexpensive digital cameras, that were not originally manufactured with threads or mounts for filters or add-on lens. You can go back to www.tiffen.com and check to see if they have an adapter for your camera if it doesn't have threads for add-on lenses.


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

*Heres More*


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)




----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)




----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)




----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)




----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

*Here you can see how the far side Warp nacelle is beginning to droop. Hope it doesn't get worse.*


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Not to try and speak for Tholian, but based what I see in the pics he angled the camera sharply enough so the glare, for the most part bounced in a different direction instead of back towards the camera.
> 
> Perhaps he used an even better method - an adjustable polarizing filter.
> What it does is diffuse and change the angle of the light coming back to the lense. An adjustable polarizer has an outer ring that can be turned after screwing it on in order to change the angle of light hitting the lense even more radically then just a simple non-adjustable polarizer. So get an adjustable polarizer - usually a blue tint rather then warming polarizer(red tint) gives better overall color results.


Speak for me Morice.... Speak for me!!! Oh wait, thats Feed me. Oh well.

I did exactly that, I Angled it. But I am thinking of getting that Polorizing filter now. BUT, My Camera broke the day after I got back, so I have to wait for it to return to me first. Damn Electronics.!!


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Tholian said:


> *Here you can see how the far side Warp nacelle is beginning to droop. Hope it doesn't get worse.*



If you look at some of the "peel away" side shots of the model even in the original run of the show, that nacelle seems to droop just a bit. Looks like more now...

Thanks for all the great pics!


----------



## scotpens (Sep 6, 2003)

Tholian said:


> Here you can see how the far side Warp nacelle is beginning to droop. Hope it doesn't get worse.


Actually it reminds me of the very first AMT "Classic" Enterprise that I built at the tender age of 13. Both the first and second versions of the kit were plagued by the dreaded Nacelle Droop Problem. My decidedly low-tech solution? A piece of sewing thread stretched between the aft ends of the nacelles!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

The views looking down from the top of the display case, looks like it is in a drydock. The drooping shot, looks like the view from SPACE SEED.

Any PL 1701's in the gift shop? When I was younger, and we went to the Alabama Space and Rocket Center, they had ST, SW models for sale in the gift shop. So I could but real, and sci-fi in the same place.


----------



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

Tholian said:


> I did exactly that, I Angled it. But I am thinking of getting that Polorizing filter now. BUT, My Camera broke the day after I got back, so I have to wait for it to return to me first. Damn Electronics.!!


Hope it comes back okay, or they give a new one as a replacement, Tholian.
Fantastic pics, thanks once again!


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

Lloyd Collins said:


> The views looking down from the top of the display case, looks like it is in a drydock. The drooping shot, looks like the view from SPACE SEED.
> 
> Any PL 1701's in the gift shop? When I was younger, and we went to the Alabama Space and Rocket Center, they had ST, SW models for sale in the gift shop. So I could but real, and sci-fi in the same place.


The Views looking down are actually views looking up! They have a mirror on the ceiling of the display case. So I took the picture looking up, then when I reduced it to fit the forum, I flipped the image so it would have the lettering back to normal and not backwards.

As far as what they had in the gift shop next to it were the Encyclopedia and the like. Just books. They also have book for Star Wars behind it, which I thought was odd. But the only thing that came to my mind was "Anything for a Buck!" When I went in 1984, I got a postcard that had the ship on it. They didn't even have any of that.

Next time I go, I am going to put the boys by the Light switch and bring my Reducing Ray gun. When they hit the lights, I will drop her down in size, and then slip it in my Pocket. Think it will work? :freak:


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Hope it comes back okay, or they give a new one as a replacement, Tholian.
> Fantastic pics, thanks once again!


I hope so too, Damn thing cost me 300+ when I bought it.

I have always gone and bought the more economical camera in the past, but when the last one died, I decided to get something good.

For you camera nuts out there, this these were all taken with a Kodak 6.1 Mega-pixel digital, and it was set in Medium resolution mode. I wonder how the Pictures would have looked in Fine Resolution mode?


----------



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

That's a great camera. If they can't fix it though, I'd then go with a Carl Zeiss-lensed Sony if you buy another point and shoot. Zeiss has been making lenses since 1850. The Sony Zeiss lensed cameras(not all Sony use Zeiss lenses, just look at the lense to tel which one does) aren't just sharp but have special coatings on each of the interior lense elements that are for seperate parts of the color spectrum so you end up getting much more vibrant color along with the added sharpness. You can get a 7.2 megapixel DSCP-200 for about $370 bucks from Sears or wherever(Sears will price match other retailers in your area and doesn't charge restocking fees if you change your mind). You can even get an underwater case for it that will work down to a depth of 135 feet!!!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Tholian, GET THE SHIP! Rescue it from the droops, and give it a good home. :thumbsup:


----------

