# Studio scale TOS "E" from Master Replicas



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Hi all,

Master Replicas announced their line for 2006 and on the Star Trek side they will be releasing a studio scale TOS Enterprise which will also include the Pilot version. I guess we can assume they mean the 3 foot model!
Based on MR's attention to detail, this could be really nice and I can't wait to see the nacelle effect they come up with. No mention on price yet.



p.s. I think they should use Alan's drawings!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Getting a license means they can get access to the actual construction plans for reference.

Personally, I'd recommend using Alan's drawings, too. I suspect there are quite a few features that aren't covered in the original blueprints.

Just to get a bit wild, though, wouldn't it be something if they produced a full sized, eleven foot replica?


----------



## mb1k (May 6, 2002)

I saw that announcement too. But little else in what they are planning. Lore has it that the 3' model went "missing" so I don't know where they're going to get a scan or an "original" from. They can only go from footage and publicity shoots. Most likely the famous ones on Shatner and Nemoy holding the model or the starboard side wire-hang PR shot we're so familiar with.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

They'll probably go with a 5 1/2' version, ala Greg Jein's model for DS9's "Trials and Tribble-ations", although hopefully more accurate.


----------



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

Where did you hear this? I can find no reference to it on their website.


----------



## mb1k (May 6, 2002)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Where did you hear this? I can find no reference to it on their website.


There website is typically useless. Go to yakface.com to find the announcement and link to their "off site" announcement.


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Where did you hear this? I can find no reference to it on their website.



Go to the "blog" on their site and search on the word Enterprise.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

It'll no doubt be the 11-footer's contours in the 3-footer's scale. Kinda like the Unobtainium, but hopefully even more correct, and made out of better materials.

I already lost $1400 to the slimeball attorney who ran the former company. Fortunately, I've had much better luck dealing with Master Replicas. Their quality is good and they actually ship product.

I may consider ordering these models, along with the studio-scale Y-Wing and Falcon, if the quality and price are both right.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

This is a 'must get' if it happens. I've got their STOS phaser and am very pleased with it. I can't imagine how well they would put together the 1701.

Just looked at the site: 

Neat! Looks like an assault phaser, too! :thumbsup: 

I suspect 1701 will be the 3 footer with 11 footer conours which is fine by me!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

In other words, we might just get our 1/350 scale TOS Enterprise after all?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Captain April said:


> In other words, we might just get our 1/350 scale TOS Enterprise after all?


  My thoughts, exactly!


----------



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

Hmmmm...

while digging for more info I found a video hosted on a VERY familiar website...


----------



## big-dog (Mar 16, 2003)

Wonder if it'll be 45 bucks like the refit?  

Personally I'd hold out for an 11 footer. Thankfully me Dad got a few great shots of that guy before Ed Mariachi (or whatever) got his hands on it.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I hope it won't be made of metal.


----------



## Mage66 (Mar 9, 2002)

Ed Miarecki

I haven't seen the refurbished ship in the Smithsonian yet, but I'd bet it's better than the inaccurate refurbishment it got originally...

But, I understand people being "purist" and wanting it to look EXACTLY as it did during filming...

People who are 1966 Batmobile fans, feel exactly the same. Barris doesn't, however.

The best we can do is to make our own models look as accurate to the filming version as we can.




big-dog said:


> Thankfully me Dad got a few great shots of that guy before Ed Mariachi (or whatever) got his hands on it.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Mage66 said:


> Ed Miarecki
> 
> I haven't seen the refurbished ship in the Smithsonian yet, but I'd bet it's better than the inaccurate refurbishment it got originally...
> 
> ...


Good points! The original refurb was vomitus.

It's hard not to tweak the original designs and details a little.

I like the Miarecki version as a more visibly detailed version of the original. It makes a nice option. Myself, I'll be adding some details that I'd like to see but believe there is a lot of room for variations--all of them 'correct.'


----------



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

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I hope it won't be made of metal.


If you were one of the very few people who received their $800-$1500 Unobtainium Enterprises, only see it droop into a pile of twisted, mangled resin, you might happily take delivery of a metal version. 

Heck, I'd bet that Trek Ace would have at least like to have gotten a drooperPrise. With his skills and/or the help of somebody like John P. they might have been able to save her.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> If you were one of the very few people who received their $800-$1500 Unobtainium Enterprises, only see it droop into a pile of twisted, mangled resin, you might happily take delivery of a metal version.


I didn't order one of those. It was way too much money back then, especially for a company I was unfamiliar with. :freak: 

I trust that MR will do an excellent job and I'm guessing an injection molded plastic process with metal bracing/armature.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Yeah.

It would have been nice to have gotten _something_ for the money. Evidently, there was so much filler material added to the resin (for economy, no doubt) that it resulted in castings that could no longer maintain dimensional stability, and that plus gravity and a lack of any internal armature, took their toll on the finished pieces.

I certainly hope that MR has higher quality control on it's replica models. I'd hate to get burned twice and have to say "shame on me".


----------



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

It's impossible to really "know" a mail order company hundreds or perhaps more miles away, Trek Ace. Especially since they were licensed by Paramount and had signature versions available from both Shatner and Nimoy.

I greatly blame Paramount for not forcing more out of the licensor, nor helping make their customers whole again. At the very least I hope they have improved their "screening process"(assuming they have any) for new dealers.

Even the people who gave them the license didn't know them well enough to see this coming, so I wouldn't beat yourself up over it.


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

Trek Ace said:


> It would have been nice to have gotten _something_ for the money.


 Calvin's dad would say it built character.


----------



## bugs bunny (Dec 1, 2005)

Trek Ace said:


> I certainly hope that MR has higher quality control on it's replica models. I'd hate to get burned twice and have to say "shame on me".


Trust me those guys will deliver quality. I have purchased a few items from them. One phaser and 2 Force FX lightsabers. They deliver promptly and the quality is unbelievably phenomenal. I am quite satisfied with my purchases. 

Worth every cent! :thumbsup:

I look forward to their TOS E.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Richard Compton said:


> Calvin's dad would say it built character.


 I'm already a character (ask anyone). I just wanted either product or my money back.

If Mr. Cigel hadn't gone out on a shopping spree with the company's money, then maybe they wouldn't have had to skimp on the material quality of the models to make up the difference and end up in bankruptcy. 

BTW, that bankruptcy court was a joke. The judge let him get away scott-free without even so much as a hand slap, liquidation, or having to pay restitution to any of the customers that he ripped off.

Anyway, I don't mean to sound bitter about Unobtainium (though I am) or Paramount Licensing (though I have several horror stories about myself and others' dealing with them and their lack of responsiveness to protect customers, or even some of their own licensees for that matter).

I'll just anxiously await MR's offerings (I, too have several of their props, and they delivered promptly and with quality items).


----------



## heiki (Aug 8, 1999)

mb1k said:


> I saw that announcement too. But little else in what they are planning. Lore has it that the 3' model went "missing" so I don't know where they're going to get a scan or an "original" from. They can only go from footage and publicity shoots. Most likely the famous ones on Shatner and Nemoy holding the model or the starboard side wire-hang PR shot we're so familiar with.


I had heard that Major(Mrs.Rodenbery) and Gene know/knew who has the 3 footer and it is considered stolen property.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

From The IDIC Page:



> Majel Barrett-Roddenberry, on the original three-foot miniature USS Enterprise used during the filming of TOS: "That particular ship was a real model and it was Gene's - he loaned it to someone and Gene forgot to get it back and it was never returned. It's a shame because it's a piece of stolen property and since it has historical value - it is quite priceless." July 10, 1997, as told to William McCullars' IDIC Page


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> I'm already a character (ask anyone). I just wanted either product or my money back.
> 
> If Mr. Cigel hadn't gone out on a shopping spree with the company's money, then maybe they wouldn't have had to skimp on the material quality of the models to make up the difference and end up in bankruptcy.
> 
> BTW, that bankruptcy court was a joke. The judge let him get away scott-free without even so much as a hand slap, liquidation, or having to pay restitution to any of the customers that he ripped off.



I don't get it. Why did he go to bankruptcy court when there was plenty of evidence of criminal liability? He should have gone to criminal court and faced a few years behind bars. The laws ARE a joke!


----------



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

Even more at question, how can the guy still practice law?
As I understand it he still has a license, even though he has broken the law. How can a thief like that be allowed to be an officer of the court?


----------



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

Anyhow, back to the Master Replicas E.
If they can keep the thing under $500(which according to an interview I read online about the communicator is part of their marketing strategy - accurately made props that are still not out of sight in terms of accessibility) I suggest that they make the "Limited Edition" production run to be about 100,000!!!

Or better yet, don't make it limited edition at all, except for perhaps some signature pieces if they feel the need.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

That's the ticket.

Hell, they put out a decent lightsaber that you can even fight with for less than $200, they should be able to put out a decent 1701 replica that doesn't require a loan application.


----------



## DX-SFX (Jan 24, 2004)

I would think that would all depend on the size of the thing.


----------



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

Captain April said:


> From The IDIC Page:


I also remember a Wired magazine article in which she said almost the exact same thing, but I believe she used the term "friend" or "family friend" in referring to the person he loaned it to, inferring they knew who it was but didn't want to do much about it.

However, there is another possibility. Gene Roddenberry took truckloads of film from Paramount that they were later very angry at him for taking and selling(among other things) through his company Lincoln Enterprises.

Technically that prop very likely still belongs to Paramount.
Therefore loaning it to someone and then not getting it back might be very convient.

Perhaps Paramount officially, legally gave the 3 foot prop to Roddenberry, though they were quite adamant about the film clips and everything else Majel produced for sale via Lincoln Enterprises as being their property or an infringement of their property.

The "We loaned it to a friend and never got it back" story may be a case of CYA.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

I seriously doubt that this replica will be under $500. The MR AT-AT is $1,400 and the Snowspeeder is $600. If this thing is to be 1/350 scale, making it bigger than both Star Wars models... and of course being Trek after all they are pretty much guaranteed it will sell _whatever_ the price...I'm guessing more along the lines of $,1000+.

I hope I'm wrong, because I'll want one.


----------



## big-dog (Mar 16, 2003)

Well there is the tiny Ent in the glass cube in the episode with the girl that turns into a cat. One that size should be less than a grand.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Check out the latest two issues of Tamiya Model Magazine. They have superb articles on the Master Replicas studio-scale model reproductions. Starting with issue #122, there is a very detailed and informative article on the creation of the MR AT-AT. Issue #123 has an article of the 3/4 studio-scale Snowspeeder.



















After having read just the first one on the Imperial Walker, I'm sold. These guys really went to the "nth" degree to make an accurate and durable replica that is guaranteed not to sag or desintegrate over time. If there are any left, I'll be gettin' one!

All nagging doubts about the studio-scale _Enterprise_ replicas are now set aside. I can't wait for their release.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I'm just trying to figure out how to afford the assault phaser AND the 1701 model!


----------



## Boxster (Aug 11, 2005)

If only MR produce the At-At as plastic models!! I will throw away my Erlt's in a second!

Ah well, I don't have thousands to spare on 1 model. I think the Erlt's can be made to be a little bit more accurate.

And all these times, I thought the Tamiya mag is all about military! Cool move but this mag is far superior than FSM anyway.

B


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I think that one of the factors driving the articles is that so many of the _Star Wars_ planes and vehicles used Tamiya model parts for kitbashing. Certain parts from particular kits are also called out and shown within the articles.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

i wrote master replicas, asking for size info on this piece. here's what i got back:

We do not have the dimension information at this time. A Studio Scale model is
an exact replica, size and dimensions, of a model used in a scene(s). Please
check back to our website often for more information.


Thank you,

Jerry
Customer Service


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Hasn't anyone told them that the thing is eleven feet long?


----------



## Guest (Jan 2, 2006)

razorwyre1 said:


> i wrote master replicas, asking for size info on this piece. here's what i got back:
> 
> We do not have the dimension information at this time. A Studio Scale model is
> an exact replica, size and dimensions, of a model used in a scene(s). Please
> ...


Ok this might be staing the bloody obvious but here goes...

Occurs to me that the "A Studio Scale model is an exact replica, size and dimensions, of a model used in a scene(s)." could be called a kind of a get out clause. I don't mean that in a bad way you understand.

That could mean the 11 foot monster, it could mean the 3 footer and it could well mean the small metal one from 'Cat's Paw' (i think that's the EP title) or the small model used for the Enterprise orbiting the K7 station in 'Toubles With Tribbles'.

Untill they come forward and say "It is the model from *Insert ep title and scene here* And that is the one we will be building our replica from" We are just gonna have to wait untill they fess up the info.

Nice to dream though isn't it


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Well its pretty clear that they won't be making an 11-foot model. I don't think many people could afford to buy it, ship it, or have a place to display it. Then again, I hope its not based on the 3-footer because that thing is not at all like the 11-foot model. 

The best compromise would be a 3-footer based on the 11-footer. I hope that's what they are thinking.


----------



## Guest (Jan 2, 2006)

Not the 11-footer? C'mon...where's ya sense of adventure?  As to the place to display it, well that is why some kind soul invented marqee tents isn't it?
Note i've said nothing about getting the money, that's between me and the rest of the boys in the balaclava wearing fast bank withdrawls club. 


Seriously for at least 10 seconds i agree with you on the compromise, i hope so too.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I hope they clarify soon. I'm not really interested in a three-footer based on the three-footer.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I would like either version (3ft or 11ft contours) at the smaller scale. I have kind of a sentimental attachment to the 3-footer, so I wouldn't mind a version based on it at all.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I'd loan it to the Wings Over the Rockies museum. They could set it up next to the full-size X-Wing they have there.


----------



## bil4miller (Jul 30, 1999)

There are pictures showing the three foot prop model on Gene's desk when he was writing / producing his post trek early seventies shows like Genesis II and Pretty Maids All In A Row. I don't think it was a big secret that certain keepsakes were acquired when trek folded. As for the fate of the model, I would bet it's long gone. Probably trashed or burned up as it would have turned up by now. 





Chuck_P.R. said:


> I also remember a Wired magazine article in which she said almost the exact same thing, but I believe she used the term "friend" or "family friend" in referring to the person he loaned it to, inferring they knew who it was but didn't want to do much about it.
> 
> However, there is another possibility. Gene Roddenberry took truckloads of film from Paramount that they were later very angry at him for taking and selling(among other things) through his company Lincoln Enterprises.
> 
> ...


----------



## Admiral Nelson (Feb 28, 2002)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> If you were one of the very few people who received their $800-$1500 Unobtainium Enterprises, only see it droop into a pile of twisted, mangled resin, you might happily take delivery of a metal version.
> 
> Heck, I'd bet that Trek Ace would have at least like to have gotten a drooperPrise. With his skills and/or the help of somebody like John P. they might have been able to save her.


Anyone who had that kind of money to drop on a model shouldn't cry whine when they get took. All these hotshot guys from Unobtainium on down are nothing but mouth and no show. How many of you have to get burned before you realize that?


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

While I certainly don't have that kind of coin to drop on a model, if I were single and saved up I might have made such a purchase. If I had done that I certainly don't think I deserve to get burned. I also don't believe that every company selling hi-priced replicas is out to rip off the consumer. Icons was a debacle and Unobtanium apparently lacked experience in turning out long-lasting, quality products. But other builders have strong reputations and consistently deliver the goods. Look at the Custom Replicas Enterprise. Way out of my league, but a first-class effort all around.


----------



## Konar (Nov 8, 2001)

I'm all for free speech, but that (not directly above... the one above that) is a pretty big, and -- since you aren't holding back, I won't either -- ignorant statement.



Nobody deserves to get taken, not when they've done a reasonable amount of diligence and are, in fact, dealing with a company that has been granted a license by Paramount. 



I will continue to "throw away" money on the useless toys I buy because I like them. If you can't afford it, or for whatever reason decide not to buy something, no one will judge you for it -- so don't judge those who CAN.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I hope they clarify soon. I'm not really interested in a three-footer based on the three-footer.


You'll actually get an eleven-footer based on the three-footer, _and you'll *like* it!_



Qapla'

SSB


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Nooooooo!!!!

Khaaaaaaaan!!!


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Admiral Nelson said:


> Anyone who had that kind of money to drop on a model shouldn't cry whine when they get took. All these hotshot guys from Unobtainium on down are nothing but mouth and no show. How many of you have to get burned before you realize that?


 That's a rather callous attitude considering that those who ordered in good faith from an officially licensed company and expected to receive a quality product were either delivered an inferior product or received nothing at all for their money. Fraud is a serious crime, and it is no fun to be "taken", no matter what a persons income or ability to purchase such an item.

20/20 hindsight is a wonderful quality to possess. I commend you on your masterful ability to realize these companies as being so deceptive long before any issues arose, but both Icons and Unobtainium presented themselves as legitimate establishments and had obtained licenses from Paramount Pictures before marketing their products, promoted themselves heavily in the trades, and presented detailed photographs of their offerings to the public. 

At the time, we all thought that we would be receiving a detailed replica for our hard-earned dollars. We were wrong. I can only hope that I might be granted the same clairvoyance that you seem to behold so that I may avoid any such pitfalls again in the future.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

sbaxter said:


> You'll actually get an eleven-footer based on the three-footer, _and you'll *like* it!_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


May I have some more, sir?


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

Again?  Go build a model.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I'm too busy moderating!


----------



## tetsujin (Dec 12, 2005)

Nova Designs said:


> Well its pretty clear that they won't be making an 11-foot model. I don't think many people could afford to buy it, ship it, or have a place to display it.


I intend to display its broken hull in the center of the Romulan capitol as a symbol of our victory. It will inspire our armies for generations to come.


----------



## Y3a (Jan 18, 2001)

It's a shame that nobody has ever dismantled the 11 foot model and made molds of it so EVERYBODY could have one. Why hasn't this happened? I got my Jupiter 2 that way. I would think that the "TrekHeads" would have figured a way to do it YEARS AGO!


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

It would be better served to create a "new" 11-footer. The ravages of time, wear and tear, and abuse have certainly taken their toll on the original model. The saucer, for instance, though perfectly round when originally formed, became somewhat warped and out-of-round after just a few years from a combination of internal lighting and hot studio lights deforming the vacuformed plastic.

Only the TV side was ever finished. The port side is missing details on all four main parts of the model and was cut and bored open to allow for wiring and installation of an internal lighting and electric motor system, which is run along the outside of the model's left-side, off-camera surfaces.

The model is also currently the property of the Smithsonian Institute and I seriously doubt if they would allow such a thing to take place. Even if it could be molded and recast, it would still not be a representation of the model as it was 40 years ago.

Of course, I would never expect that MR would even consider a model release of such a scale even if the original was made available for such a purpose. No doubt their techs will examine the model in it's present state at the museum, in combination with the plans and materials that Paramount will provide to them as an official licensee.


----------



## X15-A2 (Jan 21, 2004)

Paramount doesn't have the plans, most of the TOS Trek blueprints were stolen during the '70s along with those from "War of the Worlds", "When Worlds Collide", "Conqest of Space" and "Robinson Crusoe on Mars".

The only examples that survive are mostly from private collectors or members of the film crew who got prints of the drawings before they disappeared. My collection of prints (not original pencils!) includes the Pal movies WotW & WWC as well as RCoM but alas, no TOS Trek. I keep hoping that they will surface someday, but so far nothing has.


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

They could use Alan's drawings.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I was referring to Gary Kerr's drawings which were derived from measurements taken from the 11' model during the "restoration" process back in '91-92 together with additional info provided by myself and a few others.

These are the plans provided to licensees by Paramount.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Actualy, the 11ft model was finished on BOTH side at one time,the pilot versions, then when it was modified with lights the deatiling was removed from the left side. If you've got Famous Spaceships.... check the photo on page 67.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Nope.

The left side was never complete - other than matching paint and the red pennants.

You're being fooled by a reversed image into thinking that you are seeing the left side - which is actually the right side with reversed decals. The image being horizontally flipped in post. 

It's okay. You're not the first to be fooled. It was intentional.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Does that inclued the NCC-1701 on the warp engine? Because I just looked at the photo again and the number is NOT reversed.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I will attempt to explain more clearly.

There were reversed decals applied to the _right side_ of the model. The NCC-1701 registry number would be written backwards, from right to left, if you were to see the model in person on the stage looking at the right side. The model is then photographed, and the best take(s) are then chosen and printed. The film print is then _rephotographed_ onto a new piece of film with the original image reversed, or flipped over, left for right.

The resulting image is a shot of the model that appears to be the _left side_ with lettering that reads correctly.

Another way to describe it would be comparing it to the lettering printed on the front of an ambulance. The word "AMBULANCE" is printed backwards, right to left, which looks odd until you see it reflected in your car's rearview mirror, when you are seeing a reversed image in the reflection, and the lettering reads correctly, left to right.

The model was meant to be seen only from the right side, and was finished accordingly. There are details that are physically missing from the left side, because they were never there to begin with. This includes the missing box on the left side of the lower hull, the missing inset slot on the inboard side of the right engine pod, and two of the four rectangular vents on the rear of the engine pods. These details only exist on the side intended to face the camera.

To show the ship's left side, travelling right to left, a set of reversed decals were provided, as I described above, to allow the stage crew to apply them to the model, in order to _simulate_ views of the left side with a library of shots. These left-side library shots were only produced during the production of the second pilot, and not reshot when the model was further modified with the spectacular engine lighting effects. Hence, the backwards lettering whenever the production version of the model was seen during the run of the series moving left to right. The episode _Shore Leave_ is a good example with the planetary orbit shot. _Friday's Child_, I believe, is another, while _Mirror, Mirror_ provides a good, clean shot of exactly what I've described with the second pilot configuration of the model.

I hope this is clear.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Am I correct then to assume that included shots of the model on the filming stage as opposed to shots on film?
Hope I phrased all that correctly.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Allow me to throw in my two slips worth.

I think it's safe to say that the model was _originally_ intended to be shot from all sides (the pennant and registry on the port nacelle is proof enough of that...assuming that wasn't some odd addition painted on by the Smithsonian curators since they got the model in the 70's, which would effectively trash my theory, but I'll proceed anyway).

Originally, Roddenberry didn't want to bother with lights on the model. Then, when getting ready for the second pilot, he decided he'd like some lights after all, so the model had to opened up so all the appropriate hardware could be installed. I suspect that it was at this time that the port side started losing what details were there, or at least any plans for detailing that side were scrapped. And when regular production started to crank up, Roddenberry decided he wanted a lotta lights, including something with the engines to give a better sense of power, which proved especially troublesome since the support pylons are made of solid wood. So, we got the occasionally visible external wires leading to the lights in the Bussard collectors.

As for the reversed decals, yeah, that's what they did. There also hangs a bit of a tale.

A few years before the model was shipped off to Washington, DC, a science teacher borrowed the model from Paramount for display in a science fair. At that point, the deflector dish was already missing (probably recycled into another model somewhere) but the lighting effects in the engines were still intact and working. Anyhoo, packed along with the model was a set of replacement decals, including reversed letters and numbers. When the model was taken back to Paramount, the decals didn't make the trip, that former teacher still has them, and occasionally displays them at conventions.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

irishtrek said:


> Am I correct then to assume that included shots of the model on the filming stage as opposed to shots on film?
> Hope I phrased all that correctly.


I assume you're referring to this shot?










Keep in mind that this is not a candid shot of the model in the studio, this is a frame of actual footage to be used in compositing the final effects shot (in this case, it's clearly one intended for the second pilot, but eventually wound up in "Dagger of the Mind")

Here it is before the negative was flopped.










Compare it with this familiar shot.










Note the stage setup.

As for those decals...


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Hey, I recognize those decals! Actually, I took that picture of Craig. Nice guy. He sold those decals some time ago. He was prepping for the auction when I spoke to him.

And yes, if you see the port side of the ship, you're seeing the starboard side flipped. The biggest giveaway is the lighting. The port side did not have lighting installed. Here's a pic I took pre-restoration of the port side.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Those are exactly the shots. The top one is as it would appear in a composite (and is printed in the sci-fi modeling book), and the next as seen on stage. NOTE: Those with good eyes can see the tiny number 16 stenciled in white the the gear head that supports the model and stand. It reads backwards on the "left side" photo and correctly on the original orientation with reversed NCC decal.

As to left side of the model, there are details that were never included on the 11' model. You can see here what is missing from the left side of the lower hull. Also, notice the lack of an inset channel on the inboard starboard engine pod, and the rear rectangular vents.










and here:










and again:


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

That replacement dish was just horrible! And the paint job? You can see where the spray gun missed a few areas. Gun? They probably used a spray can!


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Yes, that photo on top is the one I was refering to. I also noticed in the color photos at the base of the pylon 2 round spots, and on the side of the secondary hull towards the front what looks to be a rectanular panel. But at least they have a reacter loop on the inside of the right hand engine.


----------



## Richard Compton (Nov 21, 2000)

sbaxter said:


> You'll actually get an eleven-footer based on the three-footer, _and you'll *like* it!_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 LOL!


----------



## Treadwell (Aug 22, 2002)

jheilman said:


> That replacement dish was just horrible! And the paint job? You can see where the spray gun missed a few areas. Gun? They probably used a spray can!


That's dust.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Oops, if it is, I apoligize to the Smithsonian restoration crew. Always looked like a bad spray job to me.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Well, they either did a lousy job painting it or a lousy job cleaning it, so I wouldn't say they're off the hook just yet.


----------



## big-dog (Mar 16, 2003)

It looks a lot better than El-Mariachi's (or whatever) abortion.


----------



## razorwyre1 (Jan 28, 2004)

interesting photo. when i saw the ship just after it had gone on display, those wires were covered with duct tape. honest. so there was a post installation/pre-mareki adaptation too. (that duct tape really looked bad)


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Prior to Miarecki's run at the ship, the standard Smithsonian approach was to just paint the whole thing flat gray (except for the upper surface of the saucer; must leave one surface untouched, and nobody was gonna see it the way they were displaying it anyway), then reapply the markings (which is why I'm now doubting the registry on the port nacelle as proof of how finished that side was or was intended to be down the line; it's entirely possible that the Smithsonian staff added that registry at some point, and until someone can provide a clear picture of that side prior to their acquisition of the model, it's an open question).


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

A thought just occurred to me.

Will this "studio scale" replica have the port side finished, or have the wiring ports like the actual model?


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Perish the thought


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

That was something that had me pondering as well. I know "Studio Scale" is supposed to be the model itself rather than what it represents, but it seems to me that they threw that out the window when they did thier Nautilus. The Disney model never had any detail inside the windows, did it?

So: Who KNOWS what thier Enterprise will look like!


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Captain April said:


> Prior to Miarecki's run at the ship, the standard Smithsonian approach was to just paint the whole thing flat gray (except for the upper surface of the saucer; must leave one surface untouched, and nobody was gonna see it the way they were displaying it anyway), then reapply the markings (which is why I'm now doubting the registry on the port nacelle as proof of how finished that side was or was intended to be down the line; it's entirely possible that the Smithsonian staff added that registry at some point, and until someone can provide a clear picture of that side prior to their acquisition of the model, it's an open question).


There was a red pennant and hull number on the left engine pod and a red pennant on the left side of the lower hull when it was first delivered and originally shot on stage. The lower hull pennant was later removed, but the one on the engine pod stayed throughout.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

wpthomas said:


> I know "Studio Scale" is supposed to be the model itself rather than what it represents


Well, that's how the term is commonly used, but technically speaking it woiuld only have to refer to a model built at the same scale as a studio model (usually an attempt to duplicate said studio model as closely as possible -- which may NOT bew the case for the 1701, if they build a replica of the 11-foot ship at the same scale as the smaller shooting model). There is additional precedent for this from Master Replicas, as they did the same thing with their snowspeeder -- the interior was based on the full-size set-piece cockpit used for the actors, not the quite different studio miniature. Why? Because it looked better.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

MR's goal is to create an "idealized" version in studio scale. Taking the best features and turning out something that all involved can agree on is "correct". 

What I think we can expect is a model the size of the 3-footer with all the best details of the 11-footer as represented on screen, the features being mostly symmetrical.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

The Star Trek Communcator issue 132 on the cover showed Shatner in full Kirk guise holding the 33" filming model and it was detaled on both sides, so if MRs studio replica is accurate then I'd have to guess it will be detaled.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

There are a lot of discrepancies on the 33-incher, so I hope they're not basing it on that one.


----------



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

This may have been mentioned in this thread, but if so I missed it and I apologize for double posting.

On the MR Blog site, there's and entry posted January 07, 2006 19:38 that has a link to an interview with Alan Sinclair about his TOS Enterprise blueprints.

I don't suppose that this is any indication that MR is going to base their version of the TOS Enterprise on Sinclair's blueprints?


----------



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

All of you Trek and industry insiders...
isn't there somebody out there with sneak peek pictures of the MR TOS E?


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

James B. Elliott said:


> This may have been mentioned in this thread, but if so I missed it and I apologize for double posting.
> 
> On the MR Blog site, there's and entry posted January 07, 2006 19:38 that has a link to an interview with Alan Sinclair about his TOS Enterprise blueprints.
> 
> I don't suppose that this is any indication that MR is going to base their version of the TOS Enterprise on Sinclair's blueprints?


I don't see how it could be anything _but_ an indicator of the direction they plan to go. Why else post a link to the interview?


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

Captain April said:


> There are a lot of discrepancies on the 33-incher, so I hope they're not basing it on that one.


The model you are describing is a 100% accurate _Enterprise_ model.

The larger, 11-foot model is also a 100% accurate _Enterprise_ model (at least it _used _ to be  ).

Now, there are _differences_ between the two models that are unique unto themselves, but they still, together, represent the _Enterprise_.

I believe I mean your statement to say that you would prefer they follow the on-screen details of the 11-foot model in the smaller scale.

I'd like to take this opportunity to explain something:

Any time there is more than one scale model commissioned to represent an on-screen craft, that there will be no doubt subtle (or even considerable) differences between them, even though they both represent the same subject.

Take, for instance, the _Millennium Falcon_ in the _Star Wars_ films. There were several models built in different scales for different purposes. They are all, undoubtably, the _Millennium Falcon_, but, upon close examination, there may be glaring differences between them.

Now, if you narrow this down to the two considered "hero" models of approximately five feet and and 32 inches, respectively, you will encounter considerable debate among fans as to which one is the "definitive" _Millennium Falcon_.

Both were used on-screen, even intercut in the same scene, to represent the one ship. Therefore, both are 100% accurate representations of the _Millennium Falcon_, even though the details and markings bear almost no resemblence whatsoever to one another.

This has been the case for on-screen miniatures for over a century. The differences among various models depicting a single subject have been accepted by producers since they were first implemented. Take your pic of more recent, recognized subjects where studio models of different scales were used to represent one craft: _Seaview_, Flying Sub, _Jupiter 2_, original _Enterprise_, _Enterprise_-D, Star Destroyer, _Millennium Falcon_, etc., and attempt to determine among the different models used which ones are "accurate" representations and which ones are not. It is entirely subjective.

I hope this helps shed some light. This response was not meant to be nitpicky, but rather an opportunity to explain the subject a little more.


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

James B. Elliott said:


> On the MR Blog site, there's and entry posted January 07, 2006 19:38 that has a link to an interview with Alan Sinclair about his TOS Enterprise blueprints.
> 
> I don't suppose that this is any indication that MR is going to base their version of the TOS Enterprise on Sinclair's blueprints?



That's interesting that they would consider basing a miniature off of Alan's drawings--not that they are bad--but why not go to the source? Spend some time at the Smithsonian measuring and photographing, or talking to Jim Key and Gary Kerr, even Thomas. They must realize how rabidly anal Trek fans will be with this thing. They have some experience with that after the release of their phaser, communicator, and tricoder. 

Surely as a licensee they must have resources that even Alan doesn't?


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

Nova Designs said:


> That's interesting that they would consider basing a miniature off of Alan's drawings--not that they are bad--but why not go to the source? Spend some time at the Smithsonian measuring and photographing, or talking to Jim Key and Gary Kerr, even Thomas. They must realize how rabidly anal Trek fans will be with this thing. They have some experience with that after the release of their phaser, communicator, and tricoder.
> 
> Surely as a licensee they must have resources that even Alan doesn't?


So, since it was also posted on the Mr Blog site, does that mean that thier Enterprise will come with little scale blue guys? :tongue:


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

I believe MR will use the Kerr plans for their E.


----------



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

Chances are MR won't be satisfied with just using the Kerr plans.
Based on what they have written about the SW snowspeeder and the text of the Alan interview they will probably use several sources including the Kerr plans and Alan's plans. 

The approach that Alan took in making the plans was to create an idealized version of the TOS E, not just recording the defacto measurements of a sagging 40 year old model. (not that that was not an important undertaking, nor is impossible to get to an idealized version from such a set of plans)

That idealized approach seems to be the same tact they have taken with their other subjects. I am sure they will consult other people including in-house staff, but I doubt they will rely just on the Kerr plans, or just on Alan's for that matter.

They seem much too thorough to rely on just one source of info.


----------



## pcumby (Jan 24, 2004)

I remember seeing the Big E on display in all three states from the late 70's to her current incarnation. At one point, in the 80's I believe, the dish was missing entirely, the red engine globes were blinking on and off, and the b-c command decks were separated from the saucer by a 1/2 inch gap through which light shown. There was even duct tape on the port side covering wiring! It was kind of pitiful, actually, to see the miniature in such a sad state. As much as I loath the current restoration, it's better than it was!


----------



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

True.

I still can't bare to see those "rust rings" though.
Anybody ever figured out how wide those faux-weathering rust lines would be if they were to scale? They wouldn't look all that accurate on a full size F-16, muchless a 947 foot ship!


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Apparently, space is rather dirty.


----------



## wpthomas (Apr 28, 2005)

In space, no one can hear you clean.


----------



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

Captain April said:


> Apparently, space is rather dirty.


And rainy/rusty too...


----------



## hiyata99 (Sep 19, 2003)

Trek Ace said:


> MR's goal is to create an "idealized" version in studio scale. Taking the best features and turning out something that all involved can agree on is "correct".
> 
> What I think we can expect is a model the size of the 3-footer with all the best details of the 11-footer as represented on screen, the features being mostly symmetrical.



I think that would about sum it up.  I'm sure that the MR research team is going to and using the best original sources and using whatever information is available prior to the restorations.

I'm actually glad it won't be an 11 footer....my wife would never let it in the house. Now a 3 footer, I can at least sneak that into the man-room down in the basement! :dude: 

I've been waiting 30+ years for this model...and I just can't wait!


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

Greetings Hiyata. Nice to see a familiar username and fellow phaser fan.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> And rainy/rusty too...


Those darn meteor showers... :freak:


----------



## MGagen (Dec 18, 2001)

Chuck_P.R. said:


> Chances are MR won't be satisfied with just using the Kerr plans.
> [snip]
> The approach that Alan took in making the plans was to create an idealized version of the TOS E, not just recording the defacto measurements of a sagging 40 year old model.


From statements I've read from him, Kerr's plans are themselves "idealized" in that he made everything symmetrical. He did not choose to replicate the out of round saucer or the sagging nacelles. The key advantage that his plans have is that they _are_ measured directly off the model. As such, he has a very good basis from which to arrive at an "idealized" version.

Mark


----------



## hiyata99 (Sep 19, 2003)

Good day to you Mr. Heilman.  It's been quite a while since I signed up here. I don't get out to all the boards like I used to.... I just seem to get busier and busier as I age. :lol I'll have to make a more of an effort to hang out here....seems to be a lot of interesting things in the works.

G


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

I recall a quote from Kerr stating that even with his access, he couldn't get an exact measurement of the saucer, partially because it's not circular, so any measurement would be different depending on where you started from, but mainly because it's so damn big.

At best, he's got a reaaaaaaaaaaallly close approximation, out to around six decimal places. Basically, 134" and change.


----------



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

So no new scuttlebut on the Master Replicas 1/350th TOS E yet???

With all the connections some of you guys have, I'm hoping one of you has heard a little more.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

I would imagine that they won't be out until at least September.

I would rather have bought 30-50 1/350th scale model kits of the subject for the same price, but I guess if this is the only game in town...

Oh, well. I'm sure they will be nice, and probably be made with materials that will stand up over time and not self-destruct. Plus, they'll also actually be delivered to paying customers.


----------



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

I agree I'd rather have a $50 kit. But PL missed that boat, it would seem.
At least we got the Refit.
Could have done without the NX-01, Scorpion, or the 1/1000th NX-01, if it would have given us the TOS E.

But that water has long since gone under the bridge.

At least I believe you'll be able to trust Master Replicas more then Unobtainium.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

Plus, I suspect MR will have it priced for a few hundred instead of a few thousand.

Still pretty steep, but not to the level of having to decide which one is your favorite kidney...


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

On a related note, a guy who built one of those 66" Enterprise models is gonna be at Starfest Denver next month, showing off his work and conducting a panel discussion on how you go about building a ship five and a half feet long.


----------



## Opus Penguin (Apr 19, 2004)

Captain April said:


> Plus, I suspect MR will have it priced for a few hundred instead of a few thousand.
> 
> Still pretty steep, but not to the level of having to decide which one is your favorite kidney...


If it were a few hundred I would look into getting it. However, I have heard rumors it will priced over $1000. I guess we'll see for sure when it is announced.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Trek Ace said:


> I will attempt to explain more clearly.
> 
> There were reversed decals applied to the _right side_ of the model. The NCC-1701 registry number would be written backwards, from right to left, if you were to see the model in person on the stage looking at the right side. The model is then photographed, and the best take(s) are then chosen and printed. The film print is then _rephotographed_ onto a new piece of film with the original image reversed, or flipped over, left for right.
> 
> ...


A few weeks ago I was watching Shore Leave and an orbital shot of the Enterprise from the left side showed the production version, with reverse decals, not a pilot version.


----------



## Bryancd (Jun 4, 2005)

Based on their studio scale line for Star Wars models with no lighting, I'd say a price north of $1500, more like $2000 for sure. The ATAT was Almost $1200.


----------



## trevanian (Jan 30, 2004)

irishtrek said:


> A few weeks ago I was watching Shore Leave and an orbital shot of the Enterprise from the left side showed the production version, with reverse decals, not a pilot version.


 Sure it wasn't a flipped neg shot? They've done that a few times, though I thought the SHORE LEAVE shot had spikes on the caps (haven't seen it in a year or two though, won't swear to it.)


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Yes it was a flipped neg. shot of the production version because I saw the globes on the tail end of the warp engines, I should have mentioned that the first time I suppose.


----------



## Warped9 (Sep 12, 2003)

This is great news and I really hope it pans out. It's welcome news after the disappointment of RC2 torpedoing Polar Light's Trek plans.


----------



## Captain April (May 1, 2004)

irishtrek said:


> A few weeks ago I was watching Shore Leave and an orbital shot of the Enterprise from the left side showed the production version, with reverse decals, not a pilot version.


Rewatch that episode. None of the orbital shots give you a clear view of the registry.

They just flopped the footage, then cut away before the registry came into a clear enough view to read it.

The only two shots where the reversed decals were used to any real effect was in "Dagger of the Mind", as the Enterprise is approaching Tantalus, and "Mirror, Mirror", with that back-forth-back-forth-back transition sequence.

There are also a couple of flyby shots where the decals were reversed but the footage wasn't, but unless you know what to look for, ya never catch it (mainly because NCC-1701 upside down and backwards looks amazingly like it does right side up and forwards, with the only clue being the screwed up 7; basically the difference between NCC-1701 and NCC-1_L_01).


----------

