# Happy 50th Birthday, 11' Enterprise "Born" 12/29/64



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

The eleven-foot USS Enterprise model was "delivered" 50 years ago today, December 29th, 1964, at the Production Models shop in Burbank, CA.

Richard Datin, model construction supervisor, received the model from the Production Models staff (pictured here), and oversaw delivery to the Howard A. Anderson Company.










Happy Birthday, Big "E"!


----------



## WOI (Jun 28, 2012)

This classic little lady and I have a connection for that particular year,
I was born in the springtime of Apr 23,1964.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

My son was born this day in 1997! :hat::thumbsup:


----------



## starmanmm (Mar 19, 2000)

That is a big ship!

Happy B'Day!!!! :hat:


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

Wonder what shape the _mother_ was in after berffin' that thing!!! 

Happy Birthday to a beautiful lady...._may she live long_....forever in history.

Ladaaaa da da da da daaaaa, ladaaaa da da...._oh, you know the rest_.

Carl-


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

starmanmm said:


> That is a big ship!


Not so big as her Captain, I think. 

I can imagine someone driving down that street as that photo was being taken, seeing the Enterprise and, not having heard of Star Trek, thinking, "Jeez, what the hell is _that_ thing?" :lol:


----------



## hal9001 (May 28, 2008)

Zombie_61 said:


> I can imagine someone driving down that street as that photo was being taken, seeing the Enterprise and, not having heard of Star Trek, thinking, "Jeez, what the hell is _that_ thing?" :lol:


I had that same thought!  If it's a wheelbarrow, where are the damn wheels?

Carl-


----------



## dbrussee (Aug 22, 2008)

Looking at the cars in the background causes me to think about the world that the model was delivered to. Here was a ship to explore the galaxy, and yet there were no iPhones, no satellite TV, no man on the moon or robot probes to Mars, no handheld video games, no laptops... The world was a very different place, and so the Enterprise must have seemed so fantastically radical.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Beautiful, even after all these years. 

But hey, somebody help me out here.

I'm looking at that picture above. This is the 'pilot' Enterprise, correct? No lights, no electrical. 

Are my eyes seeing an optical illusion or are the Bussard domes TWO domes, a clear one over a painted one?

Because that's a kind of interesting effect right there.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

She's a beautiful lady and we love her. Happy birthday Enterprise.


----------



## Paulbo (Sep 16, 2004)

Steve H said:


> ...Are my eyes seeing an optical illusion or are the Bussard domes TWO domes, a clear one over a painted one?...


If I'm interpreting what you're describing correctly you're seeing the reflection of the secondary hull on the dome.


----------



## hubert (May 3, 2008)

dbrussee said:


> Looking at the cars in the background causes me to think about the world that the model was delivered to. Here was a ship to explore the galaxy, and yet there were no iPhones, no satellite TV, no man on the moon or robot probes to Mars, no handheld video games, no laptops... The world was a very different place, and so the Enterprise must have seemed so fantastically radical.


Even then, they had the USS Enterprise CVN-65, which was nuclear powered. 
But from the consumer side of thinks, how we have changed.

Yep, my thoughts as well. Heck, most of those cars didn't even have (or need) air conditioning or a clock that would last 6 months on delivery. 

And even with these great vehicles, we were so isolated. Need information, perhaps there was a good school or public library nearby. Now at your fingertips (where many of you are typing from home). 

And I could only imagine the computer systems we now have...

Microprocessors were just being born at a time when computers occupied the size of a room. Computerization/ miniaturization seems to be the biggest difference today. Everything has been impacted from the multiple embedded processors in cars, to the wristwatch on their arms and the camera which would not require film or developing.

This is one of the reasons why 'The Ultimate Computer' is one of my favorite episodes of TOS. It is more relevant today, than back then.

Although - I'm still in love with Barbara Hale not only for her role as Della Street but also for introducing my family to the Amana Radarange.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

Steve H said:


> Are my eyes seeing an optical illusion or are the Bussard domes TWO domes, a clear one over a painted one?


Nah, I'm sure it's just glare and outside reflections. Those things were painted solid amber.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Sternbach, Probert, Drexler et al have announced on Facebook that the Smithsonian has asked them to work on her new restoration for the 50th anniversary. She'll finally be in good hands and get the restoration she deserves.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Paulbo said:


> If I'm interpreting what you're describing correctly you're seeing the reflection of the secondary hull on the dome.


I think you're right. So, 'optical illusion', kinda sorta. 

Yeah, if there were two domes one would see some hairline images thru it- pants, pylon, other background. More so on the port dome. Reflection of the engineering hull fits perfectly with what's seen. 

Well, I had to ask or I would never know for sure, now would I?


----------



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

Congrats to Gary K! Just learned he's on the board of people helping to restore the old girl for the Smithsonian! :thumbsup:

Okay, Mr. Datin has passed, who are the guys in the picture, left to right, and what are their Hobbytalk monickers?


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

John P said:


> Sternbach, Probert, Drexler et al have announced on Facebook that the Smithsonian has asked them to work on her new restoration for the 50th anniversary. She'll finally be in good hands and get the restoration she deserves.


Got a link??


----------



## Zombie_61 (Apr 21, 2004)

John P said:


> Sternbach, Probert, Drexler et al have announced on Facebook that the Smithsonian has asked them to work on her new restoration for the 50th anniversary. She'll finally be in good hands and get the restoration she deserves.


Surely the people in charge at the Smithsonian are aware of all of the "smack talk" on the 'Net about the previous overhaul, and decided they wanted to get it right this time.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

irishtrek said:


> Got a link??


http://blog.nasm.si.edu/behind-the-.../?hootPostID=d1dfd381df15a7db0385691899406988


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Thanks, John P.


----------



## starmanmm (Mar 19, 2000)

Not happy seeing all that cracking on the surface of the saucer. If I recall, the surface of the saucer section was not touched when it underwent the last paint job and that the color of the surface is the original.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Those aren't new to the model and I believe it is actually craquelure.

















The thing is, there is an entire science behind craquelure where you can tell many of the characteristics of the original paint's chemical make up by studying the patterns. I hope that given this is the Smithsonian that this is one of the things that will be looked into further. It could also help nail down the original paint used on the model.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

I am pretty sure The Smithsonian can do all the chemical analysis that's possible. They wouldn't want to be showed up by the Jeffersonian. 

Anyway, those two pics are very interesting to me. What I see is that a. the crackle doesn't affect the pencil lines or the decals and b. given how that one line stops before it hits the red decal lines it seems to imply that the lines were drawn after the decal placement.

fascinating.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Steve H said:


> Anyway, those two pics are very interesting to me. What I see is that a. the crackle doesn't affect the pencil lines or the decals and b. given how that one line stops before it hits the red decal lines it seems to imply that the lines were drawn after the decal placement.


We know the lines were drawn on late, I can't remember who told the story but I think it was Jefferies that said Gene asked for them and they were drawn on as lightly as possible because Jefferies didn't like the idea.

And I believe those are UV images, so normally invisible cracks become visible, pencil lines (graphite) would stand out quite dark, and decals would absorb some UV and you won't see the cracks as strongly under them.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

MartyS said:


> We know the lines were drawn on late, I can't remember who told the story but I think it was Jefferies that said Gene asked for them and they were drawn on as lightly as possible because Jefferies didn't like the idea.
> 
> And I believe those are UV images, so normally invisible cracks become visible, pencil lines (graphite) would stand out quite dark, and decals would absorb some UV and you won't see the cracks as strongly under them.


I have the idea that the 'grid lines' were originally drawn to make sure every decal that might be 'swapped' for a different ship stayed in the same positional alignment, then additional lines were drawn to disguise this function. Since this seems the most logical way to solve the issue of making sure ship names and numbers (and the original Enterprise mark) didn't wander all over the place, a 'field expedient fix' if you will, since there's no hard documentation even discussing this I'll be called an idiot. It's OK. It's just a thought. 

But to the crackle, even if it's all but invisible to the naked eye under room light I couldn't help but think it should be affecting the decal film in SOME way. The paint surface is shifting. I'd think there'd be some silvering or something going on. Was there a thick clearcoat over the color? 

And to the restoration itself. I am guessing the big discussion would likely be 'finish the port side' Vs. 'Open the port side like it was during filming, wires and all'. 

I would love to see full hull X-rays, showing where the original material had to be cut and channeled to run the wiring, where all the alterations had to be made to make the unlit model light up.

I might suggest that there's a book to be written after the current restoration.


----------



## seaQuest (Jan 12, 2003)

John P said:


> Sternbach, Probert, Drexler et al have announced on Facebook that the Smithsonian has asked them to work on her new restoration for the 50th anniversary. She'll finally be in good hands and get the restoration she deserves.


So, the Miarecki repaint can finally receive the bludgeoning and burying it deserves.


----------



## irishtrek (Sep 17, 2005)

Steve H said:


> I have the idea that the 'grid lines' were originally drawn to make sure every decal that might be 'swapped' for a different ship stayed in the same positional alignment, then additional lines were drawn to disguise this function. Since this seems the most logical way to solve the issue of making sure ship names and numbers (and the original Enterprise mark) didn't wander all over the place, a 'field expedient fix' if you will, since there's no hard documentation even discussing this I'll be called an idiot. It's OK. It's just a thought.


Make perfect sense to me.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

seaQuest said:


> So, the Miarecki repaint can finally receive the bludgeoning and burying it deserves.


We can only hope... 

Though I would add that IMO the graffiti paint job was only ever just a part of it.

The insult to injury was trying to lie and pass it off as "how it looked in the 3rd season".

That basically said "I painted it the way I wanted because of my ego, and now that you are all complaining I'll make up a story that you will believe because you're all not only unappreciative, you're all stupid too."

No - it was actually the reverse.

If he had manned-up and said he screwed the pooch on it because of an outsized ego, I don't think he would have gotten nearly as much flak.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

J_Indy said:


> If he had manned-up and said he screwed the pooch on it because of an outsized ego, I don't think he would have gotten nearly as much flak.


The flak should have been aimed even more at the people in charge, would you send the Wright Flier out to a model builder for a repaint? Reupholster Archie Bunkers chair with leather? No. It was an object the people in charge had no respect for, so that's what it got.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

MartyS said:


> The flak should have been aimed even more at the people in charge, would you send the Wright Flier out to a model builder for a repaint? Reupholster Archie Bunkers chair with leather? No. It was an object the people in charge had no respect for, so that's what it got.


I would respectfully disagree on that.

Because while I could chalk up the Smithsonian's actions to perhaps ignorance of the matter and a cavalier attitude toward the model, what was Miarecki's excuse?

I could even go as far as to say the Smithsonain folks knew that they did not know (the 1st step toward Wisdom ) and hired what they thought was a knowledgeable person to deal with it. I don't think they threw darts at the phonebook and picked him.

And to compound it, the lie of "that's how it looked in the 3rd season" when the top of the saucer looks NOTHING like what he did. (Oh yeah - and wiping out the text on the hatches when even the previous lousy "restoration" painted around them to avoid eliminating them). That all speaks to ego.

So yes, the curators were responsible too - but the hired hand wasn't given orders to screw it up.


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

Well, they went to Miarecki for the same reason that you have Probert, Drexler, Sternbach and the Okudas on the advisory team now... he had worked on Star Trek (though, like the others, not TOS). And back then neither Miarecki or Kerr (or anyone else) had really good data to work with (which is obvious now by the _"how it looked in the 3rd season"_ statement when the model wasn't filmed again after the second).

The first question should be _how far removed from this process is Miarecki?_

Well, not very far from what I can tell. Schneider has use Miarecki on a number of restorations of artifacts, including the TMP space dock and further conversion of a Planet Hollywood/Phase II Enterprise model to something _like_ the TMP refit. The space dock looked nice... and I'll reserve comment on the Enterprise (I think there is a reason why there aren't many pictures of it in it's current state).

But the next important question should be _how far removed from this process should Miarecki be?_

Honestly, he needs to be involved. There are structural aspects of the model which he has intimate knowledge of that could help anyone working on the model avoid mistakes that might compromise it. The model was altered in 1974 and further altered in 1991, so it isn't the easy to assemble/disassemble filming model it originally was (which is part of the reason I was documenting those aspects of the model... here and here).

Sure, don't let him alone in a room with the model and a can of paint... but lets not throw out an important resource either. Kerr owes a lot about what he knows now to Miarecki and I hope he would speak up on his behalf.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Shaw said:


> Well, they went to Miarecki for the same reason that you have Probert, Drexler, Sternbach and the Okudas on the advisory team now... he had worked on Star Trek (though, like the others, not TOS). And back then neither Miarecki or Kerr (or anyone else) had really good data to work with (which is obvious now by the _"how it looked in the 3rd season"_ statement when the model wasn't filmed again after the second).
> 
> The first question should be _how far removed from this process is Miarecki?_
> 
> ...


I agree he may be a resource, and I know this is a soon-to-be moot point (hopefully).

I just remember reading a quote about those texts on the hull, and him saying that he never believed they were original and challenging anyone to show him they were.

Well, turns out later, somebody did.

After the 1st lousy in-house "restoration", there are pictures where you can see how they painted around those markings (looked like hell, but I guess they figured it was the lesser of 2 evils).

So where did he get off saying what he said? Why couldn't he see the paint around the lettering matched the untouched paint on the top of the saucer? Or more likely, he did see it and didn't care, declaring his own edict to the world that they weren't original and replacing them with jokes.

There is no way that can be described as "professional" work. Then lump the "3rd season" lie on top and he got the rep he made for himself.

Thankfully what he did will not survive. (fingers crossed).

I think the final proof will be what the outcome of the current restoration is - and how much it differs from what he did.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

It was known way back that those were original. When the model was loaned out for that science show at the school in early 70's, a spare decal sheet went with it which included those very text blurbs.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

jheilman said:


> It was known way back that those were original. When the model was loaned out for that science show at the school in early 70's, a spare decal sheet went with it which included those very text blurbs.


Well, if it WAS actually known (or could be known at the time from prep research), then that implies to me that it was Ego in its purest form.

Unmixed with the base alloy of ignorance...

(Apologies to Abe Lincoln )


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure we knew about those markings and what they said way back in the '70s. I think Newett's Starfleet Assembly Manuals discussed them, and I'm pretty sure the Estes (flying model rocket) Enterprise decal sheet had them. So I join the chorus calling BS on that stuff.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Even if he didn't think they were original, adding joke text was a terrible idea, either do some research to find out what was there, or recreate what you were given. Ah, got to stop beating the dead horse....

I wonder if he painted over that area or sanded off the old decals? If the originals are still under his paint there are methods of getting at them, they find out a lot about old paintings with various non-invasive techniques these days. Going by most of the pictures I've seen it looks like he sanded the hell out of all the areas he repainted so they are probably lost.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

Well, at this point, I have no problem with the new team stripping her down to the primer and repainting (accurately!) from scratch. These guys I trust. And a full strip and (accurate!) repaint is no less than the Smithsonian does to its old aircraft.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Steve H said:


> Yeah, I'm pretty sure we knew about those markings and what they said way back in the '70s. I think Newett's Starfleet Assembly Manuals discussed them, and I'm pretty sure the Estes (flying model rocket) Enterprise decal sheet had them. So I join the chorus calling BS on that stuff.


I think pretty much everyone on these forums would be embarrassed to hand over an end-product with that kind of sneaky, derisive alteration to someone for free, let alone as paid contract work.

Seeing as how he was willing to mark up the outside that way, it makes me wonder if he left any Easter eggs on the inside. They should open it up and look around in there...


----------



## SteveR (Aug 7, 2005)

J_Indy said:


> Seeing as how he was willing to mark up the outside that way, it makes me wonder if he left any Easter eggs on the inside.


Jimmy Hoffa, maybe?


----------



## Joel (Jul 27, 1999)

I wonder if they will fix the drooping left side nacelle. They both look even in that original '64 photo, but the left side already started drooping by the time they shot the model for "Space Seed". My guess is that the piece of lumber they used for that pylon started warping, because you can really see it in all the photos of the last Smithsonian display. 

If it was slack in the attachment at either the top or bottom, it seems that Miarecki would have at least tried to tightened it up. So it must be a twist in the pylon itself. 

I'd be okay with the new team replacing that pylon with an exact replica. They should be able to re-use the 4 existing inner grille screens.


----------



## Steve H (Feb 8, 2009)

Joel said:


> I wonder if they will fix the drooping left side nacelle. They both look even in that original '64 photo, but the left side already started drooping by the time they shot the model for "Space Seed". My guess is that the piece of lumber they used for that pylon started warping, because you can really see it in all the photos of the last Smithsonian display.
> 
> If it was slack in the attachment at either the top or bottom, it seems that Miarecki would have at least tried to tightened it up. So it must be a twist in the pylon itself.
> 
> I'd be okay with the new team replacing that pylon with an exact replica. They should be able to re-use the 4 existing inner grille screens.


My gut says it's due to the hollowing out done for the lighting effects. It's logical.


----------



## MartyS (Mar 11, 2014)

Joel said:


> I'd be okay with the new team replacing that pylon with an exact replica. They should be able to re-use the 4 existing inner grille screens.


I wonder if the pylon perhaps warped due to the cutouts they made for the grills back in '65? Or possibly not so much the cutouts but the material the "grills" were made out of. Wood will only stay straight if all sides are evenly exposed to the same moisture from the air, those "rubber, plastic, metal?" panels would have been areas that blocked moisture.


----------



## Trek Ace (Jul 8, 2001)

The left tube is heavier than the right one. This is due to the 'trench' inset with the grilles on the left side, which does not exist on the right one. Hence, there is more wooden structure in the back end of the left tube, which causes more twisting of the oak pylon on the left side, resulting in the droop.

Of course, it didn't help at all to compromise the strength of the pylons by gouging out a trough in each one for the electrical wiring during the '92 'restoration', thereby 
reducing their ability to keep the nacelles straight.


----------



## Proper2 (Dec 8, 2010)

And actually, BOTH nacelles began to droop after a while. If you compare later pics of the studio model to those of the earliest version, you can clearly see that.


----------



## jheilman (Aug 30, 2001)

jheilman said:


> It was known way back that those were original. When the model was loaned out for that science show at the school in early 70's, a spare decal sheet went with it which included those very text blurbs.


Found it in my photo archives.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

jheilman said:


> Found it in my photo archives.


Where are the jokes?

(The jokes were both on the hull and "on" the Star Trek fans )


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Trek Ace said:


> The left tube is heavier than the right one. This is due to the 'trench' inset with the grilles on the left side, which does not exist on the right one. Hence, there is more wooden structure in the back end of the left tube, which causes more twisting of the oak pylon on the left side, resulting in the droop.
> 
> Of course, it didn't help at all to compromise the strength of the pylons by gouging out a trough in each one for the electrical wiring during the '92 'restoration', thereby
> reducing their ability to keep the nacelles straight.


Curious about the disparity in the scene approaching K-7 and the lack of detail in the pic on the right.

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=qy7p51&s=8

Was a trench detail added in editing?


----------



## Shaw (Jan 9, 2005)

These features...








have always been painted on, not actual physical features like on the other side of the model. In the behind-the-scenes shot, the reflection off the surface has obscured those painted on details.

I reconstructed those painted details (as decals) for my one-sixth studio scale scratch built study model. It'll be interesting to see if they are correctly fixed on the actual 11 foot model as they were painted over in 1974 and incorrectly added back in 1992.


----------



## J_Indy (Jan 28, 2013)

Thank you for that clarification - it was very informative.


----------

