# 1/1000 NX Test Shot



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Phase I was at the beginning of this thread.

Phase II:


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Whoo-hoo! Let us see!


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

How did that package get to you with your address smeared like that?


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

^^ He's so famous now, all he needs is his name on the package and it gets there!


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Hmmm Chris White's box art has really gone downhill


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

I thought it was a pretty good representation of a tattered white box!

http://www.thomasmodels.com/nx/mininx01.jpg
http://www.thomasmodels.com/nx/mininx02.jpg
http://www.thomasmodels.com/nx/mininx03.jpg
http://www.thomasmodels.com/nx/mininx04.jpg
http://www.thomasmodels.com/nx/mininx05.jpg
http://www.thomasmodels.com/nx/mininx06.jpg
http://www.thomasmodels.com/nx/mininx07.jpg


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

ThomasModels said:


> http://www.thomasmodels.com/nx/mininx06.jpg



I have always thought that the NX was a bit smaller than the Original Constitution class. Not that this doesn't look like a great model to be coming, but a little disappointed that it is almost the same, and yet maybe a little larger than the TOS ship. I never sat down and checked or looked up comparisons to these guys together.


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Well, we know that the NX-01 is 225m long. That puts the main hull on the NX being roughly the same size as that of the TOS 1701. Doesn't surprise me at all about the sizes being close for the NX and _Constitution_-classes. Adds itself well for kitbashing potential between those two kits.... :thumbsup:


----------



## Ziz (Feb 22, 1999)

Don't forget about the third dimension. TOS has the secondary hull, NX doesn't, so the NX is a much flatter ship vertically.


----------



## ArizonaBB39 (Dec 4, 2004)

I want one!! I'd love to see all the Enterprises come out in this scale, ESPECIALLY the REFIT!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

How is the fit? Glad to see clear parts. John will have fun with this one!


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

It looks cery crisp. I too am disappointed in the scale though. How in the hell can there be 80 people on the NX-01 and 430 on the 1701 if they are virtually the same size. And keep in mind the 1701's sechull is mostly storage, labs, and machinery, not crew quarters.

It just don't jive!!!


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

The rationale is that there are a LOT of automated systems on the _Constitution_-class ships. Plus, the components are smaller on the _Connies_ than on the NX class, which has much larger, bulkier equipment. I'd guess that the bulkhead's would be thicker on the NX-class, as well. 

That and the producers prolly thought it would sound more "lonely" if there were only 80+ people on board the NX....  

Just my thinking, anyhow.


----------



## sbaxter at home (Feb 15, 2004)

Griffworks said:


> the components are smaller on the _Connies_ than on the NX class, which has much larger, bulkier equipment. I'd guess that the bulkhead's would be thicker on the NX-class, as well.


Yeah, I've always figured the NX-01 is as large as it is because it _has_ to be.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## KUROK (Feb 2, 2004)

Thanks for the pics, Thom. Looks to be a really neat little model.
I also like the comparison shots with the Constitution class kit. 
It does look like the saucer sections between the two are similar in volume. The engines are smaller which makes sense.


----------



## Barry Yoner (Mar 6, 1999)

That looks like that will be one great looking little model!!

Thanks for sharing, Thomas!


----------



## FoxTrot (Jan 27, 2000)

Well, they do make a nice couple...! Fox


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

The size has always bugged me. I've always thought the 1701 was special because the Connies were the biggest, most powerful starships to have come along up til then. Earlier ships were MUCH smaller.

But NNNNOOOOooooooo


----------



## Edge (Sep 5, 2003)

Well it looks done. Ship it, so you can move on to something worth
buying.

Edge


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

Looking good, Thomas! I'll have to get a couple to kitbash into what I think the ship should have looked like.


----------



## sbaxter at home (Feb 15, 2004)

John P said:


> I've always thought the 1701 was special because the Connies were the biggest, most powerful starships to have come along up til then.


Well, it is larger and certainly much more powerful. And that's whatcha get fer thinkin'!

Yes no maybe ... I don't know -- could you repeat the question? _Life is unfair ... _



Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Nova Designs (Oct 10, 2000)

Griffworks said:


> The rationale is that there are a LOT of automated systems on the _Constitution_-class ships. Plus, the components are smaller on the _Connies_ than on the NX class, which has much larger, bulkier equipment. I'd guess that the bulkhead's would be thicker on the NX-class, as well.
> 
> That and the producers prolly thought it would sound more "lonely" if there were only 80+ people on board the NX....
> 
> Just my thinking, anyhow.



Well all that _sounds_ logical... and it might make sense if the difference were maybe 50-100 people. But really none of that makes any real sense. Hull thickness just would never make room for 300 more people. And even though the NX-01 has more "details" inside, the cabins, for example, are larger than what we saw in TOS and the corridors are only a little lower, but not narrower. 

No, it really just does not work out, and just like fruitless rationale's to try and wedge other Trek set interiors into exterior models.... its just a plain and simple MISTAKE on the part of the producers who just didn't do their homework. They were probably only going by the size of windows... which doesnt really work out in this case.

That's just _my_ thinking :wave:


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

One would also assume that the Constitution class needs less room for fuel and consumables, less room for things like a decon chamber by the airlocks and shuttlebay, and would also carry more people, for the scince labs. IIRC, the Constitution Class's Primary hull also has more decks, then the NX-01, which makes a huge difference.


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

They should've just made the saucer section a third smaller than the connie, if only for a visual cue; to give the impression that it's an earlier, less technologically developed ship, like comparing an old sailing ship, Columbus' Santa Maria, to a modern day cruise ship like the Queen Mary 2 for instance. It's better visual story telling. B&B sucked at that kind too, apparently. And it certainly doesn't warrant making rationalizations for the decisions of TV producers who only cared about their own agendas (whatever those were). The NX is what it is. On it's own merits, I like it. As to fitting into the universe of Trek--it comes up waaay short.


----------



## Tholian (Oct 3, 2004)

Wow, I didn't mean to start another argument. Just said I was disappointed. LOL


----------



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

I think it's a great job considering the subject.

Now that they no longer have to consider rushing something out the door before the series is canceled...

I sincerely hope the powers that be that chose the subjects will next decide to allow Thomas to complete the set of two scales for the TOS Enterprise and make a 1/350th TOS E.

If they have a grain of sense in their brains everything else would be put on hold and they would let Thomas do a 1/350th TOS E as the next subject.


----------



## BATBOB (Jul 14, 2003)

Looking forward to it. The kit bashing potential...Franj Joseph type stuff....Whoho.


----------



## MMM (Aug 21, 2003)

Nova Designs said:


> Well all that _sounds_ logical... and it might make sense if the difference were maybe 50-100 people. But really none of that makes any real sense. Hull thickness just would never make room for 300 more people. And even though the NX-01 has more "details" inside, the cabins, for example, are larger than what we saw in TOS and the corridors are only a little lower, but not narrower.
> 
> No, it really just does not work out, and just like fruitless rationale's to try and wedge other Trek set interiors into exterior models.... its just a plain and simple MISTAKE on the part of the producers who just didn't do their homework. They were probably only going by the size of windows... which doesnt really work out in this case.
> 
> That's just _my_ thinking :wave:


Don't forget- the Constitution-class has a sizable hangar bay, a large Reactor Room, and the mechanics for the Sensor/Deflector dish, as well as most of the storage areas for cargo, supplies, and fuel in the secondary hull. (Heck, it even has a arboretum and bowling alley!) The NX-01 has to keep many, if not all of these elements in the primary saucer (except for the arboretum and bowling alley, which we haven't seen yet.)

Besides, as Griff points out, the support systems in the NX-01 are at least a hundred years behind the Constitution-class equipment. The galley comparisions alone are daunting. Think of the difference in size between a stove and a microwave... an evaporative cooler and a window air conditioner... a 1960's era water heater and a modern on-demand water heater... and extrapolate that to the air generators, or the gravity generators, or the water recycling, or even simple things like the galley operations... and you've got a good rationale for the NX-01 as a relatively larger ship with a smaller crew.


----------



## capt Locknar (Dec 29, 2002)

Well I have a great solution at least for myself. 

I will display the TM 1400 scale Nx-01 next to the 1000 scale tos and call them the same scale. I think it would work out better that way lol


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

Brilliant!


----------



## sbaxter at home (Feb 15, 2004)

Nova Designs said:


> Well all that _sounds_ logical... and it might make sense if the difference were maybe 50-100 people. But really none of that makes any real sense. Hull thickness just would never make room for 300 more people. And even though the NX-01 has more "details" inside, the cabins, for example, are larger than what we saw in TOS and the corridors are only a little lower, but not narrower.


Maybe I'm missing something, but this actually argues _in favor_ of a larger NX-01 as opposed to a smaller one. And I always presumed there is a larger percentage of the interior of the NX-01 that is uninhabitable -- larger machinery and such. It's kinda like a laptop computer -- you don't judge their capabilities by size differential, especially when comparing two of them from different times.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

I suppose it's better to have too much space to explain than to have too little [_cough, cough,_ Jupiter II]


----------



## sbaxter at home (Feb 15, 2004)

Ignatz said:


> And it certainly doesn't warrant making rationalizations for the decisions of TV producers who only cared about their own agendas (whatever those were).


Why stop now, at this late date? I've been doing that ever since I first wondered how there's always a turbolift available when anyone wants one, and in those days all the turbolift doors were red, if you know what I mean. To me, that's part of the _fun_.

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

MMM said:


> Don't forget- the Constitution-class has a sizable hangar bay, a large Reactor Room, and the mechanics for the Sensor/Deflector dish, as well as most of the storage areas for cargo, supplies, and fuel in the secondary hull. (Heck, it even has a arboretum and bowling alley!) The NX-01 has to keep many, if not all of these elements in the primary saucer (except for the arboretum and bowling alley, which we haven't seen yet.)
> 
> Besides, as Griff points out, the support systems in the NX-01 are at least a hundred years behind the Constitution-class equipment. The galley comparisions alone are daunting. Think of the difference in size between a stove and a microwave... an evaporative cooler and a window air conditioner... a 1960's era water heater and a modern on-demand water heater... and extrapolate that to the air generators, or the gravity generators, or the water recycling, or even simple things like the galley operations... and you've got a good rationale for the NX-01 as a relatively larger ship with a smaller crew.


That was my thinking, as well. And I thought I explained all that, but guess not...? 

I always figured that the bulkier equipment that was only marginally "shrunk down" used in the NX was in the secondary hull on the _Constitution_. Combine that w/what was likely considerably stronger materials for the superstructure of the ship and less need for large, load bearing bulkheads, you've got considerably more room in the saucer. 

BTW, welcome to the forums, *MMM*. I see that you've actually been here a while, but never posted. 


sbaxter at home said:


> Maybe I'm missing something, but this actually argues _in favor_ of a larger NX-01 as opposed to a smaller one. And I always presumed there is a larger percentage of the interior of the NX-01 that is uninhabitable -- larger machinery and such. It's kinda like a laptop computer -- you don't judge their capabilities by size differential, especially when comparing two of them from different times.


Larger machinery and likely large, load bearing bulkheads and the like, as I said above. Not to mention all those cargo holds with obvious external hatches on the NX-01.


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

Did I mention that is has 36 parts and 21 clear ones?

Plus a 4 piece base?

Decals too?


----------



## Griffworks (Jun 24, 2002)

Wow. I'm used to maybe 12, max. I'm gonna be lost!


----------



## Lloyd Collins (Sep 25, 2004)

What about stickers? I have to have stickers! I have not figured out the things call water decals work. I drank some water and the tried to peel off the decals. It did not work.


----------



## sbaxter at home (Feb 15, 2004)

Lloyd Collins said:


> What about stickers? I have to have stickers! I have not figured out the things call water decals work. I drank some water and the tried to peel off the decals. It did not work.


You're crazy! They're water_slide_ decals. You don't drink the water, you go out, set up a Slip'n'Slide and play on it for a while -- _then_ you peel off the decals! Thought everyone knew that!

Sheesh!

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

ThomasModels said:


> Did I mention that is has 36 parts and 21 clear ones?
> 
> Plus a 4 piece base?


21 of the 36 are clear or are there 57 total parts with 36 opaque and 21 clear?


----------



## Ignatz (Jun 20, 2000)

12 of 1, a dozen of the other.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

sbaxter at home said:


> You're crazy! They're water_slide_ decals. You don't drink the water, you go out, set up a Slip'n'Slide and play on it for a while -- _then_ you peel off the decals! Thought everyone knew that!


 Just make sure the decals are in your pocket while your playing on the thing.


----------



## Prince of Styrene II (Feb 28, 2000)

uuhhhh.... yea. :drunk: 

Cool little kit, Thomas! You've done some nice work there! Makes me want to do that _Enterprise_/ _Columbia_ dio even more!

Anyone got a 1/1000 Trip I can borrow?


----------



## aztec warrior (Mar 8, 2005)

Hi Thomas, the 1/1000 nx 01/2 looks very good its nice 2 see so many clear parts, its a shame the tos e/d7 didnt have them  (i like 2 light my models).Ive got 6 1/350 nx01's & i wanted 2 kitbash atleast 2 or 3 of them,so i think ill pick up 6 of the 1/1000 kits & try out my ideas on them first it will be cheaper 2 make any mistakes on them  .The new kit is a nice addition 2 the line & i look forward 2 the next subject & the next 1/350 kit (fingers crossed).


----------



## TheYoshinator! (Apr 2, 2004)

Thomas,

Very Nice! I wasn't too thrilled when I heard it was going to be made. There are so many other ships that need to be IMHO. However, this model looks really good. I think I'll be picking one up as soon as it comes out.

BTW, what is the GUESSTIMATED ETA on this kit?

This model seems to be flying through the production process. No pun intended.

-James


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I just hope, if it doesn't sell well, RC2 doesn't think "Well Star Trek kits don't sell, so let's cancel the line," when the truth (as I see it) is "Well, classic Star Trek kits sell well but modern era ones don't, so we should concentrate on classic Trek."

My paranoia knows no bounds.


----------



## ThomasModels (Mar 8, 2000)

I have no idea of projected release date.



TheYoshinator! said:


> This model seems to be flying through the production process.


Only because you just found out about it! I did the design work on this kit a year ago, but it is moving along nicely.


----------



## dsscse (Dec 19, 2004)

Just have a guess!
And we will hold you to it (even though we say we wont)
And be very upset if it not on our door step that morning
And we will be upset you told us the date even though there are practical conciderations which can change at any time. 
And we will pilliary you for getting it wrong
And we will /////////// Opps Sorry I thought this was a 1701 refit Thread
best if you if you use the Sgt Shultz defence "I hear nothing, I see Noth........"

As usual though it looks great! :thumbsup:

So whens the release date or the on ship from China date or in the shop date Are we there yet?


----------



## dsscse (Dec 19, 2004)

PerfesserCoffee said:


> I suppose it's better to have too much space to explain than to have too little [_cough, cough,_ Jupiter II]


Thats easy the space agency had a loaner TARDIS from Galifraie, this ones chamelian circuit worked but the guidence autoregenerative repair circuit was stuffed and the time circuit had been removed.
See a perfectly rational explaination has been provided :tongue: :wave:


----------



## dsscse (Dec 19, 2004)

John P said:


> The size has always bugged me. I've always thought the 1701 was special because the Connies were the biggest, most powerful starships to have come along up til then. Earlier ships were MUCH smaller.
> 
> But NNNNOOOOooooooo


 Yes I agree, Kirk always boasted how his was the biggest most powerful (SHIP) or maybe we should ask Yoeman Rand  

But as another person said miniturization.
I know these days I would prefer to be on a Oliver Hazard Perry design (FFG) Fast frigate guided (missile) to an Iowa class in a toe to toe IMHO


----------



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

Maybe he meant ship "in the Federation." 

Let's remember that Enterprise if an Earth ship, not a Federation ship...


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

FWIW, looks really good Thomas. I'm looking forward to it. Having just finished my first 1/350 NX, this one is taking some time to get used to; I think it's the fact that the stand is the same. It just looks ... odd, given that I've been working with it at about three times the size. Looks like a great kit. I'll be buying at least six or seven, probably more.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

John, I don't think it's just Classic Trek that sells....I don't think RC2/PL would have any problems selling good Ent-C, Ent-E, and Defiant kits....Voyager and Enterprise are more of the sales problem, although it looks like the Bandai Voyager sold well.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

^Probably true with the E, 'cause it's "the movie ship." I don't know about the rest. I'd certainly buy a C if they did it in 1/1000. But was the Defiant ever that popular? I can't be the only one who thinks it looks like a waffle iron .


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> . . . was the Defiant ever that popular? I can't be the only one who thinks it looks like a waffle iron .


I always think, "CD player" when I see it.


----------



## spe130 (Apr 13, 2004)

Bad as it is, the old AMT/Ertl Defiant kit still sells on eBay... $15-$25.

On that note, I just got the fiber optic Ent-D for about $15...they usually sell for $25+ :thumbsup:


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

John P said:


> was the Defiant ever that popular? I can't be the only one who thinks it looks like a waffle iron .


Probably so, but I've heard people who think any ship we ever saw was silly, all the way back to TOS. Plenty of people might ask that question about _Star Trek_ in general.

I love the _Defiant_ and would buy two or three of a new kit of it. On the other hand, I wouldn't give you a dollar for _any_ Franz Joseph design. But that's me. Some agree with me, and some with you. I wonder ... given a choice between a kit of the _Enterprise-C_ and one of the _Defiant_, and presuming each was of equivalent accuracy and comparable price, which would sell more?

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## capt Locknar (Dec 29, 2002)

I would choose the Ent C myself. But thats cuz I think the defiant is an ugly LITTLE ship lol.


----------



## norge71 (Apr 13, 2004)

I like both myself, but at least with the Ent C you can kitbash alot more (not to mention at the same scale it would be a bigger kit).


----------



## Prince of Styrene II (Feb 28, 2000)

Oh, I'd take a _C _hands down.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

The _1701-C_, next to the _TOS _ _1701 _ is my favorite design. The _Defiant _ never really hooked me as a decent design.


----------



## sbaxter (Jan 8, 2002)

Contrarians! :tongue: 

I don't think we here can answer the question. And I'd like to have both, but the _Defiant_ would win were I forced to choose. It probably makes a difference that the existing _Defiant_ kit is terrible (according to what I have heard -- I haven't tackled either of the two I have as yet), where the _Enterprise_-C kit is fairly well regarded in terms of accuracy, relatively speaking.

I am partly wondering if sales would be affected by the _Defiant_ having been a "headliner" on DS9, whereas the _Ambassador_-class has only been seen as a "guest-star." And posting a personal preference here proves only that some people prefer one over the other, which I never doubted. 

Qapla'

SSB


----------



## chuckman (Nov 25, 2003)

though i must say i'd love to have a 1/1000 e-c, i gotta say that i think an e-d would sell far more. i mean really, its as symbolic to trek as the tos enterprise, and i know theres lots of people who got that as their first dose of trek over tos.


----------



## Four Mad Men (Jan 26, 2004)

chuckman said:


> ...and i know theres lots of people who got that as their first dose of trek over tos.


Your right but at the time I think it was the only way to get a dose :wave:


----------



## chuckman (Nov 25, 2003)

Four Mad Men said:


> Your right but at the time I think it was the only way to get a dose :wave:



that was kinda my point........ :thumbsup:


----------



## dsscse (Dec 19, 2004)

Four Mad Men said:


> Your right but at the time I think it was the only way to get a dose :wave:


I know for sure that at that time, I got a dose from Yeoman Rand 

Damn Kirk!


----------



## mactrek (Mar 30, 2004)

I'd just like to have all of the "E"s accurately done _and_ in the same scale. The 1:1000 scale fits the bill perfectly (especially if you take in to account how big the 1701-E would be at that scale). 

IMHO, the other ships (Defiant, Voyager and appropriate adversaries) would be nice _AFTER_ the Enterprises are done.


----------



## Ziz (Feb 22, 1999)

C, D and E at 1000 would all top the 24" mark. In the AMT/Ertl 1/1400 scale, they're in the high 'teens.


----------



## mactrek (Mar 30, 2004)

Ziz said:


> C, D and E at 1000 would all top the 24" mark. In the AMT/Ertl 1/1400 scale, they're in the high 'teens.


Yep!! :thumbsup:


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

I'd guess the chances of getting the whole collection are gone now. Dammit.


----------



## Steven Coffey (Jan 5, 2005)

I think we may never get anything good from Polar lights again ,well unless you like NASCAR .It is not just us Trekies that will suffer but everyone that loved the company in the first place .No more classic SciFi kits no monsters and figure kits .


----------



## ClubTepes (Jul 31, 2002)

John P said:


> I'd guess the chances of getting the whole collection are gone now. Dammit.


I wonder how much it would cost to get just the model division back?

Maybe someday, some very industrious people will 'restart' PL in the same way that PL 'restarted' Aurora.

Any takers???


----------



## justinleighty (Jan 13, 2003)

ClubTepes said:


> I wonder how much it would cost to get just the model division back? Maybe someday, some very industrious people will 'restart' PL in the same way that PL 'restarted' Aurora.


And maybe they'll name it something like "Borealis/Australis" ...


----------



## woozle (Oct 17, 2002)

Steven Coffey said:


> I think we may never get anything good from Polar lights again ,well unless you like NASCAR .It is not just us Trekies that will suffer but everyone that loved the company in the first place .No more classic SciFi kits no monsters and figure kits .


Buy a few kits and RC will feel like more are worth it. Don't buy any kits and RC will know for sure that it's not worth it. 

It's kinda like all those people that complained tht they didn't like ENTERPRISE and refused to watch it.. then they wonder why it is being cancelled.


----------



## John P (Sep 1, 1999)

The people who refused to watch it don't wonder why it's being cancelled.


----------



## Steven Coffey (Jan 5, 2005)

I think we all know why Enterprise is being cancelled !But on the Polar lights subject ,RC2 has shown a preference for doing away with SciFi subjects.I am surprised that they re-released the Star Wars stuff.


----------



## StarshipClass (Aug 13, 2003)

John P said:


> I'd guess the chances of getting the whole collection are gone now.


Tsk, tsk! Such negativism! There's always scratchbuilding! :thumbsup:


----------



## robcomet (May 25, 2004)

Sheesh! Negativity!

I remember not long before AMT/Ertl giving up the Trek licensing people were wondering whether the E-C would turn up. It did.

If RC2 have a bunch of years left on the PL Trek license, they could either surrender it costing them a heap of money, pay it off till the end costing them a heap of money or wait and see how any new kits go before deciding to commission anymore new kits. If the 1/350 Refit sells as well as the 1/1000 TOS E, this could be the decider for them.

RC2 have shareholders who like getting money for nothing. Profitable kit lines earn company's money which keep shareholders happy.

My two pence worth.

Rob


----------



## kahless72 (Jan 6, 2004)

*Screams*
*Sighs*
*Pants*
What about the Refit? Has it been released? Granted the 1/1000 scale if Nx-01 is cutie, but If the rest of the ships aren't made (Ent. refit, A, B, C, D, & E). What would have been the point of making a smaller NX-01? Thomas and Dave, Great work on the NX-01, But are the other ships being concidered? Don't get me wrong, more Trek models mean my collection of models get bigger and if I am over laid-up, then I can build a few. Please clarify!


----------



## dsscse (Dec 19, 2004)

Steven Coffey said:


> .........................................I am surprised that they re-released the Star Wars stuff.


Star Wars stuff = Easy Profit and if we get behind (sorry folks) any and ALL Star Trek kits they produce we can show ourselves as a gaurentied profit market, thats why along with yet another NX-01 1:350 and TOS E 1:1000, I (may god forgive me) ordered 1 scorpion. We have got to show that there is no waste of $ to share holders if the company does trek, yes I know we will get the occasional DUD! but shareholders are interested in the bottom line Does that Silly trek group equal PROFIT? not our preferences within Star Trek. If it does equal profit then we will get both good (where we all buy multiples of an item and there are multiple pressings) and bad (enough sales to pay for development and production with one pressing only, they will get the idea) subjects, if it doesnt then we will get Nascar! I just ask you to consider this next time there is a concerted push to boycott one of the products, if you can afford $10 buy it and give it to a child or donate it to a school/church/scout "bring and buy day" or get creative with it and everyone on this site is capable of making a deep space explorer/scout out of a sows ear, so none of us can honestly say "I wasted my money".
Sorry to go on like this but the new owners are only in it for the profit (thats what makes the world work so I am quite ok with an honest profit) and expected 5%? per year minimum *increase* in profit. (isn't it weird the way corporations demand profit increases year after year? based on that target eventually everyone on earth will have their product, then what happens???)


----------

