Star Trek: Starships Model/Magazine Subscription

[publiusr]

The saucer isn't really accurate--but, like the Hot Wheels Vengeance--actually looks better than the original.

Usually, the only difference was that the E-C had a simple TOS lower sensor, and this one has the refit sensor (better)

In the original model, the shuttlebay was wider in one than the other--and one had a lower bay formed from an Excelsior model part placed underneather the E-c fantail upside down

 

[DS9forever]

I've got news on two ships:

From my German subscription I received the USS Defiant. The arrowhead has been corrected! I've got the earlier Defiant as well - the paint job and hue are otherwise the same.

Are the back of the nacelles still missing? That annoyed me about the Defiant release.

 

[Ethros]

I picked up my copy of the E-C just now. Can't say I am too impressed with it.

I got mine yesterday too, had to try get to WH Smith as early as I could as I knew this issue been an Enterprise it would probably sell fast. And apart from the (as everyone mentions) the lack of an impulse engine on the back, I think it's awesome.



I think the thing some people have to remember about these models is that they're £9.99. Unless you're the tightest man on Earth, in 2015 ten quid isn't that much money anymore. You also get a magazine with it, not a massive one mind you but it's something. So let's say that would be like £2, that's £8 for a model of a fairly decent size.

If this collection never existed, I'd like to see someone to go into say Forbidden Planet and buy a model of this quality for that price. Ain't gonna happen. Hell, action figures are like £22 in Forbidden Planet now.
I mean, look at those Star Trek "Attack Wing" models, I always see in Waterstones for some reason. They average about £12-15 (a search on Amazon tells me) and have nowhere near the detail that Eaglemoss' ships have.
Sure some issues aren't perfect and a few have some flaws, but for the price that they are I actually think they're bloody brilliant.

 

[Markonian]

Are the back of the nacelles still missing? That annoyed me about the Defiant release.

Missing? I never noticed anything askew other than the arrowhead. Do you mean the blue shiny at the aft of the nacelles?


Also, I agree with what Ethros said. Of course I check for obvious errors and mention them here, but that doesn't man I don't love those models. I'm happy beyond words that finally get all those rare and newer models. Without Eaglemoss, my best shot for these would have been a 3D printer next decade.

Anway, love the Enterprise!

 

[Kinggodzillak]

Is the blue ring around the topside edge of the C's saucer rubbing off on anyone else's model? Mine's almost totally gone...

 

[NOVE9]

I'd get that one replaced, sounds like a defect.

In other news ben has posted pictures of the tos enterprise and it looks superb!

 

[Frontier]

Finally got my subscriber gift AGT-1701-D. I e-mailed to ask about it a few weeks ago, and they didn't have any specifics for when it would be back in stock, but then two weeks later it showed up in my mail-box.

Now if we could all only get that damn Borg cube out of customs! I'm seriously wondering if we all shouldn't start calling the customs department about it. Imagine a bunch of people from across the country asking about such nonsense.

 

[137th Gebirg]

^^^ Don't underestimate the power of government employee apathy. They'll most likely just hang up on you.

 

[Sans]

I've got news on two ships:

From my German subscription I received the USS Defiant. The arrowhead has been corrected! I've got the earlier Defiant as well - the paint job and hue are otherwise the same.

That's not all:

@BenCSRobinson: .@SansChristopher It is. By the way the pennant on the underside matches the CG model from the later seasons.

 

[Dac]

I picked up my copy of the E-C just now. Can't say I am too impressed with it.

I got mine yesterday too, had to try get to WH Smith as early as I could as I knew this issue been an Enterprise it would probably sell fast. And apart from the (as everyone mentions) the lack of an impulse engine on the back, I think it's awesome.



I think the thing some people have to remember about these models is that they're £9.99. Unless you're the tightest man on Earth, in 2015 ten quid isn't that much money anymore. You also get a magazine with it, not a massive one mind you but it's something. So let's say that would be like £2, that's £8 for a model of a fairly decent size.

If this collection never existed, I'd like to see someone to go into say Forbidden Planet and buy a model of this quality for that price. Ain't gonna happen. Hell, action figures are like £22 in Forbidden Planet now.
I mean, look at those Star Trek "Attack Wing" models, I always see in Waterstones for some reason. They average about £12-15 (a search on Amazon tells me) and have nowhere near the detail that Eaglemoss' ships have.
Sure some issues aren't perfect and a few have some flaws, but for the price that they are I actually think they're bloody brilliant.

Whilst I agree with you 110%, the issues with the C do NOT stem from cost cutting, but from using a wholly inaccurate CG mesh as the basis for the model. The ship seen in the magazine is almost nothing like the studio model and has numerous errors.

I don't *care* about the missing impulse engine, but I do care about the incorrect window placements, missing phaser strips, wholly incorrect bottom saucer complete with the wrong sensor dome, missing ring around the deflector, incorrectly shaped secondary hull and missing panelling on the rear sec hull.

All those errors are unique to this issue, because the folks at Eaglemoss didn't realise the CG mesh Ed Giddings made was that off. Part of the errors are he based parts on the Zhukov refit the Ambassador class got, but some of the others are just weird choices which weren't on either Ambassador studio model.

 

[t_smitts]

This has been a good month for me, collection-wise, especially this past week.

Earlier this month, I got the Jem'Hadar battle cruiser on ebay. I like it so much I got a few more: The Vulcan Suurok class, the Akira, the Cardassian Hideki, and the Andorian Kumari. While I was waiting for them to arrive, I also found out one of the nearby collector's stores sells them, so I picked up the Romulan drone.

I really like them all but I think my favorite would be a tie between the Andorian ship and the drone. I still can't believe they managed to get that much detail and that many tiny parts on a ship that size at that price point.

The Kumari's a great ship. I have a Johnny Lighting NX-01 (I used to have two, but I traded in an extra one to get a discount on the drone ship ) and they're close enough in scale that they look nice together. Hopefully, the D'Kyr type comes out soon, because we actually saw that one facing off with the Andorian ship, as opposed to the Suurok class.

One thing I really got to thinking when looking at it was the new Battlestar Galactica (and sure enough, the magazine says that was one of the inspirations). Actually the ship doesn't look all that alien at all. If you didn't know this ship was Andorian, would you get it was alien or perhaps some early Earth warp ship?

I gotta do it sparingly, but I'm sure I'll get a few more of these. Now, I just got to figure out where to put them, given the amount of space the Micro Machine, Johnny Lightning, and Furuta ships I have take up.

 

[tharpdevenport]

All those errors are unique to this issue, because the folks at Eaglemoss didn't realise the CG mesh Ed Giddings made was that off. Part of the errors are he based parts on the Zhukov refit the Ambassador class got, but some of the others are just weird choices which weren't on either Ambassador studio model.

Are you sure that's correct? I'm did a look at memory-alpha.org page for the ship and according to the page the TNG[/i] episode "Brothers" identified it as a Rigel class vessel. Could it be they just look a lot alike?

 

[Markonian]

For the record, the CG image of the Ambassador class in the magazine differs from the actual model in two ways: The sports the impulse the impulse engines but lacks the phaser arrays on the two pylons.

News: Three pictures of the Galileo have been posted on Facebook.

 

[Dac]

All those errors are unique to this issue, because the folks at Eaglemoss didn't realise the CG mesh Ed Giddings made was that off. Part of the errors are he based parts on the Zhukov refit the Ambassador class got, but some of the others are just weird choices which weren't on either Ambassador studio model.

Are you sure that's correct? I'm did a look at memory-alpha.org page for the ship and according to the page the TNG[/i] episode "Brothers" identified it as a Rigel class vessel. Could it be they just look a lot alike?

Uh, Memory Alpha lists the Zhukov as Ambassador, and it plainly is.

http://en.memory-alpha.wikia.com/wiki/USS_Zhukov

 

[Richard Baker]

News: Three pictures of the Galileo have been posted on Facebook.

Link?
I am no longer on Facebook but curious...

 

[Ethros]

So the Negh'Var came out today (in the UK at least.)
I couldn't help but notice on Facebook, Twitter and Youtube, a lot of people were complaining about this one, especially after folk's disappointment with the Enterprise-C.
I managed to get hold of one anyway... yeah I can see their point, it really isn't the best in terms of detail and so on, and on all that Eaglemoss have done in the past. The "hollow, unfinished holes" on the underside are pretty unforgivable. I know I said last time about for the price you can't expect an absolute masterpiece, but that is pretty lame to be fair.

I still wanted it though. From some angles it looks kinda weird, definitely the face on profile view. And that's not a critique of the model that's just the design. But from some angles it does look pretty cool- angled from above for example.
So all in all I'm not one to cry about its faults, but definitely a case of "could do better." And they have done a lot better in the past.



I think that's gonna be it for a while on releases for me. I'm really not bothered about the next one; #48 the Armoured Voyager. #49 The Fortunate looks nice, but I don't think I'll bother, maybe wait for some pictures to fully decide. #50 The 1701 I'm just assuming will sell out straight away tbh. #51 The Hirogen Hunter again is a maybe.


So the next one I'm really jazzed about is #52, the USS Centaur, not out till August 6th.
So cool there's gonna be a model of this

 

[137th Gebirg]

^^^ Now THAT looks friggin' beautiful!

I guess that definitely proves that they went with an Excelsior-scale version instead of the original studio miniature Miranda-scale version (which should also be named the USS Buckner! ). Based on what I'm seeing here, though, it doesn't matter - that thing looks slick and the paint job is much nicer than the original! Having an Excelsior-sized bridge on this one makes more sense anyway, IMO.

 

[Dac]

So the Negh'Var came out today (in the UK at least.)
I couldn't help but notice on Facebook, Twitter and Youtube, a lot of people were complaining about this one, especially after folk's disappointment with the Enterprise-C.
I managed to get hold of one anyway... yeah I can see their point, it really isn't the best in terms of detail and so on, and on all that Eaglemoss have done in the past. The "hollow, unfinished holes" on the underside are pretty unforgivable. I know I said last time about for the price you can't expect an absolute masterpiece, but that is pretty lame to be fair.

I still wanted it though. From some angles it looks kinda weird, definitely the face on profile view. And that's not a critique of the model that's just the design. But from some angles it does look pretty cool- angled from above for example.
So all in all I'm not one to cry about its faults, but definitely a case of "could do better." And they have done a lot better in the past.

To go along with the laundry list of problems the C had, heres what I can spot wrong with the Negh'Var...

The wings are simply too thin, they should be about half as thick again. The leading edges of them are undetailed and are not bevelled. The neck is bare. The wings dont angle down a tad like they should. The Warp engines are just incredibly basic and do not match the renders on the model in the magazine, let alone the studio model. The holes at the rear of them are just stupid, and the front section should have a notch cutout of the underside "chin", that the CG model in the mag doesn't have.

Two incredibly disappointing models here. Did they switch factories or something?!

 

[Stevil2001]

Other than the Nova, the Centaur is probably the Starfleet ship I was anticipating the most. One of my favorite designs, but I would have never guessed someone would make a model of it!

(137th, what are the scaling issues to which you refer?)

 

[137th Gebirg]

The original studio filming model, built by Adam Buckner (and was the actual name on the ship, not Centaur) used a 1:537 scale USS Reliant bridge module (matching the rollbar and torpedo launchers), not a 1:1000 scale Excelsior bridge module like this one has (matching the primary hull and engines) making it considerably smaller in scale. The CG model that was built later for the Official Star Trek Fact Files (I think that's when it first appeared) used an Excelsior-style bridge, making it a larger scale. The pic I linked to earlier shows the Reliant bridge on the hull, as well as the different name. Ex Astris has a section on it in its DS9 Kitbash article. The original is also extremely over-greebled with quite a harsh paint scheme. This version definitely appears more refined.