Another fan attempt at TOS deck plans

I forget who it was, but somebody over on one of the Hobbytalk boards (Several years ago, possibly around ten years ago) claimed to have managed to get ahold of a piece of cardboard that had allegedly been used as a mask while painting the Enterprise in the first place. He was able to find commonly available paint chips from national chain stores that matched the over-spray on the cardboard very closely and posted all of his research for the benefit of us physical modelers. His conclusion was that the Wal-Mart paint chip for their color named "Concrete" was a spot on match, something like a pale greenish gray. I went to Wal-Mart and nabbed said color chip and used it for mixing my own color to paint a series of Trek models I was working on at the time. I have since lost the chip (I might still have it storage someplace) but still have the models I painted and now I use that to check against when I'm adjusting the color of current projects.

Now assuming this tall tale is true, then that color we see on the top of the Enterprise's saucer is only slightly faded from what it began life with. In that case, I suggest that the darker gray we see under the decapitated bridge is indeed a primer coat of paint. An essential element when building a wooden model that you don't want to look like wood when finished. On the other hand, if this bed time story is not true, then I suppose the darker gray could be an unfaded color, but I doubt it, since I don't think the model ever sat in direct sunlight for long stretches between it's working days and it's "restoration." I don't think the "many abuses" it was subjected to were such that the paint would be that prone to fading.

My $0.02.

--Alex

 

I went to this website, entered in "concrete" and found this color chip in their system, which might be close. But, it might not be the same as the person had originally found, since Wal-Mart and other paint manufacturers like to change their colors on occasion.

 

I seem to recall an interview with Richard Datin in an issue of the Star Trek Communicator circa 2002 in which he specified a color that closely matched what he painted the eleven-footer. It may have been the concrete color. I know it was a slightly green grey, because it made me use a small bottle of a similar color (the name of which I cannot remember either) from an Testors airplane paints kit on my Polar Lights TOS ship.

I'll have to see if I can find either the next time I go to my parents' house.

 

The original tale comes from William McCullars' article in the old Star Trek Communicator magazine, in which he interviewed Richard Datin, the original model builder, who still has his copy of the construction blueprints, the backside of which has some overspray of the original paint. And it's that bit of history that they took to Wal-Mart and matched up with the "Concrete" chip.

Maybe.

My main point was that the color of the ship is somewhat darker than what some folks tend to say it is.

And, no, I'm pretty sure that they haven't changed "Concrete". In fact, I'm not sure they've even allowed to.

 

Well, I won't look for my copy of that issue then. Thanks, CRA.

 

That's not true. The color "Concrete" is their own proprietary mix. Any paint company can name any of their colors whatever they darn well please. And can change them as they like. Willy nilly. What can't be changed is the Federal Standard colors. That's why its handy to have guys like Rick Sternbach who provide FS colors for things like the Voyager model. Unfortunately, I don't think I have any FS number for the color "concrete" circa 1999.

--Alex

 

I have a Federal Standard number for concrete, but I don't know if it matches up with the Wal-Mart matched color chip. According to the current Federal Standard, the color is Federal Standard 595B color number 35630. Does that make it the right color? No. I am simply throwing out the current designation for the color concrete (which is not supposed to change). It is not nearly as dark as that posed by B.J., but it comes from a different color swatch.

Take a look, see what you think. Personally, I think it is too light (creamy without enough green in it), but it may just be my monitor.

I will now duck and cover for the ensuing "debate" over the correct color.

 

While that is an interesting hypothesis, that color looks more like primer gray than a chosen color. Note the piece in question is made of wood. In order to achieve a smooth surface that would look like a ship's hull, the wood would need to be primed. What better than automotive gray primer. The surface would have needed to have several coats, sanded between each to achieve a smooth surface on wood.

Also of note, the upper surface of the saucer apparently has never been refinished (at least not in the latest restoration). So it retains the original streaking. That streaking pattern is consistent with the streaking on the 3 foot model clearly seen in "The Cage" and "Where No Man Has Gone Before" (Which appears to be the same effects shot of the smaller model model). When it was first put on display at the Smithsonian, as shown in photos on the IDIC pages (now gone), the model had streaking on the upper saucer. So the chances of the current color of the model being vastly incorrect are not good.

I peg what you are seeing as primer.

 

You know, if we really wanted to settle this once and for all, we'd have to:

• Build several, 1:1 scale replicas of the largest part of the 1701 (either the saucer or the engineering hull)
  
• Spray each replica with a few coats of automotive gray primer (enough to replicate the smooth surface of the model), then paint each replica with one of the suspected paint colors.
  
• Obtain (access) to 10K studio lamps, preferably ones of the same make and model to those used by Desilu.
  
• Obtain 1960's film stock of the same brand as that used for the series, and possibly obtain a camera of identical make and lenses, or adapt/calibrate a pro-quality digital camera to mimic it's image quality.
  
• Shoot a shit-ton of photos at similar lighting and camera angles to the best references from the series we have.

If that doesn't work, we're fucked.

 

Flawless logic as always, Mariner.

 

You forgot about the correct film ISO, the degradation from effects compositing, and aging the film for 40 or so years. Not to mention developing it the right way so you don't introduce color errors at that late stage.

 

Cinematography isn't my forte, obviously.

 

Well, the only time in The Cage we really get to see the top of the primary hull is with the only appearance of the 11 foot model.

​

Other than the swooshing by the camera in the opening credits, the only appearance of the 33 inch model in WNMHGB was the Enterprise leaving the galactic barrier (one of my favorite shots of the model by the way ).

_____________​

On the subject of color, you guys are aware that other than a reference to the colors used (similar to the one I made on my 33 inch plans), no colors will be seen in my plans.

 

That's some nice work John!
How are you able to avoid the copyright issues that plagued you in the past?

BTW Long time no speak! I'm here, finally, hawking my VRML TOS Enterprise, and getting good reviews.

 

You are aware that the 11 foot model was built for "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and the two images you posted from the cage are of the unlit 3 foot model, right?

 

Interesting how in the pics above, on the edge of the saucer, you can just barely make out the 'ghost' of an outline where the outer two of the four windows are? Almost as if the 'shutters' (like we saw from the inside in 'The Mark of Gideon') are closed? This might explain the later 'apparent' discrepincy in the asymmetry with the other set of corrosponding windows?

 

Well, currently this thread is documenting my progress towards finishing up plans of the 11 foot model as it appeared for The Cage in December 1964. Those exterior plans of the model will then be altered to take the place of the plans of my original exterior study drawings which had been used in all my earlier sketches.

As a tangential project, I plan on a 10 sheet set of plans of the Enterprise of The Cage, which (along with the 11 foot plans I'm working on right now) will include an extended version of my studies of Jefferies plans (from November 7, 1964) and a modified version of my plans of the 33 inch model (as it appeared in December 1964). And there will be a write up of the history of the creation of these models that I am compiling... including this timeline I posted earlier in this thread.

• Nov. 4, 1964 (Wednesday): Richard Datin agrees to build an approximate three foot long model based on an early set of plans which give a real world scale of 1:48 (if this had been the final drawings, this would have been the 540' version, but the proportions of this early drawing are actually different from the final plans).
• Nov. 7, 1964 (Saturday): The final construction plans are finished. These plans include the scale reference of FULL SIZE & 3" = 1'-0" TO LARGE MINIATURE.
• Nov. 8, 1964 (Sunday): Richard Datin receives the plans and starts building the full size 33 inch model out of kiln-dried sugar pine.
• Nov. 15, 1964 (Sunday): A little more than a week later the 33 inch model is presented to Roddenberry for approval. I'd guess this is where the addition of exterior windows takes place (which were not part of the original design).
• Dec. 8, 1964 (Tuesday): Construction is started on the 11 foot model.
• Dec. 14, 1964 (Monday): The 33 inch model is delivered to Roddenberry for final approval while The Cage was being filmed in Culver City. This model is used for all effects shot in The Cage except the most important one (the zoom in on the bridge).
• Dec. 24, 1964 (Thursday): Shooting of The Cage wraps, only one effects shot still outstanding.
• Dec. 29, 1964 (Tuesday): The 11 foot model (built by Datin, Mel Keys and Vern Sion) was delivered to the Howard A. Anderson studio. This version is unpowered and the windows are painted on the surface of the model... and even then the model was designed to be shot from the right side only.
• Jan. 23, 1965 (Saturday): After The Cage is already in the can and waiting for network approval of the new series, additional test shots of the 11 foot model are taken in it's original condition.
• Jan. 30, 1965 (Saturday): Aspects of the ship's size (like it being 190,000 tons) were being distributed to the media in the descriptions of the new show.

I believe most people here are aware of the stark physical differences between the 33 inch model and the 11 foot model, but I'll post some reference shots anyways...

33 inch Reference Images
Click to enlarge


11 foot (The Cage) Reference Images
Click to enlarge​

And so no one thinks that I'm just rehashing my old 33 inch plans, here is a comparison of the two different projects at approximately the same stage.

Click to enlarge​

So no, I was not aware that the 11 foot model was built for "Where No Man Has Gone Before" and the two images I posted from the cage are of the unlit 3 foot model. But I'm always happy to learn something new everyday.

 

David, those two shots you posted from The Cage are of the 11 footer. (but I think you realize that!)

You'll also note that during the filming of the newly built unlit model, it was hung on a wire from the back of the neck. This wire is visable in the b/w behind the scenes shots with the naked guy and The Hair.

If you look at the dvd showing that zoom in sequence, you'll see the wire pass in front of the port nacelle.

When the 1701 was donated to and displayed in the Smithsonian, it was initially hung from the same location as it was when it was first filmed. The fold out poster shots taken By Doug Drexler show the ship hanging from a wire attached to a large eye-bolt.

 

Actually, I had no idea that the model was hung from wires while shot for The Cage... but now that you bring it up, that one image from below shows part of the model that should have shown the stand (or at least a hole for the stand).

That is an interesting bit of history... thanks!

 

Ahhhh, trying sarcasm on the web again, are we? Because I've always found that that works REEEEEAL well. (<- that was sarcasm. Sarcasm on the web doesn't work at ALL. Seriously. I mean it.)

Yes, that's almost exactly what my first attempt looked like. And also the impression I got from seeing a friend's Polar Lights kit of what was done there.

That's what drove me NUTS trying to figure it out. Hence my obsession with this detail of the ship.

Now I'm going to have to go back and see which one I picked. That has a hauntingly familiar ring to it. I know I wound up just extruding that aft curve down to the bottom of the trench, and flattened it out as it tapered down to the bottom. So whatever shape that produced...