CRA,
One quick question before I go:
> FJ is in blue, AMT and Casimiro in red (AMT on top,
> Casimiro below).
Regarding the "AMT" portion of your comparative diagram (which you seem to be implying is identical to Casimiro's diagram), is it actually the painting guide that comes with the model, or something based on the actual plastic model itself? In either case, what year is the model/guide from?
The reason I ask is that I have heard over the years that the AMT saucer was made undersized, allegedly to save on material. The original secondary hull was "wrong". There have been other criticisms of how the model is "wrong", even as the model (and its accompanying documentation) has changed over the years (including at least one complete scrapping and retooling from scratch). The only version of an AMT TOS 1701 that I've heard about that allegedly even comes close to the original is the cutaway version (which is a larger model than the standard one, at a different scale, produced towards the end of AMT's original association with the franchise (before they were tossed out on their ear). So I'm puzzled that the AMT model is (in whatever incarnation) being alleged to be pretty much perfect (i.e., exactly matches one of the few high quality fan reconstructions) compared to the 11' studio model. If you could clear up what your diagram is based on (with as much detail as possible), that would be very helpful.
Thank you
just how "Inacurate and absurd" (or not) FJ's plans are/were? Considering what we knew of the fictional world of trek tech at the time, His plans work pretty well, they're well thought out and logicaly consistant. While there are many minor details that are in fact "inacuracies" and are no doubt the result of the limited referance materials then available, these can easily be corrected. However, we should perhaps define what exactly it is we mean by "inacurate" or "mistake" since many of the more obvious ways in which FJ's plans depart from (some of) the onscreen material was a deliberate attempt on his part to reconcile and compromise with those things that were (like the b/c deck hull shape) inconsistant. It makes sense that FJ would choose the more egg shaped b/c deck version from Jeffries drawings and the AMT/Constellation, because it affords more internal volume than the 3 or 11 footer does. This and other examples are not, and should not be considered, "mistakes" or "absurdities" as they were diliberate, reasoned choices on his part to choose the best working alternative from among the contradictory references. And remember, with 12 (or 13?) ships like the Enterprise in the fleet, there's room for one (the Enterprise) to look just like the 11 Foot model, and another ship like the the 3 foot model, another (the Constellation) like the AMT kit, and another (the Constitution) just as FJ drew her, and others in every concievable combination? As for this thread, my own feeling is that we should morph FJ's dimensions inline with what we now know is accurate as much as possible, correct as many actual minor internal mistakes as possible, and bow to FJ only when we feel he made the "right" choice between alternatives. IF or when, we get done, then we'll decide which of the 12 ships this is and we'll christen her accordingly.
) contradictory. It's kind of like reincarnation in the bible, I can read it in and someone else can read it right back out again.
