Pros and cons of Franz Joseph's plans
- Thread starter TIN_MAN
- Start date
I'll do a Sinclair image with FJ and see how it compares to the Casmiro.
Trek Kitbashers and the Curse of the AMT Model!
http://www.culttvman2.com/dnn/tabid/74/ctl/ArticleView/mid/408/articleId/6/Default.aspx
http://www.culttvman2.com/dnn/tabid/74/ctl/ArticleView/mid/408/articleId/6/Default.aspx
To everyone,
I'm going to start replying to this thread, but I may... almost certainly won't... get caught up today (I have limited time as usual, and have spent several hours researching various aspects of the thread). So, if I don't seem to be responding to a particular point that has already been made, please bear with me... I will try to do so fairly soon.
I'm going to start replying to this thread, but I may... almost certainly won't... get caught up today (I have limited time as usual, and have spent several hours researching various aspects of the thread). So, if I don't seem to be responding to a particular point that has already been made, please bear with me... I will try to do so fairly soon.
The drawing itself is actually a slightly modified pic of an ideally accurized AMT model that I got from, I'm pretty sure, Warped9 a while ago, with the modifications being that I "corrected" it back to a stock AMT model, circa 1966 (based mainly on a direct 1:1 scale study of a '66 model that I did myself, but the scanner I had wasn't big enough to do a proper scan and was being cranky anyway, so it was easier to alter the pic I already had on file).
I don't know who you've been talking to, but neither the venerable 18" model, in any molding, nor the 22" cutaway, have ever been touted as being accurate, at least not by anyone who had a clue as to what they were talking about. The 22" model corrected some of the inaccuracies of the 18" model, but then turned right around and introduced more! This may have been great for the cottage industry that has grown up over the decades to provide accurizing parts for these things, but for modelers, it was just trading one form of insanity for another.
Anyway, to answer the question at hand, it's the 18" model that's being cited, mainly because that's the most likely to have been used as a reference in 1973 when FJ drew his plans, as opposed to the cutaway model which wasn't introduced until the mid 1990's.
I actually prefer Sinclair's, but as I said, Casimiro's have a better line weight, especially for smaller pics like these, and for the purposes of this discussion, Sinclair and Casimiro are so close that they're essentially identical, so it's for technical reasons that I used Casimiro's version.
CRA (or anyone), do we know why Casmiro's and Sinclair's plans seem to differ so much anyway?
Here's a comparison of Sinclair and the FJ plans.
As you can see, they're pretty close. I'd say Sinclair is the best bet. I placed his cross section of the correct deflector rings section in to give us a hopefully accurate idea of how much of FJ's plans we have to lose to make that accurate. I also stretched and skewed the a-b-c deck platfrom. Other than the lower saucer, it looks like only minor snips are needed to make it fit.
Thoughts?
Here's a comparison of Sinclair and the FJ plans.
As you can see, they're pretty close. I'd say Sinclair is the best bet. I placed his cross section of the correct deflector rings section in to give us a hopefully accurate idea of how much of FJ's plans we have to lose to make that accurate. I also stretched and skewed the a-b-c deck platfrom. Other than the lower saucer, it looks like only minor snips are needed to make it fit.
Thoughts?
CRA,
I only had a few minutes to read the thread and initially I was just going to give a quick status report, but your AMT related post and the comments associated with it caught my eye and I decided to sling off that quick question. In the process I managed to misinterpret your drawing, due to my necessary haste, for which I apologize.
In general, the issues I brought up still stand, at least with the information available to me. My comment about the allegedly incorrect size of the primary hull of the AMT 18" model comes from an article originally printed in Trek magazine, reprinted in one of the "Best of Trek" paperbacks (where I read it), and what I have stated is as I remember it. My own research materials are buried in storage, so if someone can look in one of the earlier
BoT's for the article I would be in their debt. At one point, ten years or more ago I think I did some measurements to get to the bottom of the situation, but at this point I have no memory of the results. Which may indicate that what I already thought was confirmed.
In any case, the AMT model has a number of inaccuracies, but I was not able to document the size issues in any internet reference. Other deficiencies do exist, and there is a cottage industry (with varying manufacturers over the years) to correct these, including complete replacement of the primary hull. So I would be somewhat surprised if the AMT model in question was accurate, and I look forward to hearing more details from you answering some of those original questions. In the mean time, here are some references that might be of interest:
A History of the AMT Enteprise Model by Jay Chladek
(As mentioned by Vance -- thank you, this was on the top of my list to post)
http://www.culttvman2.com/dnn/tabid/74/ctl/ArticleView/mid/408/articleId/6/Default.aspx
Federation Models TOS 18" Accurizing Parts
http://www.federationmodels.com/products/accurate_parts/default.htm
David Merriman's Building the Classic Enterprise
http://www.culttvman2.com/dnn/Featu...icleType/ArticleView/articleId/3/Default.aspx
Somehow the lower part of his primary hull transforms into the correct shape (more or less) but after skimming the article several times I don't see this discussed. At least it looks completely different than any 18" AMT that I've held in my hands.
An 18" Enterprise Build - Finished
http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?t=68613
Accurizing an 18" Enterprise
http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?t=69882
Paul Newitt's SF Assembly Manuals
http://www.arapress.com/sfam.html
I've decided to include Agatha Chamberlain's contributions along with more general issues, even though her efforts were intended to benefit modelers.
In any case, we can see its a lot of work to 'whip the old girl into shape', and she's probably still not perfect (which is why people patch the larger AMT cutaway model into a non-cutaway model). Depending upon the vintage of the model, completely different corrections would be needed. Concerning the accuracy of the painting guide, I believe this has changed repeatedly over the years. I believe, somewhere at the dawn of time, I had a late version of the "Long Box" kit. I later had several different versions of the "Small Box" kit. In every case, except for purchases close together in time, a completely different painting guide is what I recall finding inside the box. So, when the model was produced is an important issue. And whether we are talking about paper or plastic is an important issue.
So, what does this have to do with FJ? Well, this is a type of discussion that tends to roam to related topics. The model, in theory, is a contender for an "accurate" depiction of the TV starship (certainly as the Constellation), and was available for FJ to use as a reference. Whether he did so or not is an issue for others to answer (perhaps someone can ask his daughter just what he had for references -- I have listed what I think he had elsewhere, but much of what I said is supposition not fact). If the model is more accurate than FJ, that's a fact to be found, if the model was a reference to FJ (and therefore responsible for inaccuracies, that's another fact to be found).
I only had a few minutes to read the thread and initially I was just going to give a quick status report, but your AMT related post and the comments associated with it caught my eye and I decided to sling off that quick question. In the process I managed to misinterpret your drawing, due to my necessary haste, for which I apologize.
In general, the issues I brought up still stand, at least with the information available to me. My comment about the allegedly incorrect size of the primary hull of the AMT 18" model comes from an article originally printed in Trek magazine, reprinted in one of the "Best of Trek" paperbacks (where I read it), and what I have stated is as I remember it. My own research materials are buried in storage, so if someone can look in one of the earlier
BoT's for the article I would be in their debt. At one point, ten years or more ago I think I did some measurements to get to the bottom of the situation, but at this point I have no memory of the results. Which may indicate that what I already thought was confirmed.
In any case, the AMT model has a number of inaccuracies, but I was not able to document the size issues in any internet reference. Other deficiencies do exist, and there is a cottage industry (with varying manufacturers over the years) to correct these, including complete replacement of the primary hull. So I would be somewhat surprised if the AMT model in question was accurate, and I look forward to hearing more details from you answering some of those original questions. In the mean time, here are some references that might be of interest:
A History of the AMT Enteprise Model by Jay Chladek
(As mentioned by Vance -- thank you, this was on the top of my list to post)
http://www.culttvman2.com/dnn/tabid/74/ctl/ArticleView/mid/408/articleId/6/Default.aspx
Federation Models TOS 18" Accurizing Parts
http://www.federationmodels.com/products/accurate_parts/default.htm
David Merriman's Building the Classic Enterprise
http://www.culttvman2.com/dnn/Featu...icleType/ArticleView/articleId/3/Default.aspx
Somehow the lower part of his primary hull transforms into the correct shape (more or less) but after skimming the article several times I don't see this discussed. At least it looks completely different than any 18" AMT that I've held in my hands.
An 18" Enterprise Build - Finished
http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?t=68613
Accurizing an 18" Enterprise
http://www.starshipmodeler.net/talk/viewtopic.php?t=69882
Paul Newitt's SF Assembly Manuals
http://www.arapress.com/sfam.html
I've decided to include Agatha Chamberlain's contributions along with more general issues, even though her efforts were intended to benefit modelers.
In any case, we can see its a lot of work to 'whip the old girl into shape', and she's probably still not perfect (which is why people patch the larger AMT cutaway model into a non-cutaway model). Depending upon the vintage of the model, completely different corrections would be needed. Concerning the accuracy of the painting guide, I believe this has changed repeatedly over the years. I believe, somewhere at the dawn of time, I had a late version of the "Long Box" kit. I later had several different versions of the "Small Box" kit. In every case, except for purchases close together in time, a completely different painting guide is what I recall finding inside the box. So, when the model was produced is an important issue. And whether we are talking about paper or plastic is an important issue.
So, what does this have to do with FJ? Well, this is a type of discussion that tends to roam to related topics. The model, in theory, is a contender for an "accurate" depiction of the TV starship (certainly as the Constellation), and was available for FJ to use as a reference. Whether he did so or not is an issue for others to answer (perhaps someone can ask his daughter just what he had for references -- I have listed what I think he had elsewhere, but much of what I said is supposition not fact). If the model is more accurate than FJ, that's a fact to be found, if the model was a reference to FJ (and therefore responsible for inaccuracies, that's another fact to be found).
When I was doing most of the building of that kit, back when dinosaurs ruled the earth and we'd just discovered fire, there was no "painting guide". If there was a reference, it just said, "look at the box art."
When they did finally include a painting guide, the pictures on the pages were from FJ's plans (or maybe from the FASA deck plans, which were largely copied from FJ, so it's the same difference), so using that gets us absolutely nowhere. Besides, the colors they suggested were ludicrous. I've threatened to build one according to the directions and sit it next to a fully accurized version as a joke, but never have followed through on that plan, simply because putting a poor defenseless model through that hasn't really seemed worth it.
In any case, I didn't use any "painting guide", I used the model itself. My late, lamented 1966 version, with working lights and everything, that, sadly, didn't survive the eviction purge. Only have one Bussard dome from the poor thing....I'm thinking of making some castings of it.
I think I have my own study drawing on hand at home; if I do, I'll try and get it scanned in.
When they did finally include a painting guide, the pictures on the pages were from FJ's plans (or maybe from the FASA deck plans, which were largely copied from FJ, so it's the same difference), so using that gets us absolutely nowhere. Besides, the colors they suggested were ludicrous. I've threatened to build one according to the directions and sit it next to a fully accurized version as a joke, but never have followed through on that plan, simply because putting a poor defenseless model through that hasn't really seemed worth it.
In any case, I didn't use any "painting guide", I used the model itself. My late, lamented 1966 version, with working lights and everything, that, sadly, didn't survive the eviction purge. Only have one Bussard dome from the poor thing....I'm thinking of making some castings of it.
I think I have my own study drawing on hand at home; if I do, I'll try and get it scanned in.
Forbin,
I swear that somewhere I read that the initial set of BoGP that Franz Joseph sold at the conventions were uncut, but for the life of me I can't document it at this moment. Alternately, they might be the six initial review copies. Or fakes. Digging around further on FalTorPan's pages might or might not provide the answer, or emailing his daughter might get to the bottom of it.
http://www.trekplace.com/franzjoseph.html
I swear that somewhere I read that the initial set of BoGP that Franz Joseph sold at the conventions were uncut, but for the life of me I can't document it at this moment. Alternately, they might be the six initial review copies. Or fakes. Digging around further on FalTorPan's pages might or might not provide the answer, or emailing his daughter might get to the bottom of it.
http://www.trekplace.com/franzjoseph.html
CRA,
Your post came in as I was writing mine, sorry I missed it.
> I don't know who you've been talking to, but neither
> the venerable 18" model, in any molding, nor the 22"
> cutaway, have ever been touted as being accurate, at
> least not by anyone who had a clue as to what they
> were talking about.
The conversation here turned to how the AMT plan you provided was more accurate than FJ's, and in my haste misinterpreted your post as saying the AMT was identical with the modern reconstructions. As to the cutaway version being more accurate, that's what I've gathered from modeling websites, around the time it came out (i.e., initial reviews upon shipping). I've never built one myself and don't own one.
Out of time for today, will respond further ASAP. Thanks for getting back to us on my questions.
Your post came in as I was writing mine, sorry I missed it.
> I don't know who you've been talking to, but neither
> the venerable 18" model, in any molding, nor the 22"
> cutaway, have ever been touted as being accurate, at
> least not by anyone who had a clue as to what they
> were talking about.
The conversation here turned to how the AMT plan you provided was more accurate than FJ's, and in my haste misinterpreted your post as saying the AMT was identical with the modern reconstructions. As to the cutaway version being more accurate, that's what I've gathered from modeling websites, around the time it came out (i.e., initial reviews upon shipping). I've never built one myself and don't own one.
Out of time for today, will respond further ASAP. Thanks for getting back to us on my questions.
Well, if you are discussing AMT's 18" Enterprise then Dave Merriman's is totally irrelevant since it is a complete scratchbuild at somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-odd inches IIRC. Not that it matters, but Dave (also IIRC) is a staunch non-Star Trek fan and he built this as a commission for a client. He also is religiously dedicated to scratch building and holds all "kit assemblers" in lowest esteem. But if you can handle all his cracks about how stupid you are to even need him to write an article for you, he actually has some good techniques in there.
--Alex
Merriman was also working from inaccurate reference materials, which included the wasp-waisted secondary hull, so we here at TrekBBS are proud to award Dave Merriman with this week's Flying Fickle Finger of Fate award, for producing a stunningly detailed, but in the end, inaccurate, model of a subject he has no use for in the first place.
Praeter, I don't know why Casimiro's and Sinclair's designs differ so much, but the fact that they do should serve to remind us how, even in this day and age of copious references, just how hard it can still be to pin down accurate dimensions to work with. As for the deflector rings, would it be too much trouble to ask to see an example of the ship both ways? That is, one view with the space filled like FJ had it, and another with the deeper deflector rings? And on that last part, are we shure that the space behind the dish on the model is actually the way Jeffries intended the 'real' ship to be? After all, his plans in T.M.O.S.T show some interesting and complex machinery there. I think Aridas has done the best job of 'fleshing out' the details of what that area should look like (based on Jeffries), his version really looks like something we'd see on a huge starship, as opposed to something on a little filming model of an area we were never able (or supposed) to see anyway.
No, I can whip that up quickly. I left it in there, it's just covered.
Yeah, I'm kinda torn on that one. I tend to side with Jefferies when it comes to, well, almost everything but the facts of the model's design are hard to dispute, and if we start disregarding one thing, then we're kinda opening a Pandora's box for disregarding anything else we feel like.
I dunno, what do you think?
Yeah, I was thinking that same thing.
Praeter, On the deflector, I'm open to whatever the consensus is, let's wait for everybody to chime in on that before we proceed.
Ancient, I'm perfectly willing to part with deck 24, it's just storage anyway, after all. But as for deck 11, I think the best option would be to absorb it into deck 10 since that deck is also just storage and the only thing on deck 11 is the phaser room, which is also surrounded by storage. Incidentaly, I have some ideas as to haw to bring FJ's phaser room more in line with what we saw onscreen, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. As for the bigger ship size? I have no problem with that either, it would emediatly, in one stoke, allow for a lot of things to be much more like we saw them onscreen. I also find the length of 1080 intrigueing since another hobby of mine is sacred archtecture, and 1080 was one of the main proportions in the sacred "canon" of measure! I'm reminded here of the book "Meaning in Star Trek" where the author (Karin Blair) speculates on the archetypal significance of the design of the Enterprise. So maybe Scotty and the other designers of the Connie class were all members of a secret society?
Ancient, I'm perfectly willing to part with deck 24, it's just storage anyway, after all. But as for deck 11, I think the best option would be to absorb it into deck 10 since that deck is also just storage and the only thing on deck 11 is the phaser room, which is also surrounded by storage. Incidentaly, I have some ideas as to haw to bring FJ's phaser room more in line with what we saw onscreen, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. As for the bigger ship size? I have no problem with that either, it would emediatly, in one stoke, allow for a lot of things to be much more like we saw them onscreen. I also find the length of 1080 intrigueing since another hobby of mine is sacred archtecture, and 1080 was one of the main proportions in the sacred "canon" of measure! I'm reminded here of the book "Meaning in Star Trek" where the author (Karin Blair) speculates on the archetypal significance of the design of the Enterprise. So maybe Scotty and the other designers of the Connie class were all members of a secret society?
Last edited:
Alex,
Actually, you're right on that. I've read the article before and I should have known that. He rambles on for the first page and then briefly mentions the model's size. Good catch.
Actually, you're right on that. I've read the article before and I should have known that. He rambles on for the first page and then briefly mentions the model's size. Good catch.
CRA,
> The drawing itself is actually a slightly modified pic
> of an ideally accurized AMT model that I got from, I'm
> pretty sure, Warped9 a while ago, with the modifications
> being that I "corrected" it back to a stock AMT model,
> circa 1966 (based mainly on a direct 1:1 scale study of
> a '66 model that I did myself, but the scanner I had
> wasn't big enough to do a proper scan and was being
> cranky anyway, so it was easier to alter the pic I
> already had on file).
Do you happen to have the unmodified version of the file, presumably its of a later period model?
> In any case, I didn't use any "painting guide", I used
> the model itself.
Since you didn't specify I felt I should ask. Some people would assume they are the same, and it would be a lot easier to whip up a graphic using the printed documentation than the real model, so I wanted to clear up any possible confusion. I'm glad you've confirmed my suspicions.
> My late, lamented 1966 version, with working lights
> and everything, that, sadly, didn't survive the
> eviction purge. Only have one Bussard dome from the
> poor thing....I'm thinking of making some castings
> of it.
Yes, at one time or another it seems like we've all "payed for the party with our dearest blood."
> I think I have my own study drawing on hand at home; > if I do, I'll try and get it scanned in.
That would be very helpful. Any information on all versions of the model would be of help to the big picture.
> The drawing itself is actually a slightly modified pic
> of an ideally accurized AMT model that I got from, I'm
> pretty sure, Warped9 a while ago, with the modifications
> being that I "corrected" it back to a stock AMT model,
> circa 1966 (based mainly on a direct 1:1 scale study of
> a '66 model that I did myself, but the scanner I had
> wasn't big enough to do a proper scan and was being
> cranky anyway, so it was easier to alter the pic I
> already had on file).
Do you happen to have the unmodified version of the file, presumably its of a later period model?
> In any case, I didn't use any "painting guide", I used
> the model itself.
Since you didn't specify I felt I should ask. Some people would assume they are the same, and it would be a lot easier to whip up a graphic using the printed documentation than the real model, so I wanted to clear up any possible confusion. I'm glad you've confirmed my suspicions.
> My late, lamented 1966 version, with working lights
> and everything, that, sadly, didn't survive the
> eviction purge. Only have one Bussard dome from the
> poor thing....I'm thinking of making some castings
> of it.
Yes, at one time or another it seems like we've all "payed for the party with our dearest blood."
> I think I have my own study drawing on hand at home; > if I do, I'll try and get it scanned in.
That would be very helpful. Any information on all versions of the model would be of help to the big picture.
Similar threads
