• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Shaw's recent art/research projects

I realize that I don't say much about anything, but Shaw's work is what brought me here in the first place.
Me too.

Long time forum lurker before I joined. I still don't usually have much to add to many conversations on here, but I was reading and rereading Shaw's work (and the interesting, helpful, unhelpful, and bewildering responses to it) for a long time before my first post, and still do.
 
Okay, fine... I put everything back up.

And for the fun of it, here are some pics of my 33 inch Enterprise...


Picture 1



Picture 2



Picture 3



Picture 4



Picture 5



I'm sure you guys might be interested in my history of the 33 inch Enterprise, which is also back up (here). And maybe some of my thoughts on the model, so here are questions that have popped up that I've been looking into.

Questions about the windows...
It looks like the windows have faded in areas that may have been cleaned, and someone has attempted to fix this with what looks like pieces of black graphic tape (and reflective tape in a couple spots). Some of the faded windows can still be seen.

Questions about the decals...
Some are in good shape, but the ones on the top of the primary hull appear damaged (again, possibly from attempts at cleaning). There are a ton of good sources for the original decals (the Smithsonian might even have a copy of one of the original sheets), but here is a comparison with my model's decals.


Decal comparison


Questions about the length...
Why is this thing being called 32 inches? Honestly, I'm not sure what the motive is here. The problem is that it can't be 32 inches, or even mistaken for that length. My model (if we consider it a good representation) is 33.75 inches, the actual model (with droopy nacelles) should be closer to 34 inches. The thing is, we get a good image of the model with the tape measure, and it is not 32 inches.


Model length study


Questions about the stand...
The known history... Once the 33 inch model was modified to match the details of the 11 foot model, Roddenberry requested that the model be given a stand for displaying it. Datin noted that he modified the model in December 1966 using a microphone stand. This, to my understanding, was a piece of pre-existing equipment he had laying around. This consisted of the wood base, the gooseneck arm and a plug piece for a mic to attach to. The plug piece (which screwed onto the arm) was embedded into the secondary hull body of the model. (Note: I embedded the top part of a quick-release adapter into my replica, though all the parts are still of a mid-60s vintage.)

Why are there wires on the bottom and voltage notes if the model was unlit? Both are from the stand's previous use before being pressed into service displaying the Enterprise model.

Does the business card look authentic? It would help to have one of Datin's cards from that period, but I do have an image of a flyer that Datin put out in the early 60s and the typeface and phone number match.


Display stand study


And here is a shot of my vintage gooseneck arm for my model...


Display arm for replica


So one of the things that has been bothering me is the rear nacelle intercooler (there is only one remaining). Why is it there and why is it backwards?

That part is backwards on my model because I based it on how the original model looked in December 1968. Here is a quick comparison with the original model's current state...


Rear nacelle comparison


But that part shouldn't be there... it was lost in the early 70s. Here is the history of that part of the model...


Rear nacelle configuration study


It isn't like it could grow back, and why put one of the other ones there and backwards? That is the type of thing someone who knows the model would do to make sure it was identified as the original model. That plus calling it 32 inches makes me a bit worried about who is putting the model out into the public at this time. They want to seem like they don't know what they have, but also want to make sure that people can identify it for what it is.
 
Seconded.

Perhaps the mic stand had some old wires left behind.

When Nimoy dressed as Spock is holding it up, it has a wider deflector dish than later.

I think it may have been dropped...or that--in the act of replacing it with a smaller dish--a screwdriver that was prizing at it did that little notch in the rings behind the dish.
 
A shame. Seems that happens to a lot of people who create art that others don't "approve of".

IIRC, there were some very rude people directing their overreactive vitriol towards Sean Tourangeau over his Titan design, Bill Krausse over his Titan design (what is it about the Titans that generate so much ire anyway?), and I think Adam Ihle took some heavy flak over the Enterprise-F. Many unconstructive criticisms came from people who haven't an artistic molecule in their body and could barely draw a stick-figure Enterprise, much less a cohesive overall ship design in 3D. Yet feel boldly entitled to lecture others how they think fictional space vessels should look.

"Should"... It is a vile word.

It is the way of evil things. The way of the Fandom Menace.
Sad but true. Glad Shaw didn't let it keep them down.
Many of us wholeheartedly approved of his work...
I realize that I don't say much about anything, but Shaw's work is what brought me here in the first place.
Unfortunately, and I am guilty of this as well, positive comments do not get posted often enough for artists to know the value of their work.
 
The Constellation...

Click to enlarge
If it isn't to much to ask--could we see an overlay of this and your 33' drawings---matching based on forward nacelle caps being the same?

An argument can be made that one is smaller.

The nacelle slots in the AMT look a tad too forwards?

I'm thinking the day may come soon where AMT kit parts could be scanned individually with features like tabs and slots might be clicked and dragged---the kit virtually assembled and new molds inferred.

Round 2 could sell them as different iterations.

I could see the nacelle tube "rotated" in VR with features remaining righted...such that the V of the nacelle pylons having a sharper angle but without skewing the nacelle trenches out of plane...so they could still face one another.

The neck tab is the big problem as the saucer still is "down at the bows" so to speak.

If I ever come into any money, I might try to get MRI scans and X-rays of assembled products.

Models aside, Playmates made the first ship TOYS of any size...apart from Dinky die-cast and similar, smaller fare.
 
Last edited:
I'll throw something together the next time I'm online... but yes, if one considers the original AMT kit as representing the Constellation's design (with the individual components being the same size as those of the Enterprise), the overall arrangement would make the Constellation's length shorter than the Enterprise.

I'm not sure why the original AMT kit was like this, but the 70's retooling addressed this oddity. Here is a comparison of the 1966 kit's secondary hull with the 2008 Round 2 re-release...


Secondary Hull Comparison


The placement of the dorsal and nacelle support openings are much closer together on the original kit.
 
IIRC, the original model had lights and the batteries were accessible from the front of the 2H. Those 3 protrusions around the dish base probably made it difficult to remove.
 
I wonder if anyone mixed two different kits for one build.

The B/C deck looks ever so much better on the original.

One individual put the Estes Enterprise rocket bridge on his AMT—at the 4:05 mark here:

The Estes kit also needs Mr. Chladek or someone to document its history as well.

The Estes kit nacelles seem to ride a bit higher:
https://www.rocketreviews.com/estes-star-trek-starship-enterprise-frank-casey-9056.html
https://lairofsecrets.com/blog/starship-enterprise-model-rocket/

The aft nacelle caps quite ample.
https://www.spacemodeling.org/jimz/estes/est1275.pdf
https://www.rocketryforum.com/threads/vintage-estes-uss-enterprise-build.62338/

Now I don’t think those would fit anything except the earliest AMTs, but the AMT aft nacelle caps of late 70s AMTs do fit the newer Revell Enterprise IIRC.

The Klingon model was different too:
https://www.oldrocketforum.com/showthread.php?t=19630&highlight=Enterprise

The new Playmates TOS Enterprise toy has a clear plastic “raft” that looks like the lower saucer…and I imagine it could be spliced on the ugly underside of the Estes saucer to fill its bow out…the “probe” tube in the neck being a super-impulse or something.

Parts of the Estes kit secondary hull are actually a bit closer to the curves that Matt intended.

The defunct McDaniels Models kit of Aridas’ Endeavor has vacuformed saucer parts that might also work. He had a solid resin plug that is to slide into his vac-formed secondary hull halves. Those nacelles won’t droop by gum.

The AMT spawned all these follow-ons—that are similar in size.
 
Last edited:
I've started on upgrading my 2010 study model to better match my studio scale Enterprise. This should progress faster than the 2009 model because I had made some of the replacement parts at the same time as the ones for that model, and the decals are just a scaled down version of the ones I made for the studio scale model.

Not sure if it is ready for a thread of its own just yet.

Here is how she looks right now...


 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top