The correct link would be http://wonderworksweb.com/ftpfolder/Photo/page3.html
"Star Trek: Phase II" Enterprise
- Thread starter Admiral Buzzkill
- Start date
Well, I guess it makes sense he had a life in the industry before George Lucas made his little space opera and promptly conquered the known universe...
It makes sense but is it in any way true? I haven't found any other reference to this.
I recall reading somewhere-- I think it was Cinemagic -- that he had worked with Westheimer in the 60s on the titles for TOS.
That would make life strangely a little more complete...
I heard that he's been alive forever, and that he wrote the very first song. 
Interview with Richard Edlund
Interview with Richard Edlund
Another entry for the updated Concordance.
That brought back memories. I dropped by Joe's old building a few years ago. I hadn't been in there for many years. It is now owned by a visual effects software company (can't recall the name - old age). The new staff were very nice and offered me a tour. It was strange to see computers, desks and monitors where there used to be process cameras and optical printers. I offered them some additional history of the building, including a famous photo spread that had been shot there years earlier with a promising young starlet named Marylin Monroe, and anecdotes about how some of the old Star Trek effects were produced. They were very receptive, and remarked with awe that they were occupying such an historic place.
Life goes on.
Life goes on.
You can finally watch the Trek to the Future episode here on Syfy. The Brick Price segment with the Phase II ship starts about 9 minutes in.
I don't know what the thing is actually worth, but Brick's thought of $100,000 is totally off-base, as screen-used models didn't go for that.
Here are some screen grabs and my notes:
As you can see in the above pix, the model appears to have been modified after Phase 2 was cancelled as the molds and castings of the forward engineering hull and "neck" feature a torpedo deck as was designed for the Star Trek: The Motion Picture model. This area is not consistent with photos of the model under construction in 1978. The odd diagonal on the mold of the hull implies that they recast this area to feature that detail.
Outboard side of a nacelle (port). Note the "intercooler" at the back and the faintly seen half-cylinder detail just forward of the cowling for the main grille, and just below the bakwards 7-shaped ribbed panel.
This shot (1 of 2) establishes that the casting held here is the inboard side of a nacelle (note the lack of the "intercooler").
This shot (2 of 2) establishes that the inboard side of a nacelle lacks a detail that the outboard side features (which appears just under the ribbed panel on the outboard side.
I don't know what the thing is actually worth, but Brick's thought of $100,000 is totally off-base, as screen-used models didn't go for that.
Here are some screen grabs and my notes:
As you can see in the above pix, the model appears to have been modified after Phase 2 was cancelled as the molds and castings of the forward engineering hull and "neck" feature a torpedo deck as was designed for the Star Trek: The Motion Picture model. This area is not consistent with photos of the model under construction in 1978. The odd diagonal on the mold of the hull implies that they recast this area to feature that detail.
Outboard side of a nacelle (port). Note the "intercooler" at the back and the faintly seen half-cylinder detail just forward of the cowling for the main grille, and just below the bakwards 7-shaped ribbed panel.
This shot (1 of 2) establishes that the casting held here is the inboard side of a nacelle (note the lack of the "intercooler").
This shot (2 of 2) establishes that the inboard side of a nacelle lacks a detail that the outboard side features (which appears just under the ribbed panel on the outboard side.
Last edited:
Thanks for the heads-up and screenshots!
I'm not sure about the price, though. The Enterprise-D went for $576,000 and the Lakota went for $110,000, so maybe Jon's estimate of $10-15,000 was a bit low. On the other hand, the other models were finished, high-profile ships and the Brick Price miniature is unfinished and in pieces without the nacelle pylons, but I'm sure the legendary status of the missing Enterprise compensates ... somewhat.
If I were into collecting, I think I'd be willing to go as high as $35K for that ship and then see if there were a way to mount the nacelles with clear acrylic for display.
Jumping back to this image...I notice the the blurprint indicate a dome atop the bridge, but it doesn't look like one was intended when one looks at the parts for the model. It features a concave area there with a nub in the center.Large ortho available by clicking on the image below.
I've always assumed that the concavity was to be covered with a dome cast or formed separately, and probably of a different material, since the design drawings available match up pretty closely with the model as originally constructed and the drawings feature a dome (even the placement of turbolifts and the "tunnel" or ridge connecting them appears on the model as it does in Jefferies' drawings). That the concavity existed to facilitate installation of lights or some mechanical effect seems to be the most likely explanation.
Possibly, but it's the nub in the center that makes me wonder.
Anyway, I was looking at your model again after seeing these photos and I noticed that you have the small detail just below the ribbed 7-shaped panels (at the front of each side of the nacelle) on both the inboard and outboard sides. From the video it appears this detail only appeared on the outboard sides. A minor tweak, I'm sure.
If the detail you'e talking about is the one I think it is, it looks like it appears on the inboard nacelles in Mike Minor's production art:
As I recollect now, a year after the fact, my priorities were that if a detail appeared on the unfinished model I put it on the CG model. If it appeared in Jefferies' drawing, I put it in. If it appeared in the earlier Minor paintings/drawings that tracked the Phase II version (as opposed to his late repainting of the thing incorporating a lot of the ST:TMP detail) I tried to put it in.
Any conflicts were resolved in favor of the model first, Jefferies second, and Minor third (that's in regard to detailing; I derived shapes and measurements directly from Jefferies drawings, since they could be referenced more reliably than trying to estimate things from photos of the model).
However, simply because something is missing from the model I'm not inclined to assume that there was no intention to add it, since the model was never completed - a variation on "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
I did decline to add some of the detailing that only appeared in Minor's paintings because I decided it was probably arrant invention on his part - the Jefferies drawings were rather plain-hulled. Minor puts in "dimples" on the underside of the saucer hull that seem to correspond to the three indentations appearing on early moldings of the AMT Enterprise model...I dunno, I just wasn't buying that as the intention of the designers or builders.
The one thing I flat-out "cheated" on in the CG model was illuminating the nacelle caps. There's no reason based on reference materials to think that this was intended, but I could never come up with anything from looking at the treatment of them in pictures that made any visual sense to me.
As I recollect now, a year after the fact, my priorities were that if a detail appeared on the unfinished model I put it on the CG model. If it appeared in Jefferies' drawing, I put it in. If it appeared in the earlier Minor paintings/drawings that tracked the Phase II version (as opposed to his late repainting of the thing incorporating a lot of the ST:TMP detail) I tried to put it in.
Any conflicts were resolved in favor of the model first, Jefferies second, and Minor third (that's in regard to detailing; I derived shapes and measurements directly from Jefferies drawings, since they could be referenced more reliably than trying to estimate things from photos of the model).
However, simply because something is missing from the model I'm not inclined to assume that there was no intention to add it, since the model was never completed - a variation on "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
I did decline to add some of the detailing that only appeared in Minor's paintings because I decided it was probably arrant invention on his part - the Jefferies drawings were rather plain-hulled. Minor puts in "dimples" on the underside of the saucer hull that seem to correspond to the three indentations appearing on early moldings of the AMT Enterprise model...I dunno, I just wasn't buying that as the intention of the designers or builders.
The one thing I flat-out "cheated" on in the CG model was illuminating the nacelle caps. There's no reason based on reference materials to think that this was intended, but I could never come up with anything from looking at the treatment of them in pictures that made any visual sense to me.
Price may be counting on folks wanting their own Phase II Enterprise and, if he can secure the licensing, start cranking out copies for customers with too much money. Why sell the molds for $15,000 when he can maybe get that much per copy?
I tend to agree with this line of thinking. However, the detail in question does appear on the mold for the outboard half and not the inboard half, which tends to make me think it was not going to be there. Jefferies' plans are not consistent on this detail. It's seen on the inboard side in both the bottom view and cutaway drawing dated Nov. 77), but not the outboard side in the bottom view. It's clearly on the outboard side in the side view dated Sept. 5 77. However, the Nov. 77 cutaway and bottom plan has the note "Drawing not updated to reflect changes made on miniature by Matt Jefferies Nov 77", which contributes to the problem.However, simply because something is missing from the model I'm not inclined to assume that there was no intention to add it, since the model was never completed - a variation on "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
I did notice that on the Sept. 5, 1977 plans the two details under the nose of each nacelle cap have been X-ed out, and don't appear to be on the molds or the castings. Those details do appear on the later cutaway drawing, but that features "not updated" note. As such, I'd go with the model as cast on those details: no details under the nose of each nacelle, and that other detail only on the outboard side. YMMV, of course.
Last edited:
I wonder if a low-cost 'styrofoam' version could be had using that mold...
It wouldn't look as nice as this, but..
http://wonderworksweb.com/ftpfolder/Photo/pictures/image137.jpg
It wouldn't look as nice as this, but..
http://wonderworksweb.com/ftpfolder/Photo/pictures/image137.jpg
I'd still like to know what's up with that cowcatcher on the hangar doors...
Wire and LED mount. The bridge dome was supposed to get a new interior light to it and wasn't completed for Phase II. That's why it looks odd in the models.
