Are the "box display edition" ships able to be removed FROM the box? I've been after the Enterprise-E for a while but it's out of stock, however the box edition has just popped up at only £2 more...
Are the "box display edition" ships able to be removed FROM the box? I've been after the Enterprise-E for a while but it's out of stock, however the box edition has just popped up at only £2 more...
Do you mean this? The listing has photos of the ship on its stand as usual, so I think it's safe to say it's removable. It doesn't even have a pack shot of the ship in the box, just a render of the empty box.Are the "box display edition" ships able to be removed FROM the box? I've been after the Enterprise-E for a while but it's out of stock, however the box edition has just popped up at only £2 more...
It shouldn't make it weaker. It's just a slight reaction, like how white plastic often yellows. You should be able to clean them up again with a bit of baking power or even toothpaste, and a soft cloth to polish.I noticed that EM's clear stands, which are completely transparent at first, turn cloudy after some time when they are exposed to daylight. Does anyone know if this affects their "structural integrity"?
Yeah so you can take the box display ships out of the box and I would also never choose to display it IN the box since there's no obvious way you could put it on the stand and still have it fit. All you get for the extra £2 is a fancier box and a mini (read: makes the text too small to understand) version of the magazine.
Worth it for the model though. Bought the Klingon Raptor at the same time and that's awesome too, though the "rigging" is a bit flimsy and could have been made part of the main body (so it wasn't hanging loose) without sacrificing accuracy.
Congrats to us all!(Wow. 500 pages. Is this the longest thread here?)
I might be a bit anal about this, but that weirdly low registry number always irked me. It might've even been the reason I waited so long to get this one. (And I know there's a more appropriate looking number on the plaque). I've heard the suggestion that "the ship took a long time to design", but I think a new ship would still have a higher number, regardless of how long it was in design stage. (The numbers for the Galaxy and the Defiant support this).
I’d wager they’re good enough, giving how little we first saw of the Battle at the Binaries fleet in terms of surface details.I wonder how detailed these CG models are, since the ships were probably not supposed to be seen in closeup.
On the Borg cube box, DS9 is first I've noticed. I think Markonian is right when they wrote it is probably just a visual thing. Size of the logos perhaps?They understand the abbreviations, they don't understand why they are in the order that they are.
Reverse chronological order maybe?
minor spoiler for episodes 1 and 3 of DSC s3.
On Twitter, the Jörg Hillebrand has presented his analysis of the 31st century Starfleet ships: https://twitter.com/gaghyogi49/status/1322568066346160128?s=21
Ben Robinson quoted that tweet and added that they have the CG assets! Source: https://twitter.com/bencsrobinson/status/1322811359168520192?s=21
I really wanna have the Type 3!
The model gotta be one-piece somehow. I rarely ever use any stands.I wonder what kind of stand they'll design for it. Something like this?
![]()
We see debris of one of the designs close up, and another design we're going to see in a future episode based on a trailer..I wonder how detailed these CG models are, since the ships were probably not supposed to be seen in closeup.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.