While the paper size was an assumption, the previous versions of the plans (most likely from mid October of 1964) actually included scale references on them and size call-outs (including the length of the secondary hull at 217', diameters of the secondary hull at 52' and thickness of the dorsal at 10'), but the final plans for the model had none of this. Rather, the final plans (which were finished three days after the 33 inch model had been started) came with a single notation that read:
"STAR TREK"
SPACE SHIP MINIATURE - FULL SIZE
& 3" = 1'-0" TO LARGE MINIATURE
MATT JEFFERIES 11-7-64
My understanding is that the dimensions (on the page) of the primary hull and secondary hull were the same between the earlier plans and the final plans. The general shape of the primary hull (though obviously the curves on the 33 inch model most likely came from one of the earlier drawings) and it's diameter were the same, and the length and shape of the secondary hull (though the front of the secondary hull on the final plans is quite different) were also the same. This let Datin start in on the 33 inch model before having the final plans as production was starting to get behind.
And some of these drawings might have been done straight onto bonded paper, making each an only copy, which might have been why older plans were used for things like hull markings rather than using a copy. With time running out, they most likely decided to use what they had on hand pushing the older drawings back into use as a time saver.
I know from my experience on
Starship Exeter that we had a couple weeks to design and build a shuttlecraft interior set. We settled on a two wall set and I drew up the plans very roughly reverse engineering them from screen grabs of the original series set... and the plans were not pretty. But what we got in the way of a set was beautiful.
I don't have any images of the finished set, but here are a couple of it under construction...
In retrospect, I guess we actually had a few years to finish... but we didn't know that at the time.
But if Jefferies was under the same pressure that I (and the guys at
mnfx) was under while working on
The Cage, then corners were most likely cut to get something down on the page for people to start working with. And that early in November of 1964, the only thing on the model Enterprise that had to match a sets being built was the bridge dome... as the zoom in on the bridge was already planned on, and the part that used the set was finished and
in the can before the 11 foot model was even started.
And when the 11 foot model was started I'd guess that they used a pantograph to make the size changes from the original plans. From what I can tell, even though rushed (the 11 foot model was built in three weeks), the 11 foot model matches what was drawn on the final plans better than the 33 inch model.
But yeah, there are a number of assumptions there... based on my personal experiences. Considering that I worked a fan film and never took a drafting course, my experiences might not be as close to those of Jefferies as I believe. So far additional data has supported my assumptions, but as soon as something pops up that undermines them, I'm sure I'll have to re-evaluate everything.
Edit: As this is already a long post...
Okee doke. Sounds like we had similar backgrounds (draftsman from 1974 till the "computer age" made me leave the pens and pencils behind). I think my hands are STILL dry from running Diazo copies.
I still have most of my drafting stencils and all of my french curves... I still love drawing things by hand to this day. It is funny in that back in the early 1990s while I was hand drawing everything, a friend tried to show me the way of the future. He tried to do some plans on his old Mac Plus using Illustrator 88, and it seemed it took him forever to do anything.
Today I can do everything much faster on a computer than by hand... it is amazing how times have changed.
).
