MR TOS Enterprise - new pics

[yodasan]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Watchman @ Feb 7 2007, 11:19 AM) [snapback]1413941[/snapback]</div>

The problem is MR is just as quiet on their own forums as they are here. There has been no communication on what is being down about this except the usual BS. Time to cancel my order and look for alternatives.
[/b]

Just because MR does not respond in their forums does not necessarily mean they are not watching.
It behooves all who have complaints to at least go to the MR forum and make your voice heard in their
official channel by e.g. voting in the poll:

http://masterreplicas.com/forum/showthread.php?t=228

Currently the average vote is 8.1 out of 10 which does not jibe with the contents of this thread.
MR can choose to completely ignore the poll but if the poll ends up with a high rating for their
Enterprise, due to poor sampling of the entire range of opinion, then they could say "what problem? - our
public poll showed that most people love our Enterprise."

 

[JLinNY]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Refit1701 @ Feb 7 2007, 08:25 PM) [snapback]1413986[/snapback]</div>

Are we missing the point that this is a replica of a studio model, not of the "actual" USS Enterprise? I'm sure the studio model was not perfect. Not that I am excusing major things like seam splits (mine has a small one) and such.

I don't have any pics in front of me but did the studio model have perfectly joined and filled seams around the warp pylons? If not, it could be said they replicated the original. Were the penciled lines totally consistent on the original?

I've chosen to keep mine. I'm sure I probably should have sent it back. But with no assurance of what a replacement will look like or when I may get it, I feel like a "bird in the hand is worth two in the bush".

Again, I'm not glossing over severe defects and MR should make good on their promise. But are we going to nitpick this to death?
[/b]

Actually it sounds like you are trying to gloss over the problems. So you're saying that if the original model had a cracked nacelle end cap, MR should have duplicated that? Pretty ridiculous, no?

Anyone here has a right to discuss issues that they have with a replica, especially if they paid over 1G for it. That's what this forum is for, discussion. If it bothers you, start your own thread about how you don't mind the defects. Jeez.

 

[Mola Rob]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(yodasan @ Feb 7 2007, 03:30 PM) [snapback]1413991[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Watchman @ Feb 7 2007, 11:19 AM) [snapback]1413941[/snapback]

The problem is MR is just as quiet on their own forums as they are here. There has been no communication on what is being down about this except the usual BS. Time to cancel my order and look for alternatives.
[/b]

Just because MR does not respond in their forums does not necessarily mean they are not watching.
It behooves all who have complaints to at least go to the MR forum and make your voice heard in their
official channel by e.g. voting in the poll:

http://masterreplicas.com/forum/showthread.php?t=228

Currently the average vote is 8.1 out of 10 which does not jibe with the contents of this thread.
MR can choose to completely ignore the poll but if the poll ends up with a high rating for their
Enterprise, due to poor sampling of the entire range of opinion, then they could say "what problem? - our
public poll showed that most people love our Enterprise."
[/b][/quote]

It shows a curious lack of respect for your customers. If MR would at least say they are trying to fix the problems and they are sorry for the inconvenience and disappointment it would be one thing but their Customer Service department is less then adequate and their communication skills suck.

The average vote the last time I looked was based on 9 or 10 entries which I would hardly call enough for an accurate poll. Not to mention the fact that many fans will simply keep their Enterprise just because it might be the only chance they might have to get a model like this so they are willing to settle for less. I will not settle for the quality issues for the amount of money this costs. If people are willing to overlook the flaws that is their choice and I hope they enjoy it. I expect more for the money and the research that went into this.

 

[Zumdish]

What's so bad is that a new $25 die cast 1701 from Corgi CAN withstand close scrutiny...yet a much larger and much more expensive model from MR/Corgi cannot.

Something is way wrong with this picture.

 

[Refit1701]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(JLinNY @ Feb 7 2007, 03:33 PM) [snapback]1413993[/snapback]</div>

Actually it sounds like you are trying to gloss over the problems. So you're saying that if the original model had a cracked nacelle end cap, MR should have duplicated that? Pretty ridiculous, no?

Anyone here has a right to discuss issues that they have with a replica, especially if they paid over 1G for it. That's what this forum is for, discussion. If it bothers you, start your own thread about how you don't mind the defects. Jeez.
[/b]

Sigh.

You are oversimplifying and making generalizations.

We are, right now, discussing this. It would do me little good to attempt to squelch discussion of the MR TOS E. I have posted pics of my model as an example of defects.

Obvious defects or broken parts on the prototype studio model would not be welcome. But if the nacelle pylons were not faired into the secondary hull, having them so on this replica *could* be said to be inaccurate. And we all know how totally obsessed with accuracy we, as ST fans, are. Did we want an accurate replica of the studio model (in it's prime when still in pristine condition) or an idealized replica of the "real" ship?

I noticed that the windows along the saucer edge don't match from port to starboard. Is this a mistake? Or does the prototype have this also? Apparently we are willing to allow this since it was on the studio model. But the pylons (which may or may not have been faired in) are a huge error?

I'm not sure why you'd say I was glossing over things when I am just participating in the overall discussions.

Carry on....

 

[Mola Rob]

"Were the penciled lines totally consistent on the original?"

Who knows, we couldn't really see them and we shouldn't be able to see them on the MR either.

 

[Refit1701]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(The Watchman @ Feb 7 2007, 05:10 PM) [snapback]1414042[/snapback]</div>

"Were the penciled lines totally consistent on the original?"

Who knows, we couldn't really see them and we shouldn't be able to see them on the MR either.
[/b]

I'll agree with you on that. But mine has them so there's no fixing it now unless I can match the paint color. :angel

 

[CessnaDriver]

Most of us are not nitpicking.
We're compromising to the point of reasonable expectations.

I say again, we should not even have to go through the excercise of opening the box with concerns ahead of time, and then making a keep it or not decision.

Can you think of any other product that this has happened on from MR?
I have bought many high end MR items and was happy.

Simple quality control and some training of their assemblers would solve most of these problems and cost so little money it is laughable.

SIMPLE stuff.

 

[Mola Rob]

I am not nitpicking either, I am simply disappointed that this has happened and I can't buy this and know it will be worth the money instead of wondering how big the paint chips will be and how long it will take for the impulse engines to fall off.

 

[pyxl]

All I know for certain is that when the ship was in development, you could find posts from Barry (MR) all over the place..on several forums. Suddenly, with the multiple quality issues cropping up...I hear crickets.

:thumbsdown

 

[Roger Ramjet]

I am not nitpicking, mine was returned for lighting issues as was CD's, to be honest, I did not even look for the other flaws all of you are posting about due to the fact I was not aware there were issues, but you can believe I will be looking closely once my replacement is delivered to me.

 

[Commander Max]

Simple quality control and some training of their assemblers would solve most of these problems and cost so little money it is laughable. [/b]

CD not really. First you have to send somebody over there. Most likely a group of somebody's. You have the cost of getting the group there, housing the group, feeding the group. Additional costs are translators, and any other support personal. How long are they going to be there? How willing is the subcontractor to honer the requests. It can get very expensive.

Most likely what happened-
Cash flow was low and some product is still on the shelves, MR needed to do something, quick.
So they put both the Falcon and Enterprise in development. The Falcon was the easiest/cheapest to develop.
Or they put more into the Falcon, it would have the greater return. The Enterprise was second but more costly to develop(it is more complex a model then the Falcon, electronics and all) , both(in their minds) were guaranteed sell outs.
After the sale to Corgi, they wanted to control costs. Which is normal behavior when a company is loosing money. The Falcon was to far into the process, to be really be hurt. The Enterprise on the other hand is a different story. This is all conjecture on my part.

What's so bad is that a new $25 die cast 1701 from Corgi CAN withstand close scrutiny...yet a much larger and much more expensive model from MR/Corgi cannot.

Something is way wrong with this picture.[/b]

It didn't it, it had one big flaw. Some of the engine parts were installed backwards. Someone else I'm sure will chime in on this.
Really nobody cares as much about a $25 toy.
A $1200 toy?
What is most likely the most anticipated model ever put out.
It will undergo the most scrutiny, the most criticisms. Where do they screw up?(gridlines, shape, insignia) No. In the one area that everybody would agree on, craftsmanship.

MR really dropped the ball on this one.

 

[CessnaDriver]

It is a interesting juxtaposition.

Laser cut windows, tiny micro print of signs, near screen accurate nacelle effects, perfect accurate scale shape on and on. All indicators of a superior model built by experts.

All that raises expectations.

Then we have much of that dogged by reports of
gaps, glue blobs, crooked grids, paint scuffs, white blotches, dings, wobbly saucers, buckled grills etc. All indicators of a amateur job built by a novice.

Bloody frustrating.

And that is why I think this product is like it is so far.

It IS built by BOTH experts and amateurs.

 

[rad1701]

Ok gang - got my Big E today. Now keep in mind I'm a HUGE Star Trek fan. I grew up on the reruns of TOS, drew countless Enterprise ships in my school notebooks, built many a Trek model, prop & bridge station in my time. I even do a Trek podcast these days. So this model is a dream come true for me. And it doesn't disappoint me. It is BEAUTIFUL. Does it have a few very tiny flaws and imperfections. Yes. But they are very, very tiny & minor. At least on my ship. I got the Limited Edition (got # 0006 of 1250). I don't see as much of the nasty problems on a few others I have seen online. I do see a very tiny bit of paint on the engine nacelle ends - very tiny. The homing beacon area is a tiny bit rough. And I have a very tiny chip of paint gone where one nacelle strut meets the secondary hull - very tiny. The gridlines on mine on the top and bottom seem the proper level on intensity. Not too harsh, not too soft. Could it be a little better - maybe. But I'm quite satisfied. It's a keeper in my book. I haven't had time to snap perfect pics, but here are a sampling below. I really love this beauty. :love

 

[CessnaDriver]

Cool. Maybe they are getting the hang of things, that is my hope. Glad your happy.
Another fellow over at the MR forum gave a positive report as well.
I would give those lights a good work out though during the warranty period.



Today was a mixed bag. A couple good reports and one bad.

But looks like many will be reporting soon and lots of deliverys coming up.

 

[rad1701]

Have lights gone out after running for some time period? Hadn't heard that yet. Thought they either have been working at first - or not. Hey - has anyone else reviewed an LE yet? I wonder if any changes were made on this batch. Again - it's not 100% perfect, but I'd give it about a 97% in my grade book. Which is pretty darn good.

 

[CessnaDriver]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rad1701 @ Feb 7 2007, 04:59 PM) [snapback]1414164[/snapback]</div>

Have lights gone out after running for some time period? Hadn't heard that yet. Thought they either have been working at first - or not. Hey - has anyone else reviewed an LE yet? I wonder if any changes were made on this batch. Again - it's not 100% perfect, but I'd give it about a 97% in my grade book. Which is pretty darn good.
[/b]

Someone had nacelle lights fail after having it a while.

 

[Commander Max]

Wow a ship in decent shape.
I hope is mine is the same.

 

[pyxl]

I think it's tough to determine what "good" and "bad" are in these reports.
You have people saying "I love it"...and then showing us pictures with
grids that are off center (see above) and gaps around the nacelle struts....
same things that other people said "I'm not happy with it".

I think the good thing is that most people here can correct the minor problems.

Assuming you don't mind paying that much and then needing to correct minor problems.

Overall, I love mine...because I know I can fix the nits. The homework on it was awesome and
they got a whole lot of the details right. It's now just evident that I have been right about
having it built in China....two Wongs don't make an Enterprise right.

 

[Refit1701]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CessnaDriver @ Feb 7 2007, 05:21 PM) [snapback]1414051[/snapback]</div>

Most of us are not nitpicking.
We're compromising to the point of reasonable expectations.

I say again, we should not even have to go through the excercise of opening the box with concerns ahead of time, and then making a keep it or not decision.

Can you think of any other product that this has happened on from MR?
I have bought many high end MR items and was happy.

Simple quality control and some training of their assemblers would solve most of these problems and cost so little money it is laughable.

SIMPLE stuff.
[/b]

True that. This was my first purchase of this type. All the other studio scale stuff I have are kits. I was just amazed at how some were getting out the torches and pitchforks. :eek

It would be nice to hear from Barry, who was our constant friend up until release. :unsure



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(CessnaDriver @ Feb 7 2007, 08:05 PM) [snapback]1414166[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rad1701 @ Feb 7 2007, 04:59 PM) [snapback]1414164[/snapback]

Have lights gone out after running for some time period? Hadn't heard that yet. Thought they either have been working at first - or not. Hey - has anyone else reviewed an LE yet? I wonder if any changes were made on this batch. Again - it's not 100% perfect, but I'd give it about a 97% in my grade book. Which is pretty darn good.
[/b]

Someone had nacelle lights fail after having it a while.
[/b][/quote]


I've run mine over night once already and plan do run it during the day for at least another 12 hours this weekend. If the lights or motors go, it is going to warp back to MR.