MR TOS Enterprise - new pics
- Thread starter rhboyd
- Start date
They do use decals sometimes.
The first one I had, they used a decal for one of the frame reference numbers.
The one I have now, they used a decal for the short red stripe on the right warp engine next to the registry numbers. It is slightly crooked.
Why they do this I am not sure. I guess if it gets printed poorly or whatever method they use to paint the markings on and this is a back up to save it.
It is sealed under the clear coat, but it does reflect light different and is not perfectly straight.
The first one I had, they used a decal for one of the frame reference numbers.
The one I have now, they used a decal for the short red stripe on the right warp engine next to the registry numbers. It is slightly crooked.
Why they do this I am not sure. I guess if it gets printed poorly or whatever method they use to paint the markings on and this is a back up to save it.
It is sealed under the clear coat, but it does reflect light different and is not perfectly straight.
QuiGonFishing
Active Member
Cessna is absolutely right about the decals. The specs are written to include no decaling at all, but they do use one or two here and there as an escape hatch to save an otherwise shippable ship...
And I think that's a problem. Yes, if properly applied decaling looks nearly as good as the paint, but ageing could eventually become a factor. But that's only a symptom of what I believe the problem with MR's philosophy on this and other QC issues appears to be...
Just the idea that they have what I'm sure is a full set of decals (with the possible exception of the primary registry) ready to go at a moment's notice to use to get as many ships out the door as they can, i.e. as few ships as possible hitting the scrap heap.
Now don't get me wrong, every company wants to insure that the ratio of products shipped to products manufactured is as high as possible, but I think that what this decal/salvage program reveals is MR's willingness to ship even when they know in their heart of hearts that some should have been scrapped. Patch it up and send it out. To sum up:
It's only a problem if a customer says it's a problem by sending it back. When in reality, QC should have "sent it back" before any of us even had the opportunity.
The truly cynical part of this philosophy, I'm afraid, is that a company that makes these types of items knows full well that unlike just about any other product you could name, we sci-fi/fansasy/prop collectors would almost rather send back our mother's than a piece we've dreamed of owning for 30 years. That fact does an awful lot of the heavy-lifting for MR in terms of their QC policy for free... And they know it.
Maybe MR's profit margin is even thinner than we're surmising
And I think that's a problem. Yes, if properly applied decaling looks nearly as good as the paint, but ageing could eventually become a factor. But that's only a symptom of what I believe the problem with MR's philosophy on this and other QC issues appears to be...
Just the idea that they have what I'm sure is a full set of decals (with the possible exception of the primary registry) ready to go at a moment's notice to use to get as many ships out the door as they can, i.e. as few ships as possible hitting the scrap heap.
Now don't get me wrong, every company wants to insure that the ratio of products shipped to products manufactured is as high as possible, but I think that what this decal/salvage program reveals is MR's willingness to ship even when they know in their heart of hearts that some should have been scrapped. Patch it up and send it out. To sum up:
It's only a problem if a customer says it's a problem by sending it back. When in reality, QC should have "sent it back" before any of us even had the opportunity.
The truly cynical part of this philosophy, I'm afraid, is that a company that makes these types of items knows full well that unlike just about any other product you could name, we sci-fi/fansasy/prop collectors would almost rather send back our mother's than a piece we've dreamed of owning for 30 years. That fact does an awful lot of the heavy-lifting for MR in terms of their QC policy for free... And they know it.
Maybe MR's profit margin is even thinner than we're surmising
Well, QGF, remember that the TOS Phaser and Communicator both shipped with obvious SHAPE problems, which could have been fixed, but it would have cost MR money to re-tool.
So the problems went unfixed.
I think we've actually been pretty lucky, with more recent TOS replicas such as the Tricorder, Klingon Disruptor and yes now even the Enterprise, and should be thankful that they are as good as they are.
- k
So the problems went unfixed.
I think we've actually been pretty lucky, with more recent TOS replicas such as the Tricorder, Klingon Disruptor and yes now even the Enterprise, and should be thankful that they are as good as they are.
- k
Huzzah... [/b]
I suppose the DHL shipping guyÂ’s were done using it as a chair for their week-end poker game and decided to load it onto the next mule out-O-there. :lol
Okay . . . I’m taking a deep cleansing breath and I’ll try to “forgetaboutit” until the package arrives at my door.
(Who am I kidding?) :cool :cool
RW.
I suppose the DHL shipping guyÂ’s were done using it as a chair for their week-end poker game and decided to load it onto the next mule out-O-there. :lol
Okay . . . I’m taking a deep cleansing breath and I’ll try to “forgetaboutit” until the package arrives at my door.
(Who am I kidding?) :cool :cool
RW.
Last edited by a moderator:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(kuyadavid @ Mar 27 2007, 11:50 AM) [snapback]1449326[/snapback]</div>
Pics???
I want to see what a perfect one looks like.
especially all the problem gap areas and pencil grids.
If they are getting a few right, then maybe the next batch will be much better.
I got mine and it is perfect. I have been inspecting it all over for the past 30 minutes and I cannot see a flaw anywhere. It looks perfect. I'm so happy.
[/b]
Pics???
I want to see what a perfect one looks like.
especially all the problem gap areas and pencil grids.
If they are getting a few right, then maybe the next batch will be much better.
QuiGonFishing
Active Member
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Treadwell @ Mar 27 2007, 09:07 AM) [snapback]1449112[/snapback]</div>
You're most likely right about that, Tread, but their CYA becomes MR's problem because ultimately MR should have the final up or down vote on what they stamp their name on... MR people had to have given the OK to use those decals and the inconsistent grid technique, etc. MR either explicitly OKed these things, or said, "yeah, they're good enough" when they saw the first few APs come off the line...
But look, I always have to stop myself from going too negative. My ship is free from almost ALL of the issues we've discussed and I absolutely LOVE it. Couldn't be happier (unless I could get a tiny bottle of touch up). I find the model breath-taking and I wouldn't trade it. I just get upset for my brothers who are getting much lesser ships shipped...
BTW, I ordered and received my SE with an LE order still pending. I was tired of waiting and wanted to examine two and decide which to keep. The SE is the one I'm doing all the raving about. The LE sucked. Had ALL the issues we were hoping to avoid in the later runs (#287).
You're most likely right about that, Tread, but their CYA becomes MR's problem because ultimately MR should have the final up or down vote on what they stamp their name on... MR people had to have given the OK to use those decals and the inconsistent grid technique, etc. MR either explicitly OKed these things, or said, "yeah, they're good enough" when they saw the first few APs come off the line...
But look, I always have to stop myself from going too negative. My ship is free from almost ALL of the issues we've discussed and I absolutely LOVE it. Couldn't be happier (unless I could get a tiny bottle of touch up). I find the model breath-taking and I wouldn't trade it. I just get upset for my brothers who are getting much lesser ships shipped...
BTW, I ordered and received my SE with an LE order still pending. I was tired of waiting and wanted to examine two and decide which to keep. The SE is the one I'm doing all the raving about. The LE sucked. Had ALL the issues we were hoping to avoid in the later runs (#287).
rad1701
Sr Member
One thing I noticed since I got my acrylic cover and wired it so I can light it with it all closed up is that the engine noise is much quieter. As you would expect. I never found it that loud to start with. With the ship covered I can barely hear the whir at all. Just a little info for those thinking of covering the ship up.
ringa
Well-Known Member
Well, I received my MR LE Enterprise tonight. After all of the flawed ones being reported, I was very concerned about what I was going to get. I did not allow myself to get too excited about it until I opened the box. I was actually prepared for the worst.
I am very pleased to say that what I received gets an "A" rating. It is absolutely gorgeous. No construction issues, no chipped or flaking paint, grid lines at the perfect shade (very light), weathering is perfect, no decals at all, no tone variations in the clear coat finish (very smooth from all angles), engine motors are very quiet (in fact, they are quieter than both of my MR Comms), all lights fucntioning––I don't think I could be happier with it.
I have seen filming models and props used in various movies up close, and this MR E is as good as any filming miniature I have seen. It is actually better in terms of finer detail. I have been highly critical of Master Replicas in the past, especially where the Communicator is concerned, but I must give credit where it is due. Master Replicas really nailed the Enterprise. It really is that good.
I am very pleased to say that what I received gets an "A" rating. It is absolutely gorgeous. No construction issues, no chipped or flaking paint, grid lines at the perfect shade (very light), weathering is perfect, no decals at all, no tone variations in the clear coat finish (very smooth from all angles), engine motors are very quiet (in fact, they are quieter than both of my MR Comms), all lights fucntioning––I don't think I could be happier with it.
I have seen filming models and props used in various movies up close, and this MR E is as good as any filming miniature I have seen. It is actually better in terms of finer detail. I have been highly critical of Master Replicas in the past, especially where the Communicator is concerned, but I must give credit where it is due. Master Replicas really nailed the Enterprise. It really is that good.
Congrats to your good luck.
I hope that we get more and more reports like yours.
I hope that we get more and more reports like yours.
Yes, congratulations, but I'd sure like to see some pictures of the perfect ships. I'm talking about close-ups like the ones we have been seeing of the flaws. My ship is due tomorrow and I'll be going over it with a fine toothed comb. If it ranks as perfect 
or near perfect I'll back it all up with pictures.
If it aint perfect :cry youÂ’ll be getting pictures of that too.
RW.
or near perfect I'll back it all up with pictures. If it aint perfect :cry youÂ’ll be getting pictures of that too.
RW.
Here's another pic comparing the MR with the Unobtainium and the 11-footer. Note especially the shape and length of the neck dorsal.
- k
- k
Ghost Host
Sr Member
Well been looking mine over and I do see some little things. No cracks or light leaks, but there is sloppy masking for paint in a few areas, and ALOT of decals and eraser marks on the gridlines. I'd seriously consider a repaint if it wasn't so problematic to remove and redo all the markings.
I wish I could get a sheet of the official MR decals.
I wish I could get a sheet of the official MR decals.
Here are the gridlines on the MR vs the ones on the 11 footer... the MR is "about right" although the lines are a tad thick and dark for the scale.
Note also how the "1701" should lie with the tops of the characters touching the gridline; either the marking or the gridlines are offset on the MR.
However on the B/C deck bulge, the 11 footer has only TWO rectangular windows, while the MR has four. This is apparently a mistake on the MR (the port side of the large miniature was never seen on-camera, so the MR simply mirrors the left and right sides to "look right" I suppose... however on the saucer edge they get the differing configurations of windows correct).
Note also how the "1701" should lie with the tops of the characters touching the gridline; either the marking or the gridlines are offset on the MR.
However on the B/C deck bulge, the 11 footer has only TWO rectangular windows, while the MR has four. This is apparently a mistake on the MR (the port side of the large miniature was never seen on-camera, so the MR simply mirrors the left and right sides to "look right" I suppose... however on the saucer edge they get the differing configurations of windows correct).
Phase,
Now this is what I call great information, thanks..
The line-up of the top part of the letters against the grid for the original model is a typical way of lining things up, I worked as an Art Director & Layout Artist back in the 80’s and grid or guide lines for correct letter placement was a common way to place “rub downs” accurately on mockups as well as for hand drawn letters. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if that was the main reason why the grid lines were placed on the original 11 footer in the first place, simply to align that all important logo on the top of the saucer. That MR did not follow this same logic seems apparent in your pictures.
As well, I just noticed that the curvature of the nacelle ends are not a perfect circle on the original 11 footer but they sure are on the MR model, a nit-pick to be sure but one I thought needed pointing out.
RW.
Now this is what I call great information, thanks..
The line-up of the top part of the letters against the grid for the original model is a typical way of lining things up, I worked as an Art Director & Layout Artist back in the 80’s and grid or guide lines for correct letter placement was a common way to place “rub downs” accurately on mockups as well as for hand drawn letters. I wouldn’t be surprised at all if that was the main reason why the grid lines were placed on the original 11 footer in the first place, simply to align that all important logo on the top of the saucer. That MR did not follow this same logic seems apparent in your pictures.
As well, I just noticed that the curvature of the nacelle ends are not a perfect circle on the original 11 footer but they sure are on the MR model, a nit-pick to be sure but one I thought needed pointing out.
RW.
ringa
Well-Known Member
Phase pistol, I sure do appreciate the time you put into all these comparison shots. They are very "educational". Looking at the Unobtainium again makes it clear that the MR is way more accurate. It looks like the Unobtainium is not "thick" enough all around––not just in the dorsal neck area. It looks like they cut more corners than just structure, but in a lot of detail as well. If I had the money at that time I would have bought one of those. So glad I couldn't. For all the flaws being discussed about the MR, I just keep thinking about the Unobtainium nightmare. MR did good.
For those looking for the "perfect" model, though, I doubt it will be out there. Yet, "perfect" is a relative term in this case. Everyone has different expectations, and it also matters how you measure perfect. What one sees as totally acceptable could be enough for someone else to want a refund. When I look at my MR I ask myself if what I received could be used as an actual filming model. If I had received this for use in a movie (given its size, and as a model that only required mounting from the bottom) then I would call it "perfect". That is what I expect from MR, as what they produce are supposed to be screne quality models (that go the extra mile in some cases). Now, since it is a display piece, based on how I measure "perfect" it is more than acceptable to me.
I know some still want to see photos. I am planning on shooting it over the weekend (gonna have some fun with this).
For those looking for the "perfect" model, though, I doubt it will be out there. Yet, "perfect" is a relative term in this case. Everyone has different expectations, and it also matters how you measure perfect. What one sees as totally acceptable could be enough for someone else to want a refund. When I look at my MR I ask myself if what I received could be used as an actual filming model. If I had received this for use in a movie (given its size, and as a model that only required mounting from the bottom) then I would call it "perfect". That is what I expect from MR, as what they produce are supposed to be screne quality models (that go the extra mile in some cases). Now, since it is a display piece, based on how I measure "perfect" it is more than acceptable to me.
I know some still want to see photos. I am planning on shooting it over the weekend (gonna have some fun with this).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Artman @ Mar 28 2007, 05:09 AM) [snapback]1449910[/snapback]</div>
The story goes that Roddenberry himself asked for the gridlines and that the orginal builders never put them there at all. It was not a popular request supposedly and that is why they used pencil thin lines, so they would not appear on screen. I think Roddenberry wanted the grids to imply how the deflector shields might work. Total guess on my part there though.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ringa @ Mar 28 2007, 05:40 AM) [snapback]1449916[/snapback]</div>
I agree. Perfect to one person will not be to another.
And I think some with perfect ones would rather not expose theirs to the kind of scrutiny here as there would be nuts like us pointing out something a nanometer off and then it would no longer be perfect to them. :lol
The story goes that Roddenberry himself asked for the gridlines and that the orginal builders never put them there at all. It was not a popular request supposedly and that is why they used pencil thin lines, so they would not appear on screen. I think Roddenberry wanted the grids to imply how the deflector shields might work. Total guess on my part there though.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ringa @ Mar 28 2007, 05:40 AM) [snapback]1449916[/snapback]</div>
I agree. Perfect to one person will not be to another.
And I think some with perfect ones would rather not expose theirs to the kind of scrutiny here as there would be nuts like us pointing out something a nanometer off and then it would no longer be perfect to them. :lol
