Pretty much the wall of Nimoy that day too. LOL
RED ALERT Lost 3 ft TOS Enterprise found????
- Thread starter CessnaDriver
- Start date
Here is a rare look at the earliest AMT and the “three-footer” together
culttvman.com
Remember View-Masters? - The AMT Enterprise at 55
By Glen Swanson In our ongoing tribute to the 55th anniversary of the very first AMT Star Trek model kit, we show the outer packet for the Star Trek View-Mas
culttvman.com
how does the book relate back to the Carson City RR museum?
joberg
Legendary Member
What I said before
I stand corrected in terms of the big one; seems to me now (after seeing better pics) that it's the 3 footer
alensatemybuick
Well-Known Member
The book serves as a biography of Mr. Datin as well and covers his later career and retirement years, though not in as great detail as his work on Trek. A love letter of sorts to him by his daughter. I've taken that book off my shelf since last week; it's a cool read for those who love his work on the show but also for those with late parents who they hold in high regard.
You could possibly argue that when it was stolen, it was a Dirty Deed, Done Dirt Cheap.
And i won that auction - thanks for not bidding $20,000!Well, one of the wood nacelle caps from the 11 footer, a sister to the donated one in the NASM display case. was auctioned on Ebay in 2016. I tried to snipe it, bidding up to $7500 on it (I think it was) and ended up being the second highest bidder. I think if I had not bid, it would have gone for a little over 2 grand. My wife had authorized me to go as high as $20,000, but at the time I felt that would have put our retirement at risk. I later felt remorse over "not trying harder" to win it.
Later still I realized that any sense of "entitlement" over such things is silly. Besides, I would have drilled a hole right through the center of it (a pilot hole for the lost spires was still there with the remainder of the peg anyway) and used it as a stand for my 1/350 scale polar light model). So maybe it was for the best that I didn't get it.
I should add that I mentioned the 32" model to someone I know who is "in the know" about such things this past Wednesday, and he told me that he and another person "in the know" (and quite notable in Trek circles) had been aware of the model for at least the past 2 weeks. So make what you will out of that and why the Ebay auctioner would have put it up when he did for a mere $1000 opening bid.
I think there is a much more complicated story about how this model turned up that may or may not ever be known by the public.
alensatemybuick
Well-Known Member
So I would not have gotten it anyway? I have often wondered.
Either way, it would have benefitted the seller.
I don't recall my maximum at the time, it has been a few years, but it would not have been near $20,000.So I would not have gotten it anyway? I have often wondered.
Either way, it would have benefitted the seller.
Since then i've been trying to figure out which cap is which - the other one, of course, is in the Smithsonian display.
(Ariel O'Connor of Smithsonian and myself, 2016).
alensatemybuick
Well-Known Member
Well, now I know.
Great photo.
Great photo.
aridas
New Member
That’s the problem. Everywhere - even the Smithsonian - they echo the same story about the 4-inch balsa and cardboard model. And yet, when you read the transcript of Jefferies recounting the story of that model, he is very clear the saucer was made of balsa, but the secondary hull and nacelles were made from birch dowels. That’s why the model flipped when Roddenberry held it by a string - the birch was heavier. Jefferies even indicated that because he was in a hurry, he told the shop not to lathe the cylinders but rather just to use the dowels as they were. These basic facts have been misstated by everyone for a long time because they keep echoing the same story - the story that says the model was 4 inches. I suspect the 4-inch model that is remembered is actually the “Catspaw” metal model. And that Jefferies would have wanted something a little more impressive to sell his design - maybe closer to 10 inches, which is the upper range I’ve heard. Before 4 inches became the internet’s favorite number, I remember the story being 6 inches. So, nobody knows and I find that interesting and a little odd.
Maurice
New Member
The internet is the epitome of "print the legend." We fight that all the time doing Fact Trek.
As to that crude model at Baycon '68, the more I look at it the more convinced I am that it's fan-made. A crude prototype model wouldn't have details like the rectangular panels on the inboard sides of the nacelle pylons and the "intercoolers" at the back. The fact that the tail ends of the nacelles are at the same angle at the pylons suggests the work of an amateur.
Last edited:
Yep.
My first though upon seeing it was, "Oh, hey, along with the three-footer, they displayed a fanmade model given to them as a gift".
aridas
New Member
At first, I thought that as well. But then I remembered something about Jefferies wanting the nacelle-pylon connection to be a certain way, and Datin reversing it when it was built. Like I said above, I also think it’s fan made, and think it’s probably too big to be that prototype. But nothing would have prevented someone from adding rough details to that model if it was really going to be used for the flybys in the opening credits sequence. I don’t think that’s what’s going on here, but it’s possible, just unlikely.
Last edited:
I still have that View Master Star Trek episode, along with a Mission: Impossible episode I got at around the same time. I suppose I've had them for close to 50 years by now.Here is a rare look at the earliest AMT and the “three-footer” together
Remember View-Masters? - The AMT Enterprise at 55
By Glen Swanson In our ongoing tribute to the 55th anniversary of the very first AMT Star Trek model kit, we show the outer packet for the Star Trek View-Mas
---------------
Maurice
New Member
As Shaw's analysis demonstrated, that difference in the pylon joint with the nacelles was a fairly small thing that affected how high they were, not anything like having the tail ends of the nacelles tipped to match the pylons.
Personally, I think the way the nacelles are mounted on the 11-footer is actually more aesthetically pleasing. It’s a subtle difference, though. And the 11-footer’s saucer skews closer to Jefferies’ plans, as opposed to the flatter saucer of the 33-inch model. But neither model has the curvier secondary hull seen in Jefferies’ various drawings, which is something that would have been difficult to achieve with a lathe.
Similar threads
