One-Stop 11' TOS Enterprise Reference Thread: NCC-1701, No Bloody A...

What she said sounded like politics to me as well. Imagine the fallout if she said the last guy botched the job. These people work for the government after all. :)
Ed did go overboard with his restoration as a lot of us had discussed in past threads. When the guy is modifying original parts, he would do a lot more to the model.
The lines Ed put on the hull and nacelles, are not in the Kerr drawings. Those drawings reflect the model when Kerr got to see it up close. That was around the time of the last restoration.
Asalaw I would suggest you go back and read those threads. We went into this in a lot of detail.

The saucer was the the only part of the model that had the grid. The only reason it does was to shut Roddenberry up. Jefferies wanted the model clean, as he later noted you can't see the plates on a battleship at a distance. The model was delivered to the studio clean, no weathering or gridlines. Roddenberry insisted it have all that stuff put on the model.

Just an aside Jefferies interpretation of the Big E was ahead of everybody. A ship like that wouldn't have any grids or weathering. The reasons for that are not worth going into here.
 
When did Gary Kerr release his drawings? Did he have the other weathering on them? Also, don't forget the model was painted over in 1984, before Kerr ever got to see it, and the appearance of the model in the 1960s and at that 1972 convention has only been verified in the last year or so of NASM's research. Ariel O'Connor was pretty insistent that the lines were all there.

And most importantly, we're all just armchair quarterbacking here. They have vastly better information than we've ever had access to. They're in a much better position to know than we are. I'm inclined to take them at their word, especially since I had a chance to speak to them personally and ask very specific questions. There was only one "stump the band" moment with O'Connor, and that was when I asked whether the hole on the port side had ever been used for a pipe stand, since it has what appear to be keyway slots. All she could say was none of their imagery showed that, and that it was definitely used as a wiring exit.

Everything else about the model she knew in very deep detail.


2016-01-30 02.32.38.jpeg

- - - Updated - - -

Here's the article by Popular Mechanics about the open house.

2016-01-30 02.32.38.jpeg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When did Gary Kerr release his drawings? .
He never did, it takes a lot of effort. You have to show that your serious. Plus having a really popular thread in the studio scale model section.
And it helps to have friends, which I do. But if you ask for the drawings you will never get anywhere. I will never show them, that's part of the deal.

But you have to keep in mind, there is a lot known about the Big E. Detailed pics of the last restoration have been around for years.
Plus there have been at least 2 good 66" kits put out of the miniature. One 350 scale kit, one 350 scale completed model, one 1000 scale model, and a variety of toys and other trinkets. All based on the same Kerr drawings(I forgot the SSM of the Big E used in DS9, it was from the Kerr drawings as well).

So far I haven't really seen anything new. Except for the x-rays and a few interior pics. For recreating the miniature it's not that important.

Like I said, look around here.
This board is dedicated to props, researching these things is what we do.
 
Of all the pictures i have, i do not have a pic of the dorsal from the top. did any one get one at the open house? i know that they said they are going to try and post what pictures they can at some time, but if any one has such a picture i would be forever grateful to see it. thanks
 
There was only one "stump the band" moment with O'Connor, and that was when I asked whether the hole on the port side had ever been used for a pipe stand, since it has what appear to be keyway slots. All she could say was none of their imagery showed that, and that it was definitely used as a wiring exit.
The hole was design to fit a transformer like this one... but I'm just armchair quarterbacking here.
 
The hole was design to fit a transformer like this one... but I'm just armchair quarterbacking here.

Guys, if I've unintentionally said anything offensive or rude, I apologize. But there's no need to shoot the messenger, either. I'm just reporting what's been said to me by highly competent people who've done quite a lot of very deep research and analysis and have no motive to hide the ball or stage a coverup.

The weathering patterns were there. EM exaggerated them and made them the wrong color because he was trying to match the top of the saucer. That paint has aged poorly and gotten dirty, but it is original paint. You can barely see the streaks in this restoration of a washed-out Lincoln Enterprises shot, but you can see them. (Note how faded and pale the bluescreen looks.)

Screenshot 2014-10-28 17.12.58.png

You almost never see it on the show because not only do the lights wash it out (and make the colors appear lighter), but the reprinting of the negative during comping increases the grain, which fuzzes out detail even more. EM knew this, and assumed the streaking should be heavier than it appears here. He missed, but I don't think that makes him the incompetent shlub he's so often portrayed as. He made the best guess he could with the information he had at the time.

The grid lines were there, in pencil, on both sides of the saucer, but again, he made them way too dark and heavy on the bottom. You can't see them at all in the photo above, yet we all know they were there.

2016-01-30 11.37.53.jpg
Drawing by Gary Kerr, WIP.

I realize this is an emotional topic, and I empathize, but let's let the experts do their jobs.
 
You do come across that way, but I've come to expect that in the ST fan community. Which is the main reason I don't talk about what I do very much.
Or be a part of it any more.
That sort of response to an apology probably doesn't help, so perhaps that's for the best. :)
 
Last edited:
I don't think anyone is disputing the saucer pencil lines or the weathering streaks, of course they were there and can be seen even on DVD. It's the notion of grid lines on the secondary and nacelles that make my B.S. meter go to 11.
 
I don't think anyone is disputing the saucer pencil lines or the weathering streaks, of course they were there and can be seen even on DVD. It's the notion of grid lines on the secondary and nacelles that make my B.S. meter go to 11.

No idea. We didn't discuss those, just the saucer and the weathering. [EDIT] But if they were there, I assume they would've been pencilled in just like the saucer ones, and would have washed out on the show and in photos. The odd thing that EM did was add weathering to the grid lines, when the saucer-top ones are just pencil. Very strange choice.

- - - Updated - - -

Thank you asalaw for sharing your experiences and photos!
You're welcome! :)

And here's a very nice piece from Space.com!


Just an FYI, every link that's posted here goes on the top post as well, including anything you guys put up.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[video=youtube;dJYshbzcYOU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJYshbzcYOU[[/video]

You know, with all these answers bubbling up out of the restoration, there are new questions. This isn't the only shot in this thread where you can see how much blue there was in the gray base coat. Everywhere except for the top of the saucer, which is very green. Why?

  • Were they getting a lot more blue spill from the bluescreen on the top of the saucer than elsewhere on the model?
  • Was it yet another odd commandment from GR?
  • Most compellingly -- and this is my working theory -- was Linwood Dunn Irish? :p
 
Last edited:
In the case of this angle, the deflection of the light is more oblique with the top of the saucer, hence the apparent different in color. As there will always be this condition with parets of the ship due to the design, there will always be a section which appears to be a slightly different shade or color. Don't forget the filmstocks are also more sensitive to some colors than others, and that will factor into our observations
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top