John Tate's scratchbuilt Enterprise is finally up for all to see. The pictures do not do this one justice. It's just huge at over 7 feet in length!
Comments are welcome as always, but any detail nits should be tempered with the fact that it was constructed in the early 80's...you all know how much accurate reference material was around then!
It has undergone a few restorations over the years, but I still think it's gorgeous!
That's cool. And with 80's modeling techniques? SHEESH!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Truly amazing work: what the TOS E would have looked like with better cameras.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Wow! That is AMAZING!!
I can't see anything that is off - what are some of the errors - if any!?! (I'm not an absolute expert on all the little Enterprise details).
This makes the Enterprise more REAL - and less fake than it does in the series (due to the way it's shot I guess)... That shot from under the saucer - is reminiscent of the shot of the E-refit passing over the camera in TMP and reused in TWOK.
It cannot possibly get better than that Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
That's great Andrew! The photos and chosen angles are mine. I try to capture some neat *as seen on TV* type of angles in addition to enough to get all the details. At this show in November I took 73 photos around the show but only about 16 were of stuff other than the Enterprise...my focus was photo documentation of John's model.
There will be a build-up article coming soon to the MSFM site. John's provided me with some old construction photos and I'll use a bunch more of the photos I took at the show.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Very nice. Hmm, there are three slots on his webpage under "Star Trek", only one of them filled with "Enterprise". What might the other two be, I wonder... An ultra-detailed D7 or the BoP, perhaps?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Absolutely awesome. I wish I had that kind of time (and skill)...
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
Nim,
The way I set up the website, everyone has a table 3 cells wide. John's the only member who only has one model complete so it looks odd for that reason.
John has been talking of doing an in-scale K'Tinga class however....
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
Well then, let's hope it's the Kronos One, with battle wounds. What does "in-scale" mean in this context?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Probably, to scale with his E model.
Posted by SoundEffect (Member # 926) on :
yes, what TSN said. 1/130 scale. Not too much to that scale, but the Monogram Maquis ship was done in 1/130!
Another of our members has a 1/130 Defiant Class already drawn out but needs some space and materials and I have has drawings for a 1/130 (almost 4ft) Oberth Class model for a while...again, no free time.
What I would like to do also is a 1/130 K-7 space station! That would be great!
John's contacted me about doing an in-scale Galileo 7 shuttle for his Enterprise.
Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
If you're going to go big, do the Spacedock in 1/130th scale. Well's if you want a challenge...
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
I think I'll do a 1/700 scale nanite.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Wouldn't that be a 700/1 scale model of a nanite? Would that be a macrite?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
A 1/700-scale model would not be a 700/1-scale model, no.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Bah! You know what I'm talking about. Hence macrite and the smiley face.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I model in 2500th scale: my people are practically nanites.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, I would also think that the opposite of a nanite ought to be a gigite...
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Well, your just fuck'n marvellous - aren't you?
I couldn't think of the prefix - and thought macro to convey size was still appropriate.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Well, no, since macro is the opposite of micro, and they're called nanites, not micrites. ARGUMENT DESTROYED!
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
LOL! nanites are microscopic - a large scale tangible version would be macroscopic... I explained I used this prefix to convey SIZE as I couldn't remember the prefix to use... I could have called them gigites yes - but I DIDN'T.
Argument resurrected!
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
Saavik...punch up the nanites prefix code....
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)