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

[alensatemybuick]

The "trick of the eye" paint technique used to simulate the inboard starboard nacelle trench has been know for some time, but is it logical to assume it was applied with more detail (esp. the leading edge reactor cooling loop (or is that intercooler tab) in the restoration? Beautiful job, I just wonder if that detail was a bit of artistic license.

By the way, a grainy port side photo I have seen of the 11 footer in its WNMHGF configuration shows a painted simulated trench existed even at that time (though seemingly more "rudimentary", to match the one on the other nacelle as it appeared back then).

 

[asalaw]

Conservators as a rule don't do "artistic license." The closest they might come to that is educated guessing in the absence of definitive information. But as Gary Kerr has said so often, their high-res photos were highly detailed. I sincerely doubt that they did any fudging at all with features that large, which would be very clear in high-res photos.

 

[Tiberius Kirk]

Coolness!

 

[alensatemybuick]

Found / recalled this fairly high res cropped image dating from when the 11 footer was delivered to the Smithsonian that does show the "tab" was realized. Again, it may well be an issue of the limits on images available to the general public. I think the current resto def (and thankfully) involved some "neatening up" of the port side.

 

[feek61]

Even though this (groovy) picture is very poor quality; you can see the trench in pretty good detail

 

[alensatemybuick]

Yep, the tab is clearly there. I stand corrected. Again!

 

[CessnaDriver]

The only thing that stands out to me, based on the community collage pictures and today, is the weathering streaking just behind the right dome, seems they were not aggressive enough.

 

[alensatemybuick]

Sounds like we are getting into Bloomington Gold Corvette restoration standards here.

 

[Tallguy]

Sounds like we are getting into Bloomington Gold Corvette restoration standards here.

And that'sssssssssss......... Bad?

 

[alensatemybuick]

Accuracy in the restoration of a historic artifact is not a bad thing. But an effort was clearly made to clean things up a bit. Hence no sloppy overspray or tape or glue residue on the port side. My farcical reference to Bloomington Gold standards was based on people trying to duplicate factory faults like paint runs, etc. As for picking nits on the resto., I think there will always be debate about some detail or another . I also have no doubt that despite the best possible job being done, there are going to be inaccuracies in the restoration, but that is not a dirty word, rather an inevitable consequence of the "uncertainty principle" in action.

 

[asalaw]

I also have no doubt that despite the best possible job being done, there are going to be inaccuracies in the restoration, but that is not a dirty word, rather an inevitable consequence of the "uncertainty principle" in action.

And yet, not to put too fine a point on it, both here and on HobbyTalk, every single claim you've made concerning "inaccuracies" has been 100% demonstrably wrong. :unsure

 

[alensatemybuick]

And yet, not to put too fine a point on it, both here and on HobbyTalk, every single claim you've made concerning "inaccuracies" has been 100% demonstrably wrong. :unsure

So fine a point as to be no point at all. Actually there is not one single post on Hobbytalk where I claimed there was an inaccuracy in the current restoration. I did ask about the flashing starboard side saucer edge porthole (mostly because the one on my 1/350 scale model (actually both P/S) does the same thing and I had been told it shouldn't). Gary Kerr made it quite clear that it actually should not be lit, that it was stray light picked up from the nearby nav light, a detail the resto. team missed (and will be corrected at some point in the future).

But yes, it is true that every single claim (single meaning the ONE I made here) about possible inaccuracies has been wrong and I admitted as much.

(Gee, I hope I like it here).

 

[CessnaDriver]

 

[asalaw]

Magnificent!!!!

 

[CessnaDriver]

I think that might be the first time since the sixties she was put into an FX shot again. Pretty cool.

 

[Jeyl]

Went and saw the lovely lady this morning. Excellent work all around!

EDIT: I almost forgot. One of the onlookers who was standing right next to me told his buddy "Ed Miarecki burn in hell". I turned to him and said "Let me guess. The original restoration guy?" "Yep" Funny how you learn the name of the artist who did a pretty terrible job on the model.

 

[asalaw]

In retrospect (bearing in mind that hindsight is 20/20), I think EM did the best he could playing the hand he was dealt. Restoration practices and protocols were very different back then, a lot more lax and less scientific. NASM never should have hired an FX industry modelmaker for an archival conservation job, but the idea of treating the E like an artifact rather than a popular toy just wasn't in the museum's mind back then. So, for instance, there was no money in the budget for taking paint core samples, or archivally cleaning the top of the saucer to reveal its true colors (or near as can be given 50 years of varnish yellowing). The result was... unfortunate.

Me, I'm much more interested in looking ahead than continuing to curse Ed Miarecki. The ol' gal has a very bright future now, with conservators who recognize her value and treat her accordingly, and as an object of adoration by millions of people who will be streaming through that hall for decades to come.

Also, my new camera has arrived, and if you like the photos I've already posted...

 

[Apollo]

Trust me Ed gave up caring what the fans think a looong time ago! :lol

 

[asalaw]

He'd have to, just to stay sane!!

 

[Lt Washburn]

When people continue to insult Ed, it just lowers my opinion of them, not Ed.