[Captain April]

Two of the original long box version decal sheets were used to create the decals for the Constellation so those would be the ideal decals to use--or copies thereof.

The above image is from Cult's site in an excellent article about the differences in the various issues of the AMT 1701 model kit: http://culttvman.com/main/?p=3665

If someone has a higher quality scan of the original decal sheet (or such can be found on the internet) you could print your own with probably minimal clean up necessary.

And it looks like Shaw (You are a STOS god, sir!) has already taken care of the whole situation regarding decals:

Shaw's cleaned up version with window decals:

I'm not sure about two decal sheets being used on the filming miniature. It's certainly plausible, but to my eye, "CONSTELLATION" looks like it was lettered by hand.

I'd like to see some confirmation, or at least some really good analysis beyond how it could have been done, before declaring this one as confirmed.

 

[StarshipClass]

I'm not sure about two decal sheets being used on the filming miniature. It's certainly plausible, but to my eye, "CONSTELLATION" looks like it was lettered by hand.

I'd like to see some confirmation, or at least some really good analysis beyond how it could have been done, before declaring this one as confirmed.

I'm not, by any means, presenting myself as a self-anointed expert. I did not mean to present my post as being any sort of study that confirmed or denied anything.

I was only thinking I'd read somewhere that they used a couple of decal sheets. I may be wrong, they might have made up the extra letters by hand. I have no idea. I get such details WRONG all the time. By all means look it up and please be sure to take absolutely everything I say in the future with a huge grain of salt. :wave:

 

[Shaw]

Okay, I wasn't planning on discussing this at this point, but as long as we are sort of on the subject...

Where did the decal art for the AMT Enterprise come from? It is obviously all hand drawn rather than a pre-existing type face or stencil.

I believe the answer is the same place that the design of the AMT Enterprise came from... Matt Jefferies.

Once Jefferies turned over the plans for the Enterprise to Datin, all Jefferies had left were his notes. Hence, all subsequent Jefferies drawings of the Enterprise are similar to, but not the same as, the studio model. Jefferies was asked to supply AMT with plans of the Enterprise for a model kit, and Jefferies drew up new plans based on his notes and what he saw was being done as far as changes to the studio model (which is why there is a mix of series and pilot elements to the AMT kit). Along with the plans for the model, he most likely drew up the decal artwork (expecting that AMT would use it as the basis for their decals).

The AMT Enterprise model kit seems to have been a rushed project. I don't believe they did any prototyping of the model (or test assembly of the masters) because the elements don't fit together correctly (the sag in the original kit is built into it, and has nothing to do with gravity). Similarly, they seem to have taken Jefferies' decal art and used it without modification to make the decal sheet.

And why do I believe this? Court Martial.

Like the AMT decals, it is obviously all hand drawn rather than using a pre-existing type face or stencil... and looks to have been drawn by the same person.

In fact, with those letters and numbers (along with the ones of the decal sheet), I had considered doing more than just the Enterprise and Constellation decals... but I wanted everything on one sheet and the windows were more important to what I wanted for my model.

So my guess... the U.S.S. CONSTELLATION on the model in The Doomsday Machine was hand drawn by Jefferies onto a decal sheet (with all the other decals a rearrangement of the model's decals).

As I stated above in post #33 of this thread R2 has an expanded decal sheet for the AMT TOS 18 inch Enterprise model kit and it includes names and NCC numbers of the different ships from TOS. And there are enough extra decals for 2 ships.

I think that when punkrockpub specified that he wanted his model to be "as close as possible to look like the AMT model used in the episode", that explains why the Round 2 decal sheet (or any other after market decal sheet for that matter) wouldn't work for what he was going for.

I mean it is the same reason why I took the time and effort to painstakingly trace the original decals from the 1966 kit (along with the rubbings of all the windows)... for this to be truly authentic, good enough just wouldn't be good enough.

This isn't to say that there is anything wrong with the Round 2 decals... I think they are awesome. I used them on my Republic model and was quite happy with the result. But with that model, I was attempting to build something that felt like the 11 foot studio model and that was what the Round 2 decals were intended to do.




And punkrockpub, let me contact JT Graphics and see if there is a way for him to offer them on his site... believe me, you aren't the first person to ask about getting these and being able to point people to some where to buy them would make it easier for everyone. :thumbsup:

 

[StarshipClass]

And punkrockpub, let me contact JT Graphics and see if there is a way for him to offer them on his site... believe me, you aren't the first person to ask about getting these and being able to point people to some where to buy them would make it easier for everyone. :thumbsup:

Shaw, that would be most excellent.

If, however, someone wants to print up their own decals from your magnificent sheet, I would recommend, after getting the proper clear decal sheet for ink-jet printers of course, using one's printer or photo-editing program to scale the decals just right for one's particular set up. There always seems to be a little discrepancy even if the scales aren't off to be begin with.

I print up draft black and white versions on paper, varying the percentage of the scale until the lengths measure up properly to the red stripes and the letters are the same size. Once I get those measurements checked two or three times, I print up on the clear decal sheet--and then measure that to make sure.

 

[CaptBillD]

It occurs to me that if the TOS Art Dept. had 2 decal sheets on hand for the AMT Constellation, why wouldn't they have numbered the hull 1707, 1711, 1717, (none ever used onscreen for any other Connie appearance, and only conjecturally 1717 for the Yorktown) or even more simply, 1710 with one sheet? A mystery we'll never solve...

 

[Gregatron]

It occurs to me that if the TOS Art Dept. had 2 decal sheets on hand for the AMT Constellation, why wouldn't they have numbered the hull 1707, 1711, 1717, (none ever used onscreen for any other Connie appearance, and only conjecturally 1717 for the Yorktown) or even more simply, 1710 with one sheet? A mystery we'll never solve...

I get the impression it was done as 1017 because that number would be instantly distinguishable at first glance from the Enterprise's 1701 on 1960s, low-res TV sets.

 

[Shaw]

Yeah... it was the same mind set that got Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan a new studio model for the Reliant even though the production had been doing everything they could to keep the movies budget as low as possible. Originally the Reliant was supposed to have been an old starship like the Enterprise (and was most likely going to be a redress of the Phase II Enterprise), but the producers were worried that people (non-Trek fans) wouldn't be able to tell the two models apart on screen. So the Reliant was made specifically to be instantly distinguishable from the Enterprise for general audiences.

One also has to remember that "1701" wasn't ingrained in the public as the Enterprise's number at this time. In the 70's there were licensed toys made with images of the Enterprise with different numbers (like the Enterprise on the back of the Mego Bridge set that displayed "NCC-177").

Plus in all of TOS only three starships got numbers associated with them (Enterprise NCC-1701, Republic NCC-1371 and Constellation NCC-1017), and the main thing they (and the numbers of Commodore Stone's office graphic) all had in common was being four digits long and starting with "1" (which is most likely why the Reliant was NCC-1864).





And since this topic has been brought forward... yes, I'll be working on this soon. When I get some silicon rubber for the Phase II Enterprise study model, I'll be casting two copies of the nacelle dome part that fits correctly and will start in on that build (which will include some lighting like the kit was originally intended to have).

 

[Shaw]

I was reviewing my current progress on documenting the 1966 AMT model and thought you guys might like seeing where those plans currently stand…

Click to enlarge​

Yeah, there is a lot that needs to be done, but not so much that it would be overwhelming to finish it off. And once the plans are done, I could actually work on the model.

 

[Fozzie]

You do excellent work, Shaw. :thumbsup:

 

[feek61]

Good to see you are still working on this. Your work is always stellar!!

 

[Shaw]

Thanks guys!

Yeah, I realized that the only way to really be sure that I've collected all the data I needed from the kit was to start back in on drawing the plans.

The plans will be mainly the idealized alignment, with an example of the actual alignment of the model and what changes/fixes need to be done to get the idealized version (which I believe will work for all long box versions of the kit). Both nacelle dome parts are warped (one worse than the other), but I think both are salvageable without having to resort to the method used on the model displayed on later box covers (cutting the part down).

 

[Shaw]

Another small update...

Click to enlarge​

 

[publiusr]

Thank you so much for doing this.

 

[Shaw]

You're welcome! It is fun to both document all this and share it.


A few small updates, nothing too major...

Click to enlarge​

I still need to get back to drawing out the intercoolers. I need front/back, top/side and 45 degrees from the top center line. I'll get around to it soon.

 

[RICHjm]

...and the windows on each side of the B/C deck.

 

[publiusr]

Finished now ...

 

[publiusr]

Resources:
https://treknographics101.prophpbb.com/topic64-80.html
https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/model-star-trek-starship-enterprise

You know--I was thinking about the droop:
http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx/trek_stuff/models/AMT_1966_project/1966_test_assembly_007a.jpg

As you see here, it looks as if the machinist forgot that the secondary hull was actually a cone. The top of the nacelles are actually flush with the strongback/top of the secondary hull.

An easier fix my Dad used was simply to rotate the saucer back on the pylon so that the saucer top edge, the nacelles, and the secondary hull's topside were all flush.

This made the deflector dish look like it was slanted down--but as a scanner--it makes more sense. Shaving off the front top of the secondary hull--where it joins the deflector assembly--allows it to point more forward.

To me, the Ultimate AMT (sans after market resin bits) would be to have the secondary hull of the Round 2 Re-pop, but with the saucer of the original and the lighted nacelles of the Long Box IIRC.

As per Shaw, they not only fixed some of the droop--but moved the nacelle attachment points a little farther back on the re-pop's secondary hull--so the domes didn't crowd the saucer as per the dark silhouettes here:

http://www.shawcomputing.net/racerx...g.net/racerx/trek_stuff/models/AMT_1966_project/1966_amt_enterprise-preview.jpg

That makes the Round 2 saucer a bit longer and better looking--only the front of the B/C deck is shaved off.