[Richard Compton]

Don't visit the forum for a few days and look what happens! Hope my topic is still...on topic, as I felt it was in the CG forum.

I think I could figure this out (at least the timeline) myself, but I thought I'd ask people who are sure to know off the top of their heads...

What's the story behind the various drawings of the Enterprise? What I mean is, there's the diagrams from the Making Of and there's Joseph's plans. Is there any relationship there, as in Joseph having Jefferies' drawings to aid him? Why the difference in the bridge bulge to the model? Are they done from construction plans which differed from the model?

At what point in reference to the building of the model, were the Making Of diagrams drawn?

 

[MGagen]

At what point in reference to the building of the model, were the Making Of diagrams drawn?

Hi Richard,

I've been studying this problem for some time now and have plans to publish a website on the subject. The drawings in TMOST are not the construction drawings. They are from the Star Trek Guide (writers' guide or series bible) and were drawn by Jefferies to give the writers an idea of what the ship would look like. They are different from the final model, but not so different as most of us have thought. The TMOST reproductions are quite distorted, however, and this has added to the charges of inaccuracy. The issue to keep in mind is that both the small "three-footer" and the large "eleven-footer" were created from the same plans. The differences between those two models are attributable to two different causes. 1) Roddenberry asked for some alterations after seeing the small model (but before the large model was built), and 2) each model was a hand made artifact that presented unique problems for the fabricators -- resulting in minor differences in how those were solved.

In essence, there are three "official" Enterprises: The "eleven-footer," the "three-footer," and Matt Jefferies' own concept represented on the construction drawings.

I believe the drawings in TMOST represent a further variation due to a problem similar to that faced by the fabricators of the models. In this case, it was the compromise required in preparing a small scale drawing of the ship. Jefferies would have faced the task of taking a drawing of the ship that was 33-3/4" long and re-rendering it at about 9-7/8". Keep in mind that this is before the day of enlarging/reducing photocopiers, scanners, computers or the like. In those days, if you wanted to reduce a drawing, you had a more limited set of tools available. There were mechanical means, like a Pantograph, or there were optical means, like an opaque projector or a copyboard camera; or there were manual means, like calculating the measurements and redrafting from scratch. I believe what we see in the TMOST drawings is the result of a redraft from scratch, based on reducing the measurements. The overall dimensions of the main components match up quite well with the large model/construction drawings (the exception being the height of the dorsal pylon). The variations occur mainly in things like the contours of various components and their attachment points. I am still making inquiries that may explain the biggest difference: the shape of decks 2 & 3: Teardrop or egg-shaped.

Look for a full discussion of these, and many other issues on the website. I'll announce its launch on the board when the time comes, of course.

Mark

 

[PerfesserCoffee]

Fascinating as always, Mark! I always enjoy your contributions regarding the origins of the Enterprise models.

I'd like to see what you make of the Trials and Tribulations version of the 1701 as compared to the production version and the Smithsonian restoration of it.

 

[Richard Compton]

Cool, looking forward to the site. Have you tried contacting Stephen Whitfield (Poe)? He might recall how the drawings came to be included in the book. He obviously had his publisher provided with various materials that they resized and altered while formatting the book.

Also, what about Franz Joseph? I recall reading he had made his drawings from film frames and the like, but without going back to look at them, I thought they seemed to resemble the Jefferies plans. The bulge on the secondary hull, the wide b/c deck, etc. It's clear he had contact with Roddenberry, so was probably provided with some material. Now that I think about it, he did his stuff after TMOST came out, correct? I really should go look this up!

 

[Carson Dyle]

As some of you may have heard, the Howard Anderson Company is closing its doors. Oddly enough, my dentist is married to Darrel Anderson's daughter, and I've been given permission to "snoop around" the facility before it's cleaned out. If I come across anything interesting I'll let ya'll know.

 

[MGagen]

I'd like to see what you make of the Trials and Tribulations version of the 1701 as compared to the production version and the Smithsonian restoration of it.

I won't be addressing that on the website as it is primarily devoted to Matt Jefferies and his contributions. However, I can tell you what I've heard about the T&T model.

Greg Jein did a beautiful job constructing it, but it was based on an early draft of Gary Kerr's blueprints that date from before he was able to make a complete, hands on survey of the model. As a result, it is pretty close, but not an exact replica of the original miniature. Some obvious departures are: the 3-footer style lip on the underside of the primary hull; scribed panel lines; and incorrect (too convex) sensor domes on the primary hull.

Have you tried contacting Stephen Whitfield (Poe)?

I believe Mr. Poe passed away some time ago. If anyone knows otherwise, please let me know.

Also, what about Franz Joseph?

His work is definitely post-TMOST. I am an admirer of his work (even though I recognized many inaccuracies in it from the first) but am not in any sense an expert on him. I recommend checking out Greg Tyler's excellent Trek Place site. He has much rare FJ material to peruse.

Mark

 

[MGagen]

As some of you may have heard, the Howard Anderson Company is closing its doors. Oddly enough, my dentist is married to Darrel Anderson's daughter, and I've been given to "snoop around" the facility before it's cleaned out. If I come across anything interesting I'll let ya'll know.

You lucky dog! Needless to say, if you turn up anything relating to the miniatures (even an insignificant memo or two) please let me know.

Mark

 

[Richard Compton]

As some of you may have heard, the Howard Anderson Company is closing its doors. Oddly enough, my dentist is married to Darrel Anderson's daughter, and I've been given permission to "snoop around" the facility before it's cleaned out. If I come across anything interesting I'll let ya'll know.

They're not in the same facility they used in the 60's are they? In any event, take pictures! Do you have a digital camera? If you don't, borrow one. Take a ton of pictures! Who knows what's going to happen to the place after this, so record the history. And like was said above, even little things can be vastly interesting. Don't let them throw away anything good!

 

[Richard Compton]

I believe Mr. Poe passed away some time ago. If anyone knows otherwise, please let me know.

If he did, it would need to be in the last 6 years or so. He wrote a book about Voyager's production. It's better than the TMOST book, IMO....if the subjects were equal.

 

[John P]

Resizing of drawings in the mid-60s would have certainly been done on a photostat camera, easy as pie. There should have been no distortion from original to copy. The graphics dept I work in used a stat camera even beyond the point we got our first computers and scanners in the mid-80s. Of course it's quite possible that Jefferies was purist enough to want to redraw the art himself, so it shouldn't be counted out.

 

[Richard Compton]

And there are lots of drawings. I'm sure he didn't redraw the stageplans.

 

[MGagen]

Resizing of drawings in the mid-60s would have certainly been done on a photostat camera, easy as pie. There should have been no distortion from original to copy. The graphics dept I work in used a stat camera even beyond the point we got our first computers and scanners in the mid-80s. Of course it's quite possible that Jefferies was purist enough to want to redraw the art himself, so it shouldn't be counted out.

True, a stat camera (or copyboard camera, as I called it in my previous post) could reduce the blueprint with minimal distortion. But he'd have to redraft it anyway since the line weights of the blueprint would be too fine once reduced to this degree. There is also the issue of the other markings, notations and shortcuts of the blueprints. They were not finished presentation drawings, but working blueprints, after all.

None of that matters, though, since the original art was drawn on illustration board. This is much to thick to trace through, so a stat camera reduction would have been of little use. The evidence points to a redraft from re-scaled dimensions.

The bigger question about stat cameras is why the TMOST reproduction of the drawing is SO distorted. Stat cameras are designed to have a flat field. Most are pretty good if the subject is photographed near the center of the copyboard. I suspect that all the drawings for TMOST may have been ganged up and shot at the same time, with the 3-view pretty far off axis.

On another subject, I made some inquiries and found that Stephen Poe died in 2000 at the age of 63. Here's an obit for him:

http://www.sfcommand.com/captains_log/number_55/poe.html

We're loosing more and more of the folks who were there as time passes. That's one of the reasons I'm planning my website. I want to gather as much data from primary sources as I can so it isn't lost.

Mark

 

[Carson Dyle]

They're not in the same facility they used in the 60's are they? In any event, take pictures! Do you have a digital camera? If you don't, borrow one. Take a ton of pictures! Who knows what's going to happen to the place after this, so record the history. And like was said above, even little things can be vastly interesting. Don't let them throw away anything good!

H.A.C. vacated its "Star Trek"-era offices on Fairfax Ave. several years ago, relocating to the San Fernando Valley.

Rest assured, if there's anything of interest to photograph I will certainly do so.

 

[John P]

Mark, I've been in an art department or two since the late 70s, and trust me, there a LOT of ways to copy, trace, or whatever, art from one source to another without having to redraw it from scratch. Just 'cause it's on illustration board doesn't mean it wasn't transferred there some how, and then inked over.

 

[MGagen]

Mark, I've been in an art department or two since the late 70s, and trust me, there a LOT of ways to copy, trace, or whatever, art from one source to another without having to redraw it from scratch. Just 'cause it's on illustration board doesn't mean it wasn't transferred there some how, and then inked over.

John,

That's true, of course. I, too, have been in graphic arts since the late '70s and doubt you can name a method I haven't either heard of or used myself. But such techniques are a lot more trouble than a simple tracing.

If he had reduced the blueprint on a stat camera for tracing, we'd most likely be looking at a tracing paper drawing taped to an artboard as the original. Instead, we have an ink drawing directly on a board. Yes, he could have reduced the blueprints on a stat camera, loaded this into an opaque projector and projected the image on the artboard for tracing; but this does not explain what we actually see on the artboard. If he had done that, not only would the dimensions be correct, but the contours would have matched as well. They don't.

What we see instead is a pretty good dimensional match of the components, but the contours look like they were eyeballed in with a french curve. And this is entirely appropriate for a drawing intended for this purpose.

I stand by my previous opinion. I think it is more likely a scratch drawing from scaled measurements.

Mark