Scarfwearer Wooden console plans

[galacticprobe]

I have a question about the console's base. Looking at the higher-res image that Tony posted above (post on 7 Feb), the base looks like it has three steps to it: lower that rests on the ball-and-claw feet; sandwiched in the middle is a narrower step; then top step the console plinth stands on.

So what are the dimensions of those steps: widths (or widest point-to-point of the hexagon), and thicknesses (heights)?

Dino.

[omarvance]

Does anyone know whatever happened to the actual console?  We know parts of the set warped causing a revamp the next year.  Did someone take this thing home or is it buried in a junkyard somewhere?

[galacticprobe]

According to the Article here (http://tardisbuilders.com/index.php?topic=1150.msg3053#msg3053):

"MkII Console
Masque of the Mandragora: A new much smaller console was built which in effect looked like a wooden writing desk as it had opening control panel flaps and no central rotor column.  Its designer (Barry Newbery) said this design was inspired by the writings of Jules Verne.  This prop was scrapped by BBC Effects Designer, Mat Irvine (stripped of all controls, smashed up and put in a skip) shortly after season 14, the only season in which it appeared.  Mat would later say that he deeply regretted doing this."

So the poor thing was trashed in the worst way possible.

Dino.

[Scarfwearer]

I have a question about the console's base. Looking at the higher-res image that Tony posted above (post on 7 Feb), the base looks like it has three steps to it: lower that rests on the ball-and-claw feet; sandwiched in the middle is a narrower step; then top step the console plinth stands on.

So what are the dimensions of those steps: widths (or widest point-to-point of the hexagon), and thicknesses (heights)?

Dino.

I missed that number off my drawing: I think 760mm would be the widest point on the base. I haven't measured the smaller details - there's a lot more there than has been visible previously. I think I may have the base slightly too tall overall as it is.

[galacticprobe]

I missed that number off my drawing: I think 760mm would be the widest point on the base.

Thanks for the info, Crispin.

I haven't measured the smaller details - there's a lot more there than has been visible previously. I think I may have the base slightly too tall overall as it is.

No worries. I'm sure that part will come out in the discussion at some point. It's why I follow threads on this little console. Everyone seems to have a better grasp at figuring out measurements whereas I've always been rubbish unless I've had something of known size to judge by. (Really gave me a hard time when I was a lookout on my first ship: always had trouble estimating distances to targets. I'd yell out something like "Small vessel bearing two-seven-zero relative!" and when asked what the range was, I'd say "Range approximately 100 yards!" right before the thing started scraping the paint off of our hull. Well, maybe I wasn't that bad, but my estimates were always half to a mile off from what the radar said... which made me wonder why they told be to call out the range when they already knew the radar was more reliable than I was.)

Dino.

[maddavros]

Hi everyone,

I am aware that this question could cause contention (which is not intended) but which measurements are we considering to be correct: Tony's or Scarfwearer's? 

Both chaps have spent significant time to provide us with their sterling work (huge thanks to you both) and I am not being critical of either.  I'm just a little confused on whether the console is 96cm or 102.5cm high and whether the 'slopes' on the top part of the console are of the same angle (as per Tony's) or the under section is longer (as per Scarfwearer's). 

Looking at various screenshots, both permutations seem possible to me, so I have no clear view one way or the other and would welcome input from wiser minds than mine.

Best wishes to all

Maddavros

[Scarfwearer]

I think in the absence of an actual measurable prop, we don't really know.

We're in the midst of a process, which hopefully will eventually result in a consensus as we each take on board the observations and wisdom of the other people who are looking at this.
Over time our understanding improves and the refinements that take place should become smaller and more minor.
At least in theory.

Over on Project Dalek they released last year a new set of overhauled plans for the early daleks which changed quite a few things in small ways. So the understanding is that the earlier plans that people had been using for years were a slightly poorer approximation of reality. The same thing happens on TardisBuilders as we try to improve the plans we have.

Builds we make from the plans are snapshots of our understanding of how the props were/are. Although you would expect changes to get smaller over time, there can still be surprises.

So I think there is no such thing as 'correct' or 'accurate' in this domain, because those words are loaded with a degree of certainty that I don't think is ever really justifiable.

We just do the best we can.

[tony farrell]

Well, like Crispin, as far as I'm concerned all dimensions for the wooden console are 'up for discussion' and therefore subject to challenge (in a nice way) and to change.

I'm quite happy to review my drawings - I must say that the deeper underside to the console makes sense to me though (at this stage) I remain to be convinced about the increased 'diameter' which Crispin/Scarfwearer has calculated.

I didn't use the 'tilted' circle method to calculate the overall width but rather the opposite points of the hexagon relative to the podium which - in theory - gives you six points to take the pixel counts from rather than relying on a estimate of where the diameter of an ellipse lies.

In terms of Dino's comments about the detail in the Console's mouldings (which Scarfwearer has drawn as a simple slope), I am in possession of some enormous photos of this console which show these details up very well indeed. So, I stand by how I've drawn these.

I did ask for the forum's upload limit to be increased so that these photos could be shared but unfortunately, this doesn't seem to have been done. If that can be arranged, then I'd be happy to explain my interpretation in greater detail but, as I'm now committed to other things, this will have to wait until I have the time.

T

[Scarfwearer]

I lowered the limit again about a month after I raised it at Christmas because a few members were unwittingly putting up dozens of enormous 5-7MB PNGs which could have been replaced with no real difference by JPEGS at 1/50th of the size. Huge images take a long time to download on slow connections (which a lot of people are still using), and of course use a lot of space on the server. We have a generous allocation, but if we're that profligate with it, it will run out quickly.

Tony, when you're ready to put up some larger images, let me know by PM. I'll raise the limit again, and when you're finished I'll lower it to normal. It would probably better to put such large images up in a Reference picture topic and then refer to them elsewhere either with a link or by quoting the post they're in. People can still use View Image to see the full version. This would be better for most everyone than putting multiple copies of very large images up in several places on the forum.

Just a reminder: if you post JPEGS, they're not subject to the file size limit, but they will get pixel-reduced to 2000 pixels wide/tall once uploaded.

I mentioned a while ago that I was hoping to come up with a better long-term solution for managing the uploading of large images. I haven't managed to do that yet, but the good news is that I do now actually have a plan...

[tony farrell]

Thanks Crispin, I'll let you know but, this is now likely to be several months down the line (real life has a nasty habit of getting in the way)!

T

[amos pogle]

I may well be entirely wrong in this, but even though I'm happy to accept that the lower panels appear to be taller than the top ones I'm having a bit of trouble getting my head around the idea that the prop builders at the BBC would have done anything other than cut out 12 panels the same size and shape and fix them on to the hexagon as quickly as possible.  They weren't aiming for a beautiful piece of furniture, they were making something quickly using techniques and build quality worthy of Blue Peter - that it was covered with and probably held together with sticky backed plastic pretty well guaranteed that this prop was always going to have a pretty limited shelf-life

The only reason I can think of that they would have done so would be to confound replica builders of the future.  It doesn't make any sense to me to have to work out the angles and cut the mitre-work for two different sets of doors when the lower ones were always going to be practically invisible.

Is it possible that they might have looked at it, thought "that's a bit short" and stuffed a couple of layers of plywood at its least visible part?  I've looked through the pictures again and can't find any that show the join for the bottom panels, it's pretty well masked by the handrail around the plinth.   Have I missed something (again)?

[Scarfwearer]

Tony, I hope all goes well as possible with whatever gets in the way. Unless you're on a trip to Mars I hope you'll get to spend at least a little time here in the coming months.

Amos, prop builders in TV make unfathomable decisions sometimes. I take the view that while divining their methods and intentions can sometimes hint at things, we're best served looking at what's in front of us first and foremost.
There's an enormous amount of detail on this prop and indeed the whole set, which Tony has been documenting wonderfully. It really all looks like a labour of love - in spite of the Fablon.

[tony farrell]

Tony, I hope all goes well as possible with whatever gets in the way. Unless you're on a trip to Mars I hope you'll get to spend at least a little time here in the coming months.

Thanks Crispin. (This next bit is very firmly "off topic", so I hope the mods forgive me.)

I'll be doing some artwork for an upcoming publication which will take up all my spare time for the next few months. I'll be in good company with very talented people such as Alister Pearson (of various Dr Who Target Book covers fame) also being involved. For those that are interested, here is one of the pictures I've submitted and which has been accepted:


(Drawn using Microsoft "Paint".)

T

[Angelus Lupus]

here is one of the pictures I've submitted and which has been accepted:
(Drawn using Microsoft "Paint".)

T

Tony, (and I mean this very nicely ) but I think you're a liar! No, wait, hear me out: either you're using some advanced artistic program we've never heard of, that takes images directly from your imagination; or you really are The Master (or alien, anyway), because there's no way it's humanly possible to get results that beautiful from MS paint! 
Honestly, I'd have believed oil-on-canvas, or watercolour, or even a model diorama with a fancy photoshop filter! Just... wow!

[tony farrell]

Thank you Angelus!

In order to draw a line under this interruption to the Newbery Console discussion, I've posted a copy of the "Attack of the Angels" picture on my profile page where you will also find some more examples of what can be done with Microsoft's "Paint". 

Once again, apologies to Crispin for the slight sojourn!

T