"Or already when a ship of that class was shown with the registry 1017...
Much of what Jeffries or Roddenberry or Coon etc. dreamed up but failed to make explicit in TOS has been rendered invalid later on, and it's not necessarily a bad thing."
So much respect for the people that created Star Trek and their intentions. I take note of that and the open appreciation of the dystopian revisionism 1984
style. Perfect excuse for people that lack the enthusiasm of doing accurate research work, first.
"Much has been left in limbo, too, neither confirmed nor contradicted. But the idea that the registries identify the class of the ship went out of the window before Jeffries' tenure was over, and even before the Franz Joseph tech manual made its first popular alternate interpretation."
Pardon me, where exactly does the TM provide an alternate interpretation for NCC-1017???
All Franz Joseph did was to ignore the official statements in The Making of Star Trek
that refer to "Enterprise Starship Class". Though he probably wasn't aware of Matt Jefferies' registry scheme, at least he did that right by assigning prefixes beginning with 17.. to Enterprise's sister ships, except for Republic
was an older starship (13th design, Baton Rouge Class as envisioned by Marvel Comics
and Rick Sternbach
), I assume it's fair to say Joseph got that wrong.
With the USS Constellation
of Matt Decker, which seems to be the exception from the rule, I find it amazing that no one ever considered the possibility that it was named and numbered in honor of its predecessor (10th design). With Captain Harriman's Excelsior Class Enterprise
it's okay, other USS Yamato
's appear to have had the name and registry of NCC-1305 (that's okay, too) but we can't apply that to the USS Constellation