RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,392
Posts: 5,505,479
Members: 25,130
Currently online: 399
Newest member: OneOfFour

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Misc. Star Trek > Trek Tech

Trek Tech Pass me the quantum flux regulator, will you?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old June 5 2012, 07:55 PM   #121
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

LOL, yeah, I think you misunderstood me.

When I said:

Dukhat wrote: View Post
...it was most likely a simple rearranging of letters and numbers from two Reliant kits, and the name was coincidental.
I was referring to this model:




I'm well aware that the Bozeman was a re-use of the Reliant studio model with add-on parts by Greg Jein.
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin

Last edited by Dukhat; June 5 2012 at 08:34 PM.
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2012, 08:13 PM   #122
137th Gebirg
Rear Admiral
 
137th Gebirg's Avatar
 
Location: Who is John Galt?
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

^^^ That's interesting. Any other views of this?
__________________
Gebirgswick - Ind, Tra, Sec & Env.
137th Gebirg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2012, 08:36 PM   #123
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017












__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin

Last edited by Dukhat; June 5 2012 at 08:54 PM.
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 5 2012, 09:27 PM   #124
Dukhat
Commodore
 
Dukhat's Avatar
 
Location: Baltimore, MD
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

It might have been used as the three ships in the upper right corner of this pic, but that's not certain.

http://ds9.trekcore.com/gallery/albu...hebold_421.jpg
__________________
“Don’t believe everything you read on the internet.”
– Benjamin Franklin
Dukhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2012, 01:43 AM   #125
Albertese
Commodore
 
Albertese's Avatar
 
Location: Portland, OR
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

Oh wow! I've never even seen this thing before! Never even heard rumors!

Is it just me or is this quick and dirty even by TV schedule purposes? Interesting TNG era update to the Miranda hull. I like how they repurposed the AMT Excelsior kit's stand to be a sort of AWACS pod. Kinda reminds me of the Nebula. With a little love this design could actually be kinda cool...

--Alex
__________________
Check out my website: www.goldtoothstudio.squarespace.com
Albertese is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2012, 05:51 PM   #126
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

I also see Excelsior nacelle parts on the aft deck.

To the stash!!
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 6 2012, 05:53 PM   #127
137th Gebirg
Rear Admiral
 
137th Gebirg's Avatar
 
Location: Who is John Galt?
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

^^^ He get your kitbashing juices flowing again with this one?

I really like this one, but the putty doughnut on top of the B/C deck is a bit jarring...
__________________
Gebirgswick - Ind, Tra, Sec & Env.
137th Gebirg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 7 2012, 03:57 AM   #128
blssdwlf
Commodore
 
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

Bridge airbag?
blssdwlf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2012, 06:41 PM   #129
E-DUB
Captain
 
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

A possible explanation for the whole "new decal for the name but not the registry number" thing. I remember buying press-on letters to make decals myself, and the sheets they came on usually featured letters or numbers, but not both. So the purchasing guy says to himself: "Well we need a new name, so we'll definately need letters, but I won't buy a numbers set too, we can just rearrange the numbers we got."
E-DUB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 20 2012, 07:35 PM   #130
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

E-DUB wrote: View Post
A possible explanation for the whole "new decal for the name but not the registry number" thing. I remember buying press-on letters to make decals myself, and the sheets they came on usually featured letters or numbers, but not both. So the purchasing guy says to himself: "Well we need a new name, so we'll definately need letters, but I won't buy a numbers set too, we can just rearrange the numbers we got."
That's the most sensible explanation I've ever heard.
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28 2012, 02:43 PM   #131
FatherRob
Rear Admiral
 
FatherRob's Avatar
 
Location: Citizen of the Kingdom of God (Living in Bargersville, IN)
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

Forbin wrote: View Post
E-DUB wrote: View Post
A possible explanation for the whole "new decal for the name but not the registry number" thing. I remember buying press-on letters to make decals myself, and the sheets they came on usually featured letters or numbers, but not both. So the purchasing guy says to himself: "Well we need a new name, so we'll definately need letters, but I won't buy a numbers set too, we can just rearrange the numbers we got."
That's the most sensible explanation I've ever heard.
This is the oft-repeated explanation I have been given, together with the fact that the fontface was commercially avaliable as dry-rub transfers in the 1960's. To my knowledge, the effects company built the model, and Jeffries had nothing to do with it.

My personal view is that the Constellation's low registry is explained by the number being reused in memory of an earlier Constellation that was lost in the line of duty. The use of the lettered distinctive for commemoratively named ships didn't begin until the Enterprise. (Of course, in my universe, the Enterprise would still be NCC-1701 regardless.)

Rob+
__________________
"Purity in doctrine... Compassion in application."
FatherRob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29 2012, 04:28 PM   #132
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

I think events went sorta like this-

1. When Jefferies came up with that "1701" number, he retconned a decision made purely on visibility as being indicative of the first ship built in the seventeenth group of starships. So, when conceived, Enterprise was the class vessel. At least to Jefferies.

2. Along comes "Doomsday Machine". For whatever reason- convenience, visibility, distinctiveness, etc- the ship scripted as being "Enterprise type" is numbered "1017" and named "Constellation". This is the first ship seen onscreen that looks like Enterprise.

3. Later, a graphic of an Enterprise ship's phaser is needed. Whoever puts the thing together remembers that they've established some ship as having a lower number than Enterprise, probably because the obvious problems with a "1017" number were discussed and still on his mind. He misremembers the lower numbered, "1017" ship Constellation as Constitution and puts that name on the graphic.

4. By the time Trimble is putting together her book, we have a Constellation with the lowest number, but a graphic hinting all these Enterprise-type ships are Constitution class. So we end up with fans making sense of the mess as Constitution being the prototype and class vessel (00), Enterprise being the first produced after the prototype (01), and Constellation being an older ship uprated to Constitution standards (1017).

5. Later, an attempt is made to make things right when TMP introduces the brand new, first of her type, rebuilt Enterprise. Probert, Cole and Kimble call this new class "Enterprise class" in an attempt to get back to what was originally intended back in 1964 and to recognize the entirely new nature of the design.

6. But even later, different artists try to "fix" the "mistakes" of the TWoK bridge simulator plaque and the TMP blueprints by identifying a ship looking like the rebuilt Enterprise as once again... Constitution class.

7. BUT this TMP-looking ship is ACTUALLY 1701-A. Some fans (like me) make sense of this new mess by saying that the rebuilt 1701 is Enterprise class but that 1701-A is Constitution class. Either because the class name was changed after the loss of 1701, or because 1701-A was an outwardly similar but inwardly different class.

8. In any event, if you want to go strictly by what was seen onscreen, the TOS Enterprise is "Constitution class" as established in later series, and "Star Ship Class" as established on the dedication plaque seen in the episodes. The TMP Enterprise is "Enterprise class" per the bridge simulator in TWoK, and the new 1701-A is "Constitution class" per the blueprints seen in ST VI. The only apparent contradiction is "Constitution" versus "Star Ship" class for the original ship. And that can easily be resolved by saying that "Star Ship" either represents a later, select subset of Constitution class ships (perhaps the 5YM ships?), or that "Star Ship" is an earlier designation, perhaps implying the ships were named for famous starships or indicating a broader "type" category as has been argued here. In any event, within the context of strictly TOS it is correct to call Enterprise a "Star Ship class" vessel. But within the broader context of the later series it is correct to also call her (and Defiant) "Constitution class" vessels.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29 2012, 04:39 PM   #133
137th Gebirg
Rear Admiral
 
137th Gebirg's Avatar
 
Location: Who is John Galt?
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

aridas sofia wrote: View Post
1. When Jefferies came up with that "1701" number, he retconned a decision made purely on visibility as being indicative of the first ship built in the seventeenth group of starships. So, when conceived, Enterprise was the class vessel. At least to Jefferies.

2. Along comes "Doomsday Machine". For whatever reason- convenience, visibility, distinctiveness, etc- the ship scripted as being "Enterprise type" is numbered "1017" and named "Constellation". This is the first ship seen onscreen that looks like Enterprise.
These are good points and some or all of this may have actually happened. But why not make Constellation NCC-1710? If they only had a limited number of decals or rub-ons to use of those numbers, why not recombine them in a way that made more sense?
__________________
Gebirgswick - Ind, Tra, Sec & Env.
137th Gebirg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 29 2012, 10:20 PM   #134
aridas sofia
Rear Admiral
 
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

I think there was a fear that any number beginning with "17" would be too easily confused with "1701". These are the numbers that could have been made from the "1701" decal:

1701
1710
1071
1017
1107
1170
7101
7110
7011
0711
0171
0117

If we go with Jefferies' logic about what the number means we are probably going to throw out the numbers beginning with "0" as being too low. Likewise, any number beginning "70" or "71" would be too high. If we throw out numbers beginning "17" as being too similar, we are left with

1071
1017
1107
1170

"1071" and "1170" would represent the 71st and 70th ships of their respective series- numbers Jefferies might have wanted to avoid as being too high for a Starfleet that would only build thirteen ships like Enterprise. That leaves "1107" and "1017" - take your pick.
aridas sofia is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 30 2012, 04:25 PM   #135
Forbin
Admiral
 
Forbin's Avatar
 
Location: I said out, dammit!
Re: Matt Jefferies and NCC-1017

My brain hurts.
Forbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.