That Starbase 11 wall chart - noe in slide form

[UssGlenn]

The scan shows that the eights are wider than the sixes, so I think the image posted earlier by @DSG2k has the correct numbers. But, yeah even on these scans 1631 looks like 1831, but it can't be because of the width of the numbers.

 

[Dukhat]

The 8 in 1718 doesn’t look as wide as the 8 in 1685.

 

[UssGlenn]

The 8 in 1718 doesn’t look as wide as the 8 in 1685.

Really? it looks the same to me.

 

[Dukhat]

Really? it looks the same to me.

The 8 in 1718 looks thinner and rounder than the 8 in 1685, which looks thicker and flatter to me. That’s what I’m seeing.

 

[Tomalak]

Here are the scans. One is original scan, next set was a color corrected scan the shop did. To me it looks like 8's are wider than a 6. Get to work guys and see what you can do!

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/an37...ey=sj8btgjvcm367kxdn93yxhemn&st=3av9yzkb&dl=0

Thank you for doing this! Really does look like 1831 to me, unless there’s a blob of film grain exactly where the sliver of daylight should be.

The 8 in 1718 looks thinner and rounder than the 8 in 1685, which looks thicker and flatter to me. That’s what I’m seeing.

Agreed.

 

[Yaroze86]

I will let people play around with it before making a 100% determination. Someone might be able to do a better color balance than the shop did. It does look like there is a "slight" band of lightness to make it a 6 vice an 8. Looking at it on my phone screen does make it look more like a 6 than a computer screen does.

 

[Dukhat]

It’s entirely possible that this chart was made by hand, so there may be discrepancies with the shapes of the numbers.

 

[Tomalak]

I assumed it would have been Letraset or similar, but yes it could be hand-drawn.

 

[Yaroze86]

Do we agree it's 1664 and not the Reliant? Honestly we might have to live with 1831 though unless someone pulls out a magic trick.

 

[Tomalak]

Yes, I’m certain it’s 1664. The two 6s look identical, particularly in the fourth shot.

 

[DSG2k]

I assumed it would have been Letraset or similar, but yes it could be hand-drawn.

Unless they happened to have big-ass wall-size digits handy (e.g. from the model shop), then I imagine they probably did it by hand off of a transparency projection or similar.

Next step: I need to look and see how far into "big-ass" a standard set went and try to compare against scaling of these, just to satisfy that question.

 

[DSG2k]

Honestly we might have to live with 1831 though unless someone pulls out a magic trick.

My two issues with this:

1. Jein had fresher film stock and concluded it was 1631. I would look for bleeding around other digits.
2. The width is as it would be for 1631 meaning they'd have had to have put the six in place but manually closed it into an eight, e.g. to cover a boo-boo. But, see #1.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

I see NCC-1631.

 

[Yaroze86]

I am willing to chalk it up as bleed through. The top numbers don't have the same prospective as the lower ones and are more crushed together causing the bleed through. On image Star Trek_00022A, I think is a strong case for 1631. IMO I think all are 17XX and 16XX.

If you look at the below you can see what I am talking about in how there is not hard line for it to be an 8. Only thing I did was correct the perspective.

Mn4ilcT

Actual dropbox location. Only thing I did was correct the perspective.

Dropbox

www.dropbox.com

 

[Andru]

I'm pretty sure the whole chart is hand-drawn, if you look at 'STAR SHIP STATUS' for instance, every 'S' is slightly different from one another.

 

[Lakenheath 72]

I would say that the person used stencils for the alphabet letters and numbers.

 

[Dukhat]

I would very much like that number to be 1631 and not 1831. As I mentioned, I'm not 100% sure, but it looks like an 8 to me