Franz Joseph Blueprints Revisited

[blssdwlf]

@ blssdwlf
Exactly my point. If the Enterprise's repair jobs are already 83% "complete", why the sudden rush to a) put her on "Priority One" and b) withdraw the repair crew from the Intrepid?

@Bob - this doesn't need to be answered. All we know in-universe is that Stone moved the Enterprise to "Priority One" and that meant adding Section 18 as manpower.

The main points are that:
1. The chart has the Enterprise on it.
2. She's being repaired.
3. The chart label is "Star Ship Status" and "% Complete"

That pretty much places the other nine star ships on the chart also as being repaired at various % of completion.

They would not be under construction or the status of their mission. It just doesn't fit well. Now you could say a ship in that list is could be under-going a massive refit or overhaul as it would fit under the idea of being repaired/replacement.

And he's also assuming they're all heavy cruisers like the Enterprise rather than a mix of classes. I reject that simply because it takes a small and simplistic view of Starfleet's makeup.

Not really. It only indicates that this particular display covers the Star Ships currently under repair; another display titled "Star Destroyer Status" would then obviously cover the destroyer-class vessels, and so forth.

Even then, there are different classes of star ships. So Warped9's thinking of a mix of classes makes more sense than a singular class of ships on that chart.

Speaking of SB11, anyone notice that there are more repair sections than ships on that chart? You might be onto something about other charts for Star Destroyers, Scouts, Transports and the Intrepid not even being on the chart.

 

[GSchnitzer]

The reason for priority one is unknown....

The September 26, 1966 Final Draft script for "Court Martial" has a bit of dialogue that clarifies the point.

From Scene 3:

INT. STONE'S OFFICE

FEATURING chart with legend: STAR SHIP STATUS. Columns
lettered: Major Maintenance...Minor Maintenance...Ships
Incoming...Ships Cleared.

KIRK'S VOICE
[continuing his Captain's Log]
A full report of damages was
made to...

ANOTHER ANGLE - STONE

A NEGRO, whose bearing marks him as a man accustomed to
command. No longer a flight officer, his uniform is some-
what different from Kirk's, who is sitting opposite.

KIRK'S VOICE
...the Portmaster of Star Base
11: Senior Captain Stone.

STONE
I can't possibly have the
Enterprise ready that fast.

Kirk, who has been reading a document, looks up.

KIRK
This is not a scheduled layover,
sir. I have a patrol course to
get back on.
(indicating chart)
Can they wait?

STONE
(considers, then)
If you exercise your
Mission-In-
Progress prerogative...they'll
have to.

KIRK
Consider it exercised.

Stone nods. He pushes button on desk.

STONE
Maintenance Section 18.

SOUND OF CLICK.

STONE
(a look at
the chart)
Your section is working on the
U.S.S. Intrepid. Reschedule.
U.S.S. Enterprise is on Priority One.

Stone clicks off the communicator. Nods at the paper Kirk
has been studying.

STONE
That makes three times you've
reac it, Captain. Is there an
error?

(...and then the scene continues on as we know and love.)

So it looks like, generally, you make an appointment to get your starship fixed (or upgraded, I suppose) on a scheduled layover--in which case it's probably first come, first served. But if you have an unscheduled layover, then they'll try to squeeze you in if they can. But if you exercise your "Mission-in-Progress" prerogative because you really need to get back to your patrol route and you just can't afford to be "fit in" to the schedule, then you are made a Priority One and get triaged to the front of the line.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

^ Thanks, GSchnitzer. That takes care of that issue!

 

[Timo]

Even then, there are different classes of star ships. So Warped9's thinking of a mix of classes makes more sense than a singular class of ships on that chart.

Well, a single class of ships in the sense that all of these are starships (or Star Ships, or whatever). Multiple classes of starships there, some older than Kirk's, some newer.

The neat thing is, the list of names Jein was working from can easily be seen as a list of TOS starships from various classes. It is, after all, a list of names to be used in TOS scripts, and it would stand to reason that TOS adventures would feature multiple starship classes rather than just one, especially when the ship in question would not be seen on screen.

Timo Saloniemi

 

[Warped9]

Does anyone know if there was any thought or discussion regarding the possibility of trying to show other ship classes such as in "The Ultimate Computer," "The Omega Glory" and "The Tholian Web?" We know they went with reuse of stock footage because of time and budgetary constraints, but was a possible alternative even considered even if just momentarily? After all even though they managed to whip up a quick model for the Constellation it was always meant to be a ship similar to the Enterprise. But what of the others?

 

[Forbin]

OMG... "a NEGRO"!!!

 

[Shawnster]

Well, I actually think it makes sense to specify a negro here. We're talking 1960s television and that may have been the only way the writer (or whomever) could guarantee ethnic diversity. Leave the specification out and the casting department may think "Oh, a Commodore must be white. Kirk can't have a black superior officer."

Of course, that may not be the reason at all. It's a nice theory.

 

[Warped9]

Okay, something has been nagging at me so I decided to go back and check.

In The Making of Star Trek there are reprints of memos dating around early August, 1967 wherein they are discussion proposed names for starships. The thinking behind these suggestions are to "establish the names of the 12 ships of the Enterprise Starship Class." The idea conveyed here seems to be implying sister ships like the Enterprise but not necessarily of the Enterprise-class.

Later it says "The Enterprise is a member of the Starship Class (there are twelve of them). Registry Number NCC-1701."

And later still there is reference to Kirk's first command "the equivalent of a destroyer-class spaceship."

From those nuggets alone we get the impression the Enterprise is a member of the Starship Class, but not actually cited as the class ship or the first bird. We also learn that Starfleet has other classes of spaceships (or starships) because Kirk is cited as having commanded a destroyer-class equivalent.

Throughout the text I cannot find any definitive reference to "Enterprise-class starship." And at this point the phaser schematic that will appear in "The Trouble With Tribbles" denoting "Constitution-class starship" has yet to appear onscreen even though it was made originally for "Space Seed" and predating these memos from August, 1967.

What I get out of all this is that MJ likely intended the Enterprise to be Constitution-class even though it would have been established as an indirect visual reference onscreen in "Space Seed." But the graphic didn't get used until much later and during that time perhaps no one else knew how specific MJ had been with his graphic and thus no one was talking about coming up with names for ships of the Constitution-class. They were just trying to establish names for sister ships like the Enterprise.

Now there is another wrinkle. Both the text and onscreen references are explicit that there are only twelve ships of the Enterprise's class. And yet they finalize on fourteen names on top of which later script drafts will reference names not on that established list, and one of them (Defiant) actually makes it onscreen. So was the Defiant a replacement for a previously lost ship or was it there all along as one of the twelve? One could argue the fourteen names were meant as a pool to draw from yet no one was really held to it if they had a another suggestion, which seems the case when they used Defiant in "The Tholian Web."

What I get from this is we really don't know all of the specific twelve names of the Starship Class. We know only some of them. It's called into question because they appear to establish a pool of names and then later ignore it.


Now, further, one name appears on the pool of names that could be cause for confusion: Valiant.

A Valiant is first mentioned in WNMHGB as a space vessel lost some 200 years prior. So I think it's safe to assume that Valiant wasn't one of the Starship Class. But later another Valiant is mentioned as being lost fifty years prior in "A Taste Of Armageddon." Could this Valiant be of the Starship Class or is it yet again another older ship that predates the existence of the Starship Class? I never got the impression the Starship Class vessels were easily fifty years old. At the time of the Kirk era the impression I get is the ships are no more than maybe twenty-five years old. If so then if there is indeed a Valiant among the Starship Class then I'm assuming it's still out there in operation as it's not the one referenced as destroyed at Eminiar 7.

Add another little tidbit. FJ gave the Valiant the registry NCC-1708 and 1708 is on Stone's wall chart. Take from that what you will. Jein gave the Valiant the number 1623 which is not on Stone's chart. With a 1600 number it's then possible the Valiant listed in the pool of names is actually an older class of vessel that was nonetheless of similar classification as the Enterprise. That Valiant (and Republic) could be of the Starship Class yet older versions of said class.


The Starship Class could be a classification that Starfleet has used for quite some time denoting their best-of-the-best ships, but of course as time and progress marches forward newer and more advanced versions could be introduced and the Enterprise is (at the time of TOS) among the newest, the elite twelve of which we really don't know all the names.

 

[Forbin]

Well, I actually think it makes sense to specify a negro here. We're talking 1960s television and that may have been the only way the writer (or whomever) could guarantee ethnic diversity. Leave the specification out and the casting department may think "Oh, a Commodore must be white. Kirk can't have a black superior officer."

Of course, that may not be the reason at all. It's a nice theory.

A casting note, undoubtedly. I'm just chuckling at the phrasing, which sounds blatant and awkward to 21st century sensibilities.

 

[Robert Comsol]

Okay, something has been nagging at me so I decided to go back and check.

In The Making of Star Trek there are reprints of memos dating around early August, 1967 wherein they are discussion proposed names for starships. The thinking behind these suggestions are to "establish the names of the 12 ships of the Enterprise Starship Class." The idea conveyed here seems to be implying sister ships like the Enterprise but not necessarily of the Enterprise-class.

Timo suggested the same some while ago in another thread. I agree that this is a possibility, but Bob Justman would probably not have used the term "Enterprise Starship Class" had "Constitution Class" been established behind the scenes (he would have rather said "12 ships like the Enterprise to avoid confusion, nitpicky as he was).

Later it says "The Enterprise is a member of the Starship Class (there are twelve of them). Registry Number NCC-1701."

Throughout the text I cannot find any definitive reference to "Enterprise-class starship."

Your above quote comes from the lower half page 203 (Chapter 3 - Mission and Men) and 9 lines further down it reads

"The Enterprise-class starships have been in existence for about forty years..."

Since Jein mentioned the "forty years" in his treatise to suggest that Valiant couldn't be a starship like the Enterprise because it was fifty years old ("A Taste of Armageddon"), he obviously and conveniently ignored to elaborate on "Enterprise-class starship".

Probably it was cognitive dissonance, however I wasn't aware that it was contagious.

So was the Defiant a replacement for a previously lost ship or was it there all along as one of the twelve? One could argue the fourteen names were meant as a pool to draw from yet no one was really held to it if they had a another suggestion, which seems the case when they used Defiant in "The Tholian Web."

If Excalibur was NCC-1664 (apparently nobody wonders why I wonder whether it's supposedly "1664" on that chart or "1864") it's possible that the Defiant inherited the two-digit contact code and became NCC-1764.
After Defiant was considered lost and/or destroyed it's possible Reliant inherited the two-digit contact code and became NCC-1864.

But later another Valiant is mentioned as being lost fifty years prior in "A Taste Of Armageddon." Could this Valiant be of the Starship Class or is it yet again another older ship that predates the existence of the Starship Class? I never got the impression the Starship Class vessels were easily fifty years old. At the time of the Kirk era the impression I get is the ships are no more than maybe twenty-five years old. If so then if there is indeed a Valiant among the Starship Class then I'm assuming it's still out there in operation as it's not the one referenced as destroyed at Eminiar 7.

Since the much older Archon was a "starship" the second Valiant could have qualified as a starship, too (for its time and era).
Jein assumed the producers to be in error when deciding for Valiant to be a starship like the Enterprise, too. But, of course, just as the Eminiar 7 Valiant was named after the UESPA Valiant, there could have been a starship like the Enterprise bearing the same name (and not to mention later ships) that had been equally destroyed by the time he producers made up the list.

Add another little tidbit. FJ gave the Valiant the registry NCC-1708 and 1708 is on Stone's wall chart.

FJ gave the Intrepid the registry NCC-1708 (which is not on the starship status chart) and Valiant the registry NCC-1709 (which is on this chart).

The Starship Class could be a classification that Starfleet has used for quite some time denoting their best-of-the-best ships, but of course as time and progress marches forward newer and more advanced versions could be introduced and the Enterprise is (at the time of TOS) among the newest, the elite twelve of which we really don't know all the names.

Obviously something we can agree on.

Bob

 

[scotpens]

Well, I actually think it makes sense to specify a negro here. We're talking 1960s television and that may have been the only way the writer (or whomever) could guarantee ethnic diversity. Leave the specification out and the casting department may think "Oh, a Commodore must be white. Kirk can't have a black superior officer."

That's basically the way things were in television back then. Not so much that Kirk couldn't have a black superior officer; it was more that non-race-specific roles were played by white actors by default.

And yes, I'm old enough to remember when they were called Negroes.

 

[Godblessed1701]

Well, I actually think it makes sense to specify a negro here. We're talking 1960s television and that may have been the only way the writer (or whomever) could guarantee ethnic diversity. Leave the specification out and the casting department may think "Oh, a Commodore must be white. Kirk can't have a black superior officer."

That's basically the way things were in television back then. Not so much that Kirk couldn't have a black superior officer; it was more that non-race-specific roles were played by white actors by default.

And yes, I'm old enough to remember when they were called Negroes.

oh, lord. me thinks it was written into the script to throw doubt on the accuracy of the chart. perhaps it be forged. perhaps it be delibrately there to show the comodores incompetence. by all things holy may be he was a slacker and made up em ships to snow over kirk into thinking he be busy workin hard when half them ships not even be there! so emphasis on the n word be to cast doubt and it sure as dang well convincs me why them there nccs be funky.

i personly feel it in my heart and soul that mr. josephs numbers be right. since the man gene, bless his soul, approved of them there prints, authorized them, nad couldve at any time told mr. joseph to go with these or any other numbers for his ships. specially since they be like on sheet 1, the title sheet. that there makes a kinda sense now there dont it.

i also have it from a higher source that mr. joseph read that there top ship number as 1708 not 1709. see that be exactly what a gal named ruth berman interpreted it as too. because you see like back then there be no dvds or vcrs. and 1708 is the intrepid by golly going by mr. joseph, and again there be (bless his soul) mr. great bird signing off on these prints with those there numbers on the first sheet and all.
they made quite an impression being int he smitonian and all. then they be carrid on to the technical manual. and my dice-chuckin pallys were always keen on joseph numbers as they were used in their star trek battles board gamez. i evn heard they be heard in the first real star trek flick by epsilon 9. i figure and feel in my soul thet they kinda carry lots of weight around like after i had a big fat meal. the numbers even reckon in some novels and plenty of them there blueprint packs the nerds go fer at the conz.

 

[aridas sofia]

^ I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[BorgusFrat]

"Starship' was a term for the deep space vessels, the ones with the longest range and that would be away from "home" the longest. So you could have the cruiser be a starship, or a heavy cruiser, or even a scout of a different design-- but probably not something like a destroyer-- too short range by design. FJs best skills were in flushing out the unseen areas on the ship-- making all the crew cabins fit in a logical way was amazing. Plus there's no logical way to have a round corridor in the secondary hull. No point to having a corridor follow the outside circular shape of the hull, just to get a circular corridor down there-- the windows tell us that much. Also, hard to believe the Enterprise and others like her were the best of the best because they were already in service for awhile. I would think it'd be more believable to say they were the best when they were built, like any ship is, but they've been away on their missions so long that newer ships have probably been built. Also why things looked so different in the universe of TMP-- once the Enterprise made it back home, the only one, the tech had advanced while they were gone.

I bet anyone who recreates the FJ plans will end up with more of what he did than they even think-- his layout just makes that much sense in most areas!

 

[publiusr]

They do at that.

 

[GambitRealm]

Wow... Just wow... What a thread...

You'd think FJ had killed someone's puppy the way he's being maligned here.

I have to go with the point that his blueprints and manual were so popular and well-received at the time, and that they were put in the g---amn Smithsonian, as giving them credibility. As for the whole canon/non-canon debate, and whether his layout was "inaccurate" by show standards - anybody out there who is trying to produce their own deck plans knows that at some point you run out of source material... In other words, you can pack in all the sets you see in the show, and there are still dozens of decks and hundreds of rooms that NOBODY knows exactly what is in there.

So.. To those who seem hell-bent on poo-pooing FJ as a merely a "Lost in Space fan", whose work should be discarded because GR eventually did an about face on the whole blueprints deal, I call shenanigans... His is the only work I have seen that really and truly provides a realistic and complete depiction of a 24-deck interstellar starship, with total redundancies in both upper and lower hulls to allow for separation and autonomous operation of both hulls, as well as the various necessary recreation and storage facilities and large amount of accommodations necessary for a crew of 400+.

I don't find the idea of a swimming pool or a bowling alley implausible at all, in fact I would question a ship design that didn't have such amenities... Since no holodeck technology existed at the time of TOS (I'm talking in the show, not through retconning ST: Enterprise canon), the crew would need real-world exercise and recreation areas, some in the lower hull and some in the upper hull. Water is a natural and effective rehabilitating environment for injuries, etc that may occur during a long voyage, it is not odd at all that one would think of putting a pool into a ship of this size.

A colleague and I have been building and rebuilding a walkable version of the TOS Enterprise for 5 years now, in the Torque game engine. Regardless of the fact that we are the first and so far only people to ever produce something like this and actually RELEASE it to the public, there is a large amount of backlash over our use of FJ's blueprints as a model for our ship... Apparently we are not being "accurate" enough... Now I don't take offense to any of this, to each their own, but I am really surprised at all the lines in the sand I see on this board, which seem to be so totally polar opposite of Trek-inspired philosophy. You'd think that any chance to walk this ship, even with an individual artist's changes they have to make in order for things to actually fit and MAKE SENSE, would be a dream come true for any fan. Personally, I wish all the other people doing such plans and 3D models would release their work as well - there are many ways to interpret the Enterprise, there is no way to be 100% accurate because so much of the ship was NEVER SHOWN. I would love to walk many different versions of the ship, seeing how different artists interpret it. To spend all this time on arguing such trivial points that can never be 100% answered definitively seems to go against the whole Trek philosophy.

Of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong

Can't we all just get along?

Peace

 

[Robert Comsol]

You'd think FJ had killed someone's puppy the way he's being maligned here.

That's exactly the kind of wrong conclusion a lot of folks have been eager to draw from my comments, even though I was only quoting Franz Joseph from his interviews you'll find at www.trekplace.com.

Fact: He wasn't a Star Trek fan
Fact: He preferred "Lost in Space" (thus I think it's not unfair to call him a fan of this show because he obviously liked it)

I have to go with the point that his blueprints and manual were so popular and well-received at the time, and that they were put in the g---amn Smithsonian, as giving them credibility.

Yes, they were popular and well-received and it was an amazing piece of craftmanship. However that didn't automatically make these useful as a guide to the actual interior of the ship as seen in the series, regardless whether the NASM put these on display or not

As for the whole canon/non-canon debate, and whether his layout was "inaccurate" by show standards - anybody out there who is trying to produce their own deck plans knows that at some point you run out of source material... In other words, you can pack in all the sets you see in the show, and there are still dozens of decks and hundreds of rooms that NOBODY knows exactly what is in there.

According to my examinations we may have one dozen decks of which we didn't see one thing (other than the exterior windows), but most definitely not "dozens".

But that is not the point! While we do have plenty of room that has not been featured in the series and is open to conjectural and individual interpretation, there are many locations which we did see in the series and no matter which way you turn this around, those locations have to show up in any deck plan project, if you want to have a reproduction of the ship as seen in the series and to which general audiences and fans alike can relate to.

Otherwise it's just a conjectural interpretation, which nevertheless can be entertaining and interesting. Nothing less and nothing more.

So.. To those who seem hell-bent on poo-pooing FJ as a merely a "Lost in Space fan", whose work should be discarded because GR eventually did an about face on the whole blueprints deal, I call shenanigans...

This one is good, mixing various accusations into one. I don't know what you imply by "discarded", but I think it would be a good thing that after almost 50 years it's really time we get some deck plans that accurately reflect those areas we did see in the series, therefore and since last year I published several proposals for several decks in my thread to contribute my part of making this dream come true.

Apparently we are not being "accurate" enough... Now I don't take offense to any of this, to each their own, but I am really surprised at all the lines in the sand I see on this board, which seem to be so totally polar opposite of Trek-inspired philosophy. You'd think that any chance to walk this ship, even with an individual artist's changes they have to make in order for things to actually fit and MAKE SENSE, would be a dream come true for any fan.

I can only answer this with a theory that may be right or wrong. From an average Joe's point of view the Original Series is no longer state-of-the-art, thus the TOS fanbase today possibly consists mostly of hardcore TOS fans like myself. Many of us have seen the episodes and the interior of the ship dozens of times and "know" what the interior looks like on a conscious and subconscious level. Thus accuracy is very important to me and other fans (the amount of current accuracy driven TOS fan projects is remarkable and encouraging, IMHO) if one intends to successfully convey the illusion of being there.

Personally, I wish all the other people doing such plans and 3D models would release their work as well - there are many ways to interpret the Enterprise, there is no way to be 100% accurate because so much of the ship was NEVER SHOWN. I would love to walk many different versions of the ship, seeing how different artists interpret it. To spend all this time on arguing such trivial points that can never be 100% answered definitively seems to go against the whole Trek philosophy.

Admirably said and I wholeheartedly agree, i.e. that it indeed would be quite an experience to explore different interpretations of the ship's interior which we did not see onscreen.

But first things, first and that's the accurate reproduction of all those areas we did see onscreen, IMO.

Peace

...and long life! (Vulcan reply to LLAP)

Bob

 

[Shawnster]

Wow... Just wow... What a thread...

You'd think FJ had killed someone's puppy the way he's being maligned here...

I love you, man. You summed up my thoughts on this topic, succinctly.

Can't we all just get along?

Peace

You resurrected a topic that had lain dormant for two weeks. Sometimes peace means leaving sleeping dogs lie.

 

[Robert Comsol]

You resurrected a topic that had lain dormant for two weeks. Sometimes peace means leaving sleeping dogs lie.

...to which you contributed and thus moved the thread again near the pole position.

But thanks for proving my first statement in my previous post.

Bob

 

[aridas sofia]

I beg pardon of the esteemed moderators and hope this ain’t gonna get me in trouble for reviving such an old discussion. But there is really no way to post this without the context of the crazy, historical, anachronistic thread to which it refers, and which includes so many deceased and permabanned members it deserves a plaque of some sort. The gist of the thread - which actually was a subject of much interest nine years ago -was Greg Jein versus Franz Joseph versus Matt Jefferies on the question of the NCC numbers on the Commodore Stone chart in “Court Martial”. In the years since this thread, I drew ships mentioned in the various episodes, and when I got to “Court Martial”, I worked this out in a way that accommodated almost everyone’s approach. Which just goes to show you, it doesn’t always need to be exclusively one way or the other.

What is amusing (and kind of sad, but really merits revisiting) is just how devoted some of us were to old, fan-based ways of figuring this stuff out, that were later overruled by, among other things, TOS-R. The landscape of Star Trek is so changed now (by JJ and Disco, et al,) that the nitpicking here is hilarious (particularly when you consider how Pike’s Enterprise now, apparently, is in no way related to what we saw in TOS.)

I submit for your amusement and erudition as to how things used to be. This is obviously in no way related to anybody’s canon, except that it sorta fits that chart and the other data points mentioned, and reflects stuff that some of us still hold as cool.

*Indicates the iconic “twelve like her” mentioned in “Tomorrow is Yesterday”

Constellation* 1017 "The Doomsday Machine" (a testbed vessel for the class, refit from an older class)
Constitution* 1700 "The Trouble with Tribbles"
Enterprise* 1701 "The Man Trap"
Farragut* 1702 "Obsession"
Lexington* 1703 "The Ultimate Computer"
Yorktown* 1704 "Obsession"
Excalibur* 1705 "The Ultimate Computer"
Exeter* 1706 "The Omega Glory"
Hood* 1707 "The Ultimate Computer"
Intrepid 1708 (under construction, to replace 1631 which is on Stone’s chart and being decommissioned. Not part of the “twelve” because it is not yet commissioned. It is a new ship when destroyed.) "The Immunity Syndrome"
Defiant* 1709 "The Tholian Web"
Kongo* 1710 TMoST DC Fontana memo
Potemkin* 1711 "The Ultimate Computer"

Bonhomme Richard 1712 TMoST DC Fontana memo (under construction, canceled, destroyed, lost, or decommissioned)
Monitor 1713 TMoST DC Fontana memo (under construction, canceled, destroyed, lost, or decommissioned)
Hornet 1714 TMoST DC Fontana memo (under construction, canceled, destroyed, lost, or decommissioned)
Merrimac 1715 TMoST DC Fontana memo (under construction, canceled, destroyed, lost, or decommissioned)
Endeavor 1716 (under construction) “Amok Time” script
Scimitar 1717 Original scripted name for Defiant in “The Tholian Web” (under construction)
Excelsior 1718 (undergoing trials> to be commissioned) "Court Martial"
Eagle 1719 (replaces 1685) Bob Justman memo (under construction)

Republic 1371 “Court Martial” (not Constitution class)
Valiant destroyed “A Taste of Armageddon” (1623, an older ship from fifty years ago, not 1709)

So, the “Commodore Stone NCC Chart” ends up being a mix of current Constitution class heavy cruisers, and earlier cruisers (some of which are in the process of decommissioning to be replaced by Connies with the same name).

NCC-1709 Defiant
NCC-1631 Intrepid (old- being decommissioned)
NCC-1703 Lexington
NCC-1672 Saratoga
NCC-1664 El Dorado
NCC-1697 Essex
NCC-1701 Enterprise
NCC-1718 Excelsior
NCC-1685 Eagle
NCC-1700 Constitution

How they might have looked:
https://i.pinimg.com/474x/2a/46/d7/2a46d75c8b3a5d34a8fbd5fb73286392.jpg