Timo,
I have a mental disability. I applied for a SSI (or SSD) - I can't remember which I will get if I don't have enough work credits - and I was granted OTR (on the record) approval by the judge. I am fully aware of seeing things that aren't there. Sometimes, I experience irrational though processes and I think that my toy stuffed eagle has hostile feelings towards me. So, for someone in my condition, I have to double check and triple check what I see. So, it might have been better, if I had open this thread, by asking if anyone can confirm what I see? I was excited when I wrote the opening post, because I believed that I had discovered something new and I wanted to share it with others.
I had no assumptions when I saw the picture for the first time. I thought it might be NX-2000, NCC-2541, or some other number. When I looked at the picture for the first time, I identified the number as 2541. I am used to models having different registries - this is common with the Star Trek models. For example, the Ambassador-class model was sold with decals for both of its appearances as the Excalibur and the Yamaguchi.
In this case, I examine the history of the model, I compare the registry of the model from its initial use as the Excelsior (NX-2000) to its second use as the Hood, and I examine the numbers. The numbers are different. The width of a 1 is not the same width as a 0. A 4 doesn't have the same shape as a 0. A 5 doesn't have the same shape as a 0. A 2 is a 2. I can do this comparison because on the web there is a side-profile shot of the Excelsior, as it appeared in the third and fourth movies. (The side profile shot is in the gallery for this ship class at Ex-Astris-Scientia.) The number can't be anything else. I will agree with you, Timo, that the registry prefix is unclear. (This is what I did with the Yamato's registry.)
Sometimes, the only thing we have to go on for these ships is background information. Do you accept there is an Appalachia with the registry NCC-52136? If so, then you are accepting background information derived from a model. Do you accept that NCC-63549 is the Thunderchild? If so, then you are accepting what Michael Okuda has told us is the name of this ship. (The model carries no name. According to ILM, on a ship size comparison shot, NCC-63549 is the Spector, and the Thunderchild is NCC-63898. I am not getting into here on how the Hiroshima is changed to Appalachia, or how NCC-63549 became associated with the Thunderchild. I feel there is a lack of evidence on either discussion.)
There are three episodes in TNG where the Excelsior-class ship isn't named, and, in two of those instances, there is a side profile of the ship. Canonically, in those instances, the ship is the NCC-2541. As Memory Alpha puts it, when a thing is not named in the canon, background sources can be used to identity a thing.
People are stubborn. I accept this. What I am attempting to understand is your behavior, Timo. Is there a reason why you are defensive about this subject? Do you have an emotional investment in approving or disapproving what I and others have seen? In your post, you allude to a measurement. Do you have more information on this measurement?
For me, illusion is believing that my toy stuffed eagle, Hermione, is harboring feelings of ill will towards me. It is not some registry on a model.
