That Starbase 11 wall chart - noe in slide form

[aridas sofia]

The more I think about it, the more I think everybody from Jein to FJ to… well, me, got the whole “MK IX/01” thing wrong.

That is a USN and UK system for keeping track of revisions on weapons and gear, not ships. I see no indication it was ever used on ships. The Army used it on tanks. Aircraft. But not ships.

It says
PRIMARY PHASER L,R
STAR SHIP MK IX/01
CONSTITUTION CLASS

Given the way the mark revision is used in the military, I suspect he was referring to the phaser, not the ship.

It is a MK IX/01 star ship phaser, installed on Constitution class star ships.

It doesn’t help this discussion much beyond taking the MK issue out of any consideration of NCC. Which it really should be since it has always seemed superfluous.

I think it is superfluous and doesn’t refer to ship at all. It is about the phaser turret, used like “British BL 9.2-inch Mk IX” guns which were used from 1899 to the 1950s, or the 8"/55 Mark 9 Gun used by the USN from 1925 to 1975. The Mark 9 was even used on heavy cruisers and battleships, and was effective in naval engagements during World War II.

 

[Tomalak]

Yep, could well be referring to the phaser bank.

 

[BK613]

@aridas sofia re: phaser mark 9. Yep, makes perfect sense.

 

[Vagabond Elf]

Guys, when @Boo-khat! Says "cut the decal in half and flip the 01 around" he doesn't mean "invert it so the glue side is now on top." He means "rotate it 180 degrees."

I mean, he does just keep repeating the same words over and over so that's failing at communication skills, but otherwise he's correct. The decal sheet, at least as shown here:

A History of the AMT Enterprise Model by Jay Chladek part 1

Over the years, we have spent a lot of time in the CultTVman Chat Room discussing the original AMT Enterprise kit. One of the more interesting facets of this mo

culttvman.com

is a sans-serif typeface. It is not the same typeface used on Big E. So there's nothing preventing you from rotating 01 to make it become 10.

Like this:

Of course changing 1701 to 1710 with this technique would've been even easier, but I think we've mostly agreed that the general shape of 1701 and 1710 are too similar when seen from a distance on a low-res TV, whereas 1017 and 1701 are very different shapes. And making 1017 is pretty dang fast - two cuts, a rotation, and three decals to apply. This is all of 30 seconds work even for me, and surely was much less so for a professional model maker.

Whereupon, in my opinion, we're back to Occam and his razor saying that the choice of 1017 was a simple production expedient and offers no insight into how anyone thought the registry numbers should work behind the scenes.

 

[Boo-khat!]

Guys, when @Boo-khat! Says "cut the decal in half and flip the 01 around" he doesn't mean "invert it so the glue side is now on top." He means "rotate it 180 degrees."

Er, yes, that's what I meant. I'm not sure why anyone would have taken what I said the way you describe it.

I mean, he does just keep repeating the same words over and over so that's failing at communication skills, but otherwise he's correct.

Er, I mentioned it twice. And I'm not sure how my communication skills have failed in any way. It's pretty clear that I meant to rotate the numbers.

 

[Crewman Commander]

Guys, when @Boo-khat! Says "cut the decal in half and flip the 01 around" he doesn't mean "invert it so the glue side is now on top." He means "rotate it 180 degrees."

I mean, he does just keep repeating the same words over and over so that's failing at communication skills, but otherwise he's correct. The decal sheet, at least as shown here:

A History of the AMT Enterprise Model by Jay Chladek part 1

Over the years, we have spent a lot of time in the CultTVman Chat Room discussing the original AMT Enterprise kit. One of the more interesting facets of this mo

culttvman.com

is a sans-serif typeface. It is not the same typeface used on Big E. So there's nothing preventing you from rotating 01 to make it become 10.

Like this:

Of course changing 1701 to 1710 with this technique would've been even easier, but I think we've mostly agreed that the general shape of 1701 and 1710 are too similar when seen from a distance on a low-res TV, whereas 1017 and 1701 are very different shapes. And making 1017 is pretty dang fast - two cuts, a rotation, and three decals to apply. This is all of 30 seconds work even for me, and surely was much less so for a professional model maker.

Whereupon, in my opinion, we're back to Occam and his razor saying that the choice of 1017 was a simple production expedient and offers no insight into how anyone thought the registry numbers should work behind the scenes.

The problem is that the decal shown in the original kit has an arcing baseline. You are depicting the digit pair with a straight baseline.

You can't rotate the digit pair and have it work upside-down when the baseline arcs.

Based on the digit angles, it appears to me that the latter option was what was chosen.

It very well could have been done this way. I would be most convinced if it could be demonstrated by overlaying the decal so manipulated over a screen grab, taking care to put the decal in the proper perspective of course. No trivial task, that!

 

[Boo-khat!]

The problem is that the decal shown in the original kit has an arcing baseline. You are depicting the digit pair with a straight baseline.

You can't rotate the digit pair and have it work upside-down when the baseline arcs.

Yes, I see what you are saying. They would have had to cut the 0 and 1 apart to make it fit correctly. Still, not a horrendously big deal to do.

 

[DSG2k]

Or just...paint the scorching and battle damage onto the saucer?

Every damaged spot on the model involved heat. I'm not even sure any paint was used at all. The black marks are what you get from burning plastic.

You can't rotate the digit pair and have it work upside-down when the baseline arcs.

Bingo. It never occurred to me that someone would suggest rotating a connected pair of digits off of that decal sheet. That's some "turn a smile into a frown" stuff.

Anyway, the Super-Remaster is coming out and it will fix all of this Starbase 11 nonsense:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

That's something we don't see in modern Trek.

Good Ole Pen & Paper.

 

[Tomalak]

That's a space pen and duotronic hyperfilm.

To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't even know where to find a pen and paper in my office. It's all digital.

 

[Vagabond Elf]

Er, yes, that's what I meant. I'm not sure why anyone would have taken what I said the way you describe it.

And yet, clearly people did, there's even a post saying your notion must be wrong because the glue would be face up.

Er, I mentioned it twice. And I'm not sure how my communication skills have failed in any way. It's pretty clear that I meant to rotate the numbers.

While I agree that my saying "over and over" is hyperbole, for which I apologise, it really, really wasn't clear what you meant. Most of the posts responding to your suggestion with bafflement obviously didn't understand what you were trying to describe. That's a failure in communication.

I'm a librarian. I'm also trained for 9-1-1 (in Canada, where we actually send people to college for that, and don't just dump them in front of a telephone). I say this only to establish my bona fides as a person who's had a lot of formal training in communication; nothing more is intended there.

Arguably the single most common failure point in communication of any kind is when, after something we say is misinterpreted, to simply repeat our initial statement. That is, if I say "XX" but you hear "YY," it's common for me to just say "XX" again. But then you'll just hear "YY" again. So good communication involves saying "Zed Zed" instead. However, most people don't think to do that, and so the miscommunication just keeps bouncing back and forth and people get frustrated, leading to the kind of drama that was occurring upthread.

Again, I do apologise for calling two instances "over and over," that was overstating things. Still, I think this serves as a good example of how communication can break down, both in spoken conversation and especially on text-based forums. I'd encourage all of us to keep this in mind, and the next time we're thinking "why doesn't this dude get it?" take a moment to review how we've been saying things, and check if we're just repeating ourselves instead of changing things up and trying different approaches.

 

[Zombie Cheerleader]

Every damaged spot on the model involved heat. I'm not even sure any paint was used at all. The black marks are what you get from burning plastic.



Bingo. It never occurred to me that someone would suggest rotating a connected pair of digits off of that decal sheet. That's some "turn a smile into a frown" stuff.

Anyway, the Super-Remaster is coming out and it will fix all of this Starbase 11 nonsense:

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

Don't sign it Jim! That's how they get you.

 

[Crewman Commander]

Kirk: A million credits for a fresh coat of paint??! Prices have gone up!

Stone: Ever since contact with the Ferengi Alliance, no one will work for free anymore.

 

[Boo-khat!]

And yet, clearly people did, there's even a post saying your notion must be wrong because the glue would be face up.



While I agree that my saying "over and over" is hyperbole, for which I apologise, it really, really wasn't clear what you meant. Most of the posts responding to your suggestion with bafflement obviously didn't understand what you were trying to describe. That's a failure in communication.

I'm a librarian. I'm also trained for 9-1-1 (in Canada, where we actually send people to college for that, and don't just dump them in front of a telephone). I say this only to establish my bona fides as a person who's had a lot of formal training in communication; nothing more is intended there.

Arguably the single most common failure point in communication of any kind is when, after something we say is misinterpreted, to simply repeat our initial statement. That is, if I say "XX" but you hear "YY," it's common for me to just say "XX" again. But then you'll just hear "YY" again. So good communication involves saying "Zed Zed" instead. However, most people don't think to do that, and so the miscommunication just keeps bouncing back and forth and people get frustrated, leading to the kind of drama that was occurring upthread.

Again, I do apologise for calling two instances "over and over," that was overstating things. Still, I think this serves as a good example of how communication can break down, both in spoken conversation and especially on text-based forums. I'd encourage all of us to keep this in mind, and the next time we're thinking "why doesn't this dude get it?" take a moment to review how we've been saying things, and check if we're just repeating ourselves instead of changing things up and trying different approaches.

I forgive you