That Starbase 11 wall chart - noe in slide form

[ChallengerHK]

One thing I thought of a few years back. Ruth Berman's notes on Greg Jein's "Jonathan Doe Starship" talks about several different roles, with ships that are based on the same hull but have different internals to do different things. There are explorers, deep space explorers...I think scouts were mentioned. I always thought this would explain the wide range of numbers for ships which look the same, as well as the Archenar class. It wouldn't explain Jeffries' numbering plan, unless his "desgn" is the same thing as Berman's "role".

 

[DSG2k]

Here are my findings:

NCC-1709
NCC-1631 (My image might not be the best judge for this one but i can't disprove NCC-1831 off what i have. This could change when we blow it up. There are times it looks like both.)
NCC-1703
NCC-1672
NCC-1654
NCC-1697
NCC-1701
NCC-1718
NCC-1635
NCC-1700

Most surprised was the NCC-1635 as I was not expecting that.

The 1654 is definitely doubtful (your seventh Imgur image makes it look less like a 5 than the others) and while I’d potentially be willing to go with 1635, I second the point that the frame you have is missing the rest of the zero in 1700 (making 170C) and thus there seems to be some scratch or other chemical degradation or bleed effect afoot that may be affecting certain dark areas.

(Indeed, this hypothesis means that, while I personally have no problem with 18xx (or greater) registries at this point in the timeline but do not conclude that any are here, our 18xx brethren ought not fret quite yet.)

I hate to say it, but multiple frames would be required for greater certitude, as well as technical information on the blowing up process.

That said, like everyone else with a prior opinion, I hope the final blow-up results look like my own previous claims and wishes. ;-)

Starbase 11 registry chart

Did ya miss me? I'm baaaaaaaaack! I've refined a previous thought, and added some new ones. What if I told you (by which I mean, I am creating out of whole cloth the notion) that there was a predecessor class to the Connies? I propose the USS Aster, NCC-1650. Why "Aster"? I'll circle back...

www.trekbbs.com

 

[CorporalCaptain]

@DSG2k, thanks for linking back to that recent, earlier thread. It has great contributions from a variety of posters.

 

[DSG2k]

I think all the Lincoln Enterprises clips were cut up from daileys, which were not color graded, hence the red tint. I don't think t would make a huge difference in the results.

Just FYI on the red/pink/magenta coloration:

Film Preservation 101: Why are old films sometimes pink?

Film Preservation 101 is an occasional series in which we answer our most frequently asked questions. Please submit your burning questions about film preservation in the comments below! …

unwritten-record.blogs.archives.gov

 

[ChallengerHK]

Just FYI on the red/pink/magenta coloration:

Film Preservation 101: Why are old films sometimes pink?

Film Preservation 101 is an occasional series in which we answer our most frequently asked questions. Please submit your burning questions about film preservation in the comments below! …

unwritten-record.blogs.archives.gov

That is good and correct information. I can also add though that it's definitely true that positive films from most eras if not properly processed will display a red shift. The daily issue may possibly have been due to quick fixing in order to get the rushes out as soon as possible. Finally, Kodachrome (all I used to shoot for reversal film back in the day) would give me a red shift if I was lazy and left it in a hot car for a couple of weeks before processing.

 

[Yaroze86]

NCC-1654 - It is pretty clear a flat top from a 5. Again, before I make broad claims. I would like to get it processed.

I took the same screen caps as well from the microscope. The ones posted earlier are from my phone taking a picture of the screen of the microscope.

 

[Ithekro]

It be nice to get this mystery cleared up after 60 years.

 

[Redshirt214]

Here's the list, as I make it out. The prime difficulty lies in differentiating the 6s and 8s I think.

NCC 1709
NCC 1631
NCC 1703
NCC 1672
NCC 1664
NCC 1697
NCC 1701
NCC 1719
NCC 1685
NCC 1700

But I'm pretty sure this is right at least based on the much clearer still, which seems to me more reliable at least at the moment until we have clearer scans. I'm very skeptical of the claim of NCC 1654, the third digit doesn't look like the 5 visible lower the the chart at all. I'm relatively convinced it's definitely a 6, and I think the other digits are 6s too simply because the only clear 8 seems to be a slightly wider character than the 6, with the 6 being distinctively more blocky.

This puts everything in the 1631-1719 number range which seems much more like a range you'd come up with if your intent is to put 1701 smack dab in the middle to me. Note also this implies there are 4-5 Starship\Constitution\Enterprise type ships under repair here, which is also consistent with the six reported in service at the time, in the episode previous to Court Martial. I think it's reasonable to assume the thought process was that these types of ships all had NCC 17XX numbers, especially when you consider any ship that appeared on screen was going to be the Enterprise model (so it's easier to live with the idea of the ships being in the 17XX series, and equally if they'd ever bothered with a redress it'd be an easy option. Really wish they'd given the USS Constellation the number NCC-1710!). IIRC Jeffries stated at one point his intent was that the Enterprise was the first of her kind by virtue of registry, design 17 number 01, but that's non cannon. Besides of which the viewers have only ever seen the USS Enterprise, NCC 1701 so it makes sense we're supposed to assume that NCC 1700, 1703, 1709, and 1719 probably look about the same.

Just my two credits.