HOME | DD

viperaviator — Constitution Class Insignia Recognition Chart by-nc-nd

Published: 2014-01-28 22:59:35 +0000 UTC; Views: 14984; Favourites: 117; Downloads: 413
Redirect to original
Description I developed this chart to show the different ship's insignias for the 12 original Constitution Class Starships. I based each design on the ones that were done back in 1980 for the U.S.S. Enterprise Officer's Manual by Geoffery Mandel and illustrated by Geoffery Mandel and Doug Drexler, with the exception of the Enterprise, Constellation and Exeter since those insignias were actually seen on screen.


Another thing that I did was try to offer an explanation on the numbers lower than 1700 since the Constitution was the lead ship of the class. So as a result, I reasoned that ships's with 17xx numbers would be new builds and that ships of the 10xx and 16xx were older model ships that were refitted to Constitution class specifications, A theory that I have is that the Constellation Class was built before the Constitution but still had the same dual hull, dual Warp Engine configuration, so they could easily be updated and refitted to the new Constitution standards and Starfleet decided to keep the original names and NCC numbers for record keeping reasons instead of issuing new ones.

UPDATE 03/12/2014:

Based upon the links that p51cmustang provided in the comments section, I have changed the NCC numbers for the USS Hood to NCC-1703, the USS Lexington to NCC-1709 and the USS Potemkin to NCC-1657. Also, I have reorganized the insignias to keep them in numerical order.

EDIT 03/15/2014

Fixed some minor spacing and kerning problems

Related content
Comments: 18

Multiverse-Nexus [2016-07-09 17:36:45 +0000 UTC]

Superb work ☺

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

ClayBuchanan1007 [2015-09-24 00:20:14 +0000 UTC]

WAY COOL ARTWORK,  SHIPMATE! "LIVE LONG AND PROSPER!"

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

viperaviator [2014-03-13 22:59:11 +0000 UTC]

monkeysuncle30  then check out this thread resinilluminati.com/showthread…

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

viperaviator [2014-03-13 18:02:13 +0000 UTC]

monkeysuncle30  believe it or not, I was actually thinking about doing a second chart for a TOS Miranda class

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

monkeysuncle30 In reply to viperaviator [2014-03-13 19:02:46 +0000 UTC]

Intetesting. That would be awesome. I'd love to see what Reliant back then. ^_^

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

monkeysuncle30 [2014-03-13 08:34:58 +0000 UTC]

Nice work. I wonder what the other ships' assignment patches look like... ^_^

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

TopGunSGA [2014-03-12 20:54:52 +0000 UTC]

Awesome

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

viperaviator [2014-03-12 17:51:26 +0000 UTC]

UPDATED 03/12/2014: 

Based upon the links that p51cmustang provided in the comments section, I have changed the NCC numbers for the USS Hood to NCC-1703, the USS Lexington to NCC-1709 and the USS Potemkin to NCC-1657. Also, I have reorganized the insignias to keep them in numerical order.

Thanks p51cmustang  

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Wolfman-053 In reply to viperaviator [2014-03-12 19:40:48 +0000 UTC]

Glad I could help!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

BaronNeutron [2014-01-31 19:11:51 +0000 UTC]

yet another example of how the new Trek movies are poorly written.  Thank you sir!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

viperaviator [2014-01-29 22:02:05 +0000 UTC]

p51cmustang  thank you for the links, I will update the creative as soon as time permits, I want to thank you all for the heads up on this. You guys are the greatest!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

viperaviator [2014-01-29 19:27:42 +0000 UTC]

Well I got the iinsignias for the ships from The USS Enterprise Officer's Manual and I did a Google search for the NCC numbers and that's what I found. If someone could provide a link for the correct numbers I will edit the creative accordingly

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

The9thNightguard [2014-01-29 15:26:45 +0000 UTC]

The USS Hood Was NCC-1703

 

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

Wolfman-053 [2014-01-29 15:19:54 +0000 UTC]

I've always thought the Constitution-class Lexington was NCC-1709...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

The9thNightguard In reply to Wolfman-053 [2014-01-29 15:27:10 +0000 UTC]

it is

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Wolfman-053 In reply to The9thNightguard [2014-01-29 16:55:53 +0000 UTC]

That being the case, I think needs to correct his work to take that into account... or explain his reasoning at the very least...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

L1701E [2014-01-29 03:14:30 +0000 UTC]

Nice!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0