Print

[Ric Gillespie]

In 1935 Lockheed changed from a Sans Serif to a Serif font.  The font on NR16020 in 1936 was Serif.  From what I see on the artifact, it is a Sans Serif Font.

The font on the aluminum labeling was determined by ALCOA not Lockheed.  If you have proof that all ALCOA labeling prior to 1935 was Sans Serif, and if the letters on the artifact are Sans Serif as you say, then the artifact aluminum dates from before 1935.   

[Ric Gillespie]

Did you have 'senior moment' and forget to attach the other set of photos? 

Yep.  Sorry.

[Mark Samuels]

In 1935 Lockheed changed from a Sans Serif to a Serif font.  The font on NR16020 in 1936 was Serif.  From what I see on the artifact, it is a Sans Serif Font.

The font on the aluminum labeling was determined by ALCOA not Lockheed.  If you have proof that all ALCOA labeling prior to 1935 was Sans Serif, and if the letters on the artifact are Sans Serif as you say, then the artifact aluminum dates from before 1935.

My bad, fingers engaged, brain in neutral.  Alcoa changed sometime in 1935.  In any event, the patch is not serif and therefore it is not likely from 1936 when the Electra was built.

Edited to add:  The image of the artifact posted on the forum somewhere showed an A or D or both as I recall which were Sans Serif.  I can't seem to find it now.

[Ric Gillespie]

Alcoa changed sometime in 1935.

That's a nice flat statement of fact.  Is there some ALCOA document that I have missed or is this a conclusion you have reached by looking at pictures? 

[Krystal McGinty-Carter]

Ive never seen any photos of any discernable print on the artifact. Did I miss it?  Could someone kindly shove me in the right direction?


Krystal "Needs a compass to find her way out of her living room" McGinty

[Greg Daspit]

If it protrudes on the outside and not the inside, wear may be more evident on the outside than the inside.

Mr. Daspit, I don't think you can have it both ways unfortunately.  If there is a 'protrusion' on the outside of an .032 sheet or patch of aluminum, there should be a corresponding visual 'depression' on the inside.  Short of there not being one on the inside, it seems more likely that the vertical lines on the outside are the result from a different source.  That in itself will not rule out the provenance of the artifact, nor prove it.  Maybe Mr. Gillespie will clear this up.

Mr. Samuels, Sorry if I did not explain that well but I don't see where you got the idea that there wasn't a recess on the inside from my post.  What I understood (maybe assumed) from the previous post on the subject, was that is was less visible on the inside. The point of my post was to explain why I thought it was less visible. Less wear on a recess/ concave shape versus a bump/ convex shape. The worn surface corroding or collecting stuff more than a smooth surface. I think it is a simple concept but I probably did not explain it well. I think Ric cleared it up and added the overall shape shape of the artifact reasoning which I agree with. Same concept, but better explained.

[Ric Gillespie]

Ive never seen any photos of any discernable print on the artifact. Did I miss it?  Could someone kindly shove me in the right direction?

Krystal, go to The Riddle of 2-2-V-1 and scroll down to the section titled Established Facts.

[Mark Samuels]

Alcoa changed sometime in 1935.

That's a nice flat statement of fact.  Is there some ALCOA document that I have missed or is this a conclusion you have reached by looking at pictures?

Working on finding where I found the Alcoa document.  It was not a conclusion by looking at pictures, that I am sure of.  I switched computers since I found it and I may not have copied the bookmark over.  Stay tuned on that.

On another note, can you point to where on the surface of the artifact the A & D is.  After seeing it in Riddle22VI, I may have to capitulate as to it being San Serif.  Hope not cause, I have only been wrong once in my life. 

[Krystal McGinty-Carter]

Thank you.  I know Ive read that report before but Ive either developed an acute case of amnesia or Im really just that blind.

[Ric Gillespie]

On another note, can you point to where on the surface of the artifact the A & D is.  After seeing it in Riddle22VI, I may have to capitulate as to it being San Serif.  Hope not cause, I have only been wrong once in my life. 

You ran me around the barn for THAT???  I'll know better next time.

[Mark Samuels]

On another note, can you point to where on the surface of the artifact the A & D is.  After seeing it in Riddle22VI, I may have to capitulate as to it being San Serif.  Hope not cause, I have only been wrong once in my life. 

You ran me around the barn for THAT???  I'll know better next time.

I'm sure it isn't the first time you've been run around the barn.  Now you will really hate me.  After consideration and a bit of testing, I've come to the conclusion that it is, in my opinion, a Serif like a (Times New Roman A D) font.  So it is like the font on the Electra I posted down thread.  You be the judge.

[JNev]

I'm sure it isn't the first time you've been run around the barn.  Now you will really hate me.  After consideration and a bit of testing, I've come to the conclusion that it is, in my opinion, a Serif like a (Times New Roman A D) font.  So it is like the font on the Electra I posted down thread.  You be the judge.

Whoaaa....

I always wondered if there was a hint of 'serif' in this thing - just couldn't see it clearly enough to shout about it - now it starts to jump out.

Ric - don't we have an image of the other 'new found' print that Michelle found on 2-2-V-1 in Dayton?  Maybe it can be compared to reveal more?  I wonder what Mark and Michelle can make of this in their experience.

Can it be that we've been looking at serifed fonts all along, just well worn by time and exposure?  I see the hint of what Mark has pointed out - and been tempted to say it before: the "D" always seemed to carry a hint of serif to my eye, but I couldn't define it so well.

That's a high-quality 'blow-up' that seems to tell a lot to my admittedly amateur eye.

[Monty Fowler]

OK, now I hate myself for letting the horse back out of the barn. And will stick with what I said some time ago - At the end of the day, the font question is going to be immaterial or of very low value in the scale of proof.

Nice piece of tail in that picture, though. Is that your research assistant?

LTM, who has a few well-tailed research assistants of his own,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR no. 2189 ECSP

[JNev]

OK, now I hate myself for letting the horse back out of the barn. And will stick with what I said some time ago - At the end of the day, the font question is going to be immaterial or of very low value in the scale of proof.

Nice piece of tail in that picture, though. Is that your research assistant?

LTM, who has a few well-tailed research assistants of his own,
Monty Fowler, TIGHAR no. 2189 ECSP

Maybe it's a trick of the eye, but I think Mark's onto something here.  In the eye of the beholder - take it in and take it for what it's worth, but I can see this now as serifed characters that are badly worn, finer features having disappeared except for a few traces.  Fascinating.

I wish I had a few well-tailed research assistants of my own... 

[Andrew M McKenna]

Ric

Out of curiosity, did Jeff image some of the other artifacts with the Hyper-spectral imager?  Things like the compact mirror?

Anything to say about those?

Andrew