The Tom Yardley Jones TARDIS (Original) (1980)

[tony farrell]

Cool - thanks for sharing Dom.

The appearance of the stiles in the season before Planet of Fire does mean that I was incorrect in identifying the extra stiles as the distinguishing factor between the first and second TYJ-style Boxes. I stand corrected! And I apologise if I've caused any confusion.

However, this still doesn't explain why from 1983 onwards, sometimes we see the stiles and at others we do not (The Two Doctors being a case in point - in ep one the front stile is missing whilst in ep two (and on location) it is present.

This mystery aside, it still doesn't mean that Steve is incorrect to ask what proof is there that the second box was introduced in 1986 rather than in 1983 as the BBC's plans for Planet of Fire indicate. As far as I can see we have Purple's and Crispin's statement that 1986 is correct but - regrettably - they don't seem to have offered any evidence (i.e., BBC plans) to back this assertion up.

Again, if I've missed something, I stand to be corrected.

T

[fivefingeredstyre]

For what it's worth, my understanding is that the TARDIS prop seen in "Planet of Fire" was not a full-sized prop and the camera angles were carefully chosen to try and disguise that.

Actually I'd heard this as well...

As models go though it really would be the most realistic. It could be that they took just a flat front on holiday with them as well?


Actually I was having a scout round online and found a reasonably recent picture of the Mk1



You can see the stile is above the sign box in that one as well...

Stranger and stranger....

[tony farrell]

I agree completely Steve - see my previous post!

[domvar]

Looking at the two doctors,

There is something really odd about the roof line and sign box in this shot




it's visible in this shot

[tony farrell]

Since Dom's revelation that the sign boxes could be slotted over the top the originals (and the appearance of the extra stiles in Mawdryn Undead), I've looked at again at the screen grabs I posted (all of which pre-date the supposed introduction of the second TYJ box in 1986).

I still come back to the fact that sometimes the extra stiles are present and at others, they are not........ (and this includes the sign-boxes with the thicker borders).

I realise that I've got 'a bee in my bonnet' about this but, surely they wouldn't fit the signs upside down (i,e, hiding the stile behind the stepped section) on some occasions, only to mount them the other way up on other occasions. (If that were the case, the actual sign inserts themselves would also have to be rotated to match whichever orientation the actual boxes were fitted in.) That just seems too much trouble to go to......

Surely, it must either mean that there were either two complete sets of sign-boxes (one set with the stiles and the other set without the stiles) or two different Police Boxes. I can understand replacing the sign-boxes due to damage but why have two sets of sign-boxes? That just doesn't ring true.

The appearing and disappearing stiles must mean that there were two boxes in existence and that the second box must pre-date 1986.

T

[Volpone]

I've always thought the divider nubbin was on 2 sides of the box and there wasn't one on the other 2 sides.  Weren't there doors on the front and back?  And they just stuck the phone door on whichever side they were shooting?  I don't have a practical reason for it, but one door has the divider and the other doesn't.  Again, just a theory and I'd have to go back through to find more definitive proof. 

On an unrelated note, "I don't have a dog in this fight" is just a colloquialism.  "I don't have a horse in this race" would work, I suppose, but that's the way I heard it.   

[domvar]

Hi Tony, can you do me a list of appearances where the stile is missing post maudrin.  I'm not going out of my way to disprove this I'm just interested to get to the bottom of it.  I have asked some one who can be classed as a primary source for his recollections but I've not had a reply as yet and I can't guarantee one will be forthcoming.

Edit never mind I found it in a previouse post.

[tony farrell]

I've always thought the divider nubbin was on 2 sides of the box and there wasn't one on the other 2 sides.  Weren't there doors on the front and back?  And they just stuck the phone door on whichever side they were shooting?  I don't have a practical reason for it, but one door has the divider and the other doesn't.  Again, just a theory and I'd have to go back through to find more definitive proof.  

On an unrelated note, "I don't have a dog in this fight" is just a colloquialism.  "I don't have a horse in this race" would work, I suppose, but that's the way I heard it.  

Hi Volpone.

Re the extra stiles - as with Dom's 'slot-over signs' - turning the box round (or even rehanging the doors on opposite faces) would make sense until you realise that the stiles appear, then disappear only to re-appear. If the slot-over signs were the explanation, why would you replace two of the signs one way up and put the other two 'upside down'?

Re "I don't have a dog in this fight", I've never come across this phrase and therefore mis-interpreted it to mean you thought Steve and I were squabbling. My reply was simply to make sure that everyone knew that we were not fighting - just because I disagree with someone, doesn't mean that I'm in any way falling out with them (I'm sure Steve feels the same way).

I started this debate about the appearing and disappearing stiles purely to 'get to the bottom' of what I saw (and still see) as an inconsistency in the appearance of the Police Box prop which - as far as I'm aware - no-one had spotted before. I initially thought that mean't three props but - as Steve pointed out - this was because I accepted as fact the statement that the prop was rebuilt in 1986 (when in actual fact, I should have first checked if the 1986 'claim' was actually 'backed-up' with any evidence). On checking, I can't find any evidence here on TB to back up the 1986 claim but we do have the 1983 BBC plans which would seem to indicate an earlier re-build date than we previously have been lead to believe.

So, this debate is simply my effort to get to the truth of what happened 30-odd years ago. Now, our friend from Sheffield (Domvar) has added to the debate with his proof that the signage on the Mark 1 Box was replaced/updated with the slot-over signs. If nothing else, this is new knowledge (or at least it's new to me). So, we've learnt something which otherwise wouldn't have come to light. That in itself is a good thing - as a result of my 'intervention' and the ensuing debate, we've learnt something new about the Mark 1 TYJ prop - our knowledge has been enhanced.

Now some (probably the overwhelming majority) would see this as trivial - and, in a world where people are starving, it is - but, if we're going to have a reference section, surely, it's better to have a reference section that's as accurate as possible.

Now, if Dom comes up with better screen-grabs which show the extra stiles were consistently present, that too is fine with me - I've no problem with being proved wrong but no-one should be frightened to come forward with new suggestions/hypotheses for fear of being 'shouted down'. So Volpone, when I quoted your 'dog fight' comment, I was only trying to make sure that people realised that I regard this as a purely academic debate which is in no way personal.

Lastly, even though he's no longer a member here (and therefore can't defend himself), just because I disagree with Purple's definitive history, this doesn't mean I'm attacking him or his views - I'm not (I genuinely appreciate his contributions). I just want to repeat my view that there is no such thing as definitive history - knowledge grows and changes. That - in and of itself - is a good thing!

Thanks Volpone for providing me with the opportunity to clarify these points.

T

BTW, Volpone, in the spirit of friendliness may I ask what your first name is?

[tony farrell]

Hi Tony, can you do me a list of appearances where the stile is missing post maudrin.  I'm not going out of my way to disprove this I'm just interested to get to the bottom of it.  I have asked some one who can be classed as a primary source for his recollections but I've not had a reply as yet and I can't guarantee one will be forthcoming.

Edit never mind I found it in a previouse post.

I appreciate your efforts Dom - I hope your source replies. And please don't worry, I don't think that you are trying to prove me wrong - have a read of my reply to Volpone's comments.

Best

T

[markofrani]

Found this picture of items from the Bonhams auction in 1994. Maybe this explains the stiles...

[tony farrell]

Found this picture of items from the Bonhams auction in 1994. Maybe this explains the stiles...

Or maybe not..........

[Volpone]

Hi Tony,  I do need to go back and read your post now that I've got a bigger screen.  Steve.  I'm also Steve.  I really wanted to say I was The Doctor, but given the number of people who have TARDISes here and know far more about TARDISes and police boxes than I do, that would be hokey. 

As I said, I need to go back and reread the thread.  I hope I wasn't coming across as standoffish because I really enjoy 99.5% of what is said here.  There are so many great, smart people who have devoted huge amounts of time and thought to researching things so I don't have to.  Once in awhile I like to throw out an idea that I think has some merit and I'm grateful for all of you who know more than me who can either run with it or (as seems to be the case more often) explain the problems with my theory.  It's a lot of fun when I come up with a good idea but I learn a lot even when I get it wrong. 

[galacticprobe]

My reply was simply to make sure that everyone knew that we were not fighting - just because I disagree with someone, doesn't mean that I'm in any way falling out with them (I'm sure Steve feels the same way).

I resemble that remark (and I am unanimous in that!).

I've just been quiet on this because it's been moving a little too fast for my addled (and medicated) brain to keep up with at the moment, and by the time I've read everything I've realized that someone had asked a question or commented on something that I was thinking of, and Tony had already explained things clearly enough.

Dino.

[type40]

Sorry, I've read all this once before and didn't notice anywhere where you'd established how many top sign boxes/steps were made. Sorry if you have already. And I'm even more sorry if there is no possible answer to this question without the aid of a.. well.. ahem... time machine...
2 boxes exist all with complete top signs. We have the Tussauds box front with it's own top sign.   I suggest that there were additional top signs made tat some point 

[tony farrell]

Steve.  I'm also Steve. 
I hope I wasn't coming across as standoffish

Hi Steve, given you're also a Steve, from now on I'll refer to Fivefingeredstyre as Steve W (as he's a Steve) - otherwise, like the Doctor, who Peri tells not to keep switching personal pronouns, I'll get confused who I'm replying to!  

I don't think anyone has ever accused you of being standoffish!

Once in awhile I like to throw out an idea that I think has some merit and I'm grateful for all of you who know more than me who can either run with it or (as seems to be the case more often) explain the problems with my theory.  It's a lot of fun when I come up with a good idea but I learn a lot even when I get it wrong. 

My thoughts and experiences too. I'm quite happy to be proved wrong - as I was when I first attempted to work out the dimensions of the original Tardis Console's floor plates! As we've seen here, we'd never have found out about the 'slot on signage' (as seen in the photo of Silvester McCoy and Bonnie Langford) from Dom if I hadn't queried the chronology of the TYJ boxes. So even if I'm wrong about everything else I've suggested here, we've still got something positive out of our discussions!

I've just been quiet on this because it's been moving a little too fast for my addled (and medicated) brain to keep up with at the moment
Dino.

Hahaha, you're going to get even more confused now we know that Fivefingeredstyre and Volpone are both Steves!

In all seriousness though, you're not the only one who is confused by the chronology of the TYJ boxes. I simply feel that there is something very odd going on here - and, as yet, we haven't got to the bottom of it. "Time will tell, it always does in the end"!  

T