Jul 14, 2024, 01:58 pm

News:

New, New TardisBuilders!


Door Sign Reference

Started by Scarfwearer, May 14, 2009, 03:14 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

hb88banzai

Wonderful scans - many thanks Starcross!

Couple questions - what is the thickness of the Perspex, and what are the overall dimensions of the sign?

starcross

Quote from: hb88banzai on Aug 28, 2012, 10:26 pm
Couple questions - what is the thickness of the Perspex, and what are the overall dimensions of the sign?


1/8" of an inch thick, and 10 5/16" wide by 11.5" tall.

Which is funny because the details for the 1953  sign  says it should be made to 10 1/8" Wide 11 3/8 Tall.

deck5

Aug 29, 2012, 05:06 am #122 Last Edit: Aug 29, 2012, 07:38 am by deck5
Here's a vectorized version from Starcross' scan -- second revision.  If you saw this once and downloaded it, grab it again.

starcross-original.jpg postsign2.jpg

The PDF is in the first post in this thread.

galacticprobe

Aug 29, 2012, 05:24 am #123 Last Edit: Aug 29, 2012, 05:25 am by galacticprobe
I noticed that some of the PDFs that were once linked in that table (such as the original Brachacki, the Hudolin, Real Police box) have gone missing - that is their links have. Was that something intentional, or an "oopsie"?

Dino.
"What's wrong with being childish?! I like being childish." -3rd Doctor, "Terror of the Autons"

deck5

I don't believe there were PDFs for those.  You may be thinking of the top signs.

deck5

Quote from: starcross on Aug 29, 2012, 01:04 am
1/8" of an inch thick, and 10 5/16" wide by 11.5" tall.


Is that the total size of the piece of perspex, or just the visible area?

hb88banzai

Aug 29, 2012, 09:23 am #126 Last Edit: Aug 29, 2012, 09:24 am by hb88banzai
Perspex is currently out of the door frame (and was when question asked) so I'm sure it's the total Perspex size.

Starcross would have to measure the opening in the door to give the effective visible size when mounted - not a bad idea to have that measurement as well, though.

starcross

Quote from: hb88banzai on Aug 29, 2012, 09:23 am
Starcross would have to measure the opening in the door to give the effective visible size when mounted - not a bad idea to have that measurement as well, though.


The sign is basically the same size as the door space for the song from the back. The visible portion is about a 1/4" less all around. In the scan you can see the stain where it was covered by putty.

Mark

Some excellent reference work there, nice work all involved.

One thing, is it just my eyes or is the word "FREE" not quite centered? Lazy 60's sign writers  ;D

DoctorWho8

I think it's an optical illusion because of where "use" is underneath it. ;)
Bill "the Doctor" Rudloff

deck5

Quote from: starcross on Aug 29, 2012, 11:49 am
The sign is basically the same size as the door space for the song from the back. The visible portion is about a 1/4" less all around. In the scan you can see the stain where it was covered by putty.


Thanks.  Reason I ask, your scan has dimensions 10.21 x 11.5, rather than 10.3125 x 11.5.  Not a huge difference, but I wanted to make sure the aspect ratio was correct.

Volpone

Quote from: deck5 on Aug 29, 2012, 05:06 am
Here's a vectorized version from Starcross' scan -- second revision.  If you saw this once and downloaded it, grab it again.

starcross-original.jpg postsign2.jpg

The PDF is in the first post in this thread.

I used your first version of this to redress my TARDIS with the more accurate Barachki livery and I'm very happy with how it turned out.  Much thanks.
"My dear Litefoot, I've got a lantern and a pair of waders, and possibly the most fearsome piece of hand artillery in all England. What could possibly go wrong?"
-The Doctor.

hb88banzai

Aug 29, 2012, 10:50 pm #132 Last Edit: Sep 01, 2012, 09:24 am by hb88banzai
Quote from: deck5 on Aug 29, 2012, 03:47 pm
Quote from: starcross on Aug 29, 2012, 11:49 am
The sign is basically the same size as the door space for the song from the back. The visible portion is about a 1/4" less all around. In the scan you can see the stain where it was covered by putty.


Thanks.  Reason I ask, your scan has dimensions 10.21 x 11.5, rather than 10.3125 x 11.5.  Not a huge difference, but I wanted to make sure the aspect ratio was correct.


Indeed, that's the reason I asked Starcross the question in the first place. Any time you can't see the actual edges in a scan, you have to wonder whether things were cropped a bit more than they appear.

I think the variations noted by Starcross in the "original" Glass No. 67A specs from 1953 shows there was some margin for variation. Room for drop-in fit and putty into cast iron doors, with all the slight variability sand casting can produce.

deck5

Another side-by-side, this time with the new sign scan.  I think it's fair to say exactly the same silk-screen was used on the Barnet box as on the police post sign.

barnet2.jpg

deck5

Starcross, would you be so kind as to tell me the exact DPI of your scan?  Or alternatively the width of the text in the longest line?

Thanks very much--!