Q: In a “V” of flying geese, why does one leg of the V look longer than the other?
A: The long leg has more geese in it.
Edit: in this case the goose count appears to be the same and I was fooled by an optical illusion. I can't read the tooth count engraved on the NR set to be sure it's the same as the 52 on the NGS but I get 26 teeth on 180 degrees of ring not hiding under the arm.
The two photos are different resolution and shot from different camera angles -- the B&W shot of the NGS is more elliptical than what I take to be the Velobase photo of the NR. The GS is magnified compared to the NR. But because the GS crank arm is pointing more toward the camera it is foreshortened and appears to be ~ the same length on the image as the NR crank (9.8 cm vs 10.0 cm on my monitor.) This fools you into thinking the images are the same size and the rings on the NR must therefore be smaller. They do look "different" but perhaps they are not. I know I would have to look at physical specimens of both, side by side, in order to tell differences, especially in finish.
The only difference I can see is that the "Campagnolo [blurred tooth count]" on the NR is engraved along the inner edge of the big ring, while the NGS photo shows "Campagnolo <52> " nearer the outer edge. The early catalogue photos (or whatever you call those lovely old etching-type illustrations) show Record rings engraved as in the Velobase shot. But the ?1982 catalogue shows the Record crankset part 1049 with outboard-engraved rings and the Gran Sport part 0304 with inboard engravings.
http://www.disraeligears.co.uk/Site/...s_page_25.html , click ahead to p. 26 to see GS. Furthermore, the illustrations a page or two further on of the rings as individual spare parts, with different part numbers called out for Record vs. Gran Sport rings show the opposite: inboard on the Record and outboard on the GS -- like the OP's photos. Now, if the rings were all visually similar, the photographer might not have bothered to use the correct loose part for catalogue photos, as long as the company shipped the correct ring to fulfill an order. So I adduce this as evidence that the location of the engraving is not a "tell", at least not in catalogue photos, as to what the actual differences might be, if any, between NR and 5-hole GS rings.
If the "alloy" and the finish were different on the GS cf. NR, then the rings cannot be "the same."
My own Record crank dated 1983 bought used ~10 years ago came with out-board engraved rings, as per the ?1982 catalogue I am citing here.