This is by no means for sure. Hopefully, when the Blue-Ray comes out, it can be confirmed or ruled out.

I was not looking for this. I was doing something else. But I happened to be looking at the picture on the right, from the
detention cell. It was a little washed out and I was using MS pic editor to make it sharper and better contrasted. In doing
so, I noticed, that no matter how I adusted the contrast, or highlights and shadows, I could not really make out the 'c-scar'
on the left cheek. Of couse, I know the c-scar is a physical feature and I remember the vid showing how the c-scar could
disappear, depending on the angle of the lighting and the angle of the helmet to the camera. So, I didn't immediately decide
that this meant anything.

But then I noticed the 'black tusk'. It is pretty solidly black. Using MS pic editor, I brought in the corridor pic on the left for
a direct comparison. The tusk on the corridor helmet is much more worn. Lots more silver showing through, especially on the
'ball', which is still nearly solid black on the detention cell (hereafter,DC) helmet. I noticed, the right tusk looks somewhat
different also. The DC helmet tusk looks shinier, more 'bare polishished metal', the corridor tusk looks more silver painted,
lumpy, not as well defined.

Then, comparing the inner nose area, I noticed the DC helmet looks to have more defined, horizontal brush strokes, the nose
paint on the corridor helmet looks more random, or 'mopped' on. The area on the DC helmet also appears cleaner and smoother.


I should note that the pics I am studying are twice this size.

At this time, I brought in the TM cast image to compare all three. The TM cast is obviously a direct cast of the finished 'corridor
helmet', complete with brush strokes, masking lines and every other nuance specific to that helmet. There is lots of detail that
carries over to both helmets. But the question is, 'what details were from the original mould, and what details were added by the
artist that painted, detailed and finished the prop?'



I can still see lots of things that seem to match. But even a lot of these, seem to be slightly different. As though they were meant
to replicate the other. If you look at the painting of the 'black' cheek, the pattern of the paint (the lights and darks) looks different.
I beleive it is this difference that is obscuring the c-scar. The rectangular patch of grey near the edge also appears to be further
inboard on the DC helmet. The black paint on the face of the cheek terminates below the top edge on the corridor hemet and goes
up over the edge on the DC helmet.

IMO there is a very talented artist at work here. The same artist, who set out to make two identical helmets. And they are so close
that they stand up to good scrutiny. And I am not done looking into this. I see more things, but this 'text box' is driving me nuts,
I can't see what I am typing anymore.

To continue....

I'm not sure why but the forum reduced those pictures.

Since I don't have screeen capture...YET, I must rely on what's out there. If someone does, and is willing to do it, I would ask that you do
a frame by frame (as much as possible, I know Blue Ray players don't like to do it, and a standard DVD player lacks the resolution) of this shot
as Vader turns his head. I Put the 'Full Screen version" DVD in the B.R. playerand studied it. I noticed a few things there as well. There were several
times that I could see the neck and there was no sign of the scratches or dark spots.



I also noticed that the faceplate looks glossier and smoother, but at this time, that might still just be lighting.

My theory is this..

Brian produced the original sculpt. He turned it over to the prop department, who then recast that into a hard copy (plaster?) They took that and
detailed it it further, adding surface details like the c-scar and what looks like paint brush strokes, but is actually an old prop makers trick, a brushed
on enamel coating meant to simulate 'metal graining' on the surface, (if you look carefully at the TM c-scar, It appears to have been built up and formed
from this coating) they also added lots of nicks and little scratches (but not the ones on the neck). This was re-cast again. From this came 2 -3 final pieces.
Two for the production and perhaps a third for the publicity department. The final casts were cleaned up an turned over to a single artist who painted and
further detailed both helmets for the production. To my understanding, the corridor was a 'late entry' into the production, and hence, knowing it had some
serious, well lit close-ups, there may have been some more enphasis on the c-scar and damage.

John

lighten the cell block photo and youll see its the same helmet c scar and all

I beg to differ. As I said above, I tried that.


As light as I could get it.

I'm positive these are the same helmet.

Rich

I see something in that area.

I'm with you on the bluray release -- it'll be fun to dig deeper into many things!


Doug

Leaving aside the c scar there's other things which match on the mask in both scenes which are unlikely to if they were indeed two seperate masks.

The smudge/scuff in the circle here for one.

Unless you're going to suggest that that mark is deliberate weathering and reproduced on both masks, i don't find that a plausible scenario personally.

They are the same mask. Also, Brian Muir refined the plaster cast and the helmet that was produced for the prop department to paint was a clean and pristine helmet. All the stuff you see on the helmet at the Tantive scenes are paint defects and wear and tear and handling from throughout production. They are absolutely the same helmet. We had these discussions about 5 years ago when I was new to the hobby... a lot of research and information has happened since then.

The differences you are seeing between the two are wear and tear differences. Nothing more. The Tantive scenes being shot last during principle photography would then naturally have the most wear and tear on the mask.

Excellent detective work that's just the sort of thing we love to do around here

It is the same helmet, though, just as the other guys have said.

Some of the physical damage to the mask can be matched up as well:

Not only that, but check out the paint anomaly on the gunmetal painted cheek. You CANNOT get that exact looking smudge in metallic paint in the same location with two different helmets. Even all the brush strokes on that cheek match up exactly. People trying to replicate it on their own helmets today have a hard time matching that.

Metal paint is just a bitch to paint with, when trying to replicate the look of the weathering on the ANH helmet.

The "apparent lack" of the details on that c scar area is a huge bit of evidence that the scar is dimensional......you can still see part of it in those stills......as the helmet turns it becomes more visible. All depends on the lighting.

I ask that you guys bear with me.

You can call me Darth Heretic if you wish. But I am a frikken 'dog on a bone' with such things. And I'm going to keep digging on this
until I can absolutely prove it one way or the other. I know that everyone is absolutely convinced this is the same prop, and I'm cool
with that.
I do apprechiate, that there are little markers and things on both, that would seem to be something that could not, or would not,
be duplicated in a second prop. However, when I look at these images, I see too many things that just don't seem to really match. But,
as a note, when I think I have proven something, I will follow the scientific method and try prove it wrong.

I ask you to actually read and seriously consider the following:

1. The original STAR WARS universe was meant to be a beat up, battered, lived in, worn universe. George described it once as a
universe that has reached it's pinnicle and was now on it's way back down. Darth Vader was detailed to fit that universe. He was
not so much the 'polished', untouchable, Supreme Comander of the Great Imperial Fleet, but a big, bad brute. The Emperor's private
Henchman. A Dark Warrior whose been out fighting on the front line, in the battle mentioned in the 'roll-up' at the beginning of the film.

2. His Dome is scuffed up and covered in dents.

3. What is 'really' more likely, that a talented, experienced, professional artist/craftsman, purposely created 'detailed' battle damage on
the face mask of the big, bad brute of a dark warror, who needs to look like he's been out fighting in a major battle, somewhere in the war
torn, beat up, battered, lived in, worn STAR WARS universe?... OR... That the cast and crew of ANH were incompetent and allowed a
'Hero' prop to be continually damaged during the couse of production?

I think the latter is far more likely.
The scuff or paint smudge on the cheek i circled purposely as this isn't a dent or ding it's a surface finish so therefore not going to be possible damage of a mould which would be replicated over different castings.
This weathering if you consider it purposeful would have to be replicated on each casting, i personally don't feel that it's deliberate weathering.
My reasoning for my conclusion is that we're talking here about an artifact of a few mm in size i don't see a prop department going to the lengths of replicating such a small mark exactly on several casts, heck most people don't even notice the mask is two tone they think it's all black, i doubt Lucas had the foresight to expect the mask would be scrutinized so closely by people.
I feel you're buying into Lucas mythos too much, there are signs of damage to all sorts of props throughout the film, are we to believe that some troopers armour for instance in the star wars universe is held together with white gaffer tape and Lucas put it there deliberately ?

Also if you do follow your theory that this is deliberate weathering and they went to the pains of reproducing that tiny little mark so exactly then why did they not reproduce everything else so faithfully like the tusk and other things you mentioned in your first post ?
It doesn't make sense does it that they would reproduce one little mark and be so slack on other things.
The helmet just has less wear and tear in the scenes filmed earlier thats why it looks a little cleaner and the tusk paint isn't as worn.

Even the Lucas mythos makes little sense if you think about it, the war is all but over in ANH the Imperial forces are really just mopping up the last of the Rebels why would the second most powerful person in the universe be all bashed up and battered ?
That's not how it works in real life at all, you don't see the second in command of an entire army doing grunt work, they give orders as is evident by the fact that Vader makes his appearance on the Tantive IV after the troopers have cleared the way.
I don't think Vader was ever intended to appear like that i think just like all of the other Imperial costumes with the exception of the Sandtroopers he was intended to appear pristine.
I think what we see is purely the result of a movie made in a tight timeframe and on a small budget and it's just natural wear and tear during production.
It makes little sense to me that in ANH when the Empire has all but won the war Vader is battered about yet in the next movie when the Empire has suffered a huge defeat in losing the Deathstar Vader is all shiney and brand new.
In my mind this is down to a better budget and more time than anything else, i think like many things in the SW movies this stuff about battle damage in ANH is just Lucas retcon after the fact.

The c scar is Definitely dimensional....i watch Star Wars about once a week, and can plainly see it looks almost like a dent or depression. I think the best scene is the "This will be a day long remembered..." You can clearly see the light interacting with a depressed surface....

Rich

I commend you for you looking into things and pursue a theory to its conclusion. There are just too many things that match between the helmet in the two scenes for it to be anything but the same helmet. Things you cannot replicate even if you tried. And that proof lies in ALL the brush strokes in the gunmetal. Even if the same painter painted both helmets he would NOT be able to replicate each and every single brush stroke, even if he tried. The left cheek and right mouth wall is the most damning evidence against these being two helmets and not one and the same.



And in movie productions, though they have stunt versions for some pieces (but previously they were just called background props and costumes - lesser quality and should just emulate the look of the foreground/close up piece)... all props are just that... props to be used and abused during filming.