That goes without saying; however choosing to prove someone wrong based on a statement of inaccuracy can lead to a defensive position, from either party, that brings about false accusations of deception and implied motive. Some can try to come off as Jesus Christ, but no one involved was turning the other cheek.

The scar discussion produced false accusations and implied motives from almost all parties involved. Those that stayed out of the discussions and never wrote one word, still chose a side to believe. What degree of deception or implied motive was there? Well, that depends on which side you were on.

Sorry, back on topic.

You know, HOW we discuss things is just as important - if not more - than WHAT we discuss.

Let's head back to the actual topic and begin departing the shit storm over there.

As I understand it the general concensus about this particular landmark on vader's right cheek face is that it IS a dimensional scratch or wrinkle in the paint surface. It's not a flat painted surface that is intentional paint weathering.

Having seen all these helmets in question, touching them with my bare hands, I have seen remnants of this scar on all the helmets we've discussed. Even on the very faint scar of the repaired yet painted TD helmet, it does exist.

Knowing how it feels and looks in your hands on all these helmets, combined with the visual evidence as seen on screen, I have definitely 100% concluded that the C scar is dimensional. I believe the depth to be nearly half a millimeter on the sharpest helmets, less on the other helmets.

I believe any casting pulled out of the actual RB mould exhibits this landmark clearly. I believe that the only helmets that do not show this landmark clearly, have been altered after being pulled or were simply not pulled "directly" from the original RB mould. I further believe that those individuals that have shown us photos of their own mould or from a mould they were told was the RB mould...........and simply do not remember that detail............either missed it or were mislead about the mould.

If I entertain credibility from a guy who tells me his casting came from the RB mould and no such scar exists...........and make the assumption that what he is telling me is the truth, then I have to believe one of two things, either the RB mould has degraded thru the years, or this mould is a second mould and not that of the original.

6+ helmet owners who have helmets all pulled from different points in time simply do not lie about that one detail. They do not conspire to mislead and add in some obtuse detail for shits and giggles. The vast majority of helmet owners protect as much detail on their master castings as they possibly can. If they remove details to protect the integrity of their own original casting, I believe that is not necessarily a bad thing. I would do the same were the tables turned.

Long story short: C-scar on the helmet seen on film = actual dimensional scar/scratch/dent

Let's discuss it if anyone has more to add that might sway the evidence we believe we are seeing.

I'm right there with you Dave. I know it's an actual scar and not a painted detail. Several of us who either own or have handled these helmets from different molds have come on these forums and stated what we have actually seen and felt in these castings.

I just removed a portion of my post because I had only skimmed your post and didn't read it thoroughly, but this is pretty much exactly what I had written down:




The possible existence of yet another mold in the archives that is based on a RB casting, but cleaned up even further, is not beyond reasonable logic. The mold would have been produced to protect the original RB mold from receiving any further damage from being used throughout the years. This is speculation on my part since I've only seen pics of the original RB mold.

Someone taught me that it's harder to disprove something than to prove something. In order to disprove that the C-scar is dimensional, you have to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that all the possibilities of it being dimensional cannot possibly be true.

Saying the C-scar was added to the TM is a stretch, but okay. However, it cannot have been added to the TD and the SL, as they are each from the UK and US molds, and these are different molds altogether separated by an ocean of distance.

One then has to not only disprove any possibility that there is a C-scar on the Rick Baker (US) mold but also the UK mold as well. In order to do that, one must be able to physically inspect - in person - both molds.

The claim that the Rick Baker mold has no C-scar is not based on direct observation of the actual physical mold but a small photograph. If the Rick Baker mold resides at LFL, then it stands to reason the claimant would have been at the LFL Archives handling and inspecting the mold first hand. This is surely not the case.

The claimant (notice I'm not naming any names here... I'm more interested in discussing the logic path) has not ever seen the UK mold. Its whereabouts is still a mystery. So to speak with authority on what detail is in or not in the UK mold without personal, physical closeup inspection is such a stretch that we've left the realm of logic and entered into the realm of imagination.

Looking at the weathering on the right cheek, you can sorta make out where it goes. This is what I talked about earlier, how it just gets interrupted. Did a quick and dirty version of the light weathering on the cheek. That's roughly how I see it, but again, it's just a rush job. You can go check out the movie and screen captures and pictures and make up your own mind. Which is also pertinent as to how complex the weathering on the mask really is.

I wanted to discuss this from all our perspectives because I want a clear picture to exist for those that wander into this place and aren't connected to any one group of individuals.

This is the sort of information that can be helpful to some noobie out there that has an opportunity to buy a vader helmet but wants to know if its accurate enough for his collection. Keep the information coming. I want to hear from as many as possible on this.

As a whole, we are from all walks of life, from different locations on the globe..........some of us are friends, some of us are TM owners, some of us own only RB sourced helmets. Some of us have seen objects from the LFL compound first hand. As a group of collectors, with different likes and dislikes, different criteria for what makes a vader helmet accurate or not...............this is a fantastic assembly. This is the sort of place that I'd loved to have stumbled into back in 1995. This is the very reason I'm a member of any forum.

Very well said Dave.

It's those diverse backgrounds that we all come from and whatever bit of information we have gleaned over the years that makes some of this enjoyable. It's not always a happy, feel good discussion, but then again progress has never been a by-product of conformity. You need some chaos, debate and discord. Is it fun reading threads with all of that? No, but sometimes some of the best information is gained from those threads. It shouldn't have to be that way, but it is what it is.

Well, I see what you mean, but what I think you are seeing, which is what I'll try to show later using the TD as an example, is that there is also surface irregularity there. I think we see that earlier on in ANH and then at some point between the Death Star Scenes and the Tantive IV filming, the bit of paint chipped off the cheek where the irregularity was the greatest. I don't for a moment believe there was any weathering intentionally applied to the mask. It was painted black, then later on brushed over with a gunmetal pattern likely to bring out facial features. What reason would there be to weather the helmet when we don't see any evidence of weathering on any other part of the costume? It isn't a sandtrooper, it is Vader. I meant to tell that to you-know-who that there is no reason for weathering a costume like that. It is like, the black right tusk. Was that intentionally painted black to give Vader a "used" look? Obviously not. Were the fingerprints on the dome intentionally added to give the dome a "used" look? Obviously not.

Here's a thought, an idea. The entire mask would have been black first. Vader's left cheek was then painted gunmetal, yet under the black of the right cheek, there is gunmetal. So it almost seems like they painted both cheeks gunmetal, then painted the right cheek black to offset the left gunmetal cheek. It could be then that the additional layer of paint didn't take well to what was there already, and, lifted off at the point of greatest curvature on the cheek, namely the inside half toward the nose.

since we're talking theories, I still wonder if that that scar was caused by a finger pushing on paint that was dry to the touch on the surface, but still wet underneath.......pushed and wrinkled up. Or simply by dropping it on the corner of something during filming, lightsaber rod whack etc..... chipping off part of the paint. It can go either way. Who knows, it may have gotten a touch up after the whack. Some of that damage looks like paint, while other bits look like primer underneath the paint. Who's to say?

Yep, that's how I see it. There is proof that the right cheek was repainted/touched up during filming. That small detail on Vader's left side of the neck, I believe is caused by the constant thumb touching the faceplate when the dome was applied. The sloppy paintjob coupled with the oils from the fingers etc led to paint removal. Also I have noticed that depending on what paint used, there is a slight chemical reaction when using dulling spray. Since that right cheek is duller than the other black areas of the face, it's a possibility the spray had something to do with the details on it. The scar could easily be a finger that was pressed into that area while putting on the dome and the combo of gunmetal and black gave that weathering effect that wasn't necessarily done on purpose.


Here's my opinion on what caused some of the paint flaws/details/flecks. The wedding band constantly rubbing up against the faceplate on the right side, marking it up and removing the paint. No weathering. The thumb constantly pressing into the right side of the neck to hold it in place, causing the paint flecks/flaws. No weathering. The whole hand being responsible for the multitude of details we see along the neck, plus the added markings of the chestarmor.



And a shot of the faceplate in the TIE scenes. You can see there is an abundance of gunmetal showing on that cheek, much more than what you see in the Tantive scenes, yet no sign of any scar from what I can tell at this point in filming nor any scar weathering there. IMO, it would not make any sense to paint that cheek black and then add a painted scar. I think they just kept hitting it with paint as the black wore off and mixed with the gunmetal in the cheeks. Sure it's possible that a scar was painted on, but I can't imagine them caring enough to add a detail like that when you can see what their care was in handling it. I believe the scar was a dimensional by-product of a combination of things: damage while filming, paint buildup and handling. The whole faceplate was a mess by the end.

Carsten, is this what you're talking about?



This was something I was studying a while back but tucked it away. I noticed that this is how SPFX paints his ANH masks, and there is extremely subtle discoloration within the area I've highlighted to suggest that there ay be credence to a phenomenon of this approximate shape.

Very very good info about the damage and it's cause. That makes perfect sense. That explains the Tri-mark as well as the scuffs on the other side by the wedding band. Absolutely phenomenal theory gents.

That wedding band/thumb theory is great...that's some detective work.

As you all know, I've painted a few masks - sometimes very poorly, but still painted them. I know I'm nothing like the professional people who painted the stuff for the movies, but hey, they were rather sloppy as well, adhering to the used universe look that Lucas wanted.

I can tell that by mere accident, I would hold the mask in that very area, from middle of right cheek to nose with my thumb when painting details elsewhere on the mask, only realizing the mistake too late, meaning I have to clean up my mess. If that was done while applying the gunmetal paint, that could be the explanation for what people see as a "thumb mark" or grey weathering and it was attempted wiped off, leaving streaks across the cheek.

Incidentally, when spraying my JediJeffrey face mask, a paint drip of air bubbles formed in that exact area on the cheek in the shape of a C. I thought it was a very interesting accident.

Coupled with the handling of the helmet... basically anything can explain what we are seeing and why it isn't consistent throughout the movie. These are just my own painting experiences that I found produced similar incidents and details, but it is in no way proof of anything. It was just surprising results to some very common mistakes. Could be a combination of things forming that shape, but my bet is still on saber fight damage.