I remember when I started out studying the ANH screen caps I thought exactly the same thing they must be different masks. I even thought at one point when I first started studying screen caps based on the wear differences and dome flaring "length differences" that there were four or five helmets. Goes to show how wrong I was but hey the main thing is that you are studying these things and that is the important thing. It makes us revisit these questions and address them sometimes in a new light.

But they are the same. Below is a comparison of Vader's left cheek from that Death Star detention cell scene and then from the Tantive IV closeup. The black markings are what is left of black paint showing through the upper layer of gunmetal paint. There would be no reason to duplicate wear in the paint on that level of precision, nor would it be possible actually to duplicate that so perfectly in the paint itself.



There was no intentional weathering done to the original ANH mask, just oridinary wear and tear of the one screen-used Vader helmet used throughout production.

My avatar incidentally shows what I believe is a second ANH helmet, but that's for another thread. But there was just one helmet seen onscreen. Although I sometimes wonder if they replaced the dome after the saber dueling between Alec Guiness and Dave Prowse.

Hi Everbody.
I am still here and I haven't stopped studying this. And I welcome everyone chiming in. I want to make sure everone knows that I have no desire to declare anyone wrong/right or anything. I totally respect EVERYONE'S position on this subject. But this is my thing. This is what I do. I have always been into investigative research. Especially photographic analysis. IN FACT, I am working on three separate analysis projects, one has to do with ALL the helmets from all three original films, and is so big that I had to buy a new computer, because it kept crashing my old one. Another project has to do with my Avatar and is the reason I joined the forum. I am sure everyone will have plenty to say about those, and that's okay. That's why we're here, right? One interesting thing about working on these projects is, that I find evidence for one project, while working on another. I also came to a realization about computers and monitors. They may not all show you the same thing... As I said, I have been working on another project that kept causing my computer to crash. I went out and got the most powerful system I could for around a $1000. It came with a ton of ram, an Intel 1.7 Insperon core processor, and a 22" widescreen HD monitor, complete with HDMI cable. I transfered in my programs and files. But I was reluctant to hook it to the internet at first. I finally did. One of the first things I did was to go back into the 'all Helmets' research. I had been working the ESB helmets, and there is a helmet out there that is clearly an ESB, but is pretending to be ROTJ. So I set out to find it in the film. The most distinctive features of the screen used Vader helmets in ESB and ROTJ are the 'nose' area, inside and out, and the lower chin grill. No two, are the same. Similar, but not identical. After a little while I came across a screen capture image that clearly matched the distictive nose/paint/structure of the helmet I was searching for. I overlayed the picture and 'wham', it was dead on. Clear as a bell. ...At this time I was still working on the 'all helmets' presentation on my old computer. I went back to my old computer to start building a page like the one below. And I couldn't really see it anymore. The detail and definition was not there. The most distinctive feature was no longer clear. And that monitor, is also an HD flat screen (no HDMI cable, but a special cable that came with it) that is only 2 years old. I could still see it. But I don't know if everyone/anyone out there can. Because I don't know if your monitor allows you to see what I am seeing. CONTINUED.....

So anyway.....



Hopefully you can see this. I have presented this one here, because it is the only one I'm pretty sure we can all agree on. But it is a big file 2.0 MB. This is one of the base presentation modules that I put together for the 'All Helmets' identification research. I have done about 10 so far.
Doing these, lead me to this 2nd helmet research. But as I mentioned, I not sure if everyone out there is seeing what I can see. And I don't want you to have to take 'my word' for anything.
The Detention Cell image is from the forum archives, (DarthKahnt), and looks somewhat washed out (no disrespect intended). I have been looking for a better raw image or a good off the shelf 'screen capture' program. But can only seem to find them on-line.



........By the way, I am not just looking at pictures. I am researching, books, articals, documentaries as well.

Back to the subject at hand.

If you assume that the DC helmet is the one and the same and all the damage is incidental and occured from normal wear and tear on the set, then I must ask the following questions:

1. To me, all the damage, the nicks, dings, scrapes and c-scar all suggest Vader surviving battles. Explosions, that put all the nicks and scrapes, the c-scar, perhaps weapons fire. All designed to add to the 'character' of this evil warrior. Why is there a 'black' tusk and a 'silver' tusk? Why not both black or both silver? Why...? Because He had to replace one in the field, and could not get an exact match. If, not..... then what types of incidents on set created these details? Exactly how did the helmet get all those nicks, scrapes and that c-scar? It is safe to say the most fragile portion of a Vader mask is the 'tubes', very few show no signs of damage and this helmet exhibits more damage after 2 months of shooting, than some of the 27 year old ROTJ helmets.

2. Is it really that hard for an artist to do duplicate his or her own work, especially if they are a professional, with years of training on how to do just that? There are production methods that allow you to easily duplicate even minute detail. And I see evidence that they were in use here.

Metal paint - especially not brushed on and having the underlying paint beneath show through can be replicated even by the best prop guy or even the most devoted fan. It is PHYSICALLY impossible. It would require VERY careful replication down to the millimeter and taking a heck of a lot of time... time that you don't have on a movie production... and even then you won't be able to match as much as the metal paint streaks match on the helmet between those two scenes. The theory is nice, but brushed metallic paint strokes CANNOT be replicated exactly even if you tried. With that being the case, your theory doesn't hold.

Realizing how they put on the dome on the mask would give you an idea what kind of handling is required and knowing the tabs used... they are tough SOB's to plug together and apart and require serious handling of both facemask and dome - NOT something you want if you want to keep things looking pristine and undamaged.

Since the man who actually sculpted the Vader helmet is a member of this board we can ask Mr Muir about the "battle damage" and whether any of it was intentionally added to the sculpt or if it is merely the result of on-set wear and tear.

I don't know if the question has ever been put to him in quite that way.

Hi Carsten, I'm assuming you meant to say "can't be replicated..." here. Metal paint? What is that, and why couldn't I duplicate it? Are you absolutely, documented, sure that 'metal paint' was used? It lookes like 'charcoal grey metalic' to me (a color that was very popular on cars in the mid 70s). I built 'weathered' models for years. I don't see anything here that I couldn't create.

But, I'm just gettin' started. Yeeeha!

Signed, The Heretic.

It has and he's already answered it. He sculpted it clean, sharp and pristine.


Meant "metallic paint".

Gotta ask you this. Have you TRIED replicating exact brush stroke details before with metallic paint? On a Vader helmet? If no... please go try it NOW. Until then I rest my case.

Good question, Dcarty.
I know that Brian Muir said that he didn't add any such details. But if I remember right, he said that after he finished the original sculpt, he turned it over to the art department for plaster casting. I think he may have said something about cleaning up the plaster cast, and then turning that back over to the art department for resin casting. The person who added this detail would be a prop painter, or detailer, or 'finisher'. If my memory serves (I 've got to go back and find his posts on the subject), Brian indicted that after he cleaned up the plaster cast, it was all out of his hands.
He didn't really know how many helmets were actually made. But, he said the wardrobe or prop master said that he had 2 helmets in a case that he brought to the set each day for filming.

And then there is this.



What is this? What is it really? And I not refuring to this exact re-cast of the TM. I am asking what was it really, that the original TM was cast from. Even I would say, 'from the helmet on the left of course." But, I am not so sure. I suspect it could be more like the other why around. No, they didn't cast the TM to make helmet in the film, but, both the TM and the helmet on the left may have been cast from the same original mould, with all this detail already there. There is an art product called 'Jesso'. It works very well with plaster. It has a consistancy somewhere between paint and putty, but without the graininess of a putty. Very smooth. It dries rock hard and is sandable in 24 hours, and can even be pollished glassy smooth. As it dries, it becomes workable and can be shaped, you can add detail and definition with it. Now take a good hard look at that c-scar, especialy on the TM. Does it look more like an impact or something created with a product like Jesso?

Happy hunting.
The Heretic.

Come on man that's not investigative research it's pure supposition and opinion based on movie folklore, it's not grounded in reality at all.
You need to put all the story nonsense out of your mind and concentrate on looking at the visual evidence.
Are you seriously suggesting the prop department went to the lengths of duplicating exactly the smudge on the right cheek i circled before aswell as all the tiny flecks of black showing through the gunmetal on the left cheek that Sithlord highlighted ?
Never gonna happen, nobody is gonna go to that much trouble even if they could for a low budget time contstrained movie from the 70's, they wouldn't even go to that much bother now, why would they ?
Nobody is ever going to notice a black spec a fraction of a millimetre in size while watching a movie and that's what the studio is making remember a movie not a study article for prop fans and computer geeks, time is money why would a studio spend money on something the paying audience is never going to notice unless they freeze frame and take HD screen grabs ?

Lets look objectively at your reasoning, it seems unless i've missed something your opinion is based on.

1) You can't see where the C-scar is on the DC shot.
2) The helmet and masks looks cleaner and shinier.
3) The tusk has more black on it.

Those to me seem to be the three actual physical points you raised if i'm correct.

1) You don't see the c-scar, i can't speak for others but i certainly can see where it is but even so it's been shown in other shots that depending on the angle and lighting the c-scar is visible and then not in the very same shot and just by a slight movement of the head it vanishes.

2) The helmet looks cleaner, of course it does these are earlier shots i dunno why this is so implausible ?
Have you looked at and seen actual movie props ? they aren't treated with kid gloves between takes or during.
We're not talking about $100k dollars worth of fibreglass and paint here, as long as it looks reasonable on screen to the viewer nobody cares about the odd ding or scratch, nobody watching the film is going to notice or care.

3) same as obove.

Sorry but from what i see you're focusing far less on the actual visual evidence and far more on the pardon the pun obsession with battle damage which to me holds less water than a tin bucket that's been peppered with two dozen shotgun blasts.
We all know Lucas made up stuff as he was going along through all the movies, you think he had Luke and Leia dabble with the subject of incest intentionaly in his family friendly space adventure movie ?
That's taking family friendly a bit too far don't ya think ?

And why is Vader in this big battle anyway and what battle is it ?
We don't see Anakin getting into trouble too much in any of the earlier movies or any of the other Jedi either, not in any physical fights so to speak anyway, they just cut people down and deflect blasts with their sabers ?
What suddenly Vader can't be bothered with deflecting blasts now he just lets them hit him, by the way Hans blaster didn't seem to harm his glove at all in ESB did it ?

And why don't we actually ever see Vader in any battles in any of the movies ?
Right at the start of ANH we se him wait and let the troopers mop up the rebels before he makes his entrance, he's not leading from the front or doing any fighting at all.
The same with the Hoth battle in ESB and again the Endor battle in ROTJ.
That's precisely how military works the officers give the orders and the grunts do the fighting.

There is and never was battle damage it's just retcon to keep the geeks who ask questions at sci-fi cons happy with an explanation.

P.S try KMplayer for screengrabs, it's freeware and will save grabs in bitmap,jpg or png format.

All helmets in fandom is cast FROM the ANH screen used - no other two ways about that. Word has always been that three or four casts were made for ANH - only two finished and came on set - and only one used. The others would be painted in the same paint scheme, but would be different from the one we know. No way they'd waste time with adding such details to the cast prior to painting. That would require a new set of molds... in an already tight, low-budget movie. Seriously... even logistically it doesn't make sense. Props were tossable items that just had to stay intact until filming ended, back then... nothing more. You are not approaching this in a logical manner... first you gotta think about the low budget, then the times this was filmed in, then the rigors of shooting.

What sounds more likely? That they went and did all this crap on purpose, doubling or tripling the costs of just that one piece that was supposed to look black and shiny? Or... it's just quick painting, handling, wear and tear of a basically tossable prop barely stronger than could be duct taped back together.

My money is on the second option.

So you are saying that story has nothing to do with a character's design, development and execution? REALLY?

You have to consider Vader's backstory, because you have to understand a character's story and development, to appreciate it's design and execution.
You're talking about a piece of painted fiberglass.

This is the primary prop, a Hero piece, the FACE of the lead Villain of the film, who is supposed to be a big, very scary bad guy, who is also a pivital character in the film.
There is no way Lucas would sit for this damage being done to such an important prop. Especially if there is only ONE.

Why wasn't the ANH Darth Vader all shiny and polished like in ESB or ROTJ? Because those movies hadn't be made yet. That concept of the character did not exist yet.
Why are the head and chest armor all hand painted? The black is hand painted also. Because it helps to make the helmet look like it is made of metal.
Why are there big dents in the Dome? If the character never got into it, the why is it not pristene?
Why is the helmet totally non-symetrical? Because an asymetrical helmet has more character, like a human face.
Why James Earl Jones and not David Prowse's voice? Everyone knows the answer to that.

Why? Because Lucas was going for a certain look, feel and sound to the character. Lucas is an auteur. He controls every aspect of his films. The appearance of the ANH is no accident.



I am way passed this.

Happy Hunting.
The Heretic.

Why would i consider the back story ? i doubt Lucas had any real backstory when the film was made, certainly not to that level of detail and even if he did you're not talking about Lucas backstory you're making up your own.
In none of the films as i pointed out does Vader directly take part in any battles not one despite a good number of them, i guess he was tired by the time of ANH and beyond ?
Actually the dome is spraypainted as is the black on the mask though parts of the black on the mask may have been brushed later after the gunmetal was added.
There are no big deliberate dents in the dome, i defy you to find one person who has seen star wars but not a prop fan who will say the dome is dented or bashed, people just don't see details like that when they're just watching a movie to be entertained, most people don't even think the paint is two tone.
As Carsten pointed out there were backup casts if anything catastrophic were to happen to the primary one.
Why is the face asymmetrical ? you think it's purposeful to add character, personally i think it's more to do with the fact it's handsculpted and it takes an awful lot more work(time and money) to make something symmetrical by hand, this is just a fact i'm afraid.
You couldn't just write up a program and pull something off a CNC back then, or are you telling me the same George Lucas who deliberately wanted to add character to Vader,s mask in ANH,ESB and ROTJ deliberated decided to remove that asymmetrical character from the mask in ROTS for story purposes ?
It really just didn't need to be symmetrical it just had to look right, again nobody watching the film notices it's not symmetrical.

And as for JOJ vs DP well that's easy he didn't want Vader sounding like a farmer from the west country.

But again i see you're focusing mainly on the story and not the actual prop.

Maybe I need to show this again.



It proves they are the same helmet. And that is just one small area I focused on. I could show many others.

It is great to study details and compare them, and make suppositions based on those comparisons, but there is nothing scientific about ignoring physical evidence because it doesn't fit your hypothesis. Could they be different helmets? Sure. That possibility is always there. But the bulk of the photographic evidence clearly indicates otherwise. And you haven't yet shown evidence that clearly shows they are two distinct helmets in a way that would rule out the evidence suggesting that they are not.

I know. I didn't give up un this.

I know, Thomas, I really saw them the first time. But one picture is sharp and the other is fuzzy. And in such, they don't have to be identical, to appear to be the same.

I'm trying to come up with a way of demonstrating just how easy and inexpensive it could be to replicate all that detail you see. And I would be more than happy to start painting and show just how well I could dupicate all that detail, even in one day. But the only helmet I have was pretty distorted and looks like this, right now:



So painting right now, is not an option quite yet. I'm putting in about 60 hours a week at work right now, so finding time to work on ye old Vader helmet is tough, right now. But I am giving it some time every day, if only a few minutes.

I don't beleive in just making statements. I beleive in research, testing, and proof. I beleive in reconcilliation. Until you can reconcile all the data, nothing is set in stone. I see a lot of people 'telling' me, I'm wrong. My hat's off to Thomas, at least he is using anotated pictures to make his case. I respect that. I don't know that I am right. But until someone can up with 'iron-clad proof one way or another the question stands.

Since anyone can remember, everyone, including top scientists and researchers, beleived completely, that the Great White Shark was the TOP Predator in the ocean. This last fall they were PROVEN WRONG, when a Killer Whale was video recorded attacking, killing and eating a great White Shark. Nothing is beyond possible.

More is coming.

Doesn't work that way. YOU have to prove your theory. We don't. And just because you can replicate something one way, doesn't mean that was the way it was done. Everything in the movie production of ANH and pictorial evidence of the two scenes in question (most notably the metallic paint) speaks against your theory, so unless you can come up with irrefutable proof that two helmets where seen on screen, it stays with just 1.