It was Sithlord's decision to remove any photo's from his posts.

Clutch,

I would be able to identify an original as I know by the overall look of the form and by certain details that I have never revealed to anyone.

Brian

I have to thank Thomas for one thing...I now know I would not want a TD helmet, the TM or VP are both vastly superior...in my opinion. I am not saying it is a crappy casting, but I do not know enough about repairing fiberglass to fix those tusk tubes to resemble the actual helmet.

His SL lid on the other hand is VERY appealing.

Mac, on the upholding the "spirit" of any CoC, that is impossible to prove or disprove. The poster in question, whoever and whenever these things happen, can just say that he/she thought they were following the letter 'o the law in both spirit and deed.

The thing about Thomas' claims is that they are easily disputed when it comes to the big boards. I think we are pretty well safe from him trying to claim his TD bucket is anything other than an interesting cast of a so and so repair job. Or maybe the cast was actually of the broken tusk tubed lid and the repairs were all done on his cast. No one will know til the paint is stripped off, and frankly, were I Thomas, I wouldn't bother. I also would not make the claims he has, but that is neither here nor there with the TD. It is what it is, an interesting cast.

I'm not claiming it's superior to anything. I'm simply comparing features and seeing what is closer to the original ANH...I know that implies superiority but there are many things the TM has going for it that make it stand out in particular in regard to its details/sharpness. I already said the father idea was a long shot but it was something I was playing with for a while and looking at features in the paint of the TD. That's all.

Anyway, I'm sure we are all happy with our own castings. If you think the TM and VP are vastly superior to the TD, then we can discuss why you think that, and that statement in and of itself doesn't bother me because everyone is entitled to their opinions, including myself. I'm not sure if you saw photos of a copy of the TD with intact/repaired tubes? I don't mind discussing things rationally and calmly. DK posted the photo of the TD/VP side by side already (I have more). The VP...at least as it goes into collector's hands (I had the first pull), has much more cleanup than a TM or TD. I don't know if it's what the owner did or not.

I won't argue that the TM is an outstanding casting. The TD has differences as well that I pointed out but haven't shown all of them yet. But the VP is smaller than both the TM (copy at least) and TD. The tube ends are also different....more like ROTJ than ANH...thinner. The VP has terrific proportions and it's very sharp, and the grill detail is outstanding. And for the record I never did and won't be offering any TD castings. I'm just trying to share my thoughts about it that I've had, as strange or out in left field as they might seem....I've had it a long time so I had plenty of opportunities in the past if I wanted to "promote" it. I could have made any claims I wanted to, but I didn't. I reserved comment on it until I was sure but I'm still not sure and it's been four years. Brian was helpful in his assessment of it but I still had many unanswered questions. The TD is just what it is, a painted mask that seems quite old and has some unique features...whether they are worthwhile considering or not is something I've been studying. It's just really cool to be able to compare two of the UK masks (three if you count the VP) to a mask from the USA.

As far as the Elstree mask photo. Not to question Brian (remember I am just an inquisitive scientist ), but I'm so surprised if it's not the screen mask....it's such a strange coincidence that it has the exact same mouth grill and interior tint flaws inside the lenses...I can show that comparison again of the screen mask grill and the Elstree mask grill and the lenses. I have as I am sure others do, photos of the fourth pull helmet that Vadermania mentioned Paul Harrison has or had. Maybe I can post those and see if that's the one you saw, Brian? Because I'm really baffled about that....I forget if there was a thread about that or if we should start one? If it is really the same mask you saw and it is really not original, there's a lot I would have to rethink about it....it just doesn't seem possible to have the same lenses and grill as the screen mask....I can show those again but of course would have to defer to Brian's impression of it.

Whew!

Hey Thomas,

Are you sure that the lens flaws were in fact on the inside of the screen used helmet? The reason I ask is because it's really easy to reproduce those flaws if the marks were on the outside of the lens. Because they would be present on the mold made of the screen helmet, and in turn easy to reproduce in resin. As an example, my very first V1 helmets of years ago originally had resin lenses. These lenses came out of the same mold that I cast the faceplates from. From photos you couldn't tell that the lenses were resin, it was difficult to tell in person as well.


JB

I'm sure because they are not on the SL lenses....they would have to be if they were a surface flaw.

Mouth grills match...identical...



Lenses flaw matches....left eye...



Another example...this time the right eye...



We have a good idea that there was tint on the inside of the lenses to darken them. So my assumption was that what we are seeing are flaws on the inside tint portion of the original lenses.

I don't see how this combination of flaws intrinsic to parts of the mask that are not part of the casting could appear in this form on two different masks....

VP 1st pull vs TD....



TD vs TM...



TD with SL dome...




You're welcome.......

Thomas, please be so kind and use the image below of the original TM faceplate for all future comparisons, since the test pull that I have borrowed you for comparisons is distorted in some places.



Additionally, I would like to re-new my offer to compare the original TM faceplate with the original TD faceplate as long as the original TM faceplate is in the US. Let me know what you think of this proposal.

The TM is without a doubt a thing of beauty.

Please, Please do another run of TM helmets.
That faceplate is beautiful.

Here here! I would love one of these.

Thanks, Tom, let me know what you would like me to do with the comparisons I showed. I'll need to rephotograph the TM copy I have and the TD because that photo you show is closer in and from a lower angle.

Although I am a bit baffled. I thought the original TM had broken tubes on the ends, no eye covers molded in, and there were bubbles in parts of the resin on the face? So the original has been modified or restored?

I see the neck is correct. But if that's the case then why does DK's mask have exactly the same curvature profile on the right rear side as my copy, whereas this mask photo shows something else. If mine was misshapen then it wasn't the only one.

I was asked about the direct comparison of faceplates previously and I appreciate the offer. However, as I stated before in private, I have my reasons for declining. If there is going to be openness about everything, it works both ways. But that has not been the case. And as you know it has nothing to do with our own discussions.

Also I welcome photos of the TM ANH taken similar to what I showed of the TD with SL helmet...or other angles and I'll match them...

The size and lineage debate;
The TM appears bigger than the TD even taking the extra piece of neck into account.
How could this be if the TD originates from the ANH era and the TM ESB?

Great comparison pic.

Because the TM is sitting more forward, making the crown of the head look larger. If you angle them horizontally correctly, and line up the eyes, you notice how the crowns are better proportioned in terms of size. The TD is actually sitting further back from the tape measure in this photo so they line up vertically.



Since there has been much protest of me using my TM copy for comparisons with mention of it not being a representative casting, I thought I'd compare it to the original attempting to capture the same angle and distance and lens perspective. The comparison is not perfect but almost there. Personally I think it is fairly representative....apart from the neck bit. It might be distorted a bit in the rear but the face area seems fine.