I thought you were done with this?

You are correct, I’d like ONE picture backing up your claim. The costume book obviously isn’t the screen used. Every single pic and screen cap of the screen used Prowse belt has the Chicago screw. Every single one. Yet, the one in the book doesn’t. It doesn’t make sense.

To further this, here is the screen used without the silver on the buckle. It has been taken off or fell off. The black backing is still there. And it’s VERY obvious, the black backing simply cannot cover, or hide, the Chicago screw when laid flat. When laid flat, as in the costume book, There is a large gap between it and the edge of the black backing on the buckle.



Lastly, isn’t it quite odd that nobody has any pictures of the screen used hook on the screen used belt? The only pic is the one in the book. No on-set pictures? I’d like at least one other source backing your claim and the claim in the book. Because not having nearly an inch-wide screw on the belt is a huge sticking point to accuracy. To the point that, if I were to take that belt and try to get approved in it, I’d have to ADD a Chicago screw to it. I would tell the GML, “It’s the screen used belt, it has to be approvable” to which he’d say, “Where’s the Chicago screw?”

It really is that simple.

I dont know why you have such a hard time believing that the buckle is covering the snap. Have you experience with that type of belt? The buckle can easily be flipped so it overlaps the belt when not being worn. Plus consider that the buckle may not even have been attached for those pics on the book and was a loose one just set atop the belt for pics.

The buckle loosely laying on top of the belt is the only logical explanation that might work why there isn’t a Chicago screw/rivet. But the distance from the edge of the buckle to the edge of the box, looks about right from screen caps. This one for sure:



It is a very similar distance and the screw is quite evident. Plus, the box can only slide back so far before it hits the hook. In the book, there is still much room between the back of the box and the hook.

In other words, the belt is set up nearly exactly like I would expect it on that side if it was the prop. Everything but the Chicago screw. And the other box not covering any holes. But the original boxes slid around due to the thinner belt. So he could put it on, then slide the box into place. The box where the Chicago screw should be can only slide so far because of the hook riveted to the belt.

This is as about as clear a picture I can grab.



Maybe I can pop the blue ray in on my big screen LED TV, turn the colors/brightness up all wonky, and then take a picture of that area with my camera.

I’ll state this for sure. I’ve always believed the hook in the book is how they made the hook on the screen used belt. A different hook from ANH/ESB, further back, and mounted outside and painted black. The pic above, I believe, shows that in a grainy way. Backed up by the costume book, it’s easy to jump to conclusions.

I just want definitive proof. I couldn’t care less if the belt in the costume book IS THE belt. I hope it is. I just want to know what the hook looked like and how it was mounted so I can put it on my costume and get the CRL more accurate. There is no way to force a CRL change with hearsay and grainy pictures. Proof. Proof will get the change made and make my belt setup more accurate.

The truth is out there....
And
I want to believe.....

For the 3rd time I will say this!

The placement of the incised lines match and the off color of the green lights match. This belt isn't touring since the touring boxes have square green lights and this one has rectangle like what we see on screen

Why are you so stuck on the stud? We presented several reasons why we don't see it. Actually look at the evidence I am presenting to you.

You guys have to understand what Jsmails is saying he want's verifiable proof that belt is the real screen used belt
merely stating it is that belt is not how it works otherwise people like spfx(phil)stating his helmet is cast from an original would have also worked would it not have?

You have to ask yourself as well before you state that your opinion is fact
that ok was their only one belt made with those lines in the same area?
or where multiple made for the production.
how hard would it have been to make multiple belts with the lines exactly matching up I doubt it would have been that hard
the green lights could it not be possible that there were more with that pattern perhaps they painted the green plastic like I did and by accident the light boxes came out one lighter shade another darker exactly like the screen belt.and mind you I replicated this by accident to my surprise and joy of course
so with that could it not have been the same for those lights and multiples thereof

and then with the stud it is not merely a throw away detail the same how we all know an SL,TM,GS to be real cast from originals is they had the correct matching
details to the originals correct shape form nothing was off

so one could confidently state they are cast from originals not something else

same with this belt if that detail of the stud is gone missing and the screen used belt had a stud then this belt can't be a screen used belt
for one how do you know that the belt buckle/plate is covering the stud? if indeed it is you need to be able to prove it or giving convincing reasons why it is

one can say I know a teacup is flying round the sun.ok nice but how do you know you need to be able to prove such a thing
you can't just state it and it now automatically becomes fact because that just seems like the most correct answer to you that is not how things work unfortunately

If the plate is covering the stud how would we know for certain? is there a bend in the belt is the distance of the buckle closer to the right belt box than it normally would be
indicating the belt buckle has moved over the stud thus closer to belt box

also you have to consider if the belt buckle is indeed not covering anything where is the big hole where the stud would have been
there is no such thing as leather filler so the whole can't be filled in

let's consider every detail in full then arrive at a conclusion as of this point of time all the necessary details don't align to prove definitely that the belt is the screen used belt
there are some matching details yes but yet many variables exist that can also disprove this as thee belt

first we need to eliminate all variables that can disprove with out a doubt this as the belt used in the movie
once that has been done you can fully state what this belt is,or is not

I have 3 pieces of evidence that it can be screen used, color of green lights, their shape and placement of lines all match up.

The stud is the only one going against it, yet JSmail is usuing that and that alone to try to prove the belt isn't screen used. That's why im getting frustrated. He is so stuck on it for some odd reason.

It's also been proven the belt has Prowse's name on the back and it's damaged. But I digress.