And yet another update from Gino:

Here's a few behind the scenes pics I thought you might be interested in seeing.
(excuse the poor quality pics, that's why they're *cough* behind the scenes) :wink1:

Here's what the container looks like outside of the main box.
It's HUGE!



"It should be quite well protected..."



Shot of the face mask without the dome.





Interior shot of the face mask showing the lining and strap system.





Shot of the inside of the dome.
You have no idea how difficult it was to get the factory to lay the fiberglass in this particular way (thin wall with tight corners, and specific matte pattern)!
Very happy with the end result.

I have one on order. It's nice looking but it's cleaned up and missing details which is different to the screen piece. However, glad to see the vast majority will be able to have something more connected with the screen piece in terms of lineage.

As for the fiber pattern in the inside of the dome the ANH pattern is different from ESB/ROTJ.

Ya the paint is so-so, but passable. Whether there is fine detail below the paint is questionable since we don't even see some of the courser surface details. It'll be interesting to strip one down. The mask is overall pretty good in terms of shape, but I still have problems with the dome. There's just too much about the flaring front edges/shape that isn't right. It is almost as if they had to rework the flaring edges. The inside view of the dome highlights this. The C-scar looks completely fabricated. But hey, those are the gripes I've stated before so nothing new. And I don't actually have to say anything really about the helmet because in the end it will be simply a matter of comparison.

Um, it is completely fabricated. Its just been painted on. Remember when Gino showed that picture of the mold with no scar there?

Don't start this one again.... The C scar is a dimensional thing on the casts I have seen and held..... It isn't just paint.

Christ man I have no desire to start that one up again. If you read my post again you'll see at no point did I offer an opinion, just the facts.

Hey... it's Saturday... grab a pint of beer and sing drunken songs...

That was last night, tonight, and tomorrow night. Three day weekend!

Don't do anything I would do...

Ha Ha ...... I'm pissed! I've been at a friends 40th birthday party and it's the first night out I've had out in months...... I've got a 9 week out old daughter and a 4 year old daughter and don't get out much these days!

I just thought we were starting up the whole C scar debat again...... I have plenty of casts from original moulds and know what i have is good..... so if ou want to believe the "c" scar doesn't exist then fill your boots.....

And drink like a champ.

In general, If people think a Baker mold is perfectly like the screen version with warts and all, it isn't. It has flaws, in terms of some aspects will not hold up exactly. If anyone thinks a decent paint job will create the perfect ANH look it won't. It will be close, it will look nice but it won't be 100% dead on. A very good foundation but not the holy grail. This is in no way bashing but fact.
As for the C-Scar, people should not be afraid to discuss a touchy subject. It is dimensional, not just paint. If anyone believes that then why hasn't anyone put it in the right place for starters with the correct depth and off setting flaws. I think the TM scar is what people are keeping in mind as dimensional and that's off the mark so just pay closer attention to the screen used and take everything into consideration. Some masks are weaker than others in areas and vice versa.

A quote from Gino on the RPF when asked about the widow's peak:

"Nope. That area has not been altered at all nor is it softer on this sample."



Well I'm kind of straining my eyes trying to see how that is not softer.

I think the problem is there may not be enough to compare it with from Gino's POV for that comment. Think about it. If your used to fanmades and all the various products that have been on the market than this looks sharp, forget an SPFX as that's tampered with as are others. The SL in hand comparing the same feature is sharper without it being tampered with but again some photos showing that area can look softer than the screen used so IMO it depends how the image hits the light etc and what it shows as well as the gloss black looking gloss and not matt, not that this is any infinitive guide but I'm just talking about light and looks. The thing I do like about the dome on the EFX is the dome cap area seems good, again a little soft and missing what I feel is more detailed features but the overall shape is positive.
I think with the 3 known examples out in public such as the SL,DJ and EFX they all have positives and negatives.

A quick example of a shot where the dome doesn't look as sharp in that area as it should due to the light. In other pictures where light is hitting that area it's fine. Same with on the screen. This could be said about the C-Scar also.

The thing is, he shows more than one angle so the light hits it more than one way and the result is the same. I've taken enough images of that area to know what to expect in terms of detail. Granted I don't have a painted example to compare it with (hopefully that will be solved soon) but unless there is/are thick layers of paint or gelcoat, it doesn't look anywhere near as detailed as it should be. And I think we can safely assume that they would make sure the paint doesn't detract from the details inherent to the casting. Also, unlike the C-scar, the widow's peak detail or Y-crease as I call it has a lot of depth to it and contour that light should pick up on even with a bit of paint.