yes slimmer towards the ends where they converge. Well the VP is slightly closer to 20th C size than TM size. The differences overall are small as we are talking about millimeters.

Hi All,

The TM is an amazing ESB / ANH helmet. It's only real flaw was the smashed tusks on the faceplate but the reconstruction by JRX was bang on so really no big deal It definitely comes from a production mould no doubt. When it was made is the question but in reality what difference does it make it is just a truly great helmet. The owner is very happy with his purchase and it's provenance and has made that very clear.

I have no idea how the topic turned onto the VP but the VP is from a LFL mould which was used in the UK early / mid nineties it lays no claims to being anything other than an excellent example of a Vader helmet. It has obvious ANH details like the mouth grill in the teeth can still be seen and the small lower chin vent impression. It also has the lens shape still intact. The tabs on top where present but the guy who sourced it filed them off as he didn't like them they are still clear where they were and some outlines can be seen. Its biggest bonus is it has had nothing cut out like the chin vent, eyes and teeth after it came out the mould.

I don't have pics of the TM at hand but as I remember the eyes and teeth were already cut out?

Basically it adds up to what Gino has said that there are a fair few helmets out with the same small vent and tabs etc in the mould and the differences in the screen helmets were really to do with who finished them. These helmets are unfortunately not in the world of fandome as yet or not as readily available.

Anson when you get your VP it will be very cool to see good up close photos. I have a VP but unfortunately I take notoriously rubbish photographs.

We have seen some great Vader items come into the world of fandome in the last year or so and hopefully it won't be the last lot of great Vader items turning up in the hands of fans.

It's a great time to be a Vader fan at the moment

Cheers Chris.

In general well said Chris..everytime you post I like the clarity of wisdom that you project..

I think the last page or so has derailed slightly so it would be good to get back on topic as requested earlier and open up a new thread for the VP if necessary.

I agree on both counts. I really think the VP deserves its' own thread also. Hopefully when AJ gets his he will do a nice pic intensive thread.

Thought Id chime in here with a reality check regarding fibeglass and larger vs. smaller helmets. Lots of free form speculation in what we might call, "reconstructive" or applied archeology" that should be more carefully considered.

Generally speaking fiberglass will shrink about 1/32 per 10 inches if good quality resin is used. It will shrink up to -and a hair over- 1/16 per 10 or so for lower end resins. (so as much as you may think your glory helmet is perfect....its still shruken and made worse if its a second generation.....which it probably is ....but cheer up, its not that bad.

Now molding compounds can also shrink. However silicone molds, which present little to no shrinkage, were developed in the 1970s which almost certainly found use in studio costume houses since multiple production was often necessary and since Hollywood tends to be at the forefront of techniques for special effects.

So the issue at hand is thus....for a helmet that large to genuinely be smaller than another such that its truly noticible, it would have to have shrunk at least 1/4" or more...

....but there is caveat here.

These are not super thick structured pieces, nor is fiberglass resin a particularly stable material when curing...or worse, curing quickly under time constraints.

Moreover, the open nature of the vader mask leaves it susceptible to widening and narrowing (so too with an improperly backed mold) such that one cast may appear drastically smaller than the next if the mold was widened a bit OR if a cast was widened and then reenforced with more fiberglass. Variable after variable here guys

The Don Post Fett helmet was often thought of as a fake, and I argued ad naseum that its narrow appearence was the result of it being pushed inward at the sides....but consequently the back and front flared out a bit more too (big clue ;) Only after what must have been 20 casts did I manage to restore the original shape that is both convincing and presents a massively different helmet. I still recall people referring to the Don Post deluxe as 15% smaller than the original when it was still the same volume of material, just shaped differently.

So be careful when discussing huge variations regarding these helmets. My sense is that most owners of authentic helmets dont willy nilly allow folks to make molds, then those owners allow their helmets to be molded up and so forth. Recasting does exist, sure, however it would take A LOT of recasts to create a helmet that is so much smaller it would be immediately noticed.

Sanding does make something smaller. So do generations of recasting (at least 4-5 to be blatently obvious).....but then again, so do variations in the inward vs. outward shape of the helmet ...A 'U' shape vs a 'V 'shape. ...the U shape appears bigger, more bull-like, more massive. ...but the V shape appears smaller.

Stuff like that. :