DJ Vader Helmet by Vadermonkey

juan7fernandez · **Joined:** Sat Oct 17, 2015 7:56 am **Posts:** 238

I have evidence in hand that this is not correct....

juan7fernandez · **Joined:** Sat Oct 17, 2015 7:56 am **Posts:** 238

No Humor Man wrote:

Darth Niob wrote:

The only reason the C-scar isnt that prominent on the SL/DJ as on the TM is because the Baker mold was made after the repaint of the screen used Anh Vader.

There's no way the UK mold was made before the US mold, as the face mask has a crack down the side on the UK mold, which the original now has, which it didn't have at the time of the US molding. So they both come off the re-painted helmet.

The difference in sharpness of the details can be in the silicone used. I've noticed with some model kits for instance that molds made with different silicone on the exact same model kit master offer differences in sharpness and detail - could very well be the same thing happening here.

The silicone point is true. However the details about the time of casting and the detials that show up on these helmets is incorrect. I wish I could put it all out there right now but it is still not the right time to do so.

Midnight Trooper · **Joined:** Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:26 am **Posts:** 344

Wow. I'm surprised that showed up after sanding and paint. Pretty cool though.

darthjones · **Joined:** Fri Feb 22, 2008 10:57 am **Posts:** 472

illbethere1 wrote:

Midnight Trooper wrote:

Wow. I'm surprised that showed up after sanding and paint. Pretty cool though.

As Dj said, he only used rubbing compound to remove the neck drip and did no sanding at all.
Upon MY close up inspection, most the details are present still even after the paint. I don't see any evidence of sanding at all.

Here's another shot.

dj c scar 2 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/186247799@N08

Right but just want to be clear - I used a light bit of rubbing compound over the whole thing VERY sparingly just so that paint would adhere.

The drip down the neck itself was sanded off - but it was the only thing on the face. Just looked too weird to me, authenticity or not. I wanted people to handle this and go "oooh ahhh," not "ooooh ah - wait, why is he drooling." ;)

Too Much Garlic · **Posted:** Sat Jan 04, 2020 11:07 am

That's pretty cool. :thumbsup

Darthvaderv · **Joined:** Fri Sep 29, 2006 1:25 pm **Posts:** 2871

I said all along it wasn’t just a paint detail. Back in 2007 to be precise but some love to argue without knowing.

vader45 · **Joined:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:51 pm **Posts:** 346

Amazing find on the helmet.

Vadermonkey · **Joined:** Sat Oct 14, 2006 4:29 am **Posts:** 689

I think terming it a "paint detail" was referring to the original screen mask- it looks like a chemical lift where paint dripped. The "scratch" or geometry of the mark is just what that particular defect looks like in cast form.

Vadermonkey · **Joined:** Sat Oct 14, 2006 4:29 am **Posts:** 689

Double post.

Darthvaderv · **Joined:** Fri Sep 29, 2006 1:25 pm **Posts:** 2871

Vadermonkey wrote:

I think terming it a "paint detail" was referring to the original screen mask- it looks like a chemical lift where paint dripped. The "scratch" or geometry of the mark is just what that particular defect looks like in cast form.

Yes. If you recall the long RPF debate some said that the scratch prominence was just a paint detail. You can clearly see this mimicked on the EFX legend etc. Lending the thought that the surrounding area in question was just more or less a small raised area of paint and not much else. In reality it’s much more than that as we know. The TM, SL and 2 other masks have this detail even if they somewhat vary in differences, but it’s there.

Too Much Garlic · **Posted:** Thu Mar 19, 2020 10:24 am

Pete suggested it was caused by handling and these photos show it is likely the cause.

, on Flickr

Darthvaderv · **Joined:** Fri Sep 29, 2006 1:25 pm **Posts:** 2871

I don’t doubt that. It’s impossible to know for sure but Most likely handling caused it. Very easily done. If it was post filming with KE touching up the face and other parts you may call that a consideration as his memory was clear on that but I would say the screen used is more handling than touch up just as you can see the progression from the first day of filming to the last and the obvious wear and tear even though they did touch things up and used dulling spray for reflections. As we know GL was adamant that unlike Star Trek characters the sw world portrayed the wear and tear look.

vader45 · **Joined:** Thu Feb 17, 2011 8:51 pm **Posts:** 346

illbethere1 wrote:

Well, well, well, look what we got here on the DJ.....

dj c scar by [url=https://www.flickr.com/photos/186247799@N08/]

There eeriely are the same bumps on my SL mask :0

juan7fernandez · **Joined:** Sat Oct 17, 2015 7:56 am **Posts:** 238

illbethere1 wrote:

Darthvaderv wrote:

Vadermonkey wrote:

I think terming it a "paint detail" was referring to the original screen mask- it looks like a chemical lift where paint dripped. The "scratch" or geometry of the mark is just what that particular defect looks like in cast form.

Yes. If you recall the long RPF debate some said that the scratch prominence was just a paint detail. You can clearly see this mimicked on the EFX legend etc. Lending the thought that the surrounding area in question was just more or less a small raised area of paint and not much else. In reality it’s much more than that as we know. The TM, SL and 2 other masks have this detail even if they somewhat vary in differences, but it’s there.

The TM, DJ, SL and who's the 4th cast carrying the mark ? Let me guess, some cast lurking in the shadows yet to debut....

juan7fernandez · **Joined:** Sat Oct 17, 2015 7:56 am **Posts:** 238

Lurking in the shadows.....

DJ Vader Helmet by Vadermonkey

Who is online