For the pro's the Baker mould has it isn't 100% accurate. There are various aspects not just one little thing. As for seeing something better that is not a valid argument to support it's screen accuracy. Fact is it isn't this ultimate copy exact to what we see on screen. I've found many errors but I see no need to publically highlight them at this stage. If you think the Baker mould without clean up is perfect I'm surprised. Are you really saying that you think everything matches 100%? It's a high end and well detailed casting if left in tact but perfect it's not.

SL do you think you would ever consider stripping the TD?

Well it's easy to play fast and loose with someone else's possessions. I'd strip it now. Not if it belonged to me though! What we need is someone on the forum with accesss to an MRI scanner or something.

No certainly not 100%, but you talk about it like it is only 60% accurate. But if one were to look for something better, it would have no imperfections based on the way it came out of the mold, which is difficult to achieve, and the mask would not have the tusk tubes filled in. But if you consider what is there, the original lenses, the most minute details in the paint, and even the tusk tube ends which had the tusks taken off for molding by Rick Baker, those ends are still identical to what you see onscreen. I would say, even conservatively, that it is at least 90-95% identical. Would I want something that is 97 or 98%? Sure. Where could we get that from then? Would we get that from a 1st gen master casting from the "UK" mold? That mold was earlier, so perhaps, but then again the helmet itself experienced wear during filming so whether it would reflect the Tantive IV detail is open to question. And about showing something better, it is valid. If someone has a casting that we can compare any detail to with the screen helmet, then I could provide a corresponding image and we could then see which has retained more detail.

If there are errors then I would keep in mind that you have a copy, not the master. Would you consider the filled tusk tubes an "error"? An error implies a mistake. If something is inaccurate, then it is either because it was removed (sanding, finishing, etc.), or it is lost generationally, or it is a problem with a particular pull (bubbles, pits, warping, etc.). So there is a distinction to be made between an "error" in your casting versus an "error" in the SL ANH in general.

Someone better start talkin' some smack. I'm ready to read some diagnostics.

Somebody do a huge line of blow in front of their keypad and start with the words, "The bottom of the left flange..."