I would like to open this thread for open, friendly discussion on the C-scar. I have no interest in popular prop politics over this matter, and so I ask that, if at all possible, we focus strictly on academic discussion. I know this will be a challenge because anything I've said so far on the matter on another board has been vilified and accused of sinister motivation, but I feel it's about time to discuss a closely guarded truth about the screenused ANH Vader mask, and perhaps the community can heal from this unnecessary division just a little.

One of the reasons why this has not been widely known is, basically, unavailability. There were two (official) or more molds (perhaps official or unofficial) taken off of the original screen-used ANH Vader at different stages of its tenure - a UK mold (from which the actual production masks for ESB and ROTJ came), and a US mold (which provided the tour and promotional helmets). As I'm writing this quickly from memory, if I make mistakes, send me a PM instead of replying, so I can edit Post #1 of this thread so that people don't have to scroll down to read any corrections.

Click on a thumbnail image to expand:



It is important to note that there are differences between the US and UK mold. They were taken at different stages of the mask's existence. The UK mold was taken towards or at the end of the production of ANH, where all the glorious details of this scene can be seen - dings, paint drips, hairline-thin phenomenon - right down to the very paint brush strokes. The famous Tantive IV scene (click on the above thumbnail) was filmed, ironically, at the end of the production, even though it was at the beginning. The TM facemask is dubbed by owners "TM ANH" because (1) the chin triangle is the original-sized small ANH configuration) and (2) it reflects the plethora of splendid detail.

The US mold - now more known as the "Rick Baker Mold" - is different. There are structural characteristics that distinguish it from the UK-mold descended screen-used production masks. It is believed to have been made at a time when the screen-used ANH Vader had been cleaned up. We do know that when Kermit Eller was touring with the screen-used suit, there is photographic evidence of surface dings and details such as the "C-scar". Photographic evidence includes the Don Post Studios outdoor photos as well as the Corbis tour photos.


(Above: Corbis photo. Kermit Eller dons the screen-used Vader)

There was a point in time, however, that the screen-used itself may have been repainted. Vader had a more pristine appearance seen in "Chronicles", at the Chinese theater, and other public venues.









(Above: the "Chronicles" Shots)


(Above: a Chinese theater appearance with a more pristine paint job).

If indeed the Chronicles is *THE* screen-used that had been repainted, you will note from the Chronicles shots that some of the textural detail is gone due to the new paint work. However, given the film grain and loss of detail, some detail may simply not showing up due to the sensitivity of the silver-halide film. There may be some who doubt that this is THE screen-used and is, instead, a copy. If a copy, then comes the question whether the copy was from the US (tour) or UK (production) mold, as the structural characteristics of the Chronicles mask that do not appear on masks that come from the US (tour) mold, which would indicate the Chronicles mask is not a tour copy but the original. However, that discussion is for another time, as this is just an intro.

What is the "C" scar? I called it a "C" scar because it roughly looks like a letter "C" depending upon how that structure is catching lighting. It is structurally like a ledge or cliff (think topological geography). Depending on the light direction and how much light it manages to pick up, camera angle, etc., it could be interpreted as a "J" or even an "S".

The erroneous assumption is that it was a painted detail. If so, that makes no sense. First, the ANH Vader mask was originally completely black. When it was determined by the film crew that the pitch-black mask's surface details were not getting picked up, it was decided to have alternating facets of Vader's face painted with metallic gray. Most viewers regarded these as light reflections and never noticed they were "helped" by brighter paint. The metallic gray paint was done as a rush job. Although Lucas did call for a lived-in look and there was intentional weathering done to the mask, the actual weathering was sparse throughout the costume. You can see paint drips on the original, evidenced by paint drips on the TM in correlating positions. Props back in that day were not always done to pristine fashion. Most of the time, the characters are moving, and usually people are shocked at all the imperfections when they manage to see the actual prop in person. If the purpose of the paint was primarily to make the facial surfaces more visible to the camera, and that most people seeing Star Wars for the first time in 1977 barely noticed the paint brush strokes, is there any logic to the supposition that the "C" scar was painted with metallic gray paint? Is such a supposition supported by any photos or screenshots?


(Above: TM ANH facemask, courtesy of Trap Joe)

The "C" scar nature has to be understood from the perspective of how lighting direction can affect how you study mountain formations in topographical photos. The illumination of light or the darkening by shadows cast by objects can cause people to misinterpret what they are seeing (e.g. the famous "Mars Face" photos).

Here is how the C-scar compares against the screen-used. Here is pic of my TM of that area of the faceplate, positioned over a screen capture of the original. It's not a perfect overlay. I'm using a $250 consumer camera lens that is hardly the same caliber, diameter and quality as the original Panavision camera and therefore I cannot match a full-face overlay perfectly due to the different lenses handling close-distance perspective distortion differently.



and, here's a control image:



So there we go! Let the friendly discussions begin!

great thread, guys!!!
Good work CS

It's interesting that despite my having posted on the RPF about this thread, people aren't coming over to examine the hi-res photos here but are instead speaking with authority that the scar is a paint job.

One argument states that because the lighting is coming from the left (see below) and the scar is visible, it therefore must be paint.



However, I set up a Darth Ugly facemask and used a studio lamp. I managed to approximate the shadow angle, size and degree of blur. The light source of the left photo is not from the left side, but is more in-line with the camera - possibly a little off to the left, but not the far left by a long shot. Thus, I say the argument is incorrect.

I am the one who posted that argument. I still haven't seen any pic taken with the same light and an aproximate angle (the same angle at 100% is almost impossible) where the C-Scar is shown whithout it being painted. The one you posted next to the original one doesn't show the C-Scar. Why?