GINO wrote:
That's funny you mention that Mac, because I believe you and Sithlord have more in common than any of the people on these forums. And I think most of us know why. Interpret that however you want.
The reason that I keep dismissing the whole size issue is this.
From the same mold, a fiberglass casting can vary a great deal. There are a lot of factors that contribute to size differential.
- The room temperature of the area in which the casting is made.
- The amount of catalyst used in the polyester resin.
- How long the piece is left in the mold after laying up
These contributing factors can cause what I consider major differences (up to an 1/8" or so, and even more so on really large pieces).
Based on the way measurements are presented here, some would say items coming from the same mold are actually different in generation when that is absurd.
When there is that much room for size discrepancy on items from the same mold, how can you possibly use that as an accurate measure of what came first, second, etc..
The method is flawed and should not be used at all in determining anything in regard to pedigree.
"This X is .2mm longer than that X, so it must be an earlier generation."
You're fooling yourself if you believe that.
Using measurements for this type of purpose is due to some needing the false sense of comfort and by the need to be able to look at this in black and white terms.
It would be so much simpler if we could look at measurements and draw hardcore solid determinations from them.
We simply can't.
So what we have here are some using a sampling of info to try to either praise or damn pieces that they are either financially or emotionally invested in.
The truth is obscured by all the noise of nonsensical photo comparisons, overlays, and measurement squabbles.
Gino, surely you have to agree that size does play a part in the equation. If you are talking about using only shapes and details to determine the authenticity (or whatever other word you want to use) of a prop, then I say that's not a very well researched result. Using photo comparisons is not nonsensical, they are just another form of identification. How else do we judge your displays? By comparing them to what we see on screen, and in photographs etc. Perhaps some do get too involved in photographic comparisons and only see what they want to see, but I'd rather have that than just a stated word. You painted your ANH faceplate, for example, and you based it on what? You based it on what you see on screen and in photographs.
In making any evaluation (with regard to the subject matter) you have to consider several factors. Size being one of them and photographs being another. Then you also consider shapes and details backed with research and discussions. There is a lot of that going around in this thread. Do I agree with everything presented? Nope, but I appreciate the effort being put forth by all and the continued discussions we are having.
What opinions do you have about your faceplate that would make it in line with the original. Everyone knows where Tom got the TM. Everyone knows where Thomas got his TD. Everyone knows, and will know more, where the VP came from. All these great helmets, all in one thread for all to see and know about their history. So I ask you, where did yours come from? What is the history behind yours? It can't possibly be any more secretive than any of these. I've already said what I believe it to be, but I'd love to be proven wrong, or right.