It was like some kind of cement so that if someone tried to pry the helmet off the mounting ring of the mask it would likely break either one.

Thanks, John, for chiming in, very much appreciated!

So, two different pulls from the Rick Baker mold, separated by years, done by different ILM artists. And BOTH have the C-scar.

Posted this on RPF, so should put it here too. Case closed.



Firstly, early images of the SL ANH had the right front face of the cheek and the widow’s peak (among other things) blurred out. Why? So SPFX and JB couldn’t use that information to make their claimed “cast from original” castings more authentic.

Secondly, the image of the mold shown by eFX has flat lighting, has the region in question out of focus compared to the tab region in the other photo shown, and I can see the base of the C-scar just where it should be. The C-scar as Wannab mentioned is not a huge chip in the paint, it is a shallow scratch, but it is there.

Here is a comparison showing that on the mold the C-scar is still present. All I had to do was increase the sharpness of the image and I invite anyone to do the same comparison and do the overlay as well. You will see that they match. Maybe if we could see a sharper image of that area with oblique lighting it would be more apparent. But it is there.The details at the base of the scar toward the lower edge of the cheek match and are indisputable. But certainly it could have been missed by an untrained eye.




And finally, Darth Jones confirmed that when his own helmet was pulled from the Rick Baker mold, it too had the C-scar. So, two separate pulls from the Rick Baker mold taken years apart, by different ILM artists, and BOTH have the C-scar. Then, almost 20 years later, eFX takes a pull from the mold and reports that there is no C-scar?

So it is there, it was there. And certainly a detail like that would be easy to miss.

Was gonna say about the MR ROTS - I think, for instance, that the neck was "calmed down" a bit from how weird they made it because what they did was goofy. Gotta relax on that. And the U of the nose suffers from MOUNDS of paint. Sand that down a bit with 1000 grit, repolish, and you should be okay. I haven't tried that yet but I might.

And the connector was probably made more stable too.

Things like that seem to be considerations made with regard to stability in the hands of someone who wants to look at it instead of film it.

Changes, yes, but not conspiratorial.

Thoughts?

I hate the U on the MR nose but I might sand it down.

With a bit of jiggerypokery you can match up a good amount of detail between the mold and the Tantive Vader - more than I thought but a little less than I hoped. Still, a good way to see what's going on there.

Yes completely agree. Can certainly accept there were changes but can't imagine it being about differentiating between originals and copies. At the end of the day LFL is not selling authentic casts and they can create a new one whenever they want. It's no skin off their nose if someone tries to rip off someone else with a fake casting and they have been less keen to authenticate items in recent years. So I do think they probably care very little about it.

I just pulled the DJ out and looked at it. The C-scar is in there like on the SL photos here but just slightly deadened enough by a passage of the black paint I put on. I TRIED to take a picture of it in what lighting might allow you to see it but am having a hard time with my set up here.

It appears in some light and disappears in others.

Perhaps try some corn starch flour (or any flour for that matter) to fill the scar? The important thing is to be able to compare it's position against the screen used.

Flour is non-permanent.

I don't know, man - I spilled some flower on my wrist when I was 19 and I'm 44 - IT'S STILL THERE!!!!!!

BUT - I'll maybe try that. I just packed it back away until I get a good mask display stand that won't tip over. I live in earthquake country and that would suck (Whittier Narrows fault was screwing around in the last couple weeks.).

What is the debate anyway? I haven't followed. It's definitely on there but not as pronounced due to paint. But it's certainly not a gouge or gash or anything like that. It is the same as the SL - same mold.

Well, if you fill the scar with something white and take the sharpest images possible that looks like the same closeup shot on the Tantive IV white background scenes, I can try to do an overlay in Photoshop to see if your C-scar lines up with the screenshot.

The U-shaped part of the nose on the MR is distinctly different from the original and it isn't just a simple matter of sanding, it is reshaped.

Actually LFL is very aware of instances of replicas being passed off of originals. Take the instance of the Harrisons. They were notorious for that. A licensee will never talk about something like that. And it isn't a matter of LFL authenticating anything. They won't. They are not in the business of authenticating props. But they may intervene in an auction if they suspect something original was stolen or if something is being passed off as original an isn't (something which yes lately they are less apt to intervene in if the so called "provenance" is difficult to argue). I could see the mounting plate being changed for stability, but there is no other reason for the differences in the nose/neck/rear undercut.

Thanks, John, for your efforts there. It would be really surprising to me if it wasn't there, but thanks for confirming that.

Well in a nutshell, it was pointed out that the C-scar as Gino painted it on his prototype mask was not in the right position. Then he argues that the C-scar was only a paint flaw, not in the casting on the original. So then the TM owners and myself tell him that it is.


Then he shows a photo of the inside of the Rick Baker mask mold claiming it isn't there, and on top of that he accuses both myself and TM of fabricating the C-scar on our castings (!).


A huge heated discussion ensues in one of the largest threads ever on the RPF. Then the production eFX helmets recently come out and lo and behold, detailed photos indicate no scar. So then a small discussion ensues. Then of course Art got upset that there were those questioning "eFX" on the matter since eFX saw the mold in person. So then I demonstrate with my own images of the SL ANH that the scar is a real detail and that it is actually there in the mold, just that it is a blurry image that Gino showed. I also argued that the DJ ANH has the scar as well and so if two pulls from different times taken by different ILM artists have the scar and we see what looks like at least some of it in the Rick Baker mold photo, then the simple fact of the matter is that the scar is there in the RB mold when eFX photographed it, and Gino was wrong yet again and just making up a story about a paint flaw because he didn't know about the scar in the casting, he painted over it, and then didn't realize where it actually should be on that front cheek surface. It was all just another ploy to cover up his tracks because of him not knowing a detail about the original ANH helmet. He could have just taken a closer look at the mold or the master casting, swallowed his ego for a moment, admit it is a casting detail, and we could have avoided a long, drawn out and heated debate about just one detail. But that one detail exemplified what was lost on the eFX casting in the process of cleanup.