well sithlord..ild have to say the debate is over. you ended it with you your definitive proof. you cant ignore the evidence.
if the scar is there on the SL and the DJ..it should be there on the efx. which it more than likely is. but just painted over. filled in. besides..one person on here or another forum showed the c scar in the images of the RB mold that are in the booklet..you can barely see it. but its there. i saw it with my own two eyes..and for Gino to say it isn't really boggles my mind..not to mention that he is arguing with two people who have definitive proof that its there. kind of foolish if you ask me.

I call it wishful thinking that the scar is a painted detail much the same way that anyone who thinks the Baker mold is a 100% exact reproduction of the ANH Vader helmet would be wrong.
Best piece of advice is enjoy the efx as it's a nice looking helmet. It would be easy to open up a thread about it's flaws but for the majority of owners it will be a welcomed official prop that has far more pros than cons.

Okay, got it. The C-scar mark on this face over here appears and disappears depending on the lighting - especially through the paint. There would be NO WAY to see it or many other telling scratches by looking into the mold. There's a lot that you cannot see in a rubber mold.

Remember too that there is a CRAP LOAD of lighting in those older movies. It will catch all kinds of things differently.

And we've discussed this before. It's like the Mars Face discussion among the space community. What is perceived is based on lighting angle and what shadows are cast as a result.

In the same vein, the C-scar is such a subtle detail that it would require a certain angle of lighting to become visible. I find it amusing that people would assail the notion with such authority based on a photo that appears to have frontal-flash as the image's light source. That would fill any crack, however minor, with light and make it appear seamless with the rest of the silicone.

There are still people who believe in the face on Mars. Wow, huh?

What do you think of it now that you have it?

6 foot distance shots please, looking right into the camera, but slightly different angles of nod? I'd like to do a photo comparison, if that's okay.

The dome looks to be in the right position to me. Very slightly high at the front, but that's it.

Rich

illbethere1, I saw the "drop" damage you are talking about in pictures you posted on the rpf. I'm glad that helmet went to someone who knew enough to not mistake that as just part of the original helmet dings. I wouldn't have known the difference. I hope they quickly replace it for you.

1 out of 264 is a pretty good statistic in terms of a production run. Sorry to hear you being the one, but it sure did look like it was resting on something that made those dents, while they were perhaps trimming the teeth and eye sockets.

I'd love to see a side shot.

Flaws aside on yours, it sure does look pretty.

Thanks, great pics!

I have a funny feeling the Limited will look the exactly the same in the area between the rods.

yeah those are some nice pics..thanks a lot for the close up shots.

Interesting to see how they've done the insides. Bet the original wasn't that neat!

Ya, the original was pretty bare bones compared to that...

Have we ever seen pictures of the inside of the original or it that based on testimony from those that handled it?