Best tool for that job is a #22 X-Acto blade

Would we expect anything else?

No pics that I know of. Some of the information comes from Dave Prowse, other from Kermit Eller. Also the TD ANH has pretty much a similar interior.

Well, it may seem odd but I'm going to defend Gino on this, because isn't it the case that he just received the castings to paint? I don't think he had any role in the cleanup and therefore in "concealing" anything, nor do I think there was any real intention to do so. Gino knew full well the importance of keeping as much surface detail as possible intact, which was something he kept assuring people. But I don't think it was in his control at the time he joined the project. But there was certainly some work done to the front flaring edges of the helmet, and the curvature is a bit off, but for what reason I do not know. I can only assume that the master pull came out of the mold a bit wonky. But that doesn't address why they squared off and smoothed out the front flaring edges. What Gino originally showed, and what we see on the production version he showed, are identical. I didn't see any changes in the shape or the amount of detail. As for the rest of the dome I don't see really any buildup, just sanding down.

You see this is where reputation comes into play. I would also give him the benefit of the doubt. However past dealings that have been mentioned over the years tells us otherwise so it's difficult to be certain about the intentions. The thing is he doesn't by a rule want people to have the same products which is understandable but I don't like the way things have gone down in the past with others.

regardless on whose fault it is, which i think it may have been the company's in China why the detailing isn't there. if the intentions were to have all of it on the helmet and if the licensee agreement permitted it to be... in return, makes it efx's fault for letting it happen. unless of course it was their plan all along to hide or cover up some of the detailing. maybe, like i said before, it was in the license agreement they had with Lucas film that they had to cover up or alter some of the detailing that is seen on the film used helmet. we dont know. and maybe it could be that the mold (which was made of rubber i believe) could have deformed in some way shape or form due to the age it was and where and how it was stored. but if not, its really sad that eFX couldn't make sure that every little detail was left on the helmet. you would think they would have considering all of the hype and everything that they stated on their website and all these forums on what they were doing to back up their claim. it gave you (at least me) the impression that what they were making was an exact copy/replica of the RB mold of the helmet that was used in the filming of ANH and what we see on screen. and at first i thought it to be true until i was proven wrong by some of the forum members on here. the misleading claims along with everything else (packaging issues which caused damage to the helmets, serial numbers which mean absolutely nothing and QC) i found out after receiving the helmets was a huge let down to me personally. and to be honest, i felt cheated. and if im the only one. that's fine. becasue everything i have read or have seen online in these forums about the Legend helmet (after receiving them mind you) was a major disappointment. is it a nice looking helmet? yes it is. is it a film accurate prop as eFX stated it was? hell no.
i would think that they would have made the helmet and then compared the helmet with the actual film used prop or at least film caps to make sure it was an exact copy (or true to the original) of what was used and seen in the film before claiming that it was.

i know everyone has seen this. but just for the record to back up my feelings/opinion. this is what is stated on their web site....

"Our master pattern was cast from vintage molds in the Lucasfilm archives which are believed to have been made by none other than Rick Baker from the screen used Vader helmet back in 1977. What makes this a very special product is that the master pattern is NOT made from a digital scan, it is an actual, original casting. This means that this replica helmet will have direct lineage to the original and be as true to the actual filming prop as you can possibly get!

This helmet has the asymmetric geometry that many feel capture the true evil essence of Darth Vader. The face mask will have the screen accurate brushed on two-toned black and gunmetal paint scheme. The dents and scratches that were in the original mold have NOT been filled in or removed, thus remaining faithful to the original filming prop. "

Not massively keen on such statements that don't hold true do that degree.
As I said the Baker mold is not the holy grail pertaining to ultimate ANH accuracy. It boggles the mind if anyone thinks that it has the imperfections as seen in the movie, especially the wear and tear towards the end. Not saying certain aspects are not present on a standard Baker mold but not all of them.

That aside I find it a surprise anyone would think such imperfections would be available to a mass market on some level.
Additionally the ANH helmet is really fantastic for us accuracy nuts but a complete piece of rubbish in real life. The lights, angles, shadows all made it nicer on screen. It's actually somewhat of a hard sale for a company to promote and then produce something so badly done, frankly like a kid painted it. It is for a small market of enthusiasts.

So, we are back to the usual licensed line about "straight out of original molds?

He could have easily replaced the ANH helmet on his lifesized Vader but didn't (because that would go against what he's claimed about that helmet in the past), and the production eFX ANH is significantly better. There would be no point to him having something less cleaned up because if he showed it off it would be obvious. Also this time he has a responsibility to eFX. He can't just show off a master pull that he got to keep, as that would fly in the face of every Legend owner. He is basically now in a catch 22.

I just think that it is the usual interest of having a prop replica that is not identical to the original, that is why we don't see identical SW props produced by a licensed company.

Well I've shown many comparisons of a casting from the Baker mold that illustrate incredible detail that matches the Tantive IV helmet at the end of principle photography (and then also matches the helmet when it was at DP studios). So what is missing? What "wear and tear"? The horizontal line on the right bottom of the mouth triangle? If you think it isn't accurate enough then I would very much like to see something better, something that has an even better level of detail.

Arguments about intentions aside, it is true, this one sentence is key, because it portrays the casting as exact and unrefined. This would be something that I know a lot of RPFer's in the past would have jumped on given the final look of the eFX ANH helmet. It definitely could be classified as a claim of quality in terms of how the casting should have looked.

Looking again at this statement, it implies that one could not possibly get anything else that could be "truer".

Using the word "true" for a prop replica is subjective and means nothing.

You cannot have a "true" helmet and a "false" helmet.

You can have a "more accurate" helmet, a helmet "closer to the original in terms of detail and size", a "more authentic helmet". It should instead have read "to be as close to", not "as true to", which is poor English. It should have been "close to" in terms of accuracy and authenticity. But instead if one reads this carefully, the helmet was advertised as being the only "true" ANH helmet out there and it would not be "possible" to get anything "truer". In other words, a usual attempt by you-know-who to make something the best to the exclusion of everything else out there.

Well, using the same subjective vernacular, it is possible to get something "truer" because there are "truer" castings out there.

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.

Absolutely. I agree. However, in time his display will change like it always does with newer revisions. He would be beyond careless to promote a helmet that is superior to others at this stage, indeed a catch 22, for now.

What the hell? Someone idiot admin has edited my post... GODDAMNIT... oh wait... that was me. Never mind.