SithLord wrote:
No Humor Man wrote:
On the neck of the TD you are showing file impressions, so why you are saying there could have been a neck extension there is beyond me. I'm seeing evidence of actual filing having been done around that edge and the TM with the neck extension HAS the ANH neckline edge and so does the VP which we know have the neck extension, that was trimmed off.
I think you meant to write "could not have been a neck extension". Well the VP is trimmed shorter so it is harder to say what happened to it apart from what we know if the British mask having the extension. But filing marks don't mean that an extension was there. They could easily be from the original ANH mask which itself came from a mold of a plaster master that had the bottom edge trimmed. The SL ANH has the neck plus additional material on its bottom edge but the bottom edge is still intact. You don't have to trim the bottom edge for a mask like that, just inside of that edge perhaps. The SL ANH neck edge is intact not only from the side view but also from the bottom and it overhangs material that would have been part of what backed it up in the mold. Also, one could trim any casting from any mold on the neck, that doesn't mean there was an extension. The fact is, there was no extension on the TD LIKE the one on the TM, otherwise I would see evidence of the sanding that joined the TM extension to the neck. There is none. Sanding was done to blend the extension of the TM to the neck boundary and you see clearly the flattened areas on the neck boundary where the extension is. Do you see this on the original ANH mask? No. Do you see it on the TD? No. Do you see it on the SL? No. The paint drip on the right rear side is not perturbed by any kind of sanding on the TD like it is on the TM, independent of whether you have a casting with the extension on it or not. And I can compare the SL ANH neck edge on the bottom, from the side, etc. and it matches the TD. So there was no extension on the TD like the one on the TM or pre-VP. Could there have been AN extension of some kidn? Possibly, but it didn't leave behind any evidence and it wouldn't match what I see in terms of an undisturbed neck profile compared to the SL.
We know the TM was sanded. Could easily have been sanded in that area too after it was cast. Sure, the extension could also have been added to a cast out of the original UK mold. Sure. It is likely, but again, I'm still not seeing anything that I would consider a slam dunk either way, so I'm sticking with my view until something conclusive is shown.
SithLord wrote:
No Humor Man wrote:
My first run TM helmet has had the neck extension removed and if you didn't know it had it originally I would doubt you would know it was filed away.
I would know if I examined it and also had a TM with an extension in hand to compare it to. I have another authentic mask to compare the TD to, one that we know didn't have an extension and one that came directly from the original ANH mask, which itself had no extension. Whatever photographs I compare the TD or SL to, the neck is the same. Trimming differences can lead to differences in the edges, and there are none. Every other mask that has been trimmed otherwise, like the VP, it is obvious it deviates from the original neckline.
Try and trim a TM and see if you couldn't make it correct. There's no point in comparing to the SL as it was clearly molded without an extension, but that in no way proves the original ANH mask wasn't molded with an extension in the UK and that the TD had it, but was trimmed off. In the threads about the VP you stated vehemently that it never had a neck extension because you could tell, but it was later proven that it had, so again, I'm not seeing any proof that the TD didn't have it.
SithLord wrote:
No Humor Man wrote:
The minor differences in the details on the tabs and the chin vent opening is rather inconsequential when the larger details such as blobs and overall shape and detailing of the filler is the same.
Actually, they are consequential. You cannot have differences like that from castings from the same mold. The differences in the screws, the curvature of the tabs, or even the rear latch point, the minute differences in which knobs are intact and which are not, the differences in which blobs are larger or not. And I didn't even go into that much detail yet of those differences. But they cannot be ascribed to simple differences in how something came out of the mold later on or earlier on.
And there you show that you have no experience with molding and casting. Molds get torn and if the original tabs were molded, then you would have all sorts of damage and deviations occur in that mold, even several casts later, with the resin gripping and tearing into very thin stalk impressions, torn silicone and leftover resin from the previous castings. You will struggle with air pockets, and various other issues when it comes to such a difficult area to mold. Something with undercuts, something with thin stalks with a larger interlocking knob at the top, something that will risk tearing the silicone and tear out chunks of it one tiny bit at a time. Even IF all the stalks are in the mold, the thinness of them and the round top locking them in the mold is enough to snap the resin stalks and imbed them in the mold and when other castings are made, they grip the leftover resin and damaged silicone and do more damage.
So yes, any such minor deviations do simply not matter when we are discussing their connections to each other.
SithLord wrote:
No Humor Man wrote:
They are all linked to that 1 molding of the original ANH helmet. What is the question though is whether the TD is actually from that UK master mold and how many generations later the TM actually is, as we are dealing with differences that can easily be explained by irregularities happen when casting the two. Personally, I think you may be right that the TD is earlier in that sense... but it is still in the same lineage and not something from some other molding - that is simply impossible due to very specific shared details.
Yes, how many generations even that the TD is from that UK master mold or whether it is from a different molding even entirely? By other molding I mean a different, separate molding of the original ANH mask, or a master copy of that mask. It would seem unusual that with the filler material being the same, that the original ANH mask would be molded twice at two different times. But, couldn't it be a possibility that the original mask was simply kept in that state with the filled chin vent? I don't know. But there might be clues. I'll be discussing the nose of the TD ANH at some point as well in relationship to these issues.
It's not from a different molding session. It's simply not possible and we have the filler material in the chin vent to prove that beyond any shadow of a doubt. There's no point to even continue speculating otherwise at all. That HAS been locked down a long time ago. And seeing as the UK masks, which the TD belongs to display more detail than the US masks (from the Rick Baker mold) - you state so yourself - and we know about which time the US mold was made, and that the original screen used helmet went on tour, it is very doubtful that the original helmet was left with the filler material in there when it was molded at an earlier time than the Rick Baker mold - which I still believe was done after it was fixed and repainted for the footprint ceremony.
You have several UK masks that proves that the TD belongs to that lineage. You have the chin vent filler details matching (I don't care about small deviations when the overall flow of the filler shape is the same, which you would NOT get on different applications of something as inconsequential as filler material - just look at the difference in filler appliance between the UK mold and the US Rick Baker mold to get an understanding of how unlikely two moldings would have the same overall shapes to the filler and you can even look at fan helmet molds with those areas filled: ALWAYS different) between the TD, TM and VP. And you have the teeth grill impression being the same on the TD, VP and even the 20th C. And you have the cast tabs with the screws rotated the same and with blobs in the same area - something you don't even see on the fan made replicas that tried to copy that. All that links these helmets together into the same lineage without any doubt and it is pointless to speculate otherwise. It makes no sense. I simply do not understand why you speculate outside such pretty consistent and unmistakably solid facts that these link to the same 1 molding of the original helmet.
Having 1 of the above mentioned features show up in two different molding sessions is very unlikely, even moreso if it happened by accident, but to have all three and more is bordering on the outright impossible. There is simply no other reasoning than that they are within the same lineage and all linking to the same 1 molding of the original ANH.
The differences put together help form a picture of how the original ANH looked and how it differed from any of the castings we know. The ragged rear edge of the TD may have been the reason why later helmets were trimmed shorter, removing all that uneven mess and making things neat and clean. Would be interesting, since you've held both the TM and VP, to know if both extend the same length in the rear.
And all the work done to the TD and even the TM suggests to me that they experimented on several masks in order to make the ESB helmets as we know them.
SithLord wrote:
No Humor Man wrote:
The VP shows that the original UK mold had the ANH lenses in there, so claiming the TD was cast without lenses makes very little sense.
Ok, but then why the impressions of the lenses being there in the eye sockets? How could that possibly be in the casting if the lenses were there to begin with? Not only that, the inside edges of the sockets extend further than what I see on the SL ANH, which has original lenses. They would not only have to file away the lenses, they would have to create extensions around the sockets. I'll try to show that in more detail later as I'm at work now. But I appreciate your always very critical and direct approach to the discussions, so thanks!
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about the ridge seen prior to what you call the extended material at the rear? Or what?
I've been thinking of a way to make this clear, but I was wondering: how deep are the drill holes in the teeth gaps and the chin vent? Are they deep or shallow? And are they same depth as the extra material in the eye sockets?
If only I had a cast to show exactly what I mean regarding the different filing approaches. There is the rough filing and then there is the refining filing - if they only did the first, then that could explain the extra material extending further back in the sockets.