Efx has a new $300 Darth Vader (precision cast replica) Helmet

There are really no proofs for the clearcoat...but lots against it:

-Why should Gino paint his own helmets wrong if he is working for EFX and has handled lots of Originalprops?
-Why is the ROTJ Reveal not sprayed with clearcoat?(saw it in person)
-Why looks the gumetal on the face never so shiny like the black areas?Looks always semigloss on the ESB-screenshots.
-If the Colors on the Originalhelmets are aged and lost the shine,why is the black still glossy and the gunmetal not?

Lots of questions...oh and here is a pic of a unpolished naked gunmetal on my ROTJ-Reveal...you see how good it mirrors on a small distance.So if I would polish it I think it would shine a lot more.

http://up.picr.de/28163094oo.jpg

This is also a good pic to show that the gunmetal is not glossy.

http://up.picr.de/28163130ik.jpg

And about the thesis that they used different helmets....in my eyes the only helmets that could be sprayed with clearcoat is in ROTJ the one that Vader used in the deathstar hangar at the beginning and when he talks to the emperor.But it could also be a very food polish job.

As far as Gino's helmets go, I've already asked him why he chose to finish the way he did, and he's chosen not to answer. The simple fact of the matter is that the finish on his helmets doesn't match any screen caps.

Gloss black always shines more than other colours. It's one of the things that makes it so hard to get a great finish on gloss black, because it shows up every single detail like a mirror. The screen caps I posted already are consistent with a mask that has been clear coated, in my experience. Particularly a metallic flake, where the metallic look depends on the particles in the paint not being perfectly smooth.

I would say the black on the helmets now is nowhere near as glossy as it appears on film.

Ultimately though, it's about what makes you happy. If you feel you can get the screen used look with polishing, you go for it. I'm intrigued enough by these claims that I will try it for myself, though it's unlikely I will ever put it into a production piece. I don't need to be spending 8 hours polishing paint for a single helmet. However I still find it frustrating that not a single person has actually shown an example of paint polished to the deep gloss look that we see in ESB or ROTJ. Sorry, but I'm not going to just take someone's word for it, no matter how 'common knowledge' it is.
 
Colour shots from the movie, take these shots to a professional painter and ask how to match this and they will say 'clear coat', and give you a funny look for asking something so obvious.

Professional painter? Hey, I'm one of those..

I absolutely agree with the fact that the helmets shown in this post are clear coated. The picture showing the base coat and the gloss coat over top I feel are a clear enough indicator that I'm honestly surprised this conversation is even happening. The simple fact here is there is a top coat chipping off of a black base coat. If it was just polished black, there wouldn't be anything to chip off.

As for why the gun metal looks "less shiny" than the black? If you've ever clear coated anything, you'd know that different colors react differently. Black tends to take that base coat and reflect most of the light thrown at it back, which is why it's used so frequently for painted chromes.. gun metals and silvers just don't bouce back as much light.

Whose to say that the metal tones are even under the clear? I'm sure they knew back then like we do now that metallics pop better over gloss black..they could have done a black base, cleared it, and then did the metal tones.
 
Last edited:
Professional painter? Hey, I'm one of those..

I absolutely agree with the fact that the helmets shown in this post are clear coated. The picture showing the base coat and the gloss coat over top I feel are a clear enough indicator that I'm honestly surprised this conversation is even happening.


As for why the gun metal looks "less shiny" than the black? If you've ever clear coated anything, you'd know that different colors react differently. Black tends to take that base coat and reflect most of the light thrown at it back, which is why it's used so frequently for painted chromes.. gun metals and silvers just don't bouce back as much light.

Whose to say that the metal tones are even under the clear? I'm sure they knew back then like we do now that metallics pop better over black..they could have done a black base, cleared it, and then did the metal tones.

Some people fall under a branding spell. I remember being 10 years old and thinking " if it's made by Don Post and worth 1.5K, it's gotta be accurate" lol. But then I matured and educated myself.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
:D In all seriousness though, this is the Replica Prop Forum and its the place for this sort of details to be discussed by those of us who obsess over such details. I respect your opinion and indeed understand it, as there are other props I am not as passionate about and wouldn't really care for such a level of accuracy as long as I have a decent representation of the original. However for some of us Vader props ( more importantly the helmets) are the mother of all rabbit holes :D . Vader helmets and Blade runner blaster lol

Do you understand my point, though, and the distinction (at least, my distinction) between replica and counterfeit?

To each their own, of course, but personally, I've been in this hobby long enough that I've realized the rabbit hole chase for accuracy as demonstrated in this thread is - for the most part - "going to far"... IF you are to establish a clear coat was used, next you will debate what brand of coat was available at the time, if it was a lacquer or enamel, and the actual application process. And of course you really should do the same for the black base coat as well. Perhaps even dig into the manufacturer of the fiberglass so we have a better understanding of the substrate, adn how various paint finishes react to the material...

You see my point...

We each have our "mother of all rabbit holes" (for me it is the Death Star model).

But for the most part, this level of knowledge and detail isn't necessary. But I get the fact that its a whole lot of fun to indulge in and talk about! What IS necessary is firmly deciding on how YOU feel YOUR replica should look (satin, semi-gloss, glossy, super duper frickin' glossy), and how best for YOU to achieve this finish.

Like I said, it's just a replica. You haven't been hired to restore an original helmet; you're not trying to pass something off as an original.

Exactly matching materials, methods and techniques isn't necessary if it - well - isn't necessary. I say it that way as in some instances, matching a technique really MAY be necessary, like the speckling pattern on my Death Star mentioned earlier. But with a Vader helmet, I don't see it that way. Perhaps you do... And you have a right to.

Ever see Star Trek VI...?
 
Last edited:
There are really no proofs for the clearcoat...but lots against it:

-Why should Gino paint his own helmets wrong if he is working for EFX and has handled lots of Originalprops?
-Why is the ROTJ Reveal not sprayed with clearcoat?(saw it in person)


I find it amusing that you're stating with such authority that there was no clear coat based on casual observation, but in lieu of your own responsibility to provide evidence, you're depending on Gino who has not provided any evidence at all. You've also, twice, appear to have decided not to pop over to The Prop Den to examine both sides of the argument and to be more informed. Or are discussions and debates won because one has a stronger opinion than someone else?


If you had examined The Prop Den thread in which Gino at the time stated his belief that polished paint was used, you will also notice the year he made such posts. It significantly predated his time working for eFX. At the time, he had no access to the Archives. So to suggest his working for eFX now guarantees you that all his information is correct is, at best, presumption, because much of his viewpoints have been shared publicly on the Den and RPF that predate eFX by several years. I think you need to consider the historical context of what he shared.

Year back, when he stated his belief that they hand-polished paint and didn't do a gloss coat as well, he didn't mention anything about the possibility of a partial polish that retains orange peeling - that is a more recent argument. Back then, his proof of the polished paint theory was nothing directly from Lucasfilm, but his own hand polishing experiment done to a Jeff ROTJ helmet.


jeff_rotj_formerly_of_gino.jpg



You will notice, however, that despite its obvious beauty, Gino's paint appearance differs from some scenes in ESB where you will notice reflection fuzziness as Vader turns his head. You might not pick this up from still shots alone. Look more closely at video footage and you may see two observable phenomenon: there are some brighter reflections on the screen used that seem to have sharper boundaries, and some darker reflections that somehow appear fuzzy. This might be accounted for an orange-peeled base layer reflecting in tandem with a more even-surfaced gloss coat. And might the gloss coat itself have received further polishing? None of us were on the set at the time to know for certain.


While I remain open Gino's notion of polishing to where orange peeling is retained, that does not explain why some brighter reflections don't show orange peeling. Again, I'm open, but I don't see it as of yet, but hopefully some evidence will surface.


May I suggest just simply remaining open to both sides of the topic until something truly conclusive comes to fruition? Standing on someone else's laurels does not constructively contribute to the discussion, and making drastic statements like there is no evidence of gloss on your Post #484 (I see you've removed your comment) - in particular the helmet in the upper left, which is an ESB Stunt, perhaps this screenshot of an ESB Stunt will convice you otherwise.


enhanced.jpg



The existence of gloss, yes, does not mean its evidence of hand polishing any more than it indicates evidence of a gloss coat. The ability to polish something to a shine does not automatically mean it was done on the screen-used props. Lastly, paint formulations improve with time due to advances in technology, so we have to ensure current-era information applies appropriately to past era paint.


Thus, let's focus on trying to add to the topic rather than to leverage someone else's opinion in lieu of evidence, otherwise we're at a conversational stalemate and needlessly rehashing a topic discussed to death on The Prop Den several years ago.
 
Wow..what a story to read and translate.:eek

Your right at this point that nobody knows how it really was on set.And I have no idea how much and when Gino handled some Originalhelmets.But from all the guys that are talking about this he is the only one that works for EFX and handled demonstrably screenused props from the archives.
And for me his helmets are looking perfect painted.Sorry.To match glossy areas of the movie on replica helmets under normal lights is not a proof of accuracy.Its a big mistake,because you cannot imitate the exact lights from the set at home.But put a Ginohelmet in the same lights from the movie and a complete clearcoated one and I bet the Gino helmet looks accurate and the clearcoated one looks like somebody has dump a bucket of water over it.But that is only my personal evaluation.I also have no proof for that.I think they polished the helmets on set and used a 80s very shiny carwax over that.That with the lights made the effect in my eyes.
So everyone can paint his helmet like he likes...but I would paint my ESB-helmet without clearcoat.;)
 
Wow..what a story to read and translate.:eek

Your right at this point that nobody knows how it really was on set.And I have no idea how much and when Gino handled some Originalhelmets.But from all the guys that are talking about this he is the only one that works for EFX and handled demonstrably screenused props from the archives.
And for me his helmets are looking perfect painted.Sorry.To match glossy areas of the movie on replica helmets under normal lights is not a proof of accuracy.Its a big mistake,because you cannot imitate the exact lights from the set at home.But put a Ginohelmet in the same lights from the movie and a complete clearcoated one and I bet the Gino helmet looks accurate and the clearcoated one looks like somebody has dump a bucket of water over it.But that is only my personal evaluation.I also have no proof for that.I think they polished the helmets on set and used a 80s very shiny carwax over that.That with the lights made the effect in my eyes.
So everyone can paint his helmet like he likes...but I would paint my ESB-helmet without clearcoat.;)
And that is your good right! But yeah remember also, that Gino in his role for EFX is also looking at it from a different viewpoint.. They are not making a few helmets for a movie production. They are looking at it from a larger scale production using materials that would satisfy a larger group of people not necessarily the fans that appreciate the finest minute details.
That's not a knock on him, but something to take into account. To me the opinion of professional painters has a lot of weight to it.

But in the spirit of keeping an open mind. I'd love to see a paint test that supports theories :)
 
Wow..what a story to read and translate.:eek

Your right at this point that nobody knows how it really was on set.And I have no idea how much and when Gino handled some Originalhelmets.But from all the guys that are talking about this he is the only one that works for EFX and handled demonstrably screenused props from the archives.
And for me his helmets are looking perfect painted.Sorry.To match glossy areas of the movie on replica helmets under normal lights is not a proof of accuracy.Its a big mistake,because you cannot imitate the exact lights from the set at home.But put a Ginohelmet in the same lights from the movie and a complete clearcoated one and I bet the Gino helmet looks accurate and the clearcoated one looks like somebody has dump a bucket of water over it.But that is only my personal evaluation.I also have no proof for that.I think they polished the helmets on set and used a 80s very shiny carwax over that.That with the lights made the effect in my eyes.
So everyone can paint his helmet like he likes...but I would paint my ESB-helmet without clearcoat.;)

Unfortunately Gino dislikes answering questions and sharing the knowledge he's gained from handling these props, so I guess we'll never know why he believes what he does. Maybe you could ask him to take some shots that you feel would help prove it? So far the argument for polishing goes something like this "Well I've got no proof, and no examples to show you to support it, and I've never done it myself, but it's definitely possible."

I'll see if I can scan the ROTJ pic from the Objets du Mythe book. It bears all the hall marks of a gloss coat, looking quite wet (including on the grey sections) and very even, even on the hard to access areas that polishing might be expected to struggle with. Page 343 if you already have the book.

As I've said I'm not ruling it out, but I'd like to see some polished examples matching up to screen shots, including the slightly fuzzy reflections you see in Vaders helmet that would indicate the presence of a slight orange peel type finish.
 
Kroenen,

You had also made a comment earlier that someone's treatment polishing paint was deeper, but the understanding behind that might be incomplete. Here's a great article of someone who did that. He sanded/polished (polishing is removal of material regardless of granularity of abrasive particles) through the factory gloss and polished the paint of its paint peeling. But then he used an automotive product to seal, and the sealer itself provides gloss.

http://www.detailedimage.com/Ask-a-...-nighthawk-black-pearl-to-reduce-orange-peel/

The photo below is the gloss black of a Mercedes S550, which can range from $96,000-$122,000+ depending on configuration. One would suppose that any paint surface texture that shows orange peeling is an abysmal job. The gloss coating of the S550 here has no orange peeling at all. However, the underlying paint was not polished. I believe what we are seeing here is that after the base coat was applied, the gloss coat was then added to fill in the unevenness. However, like in the above-mentioned article, this results in the polished gloss layer reflecting beautifully, but the underlying base coat does something else.

No, it's not mine - I wish - but it's reflecting a light gray carport.

mercedes-s550-paint.jpg


The set and lighting of ESB and ROTJ are obviously different - they are indoor and darker situations, but you can still make out to varying degrees fuzzy dark reflections. Gino's helmets are done quite nicely, but they may represent the more idealized of the spectrum. And while some may feel it amusing that for one who assails the 501st for a lack of prop accuracy and favoring idealization, I have to admit that I'd prefer a bit more polish myself.

We have know established the on-screen ESB stunt is glossy, but interestingly the ROTJ on-screen presence was more matte (and I doubt it was done due to smoke arising from Luke's electrocution, but who knows what Lucas had in mind).

This shot that I've posted also shows it's possible to get fuzzing reflections in an otherwise fully polished gloss coat. When judging photos of Gino's props, one has to not confuse attractiveness for evidence. Until we know for sure, let's keep an open mind, and the community conversations will be more enjoyable. :thumbsup
 
Kroenen,

You had also made a comment earlier that someone's treatment polishing paint was deeper, but the understanding behind that might be incomplete. Here's a great article of someone who did that. He sanded/polished (polishing is removal of material regardless of granularity of abrasive particles) through the factory gloss and polished the paint of its paint peeling. But then he used an automotive product to seal, and the sealer itself provides gloss.

http://www.detailedimage.com/Ask-a-...-nighthawk-black-pearl-to-reduce-orange-peel/

The photo below is the gloss black of a Mercedes S550, which can range from $96,000-$122,000+ depending on configuration. One would suppose that any paint surface texture that shows orange peeling is an abysmal job. The gloss coating of the S550 here has no orange peeling at all. However, the underlying paint was not polished. I believe what we are seeing here is that after the base coat was applied, the gloss coat was then added to fill in the unevenness. However, like in the above-mentioned article, this results in the polished gloss layer reflecting beautifully, but the underlying base coat does something else.

No, it's not mine - I wish - but it's reflecting a light gray carport.

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b138/csmaclaren/Vader/Paint/mercedes-s550-paint.jpg

The set and lighting of ESB and ROTJ are obviously different - they are indoor and darker situations, but you can still make out to varying degrees fuzzy dark reflections. Gino's helmets are done quite nicely, but they may represent the more idealized of the spectrum. And while some may feel it amusing that for one who assails the 501st for a lack of prop accuracy and favoring idealization, I have to admit that I'd prefer a bit more polish myself.

We have know established the on-screen ESB stunt is glossy, but interestingly the ROTJ on-screen presence was more matte (and I doubt it was done due to smoke arising from Luke's electrocution, but who knows what Lucas had in mind).

This shot that I've posted also shows it's possible to get fuzzing reflections in an otherwise fully polished gloss coat. When judging photos of Gino's props, one has to not confuse attractiveness for evidence. Until we know for sure, let's keep an open mind, and the community conversations will be more enjoyable. :thumbsup

Thanks for the link...very interesting.:)
But from what I´ve seen the guy removed only the first layer of the clearcoat with the orange peeling,right?
It would be interesting to see a car complete without clearcoat and polished like hell.;)
@bookface:Gino gave an answer with a question.He asked you how much Originalhelmets you´ve handled...so I think he had.

I can tell you that the programmer of the new Battlefront game had access to the Originals...so I think the EFX stuff has it also.

28178330vg.jpg


And it would be nice to see the pic from the french book because I don´t have it.:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@bookface:Gino gave an answer with a question.He asked you how much Originalhelmets you´ve handled...so I think he had.

I can tell you that the programmer of the new Battlefront game had access to the Originals...so I think the EFX stuff has it also

I wasn't questioning whether he has handled original helmets. Answering a question with a question isn't really an answer at all, especially when the question is intended undermine someone else's knowledge or potential authority. It's called deflection. I asked him several questions regarding his handling of the original helmets and he ignored all of them.

I'm not sure why you put your faith in Gino. He could clear this whole subject up beyond a doubt with come clear pictures and a good evidence based write up, but he chooses not to, and simply repeats the same 'no clear coat was used on OT helmets, they were all polished' line as if repetition will stop people asking questions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not sure why you put your faith in Gino. He could clear this whole subject up beyond a doubt with come clear pictures and a good evidence based write up, but he chooses not to, and simply repeats the same 'no clear coat was used on OT helmets, they were all polished' line as if repetition will stop people asking questions.

No I put my faith not in Ginos hands..haha.I can only better live with his view on the "painting-things" because I see the same.Thats all!
I have no clue what he said or did on the propden or another websides.I see only the facts.And I have no idea why he makes a so big secret of his visit in the archives?But I think he was there and saw some Originalprops because he works for EFX.And if I would work there the first way would be also a visit in the archives when possible.But another question is...has he the permission from Disney/Lucas to post pics from the Originalhelmets?I don´t know.In the Arlinger book the shown pics are also very small...has Lucasfilm no concern to show really near details of the OT-Vaderprops?That are also possible reasons for his behavior.

@ juajn7fernandez:Thanks for the pic..yeah that is really wet clearcoat on it.;)
 
The other thing I have not seen mentioned here is that there were around 6 helmets per movie, between ESB and ROTJ. I believe not all of them were finished the same way. Some clear coated, some were probably not.
 
I just retired from the body shop business after 30 years and I don't care what someone THINKS they saw close up.Those helmets do not have clear coat.
 
IMG_7102.JPG

I haven't seen @GINO defend his position at any point. As posted above, it's always "well believe me or not, I'm right and I don't want to argue about it." If he was as right as he thinks he is, it should be no problem to write out WHY, and provide proof of his stand point. At this point, I honestly don't believe he CAN if he wanted to. He can be as "extremely confident" in his opinion as he wants, but that's not enough. The fact that people are just taking his word for it are ludicrous. What happened to research? What happened to evidence based deductions?

I look at this photo, clearly showing a separation of a black base coat, and a gloss coat, and ask you how this alone doesn't prove at least SOME of them were clearcoated? I have never in my life seen "polished" paint chip off from itself. If you can produce proof of that even being possible, I would re-evaluate my views but as far as I can tell? It isn't happening and people that do believe the "polished" theory have nothing for it other than pushing it under the rug with "oh well it's a bad photo." I mean, come on guys...

IMG_7103.JPG



Read this thread. See who provides proof, and who provides opinion. See who explains themselves, and see who puts others down so he doesn't have to.
http://thepropden.aokforums.com/1-vt1508.html
 
Last edited:
This thread is more than 5 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top