Can you tell me what that detail is suppose to look like? I know, because it's clear as day on my TM.
Sure, it looks like this:
How much more clear would you want it? Honestly. If you cannot see how obvious that shape and detail corresponds to the screen mask then there's no point. And it isn't on the TM like that. It it simply a distorted remnant. On the TM that detail is nowhere near as sharply defined in shape and contour as on the SL ANH.
There are two things this comp showed of the SL: 1. It was molded after the repaint during the tour
If you know so much, tell me when the repaint occurred, because you don't seem to realize when it was repainted.
The original mask was molded prior to the repaint for the ILM mold.
and 2. The cheekline (or whisker being the name that has been given to it) was sanded down. Those two distinct features are glaring. Thomas you can't go on and boast (and boy have you done a lot of that in this thread) about showing/teaching people about details, when you yourself have absolutely no clue what you are looking at.
No, you are going by screen captures, I am not. That's your problem.
I know you are dying to see the actual C, L scar, whatever you want to name it, because again you don't know what it looks like. With every post you make it becomes more obvious that you don't. Here's a little clue, there is actually two (2) C, L scars.
No, I originally called it a paint blemish, then after the TM came along someone called it a C-scar. But I have shown what it is. This is it. Front view, not 3/4 view from some screen capture. The red line indicates how the paint blemish boundary should be shaped.
One a bit more pronounced than the other. They are both there, but their definition is different. The lower points, the smaller hash marks if you will, don't end abruptly on the cheekline, they actually extend out a bit further down and then the cheekline begins.
That isn't part of the C-scar. That's well below it.
That's why I know the SL was sanded there. Also you don't have the paint separation line (as I call it) on the SL cheek curve, which you have confirmed already on the Den. Well it's clearly on the original screenused and it's on the TM.
We went through that before and I'll have to dig up what I showed before.
Then there are the cut marks on the mouth edge that isn't on the SL, but it's clear as day on the TM. Again you confirmed that on the Den.
The SL has the cut marks but they are partially obscured, but that isn't on account of repaint. And that is easy to prove. That gets back to my question.... when do you think the repaint was done?
Here's a few pics of what I'm talking about. the first is the cheekline paint separation and the next is the hash marks. I already know they exist on the TM and no they are not mundane details. They are on the screenused, so if the SL is an exact representation of the screenused then it should be on there as well.
Why then doesn't the TM have original cheek paint detail in the minutest form as the SL does? The TM doesn't have this, so it is after the repaint.
I could point out a multitude of details that match the TM, but notice that little bump on the end.
Well it clearly is not on the SL, but yep, you guessed it, it's on the TM.
Wrong again. You know fully well that the angle of light can affect a detail like that. The light is coming from the left going to the right (shadow on the right), so that detail won't stand out as much in a photo like that, but it is there. I'll show later since I'm at work now.
I could go on all day long pointing out details on the TM that are not on the SL, but it's really not important and steers the thread off track further than it already is.
Well I clearly show detail that isn't on the TM, otherwise I wouldn't show it. And I showed side-by-side images but you and your buddies don't like that, and then claim that my TM casting is flawed...I suppose then the flaws extend to the most minute details on every single square cm of the casting? :rolleyes
IMO, the TM has it all. The details and the overall structure. I tried to match the angle best I could. This is an uncut TM, as you can see with the neck and eyelids extension.
Ya right, that proves a lot. I'm talking about details you can't even see in those images. You don't think I could make the SL and TD look like that? I could make the DS 20th C look like that. That doesn't mean anything in the scope of this discussion as we already know the TM has excellent accuracy on the whole. I could go through many things on the TM that are not congruent with the original ANH, as much as I could go through things that are. But you won't impress me with a comparison like that, not by a long shot.
So getting back to this:
If I show this area on my TM and it shows it being SUPERIOR to the SL, will you stop using your faulty TM in comp pics and not mention it anymore? Pretty please? I'm giving you the opportunity to actually see what that detail is, since it's so blurred and washed out on the SL due to the repaint. It's not a knock on the SL, but when you come on here and brag that no other faceplate has this ANH detail and you try to discredit the TM, well then you better be up to the challenge. So what do you say? I show the detail and you stop using the TM in comps. I won't show you the C,L scar sorry, but it would blow away anything you have on the SL, that's for sure.
Uh ya right. I show a high magnification image of the rabbit ear details as they've never been seen before with such clarity, ever, not even on the TM, and you are saying that they are "blurred and washed out".
My TM isn't faulty. And I could easily show that. And I did show it on TPD. If mine is faulty then so is everyone else'.
Why don't you explain to me exactly how my TM casting is faulty and how that has any bearing on the details I've discussed here? I am so curious why you think so because I can easily show how it isn't (but I won't out of courtesy).
And in case you didn't notice, I've already stopped showing TM comparisons, so your point of negotiation is moot.
Just because the C-scar is deep on the TM doesn't mean it is accurate, or early.
I'm not here to discredit the TM, which is what you and your fellow TM owners don't seem to grasp. All I am saying is that it is from ESB, and not from ANH. So I put it where it belongs in the linage. But from the time you guys got your TM copies you've been wanting to make it ANH and it isn't from ANH. It is from ESB. TM knows this, so why don't you? You guys acted the same way about another particular casting, thinking it was the ultimate ANH, and reacted to me the same way when I said it wasn't. Jog your memory?
And you don't seem to realize that I was in extensive communication with the original owner of the TM ESB helmet because I planned to bid on it. The person who got that helmet and had it in storage for 20 years worked on both ESB and ROTJ, just for example. It is an ESB helmet. It is an ESB mask. Yes it came from a casting that itself came from a mold taken from the original ANH mask, but it has ESB provenance, it was made during ESB. It is ESB. Yet the TM owners want it all. They want it to be both the ultimate ESB mask, which it is, and the ultimate ANH, which it isn't. You guys even tried (twice now) to rework the TM dome to make it look like ANH.
And you don't even have to show me, but look yourself at the top surface of the left cheek of the TM and tell me if you see any ANH screen-accurate detail there, even the gross detail I asked for previously. Look at the proportion of the mouth triangle to the face (smaller than the original ANH), look at the noseslots (not the same cross-sectional shape as the original ANH), look at the center forehead ridge, how it is sanded down with a flat top on the TM compared to the original ANH, which is nicely rounded. Should I continue?
Those are gross features, not even fine details, and you go on about how identical the TM is to the original ANH?
I show teeny tiny details that differ, but I could show much larger features... but I don't, to be fair. But where credit is due I've said before that what detail the TM does have that is ANH specific is excellent. But you guys already know that. So I could show you where it differs, but you don't want to hear it. If I won the TM in auction (I was only 20 pounds shy in the last few seconds), I would be saying the same things about it in comparison to the SL or TD. I wouldn't be saying it is the ultimate ANH because it isn't. The SL has better fine surface detail than the TD, but some of the deeper details are better or earlier on the TD. That doesn't mean one is better than the other, they are just different castings from different molds of the original at different times. But they are both ANH. I won't discount that the father of the TM might have come from the same source as the TD, but it too would be from ESB.
I remember distinctly on TPD when I pointed out the modifications to the eyebrows on the TM and you guys jumped on me for that and said it wasn't true and I was trying to put down the TM. Now you accept it and even give it your own expression, namely the
eyesocket or eyelid extensions....that isn't my term. But I was the one that originally pointed out that difference. Why? Because it isn't like the original ANH. Just as eventually you guys might learn about the proportionality of the mouth triangle to the rest of the face, or learn about how there can be differences in the sizes of castings as a measure of authenticity. You guys still think there was a neck extension on the TD....just because the TM had it the TD HAS TO HAVE IT TOO because of course the TD cannot in any way be earlier than the TM or be from a different mold...that would be simply impossible! :rolleyes I know it could be possible, but so far it doesn't seem that way. Yet you guys naturally assume it HAS to be that way.
If a father casting of the TM turns out to be IDENTICAL to the TD except the cut tube ends but including the screen-seen detail on the right tube end, and including the right nose slots, the right center forehead ridge, the correctly shaped eyebrow edges, a curved right tab instead of being straightened out and more detached, the same amount of rear undercut, the same curvature of rear undercut, the same connection point for the rear half of the full head, the filled in strap slot, identical details inside the eyesockets, the same amount of undercut inside the eye sockets, the same amount of depth to the detail on the inside surfaces of the teeth (something I haven't even gotten into before), and on top of all that, it has a neck extension.....then I will have been completely proven wrong. But so far I haven't seen that...so far. I am prepared to be completely proven wrong, given sufficient evidence. But even if there was such a casting, that doesn't change where the TM came from or what it is.
