Alleged Screen Used Hero TOS Phaser up for auction

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.


Gregatron

Sr Member
Does all the midgrade Velcro match? of the examples that are around

Good idea! I don't have the time just right now, but someone should collect some photos and compare them.

Also, the photo-manipulation trick for color comparing/matching hero and midgrade paint might be handy.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

phez

Sr Member
Is there really any point to the paint comparison? The GJ phaser was repainted at some point with the likely original color showing up under where the Velcro use to be on the P1. It seems like the same repaint story on the alleged 2nd hero. If these were repainted at different times the colors likely would be a best try to match situation. The original paint should match if they were done at the same time. There is no way of knowing if the original/repaint was a stock color or if the prop maker mixed them. I can't really tell from the pic's of the new one. I wonder if there are better photos of the paint under the Velcro on the new one. The side view is the closest you get from the provided pics.
 

Attachments

  • p1.jpg
    p1.jpg
    109.9 KB · Views: 31
  • lf (5).jpg
    lf (5).jpg
    509.5 KB · Views: 31

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Jintosh

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
This is my quick attempt at a comparison. The background may not be totally removed in either photo, maybe someone could do a better job. This is just an idea. I had to scale right phaser to 99% to try and compensate for different angle.

Holding the 1 pic on screen in preview and just clicking next picture repeatedly is interesting.
 

Attachments

  • photo 1.jpg
    photo 1.jpg
    892.7 KB · Views: 76
  • photo 2.jpg
    photo 2.jpg
    777.5 KB · Views: 69
Last edited:

WinstonWolf359

Sr Member
This is my quick attempt at a comparison. The background may not be totally removed in either photo, maybe someone could do a better job. This is just an idea. I had to scale right phaser to 99% to try and compensate for different angle.

Holding the 1 pic on screen in preview and just clicking next picture repeatedly is interesting.
I tried doing something similar last night, and came up with similar results. There are parts that seem to match and some that just don't.

I wonder what the handle angle would look like if you flipped it 180*. If the top and the sides aren't perfectly formed at a right angle it can really mess with the handle angle. I have a replacement handle for my Wand Co. phasers that definitely look better one way over the other.

The handle is a real oddball here. Its size, shape, and color seem so far away from the GJ in almost every single way. I wish we could see the inside of it to know if it is even set up for batteries to be installed. GJ also owns a dummy power pack and doesn't really look quite like the hero handle or the handle on the auction phaser.

Speaking of paint, that P2 handle is definitely lacking in the elusive, bronze-y look of the known originals.
In this case the GJ is the oddball here. None of the midgrade handles have a color with any hint of bronze at all.

Does all the midgrade Velcro match? of the examples that are around

Alley just posted a couple pics of two of the known midgrades (and a communicator) and it looks like they all match to me.
 

healvis

Well-Known Member
I put some straight lines on the GJ phaser then dragged the same straight lines over to the new phaser.
The red lines are matches & the green lines are slightly off, but not by much. The top of the tower is the only part that really looks strange
the rest could just be very badly sanded. The handle angles being different could be that the GJ is tilted back & the new one tilted forward,
I put lines in to show the tilt. I'm still 50-50 on this.
lf (11)lines.png
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

phez

Sr Member
In this case the GJ is the oddball here. None of the midgrade handles have a color with any hint of bronze at all.

Sort of makes sense since the hero's were redressed by WC and mids came later and were done by the studio no? They probably did there best to get it close or just used what they had on hand.
 

asalaw

Sr Member
Don't read too much into the angle of the handle--it's not actually a mismatch. In this photo, they match up just fine:

lf (9).jpg


And I think the difference is due to the fact that for some reason, the prongs on the Hubbell (or whatever) plug on the handle are ground down, resulting in a loose fit into the female plug. So the other photo, where the handles don't line up, could simply be a result of the handle tilting out of place because of the loose fit.

Here's mine, from 2014, when I ground it down to match the GJ, and the GJ for comparison:

2014-11-12 18.31.14.jpg

P2 Handle 01.jpg
 
Last edited:

Trekfan

New Member
Man, this is a tough situation. Clearly the phasers have meaningful differences, but we do not know how closely the original heroes matched each other in 1966...

Part of me still wants to believe this is real, but it is hard to be convinced...and even harder to be sure.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

asalaw

Sr Member
Man, this is a tough situation. Clearly the phasers have meaningful differences, but we do not know how closely the original heroes matched each other in 1966...

Part of me still wants to believe this is real, but it is hard to be convinced...and even harder to be sure.
I hear ya. I'm pretty well convinced that the P1 is a replica, but I'm on the fence about the pistol body and handle.
 

Jintosh

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Here's what bothers me. If the phasers are supposed to be nearly identical, then laying them on the same flat surface should produce the same angle when viewed directly on. The fact that one always tilts more away from the camera indicates that there is a distinct difference somewhere that is creating that angle variance.
 

Attachments

  • fff.jpg
    fff.jpg
    490.5 KB · Views: 18

USS Endeav

Sr Member
Here's what bothers me. If the phasers are supposed to be nearly identical, then laying them on the same flat surface should produce the same angle when viewed directly on. The fact that one always tilts more away from the camera indicates that there is a distinct difference somewhere that is creating that angle variance.
That could be due to weight, more or less fiberglass in a given area, no?
 

Jintosh

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
That could be due to weight, more or less fiberglass in a given area, no?
Sanding should produce a very small difference at best. This difference, if due to weight and not shape, would indicate a very different weight. I think a different shape is to blame. (personal opinion) But since, it is likely a great difference of weight OR shape, these seem to defy physics if they are meant to be the same phaser made of the same materials.
 

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.

Don't want to see this ad? Sign up for anRPF Premium Membershiptoday. Support the community. Stop the ads.

Top