ANH Hero DL-44 Discussion - Three ANH Greeblies Found (No PS Discussion, other than photos and finds)

kpax

Sr Member
Unfortunately unless some "really" clear and sharp images of the original HERO surface to compare the minute details there will always be questions and doubt.

The gouge and line are similar. No doubt. Note images. But there are many other details that do not match. Machining parts the same way can create very similar tool marks.

No way to 100% tell for sure unless inspecting in hand against "sharp and clear" images. It will always be based on a preponderance of evidence.

Having one gouge that looks similar to a gouge on a blurry image is not the ideal single witness mark to verify the entire piece. OK, so 2 small details out of all the other non-matching areas are similar. But the rest is altered substantially. How much value you place on that is subjective.

Ideally, KCarl or Tony took photos of the mangled mount and documented the restoration. Exactly what portions were preserved and reshaped due to rust and damage removal.

Again, my example.
The actual real original ICON painting is under the new paint. It IS the REAL DEAL... but has been "refinished" No big deal.

My earlier comment about SOME of the metal being original stands. For us here, trying to learn the TRUE details of the prop, the entire mount sans upper rings is meaningless. It is NOT the same mount in form or function. It has been reshaped. It can not be used to recreate the original form. It is inaccurate. That is the point.


1659196477335.png










blaster mount plus and minus.jpg
 
Last edited:

deadbolt

Sr Member
I'm don't mean to sound as though I'm questioning the Scope being original on not, it certainly appears to be the real deal as with the Rings and remnants of the cradle, I'm just curios what reasoning there is to alter and church-up the scope at all beyond it's original state?

Though, the cradle has been altered so much that it's difficult for everyone in the world to agree on using the word 'original' after a certain point I think, due to the large amount of reworking that has been done. As I mentioned before (in one of these threads discussing the subject =b), I think altering it just to simply mount it onto another Mauser for the reasoning of an auction cash-out, in my opinion, that killed a good part of the cradle's value. It would have been best to just leave it alone.

If I had that kind of cash, I'd certainly buy it knowing it hasn't been re-worked, re-polished etc. for the mistaken sake of selling it. Collectables are much more valuable (not just monetarily, mostly sentimentally) when left in their current state, they don't have to be pretty for someone to love it any differently..


-Carson
 

kpax

Sr Member
The scope knob base SN is pristine on the PS. Can not be seen in the blurry images of the HERO unfortunately...even tho you'd think a bit would show in the preproduction image if it was painted in white back in 1977. Looks covered up with paint or grime or damaged in that area.

The PS scope looks MUCH cleaner overall which makes sense considering it was likely cleaned up after 45 years.

Possibilities:
The HERO was painted over in black or grime in 1977 and cleaned when found.
KCarl needed to replace the knob base due to damage/rust.
 

MastahBlastah

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Man, it seems like some people are really in some sort of denial here ... it seems pretty obvious which part of the mount is original here... does it really need to be spelled out with a graphic? Where else could they have even made a cut???

chubsANDdoggers got it right here... you can see the remnants of the undercut swoop where they shaved off material. This is photographic evidence, and what I personally believe statements of conjecture in this thread should be based upon... not the onslaught of repetitive, reactionary, overly-confident posts saying otherwise.


Yes, it's a shame that it was altered. I'm sure photos of the found mount DO exist, despite the wild claims here from some that they don't? Just because we haven't seen the photos doesn't mean that this build wasn't documented. Yes, it makes sense that some info isn't being given so willingly, probably in hopes of inflating the sale price. This is unfortunate but it's not surprising.

Just because we don't like what's happened to the mount here doesn't mean we should be sewing unfounded skepticism here on this thread... it's been decades. The steel parts on my Field Marshall replica have changed SEVERELY, multiple times over the past three years alone.

The scope is original too, without a doubt. Despite what I'm reading here, I can rather clearly make out the numbers 2602 on the right side pre-pro photo... There's not a shade of doubt in my mind about that. Sure, maybe they cleaned up the scope or embellished the serial number on the windage knob, but in my opinion you can't fake those numbers on the side.

Perhaps it's because a lot of this discussion is being mirrored on both this thread and the Pawn Stars blaster thread, but it feels like some users are attempting to distract from this information with an onslaught of repetitive posts. Let's let the discussion move beyond a few users asserting their same opinions over and over.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2022-07-30 at 12.37.21 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2022-07-30 at 12.37.21 PM.png
    734.3 KB · Views: 32

teecrooz

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I agree. The scope, rings and cradle are all original, even if modified. Not everyone has to agree, but all this posturing is really pointless and takes away from enjoying the prop and anything new we can see from the new photos. It’s very distracting from the collaboration that had been taking place.

It was thought to be completely lost, so anything surviving is a bonus. Things happen over 45 years and it was just a piece of rental property to Bapty. I have a few rental houses down the street. Each time someone moves out they get renovated, new flooring, repainted, etc. This was considered way more worthless than a house. I‘m surprised it’s still around in any format.
 
Last edited:

teecrooz

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I’ll go through all 20,000 of my images one at a time and see if there are any others. I know I flagged a few good ones that haven’t been posted here the last time I looked.
 
Last edited:

kpax

Sr Member
Man, it seems like some people are really in some sort of denial here ... it seems pretty obvious which part of the mount is original here... does it really need to be spelled out with a graphic? Where else could they have even made a cut??? ( If you are a machinist... anywhere really. But likely under the tube or the first best area with least damage) The point is that the entire lower mount "could have" been remade just as easily as the rest of the mount. If it was remade by the original guy (KCarl, in a similar way presumably on the same machines - it could have similar tool marks. This is an unknown for now until KCarl explains more. Both are possible. I have said that SOME of the cradle could be original. But how much.? How much Unchanged?

It is a different animal now. That's all. I still love the fact it was found at all. Thrilled. But sad it can not offer us any accurate details about the build and look of the screen used prop. For that it is useless. Maybe I was not clear in that?

chubsANDdoggers got it right here... you can see the remnants of the undercut swoop where they shaved off material. (Maybe. A slight dip could also be a tool slip making the same square hole. Not conclusive evidence. And so what? It does not resemble the original in any way. Again, from a research POV, this mount offers nothing but confusion... but It is MAGIC in terms of being a portion of the original prop. ) This is photographic evidence, and what I personally believe statements of conjecture in this thread should be based upon... not the onslaught of repetitive, reactionary, overly-confident posts saying otherwise.

Yes, it's a shame that it was altered. I'm sure photos of the found mount DO exist, despite the wild claims here from some that they don't? (Who said they don't? I personally said I HOPE they do. but you are SURE? Just because we haven't seen the photos doesn't mean that this build wasn't documented. Yes, it makes sense that some info isn't being given so willingly, probably in hopes of inflating the sale price. This is unfortunate but it's not surprising. We shall see

Just because we don't like what's happened to the mount here doesn't mean we should be sewing unfounded skepticism here on this thread... it's been decades. The steel parts on my Field Marshall replica have changed SEVERELY, multiple times over the past three years alone. There is skepticism because of how they presented the item. On first view of the PS episode everyone who had been following this thread for 10+ years said "that aint it" It was OBVIOUS even from a TV viewing. Then better images came along and Scott confirmed the SN of the scope and ring details. The rest was not clear enough from the first images. Now better images are shown and there is a possibility that the cradle/tube may have been salvaged but has been substantially altered. So much that large key areas are reshaped and wholly different. Yes, some dings and scratches are similar. Some new dings and dents not on the HERO are also there. No doubt from being banged around and rusted. But again the point is, for this forum, the mount is not the same. It can not be used as reference material. That's all. Doesn't take away from the magic of the find. Just perspective.

The scope is original too, without a doubt. Despite what I'm reading here, ( Who here has doubted the scope at all since the first TV viewing when the doubt came from the entire thing being SO laughably wrong despite the claims to be THE ONE AND ONLY - the entire thing was dismissed. I can rather clearly make out the numbers 2602 on the right side pre-pro photo... There's not a shade of doubt in my mind about that. ( It has been said by me and many others here- many times that the Scope and upper rings are original. Sure, maybe they cleaned up the scope or embellished the serial number on the windage knob, but in my opinion you can't fake those numbers on the side. (sure you can) But I'm sure they didn't. Are you suggesting that if the knob base was rusted away it would be impossible for KCarl to replaced the base? It is a possibility. More likely the scope was old and grimy in 1977 and cleaned.

Perhaps it's because a lot of this discussion is being mirrored on both this thread and the Pawn Stars blaster thread, but it feels like some users are attempting to distract from this information with an onslaught of repetitive posts. Let's let the discussion move beyond a few users asserting their same opinions over and over.

What do you mean attempting to distract? What agenda do you think there is aside from trying to discover the truth? This is a discussion thread. Do you think there is some nefarious agenda here that is trying to discredit the PS piece?

THE most important thing in this forum and this thread especially is accuracy. The Scope and rings offer new found details and historical significance. Hi res images of parts of the real screen used prop finally after 45 years! I am thrilled.

The Cradle area is not AS significant IMO because it can not shed any significant NEW light on our research because it has been altered in major ways. The gouge and scratch details on the PS that people point out were already known. The important details about the exact shape and size and milling and dovetail and crossbar and lugs and knobs are all lost and unknown. The PS (aside from the Scope and Rings) offers no new accurate information, BUT stands to confuse the public and future members here if the claims are not refuted and inconsistencies pointed out. If for example some future member comes here and does not read the entire history and only sees that the PS blaster has been confirmed by Rock Island to be the real HERO blaster or that the Scope and mount is confirmed, they will have been duped.

If you recall, way back, if I remember correctly, Master Replicas made a nice piece with a mount very similar to the PS version. It was not correct yet many many followed that pattern because they believed their research to be correct because they had people in the know. But they were wrong.

That is the point in repeating my opinions. This is a discussion group looking for answers and accurate details. We will go over and over and over minute details until we are satisfied. We all change our opinions as new better info is found. Sometimes reading repeated opinions can convince me.

If KCarl does in fact have some documented photos or videos of the rebuild THAT would be very significant and interesting. It would not however make the modified and altered lower mount screen accurate in any significant way. And that seems to be the most important thing in this forum.

How collectors will respond in not my concern. What weight they place on these details are subjective. I do know from watching the auction shows that altering an original is not as desirable as a barn find in some cases.


 
Last edited:

kpax

Sr Member
I’ll go through all 20,000 of my images one at a time and see if there are any others. I know I flagged a few good ones that haven’t been posted here the last time I looked.
Don't do that! ; )

No one is doubting the scopes authenticity here. I don't recall anyone saying the scope and rings were not authentic.

10 + years ago we could not read the SN 100% accurate with the old PRE image but when compared to the PS , knowing what to look for, it is clear.
 
Last edited:

deadbolt

Sr Member
Okay guys, let's just end the PS blaster discussion here, Please.

We all know the actual facts. The Scope, Rings & Cradle are real despite being altered and/or reshaped. Opinions aside on the altered state of the remaining parts, they're real. That's about it.

Let's not get into arguments based on silly differences in all of our opinions pertaining to this subject, that's never been the intention of this thread.
This threads intention is the goal for the truth and understanding of this prop, that's all. We've got the facts on this subject, let's move on to something we still wonder about.
There's still so many things to realize about this prop that we haven't..yet ;)

I don't want to see this thread locked because of silliness, opinion, politics etc..


-Carson
 

thd9791

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Are there any shots from naked runner showing the front of the first section of rifle barrel? I’m curious what the surface of the Hero’s barrel might have looked like under the cone.

I remember someone making a replica including the catch on the side that would have linked the two sections of barrel, but I got the feeling that’s an old theory and it’s been updated
 

lonepigeon

Sr Member
Not dead on in my book. That one similar tool mark is insignificant when compared to the multitude of mismatched witness marks IMO. Certainly not enough to sell it as original with all the changes made to simplify the mount by not reproducing the dovetail.

I had said that “maybe” the original cradle was cut off above the supports and reworked to blend the weld. But that work obliterated much of original form. The ends of the tube are tapered on the PS mount. The rest ear flats are a different shape. The support connection is a different shape.

What part of the “cradle- upper and lower” are you referring to?

The upper rings are original.

are you suggesting the entire mount is original or a specific portion of the cradle area. ?

The whole cradle wrapping around the scope is original.
That's a very significant mark I pointed out and it's not just similar, it's dead on.
It may have gained a few more nicks and scratches over the years but there's enough original wear to match it up.

We know the mount isn't original. It's been rebuilt. They've been open about that since the beginning.
The vertical part with the rounded square hole is not original. The crossbar, knobs, etc are all new.
They found the scope wrapped in the upper part of the bracket/cradle and rebuilt the rest.

I'm still very curious about the photo Bapty has to confirm the gun's serial number.
- Is it a vintage photo from Star Wars production?
- Was the Mauser converted in the photo?
For all we know the photo just confirms that the Mauser is vintage stock they owned in the 70's.
Were there signs when they found it that it had a right side scope mount? It seems really odd that the upper and lower have matching serial numbers when the known Hero did not because they had to swap the bottom to switch the mount sides.
 

deadbolt

Sr Member
I understand the reason for a reaction, I'm a part of why this stupid argument started even. We have the facts, lets just move away from this topic, unless it actually pertains to something we can prove or help grow the community's knowledge beyond what's already known.
There have been very, very few arguments and differences between us members up until now. Lets end it. I'm really asking nicely, I don't want to see anymore about this in this thread other than facts that haven't been noticed and can excel the research and history of the prop that hasn't been known as of yet. There are other threads about this that can be killed if people want to continue arguing, I want to make it clear that this isn't going to be one of them.

Like I said, I too am at fault for sure. I shouldn't have provoked it in any way, my opinion's as well as other's differ on this subject undoubtedly. There's no reason for all of us fighting over facts that have already been stated. We can question KCarl's statements all we want, but I really doubt we will ever receive a real answer with any actual foundation.

Thus said, (not aimed at you directly Chris, honestly, but all of us here) I already renamed a very important thread that many people have devoted their time, money..even a very good part of their lives to, to an extent, just to end all of this nonsense.

Let's stop talking about this silly subject and focus the things that really need attention. We still don't understand the Mystery Disk at all, the barrel greeblie aside from the antenna is a real mystery, more so than the disk even, the rear of the Mount's vertical transition to the Cradle is still a total mystery, what's the full Serial other than 2813 that would be present on the rear of the possibly original lock-frame and the other serial that would be present on the swapped lower frame?

Let's keep our focus on the goal here, everyone. I'm very sorry that I played a large part in starting the in-fighting amongst us as far as the PS blaster goes, I'm totally at fault for being a part of it. But I think we can still maintain ourselves, our opinions and keep things civil like the old days. If it's been done, it can be done again and continue to.


-Carson
 
Last edited:

thd9791

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Yea, I was trying to go back and ask about the hero's muzzle for research purposes of the old 70s hero blaster. I'm still curious if we have enough from other movies to guestimate what you could see underneath Han's flash cone
 

deadbolt

Sr Member
Are there any shots from naked runner showing the front of the first section of rifle barrel? I’m curious what the surface of the Hero’s barrel might have looked like under the cone.

I remember someone making a replica including the catch on the side that would have linked the two sections of barrel, but I got the feeling that’s an old theory and it’s been updated

We originally thought that the Hero ANH had the same lock/catch as the Naked Runner hero, but due to more resent finds (scottjua I believe,) the 2813 Upper for some odd reason didn't have that lock?? We all assumed it was there for years too, and even replicated. But as it turns out, it's not present on what became the ANH Hero's Upper.
Pat's (kpax) beyond amazing replica is probably the one you're thinking of, his is the only one that I know of that has the catch/lock added from NR.

2813 Mauser, from Randall and Hopkirk, pre-SW:

vlcsnap-00001.jpg
 

thd9791

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
We originally thought that the Hero ANH had the same lock/catch as the Naked Runner hero, but due to more resent finds (scottjua I believe,) the 2813 Upper for some odd reason didn't have that lock?? We all assumed it was there for years too, and even replicated. But as it turns out, it's not present on what became the ANH Hero's Upper.
Pat's (kpax) beyond amazing replica is probably the one you're thinking of, his is the only one that I know of that has the catch/lock added from NR.

2813 Mauser, from Randall and Hopkirk, pre-SW:

View attachment 1603374
it WAS kpax's build I remember it now! Yea that was incredible... looked like the real deal too

So... unless im mistaken, I think i'm catching on now. It was threaded ? I see on the left of this image a rather large threaded portion and then the glint on the rim of the muzzle hole on the gun. See, for people like me I didn't even know the diameter of the hole that would have been in there :D

5CA153EF-9C1B-4482-A6F4-313299ECE506_1_201_a.jpeg
 

kpax

Sr Member
one thing I always found interesting was the NR poster.
The illustration shows a c96 with a single right hand lug but the scope with 2 hooks. Just odd that the art dept. would do that. They also change up the case configuration. I'm sure they had reference images to work from. Just another interesting curiosity.

1659319931736.png
 

kpax

Sr Member
it WAS kpax's build I remember it now! Yea that was incredible... looked like the real deal too

So... unless im mistaken, I think i'm catching on now. It was threaded ? I see on the left of this image a rather large threaded portion and then the glint on the rim of the muzzle hole on the gun. See, for people like me I didn't even know the diameter of the hole that would have been in there :D
In the NR image you can see the thread. Of course we now know without the lock as Carson said.
1659320732661.jpeg


1659320879779.jpeg
 

thd9791

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Man... I never paid attention to that and ive seen that photo over and over

So, if they used a restrictor to get the gun to cycle, it would have threaded into the existing threads. neat!
 

kpax

Sr Member
These are the known bull barrel versions
NR 1967
R&H 1969
Sweeney 1975

The NR is not the HERO upper. The bevels are wrong and latch is there among other things.
The R&H Upper is the HERO as discovered by Carson I think? Not the lower.
The Sweeney could be the same one? Not sure how that panned out.

The barrels were threaded as seen for rifle extensions. Guess they realized the lath was not needed on future versions.
Same case or design at least.
 

Attachments

  • blaster case kits.jpg
    blaster case kits.jpg
    195.9 KB · Views: 36

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.
Top