ANH Hero DL-44 Discussion - Three ANH Greeblies Found

My understanding is that certain weathering indicators on the screen-used prop would be highly difficult to replicate in anything other than paint.

A this point I think we can all agree that the mystery disc was not milled, and I personally can't imagine it was just a circle of aluminum tape. Whether or not the lower was painted almost doesn't matter to me; I'm resolutely convinced it's a remnant of some kind of greeblie. That is why the grill is cut the way it is; because there used to be a physical, circular object on the side of the magwell.

If the lower wasn't painted though; then I have to imagine the disc was accidental? I don't know enough about bluing to know if certain kinds of glue will strip it or not, but if so then perhaps this may explain the lower's hypothetical lack of paint?

Either way the gun WAS painted at some point; you can see at various points that many of the upper receiver's bright parts are rather dark (like the bolt, sight ramp, etc), but most of that likely wore off quickly after the gun was cycled with some blank rounds.

Bright bolt:

View attachment 1521210


Dark bolt:

View attachment 1521211

Bolt seems dark on the sides, but bright on the top (paint scraped off due to bolt cycling?):

View attachment 1521212

Many possibilities...
My understanding is that certain weathering indicators on the screen-used prop would be highly difficult to replicate in anything other than paint.

A this point I think we can all agree that the mystery disc was not milled, and I personally can't imagine it was just a circle of aluminum tape. Whether or not the lower was painted almost doesn't matter to me; I'm resolutely convinced it's a remnant of some kind of greeblie. That is why the grill is cut the way it is; because there used to be a physical, circular object on the side of the magwell.

If the lower wasn't painted though; then I have to imagine the disc was accidental? I don't know enough about bluing to know if certain kinds of glue will strip it or not, but if so then perhaps this may explain the lower's hypothetical lack of paint?

Either way the gun WAS painted at some point; you can see at various points that many of the upper receiver's bright parts are rather dark (like the bolt, sight ramp, etc), but most of that likely wore off quickly after the gun was cycled with some blank rounds.

Bright bolt:

View attachment 1521210


Dark bolt:

View attachment 1521211

Bolt seems dark on the sides, but bright on the top (paint scraped off due to bolt cycling?):

View attachment 1521212

Many possibilities...
I can’t claim to know anywhere near enough about guns, let alone antique an Mauser, but doesn’t it seem crazy to paint areas of a gun that need to slide and move? To me it would seem likely to gunk up the mechanisms…I could be absolutely wrong about that though.
 
I can’t claim to know anywhere near enough about guns, let alone antique an Mauser, but doesn’t it seem crazy to paint areas of a gun that need to slide and move? To me it would seem likely to gunk up the mechanisms…I could be absolutely wrong about that though.
Let me clarify; I don't think the SW crew disassembled the gun to paint individual components. I think they lazily spray painted the entire thing in one solid piece, and not very well at that.

This would then by why the cycling components would wear back to bright during filming (you can see the bright bolt during the Cantina scene before Han blasts Greedo), and so on.
 
Let me clarify; I don't think the SW crew disassembled the gun to paint individual components. I think they lazily spray painted the entire thing in one solid piece, and not very well at that.

This would then by why the cycling components would wear back to bright during filming (you can see the bright bolt during the Cantina scene before Han blasts Greedo), and so on.
Yea that does make sense if it was painted as one piece, that does seem like something a film production would do if needing to get something camera ready quickly too.
 
IMHO I don’t think it was painted at all. I think on these Mausers those parts that you think are painted are just getting a very dark grey in color with age if anything. You can see that on the Stembridge pictures that recently came to light. They look a very dirty grey. Here’s some pics I think you mean as far as seeing the silver on the bolt. The second is a screen grab and you can see the silver on the sight as well..
A1F0A821-12DE-42C9-B04C-4B4CFC6EB2AB.jpeg
4CC26667-1008-4918-8647-E65932F45C06.png
B9A82477-47CB-4C81-93D2-9977823232AA.png
D140D2CF-D15B-41C0-A910-BC83A8F7C7A7.png
 
IMHO I don’t think it was painted at all. I think on these Mausers those parts that you think are painted are just getting a very dark grey in color with age if anything. You can see that on the Stembridge pictures that recently came to light. They look a very dirty grey. Here’s some pics I think you mean as far as seeing the silver on the bolt. The second is a screen grab and you can see the silver on the sight as well..View attachment 1521216View attachment 1521219View attachment 1521221View attachment 1521220

This is about actually what I mean; the tops of the bolt and sight slide are bright, but the sides seem to be unusually dark in all of the pre-production images (post Bapty). I think that if the entire thing was painted then these areas are where the paint would naturally wear/flake off first, hence why they are visibly bright in the film.

And some of the wear on the upper receiver looks suspiciously like flaking paint to my eye...

upper paint chip.jpg
 
IMHO I don’t think it was painted at all. I think on these Mausers those parts that you think are painted are just getting a very dark grey in color with age if anything. You can see that on the Stembridge pictures that recently came to light. They look a very dirty grey. Here’s some pics I think you mean as far as seeing the silver on the bolt. The second is a screen grab and you can see the silver on the sight as well..View attachment 1521216View attachment 1521219View attachment 1521221View attachment 1521220
I’m definitely more and more inclined to agree with you on this. What I’ve just never been able to reconcile in my head with painted or unpainted is the color difference between upper and lower, it often looks slightly different color but never as differentiated as painted looks, at least on mine.
 
Well here’s the silver lining. All those pictures again exist in high definition and in color. That’s what really floats my boat! deadbolt just graciously shared a TON of pics. Most I’ve never seen but definitely familiar with the photo shoots each came from. It’s only a matter of time now before those also come to light as well. (Fingers crossed it’s happens before I meet my maker). Some already have and probably more than we even realize. Let’s continue to dig and follow DeadBolts lead and start sharing!! Thats what this community laks of late and it’s the backbone of what it was originally built on :)

What your saying Vanitas could easily be true and until we learn more its a great mystery!

Jonflake88 its actually the similarity in color between the top and bottom that originally got me thinking it wasn’t painted. That and the contrast in color between the heat sink (black) and the base Mauser (tint of blue). There’s more of a discrepancy there than the top and bottom don’t you think?
26D20E4C-CA57-4FC2-85AE-698FBEB954DC.jpeg
B0B7C186-AEA0-4F5C-B4D6-1DC0EE04A184.png
21F6F8E1-7CE0-4CDC-B463-3582F8F9008A.png
5BCF89E4-F829-44ED-8C3B-C41F587820FD.png
 
Last edited:
No doubt about that; I'm sure this quest will never end!

Also in a minor update, I finally cracked and bought some wood grips and Todd's scope mount! So I'm quite looking forward to upgrading my Field Marshall steel mauser with some quality parts! (The plastic grips are fine, just too thick. Chris' scope mount is also a bit loose around the dovetail (enough to rattle a bit), so I'm going with another mount for my build)
 
I just wanted to add my two cents in about photo sharing..

I myself have also purchased photos with $, and my primary reason for doing so was to share. Not to hoard or post and take credit as though I took them myself. If we didn't take the photos in question, despite how much it cost and/or how much effort we put into getting them, we don't 'own' them by any realistic means. The public deserves to know.

If we post photos online, (since the old days even, anyone remember A.S.A.P. ??) it should obviously be usable by the public community, it always has been. Not just to look cool on the internet and get mad when someone uses said photos. It's not a code I made up, It's been a standard Internet code of conduct for many, many years now.

I don't mean to come off too mean or anything, but that's simply the reality of this particular subject. I'm sorry if it offends someone.


-Carson
 
I just wanted to add my two cents in about photo sharing..

I myself have also purchased photos with $, and my primary reason for doing so was to share. Not to hoard or post and take credit as though I took them myself. If we didn't take the photos in question, despite how much it cost and/or how much effort we put into getting them, we don't 'own' them by any realistic means. The public deserves to know.

If we post photos online, (since the old days even, anyone remember A.S.A.P. ??) it should obviously be usable by the public community, it always has been. Not just to look cool on the internet and get mad when someone uses said photos. It's not a code I made up, It's been a standard Internet code of conduct for many, many years now.

I don't mean to come off too mean or anything, but that's simply the reality of this particular subject. I'm sorry if it offends someone.


-Carson
I appreciate your willingness to share the reference you’ve spent time tracking down, especially as a maker fairly new to prop replicas. I don’t necessarily hold it against anyone who wants to hold on to their references they’ve gone to effort to acquire. I know I don’t personally feel like they owe it to me or us, as like you said none of us own any of it and certainly didn’t take the photos. That being said I think it can only benefit the community if it is shared though, as I think that spirit of replication and detail is something really special about the RPF, and having that knowledge will only help to inspire new makers that stumble upon this thread and this hobby. I think sharing what is known leads to the preservation of theses incredibly unique and special props, especially in the case of the ANH DL44 as it no longer exists. While we all love our blasters I think what is more important is that the knowledge and stories behind such an impactful film is preserved and passed on.
 
While I, of course, always greatly appreciate people's willingness to make public whatever discoveries or new material they have acquired, I also feel that it is important to see things from both perspectives.

Speaking as someone who has been on the 'other' side of this argument in another fandom, I was once part of a small team that had been made privy to confidential materials by a private (inside) source, regarding something that we all held a large interest in, but our source for said materials simply asked that we all not make the things they provided to us public. It was very much a case of "I don't mind showing these things to you, but please don't post them online." And as much as I would have liked to, I never did so - not because I felt that we somehow 'deserved' these materials more than anyone else in the community, but because our source simply asked that we didn't, and these things were very much not meant to be made public.

(For context; another member of our group foolishly, eventually sent some of the materials we had gotten to someone in the community that had caused public problems with in the past due to toxic behavior, and of course they dumped everything they got. I wound up leaving said group entirely after the real leaker let me take the blame for leaking things to this person for a few months, though he eventually admitted to me that he was the one that send the guy the stuff. I left the community entirely not long afterwards.)

That being said, I can only imagine that certain people would certainly wish to even have a choice in the matter of making things they know public, but are bound by similar bonds of trust, or even NDAs outright. I think there is absolutely room for everyone to come to a mutual understanding that things simply can not always be the way that we wish they were, and that some things simply should not be made public (however much we wish they could be). Yes, it would be ideal if such restrictions did not bind people to keep things to themselves, but unfortunately they exist.
 
While I, of course, always greatly appreciate people's willingness to make public whatever discoveries or new material they have acquired, I also feel that it is important to see things from both perspectives.

Speaking as someone who has been on the 'other' side of this argument in another fandom, I was once part of a small team that had been made privy to confidential materials by a private (inside) source, regarding something that we all held a large interest in, but our source for said materials simply asked that we all not make the things they provided to us public. It was very much a case of "I don't mind showing these things to you, but please don't post them online." And as much as I would have liked to, I never did so - not because I felt that we somehow 'deserved' these materials more than anyone else in the community, but because our source simply asked that we didn't, and these things were very much not meant to be made public.

(For context; another member of our group foolishly, eventually sent some of the materials we had gotten to someone in the community that had caused public problems with in the past due to toxic behavior, and of course they dumped everything they got. I wound up leaving said group entirely after the real leaker let me take the blame for leaking things to this person for a few months, though he eventually admitted to me that he was the one that send the guy the stuff. I left the community entirely not long afterwards.)

That being said, I can only imagine that certain people would certainly wish to even have a choice in the matter of making things they know public, but are bound by similar bonds of trust, or even NDAs outright. I think there is absolutely room for everyone to come to a mutual understanding that things simply can not always be the way that we wish they were, and that some things simply should not be made public (however much we wish they could be). Yes, it would be ideal if such restrictions did not bind people to keep things to themselves, but unfortunately they exist.
All that makes perfect sense. When I encourage sharing, I mean it only in the case where the material wouldn’t violate any sort of NDA, or the wishes of the actual owner. I think in those scenarios you’re 100% correct that they should not be shared. I hope that my little ramble about it doesn’t come off as feeling that all people should share everything, there are plenty of very valid and understandable scenarios where they absolutely shouldn’t. And I certainly understand trepidation based in your story and others like it I’ve heard. And it does circle back to the concept that a vast majority of this stuff does belong to Lucasfilm/Disney, and to maintain this hobby/living for some people it’s very important to not infringe upon their good will, or the good will of the prop houses involved in production.
 
Correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t we talking about pictures that have been shared already? Maybe regretfully now but they were at one point in time willingly uploaded to a social media site correct? After which point they are “in” the world and unfortunately out of the control of the people that uploaded them to begin with.

That’s the harsh truth unfortunately. Truly sorry if it offends how the photos handled from there but we are all here simply because of our mutual love of SW and more specifically the DL-44. No photo is shared for praise or glory and if it is.. no one plays any attention to that anyhow. Does it get us closer to our holy grail of a prop or does it not??! That… is the question.

Sharing is caring.
 
Last edited:
I want to add the scrapes on the front of the mag well and the stripped disc always suggested some finish was pulled off. The gun does look blue-er than the cylinders there but it wouldn't be the first time they painted half a gun
 
Yeah, I was referring to photos that have already been posted online, or ones that people have been given permission to share. And just like you said, once it's online, it's 'going to' make it's rounds.
People have been profiting financially off of my and many other people's Paper-Props for a while now, but I posted them knowing that would likely happen. It's totally un-cool, since I'd intended for them to profit towards knowledge and hobby wise. But what can you do.. At least they're public.

It's sometimes kinda cool though because if a production company may snag one and use (though without credit, but who cares at that point), like they did with Twin Peaks season 3 and my X-Files I.D. Badge post here on the RPF.
..I'm not gonna complain then. :cry:

I too agree not to post a photo or photos online that I was told not to, I too have been there many times (not with this prop, though..thank God =b).


-Carson

Correct me if I’m wrong but aren’t we talking about pictures that have been shared already? Maybe regretfully now but they were at one point in time willingly uploaded to a social media site correct? After which point they are “in” the world and unfortunately out of the control of the people that uploaded them to begin with.

That’s the harsh truth unfortunately. Truly sorry if it offends how the photos handled from there but we are all here simply because of our mutual love of SW and more specifically the DL-44. No photo is shared for praise or glory and if it is.. no one plays any attention to that anyhow. Does it get us closer to our holy grail of a prop or does it not??! That… is the question.

Sharing is caring.
 
Last edited:
Mystery disk mystery aside, I’ve never thought the gun was painted. The scope mount bar, yep. But to me the rest clearly has a patina. Color variations are really common on these old guns, particularly between specimens, and we know that there was some part swapping going on. Also, I doubt that they’d spray bomb a rented vintage weapon. It doesn’t appear that they did with the sterlings, AR-7, or other guns in the film. Mostly I think it looks cooler.
 
I personally can't see many ways that the entire gun wasn't painted, in all honesty - especially when you look a some of the behind the scenes images of the prop (I think this was one of Scott's images? Apologies if I got the source wrong).

Screenshot (3926).png


You can't tell me that this huge spot on the upper receiver (right underneath the ejection port scallops) doesn't look like paint flaking off. The same wear spot is even present in the post production images as well.

upper paint chip.jpg



How this might have happened without the prop being painted seems impossible to me, especially when the pre-production Bapty images show a clean, blued upper receiver.
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

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