ANH Hero DL-44 Discussion - Three ANH Greeblies Found

[kpax]

When parts are machined in a similar way they will have similar- but not identical machine or tool marks.

The small similar markings aside, there are many problems with the lower cradle being original.

The crossbar attachment is wrong. No dovetail.
The center squarcle opening is lower and larger than the HERO and mis-shaped.
No undercut into the scope tube underside or dimples.
The screw ears are mis-shaped -front and back.
The tube ends are tapered and beveled up.
The vertical supports are longer. They terminate bluntly with a step especially noticeable from the rear.
And, Todd said he was told that Carl found the original scope and mount in a box but the lower cradle was all messed up and mangled so he had to make a new one.

Repairing the old one by keeping the tube part but needing to weld up more material and reshape them make the bottom section and weld to the tube and reshape and clean up would be MUCH more work than Carl would want to do. Easier to just machine a new one.

Note the comparison below. I took the best PS images and made a composite of the mount in ideal plan side view. I corrected for distortion and camera angle best I could. This is just to get a rough idea as to size and shape.

The full side images of the PS are off center and hard to relate but there was one image of the mount that was almost ideal side view. I used it to locate the left side and bottom positions and size based on the screw positions and center thumbnut roundness.
I then scaled it to the screw positions on the HERO and the upper ring size and locations.

Even accounting for minor discrepancies in imaging, the PS mount is much different in shape and size than the HERO.

Anyone feel free to repeat the comparisons. Maybe you will get a different result.

 

[thd9791]

Yea, from what I was reading the consensus is that undercuts to the cradle negate any other matching marks or identifiers. Not to sound like a broken record, but those are straightforwardly explained by the repair. Welding/brazing adds material and re-machining it will change the shape. This is why I noted the pawn stars blaster actually has less material under the cradle, it's flattened, which might really suggest modification down there.

 

[thd9791]

Yes, unfortunately. When they finally found the scope mount at the bottom of a box of spare parts, the bottom portion was mangled beyond repair. Carl saved the upper portion (cradle and rings) and replaced the lower portion.

This fits with all the un-modified portions of the mount. gouge marks like that are used to identify props in the collecting community all the time. I don't think this idea of machining a whole new piece, screwing up the bottom but matching the marks on the cradle identically makes much sense.

 

[chubsANDdoggers]

None of it really makes sense. Anything is possible. The machining marks on the front of the cradle do seem to line up as thd9791 pointed out. So the story is this and correct me if I’m wrong..

They find the mount but it’s lower is damaged beyond repair. So they try and redue the bottom (legs and “dovetail”) as close as possible while keeping the belly as is or again as close as possible. But why does the back cuts (marked in yellow) not line up at all. That seems strange that at anytime they would have cut those any different especially if preservation was so important.

Here’s an overlay (pic/video) of the PS cradle to the HERO’s..

 

[MastahBlastah]

But why does the back cuts (marked in yellow) not line up at all. That seems strange that at anytime they would I have cut those any different especially if preservation was so important.

Perhaps these different cuts here or any other small discrepancies we're seeing are just places where the upper half of the mount was cleaned up. If it was at the bottom of a box of steel parts for 30-40 years I imagine any of these surfaces could have been rusted/pitted, badly marred, etc.

Whether or not Carl wanted to take the time to salvage it vs. just re-making it isn't really a factor here ... there's potentially a million dollars at stake, and isn't he essentially just working for that other guy? If he told Carl to remake it salvaging whatever he could of the original found mount (heck, it's what I'd have asked for ... just would have had it done far different) then this all totally stands as possible, in my opinion. As far as re-weathering/blending these modified parts to match the rest of the mount, I think anyone that's worked with a steel mount like this should know that it wouldn't be that difficult for someone like Carl to do.

And, Todd said he was told that Carl found the original scope and mount in a box but the lower cradle was all messed up and mangled so he had to make a new one.

I believe Todd's story was that he remade the existing mount using what was left of the found part unless I'm remembering this incorrectly?

 

[kpax]

It would be much harder to weld up and repair. ANY gouge marks or scratches would be wiped out by a repair of any mangled bottom section.

No small scratches would remain after refinishing.

And even if they did save a small section of the tube it would not be the original any more.

Example.

The original painting is still underneath the restoration...

; )

 

[kpax]

Perhaps these different cuts here or any other small discrepancies we're seeing are just places where the upper half of the mount was cleaned up. If it was at the bottom of a box of steel parts for 30-40 years I imagine any of these surfaces could have been rusted/pitted, badly marred, etc. Whether or not Carl wanted to take the time to salvage it vs. just re-making isn't really a factor here ... there's potentially a million dollars at stake here, and isn't he essentially just working for that other guy? If he told Carl to remake it salvaging whatever he could of the original mount, then this all totally stands as possible, in my opinion. As far as re-weathering/blending these parts to match the rest of the mount, I think anyone that's worked with a steel mount like this before knows that it wouldn't be that difficult for someone like Carl to do.

I believe Todd's story was that he remade the existing mount using what was left of the found part unless I'm remembering this incorrectly?

The quote is third hand at best but can be understood to mean, he remade the mount using the remains of the original- ie: top rings.

He didn't say "restored"

Hopefully Todd can get more info when he visits Carl...

 

[chubsANDdoggers]

There is a lot of tail chasing and hypothetical’s here. Fix one part while leaving another untouched and yet changing details that are clear. ?? But 40+ years of wear and tear have gone by plus a game of telephone is all we have to go by now.

I believe one thing for certain. That mount was more valuable (both in terms of historical & financial value) in its mangled state than it ever would be in a fixed state..

 

[kpax]

Perhaps these different cuts here or any other small discrepancies we're seeing are just places where the upper half of the mount was cleaned up. If it was at the bottom of a box of steel parts for 30-40 years I imagine any of these surfaces could have been rusted/pitted, badly marred, etc.

Whether or not Carl wanted to take the time to salvage it vs. just re-making it isn't really a factor here ... there's potentially a million dollars at stake, and isn't he essentially just working for that other guy? If he told Carl to remake it salvaging whatever he could of the original found mount (heck, it's what I'd have asked for ... just would have had it done far different) then this all totally stands as possible, in my opinion. As far as re-weathering/blending these modified parts to match the rest of the mount, I think anyone that's worked with a steel mount like this should know that it wouldn't be that difficult for someone like Carl to do.

I believe Todd's story was that he remade the existing mount using what was left of the found part unless I'm remembering this incorrectly?

If they were trying to make a replica that could fool the SW public and auction for $1,000,000 they would have researched the parts better and found this thread and made the mount more accurate.

The fact that they didn't and used the HERO pre image as a confirmation that the blaster was "THE" original HERO blaster from ANH when the SN# and mount are completely wrong and there are no plastic bits or glue tell us that they didn't try THAT hard.

Giving the benefit of the doubt, MAYBE they figured that a blaster made by Carl using the original scope and rings would be enough for SW fans to drool over.

If you melt down the original gun and use that metal to forge another blaster is it still original? Has the original metal... ; )

 

[kpax]

There is a lot of tail chasing and hypothetical’s here. Fix one part while leaving another untouched and yet changing details that are clear. ?? But 40+ years of wear and tear have gone by plus a game of telephone is all we have to go by now.

I believe one thing for certain. That mount was more valuable (both in terms of historical & financial value) in its mangled state than it ever would be in a fixed state..

Exactly.

IF it was "restored" no mater the condition, it should have been documented. I still cant imagine how the lower mount was SO mangled and beyond repair yet the upper rings are in original condition.?

I don't think they found the lower. That's a pretty solid piece. Unless it was completely rusted with DEEP corrosion that ate most of the metal, it could and should have been restored.

If it was THAT far gone, there would be nothing to weld to. SO much more work to "save it " WITHOUT" making it correctly with the correct dovetail and crossbar and thumbnuts.

Not logical IMO.

 

[chubsANDdoggers]

If you melt down the original gun and use that metal to forge another blaster is it still original? Has the original metal... ; )

No. Most definitely it’s not. And I know you’re being facetious..

 

[thd9791]

I'll just add.... I already quoted Todd's Costumes directly in post #5243, so any questions about that statement can be referenced. It was very specific.

chubsANDdoggers is right, none of this makes any sense anyway. To me it looks like originally the top and bottom of the cradle was ground at the same time. For whatever reason they may have touched up those areas. The general shape or size is the same, but its been smoothed out by the look of it, changing the direction of the edges

 

[Vanitas]

Again, I would be much more open to the idea that the mount was 'repaired' by Carl if images of it in its 'found' condition happen to become public as well. The documentation of said process should absolutely be made crystal clear if we are being asked to believe this is an original part, especially one that has been modified.

 

[kpax]

I'll just add.... I already quoted Todd's Costumes directly in post #5243, so any questions about that statement can be referenced. It was very specific.

chubsANDdoggers is right, none of this makes any sense anyway. To me it looks like originally the top and bottom of the cradle was ground at the same time. For whatever reason they may have touched up those areas. The general shape or size is the same, but its been smoothed out by the look of it, changing the direction of the edges
View attachment 1544484

I’ll post this again.
General shape snd size and detail do not match at all. Not even close.

Not sure what you mean when you say the top and bottom look like they were ground at the same time.?

Thats not how parts are machined. Originaly the parts would be made separately anyway. Rings and lower integral “cradle with dovetail mount”

 

[kpax]

I'll just add.... I already quoted Todd's Costumes directly in post #5243, so any questions about that statement can be referenced. It was very specific.

(Yes, unfortunately. When they finally found the scope mount at the bottom of a box of spare parts, the bottom portion was mangled beyond repair. Carl saved the upper portion (cradle and rings) and replaced the lower portion.)

Again. This is info remembered from third person casual conversation.

Upper portion. Lower portion. Cradle. Rings.

This is Todd telling the story third hand. He does not claim to know for sure what was meant.

There are only 4 parts to the mount.
2 upper rings. The dovetail. And the lower (so called) cradle. This is a made up term.

There is no cradle and rings. AND lower portion. They are one piece.

The bottom portion was Mangled beyond repair. This states it was not repaired. … and replaced the lower portion.

The lower portion is the entire “cradle” and lower screw ears.

 

[teecrooz]

I’ll post this again.
General shape snd size and detail do not match at all. Not even close.

Not sure what you mean when you say the top and bottom look like they were ground at the same time.?

Thats not how parts are machined. Originaly the parts would be made separately anyway. Rings and lower integral “cradle with dovetail mount”

View attachment 1544487

I tend to agree but unfortunately the perspective match on these isn’t lined up to make this comparison 100%. The mausers don’t match up either.

I’m not saying they are the same cradle, because I don’t believe they are, just pointing out a point of comparison.

 

[kpax]

Close enough for me. The width and screw locations and tube diameter have to be close. Cant be THAT far off.

When scaled the PS mount is much different.

Again. Even IF Carl welded junk together and then had to remachine the shape none of the so called tool marks from the original could remain.

 

[Vanitas]

So, am I too late for the custom blaster thread submission?

 

[thd9791]

I guess well agree to disagree there, if Todd isn't claiming to know for sure then neither of us can be correct until we have more information. I just blandly took that story literally, it would be remarkable to duplicate all those scratches on that section.

I look forward to learning more

 

[MaxTaffey]

Hi all - first post here, and likely not the appropriate thread to be asking this question (if anyone can point me to a more appropriate thread I'd appreciate it). I'm attempting a build of the DL-44 on the cheap, with all parts I can obtain from hardware stores etc. Obviously not trying for screen accurate here, but one little thing I was trying to source is something that will replicate the brass fasteners on the handle of the gun. Has anyone attempted the same and have ideas for sourcing this part? Thanks for your patience - hope this isn't too much of an annoyance!