Breaking Bad Props

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


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

laagi

New Member
Hey guys, sorry for the late reply. I'd have to check if my screen used beanie has a tag inside. However, truth be told I don't want to disclose too much information. Hope you understand. If anyone has any Skinny Pete props or wardrobe for sale please pm me. Thank you!
 

Hecubus114

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Hey guys, sorry for the late reply. I'd have to check if my screen used beanie has a tag inside. However, truth be told I don't want to disclose too much information. Hope you understand. If anyone has any Skinny Pete props or wardrobe for sale please pm me. Thank you!
Did you win the beanie in the auction a few years back?
 

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

Hecubus114

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
So I’ve been watching eBay for this lighter, which Propstore claims is the lighter Jesse uses when he’s about to light Walt’s house on fire. I finally snagged one, but I am skeptical about this being the actual lighter used in the show. So far I have not been able to get a clear enough screen grab to confirm or deny. Anyone have any insight on this? Propstore image:
2588314E-EE5A-4352-999C-CC988411E842.jpeg
 

J EM

Well-Known Member
Hello rpf. It's been a while. Last I posted itt was back when some of us were discussing Walt's eyeglasses. So on that note, I found them and I'm posting to share what they are. AOP 823. 54 – 20 – 137. It's marked 54-19-145 but those last two are incorrect.

Pardon the dirt on the foam head. It was taken out of storage to compare with the pics that were taken by the previous owner of the screen used pair Art Andrews owns. I no longer have those pics but some of you might.

IMG_202145.jpg IMG_202187.jpg IMG_202183.jpg
IMG_202137.jpg IMG_202115.jpg IMG_202195.jpg


btw. while I was looking for round 1930s B&L [white] gold specs as worn by Laura Dern in JP1993, I came across these numont fulvue frames by Imperial Optical — two of them. How about that? Just like Gus Fring's. Just in case anyone here is still collecting BB/BCS props. These aren't even the closest lookalike, like a frame I had shared a link to a long time ago. It's exact where it matters* and already have hexagonal lenses. They've been up for a long while so I'm sure no one else here has their eye on them. Both accepting offers. Up to you to decide what they're worth in their condition, but consider that this frame with this specific bridge rarely pops up.

I once got an offer to buy this one at a 20% or %30% discount.

someone picked this one up already

GF1.jpg
* Info about Gus Fring glasses
Made by Imperial Optical, Canadian eyewear company that, like many other eyewear companies of the time, licensed American Optical's fulvue-style Numont frame. Each company has their own unique bridge designs and embossed cable temples. They're also offered with pearl nosepads or bakelite ones.

There are two kinds of cable temples, and two cable temple sizes, too. Both kinds are compatible with 1/10 12k gold-filled 'full view' frames as long as they're on a Numont or "Rimway." (Difference to the Numont is that the lenses are held up by screws at the upper-outer corners.) So regardless of the maker, they're all interchangeable. The correct temple is flat where the intricate pattern is and connects evenly with the front frame to make it look like one piece.

Gus Fring's has a cable temple with embossed rectangles, and pearl nosepads. [strike]This cable temple is found on Shuron-made numont/rimway frames, and they're common.[/strike] The Shuron temple isn't correct.
GF2.jpg
If my memory is correct, in the BB episode where he forces himself to vomit after drinking the poison he gifted to kill the Mexican druglord, he removes his glasses. It appears they may have the longer cable temple. His lenses may be 40mm and have rounded corners.
 
Last edited:

SquidMan

Well-Known Member
Amazing find, J EM ! How did you manage to track down the AOPs? Looks like the replicas by Magnoli match them very closely (due in no small part to our combined diligence)! Can you confirm?

And thank you very much for linking those antique glasses! After some minimal cleanup/fixing, I now have a gorgeous and accurate pair of Gus Fring glasses to add to my collection, and they only cost me $30!

?hash=6932c9488c7973f4cd3d6ef973897fcd.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5019.jpg
    IMG_5019.jpg
    2.1 MB · Views: 21

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

J EM

Well-Known Member
Amazing find, J EM ! How did you manage to track down the AOPs? Looks like the replicas by Magnoli match them very closely (due in no small part to our combined diligence)! Can you confirm?

And thank you very much for linking those antique glasses! After some minimal cleanup/fixing, I now have a gorgeous and accurate pair of Gus Fring glasses to add to my collection, and they only cost me $30!
I didn't track them down. They were just on ebay. I was using picclick searching for bronze frames. My time researching Walt's glasses exposed me to different bronze aviator frames, which I grew to like, and so I was on the market for a new one. There they were. A lucky find for something I had already accepted would never pop up. Once I got Indy Magnoli's replica, that was it. My time looking for Walt's glasses was over, but there they were.

So you got the one with the asking price of $52? That one appeared to be in a condition not worth buying at that price. It was in my watchlist for a few months and the reason I didn't come post it here earlier was because I could not recommend it at that price. It looked quite bad, but you cleaned it up nicely! Well done! Does yours have a semi circle pattern on the temples? I dont know why but I'm beginning to think that one may be the correct one, and should be the frame's original one. The other pair that sold had temples identical to mine, which are Artcraft Optical's, but I don't think that one is correct. Err...a while back, when I did further research after I got my pair, I did stumble across another temple with a different rectangular pattern, but I can't find it anymore and, really, if I hadn't pointed that out I don't think anyone here would care, because it really is the bridge that matters.


There's another pair of the correct Imperial eyeglasses on etsy. It's being sold at a much higher price, but that's the going rate for these kinds of frames when they are in pristine condition and sold by antique eyewear shops.


btw. I'll be posting something about and comparing the AOP823 with Indy Magnoli's replica. It's going to take a while.
 
Last edited:

SquidMan

Well-Known Member
I didn't track them down. They were just on ebay. I was using picclick searching for bronze frames. My time researching Walt's glasses exposed me to different bronze aviator frames, which I grew to like, and so I was on the market for a new one. There they were. A lucky find for something I had already accepted would never pop up. Once I got Indy Magnoli's replica, that was it. My time looking for Walt's glasses was over, but there they were.

So you got the one with the asking price of $52? That one appeared to be in a condition not worth buying at that price. It was in my watchlist for a few months and the reason I didn't come post it here earlier was because I could not recommend it at that price. It looked quite bad, but you cleaned it up nicely! Well done! Does yours have a semi circle pattern on the temples? I dont know why but I'm beginning to think that one may be the correct one, and should be the frame's original one. The other pair that sold had temples identical to mine, which are Artcraft Optical's, but I don't think that one is correct. Err...a while back, when I did further research after I got my pair, I did stumble across another temple with a different rectangular pattern, but I can't find it anymore and, really, if I hadn't pointed that out I don't think anyone here would care, because it really is the bridge that matters.


There's another pair of the correct Imperial eyeglasses on etsy. It's being sold at a much higher price, but that's the going rate for these kinds of frames when they are in pristine condition and sold by antique eyewear shops.


btw. I'll be posting something about and comparing the AOP823 with Indy Magnoli's replica. It's going to take a while.
Well, amazing find nonetheless! Looking forward to the comparison to Indy Magnoli's.

And yes, I got the one with the $52 asking price, but they accepted a Best Offer of $30. It looked much worse in the eBay photos than in-hand, even before I cleaned them up/bent the frames back into shape. I've attached a photo of the temples on mine, are they accurate?

IMG_5020.jpg
 

J EM

Well-Known Member
About Indy Magnoli's replica in comparison to the AOP823, they are as accurate as the replica could have been with no real reference to work off of, and if the lens size was 54 x 44 mm. At a lens height of 44, or even 43.5, the temples and the bridge were welded where they should have been. There are a few differences that all contribute to the way Walt's eyeglasses look like. I'll list them below. It's a long read and maybe pointless, but I don't know how to be concise with my thoughts between the 823 and Indy Magnoli's replica. A lot of it is due to how surprised I was at what the real one ended up being.
The bridge. On the AOP823, it's welded more on the "face" of the frame. It's rounder, and this is the reason the bridge looks thicker from the front. Also, it pops out a bit more and has a forward tilted angle. I don't know by how much.

The frame. The 823 is slightly thicker, and the edge has a subtle rounded bevel. Not only that, it is slightly curved around the lens, thus helping make it look even more thick. Eyewear wire comes in different widths, but these kinds of things aren't generally described. I had looked into eyeglass wire a bit back then and couldn't find the standard wire height/widths for rx eyeglasses. It may all depend on the eyewear company.

The lens shape. There's a lot to unpack. One may think that because the lens height on the IM replica is 3mm more than Walt's actually is, it's why the lens shape isn't all there. I recall commens made by some other users, maybe it was squidman and westies14, about my drawn attempts ending up looking "boxy," and after Indy Magnoli had a prototype, the frame having an "aggressive" look. Even I thought that one was odd, but I understand why that happened now. In my honest opinion, the replica being 3mm bigger is not or only why it looks boxy. I suppose I should have asked what exactly was meant by "boxy."


In the beginning, my attempts at drawing the lens shape resulted in a further boxy looking shape because of how I was drawing the lens. I went through multiple methods to draw it and they all resulted in the same incorrect shape. I thought it would've been corrected a bit with the base curve/wrap and the forward tilt. I thought that if the anchor points were placed appropriately, that if bezier handles were carefully moved, that if the lens was drawn almost pixel by pixel, it would result in the proper shape, but...no. And it's not because I (nor Indy Magnoli on his own attempts) didn't try to get as close as possible, but because there's something else going on with the lens shape of the 823. I don't think the shape was created using modern day eyewear design guidelines.

Those of you who still have the design drafts Indy Magnoli posted may see the lens shape, a box, and a circle. This is typically how modern eyewear is designed, and the curves that make the lens shapes start at the middle of the box edges – top edge, bottom edge, outer edge. Prior to the replica, the Hilco (AOP's parent company) SG301 was a frame I called the most accurate to Walt's eyeglasses, and I used to believe it was Walt's eyeglasses but updated. Some of you said it looked 'boxy.' Given that I now agree, I would say it is because the SG301 follows that modern eyewear design guideline where curves are drawn from the center of the lens box, and because the sides are straighter. It has diameter of 56 and 49 mm. I own a bronze aviator frame with the supposed correct dimensions of Walt's eyeglasses of 54x43. I will say that despite the right lens size, it didn't look like it because the dividing point between curves was at the center of the lens box. That frame also had a diameter of 56 and 49 mm too. The point for mentioning the diameter is that, for whatever reason, it appears to be a standard for a similar lens shape even at different lens sizes. It's on that aviator frame, it's on the SG301, it's on the AOP823, and it's on a frame I have with an entirely different lens shape and smaller size. So the diameter, even having it right, doesn't help create the proper shape of the 823 if the lens is still drawn incorrect.

When I did my attempts at drawing the shape, I didn't consider the radii, only after the replica was created. When I did, I did get closer, and as closer as I thought it was, it still wasn't. What WAS considered was the correct anchor point placement from which to draw the lens curves from. I don't remember exactly what was decided for the replica, but 2 of them (the ones on the sides) were almost correct, falling within a 1mm margin. Proper anchor point placement does help give a more accurate shape. See below.
Screenshot 2021-02-20.png
On the left, you'll see a boxed lens. It is 54x44, with diameters of 56 and 49 mm. It is wrong because it was drawn from the center of the box.
On the right, you'll see another boxed lens. Same size and diameter. The anchor points were shifted from the center correctly. The curves have their own anchor points placed correctly at the diameter. It is still wrong. Illustrator, like I presume many programs, creates curves with right angles. Anyway, you may say it has a "puppy dog" look – the boxed right one – as westies14 once said about Walt's glasses. Correct anchor point placement – shifting them away from the center – is a way to get that look.
On the top left, you'll see a complete frame drawing with a lens size of 56.2x43.2. Still wrong shape and all, but it has the same circumference as the replica, and was me working towards a better version.
To the right of it, you should see the closest shape I've drawn so far to the AOP823 going off an image of my own. It has the circumference that's on Indy Magnoli's - 165mm. Size is 55.85 x 42.85.
Below it is what Walt's glasses should look like if they were 54x44mm and closest in shape. I can't compare anymore with Indy Magnoli's replica since I popped up the lenses on that one last year. In the photos below, my IM replica has a size of 55x42.

Achieving the curvature and shape of the 823 is not difficult, it simply needed more time, and a good reference.***


*** — It was kind of impossible to get the correct shape from a still from the show. On some of the pics I uploaded you may see a bit of why. Camera distorts things, especially vertically, more so at certain angles and perspectives.

What I am going to try to do is have the Indy Magnoli replica re-lensed to have the proper shape of the 823 at the expense of a slightly bigger size. I believe it is possible. Lastly, what I've learned is that rx eyeglasses have a standard base curve of 5 degrees, a forward tilt of 10. Some are even rotated. Last one is why Indy Magnoli's prototype had an "aggressive" look. They're rotated on the 823 as well.

Too long; didn't read
Here are your comparison photos. Sorry I'm not good at taking pics. And remember that my IM replica has been reshaped a bit.
IMhb 55x43. AOP823 54x41.
IMG_2021110b.jpg

IMG_2021026b.jpg IMG_2021324b.jpg
I should bend the temples on Indy Magnoli's some more. Also, recall that they were modeled after the temples on my AOP307. They're all the same length though.
IMG_2021010b.jpg


IMG_2021804b.jpg

I swapped the frames to show color difference which changes easily. They ended up looking almost equal in size in this pic.
IMG_2021349b.jpg

Lastly,
IMG_2021762b.jpg IMG_2021810b.jpg

And ehh...I intend to do this properly – sharper trace, scan, vector file for anyone interested – once I get my glasses re-lensed, but in the mean time...
IMG_2021707b.jpg
I have to say that the shape still doesn't look like what this image captured, at least not in person. Walt's glasses only look like Walt's glasses in pictures & tv.
 
Last edited:

J EM

Well-Known Member
Well, amazing find nonetheless! Looking forward to the comparison to Indy Magnoli's.

And yes, I got the one with the $52 asking price, but they accepted a Best Offer of $30. It looked much worse in the eBay photos than in-hand, even before I cleaned them up/bent the frames back into shape. I've attached a photo of the temples on mine, are they accurate?
photos are up on above post.

$30 is very good for the correct frame in that it's typically what such numont frames sell for in decent condition. And I've never seen that temple design before. It might be the correct one but I really don't know! All I know is that it's not what's on most of the other ones, or mine. I don't think the temple design on Gus Fring's glasses is ever clear enough to be properly visible. It is such a small design after all.
 

SquidMan

Well-Known Member
Thank you for the very thorough breakdown, J EM ! There are certainly some differences but I'm glad Magnoli's replica was able to get as close as it did.
 

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

Constructor56

New Member
Just had this designed for me for casting in copper. The planter isn't the same as the one in BCS, which was something like a hammer finish so I based mine on the trunk of the agave.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2021-04-03 at 1.24.46 AM.jpg
    Screen Shot 2021-04-03 at 1.24.46 AM.jpg
    108 KB · Views: 14

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