E11 Blaster

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


thd9791

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
What I am attempting to do is establish whether the Blaster is what I have been told it is, the initial evidence I was given & have actually physically shown some much more established, knowledgeable people than myself feel it is legit. I have only heard of Marco enterprises on this thread so I will look into this further when I have more time.

I've got something that may help explain this.

To start: MGCs, unconnected to Star Wars, were made for decades. They were gun replicas, so I have an MGC Broomhandle Mauser here from 1980, but that does not mean it was used on the set of Star Wars in 1980. Same goes for Graflex camera flashes: the team bought some for use as a lightsaber. Graflex made millions of units probably, and the fun part of this hobby is building props with the same kind of stuff they did. None of us that buy a graflex in a camera shop and build a lightsaber have a lightsaber from filming. To prove it was, the flash would have to have a "tell"

So, if you follow me there, the MGC base gun doesn't play any part in figuring out if this was from filming. There are no discerning marks or permanent changes to prove it's from SW and not just another replica gun.

Next, look at the parts added to it. (Less of a chance, because someone can put original filming parts on a new gun, but that's the next tier of provenance.) So look at that scope. Please look at that scope. The original scopes were artillery sights like M19 and M38 telescopes. In ROTJ the team scratch-built scopes that don't look like the artillery sights.

ESB - Resin cast stunt guns including M19 Telescope casts
stormtroopersLeia.jpg


ROTJ scopes, using the MGC gun base
8092557885_15caa475df_b.jpg


So, if anything, that scope looks a little like the ESB/ANH blasters... it sort-of looks like an M19 Telescope, from the real-gun blasters. That already clashes with the story of it being an MGC for Return of the Jedi.

But the ultimate conclusion - that scope is not an artillery sight. It's not a real scope. I'm not knocking a solid replica made before there was good reference, but for the sake of this conversation, those scope replicas are clearly off. They don't look like an M19. Marco sculpted or machined those scope replicas for his own replica blasters. I'm 90% sure of this, and there was a guy recasting Marco's parts into crappy white resin on ebay for a while. I had a set when I was new to prop building and didn't know they were recasts. It's the same scope.

I lost the pictures of my parts, but the guy still sells on Amazon. This is a recast kit of Marco's parts (flash hider, scope)
Amazon.com : Star Wars ESB Han Solo DL-44 Blaster Resin Prop Model Kit : Everything Else

and it's the closest thing to the scope on your blaster.

The T track don't match either, but that is a more fine-detail thing. I know those T track to not be from filming by their shape and how they're installed.
 

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

Tomo

New Member
I've got something that may help explain this.

To start: MGCs, unconnected to Star Wars, were made for decades. They were gun replicas, so I have an MGC Broomhandle Mauser here from 1980, but that does not mean it was used on the set of Star Wars in 1980. Same goes for Graflex camera flashes: the team bought some for use as a lightsaber. Graflex made millions of units probably, and the fun part of this hobby is building props with the same kind of stuff they did. None of us that buy a graflex in a camera shop and build a lightsaber have a lightsaber from filming. To prove it was, the flash would have to have a "tell"

So, if you follow me there, the MGC base gun doesn't play any part in figuring out if this was from filming. There are no discerning marks or permanent changes to prove it's from SW and not just another replica gun.

Next, look at the parts added to it. (Less of a chance, because someone can put original filming parts on a new gun, but that's the next tier of provenance.) So look at that scope. Please look at that scope. The original scopes were artillery sights like M19 and M38 telescopes. In ROTJ the team scratch-built scopes that don't look like the artillery sights.

ESB - Resin cast stunt guns including M19 Telescope casts
View attachment 1320366

ROTJ scopes, using the MGC gun base
View attachment 1320364

So, if anything, that scope looks a little like the ESB/ANH blasters... it sort-of looks like an M19 Telescope, from the real-gun blasters. That already clashes with the story of it being an MGC for Return of the Jedi.

But the ultimate conclusion - that scope is not an artillery sight. It's not a real scope. I'm not knocking a solid replica made before there was good reference, but for the sake of this conversation, those scope replicas are clearly off. They don't look like an M19. Marco sculpted or machined those scope replicas for his own replica blasters. I'm 90% sure of this, and there was a guy recasting Marco's parts into crappy white resin on ebay for a while. I had a set when I was new to prop building and didn't know they were recasts. It's the same scope.

I lost the pictures of my parts, but the guy still sells on Amazon. This is a recast kit of Marco's parts (flash hider, scope)
Amazon.com : Star Wars ESB Han Solo DL-44 Blaster Resin Prop Model Kit : Everything Else

and it's the closest thing to the scope on your blaster.

The T track don't match either, but that is a more fine-detail thing. I know those T track to not be from filming by their shape and how they're installed.
Apologies in delay getting back, thanks for this info, the proof is certainly mounting to support your theory. I bought the gun about 6yrs ago & since then did a small amount of research on it which never led me to see these Marco guns & was unaware that Gary Kurtz was dodgy. I am attempting to contact the original owner who's brother bought the gun at the 10th SW Convention? It would be nice to see if GK did actually sell it to him. Either way I am happy with the gun as it still resembles a blaster & sits well with my Andrew Ainsworth Original Armour. Thanks again for your help.
 

Tomo

New Member
  • Bapty supplied the firearms for ANH and ESB. The firearms they supplied were all real live-fire sterlings - not MGCs. Real Sterlings are pretty common in the UK - there would have been no need to use an MGC.
  • As far as im aware, no MGC sterlings were used in ESB. ESB used real live-fire sterlings and resin casts.
  • MGC sterlings were used in ROTJ (1982 filming) - particularly important as real Sterlings are pretty rare in the US (do they have to be cut up to import?). MGCs would be easy to access.



He probably does believe it is real and screen used - but the evidence presented suggests it is not a screen used item but an older replica.


Also - how did it get from the US -> UK?
Apologies in delay in replying, thanks again for the advice & history lesson...very interesting. No problem whatsoever getting it through customs, was about 6yrs ago. I agree it would suggest it was an original Sterling replica later converted. I will still carry on looking for as much evidence as possible to see if there is any truth in the previous owners story. Either way its a nice thing & Its worth more than I paid for it as a MGC replica/cut & shut or whatever it turns out to be.
 

Tomo

New Member
Granted, none of us knows each other too well,
But you have to understand, we're not here to judge people's "character" or "morality"
We're strictly in the business of analyzing a prop - plain and simple.

And after looking at your prop in-depth by many experienced members,
I think it's conclusive your blaster is NOT a screen-used or production made piece.
Yet, it seems like you still have a glimmer of hope that it is.

Not sure if you have taken psychology 101 in school, but this is exactly the case of 'Confirmation Bias.'
First of all my apologies for replying late to your message, of course I have a glimmer of hope who the hell would not? To be honest I have no idea what psychology 101 means & being only a humble wood cutter had to look up what Confirmation Bias means (bit 'judgy'), reckon that is just a bit rude & doubt very much you would be so brave face to face. Anyway I can see there is a good amount of knowledge within this forum or you all certainly talk a good one at least. I am grateful for the help/advice & history update, with this I can have a look & suss it out for myself.
I am sorry you are dissapointed I will not sell the gun to you, as I said it is not for sale just wanted some info so I can insure it.
 

Tomo

New Member
Its been established, quite conclusively, what you have. It was made by Marco. Nothing about what you have matches any known production made or screen used E-11 blasters. It does however match replicas made by Marco Ent. Whats more likely? That you have a Marco Ent replica or some weird anomaly that was actually screen used and/or production made that Gary Kurtz decided to alter in order to more closely match a replica made by some guy in a muffler shop?

I have no doubt some people here would offer to buy this from you. Its already been stated that the fact its an MGC and that those are quite rare is where your replica's true value lies. It would seem, though, at this point you are more comfortable trying to grasp at straws to justify an unlikely scenario rather than deal in facts and logical conclusions based on those facts.

I wish you good fortune in the wars to come.
Apologies for delay in getting back to you, what you have to remember every forum is full of keyboard experts & you are saying everyone here is a World Class authority on this topic & that is that, end of story! Having asked a question & received several answers which I agree several look believable, I can now have a further look & work it out for myself.
 

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

scarf man

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
This quoted post is where this thread should have ended. Anyone with an eye for detail could see that this replica is identical in construction, the add on hardware is identical in dimension. The esoteric details of the backwards mounted magazine floor plate, the mountings of the scope rail, the mountings of the barrels fins, it all adds up to a Marco replica. My earlier assessment of your confirmation bias stands, it was not intended as an insult, rather an insight. Tomo, you came to the experts for answers, they have been given clearly, cordially, and free of charge. Good luck in your future endeavors.
I'm off to eat a piece of my Birthday cake and drink a pint. Yes it's 20min. to eleven o'clock in the morning, I don't care.



 
Last edited:

thd9791

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Yes, I should also say congrats on the MGC Sterling, that's quite the rare find when trying to build replica props

This happens a lot on here by the way, someone finds something that clearly is odd in some fashion and people dig out their old replicas to identify a maker that is out of the game nowadays. Someone just IDed an old Parks lightsaber from the 2000s with the help of the RPF. I'm glad you came
 

robstyle

Master Member
unrelated to the original post, but many moons ago when I was sourcing the parts for the Hyperfirm ROTJ E11 project, John Bush had secured an NOS in the original box MGC from the son of an old prop master. When speaking to the father he had stated Stembridge bought up every MGC Sterling they could get their hands on when prepping for the ROTJ blaster order, then that order was cut back, and those MGC's were put into storage where they sat until Stembridge was no more.

Just a little info from over the years.
 

Tomo

New Member
unrelated to the original post, but many moons ago when I was sourcing the parts for the Hyperfirm ROTJ E11 project, John Bush had secured an NOS in the original box MGC from the son of an old prop master. When speaking to the father he had stated Stembridge bought up every MGC Sterling they could get their hands on when prepping for the ROTJ blaster order, then that order was cut back, and those MGC's were put into storage where they sat until Stembridge was no more.

Just a little info from over the years.
Thanks for sharing that, interestingly the original owner of this gun was a well known collector & in his obituary are loads of nice comments from several Hollywood film people including one connected to SW.
 

terryhimself

Well-Known Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Back in the day, the shop I worked at was a dealer for replica models (MGC}. Each model came with a generic letter
from the A.T.F. saying that it was not a real firearm and could be sold in the U.S.A.
 

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

GCLAMBERT89

Well-Known Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Yes realised that, unsure what happened there...previous owner I believe
I know this is an old thread but were you able to reverse the plate? I have a magazine that I believe was also modified by MARCO and I cannot seem to remove the plate? It seems to be fused on the magazine pretty well.
 

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