eFX A New Hope Darth Vader Helmet

Status
Not open for further replies.
So Mac if I am reading you right here, when the light is from the right, the scar is bright, but when it's from the left in the shot, the scar almost disappears.......meaning that shape is raised to the left of the C. in other words, the C is the edge of the ledge. So it's lower on the dull gray part inside the C???

Dave

If you put the lighting source in the opposite direction to where whatever shadow the scar might catch would either be obscured by the height of the scar - or if that shadow blends with the gloss black of the cheek, then you'll have a hard time catching it.

Just a thought. :thumbsup
 
Juan, I don't think it matters if it's in the Legend or the Limited if it isn't part of the Baker mould. If it is a depression or true scar, then the theory of the UK helmets having a pronounced untouched C scar is true......then the screen helmet gets an overhaul and new paint job for the Kermit Chronicles shoot, then the newly painted helmet get's a new mould aka the Baker mould where only minor remnants are seen in the early years, but are apparently worn off in the later years(assuming the same mould)......hence why gino didn't see it in the mould or the resulting castings. This begins to make sense now since I have been half way expecting some minor wear on that Baker mould. Of course this in no way changes the pedigree of the eFX helmet, this has more to do with the actual screen helmet.

Hence........wait for it.........I needs me a UK helmet. LOL

Dave :)
 
Last edited:
Here is a dent map considering the two Mac pics.

c-scar-0444.jpg
 
Many may not know that the C-scar is one of the most important details of the Vader mask from the perspective of it being an authentic film prop. It's also one of the more carefully guarded secrets in the fandom.

Over the years, a Vader-vendor or two have added "accuracy" features to their products to mislead fans into thinking their products have a closer lineage to the original than other vendors' products.

The C-scar however, is extremely difficult to reproduce accurately, but with patience and skill, a reasonable approximation could potentially be achieved with hi-res closeup shots of the area. 99% of people in the fandom would never know the difference were such a feature to be approximated. It's easier to paint, but much harder to sculpt.

In the interest of enriching everyone's knowledge level on the authentic prop, I've shared information about the C-scar that essentially have not been shared openly in years. However, I feel that if people have the patience to study the closeups of the Hi-Def version of ANH, and to also step-frame back and forth to see the feature transition across time, they'd arrive at the same conclusion anyway.

That being said, I don't think you can go wrong buying an eFX. We're arguing over tiny details most people aren't even unaware of.
 
Here is a dent map considering the two Mac pics.

c-scar-0444.jpg


Not bad, but I'm afraid you're confusing some paint details for dents. The splotch just under the corner of the cheek but gracing the edge is just paint - not an inward dent. Good effort, though! Some of your red marks corroborate.
 
Juan, I don't think it matters if it's in the Legend or the Limited if it isn't part of the Baker mould. If it is a depression or true scar, then the theory of the UK helmets having a pronounced untouched C scar is true......then the screen helmet gets an overhaul and new paint job for the Kermit Chronicles shoot, then the newly painted helmet get's a new mould aka the Baker mould where only minor remnants are seen in the early years, but are apparently worn off in the later years(assuming the same mould)......hence why gino didn't see it in the mould or the resulting castings. This begins to make sense now since I have been half way expecting some minor wear on that Baker mould. Of course this in no way changes the pedigree of the eFX helmet, this has more to do with the actual screen helmet.

Hence........wait for it.........I needs me a UK helmet. LOL

Dave :)


I'm going out on a limb here. I understand the Baker mold to be based off of state of the screen-used ANH when it got repainted. Now the paint job seen at the Chinese Theater and the Chronicles shots show a far more pristine paint job than what we saw on the Tantive IV set. If they wet sanded the paint or used thinner, the surface would have been cleaned up somewhat, but the little craters, dings and pock-marks could have survived.

I don't know to what extent the scar is on the original SL. Even if it's shallow, it could be visible through microscope and certain lighting, so I'll give SithLord benefit of doubt.

However, molds are usually single color. To spot a detail that is so soft already from clean-up and repaint - in a mold of a solid single color - would be difficult for most people.
 
I mostly agree Mac, but as a dentist I inspect single color silicon moulds on a daily basis. It would tell me more than a little about certain details. It is ever so slightly present on the SL. That I have seen first hand.

Dave :)

I'm going out on a limb here. I understand the Baker mold to be based off of state of the screen-used ANH when it got repainted. Now the paint job seen at the Chinese Theater and the Chronicles shots show a far more pristine paint job than what we saw on the Tantive IV set. If they wet sanded the paint or used thinner, the surface would have been cleaned up somewhat, but the little craters, dings and pock-marks could have survived.

I don't know to what extent the scar is on the original SL. Even if it's shallow, it could be visible through microscope and certain lighting, so I'll give SithLord benefit of doubt.

However, molds are usually single color. To spot a detail that is so soft already from clean-up and repaint - in a mold of a solid single color - would be difficult for most people.
 
Many may not know that the C-scar is one of the most important details of the Vader mask from the perspective of it being an authentic film prop. It's also one of the more carefully guarded secrets in the fandom.

Over the years, a Vader-vendor or two have added "accuracy" features to their products to mislead fans into thinking their products have a closer lineage to the original than other vendors' products.

The C-scar however, is extremely difficult to reproduce accurately, but with patience and skill, a reasonable approximation could potentially be achieved with hi-res closeup shots of the area. 99% of people in the fandom would never know the difference were such a feature to be approximated. It's easier to paint, but much harder to sculpt.

In the interest of enriching everyone's knowledge level on the authentic prop, I've shared information about the C-scar that essentially have not been shared openly in years. However, I feel that if people have the patience to study the closeups of the Hi-Def version of ANH, and to also step-frame back and forth to see the feature transition across time, they'd arrive at the same conclusion anyway.

That being said, I don't think you can go wrong buying an eFX. We're arguing over tiny details most people aren't even unaware of.


Im sorry, but cant get any more pretentious than this.
You guys just crack me up, you should call yourselves the priory of Sion.

George Lucas should reclute all of you because you guard the holy secrets of the Vader.
I try to follow the line of thought and some how it all becomes an ego thing, or something that is so small and taken out of context and you make it a huge deal.

That screen used Vader is damaged due to use on the film, theres no intelligence behind those cracks or dents or whatever, who on their senses would spend hours actually recreating those flaws one by one??.

What for?, what are you claiming to have by doing that.
You do not own the screen used helmet!, whatever cast you have, its not as good, so dont pretend to be know it all because ,DVD or High Def, you are still screen capturing.


Ive only heard about a supposed flare on the Dome, the C scar is painted or surface, the Ridge doesnt allign to the eyebrow, the divot doesnt appear on the EFX, the paint scheme is not ok, so far you have proved nothing, under the excuse that "you cannot show your helmet".

Why you do this?, whats your need for all this?. I want to hear news and info from Gino and EFX but they spend their time explaining things to you over and over.

Honestly, who do you think you are? Dont answer me, you are the ones that need to know.
 
Im sorry, but cant get any more pretentious than this.
You guys just crack me up, you should call yourselves the priory of Sion.

George Lucas should reclute all of you because you guard the holy secrets of the Vader.
I try to follow the line of thought and some how it all becomes an ego thing, or something that is so small and taken out of context and you make it a huge deal.

That screen used Vader is damaged due to use on the film, theres no intelligence behind those cracks or dents or whatever, who on their senses would spend hours actually recreating those flaws one by one??.

What for?, what are you claiming to have by doing that.
You do not own the screen used helmet!, whatever cast you have, its not as good, so dont pretend to be know it all because ,DVD or High Def, you are still screen capturing.


Ive only heard about a supposed flare on the Dome, the C scar is painted or surface, the Ridge doesnt allign to the eyebrow, the divot doesnt appear on the EFX, the paint scheme is not ok, so far you have proved nothing, under the excuse that "you cannot show your helmet".

Why you do this?, whats your need for all this?. I want to hear news and info from Gino and EFX but they spend their time explaining things to you over and over.

Honestly, who do you think you are? Dont answer me, you are the ones that need to know.



:thumbsup at last...the voice of reason. I totally agree with you...and Juansith, i think you are a latino blood am i wrong???
 
I and other have tried to talk some sense into these nuts but "it's up hill work, they only know one word, ugh!, and they can't spell it".
 
Im sorry, but cant get any more pretentious than this.
You guys just crack me up, you should call yourselves the priory of Sion.

George Lucas should reclute all of you because you guard the holy secrets of the Vader.
I try to follow the line of thought and some how it all becomes an ego thing, or something that is so small and taken out of context and you make it a huge deal.

That screen used Vader is damaged due to use on the film, theres no intelligence behind those cracks or dents or whatever, who on their senses would spend hours actually recreating those flaws one by one??.

What for?, what are you claiming to have by doing that.
You do not own the screen used helmet!, whatever cast you have, its not as good, so dont pretend to be know it all because ,DVD or High Def, you are still screen capturing.


Ive only heard about a supposed flare on the Dome, the C scar is painted or surface, the Ridge doesnt allign to the eyebrow, the divot doesnt appear on the EFX, the paint scheme is not ok, so far you have proved nothing, under the excuse that "you cannot show your helmet".

Why you do this?, whats your need for all this?. I want to hear news and info from Gino and EFX but they spend their time explaining things to you over and over.

Honestly, who do you think you are? Dont answer me, you are the ones that need to know.


Sorry, you don't know half the story, but am thankful that you didn't have to live through what a lot of long-timers have had to live through.

It's always been rare for accurate Vader props to be in the fandom. Vendors have long beat people over the head with an assumed position of authority, citing special access to the originals - or information of the originals. One vendor even claimed to have worked on the set of the original ANH production. None of these claims could be disputed, and those less knowledgeable have always had to take their word for it.

Then when more accurate props started entering the fandom in limited quantities, it became apparent that for years many of us have simply been bullied by people surrounding themselves with a false air of superiority and exclusive knowledge. The information learned from more accurate props gave the common collector a means of standing up to the online bullies of the community.

I've put out tutorials on how to more accurately sculpt the bridge of the nose of Vader. One vendor, a few years back, then appeared to have used my tutorial to enhance his product, and he marketed his wares as being connected with the originals. Another vendor watched conversations like these discuss certain dings and dents - then artificially added them to his wares to falsify the provenance of his products. So if you have absolutely no compassion that some people take advantage of others, and that some people actually give a damn about it, then talking to you is pointless.

Cyberbullying is unfortunately prevalent in various hobbies, not just movie prop collecting, and not just Star Wars. So if you're going to blast people who have been bullied, you should equally blast the bullies. :thumbsup

The arrival of the eFX really helps to level the playing field. People will be able to look back at what vendors had marketed to them and draw comparisons. A whole new chapter of prop study is possibly on the horizon!
 
Last edited:
Enough about eFX's ANH Vader!
So, the real question is, who is going to make the most desired Star Wars replica ever:
a life size replica of Bea Arthur as the Cantina Barmaid?!?!?
bea-arthur-star-wars-holiday-specia.jpg
 
Last edited:
LOL Mac you are absolutely right on the predators. They have always used whatever information they could get from threads to sell sell sell. That's why nobody expects the people truly in the know to just spout off every detail like that. Other guys, you post pics and draw arrows to the details from different angles, you could hand them the screen helmet and let them sleep with it for a week, walk them through the archives and they will still get many details in the wrong places on their replicas. It's just not an easy concept. Even the most skilled predators usually fail in this regard. Yet they sell their wares with wild abandon.

In the case of the eFX, it's not a matter of protecting someone's personal property, as we are talking about a source for the helmet that has been well documented by multiple owners through the years. I would think that information about the Baker mould where the eFX is concerned is fair game. If eFX chooses to withold that info, it's their right. It would make no sense to withold details already gleaned from the Baker mould, but it's still their right to do so.
 
It WOULD make sense if someone were to see the actual mold and realize that the details people thought were correct were indeed anything but. Not saying this is the case, but I am not above discounting that possibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top