eFX ANH DARTH HELMET SAMPLE!!

[Aragorn]

As a completely neutral party there are only 3 possibilities to this.

Scenario 1) The Rick Baker does not have and never did have a physical C-Scar. When the original screen-used vader helmet was made, it did not have a physical c-scar as well, but some time during shooting, it got physically damaged whether intentional or otherwise and hence the appearance of a physical scar on screen caps. So when these fan made helmets were pulled from the mold, there was no actual scar. But the scars were subsequently added to the helmets before being sold to these buyers in ordere to replicate the onscreen scarring.

Scenario 2) There was an actual physical scar, but the mold is old and that detail is lost after many years of pulling helmets out of that mold.

Scenario 3) There is an actual physical scar in the mold now (and back then) but due to production constraints, efx decided to clean it up and keep quiet about its existence.

So as you can see, there is a middle ground where all parties are telling the truth (scenario 2). But there is also a possibility that one of them is a blatant liar (scenario 1 or 3).

So you gotta decide for yourself who has more to lose if they get caught lying, their track record, other interests etc.

 

[CSMacLaren]

Good points. Let me suggest a third possibility: a second mold by Rick Baker at yet another point of the life of the helmet.

But to another point:

Let's ignore the C-scar and look at the other zits and bits on the SL cheek surface that appears to line up with the screen used. I cuurently don't see them (possibly due to image size, lighting source, or image blur) in the photo of the mold from which the eFX was pulled. Conversely, i cant disprove from that image alone that the zits don' exist at all. Additionally, it's possible either the mold didn't pick up detail to that resolution, or it may be indicative of the original faceplate having been resurfaced.

I indicated that the original helmet was repainted or resurfaced by the time of the Chronicles photoshoot. I don't feel it necessary to prove this pont because anyone can buy Chronicles off Amazon. I unfortunately don't own sharper high res mages of this time period because available pics tend to be scans from printed magazine articles, etc. one shot I have is actually a YouTube video of someone's 8mm camera. It was low res to begin with. But still it's clear the paintbrush strokes you saw in ANH are noticeably absent.

Of they simply painted over the original surface, a mold of that helmet might pick up softer details. If the helmet were sanded and cleaned up prior to repainted, the chances of picking up details are even more greatly reduced.

 

[Darth Stone]

As you can see from the above, the Chinese Theater and the Chronicles shoot show what is strongly likely the screen used ANH, but refinished.

This is the photo that I lost a few years ago from a PC melt down. Thanks for posting it up again.

Take a good look at that dome flair on Vader's Right and tell me that does not look like the first efx dome before the, 'fix'. I firmly believe that the Baker mold came after the time when Kermit Eller was playing Vader for promo shots and Don Post studios was in possession of the film used suite. They needed more Vader's when Kermit was over booked. And even more in 1996 when the re-release came out. So, just what mold did the efx come from, or the Twentieth Century Fox piece for that matter?

The fact that this fantastic helmet came from LFL molds is undeniable. But just when was the mold produced should be the question.

 

[wannab]

As a completely neutral party there are only 3 possibilities to this.

Scenario 1) The Rick Baker does not have and never did have a physical C-Scar. When the original screen-used vader helmet was made, it did not have a physical c-scar as well, but some time during shooting, it got physically damaged whether intentional or otherwise and hence the appearance of a physical scar on screen caps. So when these fan made helmets were pulled from the mold, there was no actual scar. But the scars were subsequently added to the helmets before being sold to these buyers in order to replicate the onscreen scarring.

Scenario 2) There was an actual physical scar, but the mold is old and that detail is lost after many years of pulling helmets out of that mold.

Scenario 3) There is an actual physical scar in the mold now (and back then) but due to production constraints, efx decided to clean it up and keep quiet about its existence.

So as you can see, there is a middle ground where all parties are telling the truth (scenario 2). But there is also a possibility that one of them is a blatant liar (scenario 1 or 3).

So you gotta decide for yourself who has more to lose if they get caught lying, their track record, other interests etc.

Just a heads up...
Read my scenario above. Call it scenario W. You are leaving out a few (important) things. Two molds at different times for one -- just read what i posted so I don't have to type it again. lol

You are right about all parties having some valid points and are partially correct in certain ways. I don't think anyone is a liar, just entrenched and/or unyielding.

I really hope my scenario is right as it brings us all together (YAY!). It really explains the variants in a logical (based on available facts) way.

The real key would be the time frame of when Baker actually made his mold. We know its post UK, but how far after? Best case, if we could get Baker to fill in the blanks about what was done pre-mold or the full process he used including mold release or fill or touch up, etc..



Doug

 

[wannab]

Of they simply painted over the original surface, a mold of that helmet might pick up softer details. If the helmet were sanded and cleaned up prior to repainted, the chances of picking up details are even more greatly reduced.

This points out how important the timeline is for the Baker mold.


Doug

 

[vaderdarth]

Bottom line is this. The helmet out of the Baker mould "ealier in the timeline" ie SL, will have more surface detail than one pulled today. It's a sad but true fact. The SL will share more similarities to the screen helmet than other helmets from the same mould at a later date. Moulds are simply not indestructible entities. If there is even a remote possibility that people were allowed to use this mould to learn helmet casting with.........then the potential for mould damage is certainly high.

Does it diminish the eFx helmet? Hell no. It's still an original mould from LFL. That changes nothing.

The only distinction here is whether you the buyer wish to have a helmet that retains more screen used detail or one that doesn't .

It's only important that the correct information gets out there so you guys can make an informed decision. This isn't about who's ego is bigger. It's about personal taste for each individual helmet collector. Period . Let's just stop all the name throwing and daggers because it's getting really really old fellas.

Let's just continue to try to be helpful and just let it go. You can learn to make your point without screaming malice if you disagree with someone's opinion.

I don't believe eFx has done anything that any other licensee wouldn't do to sell the maximum number of helmets they can..........that's a responsible business model!

Chevrolet does the same thing with cars.............but I wouldn't own a chevy if it was given to me.

Helmets are the same. Get the one that makes you feel 10 yrs old again and forget the ones that bug you. It's pretty simple .

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

I'd almost follow you on that if not for all of the OTHER details still matching up. Logic follows that there simply is not a dimensional C-Scar. Can there be a stop to the spin that there was? It simply does not exist in the mold, yet everything else asked about does. One does not follow the other. The C-Scar we are led to believe as existing on the mold is rather noticeable.

Seriously, other divots line up. Forest...trees...look.

 

[CSMacLaren]

Retracting my post as I feel it was going off topic. But I feel I need to say that people should be allowed to express differences of opinion. I have found myself trolled and attacked for just sharing, and it's as if people want to force me into a group category that makes it easy to judge and condemn without actually reading what I'm saying. Just because one element of my post may appear topically comparable with someone you don't like, it doesn't mean I'm part of the "you guys". It is insincere to post misinformation and to put words in my mouth and insinuate intentions. I mean, WTF people.

Some fail to realize we all have something in common. We ALL want the ultimate ANH. Some of the "you guys" appear from their photo posts to be eFX owners and pro EFX. I think I've enjoyed just about everything eFX has done. Let's not lose sight that we have more in common than we have topical disagreements.

And if they are topical disagreements, then let's leave it at that. Let's not make immediate responses character assassinations.

 

[OldKen]

People keep using "buyers need to be informed so they can make a decision"...

We bought em a year ago... Sold out in 4mins...

Too late.

Your alls show off threads of your fan castings fall off the front page.

You are derailing and trolling a show off thread. Because this is where the people who Bought the eFx are... You are trying to engrain your opinion as truth to people who would otherwise be happy and feel they have the best of the best.

If I start a thread in OT about my new Vette and you come in sayin... "too bad you can't be in our exclusive Ferrari club, let me go into great detail about why something you can never have is better than the car you are (were) soo proud to show and tell".

Everyone on this forum knows your guys opinion.

We get it.

Now if indisputable proof turns up... By ALL means, we all wanna see it!

But this is just old. Same things keep being said.

This thread should be locked and burned.

For the record I do respect you guys. And a couple of you are very cordial and calm in your posts.

It's just... Enough already.

 

[Amish Trooper]

My questions comes from not having experience with molds but if a mold has a said detail as defined as a c-scar then instead of that detail disappearing as the mold degrades wouldn't that area be more defined...and not just smooth? Wouldn't there be a more exaggerated indention or something showing that there was something there at 1 time

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

My questions comes from not having experience with molds but if a mold has a said detail as defined as a c-scar then instead of that detail disappearing as the mold degrades wouldn't that area be more defined...and not just smooth? Wouldn't there be a more exaggerated indention or something showing that there was something there at 1 time

This is my point exactly. Pronounced detail like the alleged C-Scar is gone, yet finer details like the dings and dents on the cheek side are still there. It does not make a lick of sense and only comes off as spin.

 

[defstartrooper]

........

 

[wannab]

This is my point exactly. Pronounced detail like the alleged C-Scar is gone, yet finer details like the dings and dents on the cheek side are still there. It does not make a lick of sense and only comes off as spin.

Problem with your statement here is, the c scar on the SL is hardly even noticeable (even in hand) so it is not pronounced as you say. It is more prominent on the TM (not relevant to the EFX as it is a different mold) but even there it is not crater like as has been described. No spin here.


Doug

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Hector have you not been folowing ?
The TM with the prominent scar comes the UK mould which was probably taken immediately post production.

The contention is that the Rick Baker mould was taken after the mask was cleaned up for tours and photoshoots and that allthough the scar was repaired there is a very faint line remaining showing the transition from filler to original material.
So faint you have to use strong light and view from specific angles to see it.

You seem to be expecting to see an immediately obvious scar on the Rick Baker mould, the fact is that over the years with natural wear and tear micron thick details like this could vanish alltogether.

Gary, maybe you are missing the point here. Thomas owns a helmet that is said to come from the Baker mold with the "L-Scar" as he calls it. Yet when we look at that mold picture...nothing. Not a thing. Yet other "micron thick" details are QUITE visible. 2+2=Apple?

 

[wannab]

My questions comes from not having experience with molds but if a mold has a said detail as defined as a c-scar then instead of that detail disappearing as the mold degrades wouldn't that area be more defined...and not just smooth? Wouldn't there be a more exaggerated indention or something showing that there was something there at 1 time

I don't thing the mold has degraded at all, never thought so. If it has, it would likely be on a microscopic level.


Doug

 

[CSMacLaren]

This is my point exactly. Pronounced detail like the alleged C-Scar is gone, yet finer details like the dings and dents on the cheek side are still there. It does not make a lick of sense and only comes off as spin.

It also depends greatly on lighting and how the dings are illuminated. A slight change of angle of lighting can cause a ding or divot to look very sharp or very obscure.

I've seen lighting help reveal subtleties that would have gone unnoticed. But I've also seen it abused in comparisons to make certain subtleties appear more bold and sharper than how they appeared on the prop surface in real life.

 

[wannab]

Gary, maybe you are missing the point here. Thomas owns a helmet that is said to come from the Baker mold with the "L-Scar" as he calls it. Yet when we look at that mold picture...nothing. Not a thing. Yet other "micron thick" details are QUITE visible. 2+2=Apple?

I explained why we don't see anything from that pic earlier.


Doug

 

[wannab]

It also depends greatly on lighting and how the dings are illuminated. A slight change of angle of lighting can cause a ding or divot to look very sharp or very obscure.

I've seen lighting help reveal subtleties that would have gone unnoticed. But I've also seen it abused in comparisons to make certain subtleties appear more bold and sharper than how they appeared on the prop surface in real life.

That was my point earlier.


Doug

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Yet from every angle shown, the scar is visible on fan helmets.

 

[wannab]

Yet from every angle shown, the scar is visible on fan helmets.

Not on mine (SL that is).

Doug