very very cool
Halliwax's weird V3 theory
- Thread starter Halliwax
- Start date
excellent theory! but it seems to be too low, and would be in the location where the set screw is that holds the pommel on.
i would love for this to be a switch hole
The screw in the pommel does look larger than the grub it sports now but it is in the right position and the gap between the bottom of the booster and the screw look to be the same length.
Perhaps it was later swapped out when the real V3 was being dressed up for touring in the early 90's as part refurbishing?
Perhaps it was later swapped out when the real V3 was being dressed up for touring in the early 90's as part refurbishing?
Last edited:
I thought this too. What stumps me is the diameter of the screw head. I could be off, but the cast looks to be a countersunk oval headed screw and a grub screw would be smaller at the surface of the metal.
The other option I thought of is that they packed it with clay or something and pushed it in with a slotted screwdriver, but it still looks bigger at the surface
I know what you said on messenger, but the small ridge above the pommel cubes is very straight on this cast. You pointed out that ridge on the V3 was uneven/slanted/wobbled when cut
Maybe it was sanded away after the V3 was cleaned up later? The counter-sinking partially ground down? That's the only explanation I could see for how it is now.
Guys… this has been bothering me all night.. I’m probably going to get heat for this but.. way back with Toms discovery of the two different emitters it never made sense to me the switch..
Now with the emitters being different and the hole in the booster being larger then the hole in the booster of the v3…
What if the casting is NOT the v3 and they only used the clamp.. this would also explain why the clamp is not in the right orientation on the v3.. they plucked it off the stunt they used to cast and threw it on a bladed stunt..
Curious if LOM can check out the pommel cubes see if they match..
Now with the emitters being different and the hole in the booster being larger then the hole in the booster of the v3…
What if the casting is NOT the v3 and they only used the clamp.. this would also explain why the clamp is not in the right orientation on the v3.. they plucked it off the stunt they used to cast and threw it on a bladed stunt..
Curious if LOM can check out the pommel cubes see if they match..
jorged123
Well-Known Member
The grenade and the bronze thin neck are screaming V3 or other plausible, less machined, casting of the shared stunt-like vadermania's blank. I'm not getting the feeling that this was cast from the V2 or Yuma. I think we're on the same page there. The pommel is hard to pin down, but I think it's closer to the V3.
We know none of the pommels match. LOM has the most accurate v3 model I’ve ever seen. Im
Curious if he can overlay his model onto the wired casting, see if the pommel matches
If it does then it opens up so many questions and many nights of no sleep for me now lol
Curious if he can overlay his model onto the wired casting, see if the pommel matches
If it does then it opens up so many questions and many nights of no sleep for me now lol
exactly, I don't think I ever thought this was anything other than a cast of a less machined stunt. Like Halliwax said, it's up in the air right now as to which one.
jorged123
Well-Known Member
I appreciate your dedication to these details!
My gut says it's the V3. While there may be myriad of explanations for the booster grub screw, in the picture with it in full light, the dimple where the hole on the pommel would be is still in the same place in relation to the d-ring (it's darker and looks to be a perfect circle). Another case of wishing there were clearer photos.
Honestly, is there a curse on photographing these things? Even with all the modern advancements of digital photography, things still come out murky.
Honestly, is there a curse on photographing these things? Even with all the modern advancements of digital photography, things still come out murky.
Similar threads
