Han Solo ANH Blaster From RIA, Prev on Pawn Stars
- Thread starter JoeG
- Start date
Meh, if Ford didn't grip those grips for sure? Don't buy the story, you're buying the gun as we say in the curio and relic firearm world. At least they are up front with the "story" for one to decide if it has merit or not. I wouldn't trust memory of people who are going back that far and seemed to be utterly oblivious to the value of such pieces as late as 2000. Nobody thought about the scope and value alone of that until then?
deadbolt
Sr Member
Also note they claim the scope was used in Naked Runner, which is wrong. We all know it was priorly used in Sitting Target, which is well known public information.
Their information and statements are simply wrong, even with very base-level knowledge of the prop. Which in turn, makes any other statements they've made questionable and doubtful. Without them even having basic knowledge of the so-called 'prop', how can we assure the entirety, if any, of the claims and details we (the public) had no way of knowing about, or any evidence to support thus claims for peers to cross-examine to verify?
That's a lot of cheddar to be throwing down on an item that is being pushed very hard to be concrete, when it's actually more like clay being shaped and manipulated to trick the untrained eye of the bidders.
The scope and rings are all that should be on auction, and very questionably the cradle. If true that that's the original cradle, it should have been left in it's 'mangled' state. It would fetch more $$ then being untouched even in that state, since at least the mount would be all original despite the toll of time.
Prettying it up would kinda ruin it in my opinion, everyone from firearm to coin collectors would agree that you don't modify or refinish a collectable in it's current state, despite the fact that it wasn't taken care of properly after it's initial, prime condition.
-Carson
Their information and statements are simply wrong, even with very base-level knowledge of the prop. Which in turn, makes any other statements they've made questionable and doubtful. Without them even having basic knowledge of the so-called 'prop', how can we assure the entirety, if any, of the claims and details we (the public) had no way of knowing about, or any evidence to support thus claims for peers to cross-examine to verify?
That's a lot of cheddar to be throwing down on an item that is being pushed very hard to be concrete, when it's actually more like clay being shaped and manipulated to trick the untrained eye of the bidders.
The scope and rings are all that should be on auction, and very questionably the cradle. If true that that's the original cradle, it should have been left in it's 'mangled' state. It would fetch more $$ then being untouched even in that state, since at least the mount would be all original despite the toll of time.
Prettying it up would kinda ruin it in my opinion, everyone from firearm to coin collectors would agree that you don't modify or refinish a collectable in it's current state, despite the fact that it wasn't taken care of properly after it's initial, prime condition.
-Carson
kpax
Sr Member
Tony back peddled a bit from the PS show in his letter to cover his ass I think. Using words like, "feasibly" the original FH... which it is not.
"The base of the scope mount in 1977 was possibly a complicated slide on dove tail but it was decided not to try and replicate that as the exact detail has been forgotten (NOT HERE! ; ) ) and just created speculation among SW enthusiasts."
To me this means a new mount base. IF some metal from the original cradle was used it was destroyed in the process and does not matter. It is recycled. Same effect as if they melted it and cast a new mount.
"Sadly it was only the upper 2/3s of the mount as the base had been cut off ..." If by "upper 2/3s" he is counting the base and 2 rings as 3 parts then yes... the upper 2/3s (the rings) was salvaged.
What does he mean "cut off" ? Cut what off?
Very important:
"Now what became of all this after filming" "Due to restrictive firearm laws in the UK, the guns were stripped back to their original condition with added lugs ( Mount spacers and threaded rods) cut off and barrel extensions or moderators added and refinished for use in future films. What is meant by "moderators"?
IF true info from Karl, then the HERO 2813 is gone forever. Possibly stripped back and refinished to NR condition? And why not? There was an entire rifle case kit it went to originally. To Bapty, they would be restoring the NR/Sweeney cased Mauser for potential future rental.
It seems un-brazing these parts and refinishing were common place. And there is some evidence that there were "lugs" on the left side of the HERO in the preproduction image.
Tony owned Bapty from 2000 to 2020. 43 years gone. No paperwork.? No records? Only second hand stories and fabrications.
A full interview and follow-up questions would answer a lot of these issues.
There should have been documentation images and notes of the build (restoration) They certainly should have kept the original mount as a separate piece of memorabilia. Along side the "new" part.
Again I say... This c96 is a terrific display stand for the scope.
Karl and Tony could have a business building replicas. They could get decommissioned c96s and build replicas. Built by the same guy who built the original.
"The base of the scope mount in 1977 was possibly a complicated slide on dove tail but it was decided not to try and replicate that as the exact detail has been forgotten (NOT HERE! ; ) ) and just created speculation among SW enthusiasts."
To me this means a new mount base. IF some metal from the original cradle was used it was destroyed in the process and does not matter. It is recycled. Same effect as if they melted it and cast a new mount.
"Sadly it was only the upper 2/3s of the mount as the base had been cut off ..." If by "upper 2/3s" he is counting the base and 2 rings as 3 parts then yes... the upper 2/3s (the rings) was salvaged.
What does he mean "cut off" ? Cut what off?
Very important:
"Now what became of all this after filming" "Due to restrictive firearm laws in the UK, the guns were stripped back to their original condition with added lugs ( Mount spacers and threaded rods) cut off and barrel extensions or moderators added and refinished for use in future films. What is meant by "moderators"?
IF true info from Karl, then the HERO 2813 is gone forever. Possibly stripped back and refinished to NR condition? And why not? There was an entire rifle case kit it went to originally. To Bapty, they would be restoring the NR/Sweeney cased Mauser for potential future rental.
It seems un-brazing these parts and refinishing were common place. And there is some evidence that there were "lugs" on the left side of the HERO in the preproduction image.
Tony owned Bapty from 2000 to 2020. 43 years gone. No paperwork.? No records? Only second hand stories and fabrications.
A full interview and follow-up questions would answer a lot of these issues.
There should have been documentation images and notes of the build (restoration) They certainly should have kept the original mount as a separate piece of memorabilia. Along side the "new" part.
Again I say... This c96 is a terrific display stand for the scope.
Karl and Tony could have a business building replicas. They could get decommissioned c96s and build replicas. Built by the same guy who built the original.
From what was said it sounds like this is all that was left and pulled from the drawer. IMHO it doesn’t really matter anyhow as it’s clear someone truly doesn’t know what they are doing OR what they are trying to replicate..
80%? What in actual reality does this mean and how did they possibly come up with such a BS number. I wouldn’t even begin to say a % at all. That’s the biggest lie. White lies all around here including saying one of 3 where originally made?!
Karl or Carl (Tony says/writes Carl in his letter but isn’t it spelt with a K?) is an older gentleman who sounds put out every time his memory is questioned. Besides wasn’t Roger Christian the actual person who built this Hero to begin with?? Wasn’t he the person going through Baptys stock and putting everything together. Probably with Karl or Carl rushing him through the whole process. Karl or Carl probably doesn’t truly remember much of this original gem of a blaster.. he and Tony should reread (or simply read) the DL-44 Hero thread here the RPF. I think they each would find it helpful and educating..
Maybe the auction house should read it as well. Maybe even include that specific RPF thread as a whole to whom ever wins the auction. Love to see the persons face at home with this faux prop when realizing all the details don’t add up.
The scope and top rings are a MAJOR find and score for whom ever wins this auction. That’s not to be underplayed at all.
It’s simply undermined by the rest of it.
Last edited:
Well I looked through the scope at the con, at least I can say I looked through Han Solo's scope. LOL
kpax
Sr Member
deadbolt
Sr Member
..That's the reactions they were going for! haha (Orange) 
(Green), the truth...finally, but sadly.
Tony also clearly admits (possibly not realizing) that he, himself knows nothing about this prop other than what he's been force-fed, without researching. Which are primarily lies and/or lack of recollection. If we can accomplish what we have ascertained from photographs alone, certainly he can too. It's not really a skill based thing specifically, just passion and interest alone are fuel enough.
-Carson
(Green), the truth...finally, but sadly.
Tony also clearly admits (possibly not realizing) that he, himself knows nothing about this prop other than what he's been force-fed, without researching. Which are primarily lies and/or lack of recollection. If we can accomplish what we have ascertained from photographs alone, certainly he can too. It's not really a skill based thing specifically, just passion and interest alone are fuel enough.
-Carson
I would hope that we all learned something from last year's fake STAR TREK hero phaser auction.
STAR TREK means money. STAR WARS means money. These auctions are full of corruption and forgeries. The STAR TREK debacle included numerous clues and red flags, and yet that obvious forgery still sold for a quarter-million dollars, just on the chance that it might be real. The idle rich are more than happy to drop ridiculous amounts of money on fakes.
Same case, here. All the LoAs and reasonable-sounding stories in the world are not hard proof. And, if anything, a story about modified or refurbished or replaced parts provides just enough doubt to silence dissenters.
There is a burden of proof which must be met.
STAR TREK means money. STAR WARS means money. These auctions are full of corruption and forgeries. The STAR TREK debacle included numerous clues and red flags, and yet that obvious forgery still sold for a quarter-million dollars, just on the chance that it might be real. The idle rich are more than happy to drop ridiculous amounts of money on fakes.
Same case, here. All the LoAs and reasonable-sounding stories in the world are not hard proof. And, if anything, a story about modified or refurbished or replaced parts provides just enough doubt to silence dissenters.
There is a burden of proof which must be met.
kpax
Sr Member
The Phaser was much better.
With this, and the PS show history where they SAID the serial numbers matched! People should be very careful. But as said above, they see this as a commodity. Buy it today, establish MORE of a provenance and accepted authenticity and sell it tomorrow for a profit.
With this, and the PS show history where they SAID the serial numbers matched! People should be very careful. But as said above, they see this as a commodity. Buy it today, establish MORE of a provenance and accepted authenticity and sell it tomorrow for a profit.
They can easily swindle their way out of it by saying “oh the serial numbers on the scope matched”
kpax
Sr Member
Yeah. But you couldn’t see the SN on the scope in the pic they showed on PS. Same one we have unless it’s MUCH clearer… and we all know better. Don’t we.
In regards to the phaser, we did all sorts of analysis--looking at screencaps, working out timelines, studying the construction methods, matching the parts against fan replicas, etc. And yet people were more than happy to jump through hoops because it had been claimed that the auction piece had been repaired and repainted, which conveniently handwaved all the discrepancies.
The downside to so much analysis of a prop's finer details is that it becomes easier to fake.
The downside to so much analysis of a prop's finer details is that it becomes easier to fake.
No I don’t think that will work as there is no photo that clearly shows the serial # of the hero scope itself..
The whole things just reminds me I want a C96 for my collection. Not cheap! Cost has kept me from pulling the trigger so to speak.
kpax
Sr Member
I agree, which is why such a piece needs to be preserved as is OR have a full documented restoration.
I do want to pop in and ask that we stick to objective language if we really are the holders of the correct information.
If it is really the case that the original cradle was welded and sanded/ground to new uprights.... it is very different from someone melting the thing down and making a whole new mount. There are possible witness marks, I laid them out in photoshop in another post. It's the difference of having the same item to display in whatever condition it may be, vs. denaturing the whole thing and sculpting something completely different. Since we're talking about condition and value, I can't believe I have to say that.
I'm sick of reading that absolutely nothing matches, that there is absolutely no possible way they it could have been repaired, and that it's completely worthless and its no different to a completely new sculpted item. If any of the original parts are still there, albeit damaged, it is historically and objectively important to note that. Especially if we're holding the sellers to the same standards of mincing words.
If it is really the case that the original cradle was welded and sanded/ground to new uprights.... it is very different from someone melting the thing down and making a whole new mount. There are possible witness marks, I laid them out in photoshop in another post. It's the difference of having the same item to display in whatever condition it may be, vs. denaturing the whole thing and sculpting something completely different. Since we're talking about condition and value, I can't believe I have to say that.
I'm sick of reading that absolutely nothing matches, that there is absolutely no possible way they it could have been repaired, and that it's completely worthless and its no different to a completely new sculpted item. If any of the original parts are still there, albeit damaged, it is historically and objectively important to note that. Especially if we're holding the sellers to the same standards of mincing words.
Similar threads
