Han Solo ANH Blaster From RIA, Prev on Pawn Stars

[kpax]

Below the rings there is much more that does not match than does IMO.

Some similar tool marks don't mean much considering every run of machined parts will have "similar" marks.

You say yourself "possible witness marks". That's not very good proof in my book.

Tony could settle it all by answering questions about the "reconstruction if any. His comments have conflicted and been incomplete.

My description of melting the metal to cast a new mount was meant to say that the surface of the mount IF it was original is SO far changed- front and rear, that unless there IS photographic documentation of the rebuilding process it is impossible to accept the mount as original in my book.

Tony's comments that the decided not to try to duplicate "IT". What? The dovetail area or the entire mount?

What is the upper 2/3s in his book.? The center square hole is not accurate so above the tube portion because the bottom of the cradle is tapered on the PS version.

Even accepting this that the part above, lets say 3/16 inch above the vertical supports is original but reshaped and refinished due to rust etc.
How much more does that add to the value.? Not for me to say, I am not a collector like that.
But for Them to go on TV and claim it IS one of the screen used blasters and claim 80% original. And say it matched the HERO image and serial number?

Listen, If I was him I'd try and paint it in as good a light as possible too.

"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."

Sounds like you are upset about a discussion in a forum thread? We are discussing opinions here. Not curing cancer. Not really very important stuff.

Ok... "almost" nothing matches below the rings. It sounds like you want to give more weight to the entire prop based on a tiny bit more original but altered metal. I don't give much more weight to it. Difference of opinion.

I am hardly denaturing the entire thing. Just being honest about what is actually there vs what we'd like it to be.

The point is that what does still exist, The scope and rings has historical significance. How much "more" material of the cradle is original really doesn't matter much. 80% of the Blaster is not screen used so that needs to be taken into account to determine its value. Tony has stated that 80% is there. Big difference.

And another big difference is that we are on a forum "shootin the ****" as they say. Private conversations. All for fun and discovery. Not on TV or auction houses and CC events touting the finding of one of the Screen used Han Solo Blaster... which it is not. We can discuss and disagree and change our minds a thousand times on the forum.. no big deal.

They are making false claims and using half truths knowingly or not in public where a half million dollars if being sought.

 

[chubsANDdoggers]

The GW number is a match.

Is this the photo used to make that match?

 

[chubsANDdoggers]

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.

I remember your post back in the day comparing the cradles. I think it’s a strong possibility that the cradle only (two upright arms and base with dovetail no longer present) might very well be the same as the one on the hero. Problem is it’s been highly tampered with. So much so that it leaves a lot to the imagination as to what hasn’t been tampered with. Look at the two back flats for example. From the hero to this PS mount.. they don’t line up. Which simply raises another question and another red flag about how it’s being advertised to the world..

I took the “melting it down and remaking it” comment as simply being facetious. But the point made in doing so is well taken. Sure there is value there if any of the OG mount still exists but like everything else that value is subjective. It’s also subjective as to what is actually left of the OG mount itself. If one sliced 0.025 of metal off every part of the mount is it still the mount? I’m not sure that it is but again someone else may see all this differently..

 

[kpax]

I think so. You can see it on the PS episode.

But remember. Prior to getting these nice clear images the scope engraving was not accurately legible. 10 years ago you could kind of make out some shapes but not be sure what the numbers or engraving was.

Much easier now since we can compare what we know is the real scope.

If we could have made out those numbers at the time they would have been on my model.

Also, remember that on the episode they had an 8x10 image ( could be a higher quality image but I don't see how Tony would have the original HQ witness photos from 1977 but no other paper work.?) to compare SN. At that scale you wouldn't see the scope SN and to be honest, that is not what Ric was looking at or referring to.

 

[thd9791]

Yes. I think it was already accepted that the claims about this blaster are bollocks. It's not 80% original, it's not a screen used piece in its entirety and they gloss over a lot of important information. To a buyer, this is a very fraudulent advertisement. I really don't think that's our purpose here though.

I don't think we're doing the research justice here - when it comes to documentation of what physical items may or may not still be there. There are some things we may just never know for sure, but it's incorrect to state that we 100% know something is a match or not a match if we still don't know, and if there is anything to suggest otherwise.

(I'm not surprised about the flats being ground differently, especially since the cradle is said to have been ground and re-worked anyway.)

In the lightsaber world, very little is in the original state it was during filming. The Skywalker Ranch saber is in complete disarray, missing parts, swapped parts, replaced parts, etc. only a few witness marks on the upper and the bent grips match parts of the saber to different scenes. But I haven't seen anyone say that scratch marks and dents can be duplicated by the same processes so without more evidence the Skywalker Ranch Saber is a fake, it might as well be a replica made from scratch. That's what we keep doing here and I don't understand why.

TLDR: On forums like these, I've seen it happen time and again people making hard claims during debates where we just don't know. New members and the public come on, read that claim and now have the wrong information. It fuels auction problems like the one in this thread.

 

[kpax]

I remember your post back in the day comparing the cradles. I think it’s a strong possibility that the cradle only (two upright arms and base with dovetail no longer present) might very well be the same as the one on the hero. Problem is it’s been highly tampered with. So much so that it leaves a lot to the imagination as to what hasn’t been tampered with. Look at the two back flats for example. From the hero to this PS mount.. they don’t line up. Which simply raises another question and another red flag about how it’s being advertised to the world.. View attachment 1601197

I took the “melting it down and remaking it” comment as simply being facetious. But the point made in doing so is well taken. Sure there is value there if any of the OG mount still exists but like everything else that value is subjective. It’s also subjective as to what is actually left of the OG mount itself. If one sliced 0.025 of metal off every part of the mount is it still the mount? I’m not sure that it is but again someone else may see all this differently..

Precisely.

Going off what other auction shows like Hollywood Treasure with Joe Maddalena, they evaluate the item based on authenticating screen use and condition and alteration.

A bad repair or restoration is worse than a barn find left as found.

I found the Wizard of Oz Ruby slippers.

All the ruby sequins fell off and the leather rotted away but most of the heal of the right shoe was intact so we restored them...not as original so as not to confuse the public but 80% is authentic...

An exaggeration for fun but you see my point.


Again I will say the Scope, rings and I'll even add tippy top of the cradle since it is not clear from the description what Tony or KCarl meant...
has a lot of value to the SW and this community.

You C&D posted a great video completion of the actual screen shots of the DL44 which all seem to be the very same HERO 2813 prop which means no other c96 was even on screen.

From what I have seen and heard from other auctions of Hollywood memorabilia screen use makes a huge difference.

It certainly has a lot of value. How much is yet to be determined.

 

[chubsANDdoggers]

In the lightsaber world, very little is in the original state it was during filming. The Skywalker Ranch saber is in complete disarray, missing parts, swapped parts, replaced parts, etc. only a few witness marks on the upper and the bent grips match parts of the saber to different scenes. But I haven't seen anyone say that scratch marks and dents can be duplicated by the same processes so without more evidence the Skywalker Ranch Saber is a fake, it might as well be a replica made from scratch. That's what we keep doing here and I don't understand why.

TLDR: On forums like these, I've seen it happen time and again people making hard claims during debates where we just don't know. New members and the public come on, read that claim and now have the wrong information. It fuels auction problems like the one in this thread.

I don’t know the lightsaber world so I can’t comment towards those details but that does sounds fishy as well.

As far as new members go I think it’s best for them to do their own research and come to their own conclusions anyhow but if they start out knowing this PS prop isn’t fully accurate in it’s description all the better no??

A couple things of note while on the topic of restoration and manipulation. This stormtrooper helmet apparently was bought for 50k then reworked to look like it was 45 years old (repainted and lots of none original parts added) then sold agian at auction for close to 200k. I get it SW is big business (to many members here as well) but I hope they showed the before and after pictures during the auction. I would hope it was clear what specific work was done to it. Or is that simply wrong on my part in thinking so? Personally I’d be a little irritated to find out afterwords wouldn’t you?

This prop as well on how it’s being advertised to the public (and probably the same at auction). I’m not the SW police here but you can get a pretty clear idea what’s happening. A couple white lies and you can make lots of money. Was this prop ever actually seen on screen in ROTJ?! Did Harrison Ford ever actually use it as claimed?!

Maybe it was in his holster but that is a lot of money for a maybe. At least here this blaster was NOT restored. At least it’s in its beat up original condition. Still sold for a ton..

Yet this is the actual blaster that Solo carried in the film ROTJ on screen. You can tell by the two center scallops and how they’re milled/cut. Totally different than what you see above. It’s also incorrectly listed as Luke’s blaster (edit: also wrong movie ) while on tour and I believe it’s still in the Lucasfilms archives to this day. Not on display at Ripleys..

I appreciate what is happening here with this PS blaster. It’s being scrutinized by a forum of people who are well educated in this specific topic. Maybe a little to cynical for some but it’s shining a light on something that’s being misrepresented. Hopefully people do their own research and come to their own conclusions..

 

[chubsANDdoggers]

Actually my post above quickly raises another question to be asked. Why is Lucasfilm saying that blaster belongs to Luke and why do they say TESB? The 2nd last photo also shows “#01 - ESB”. Simply a mistake or is there more to it? I’m pretty (at least 80% ) sure this blaster isn’t actually seen carried by Luke ever in TESB..

 

[scottjua]

same thing as usual... someone didn't know what they were talking about or looking at. Plain as that. Stuff in the Archives is STILL mis-labeled to this day.

 

[7-11 Jedi]

Karl said they had 3 Mausers with "cut barrels" before SW. Maybe not all with bull barrels?
HERO/NR and the TV show version with the mounts on the left side. ( Can't remember the name) And maybe the below?

This image of an unknown blaster was taken from the Bapty site a while back. Someone posted it. Can't remember.

Cut barrel. And look at the scope... Looks to me like a HW3x style but looks painted with white chips? Could this be one of the cast dummies' Tony was talking about? And one of the CUT BARREL Mausers Karl mentioned?

Would love to hear more about this blaster history.

View attachment 1600968

Man, I gotta know more about this one… is it just a fan creation, or was it a stunt blaster? Background weapon? Sorry to go Off Topic but that blew my mind…

 

[kpax]

same thing as usual... someone didn't know what they were talking about or looking at. Plain as that. Stuff in the Archives is STILL mis-labeled to this day.

We have to admit. They are not as obsessive as we are. They don’t think it’s as big a deal as we do.

 

[kpax]

Man, I gotta know more about this one… is it just a fan creation, or was it a stunt blaster? Background weapon? Sorry to go Off Topic but that blew my mind…

This blaster image was on the Bapty website according to a member who first posted it here.

Looks to be a genuine c96 with cut barrel and ESB style mount and FH. But the scope looks like a HW3x casting?

The trigger is interestingly fully back with hammer down. Maybe busted?

Don’t think we have ever seen the same configuration on screen. ?
Maybe In archives?

Would love to know more as well.

 

[thd9791]

I mean - yes. To be blunt, if something was from production... and then it was re-decorated... its a tragedy, but its still the same item. It's been redecorated, changed, etc. and it's a tragedy that destroys its value. It is plainly not the same as a replica. It's not the same as anything from another place made from scratch. It's the original item underneath, and when it comes to prop research, we should be honest in telling people what happened to these items. If it was a production item, that got re-worked, painted or whatever, for educational sake that is still the same physical prop underneath everything. It's a good lesson in what NOT to do because we will never see the item in its original form. That goes for the DV6 lightsaber, that helmet posted above, the pipe stunt lightsaber, the Barbican saber, the Obi Wan hero saber if we ever find the pieces, etc.

When you get out your checkbook, then I can see arguing the $ value $ ... a replica and a covered up production piece might be worth the same amount of money. That's pretty objective. I don't really have any weight in that game.

I don't think we should hang newbies out to dry like that, making them judge for themselves. It's not an opinion. If a prop was refinished it is factually the same item that was... refinished. Maybe this is going off topic, and I'm sorry for that, I'm just so disappointed in how this blaster group is handling this forgery.

 

[chubsANDdoggers]

I don't think we should hang newbies out to dry like that, making them judge for themselves. It's not an opinion. If a prop was refinished it is factually the same item that was... refinished. Maybe this is going off topic, and I'm sorry for that, I'm just so disappointed in how this blaster group is handling this forgery.

Truth is it’s all subjective when it comes down to it. I’m sure who ever buys this will happily tell all their close friends “I own Han Solo’s blaster”. And to an extent there are right.

We were all newbies at some point. It’s ok for people to figure it out. Deductive reasoning. I think this discussion happing here will help anyone who happens to stumble upon it decide for themselves. Opinions are stated but there are mostly just that.

You are disappointed in what exactly? Truly I’m curious. I’m not trying to ruffle feathers. Words on the internet can be mistaken and read many ways. How is the narrative misleading anyone including a newbie? If anything it’s educating them to ask questions no?

 

[Davy Jones]

There are several ROTJ Han blasters in the Archives. He may have used a few different ones in the film and as cool as it would be to own one you can see him holding would be, in my mind they all count as his real ROTJ blaster.

I bet the mislabeling of the display one was someone assumed it was a shared model with Luke like the ESB resin castings or the Norway blaster used by both characters.

The restored Stormtrooper was done with full transparency. It was the original buyer's choice to restore it and nothing about the original parts were changed so that's the sort of restoration I personally think is fine in some cases.

This ANH Han blaster I think shows some attempt at subterfuge. The scope and rings are great. The mount is shrouded in mystery. The gun itself is likewise impossible to tell if their story is real or not. I tend to think not, but it could be!
We know it's not the real hero at least. I think they are being vague about that in hopes of a better sale.
I don't like it but I can't altogether blame them. Plenty of high end collectors have more money than sense and aren't bothered with details. Just tell them they own the thing and they will turn deaf ears and blind eyes to anyone trying to prove otherwise.
It's the unfortunate truth that this blaster likely will become another example of this.

 

[matty matt]

This is hilarious.

 

[Halliwax]

This is hilarious.

I remember this episode!!

 

[chubsANDdoggers]

There are several ROTJ Han blasters in the Archives. He may have used a few different ones in the film and as cool as it would be to own one you can see him holding would be, in my mind they all count as his real ROTJ blaster.

Are you sure there is several ROTJ blasters in the archives? I was under the impression maybe only two remain? The film used one (not Stembridge) and the one missing the front bell remain but the rest are gone? Only 4 where ever made that we know of correct.. 3 on an MGC, 1 on c96? Oh ya and the Bizzaro blaster possibly.

The restored Stormtrooper was done with full transparency. It was the original buyer's choice to restore it and nothing about the original parts were changed so that's the sort of restoration I personally think is fine in some cases.

It’s the selling of it I was more curious about with regards to the transparency. I did read that the person selling it reworked it specifically to look like it was a 45 year old helmet in good condition. Nothing against the seller or the artist who reworked it. The artist himself is amazing. Just curious if they shared the before pictures during the auction. But I’m more and more under the impression maybe that stuff doesn’t really matter in the eye of the auction?

This ANH Han blaster I think shows some attempt at subterfuge. The scope and rings are great. The mount is shrouded in mystery. The gun itself is likewise impossible to tell if their story is real or not. I tend to think not, but it could be!
We know it's not the real hero at least. I think they are being vague about that in hopes of a better sale.
I don't like it but I can't altogether blame them. Plenty of high end collectors have more money than sense and aren't bothered with details. Just tell them they own the thing and they will turn deaf ears and blind eyes to anyone trying to prove otherwise.
It's the unfortunate truth that this blaster likely will become another example of this.

Great word there! Subterfuge! And ya ur probably exactly right about how this will pan out.

 

[MastahBlastah]

I agree here; this is getting a bit ridiculous imo. Yes, it's frustrating to say the least that there is deception taking place, but we're talking about actual parts of the freaking hero blaster here that we've all obsessed over together for YEARS. None of us will ever have the money to purchase this thing anyways, so unless someone is planning to actually take action to stop said deception, shouldn't we just be excited to have some legit high-res photos of these screen-used parts? I personally have replicated this scope four times over, just for my current ANH replica alone and I know that MANY here have spent FAR more time than that on it. Isn't there more to talk about here than how "worthless" this thing is? It's almost lile some folks here don't WANT to acknowledge how very real a lot of this story most likely is. Crucial details are certainly out of whack and it's certainly frustrating and sort of surreal that many of us here have way more visceral knowledge of this prop than the people that stand to profit (grossly) from it, but dang! Just because we don't like what's happening here doesn't mean that this isn't the biggest thing to happen with this blaster since this forum first started. Sure, these aren't all the real deal hero parts, but some of them ARE, and we have more insight than ever into what happened to the rest of this blaster, the history surrounding it, etc. and I'm sure there is more that will come to light in time. Personally, what I'm dealing with is a bit of sadness that a lot of the mystery surrounding this prop seems to be over, and that the actual base Mauser is likely never to be found. Regardless, I'm happy to have a bit more insight, and to finally see what's left of the real thing.

 

[KramStaar]

Are you sure there is several ROTJ blasters in the archives? I was under the impression maybe only two remain? The film used one (not Stembridge) and the one missing the front bell remain but the rest are gone? Only 4 where ever made that we know of correct.. 3 on an MGC, 1 on c96? Oh ya and the Bizzaro blaster possibly.

I would need to take another look when I am there again but as far as I recall there are about 13 ROTJ blasters - almost all of them casts. Three of them are all black while the rest have silver bell painted and one of them is the real deal. The total number can be misleading though because items are often removed for exhibits around the US and around the world.