Han Solo ANH Blaster From RIA, Prev on Pawn Stars

CessnaDriver

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
This should be advetsised as closet replica you can get to the original lost prop but has the original scope! It would still sell for very good money. Ahhh honesty.
 

deadbolt

Sr Member
Kinda makes you wonder how many times that dude rehearsed that 'speech'
beforehand in the mirror? haha..:rolleyes:

P.S. Note the lack of mention towards Gary Kurtz, who I consider the real mastermind behind SW. Lucas is a front-man who gains far too much credit, in my opinion.


-Carson
 

CessnaDriver

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Kinda makes you wonder how many times that dude rehearsed that 'speech'
beforehand in the mirror? haha..:rolleyes:

P.S. Note the lack of mention towards Gary Kurtz, who I consider the real mastermind behind SW. Lucas is a front-man who gains far too much credit, in my opinion.


-Carson

Lee.... Kirby
Roddenberry... Coon
Kane... Finger
Lucas... Kurtz
Scott... O'Bannon
 

Vanitas

Sr Member
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.

From what I recall this image was in the code of Bapty's website; at the beginning of 2022 I was looking through the site after seeing the infamous Pawn Stars episode. To this point I hadn't realized that Bapty had a website, as I was under the impression that they were defunct. Bapty's images were not able to be downloaded/saved as, so using Inspect Element I was looking through the code with the intention of saving any relevant images I found. Since then it looks like the website has been entirely revamped.

This image was (I think) not one displayed in their gallery but was still in the code, so I saved the image directly and posted it to one of the discussion threads without much hurrah other than a "Huh, that's weird". I suppose it is possible that it might have been some kind of backup/stunt prop given the unusual design, but who knows at the end of the day?
 
Last edited:

Gregatron

Master Member
Lee.... Kirby
Roddenberry... Coon
Kane... Finger
Lucas... Kurtz
Scott... O'Bannon

Some of these are debatable. I don't think you have Marvel Comics without both Kirby AND Lee. And people seem far too eager to give anyone and everyone BUT George Lucas credit for STAR WARS, despite his very clearly being the lead idea-man and creative overseer.

The reality is that these things are collaborative, and, yes, while some people got screwed out of the proper credit (Bill Finger absolutely being # 1 on the above list), it doesn't mean that the people who got the credit weren't also a part of these properties being successful. STAR TREK was still Roddenberry's baby, although Coon was instrumental in fleshing it out and making it work. ALIEN would have just been a B-movie without Ridley Scott's obsessive attention to production design and cinematography. And so on.

People always want to break these things down into black/white or good guy/bad guy, but the reality is usually far more complicated.
 

CessnaDriver

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Some of these are debatable. I don't think you have Marvel Comics without both Kirby AND Lee. And people seem far too eager to give anyone and everyone BUT George Lucas credit for STAR WARS, despite his very clearly being the lead idea-man and creative overseer.

The reality is that these things are collaborative, and, yes, while some people got screwed out of the proper credit (Bill Finger absolutely being # 1 on the above list), it doesn't mean that the people who got the credit weren't also a part of these properties being successful. STAR TREK was still Roddenberry's baby, although Coon was instrumental in fleshing it out and making it work. ALIEN would have just been a B-movie without Ridley Scott's obsessive attention to production design and cinematography. And so on.

People always want to break these things down into black/white or good guy/bad guy, but the reality is usually far more complicated.


Oh yeah, not in disagreement, just seems there is only room for the public to populate credit with a single name.
 

Tommy

Active Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Hi, brand new here. Figured I might as well join after getting moderately up-to-speed on this auction lot thanks to all of your impressive expertise. In case it's at all helpful for communicating to any outside audiences the portions that are claimed to be original vs. the consensus on here, I put together a little color-coded diagram. Hopefully it's at least roughly accurate to the discussion, but by all means please correct me if I've mischaracterized anything. Thank you all for what you do in maintaining such a consistently-reputable resource; I wish more journalists would use it.


original component diagram.jpg
 

thd9791

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
From what I recall this image was in the code of Bapty's website; at the beginning of 2022 I was looking through the site after seeing the infamous Pawn Stars episode. To this point I hadn't realized that Bapty had a website, as I was under the impression that they were defunct. Bapty's images were not able to be downloaded/saved as, so using Inspect Element I was looking through the code with the intention of saving any relevant images I found. Since then it looks like the website has been entirely revamped.

This image was (I think) not one displayed in their gallery but was still in the code, so I saved the image directly and posted it to one of the discussion threads without much hurrah other than a "Huh, that's weird". I suppose it is possible that it might have been some kind of backup/stunt prop given the unusual design, but who knows at the end of the day?

I’m so happy you saved this. Granted, like the lightsaber threads, sometimes we have little to go on, but we never got an explanation officially as to why they went with one forward mount post for ESB. I guess it looks clean, and the scopes had small footprints (m19, m32) and if I’m remembering correctly, this gun had a single screw in the mag well just like ESB. Except it had a weird long scope that barely looked like a hensoldt. If this had any weight, my best guess was it was mocked up either between ANH and ESB or it was mocked up after ESB (at any time) using stuff made for multiple films.

Hi, brand new here. Figured I might as well join after getting moderately up-to-speed on this auction lot thanks to all of your impressive expertise. In case it's at all helpful for communicating to any outside audiences the portions that are claimed to be original vs. the consensus on here, I put together a little color-coded diagram. Hopefully it's at least roughly accurate to the discussion, but by all means please correct me if I've mischaracterized anything. Thank you all for what you do in maintaining such a consistently-reputable resource; I wish more journalists would use it.


View attachment 1605671
Thank you! That is a very well done infographic and welcome lol not all of the community is this turbulent I promise.
 

Tommy

Active Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
My comments keep getting deleted from the Auction video comments. Hahaha

Two of mine are now mysteriously missing as well. And one of them was just quoting a line in RIA's own website's blog post:

There has been endless speculation as to the whereabouts of Han Solo’s blaster from A New Hope, and Tony Watts ends that with a letter of provenance about the Mauser C96, its scope, and the blaster’s history. (July 28)
 
Last edited:

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.
Top