Han Solo ANH Blaster From RIA, Prev on Pawn Stars

thd9791

Master Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
WOW I just learned so much

The angle of attack when it comes to the scallops makes so much sense. That’s one of the things I was wondering about. Deciding how to cut something is an art in and of itself

Props on the knurling thing too, there was another prop… I think it was the knob on the Luke ESB blaster where replicas were done by cutting and it looked terrible. This was because it wasn’t actually knurled which I guess pushes more material out of the way than removed it. Dang.
 

Tommy

Active Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
Some of the more recent news stories are not only publishing pretty much verbatim RIA's press release; now they're citing each other as sources. So you get an article saying "three hero blasters were constructed for ANH according to X news site," but guess where X got their info?

It reminds me of XKCD's illustration of "citogenesis:" Citogenesis
 
Last edited:

kpax

Sr Member
Some of the more recent news stories are not only publishing pretty much verbatim RIA's press release; now they're citing each other as sources. So you get an article saying "three hero blasters were constructed for ANH according to X news site," but guess where X got their info?

It reminds me of XKCD's illustration of "citogenesis:" Citogenesis

Too true. That's how it starts. " look at all the corroboration. The validation! It must be true.

They all feed on each other. There hasn't been independent journalistic integrity or thought since Cronkite. Prove your point by pointing at a source of false information but if enough people say it... it must be true!

And if it is in PRINT... it came from the almighty ! But now ANYONE can have an audience on SM. BIG mouths with little thought or common sense but they will find followers.

Reminds me of the movie. Mom and Dad Save the Earth. Planet of idiots. What must the aliens think of us! ; )

First. Pick a side. Defend that choice and side by any means. Truth be dammed! ; ) It's a sports game now. Teams. Criminal Justice. Politics. Climate. Facts are not facts anymore. Just cheer on the side you blindly picked in the first place. Very hard for people to change horses mid race. Takes courage.

We used to be able to trust the news. Or at least more than now. ; ) Usually it takes about 20 years for the "truth" to start leaking out for people to say whoopse.
 

chubsANDdoggers

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
kpax look here. Not the threads. The two groves that help tighten the inside lens retainer. Have u ever seen a Hensoldt Scope with such large notches in them? It’s the first thing that jumped out at me about this scope and since it’s the OG it’s an interesting detail..
AC8107C5-BF48-4478-8552-BBA7EE224937.jpeg
F08074FE-A772-47EE-A3AC-1FE04572DEC4.jpeg


For comparison here’s a collection of Hensoldts from another thread..
E37E0C0E-54B5-4800-9F40-816A28CB4FBB.png


It looks to be unchanged and authentic. It’s the same from over 40 years ago..
8413D88D-6CC3-48C1-8D89-6252804700BC.jpeg
 
Last edited:

deadbolt

Sr Member
Well said. Good explanation.

Thanks buddy. I just think it's a shame to see them pass off a clear fake as being real, and for some reason we can't/aren't allowed to do anything about it. Even if it pertains to just the FH, I really doubt there's any evidence to the contrary that it's fake.

The Scope, Rings and heavily modified cradle at best. Even the mods/restoration to the Scope and Rings kinda kill it for me even, I'd rather see them in their true current state, not retouched like a real-life photoshop job. It ruins the value in my opinion, maybe not so much for the naive richer fellas out there that will inevitably bid on this. But for us real fanatics, re-touching it, vs., preserving it is the primary difference I think we fans have with the collectors who just wanna say they own a SW prop..that's been altered heavily and at least two-thirds fake.. Might as well just find an MR.

It's upsetting to say the least that these sort of things are being allowed rather than being stopped, I really wish our thoughts and/or proofs can be made more public, but I wouldn't know where to even start without connections of some sort..which I don't have.

This auction is simply just sad towards our hobby, and most of all, insulting to say the least..


-Carson
 

kpax

Sr Member
kpax look here. Not the threads. The two groves that help tighten the inside lens retainer. Have u ever seen a Hensoldt Scope with such large notches in them? It’s the first thing that jumped out at me about this scope and since it’s the OG it’s an interesting detail.. View attachment 1608705 View attachment 1608706

For comparison here’s a collection of Hensoldts from another thread.. View attachment 1608708

It looks to be unchanged and authentic. It’s the same from over 40 years ago.. View attachment 1608713
Thanks for the other HW examples.

Yes. Looks like wider notches for sure.
 

Tommy

Active Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
I saw the suggestion that the all that the RPF people has was conjecture. Thats the pot calling the kettle black a little isnt it? We actually have images and proof though. Irony.. it hurts
I've received this argument both from the auction house and a news outlet now. Granted, it's probably not too often that a subject's definitive reference source is a discussion forum, but when it comes to Star Wars props... the impression I've gotten for years is that the RPF is pretty much that. If the DL-44 builders group members are not the go-to experts in this case, then next to the Lucasfilm Archives (with whom I understand several members have consulted), WHO IS?

It would be one thing if the argument cited an alternative independent authority disagreeing with the RPF's consensus, but I've yet to see that.
 
Last edited:

kpax

Sr Member
I've received this argument both from the auction house and a news outlet now. Granted, it's probably not too often that a subject's definitive reference source is a discussion forum, but when it comes to Star Wars props... the impression I've gotten for years is that the RPF is pretty much that. If the DL-44 builders group members are not the go-to experts in this case, then next to the Lucasfilm Archives (with whom I understand several members have consulted), WHO IS?

It would be one thing if the argument cited an alternative independent authority disagreeing with the RPF's consensus, but I've yet to see that.
Yep...

Only 11 plus years of studying this prop that has uncovered the true build and original parts used to fabricate it and replicated it down to the thousandth of an inch including all it's dings and scratches and undeniable photographic proof of it's history and molds and castings.

But go ahead. Believe someone who said he didn't even know of the movie until the year 2000.

"Experts" have been fooled or allowed themselves to be fooled countless times in this and the art world. Many paintings in museums and collections are fake. And they know it. Where there is a profit to be made there will be corruption.

If the buyer hired someone to look for proof... it is out there. (here) The bigger claims can be easily dismissed leaving the scope and rings plus. Still a great find and value, but not Han Solo's Blaster.

As per their claims to be one of the set used Han Solo Blasters. Show us the photo proof. Must be Held by Ford on set in a scene on camera.
Can't be hidden in a box or pocket of the prop guy.

There is a huge difference in value for production built vs screen used items.

It is very easy to look at the film and archive pre and post promo images ESPECIALLY for the LF Archive where they have HQ clear images and see that every image is of the same 2813 HERO Mauser.

Now maybe they will pick a shot where FORD is a mile away from the camera running with a blur and claim THAT is the PS Mauser in that shot...

Sure it is... now go away and eat a cookie...

If Tony and RIA and Disney ( laugh) actually have some super double- secret (unaltered) photo proof that shows' THAT PS Mauser, dressed with full greeblies, scope and mount and mystery disc on set and screen in Ford's hands I will offer a sincere apology. ; )

BTW.
Carl, in the video, never says he made more than one blaster for Lucas. He said they had several c96 with cut barrels.

He said he brought "the gun" along , showed it to GL, he said he liked it but wanted that and that and that...I brought it back to the workshop, took this (FH) off a machinegun and fixed it and put it on here... he accepted it ...

Always spoke of it in singular terms.

If the MG81 FHs are so Rare that the one on the PS is "feesibly" the HERO... How did they have 2-3 others to build 3 fully dressed guns as back-up as some claim they would need to have for film production?

Were there multiple NR gun kits? Or ST guns? or how about other SW gun props? Were there always multiples.?

Just some Qs I would have for the interrogation,.. I mean interview... ; )
 
Last edited:

Tommy

Active Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
If Tony and RIA and Disney ( laugh) actually have some super double- secret (unaltered) photo proof that shows' THAT PS Mauser, dressed with full greeblies, scope and mount and mystery disc on set and screen in Ford's hands I will offer a sincere apology. ; )

I really don’t think any apology would be required in that case. It’s such an extraordinary claim, even if it happened to in fact be true, it's illogical to believe it without compelling evidence. Regardless of whether or not their claims are true, RIA should owe us an apology for belittling our reasonable doubt.

And all excellent points regarding Carl. It’s hard not to suspect that the “three blasters” story had its origins post-Pawn Stars, and the fact that there’s no letter from Carl equally makes me wonder if Tony’s letter is truly a precise telling of Carl’s memory vs. an optimistic interpretation of ambiguous statements along the lines of his Pawn Stars dialogue.

With their entire case resting on Carl's supposed claim, why would they not include a LOA from him?
 

kpax

Sr Member
... Tony’s letter is truly a precise telling of Carl’s memory vs. an optimistic interpretation of ambiguous statements along the lines of his Pawn Stars dialogue.

...an optimistic interpretation of ambiguous statements.

This about sums it up I think. I don't particularly think Tony is trying to out and out defraud the public. I think he is spinning it the best he can for his own benefit. They have some real parts. He bought a lot of the Bapty stock... It "could be one of the real props... right? We sold other SW stuff...

Why not...?
 

mgoob

Sr Member
RPF PREMIUM MEMBER
kpax look here. Not the threads. The two groves that help tighten the inside lens retainer. Have u ever seen a Hensoldt Scope with such large notches in them? It’s the first thing that jumped out at me about this scope and since it’s the OG it’s an interesting detail..

For comparison here’s a collection of Hensoldts from another thread..

It looks to be unchanged and authentic. It’s the same from over 40 years ago..
The only reason I can think of that the slot would have been widened is that it was stuck at some point and they needed a wider screwdriver to remove it.

Quite possibly the scope was disassembled and got cross-threaded when they tried to screw it back in. Needing more torque that would be provided by a larger screwdriver, they cut the notch wider and screwed it in. Just a thought.
 

joberg

Master Member
I know that money has appeared many times during the discussion...and corruption also. :unsure:
First, I think that the word "Collusion" must be used in the first part of the process of putting a very questionable prop for auction.

Collusion: process of illegal cooperation or conspiracy, especially in order to deceive or cheat others.
Corruption: dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery.


The corruption part will be done after the sale...again conjecture on my part, but it seems, that some people will laugh all the way to the bank.:(
 

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