Han Solo ANH Blaster From RIA, Prev on Pawn Stars
- Thread starter JoeG
- Start date
robstyle
Master Member
I've not stake in any of this, and nothing about the item auctioned seems to be what it's made out to be, but the but in the odd number of hero Han ANH blasters...
Could the basic explanation for three Han ANH blasters be,
Bapty UK x2
US pick up / reshoot Greedo Killer x1 (a rush job for one days filming so only one was made)
Total =3.
Is it possible two Naked Runner Mausers existed? It's standard live fire wewpons are done in pairs as a basic rule of thumb. If one has any issues the second is used. If no issues the back up may not have even been used. In this instance if one of the Mausers was further modified and the second was not, could this be the second back up Mauser? If so wouldn't that make it a Naked Runner Mauser? To throw more fuel on the fire, would this one have been further modified after the fact to present it as is for auction. Not just its finish or a top coat, actual permanent modifications. If so, that information being withheld, would that be enough to void the auction?
Could the basic explanation for three Han ANH blasters be,
Bapty UK x2
US pick up / reshoot Greedo Killer x1 (a rush job for one days filming so only one was made)
Total =3.
Is it possible two Naked Runner Mausers existed? It's standard live fire wewpons are done in pairs as a basic rule of thumb. If one has any issues the second is used. If no issues the back up may not have even been used. In this instance if one of the Mausers was further modified and the second was not, could this be the second back up Mauser? If so wouldn't that make it a Naked Runner Mauser? To throw more fuel on the fire, would this one have been further modified after the fact to present it as is for auction. Not just its finish or a top coat, actual permanent modifications. If so, that information being withheld, would that be enough to void the auction?
kpax
Sr Member
Giving way too much credence for nonsense and a made up story.
The only source of info (so far) on the history of the blaster is Tony himself.
The fact is, from Tony's own mouth, is that Tony didn't even know what SW was until the year 2000! He did not follow the series and had no interest until he purchased the Ba[ty stock and started to sell the inventory to zealous SW collectors for huge sums.
The 3 gun "idea" came from Carl who only said that Bapty had 4 Mausers with "cut barrels". That's all he said. He never said they finished any of the others for screen use. In fact they could not since from Tony's letter, " they only had ONE scope and mount. I know they "could have" had them all ready and dressed and that would just swap the scope as some suggested... BUT there is no proof of that. It is "giving" them the benefit of an explanation they didn't think of themselves. Carl said he showed IT to George. And George bought IT. If there were more than one I believe the normal conversational flow would have been to include the detail of the back-up... AT THAT TIME.
In the PS episode Tony claims and presents the blaster as "THE screen used" ANH blaster. He does not mention that it was one of three at that time. The 1of3 story comes up later after we dissected it finding the SNs do not match and the mount was substantially changed and fake FH etc. and likely PropStore and Profiles in History turned it down for the same reasons. I'm guessing they offered to buy the scope only at a lower price but Tony wanted to keep it complete in hopes of more money and a less discerning buyer.
The back-up gun makes sense now, but back then... who knows. Not Tony. He was not there. Carl, maybe, but no one asked him. Guys on the prop and art dept. of Lucas yes. But no one is asking or talking.
It wasn't until the RIA letter that they start to refine the story and offer the 3 gun scenario to cover the mismatched SN and other discrepancies.
The story was changed from THE screen used ANH blaster to the only surviving ANH blaster made for the production...and was "on set" Not on screen.
I don't want to get caught up in the weeds trying to twist the story and make sense of it by feeding the fire with ideas of MerrSonn castings or Greedo blaster being the "other" guns Tony was talking about. They aren't. Tony and RIA have NO IDEA what the GK or MerrSonn is.
But their story can be proven by the infamous Unicorn photograph... the one that no one is allowed to see and is now locked up in Mickey Mouse's personal vault. Be careful Mickey, the feds may make up an affidavit to raid your mousehole and seize the pic.! Imagine what else could be discovered!
Smells very Mon Calamari around here...
Last edited:
I agree; while it needs to be stated for total fairness (where applicable) that a claim is technically plausible, that shouldn't translate to giving RIA any benefit of the doubt. The burden of proof still rests on the claimant to provide evidence worthy of the claim - and a straight, noncontradictory story.
I imagine this was just a careless error in writing the catalog caption. They obviously don't understand what the Greedo Killer is, judging by the fact that they referred to the auction lot as "the Greedo Killer" in a FB advertisement, and that they chose this of all photos to pair with the lot. BUT... it is still a published claim, which simultaneously manages to illustrate RIA's incompetence and also undercut their own argument's logic. Beautiful.
kpax
Sr Member
We know with fair certainty that the screen used NR gun is not the HERO ANH gun. At least not in its ANH form. The barrel chamfers are wrong. The safety and firing system doesn't match and no Carson Lump...at least not yet...
The barrel "could have" been changed for Sweeney etc. to remove the lock and change the chamfers... but the R&H lower is on that one with the HERO upper. Sweeney could have the R&H funky lower but not quite visible.
So. The NR, Sweeney and R&H could all be the same upper theoretically...IF the barrel was changed... No second back-up gun known. But the Lower is still wrong for all.
The PS lower is defiantly NOT any of the above.
Jediseth
Sr Member
Yeah no kidding a heavy million is a crazy amount of money. I expected it to hit the estimate, but this is nuts, but besides the point your right. There were multiple copies of everything for both the actors and the stunt doubles in the movie no doubt, but from what I can tell and I believe what others have said that’s a lot of money for just a scope. Homework and some serious documentation needed.
Those more in-the-know please feel free to correct, but I'm not sure we can really say that there were multiple copies of everything without a doubt. It seems with the DL-44 at least, only the documented Bapty hero and the Greedo Killer MGC-build are known. A large crux of this auction piece is not just that they presented virtually no evidence for its authenticity, but also that there's virtually no evidence for another DL-44 beyond those two ever existing in the first place. It's possible, but also perfectly possible that they only had the one hero and maybe some resin stunts (even those, if I understand correctly, are not verified beyond the Merr-Sonn configuration).
Productions do often procure multiples, but it seems like for every instance of that, there's another where I've gone "wait, they only made one?!?!!"
In the lightsaber world we have seen production re-use a prop from a different character or pull in "look-alike" props that are quite obviously not the same thing.... because there weren't backups. I wouldn't be surprised if the same happened with blasters
kpax
Sr Member
As said above. There are others in the know that can correct us but.
From what I have seen. There is usually a HERO fir CUs and showing off. Then there are stunts etc for dropping snd throwing.
From the actual film it seems every shot has the hero. Lucky it has very recognizable features even blurry from a distance.
Ford was banging that thing around in the holster No stunts that anyone can point to in over 40 years. PS is the first time ANYONE has even suggested it. From a guy not tied to the production. With No records of renting out multiple Mausers.
From what I have seen. There is usually a HERO fir CUs and showing off. Then there are stunts etc for dropping snd throwing.
From the actual film it seems every shot has the hero. Lucky it has very recognizable features even blurry from a distance.
Ford was banging that thing around in the holster No stunts that anyone can point to in over 40 years. PS is the first time ANYONE has even suggested it. From a guy not tied to the production. With No records of renting out multiple Mausers.
Let's stop and think about this. The live-fire hero was only needed for studio filming at Elstree, and then was only used as a live-fire in two scenes--the shootout in Docking Bay 94 and the shootout with Greedo. That aside, it was just in Ford's holster, or held by him for publicity stills.
Would there even have been a need for a backup? The fact that they removed the scope and used it to fill an Imperial officer's holster shows that they weren't being too precious with it.
Some time back, I tracked the chronological path of Luke's Graflex lightsaber during filming, to see if there would even have been a need for a backup. While the blaster was a LIVE-fire, with working parts that could fail and require repair, it was only used as such in two scenes.
Far too often, scammers have gambled on the notion that films build multiple duplicates and backups. But, in some cases, like the Graflex and the (non-GK) hero blaster, there may really have been only one of each. And, considering their limited roles in the film, that's not unreasonable, I think.
Would there even have been a need for a backup? The fact that they removed the scope and used it to fill an Imperial officer's holster shows that they weren't being too precious with it.
Some time back, I tracked the chronological path of Luke's Graflex lightsaber during filming, to see if there would even have been a need for a backup. While the blaster was a LIVE-fire, with working parts that could fail and require repair, it was only used as such in two scenes.
Far too often, scammers have gambled on the notion that films build multiple duplicates and backups. But, in some cases, like the Graflex and the (non-GK) hero blaster, there may really have been only one of each. And, considering their limited roles in the film, that's not unreasonable, I think.
Last edited:
kpax
Sr Member
Agree.
He fires it at Greedo and escsping from Mos Eisley. The only other shots the hero was seen out of the holster was in the falcon running in hall and hiding in the secret smugglers floor well. (Nobody would look there ! ). Both HEROs. All the tell tale makings can be seen.
And just for the sake of clarity. Blank fire. Not live fire. Even if it was Ford shoots about as well as storm troopers. No harm done. Safest in front of him. ; )
I’d love to see the proof photo!
Whoops. We lost it. My dog ate it. But believe me. It was real and proved everything I claim.
He fires it at Greedo and escsping from Mos Eisley. The only other shots the hero was seen out of the holster was in the falcon running in hall and hiding in the secret smugglers floor well. (Nobody would look there ! ). Both HEROs. All the tell tale makings can be seen.
And just for the sake of clarity. Blank fire. Not live fire. Even if it was Ford shoots about as well as storm troopers. No harm done. Safest in front of him. ; )
I’d love to see the proof photo!
Whoops. We lost it. My dog ate it. But believe me. It was real and proved everything I claim.
Last edited:
Yes, of course--blank fire, thanks.
Too many of Scott's live-fire YouTube build videos on my mind, I guess.
robstyle
Master Member
There is a safety issue with a live fire weapon VS a camera flash based prop. Again I've no idea about how safety was a concern at the time, but handing someone a weapon and allowing them to wander around with it in a holster unattended for extended periods of time... Even in the 80s when I worked on Tour of Duty and we had live fire weapons we were under constant supervision and that was in the field. But again, it comes down to how things were done where and when. It may be worth researching if there was an on set rep from bapty or whom was responsible for the bapty inventory while on set. Back in the day it was common for a prop master to handle the weapons here in the US. Would be interesting to hear from anyone that has inside info about how UK things were done at the time.
That was something I forgot to bring up. Even if there was only one hero blaster prop, it would have been carefully supervised, given that it was a working firearm. So, again, the chances of needing a backup would be lessened, because the hero prop would have been used only as needed, and in a supervised capacity.
And, remember, it doesn't even appear that they made a resin/dummy/backup for the scenes with the blaster just sitting in Ford's holster. They apparently used the real deal, even for something which would have been easier and more comfortable with, say, a resin casting.
robstyle
Master Member
What an on set bapty armorer would cost VS an on set prop master or weapons supervisor is key. If that cost is more than molding and casting a stunt prop the bean counters would want a stunt prop. This is all based on the notion the weapon is only to be fired on two days with it then being regulated to holster duty. Reality is nobody is ever certain if days will be pushed, rescheduled or any additions on a day to day basis. I have been on a few shows where it's been requested a weapon be thrown or dropped yet no stunt items were available so it didn't happen. Even the new Avatar movies had that initial problem of no stunt castings available for some filming.
Again this all comes down to how things were done in that Era, in that country, in those studio grounds. In house studio filming many times will have laxed attitudes for certain things. But this is a live fire weapon. If things were that laxed maybe thats why people don't talk about it. Until someone tracks down the people who were there it's all speculation in all sides.
Again this all comes down to how things were done in that Era, in that country, in those studio grounds. In house studio filming many times will have laxed attitudes for certain things. But this is a live fire weapon. If things were that laxed maybe thats why people don't talk about it. Until someone tracks down the people who were there it's all speculation in all sides.
Similar threads
