matty matt
Sr Member
I was literally logging in to post that pic. Lol.
Han Solo ANH Blaster From RIA, Prev on Pawn Stars
- Thread starter JoeG
- Start date
kpax
Sr Member
Never seen this pic. WOW!
When was this taken?
Certainly looks during production.
That doesn't look like a stunt blaster to me.
Well at least the kids didn't take Luke's lightsaber!
I wonder if this was for a Brit TV show? Maybe more info there...
...but the fact that the kid is holding THE HERO blank fire blaster says a lot.
kpax
Sr Member
One more thought.
IF there was ever a stunt casting of the HERO would there ever had been a need for the art dept to make the Greedo Killer version at all? Just for a quick pick-up shot of Han pulling it slightly from the holster? Barely seen. They surely would have used the stunt casting IF they had one... no?
They didn't because it never existed so they HAD to make the Greedo Killer with parts that didn't match AT ALL !
Kind of surprised they didn't just cast a MerrSonn and clean it up and paint it to resemble the HERO and throw on a scope.
Maybe they weren't sure how much it would be needed.
Just a thought.
IF there was ever a stunt casting of the HERO would there ever had been a need for the art dept to make the Greedo Killer version at all? Just for a quick pick-up shot of Han pulling it slightly from the holster? Barely seen. They surely would have used the stunt casting IF they had one... no?
They didn't because it never existed so they HAD to make the Greedo Killer with parts that didn't match AT ALL !
Kind of surprised they didn't just cast a MerrSonn and clean it up and paint it to resemble the HERO and throw on a scope.
Maybe they weren't sure how much it would be needed.
Just a thought.
I would think a metal thing would look more convincing THAT close up, than a resin pull
But yea… I forgot about that shot. *****. I noticed they used the blank ESB guns in Luke’s holster/drawing/ etc. a lot. The resin ANH/muppet blaster is only in specific shots, the duel and stuff
But yea… I forgot about that shot. *****. I noticed they used the blank ESB guns in Luke’s holster/drawing/ etc. a lot. The resin ANH/muppet blaster is only in specific shots, the duel and stuff
It also looks like it’s in its final weathered state as well. Scope rail is all scratched up and the scope itself is crooked. Great pic! Crazy to see how they are handling this prop isn’t?!
This conversation around this hero is kind of silly. SW was a low budget film not many had faith in. Especially in the UK. I highly doubt any blaster was made outside the hero itself while filming took place. They made resin castings off the hero itself as well to make other blasters. Then they built (or rebuilt) the hero using the exact same c96 they made the casting from??! If they had other Mausers why in the world would they do that? Probably because babty didn’t want to mess up any other Mausers on this one off production that was sure to go no where.
Tony has simply tried to rewrite history to make a profit.. sorry pal. To many good people have done already so much great detective work to the contrary.
matty matt
Sr Member
A little more info about the photo.
Also note that the Graflex is in its promo photos/post-production state, as well, indicating that this was after filming had wrapped.
deadbolt
Sr Member
..Good point, buddy.
As several of us have noted in all of our posts, fairly recently even, there's only known evidence of the Hero and the Alt-(GK) blasters in the film, twas also posted that the Officer blaster being clearly and confirmed to be the Hero as well seems to push that point as well. There was speculation many years ago of 'possible' castings of the full Hero, but there's simply no archival proof of such that has risen to the surface as of yet..and I sorta doubt there ever will be. There's no archive/collector out there that has claimed to have a cast copy of the Hero from the first film as of yet, or even photos of one existing. Also, a few of us have also mentioned recently that the Hero was only needed for two scenes firing blanks, I think I mentioned it too during a rant not too far back, haha
The clear differences in the NR vs. ANH Hero are just that, clear at this point. I believe we noticed those dependencies years ago. Although I do think there's a good possibility of two NR Mauser sets being made due to the differences in lowers, upper in totality, barrel chamfers etc. (sadly can't see serials), and the lack of the lump which is a clear indicator I think. Oddly, only the 2813 was the one that seems to re-appear throughout other filmings though, we have yet no way of explaining that sadly..maybe Sinatra wanted to keep the screen-used one?.. I don't know. =b
..but, there's no evidence showing both in SW.
But as far as proof goes, we already have what we need to know what the only Hero prop was, a lone prop. Without proof to the contrary, it's purely speculation if we base on standard practice of filming etc., we simply can't prove anything of that sort. It would be great to know more about that if so and find proof us such extras, castings and all of that, but we simply have no reason to think that's the case other than what all of us already have figured out knowledge-wise and have already seen, and have proven about this prop.
-Carson
Last edited:
robstyle
Master Member
Star wars was a ten million dollar feature film. It's often mistakenly referred to as a low budget Sci FI thing which makes it seem more of an underdog production. Also too often it's uncle George that's given credit as created or filmed when it was designers, builders and others who did the deed. The ANH Han blaster is one of those items someone else created and approved for the film. Did George have the actual final say and if so was it the only prop created? Was there a design to work from or was it an item pulled from rentals with bits added to it that were on hand and that's it. No design, no other option? Then there was actual time to create a holster rig which again pokes holes in the low budget lore and no time for anything popular story.
I often refer to Firefly/Serenity as a production example. For the Serenity film only tiny thumbnails were provided to recreate Mals holster rig. That was done, not kidding, in about an hour. Ammo pouches were added, one holster rig was modified during production for stunt rigging. This was on a major tv/film production but both are referred to as low budget. A mould and stunt castings were made of Mals TV version of his gun, but much of the time he had one of the two live fire props in hand and holster for TV. The film he used a rubber and sometimes a hard casting for close ups when the live fire wasn't needed as per how motion pictures vary from TV productions with rules and regulations from location to on set. Also need to note new illustrated designs for Mals Serenity movie pistol were created with an all new pistol actually created being the Mateba ultimately used by Wash as the original two live fire pistols were located.
Mals Serenity movie holster rig was formed around a hard casting.
What was Hans ANH holster formed around?
Who designed Hans ANH blaster?
Were the any other illustration designs or physical options on hand?
Who made the holster for the blaster?
If no designs or options were available that means someone designed and created the ANH blaster with parts on hand with the production giving approval.
All questions that could help answer how many Han ANH blasters actually existed.
Adding to the rambling, castings many times end up back to the rental or prop house. It's one thing I've never understood why when the production has paid to have an item molded and castings created. It's not until more recent times where props have been stored by the production or sold off in lots to auction houses.
I often refer to Firefly/Serenity as a production example. For the Serenity film only tiny thumbnails were provided to recreate Mals holster rig. That was done, not kidding, in about an hour. Ammo pouches were added, one holster rig was modified during production for stunt rigging. This was on a major tv/film production but both are referred to as low budget. A mould and stunt castings were made of Mals TV version of his gun, but much of the time he had one of the two live fire props in hand and holster for TV. The film he used a rubber and sometimes a hard casting for close ups when the live fire wasn't needed as per how motion pictures vary from TV productions with rules and regulations from location to on set. Also need to note new illustrated designs for Mals Serenity movie pistol were created with an all new pistol actually created being the Mateba ultimately used by Wash as the original two live fire pistols were located.
Mals Serenity movie holster rig was formed around a hard casting.
What was Hans ANH holster formed around?
Who designed Hans ANH blaster?
Were the any other illustration designs or physical options on hand?
Who made the holster for the blaster?
If no designs or options were available that means someone designed and created the ANH blaster with parts on hand with the production giving approval.
All questions that could help answer how many Han ANH blasters actually existed.
Adding to the rambling, castings many times end up back to the rental or prop house. It's one thing I've never understood why when the production has paid to have an item molded and castings created. It's not until more recent times where props have been stored by the production or sold off in lots to auction houses.
kpax
Sr Member
For your questions highlighted:
The Holster is actually Mauser c96 holster cut down to allow the scope to stick out. The belt and buckles are custom from the art dept. Based on the simplistic forms, I feel they simply made a rig similar to a cowboy style George wanted and made buckles from sheet aluminum.
The blaster as described by Carl, was first offered to George as a cut down c96 ala NR/Sweeney/H&R with left side mount (and scope possibly)
George wanted "dis and dis and dis" so Carl added the MG81 FH.
We know this from the MerrSonn castings.
I postulated a while back that they tried the blaster with left side mount and scope when Ford showed up and tested it and found it was awkward to use "cowboy style" so George sent it back and Carl took off the left side lugs and put them on the right and used the ST scope and mount since they were a bit smaller. He needed to add the crossbar to make it all work.
Once Lucas got it back it was tested again and accepted. The art dept then made the holster rig and added the plastic bits including a Mystery knob all glued on.
They took the completed prop to the outdoor site to test fire it as we see in those outdoor images. I think that the knob and left side antenna broke off at that time or the knob is in the bottom of that holster...leaving the telltale glue residue and mystery disk markings...
I don't think there were any drawings of the blaster that would resemble the ANH blaster. Like the lightsaber drawings/paintings, just ideas that ended up being "found objects" It was just cobbled together.
robstyle
Master Member
There was only one Han ANH holster rig created? Is this correct? More and more it seems any new info could be sourced on the accurate amount of Han ANH blasters by crew members outside of the Bapty loop. People with zero to gain or lose.
From a production standpoint I'm leaning towards one live fire hero created, one undressed live fire backup on hand to be assembled with the one set of hero parts if that number one hero fails while filming.
That undressed back up may well have been brought by the armor alone to cover their own rear. Meaning it was not part of a rental agreement, just a back up on their own part. This isn't uncommon to this day. The mysterious never to bee seen yet talked about photograph, if it exists, may well be as described above. The one single mocked up live fire hero along side the undressed back up. If this is true, could the reason its never to be shown is the serial number of the auctioned piece is that of the undressed back up?
Assuming everyone is on some form of truth all around of course. The memory fades over time and stories are passed down. Other times the stories that are passed to new people are incomplete which becomes lore.
From a production standpoint I'm leaning towards one live fire hero created, one undressed live fire backup on hand to be assembled with the one set of hero parts if that number one hero fails while filming.
That undressed back up may well have been brought by the armor alone to cover their own rear. Meaning it was not part of a rental agreement, just a back up on their own part. This isn't uncommon to this day. The mysterious never to bee seen yet talked about photograph, if it exists, may well be as described above. The one single mocked up live fire hero along side the undressed back up. If this is true, could the reason its never to be shown is the serial number of the auctioned piece is that of the undressed back up?
Assuming everyone is on some form of truth all around of course. The memory fades over time and stories are passed down. Other times the stories that are passed to new people are incomplete which becomes lore.
kpax
Sr Member
Agree. Everything you said is possible. Without “direct” evidence and accounts from people working in the production we may never know for sure.
MAYBE the PS gun was an “on set” backup as Tony claims. Maybe.
His secret proof photo would have to show this. Maybe he has a photo of the Hero AND the PS side by side? That would be a good proof.
We know the PS when found “at best” was a c96 with a cut barrel.
We can’t know if it had the Bull barrel it shows now or if Carl newly created it.
We know he added a found FH that is not the original or even vintage in my opinion.
We know Carl salvaged the scope and rings and fabricated a new, changed, altered, modified lower mount built on the bones of the damaged cradle.
So. Without proof, at best the PS is a SW period cut barrel Mauser that was “available” for production.
Not screen used. Not even an accurate restoration.
I’ve said it before. A prop that is not “on screen” is usually not very desirable. Especially an inaccurate one. Maybe that’s why PropStore and Profiles passed on it? Even tho the scope is real, probably didn’t want to get caught up in the mess.
It has value for sure. Not a million but value.
MAYBE the PS gun was an “on set” backup as Tony claims. Maybe.
His secret proof photo would have to show this. Maybe he has a photo of the Hero AND the PS side by side? That would be a good proof.
We know the PS when found “at best” was a c96 with a cut barrel.
We can’t know if it had the Bull barrel it shows now or if Carl newly created it.
We know he added a found FH that is not the original or even vintage in my opinion.
We know Carl salvaged the scope and rings and fabricated a new, changed, altered, modified lower mount built on the bones of the damaged cradle.
So. Without proof, at best the PS is a SW period cut barrel Mauser that was “available” for production.
Not screen used. Not even an accurate restoration.
I’ve said it before. A prop that is not “on screen” is usually not very desirable. Especially an inaccurate one. Maybe that’s why PropStore and Profiles passed on it? Even tho the scope is real, probably didn’t want to get caught up in the mess.
It has value for sure. Not a million but value.
The real crux for me is that plausible doesn’t equate to proven. The idea of an undressed back-up capable of having the various accouterments transferred to it does sound plausible. If RIA had used language like “possibly” to describe the lot, then sure it’s a stretch, but fine; at least it would admit uncertainty. “Undoubtably” admits no uncertainty.
And as has been said, even if the undressed back-up theory was true, that still wouldn’t make the C96 a DL-44; that would make it a spare C96. Others may have higher standards for this, but personally, I would want to see a minimum of the scope mount attached, the flash hider attached, greeblies attached, OR maybe extremely definitive and unaltered indicative marks such as the clear outline of former greeblies. None of those? Sorry, not a proven blaster. Even the “fact” of Tony discovering the C96 with an already-cut barrel is only attested by Tony’s own word. I’m not accusing him of chopping the barrel off himself… but it’s not outside the realm of possibility when there’s a million dollars to be gained.
BTW, I bring up unaltered because I’m not sure if this was specifically discussed here, but I found RIA’s explanation of Tony’s claimed faint linishing marks being limited to beneath the scope mount problematic in two ways. First, on Pawn Stars, Tony referred to witness marks while presenting a photo of the side opposite the mount. But more importantly, second, since the only contact between the original mount and gun was at the two screw points, and Tony didn’t find screw holes, Carl evidently drilled straight through any marks OR welded/soldered/brazed lugs over them to install his newly-assembled mount, either way destructively altering whatever was there.
[Anyone know which of these Carl did? The listing doesn’t seem to specify. I presume the original probably had welded-on lugs to preserve blank functionality in contrast to the popular replication technique of screwing directly into replica guns?]
I suspect RIA may have internally justified its presentation largely by letting the scope do the heavy lifting – the scope had been part of a blaster, so by Ship of Theseus logic, I guess technically that might protect them. But that’s all it seems to have been: a technicality at best.
Sorry if I missed this, but do we know that this was offered to Profiles? It’s been stated that it was rejected by Propstore, but I don’t recall mention of Profiles aside from posts wondering whether it was shown to Joe Maddalena...
Last edited:
kpax
Sr Member
Someone said it was offered to Profiles. Can't remember who.
The mounting spacer lugs are brazed on, not welded.
Carl apparently is great at brazing and seems to have brazed the lugs on and off at will and refinished the gun afterward. I tend to believe this.
The MerrSonn castings have left side lugs and the HERO has on the right and they are the same lower receivers. Welding would be much harder to clean up. Brazing is done for shotgun barrels and ribs all the time.
Tony also said that he brazed the lugs AND a "sleeve barrel" so it could be removed if needed.
A close up examination of the gun would be needed to see for sure if it was indeed a sleeve barrel like our DEC kits were designed or he meant a re-barreled receiver.
I came up with the idea of the "sleeve barrel" in order for members to more easily build their replicas.
It is possible Carl did the same thing BUT it would be harder than simply chopping off the barrel and drilling and tapping the receiver to accept a threaded rifle barrel. (bull barrel) And he had to fit the constrictor. Better on a more secured barrel.
I don't see any sign of brazing on the HERO or PS barrel. Again, a real inspection would be needed to tell for sure.
Thanks, I'll have to take another look back regarding Profiles.
And I appreciate the clarification on welding vs. brazing. I also notice now that I accidentally spelled it "braise" - he definitely didn't do that!
Either way, I'd figure brazing over any marks would have rendered them altered. [And even if not, I can't imagine RIA un-brazing them on request.]
Makes sense. I'd presumed a weld from the line in Tony's letter: "the guns were stripped back to their original condition with added lugs cut off."
So I guess that's yet another signal that Tony wasn't the "primary source" that RIA drummed him up to be.
I've tried searching again for the Profiles connection, and the only mentions I'm coming up with between this thread and the main DL-44 thread of either Profiles or Joe Maddalena in the context of this auction lot are by kpax . I don't at all doubt that's a perfectly reasonable possibility. Profiles did list some questionable items on occasion, but my rough sense is that they were at least generally receptive to the Star Wars expert community's corrections.
It would just be nice for the record to be able to point to a source in the same way that we can point to scottjua 's statements relative to Propstore - even if it's just "a member who wishes to remain anonymous shared first-hand knowledge."
Anyone happen to recall how we might know the PS/RIA piece was offered to Profiles?
It would just be nice for the record to be able to point to a source in the same way that we can point to scottjua 's statements relative to Propstore - even if it's just "a member who wishes to remain anonymous shared first-hand knowledge."
Anyone happen to recall how we might know the PS/RIA piece was offered to Profiles?
kpax
Sr Member
I think I had questioned why it wasn't offered to Profiles and (not sure) think either Chris or Todd replied that it had been and was turned down. Not sure at all who confirmed it... maybe I was on the same thing RIA was on,,,
deadbolt
Sr Member
The Protectors Mauser was cut/modified barreled too. And also had spacers on the Right-Side as per the hero, but it doesn't appear to have the same style barrel even, as per the bull barrel that the NR/Sweeney/R&H/Hero's ANH do. That could possibly be a 'cut' Mauser in question and may be the one that ended up in this auction. Sadly no proof, due to such low-res images to go on, but a possibility. Though the biggest issue I think is the lack of a correct barrel (if that's what we're seeing here below), which would had to have been added later...possibly more recently for the auction and faked continuity. It has the possibility to be this wannabe prop, we just can't prove it sadly without better reference..as usual =b
-Carson
-Carson
Last edited:
Similar threads
