Han Solo ANH Blaster From RIA, Prev on Pawn Stars

[Tommy]

Yeah like I said in the video it's confusing what guns were used for what. The screen caps I used in the video of the ANH upper... are 100% the ANH upper, but may not be from NR movie. I don't recall what movie that was (I have my folder on the computer mislabeled as NR upper so I keep calling it that out of habit), but the grey lined case is the same as the NR movie case where as in Sweeny it's red lined.

That close-up with the green background was labeled as Randall and Hopkirk (Deceased) - Ep.'Who Killed Cock Robin' (1969):

ANH Hero DL-44 Discussion - Three ANH Greeblies Found

...Well now, this is a bit of a kerfuffle Time to reorder some grips haha Hey, let's all just get a grip here! haha :lol: ..good setup man =b -Carson

www.therpf.com

Totally understandable - keeping the sources of all the assorted screenshots straight definitely gets confusing! If this hasn't been done, it could be handy to compile together all the different screenshots from NR, R&H, Sweeney, ST, etc. into a single post (maybe even its own thread?) for reference to help keep track of the names/dates/etc. In fact, if someone does that, you might consider putting a little label in the bottom corner of each image so that if they get reused in another post they're already labeled. Just a thought!

I think it would have been easy for him to MAKE a new bull barreled upper just to make a blaster for the Prop Store who rejected it and then Pawn Stars.... Heck he made everything else. Why not? Heck I Made a complete steel setup before, so no doubt they could.

Considering the number of red flags raised by the PS gun, I'm not even accepting as fact that it started out as a cut barrel. The only evidence (if you can call it that) that RIA presented for the discovery of a "re-lengthened" barrel is the Tony Watts letter, so as far as I'm concerned, I think we have to factor in the possibility that Karl chopped through a pristine barrel in 2018. If anything about the C96 had actually checked out, then I might give some benefit of the doubt, but they utterly failed to earn it.

 

[joberg]

Thank the Maker that so many people here, on the RPF, are able to distinguish between the different uppers, lowers, flash hiders, scopes and the likes. As I said before: archive the heck out of this thread for future discussions about this prop because I've a feeling that this auction of this particular/similar prop will happen in the future!

 

[chubsANDdoggers]

Here is a 1:1 recreation of this PS/RIA blaster..

 

[Tommy]

Here is a 1:1 recreation of this PS/RIA blaster..

I have to imagine this is solidly in the running for most esoteric DL-44 replica.

Be careful showing it in public... anyone might easily mistake it for the incredibly historic, iconic, and well documented FOURTH hero.

 

[Vanitas]

Here is a 1:1 recreation of this PS/RIA blaster.. View attachment 1656900View attachment 1656899

 

[chubsANDdoggers]

I have to imagine this is solidly in the running for most esoteric DL-44 replica.

Be careful showing it in public... anyone might easily mistake it for the incredibly historic, iconic, and well documented FOURTH hero.

Lol To be fair… most of these DL-44’s and their specific details are already esoteric.

See more pics here of this atrocity if interested..

 

[ToddsCostumes]

Wow! I can't believe how many collective hours have been spent thinking about this prop - including my own!

Having had the opportunity to examine and partially dismantle the Bapty blaster at RIA this summer, and just returning from a visit to Bapty at Thanksgiving time, I've learned a few things that might be helpful in fitting the pieces together.

PAWN STARS Tony's original hour-long filmed interview, where he explained in detail the whole backstory, and what parts of the gun were for sure original, which were MAYBE original, and which were DEFINITELY NOT original, got edited down to "Here it is! THE HAN SOLO BLASTER"! Tony had also been encouraged by a trusted friend in the antique arms auction business to present the piece with great enthusiasm (salesmanship!) The PS producers had all that they needed to create an exciting bit of television, but also made Tony look like a crook to those who could spot the discrepancies. He regrets the whole thing. I think the letter he wrote for the auction is what he believes to be true, and it is all that he knows about it. He was not there in 1976. He is quite candid about that. All he knows is what Carl reveals, and Carl talks when he wants and ONLY when he wants.

CARL SCHMIDT is a legend in the British film industry, but also a total misanthrope and curmudgeon. Tony said it was good that Carl didn't want to talk to me because he probably would have just cussed me out. The others in the shop echoed that opinion. I got to see several of his "Frankenguns" while I was there. Just brilliant. Before I visited, I did not appreciate that Bapty is a RENTAL business. I always assumed that the guns were modified in the same ways that you would modify regular firearms, but that isn't always true. These real guns have become nothing more than props that go bang. Barrels are chopped and re-welded all the time. Guns are shortened and lengthened. Pocket-sized machine guns are made from scratch. Their work is incredible - you can hardly tell.

ROGER CHRISTIAN I think most of his designing work was done at Bapty. Bapty was (again) a rental business. Would you turn over an asset to some unknown prop guy to mess with and ruin? Or make a mold of your gun and make his own copy to avoid paying? Or worse, make a mold, make a dozen copies and start his own rental business? Bapty makes their own molds and rents the rubber copies. I would like to know the story on the rubber background guns made off of the hero (and maybe backup) Mauser.

THE SCOPE MOUNT Why does the scope mount not have a dovetail slot? That's simple. When Carl found the mounting bracket in a box of spare parts, someone had hacksawed off the dovetail portion to use on another build (yeah, I know! WHAAAAATT???). All that was left was two stumps. Carl simply didn't remember how it attached. He used the Master Replicas blaster sitting in the corner of their office for reference. Yep.

Perhaps someone here would like to help me come up with some very specific questions to ask Roger Christian ? I have an interview pending with him in the near future (no date set) that he has agreed to let me record. I don't want to ask him things he has covered in his book or his new movie, but I do hope he can shed light on the photographs (in various stages) and variants. Would any members here be up for a Skype conference call to hash out some very specific questions for him? I consider this a rare opportunity, and I want to do the most I can to get to some missing information "for the record".

PM me if you're interested in taking part, and we'll set it up. I really can't afford hours and hours of emails, so I would rather set up a meeting where everyone can participate.

 

[DamnYankee123]

Man, what I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall of that conference call. Things I would want to ask Roger:

1. In his book 'Cinema Alchemist' he states that he was at the Bapty warehouse digging through their shelves, found the Mauser, the "German rifle telescopic sight", and the "flash hider from an aircraft machine gun" and essentially fitted them together/made the Mauser safe. Did he put together the final version of the hero prop or did Carl Schmidt or someone else actually complete the hero prop construction?
3. When he says he "made it safe" does he mean safe to fire rounds from? Trying to understand here was he responsible for the ideation or the actual construction as well?
4. He also indicates that when they demo'd the blaster to George and John Barry, seemingly the same day he discovered the parts and put it together, that an assistant from Bapty fired off several rounds to show George how it handled. Is that correct or was anything else required before it was loaded/fired? Did anyone have to certify it as safe to operate? Was anything else done to insure that it was safe to operate?
5. Was Roger aware that the Mauser had been used in "The Naked Runner" when he chose it? Was the Naked Runner scope mount on the Mauser when he picked it up?
6. Was the MG81 Flash hider threaded on or attached some other way? What was that? Who did that?
7. Did Bapty proceed to create rubber stunt doubles from what he built? Was he involved in that at all and can he speak any of that?

He has similar statements about the E-11 as well. i.e. chose the Sterling with Carl's help, "fitted" the "telescopic sites/army surplus night sights" (his words) and the t-track, replaced the longer mag with shorter, etc. etc. It would be great to flesh out his recollections with more info to try to correlate it with what is already know about both of these props.

 

[Tommy]

Stating the presumably obvious question:
Does Roger Christian retain any specific memory – or much more helpfully, any tangible evidence in the form of photos, paperwork, etc. – that there was more than one dressed Han hero on the ANH set?

Seems highly doubtful that he would considering that his past statements have all been in singular terms (apart from an unused-on-ANH Mauser-based Luke pistol with different modifications). And for that matter, as far as anyone has been able to tell, no crewmember ever mentioned the idea of multiple DL-44 heroes either before or since Tony Watts's 2022 second-hand claim.

And granted, on the off-chance that he expresses agreement with Tony but without any evidence or a really convincing explanation, it might be hard to tell whether he's drawing on 47-year-old recollections or the influence of six-month-old auction headlines.

But... on the flipside, if he expresses firm confidence that there was only the one hero, then that could be something.

Having had the opportunity to examine and partially dismantle the Bapty blaster at RIA this summer [...]

So what observations, if any, did examining/dismantling the RIA lot yield? Anything at all to lend credence to the C96's authenticity?

 

[Captain Dunsel]

Stating the presumably obvious question:
Does Roger Christian retain any specific memory – or much more helpfully, any tangible evidence in the form of photos, paperwork, etc. – that there was more than one dressed Han hero on the ANH set?

Seems highly doubtful that he would considering that his past statements have all been in singular terms (apart from an unused-on-ANH Mauser-based Luke pistol with different modifications). And for that matter, as far as anyone has been able to tell, no crewmember ever mentioned the idea of multiple DL-44 heroes either before or since Tony Watts's 2022 second-hand claim.

And granted, on the off-chance that he expresses agreement with Tony but without any evidence or a really convincing explanation, it might be hard to tell whether he's drawing on 47-year-old recollections or the influence of six-month-old auction headlines.

But... on the flipside, if he expresses firm confidence that there was only the one hero, then that could be something.


So what observations, if any, did examining/dismantling the RIA lot yield? Anything at all to lend credence to the C96's authenticity?

I have always been confused about Roger being BOTH the set decorator for Star Wars AND the property master? That’s almost like being both set dresser and costumer.

In no other production that I can recall—outside of an independent movie financed by the producer’s / writer’s / director’s personal credit cards—have I seen these roles combined. (Even in the TV production of the original Star Trek they had Irving Feinberger for property master and set decorators like John Dwyer were not involved in building hand props). I would think the union would have something to do with ensuring that the roles were separate as well?

According to IMDB, Frank Bruton is listed as the property master for both Star Wars and Empire…wouldn’t he have been primarily involved in the creation of the hand props and renting items from Bapty? I assume he is deceased as his year of birth is listed as 1920.

There are also uncredited prop builders identified for Star Wars such as Gary Bourke, Peter Hancock, John Marlow, Kieron McNamara, and John Chisolm.

Perhaps this documentary will provide more detail?

Maybe someone here also knows more about the production of Star Wars, or movie production in general, that requires or allows for members of the production to wear multiple hats?

 

[joberg]

Yep; AFAIC if no official paper trail/blueprint, or similar documents, exist in terms of really recording who did what, who transformed what, who rented what; your memory of events done that long ago in a galaxy far, far away cannot count

 

[thd9791]

I would like to know more about the Hero mold used for stunts in Empire, if it’s true that Bapty retained molds for their guns. ToddsCostumes thank you Soooooooo much for all of this. Especially the sinking feeling of Carl finding the scope mount with two nubs left… lol

 

[ToddsCostumes]

All great questions, and noted. I will try to work them in without making him feel like he's on trial.

I have always been confused about Roger being BOTH the set decorator for Star Wars AND the property master? That’s almost like being both set dresser and costumer.

Me too. But Roger goes to great lengths in his book to explain this, and the sense I got was that there were areas of overlap. It was collaborative.

As far as Roger's role, Tony has told me that Carl very well remembers working with Roger. Roger was the one who came to Bapty to source the weapons, but did not spend a great deal of time there. Carl left Tony with the impression was Roger was on a very tight schedule, whisked in, found the items he wanted, and whisked out. Roger corroborates that in his book. Anyway, Roger's memory is specifically from Roger's point of view (If you catch my drift). I think the truth is that Roger did a rather temporary assembly of parts on the spot, then left it to Bapty to get them ready for filming.

I would guess Roger didn't know anything about backups. He was the designer, that's it. His job was not contracts, accounting, or anything else. According to his book, while they were filming on one set, he was off getting the next one ready. There were others who took care of stuff during filming. However, the necessity for backups is obvious - a malfunctioning hero weapon could cost millions to the production company. Carl did not invent this idea. He couldn't care less. Everyone I spoke to at Bapty confirmed that this was (and still is) standard operating procedure. Malfunctions happen. OFTEN. You NEVER go on set without a backup. Many of these guns are very, very old, unreliable to begin with, and see very hard use with all the work that gets done to them.

Perhaps this documentary will provide more detail?

I have a copy of this on the way. I told Roger I want to see this before we talk. I don't want to retread any ground he's already covered in it. I should also go and listen to all of the podcasts in which he's participated. Part of his reason for the film was to preserve the first-hand memories of the people who were involved. Perhaps it does illuminate the role of some of the names you mentioned? If not, I will definitely bring them up.

So what observations, if any, did examining/dismantling the RIA lot yield? Anything at all to lend credence to the C96's authenticity?

It appeared to be exactly what Tony stated in his letter. It is a reproduction made from all the parts that they have left that may have the slightest possibility of having been even remotely related to the production, remade by the same gunsmith/armorer. So, in the end, it was still very cool. Not 1.3M cool IMO, but still cool. The fact that others have represented it as more than that (and hyped it up for their own benefit) is unfortunate.

HOWEVER... I was told that Carl always secretly wondered if the hero prop disappeared somewhere... he suspects George might have it. But if he does, it would be missing the scope and mount, so... why would he take it? IDK.

 

[Captain Dunsel]

All great questions, and noted. I will try to work them in without making him feel like he's on trial.



Me too. But Roger goes to great lengths in his book to explain this, and the sense I got was that there were areas of overlap. It was collaborative.

As far as Roger's role, Tony has told me that Carl very well remembers working with Roger. Roger was the one who came to Bapty to source the weapons, but did not spend a great deal of time there. Carl left Tony with the impression was Roger was on a very tight schedule, whisked in, found the items he wanted, and whisked out. Roger corroborates that in his book. Anyway, Roger's memory is specifically from Roger's point of view (If you catch my drift). I think the truth is that Roger did a rather temporary assembly of parts on the spot, then left it to Bapty to get them ready for filming.

I would guess Roger didn't know anything about backups. He was the designer, that's it. His job was not contracts, accounting, or anything else. According to his book, while they were filming on one set, he was off getting the next one ready. There were others who took care of stuff during filming. However, the necessity for backups is obvious - a malfunctioning hero weapon could cost millions to the production company. Carl did not invent this idea. He couldn't care less. Everyone I spoke to at Bapty confirmed that this was (and still is) standard operating procedure. Malfunctions happen. OFTEN. You NEVER go on set without a backup. Many of these guns are very, very old, unreliable to begin with, and see very hard use with all the work that gets done to them.



I have a copy of this on the way. I told Roger I want to see this before we talk. I don't want to retread any ground he's already covered in it. I should also go and listen to all of the podcasts in which he's participated. Part of his reason for the film was to preserve the first-hand memories of the people who were involved. Perhaps it does illuminate the role of some of the names you mentioned? If not, I will definitely bring them up.



It appeared to be exactly what Tony stated in his letter. It is a reproduction made from all the parts that they have left that may have the slightest possibility of having been even remotely related to the production, remade by the same gunsmith/armorer. So, in the end, it was still very cool. Not 1.3M cool IMO, but still cool. The fact that others have represented it as more than that (and hyped it up for their own benefit) is unfortunate.

HOWEVER... I was told that Carl always secretly wondered if the hero prop disappeared somewhere... he suspects George might have it. But if he does, it would be missing the scope and mount, so... why would he take it? IDK.

Great information—thank you for sharing!

 

[chubsANDdoggers]

ToddsCostumes thank you for being so open to everyone’s questions, and opinions with regards to the hero. What a fantastic opportunity you have in front of you. I definitely look forward to reading about your findings. Hopefully the 40+ years hasn’t waned too much on RC memory.

 

[Tommy]

Agreed, thanks ToddsCostumes for taking questions. Feel free to reword mine to make it sound less interrogatory if you like...
“Do you recall there being a single or multiple Han DL-44 hero guns?” Something like that. And no worries if it doesn’t make the cut.

You raise a good point; RC may not be the best crewmember to ask regarding backups. Then again, apparently no one can manage to get a direct statement from one of the guys who ought to know best. The fact that RIA had to rely on Tony’s second-hand account rather than a first-hand LOA from Carl, and now hearing of his continued refusal to speak... his end of the story just strikes me as awfully fishy.

Multiples are certainly the norm, but I don’t know that we can say with certainty that the practice was followed with 100% strictness on every film. As others have previously noted, Han only fires the DL-44 a couple of times over the course of the whole film; he spends way more time handling and firing an E-11 (inadvertently showcased in the Today Show’s laughable auction coverage). Might it still have made sense to have DL-44 backups on set? Sure… but then it’s hard to see how they avoided any written or verbal mention up until 2022.

It appeared to be exactly what Tony stated in his letter. It is a reproduction made from all the parts that they have left that may have the slightest possibility of having been even remotely related to the production, remade by the same gunsmith/armorer. So, in the end, it was still very cool. Not 1.3M cool IMO, but still cool. The fact that others have represented it as more than that (and hyped it up for their own benefit) is unfortunate.

I like your wording A LOT better than Tony’s. To be fair to RIA and the media – who absolutely did overhype it – the base of the hype still came down to Tony’s own stated claims about the C96:

“This was undoubtably one of the three original guns used on the 1977 ‘Star Wars’ set and the only one to survive.”
“The end result contains 80% of the last remaining original pieces of this iconic prop.”

Those two lines are essentially what everyone hung their hat on. My hunch is that Tony genuinely convinced himself through wishful thinking… but regardless, absent corroborating evidence, it seems to have been a misleading letter.

 

[ToddsCostumes]

ToddsCostumes thank you for being so open to everyone’s questions, and opinions with regards to the hero. What a fantastic opportunity you have in front of you. I definitely look forward to reading about your findings. Hopefully the 40+ years hasn’t waned too much on RC memory.

My feelings exactly. Roger's memory is amazing. I can only hope I am that sharp when I'm his age. And, you are very welcome! I have been amazingly (and miraculously, I believe) privileged to have the access that I have been given. I can't account for it at all. But, since Roger's taken a liking to me (I provided the blaster sample for his movie) I want to get as much info from him as possible for the preservation of the history of this prop, which is to benefit everyone who is interested. His memory won't be 100% correct (is anyone's?), and he DOES have a talent for self-promotion, but he is "the horse's mouth" (or one of them, anyway).

The fact that RIA had to rely on Tony’s second-hand account rather than a first-hand LOA from Carl, and now hearing of his continued refusal to speak... his end of the story just strikes me as awfully fishy.

Perhaps I haven't been clear. Carl would rather spit on you than write you an LOA. He thinks movie fans are contemptible idiots. It's a miracle they got him to show up for the Pawn Stars show. And what did he do? Said "yeah, I made it," tossed the gun on the table and walked out of the room. From what I've been told, that's the best you're going to get out of him. He's retired, has never had a computer or a cell phone, and doesn't want to be bothered. In Tony's words, "He's as mad as a bag of cats". (I don't mind writing this here, because I know he'll never read it!) I really wanted to meet him, but Tony said it's probably a good thing I didn't because he would likely have been "very rude" and not spoken to me except to cuss me out.

“This was undoubtably one of the three original guns used on the 1977 ‘Star Wars’ set and the only one to survive.”
“The end result contains 80% of the last remaining original pieces of this iconic prop.”

Those two lines are essentially what everyone hung their hat on. My hunch is that Tony genuinely convinced himself through wishful thinking… but regardless, absent corroborating evidence, it seems to have been a misleading letter.

Agreed. However, we have to consider the small possibility that he is right - no one can prove he isn't. I'm sure he believes what he said is POSSIBLE. After all, we can tell from the various shows that that Mauser sniper kit appeared in, that there were at LEAST 2 Mausers with chopped barrels.

But the reality is that Tony was figuring this out from the limited information he had: 1) The tidbits Carl told him (and other staff) over the years 2) When Tony took control of the company, there were 3 chopped barrel Mausers on the rack (apparently 1 with the barrel restored). Two of the Mausers were destroyed during the government mandated inventory reduction 3) The one remaining chopped Mauser had weld marks from the scope mounting studs. He's just putting 2+2 together. Carl has always insisted that he made 4 blasters - two Han and 2 Luke. He later recalled he made one more Han blaster later in the shoot. He doesn't recall the reason they gave for needing it. The other thing he recalls clearly is that the plastic greeblies were always falling off during shooting and had to be reattached between takes.

Tony didn't know what had happened to the blaster. He has told me several times that Star Wars collectors were always knocking on his door (figuratively) to buy anything production related. Over the years, they made offers he couldn't refuse, and eventually every last scrap of Star Wars stuff was sold. And the Han Solo blaster always came up, and he always told them he didn't have it and didn't know where it went. But when the scope turned up in a box of junk under Carl's bench (yes, I saw THE BENCH) they realized that it hadn't been sold. Since then, they have been trying to put this all together as well. Yes, it would be nice if Carl were helpful, but that's not how it is, unfortunately.

The new owner of Bapty is a younger guy, and a movie fan, quite keen on digging into their film prop history. Some of the gunsmiths I met are, too. They are always on the lookout for new clues. I am on good terms with them, and I hope that they will share anything new that might turn up. And with the PILES of old weapons and parts around there, that's a very real possibility.

 

[chubsANDdoggers]

What’s interesting is that most films would seem to have some sort of back up on set. For the simple fact that time is money and they wouldn’t want to wast any $ waiting for the prop to get “fixed” if anything went wrong. That makes total sense for sure. No matter how little the hero was actually used. But there wasn’t any known issue ever with the hero including pre and post production pictures (outside of reshoots in the US w/ the GK) so it’s 100% a moot point. Otherwise every mauser in Baptys inventory could be considered a “backup”. As Tony apparently did with all the Sterling’s from what I’ve read. He turned most of the ones he had into e11’s and sold them off one by one. ?

Unless there is clear pictures of this RIA/PS Mauser sitting on the ‘77 SW prop table with the hero itself does anything said by Tony or RC or anyone else really matter? Again I’m sure they had some sort of back up ready to go on some level but it never got to that.

 

[Vagabond Elf]

What’s interesting is that most films would seem to have some sort of back up on set. For the simple fact that time is money and they wouldn’t want to wast any $ waiting for the prop to get “fixed” if anything went wrong. That makes total sense for sure. No matter how little the hero was actually used.

I think we all have to remember that in 1976, Lucas was still a novice film-maker. He was also a young man, and young people are as a rule much more risk tolerant than older people. I don't know the experience level of the ret of the crew, but we can also see that Lucas was a very strong personality - and indeed the entire film making process lends itself to almost dictatorial levels of control by the director.

In 1976, Star Wars also had no budget and no time. There are all kinds of things in the first movie especially - this is very obvious on the R2-D2 props and costumes - that weren't quite finished but there was just no more time. And, of course, there was no practical way for folks to frame-by-frame the movie looking for tiny details.

And, of course, Star Wars is having to outright invent an awful lot of the props and set dressing, to a level that no-one had ever done before.

It's clear the production team wasn't too worried about consistency of minor details. It's also clear that their definition of "minor" detail was pretty broad - consider the Death Star guards' weapons suddenly changing from DH-17s to E-11s mid-scene.

And, finally, all of these "it's better to have multiple props ready to go" decisions that are considered to be best practice or even absolute essentials today are the result of lessons learnt in the 1960s and 1970s.

All of this means I can very much imagine a couple of plausible scenarios where there was only one Hero DL-44. Perhaps they ran out of time or money and Lucas decided "it'll be okay" and just took the risk. Perhaps they just lost track in the rush to get everything ready and on the plane to Tunisia. Perhaps they weren't tracking props to the level of "we have three live-fire Han Solo blasters" but were instead content with "we have three live-fire pistols" or "we have three Han Solo blasters" (ie, conflating the stunt and hero options) and figured no-one would notice if Han Shot Greedo with Leia's blaster instead of his own.

Of course it's all speculation. I'm simply saying, as someone with a BA in History, it's important to not assume that people in the past - even as recent a past as 50 years ago - would make the same decisions in the same way as people living today would. And therefore it's really not inconceivable that there really was only one Hero DL-44 during the filming of Star Wars.

 

[chubsANDdoggers]

I think people stories change over time depending on motives being exposed. Mostly to justify their own actions obviously. For good or bad. In Tony’s case I think he bought Bapty out of his honest interest in getting into the movie prop business but things don’t always go as planned.

Easy money is hard to turn down for anyone and Tony is no exception. You can’t shame someone for trying to turn a profit on any investment they make. It’s only shameful IMHO with they change the narrative to justify their own actions don’t you think? Again here is info that was shared with me years ago (2018 maybe 19) and this “” conversation took place approximately 10 years prior..

“When looking through one of the containers he found ANH props, mainly E11s and what he called "Han Solo's Pistol.

He ([Tony after buying Bapty) struggled in the early years to stay in business so he sold off each blaster over the years. However he said he'd never sell the pistol as it was his "pension piece". It wasn't in the armoury, he kept it in a safe at home. He even turned down 50k for it at one stage. He said when he bought the container it worked out that each piece cost £30. He sold one E11 for 30k!”

£30 into 30k??! I’d say you start making e11 as well. Especially if they are directly from Bapty’s inventory.

Tony I'm pretty sure knew what he was doing when selling this “Hero”. He greased the wheels just enough don’t think. The fact that this info was passed on well before the PS show at least shows Tony knew how to turn a profit. Tony’s motives are pretty clear. Karl’s.. not so much outside the fact he could care less about SW and its fan base. Roger I’m very interested in hearing his insights as he has no motive or agenda with regards to this auction blaster. Should be interesting..