Han Solo ANH Blaster From RIA, Prev on Pawn Stars

[scottjua]

My guess is that they will never allow someone like
Joe Maddalena or the prop store guys to take a Close look.

Actually well before this Pawn Stars episode came out they DID take it to the Prop Store... which was when I learned about it. At that time I saw all the images of this thing in high res, which was when I determined that it was fake aside from the scope and MAYBE the top scope rings of the mount. I passed that opinion on to TPS and then, my guess is after being rejected by the Prop Store they went to Pawn Stars to try their luck.

I'm fairly convinced the scope is legit. Up close it's got way too much detail to be faked that perfectly in my honest opinion.

 

[thd9791]

I don't think it was said yet - but I think I notice that the blueing on the upper and lower frame are different. Upper scope rings and the lower cradle seem to be different colors too. Confirming to me, again, that many of the parts might not even be matching on top of the obvious replica parts

Edit: I know the original hero had a mismatched lower and upper too, sorry, so I guess I'm just paying more attention to blueing and machining marks than before

 

[kpax]

I agree Scott. I have not seen the Hi Res images like you so I defer to your expert opinion. The Scope may well be the original but I offer this comparison to you and the crew for fun discussion in this time of confinement.

I hope all are doing well and we exit this crisis soon!

As we know, the Mauser and mount are not original. I do not think the upper rings are either due to some missing details.

I tried to match the best most visible damage features of the scope. As you can see, some damage details match and some do not. The pre-production and production images show identical markings. Some more visible than others in the different views and lighting.

The Pawn Star scope shows the most visible 3 vertical gouges fairly accurately but seem to be missing other markings.

My blaster replica has pretty accurate damage markings... and I wasn't trying that hard.! ; ) Not $1,000,000.00 hard ! ; )

Note the semi-circular scuff mark the scoops under the 3 gouges. Can't make it out on the Pawn Star version.

With the obvious fake blaster and missing TomTitt parts etc I would not personally trust the scope to be real. Tho it could be.

Not sure why they would take the trouble to replicate the 3 gouges on the scope and totally ignore all the other details on the blaster... including the SN! Not sure how they thought that could fly!

 

[scottjua]

There is also the serial numbers on the scope windage base and the left side with the GW... those also seem to match up, and from every angle you can spot stuff that only can be compared after seeing the rest. It's crazy... but the story that this comes from Bapty and the serials and other markings jive. It's most likely the original scope. If it's not it's the BEST replica in the universe so far.

The top rings... I agree there's some stuff that is correct and other stuff that's not fitting. The mount... while similar isn't right in any sense. Not even the attachment method is the same. It's not a dovetail like the ANH. It's weird.

I'd love to be able to share those photos, but it's not mine and there's an agreement in place.

 

[kpax]

Understand you inability to share images. I trust your assessment.

I have never seen an image of the original blaster prop clear enough to make out the SN on the scope. Does one exist?

 

[thd9791]

I echo Kpax's sentiment

We've seen it before with other sketchy stories, I still have the feeling someone built a new blaster around the original scope and scrounged parts. That Flash Hider especially is an early replica, it almost looks like they used the same large knurling bit for all the knobs. They're much finer on the real prop, and I didn't think the bar knob's knurls matched the mount knob's knurls (That's a lot of letter Ks, I'm so sorry)

 

[kpax]

Just because I'm stuck inside...Something to do.

Here is a scope knob detail. As Scott said, if the SN of the scope base match then is the original scope. I personally can not make out the SN on the original prop images but there is an interesting "ached" damage detail on the left edge of the scope knob base that I do not see on the PawnStar prop.

The PawnStar SN looks MUCH cleaner than the original prop images suggest...

The PawnStar knob base also seems to overhang the scope body a bit OR the scope is dented in that area.
curious...

Again, If Scott says the SNs match then it must be the same scope but these details are confusing. Fun stuff.

 

[deadbolt]

I agree with Pat, the Scope's knob base does seem oddly clean compared to the original, as well as none of use having any public reference to the original ANH scope's serial # to reference to. 'If' the base were to be replaced with another, then the serial couldn't possibly match unless it was a fake..
But I also agree that it makes no sense whatsoever that they would go to so much trouble counterfeiting just the scope and no attention to the rest of the pawn stars blaster..so, it's very hard to tell factually just from the available photos and video.

Also, as far as the knob base goes, notice the gap in the recessed area that the knob it designed to fall into. It does seem a tad smaller from these newer pawn stars photos that we have access to thus far. Those scopes did vary somewhat, variation wise, when it came to the knobs and bases. So it does seem a little out of place for that, as well as the apparent gap on the underside that Pat pointed out where that base mounts to the scope tube and also missing blemishes and such.

As far as the tube, it's a tough thing to say for sure with what we publicly have to work from, but I'd say the knob base itself is somewhat questionable.

-Carson

 

[Jm419]

I have to admit, and though I understand why it is the way it is -

It is really irritating to read all these threads and see the commentary about, "No, that's wrong, but you can only tell from these super secret pics I have but you can't see." The studio scale guys do it too. Yes, I understand how NDAs work, and yes, I understand why it is the way it is, but maybe we should start following the rules from second grade... if you don't have enough to share with the class, don't bring it to school.

We're all here because we love the hobby, but it's pretty frustrating to have loved this stuff all my life only to have some folks talking ad nauseum about their super de duper secret reference photos, and the rest of us regular joes who don't happen to live in Los Angeles don't get to see them. I'm sorry, but I don't care to know if you have super secret reference. If I can't see the reference, it makes zero difference to me whether my prop includes the little detail that only you know if it's right.

/rant

 

[Inquisitor Peregrinus]

Yes, I understand how NDAs work, and yes, I understand why it is the way it is, but maybe we should start following the rules from second grade... if you don't have enough to share with the class, don't bring it to school.

And yet I can speak from experience that I do not like to see people going down the wrong path without saying something. Either people trust my research or they don't, but I at least try. I know NDAs are a pain in the ass and I hate not being able to share why I know what I know. Fortunately for me, it hasn't happened often, so I've been spared a portion of that angst...

 

[Jm419]

Yeah, that's a fair point. I just don't quite know what makes me so different from the next guy. I'd like to see the photos of the original studio model of Red 4 too, but I guess they're not for peons like me.

 

[SethS]

The problem is that a lot of people tend to make their own decisions, and will NEVER be swayed from them, and they go around propagating false information, which for some people is really confusing and frustrating while working on their own projects. I think it's actually great that we have access to people like Scott and Brandon in this community because they can help clear up the mysteries. That's what makes the RPF great. They are professionals sharing information. They have proven over a long period of time to be legit voices.

I'd take trusted second hand information over rumors and guesses any day.

There isn't a single one of us that wouldn't love to work for Lucasfilm and peek at the archives. The fact this info is protected legally is just the way it is, and none of use would refuse to sign an NDA and walk away from that chance.

 

[thd9791]

People that have been around a while, which old replicas had lighter gray flash hiders and straight pill shaped scallops? Master Replicas?

Have any scope cradles utilized a straight mount ridge behind the knob instead of a dovetail? This has to be way before my time, which is only 2010

 

[kpax]

People that have been around a while, which old replicas had lighter gray flash hiders and straight pill shaped scallops? Master Replicas?

Have any scope cradles utilized a straight mount ridge behind the knob instead of a dovetail? This has to be way before my time, which is only 2010

The oldest version I saw was on the MR I think. Simplified attachment I guess.?

 

[deadbolt]

The MR Elite edition was the first replica I ever saw with a dovetail, but that's only because the mount and it's presence in Sitting Target, along with the dovetail was just realized a little while before that version was made..plus the 1st MR version was sloppy anyways, so it pissed a lot of people off since it was far from accurate and used a Denix.

Chris (lonepigeon) had a lot to do with the Elite Edition being the first, accurate replica for it's time with the available reference material to work from.


-Carson

 

[thd9791]

I guese i was asking if its possible the FH was taken off an existing replica and not fabricated

 

[kpax]

I would think so.

 

[David3]

As a researcher 'secret info' can be frustrating but as a lover of the genre I don't think revealing every minute detail on a public forum is a good thing.. as we've seen with replicas passing as originals at auctions.

 

[H0llyw00d]

My gut tells me that the scope is legit... which is bittersweet because that means that if that's all Bapty had left we will never see the full prop in one piece ever. But at the same time I'm down the rabbit hole that is the BR blaster and finding the complete prop caused a lot of pain and resentment.

Maybe it's better if this prop retains its mysteries for us and future generations of wackos to debate and enjoy...

 

[ToddsCostumes]

I just saw this yesterday. Wow! To see ANY part of the original blaster is amazing. It is another piece to the puzzle of what happened to this prop. But is also raises some questions and challenges some assumptions... I am skeptical too, but not quite so quick to dismiss it. The prop presented by it's owner is much older now and 40+ years of rust and handling have taken it's toll, especially if it's been treated as casually as the prop maker did in the video.

The scope: I agree with Scott. It's the scope, no question. It's has a lot more handling and the scrapes aren't bright and shiny anymore, but I'm convinced.

The bracket: Check this out:

I see 7 matches there, despite how dull and dark the metal is now and how little finish it has left on it. I think most authenticators would call that a match.

1. The dovetail doesn't match the one in "Sitting Target". True.
   • Is there any proof that the exact same bracket was used in both films?
   • Is there any proof that the dovetail wasn't modified for use in SW?
   • Is there any proof that the blaster in SW had a dovetail other than it's similarity to the bracket seen in ST?
   • If this bracket was war surplus (like the rest of the prop) isn't it plausible that Bapty might have had many similar brackets, perhaps with HW scopes mounted in them?

I have a lot more questions about this prop, but they will have to wait for later. For now, let me just say I'm about 80% convinced this is the scope bracket in the reference photos (who knows what actually ended up on film?) As far as the mounting hardware... IDK. Not so convinced.