Han Solo ANH Blaster From RIA, Prev on Pawn Stars

[thd9791]

oh man, those drag marks are standing out to me, now that you've pointed them out. Straannggee

is it possible these had paint on them and have been stripped, smoothing out the surface blemishes and leaving the metal?

 

[thd9791]

I'll also say they had the cradle and scope together at the end of Jedi, and put them on a ROTJ live firing gun. Would they have re-built the cross bar/rest of the gun to "finish" one with what they had leftover?

 

[ToddsCostumes]

is it possible these had paint on them and have been stripped, smoothing out the surface blemishes and leaving the metal?

Because some of the marks in the b&w don't appear? I chalk that up to angle and age. Not every mark is going to show up from every angle. And age because the metal isn't shiny anymore and the contrast is gone. Enough visible marks DO show up and match to warrant a closer look.

I'll also say they had the cradle and scope together at the end of Jedi, and put them on a ROTJ live firing gun. Would they have re-built the cross bar/rest of the gun to "finish" one with what they had leftover?

Why do you say they reused the scope/bracket in ROTJ?

 

[kpax]

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:

View attachment 1297778

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.

• 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? There is a SW promo image that shows the dovetail is the same. New computer so I can't post right now. Also, as Scott can attest, a non-dovetail connection will not stay on very well... even with blanks.
  • 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? No other similar mount has ever been found as far as I know. I even contacted Mauser at one point as well as antique arms experts. They have never seen a mount like this either. If it was actually war surplus I imagine there would be a bunch out there. Never say never but not yet anyway.
• I do not think the mount is the original. The indicators you point out are not a match to my eye tho not inspecting it in person I could be wrong... but don't think so. It is missing some clear markings that the pre and post production images share.
• 1) the hollow cut under the cradle that brushes the under scope barrel.
• 2) The semi-circular gouge to the left of the thumb knob, likely due to pliers being used to loosen or tighten the knob at some point. Likely to originally get it off the Sitting target gun is my guess.
• 3) The thumb knob turnings in the center share a distinct shape and pattern that the pawn stars lacks IMO.
• Close but no cigar.

 

[Treadwell]

Why do you say they reused the scope/bracket in ROTJ?

Inside the bunker. The only time he has the blaster in hand in footage shot at Elstree.

 

[kpax]

Inside the bunker. The only time he has the blaster in hand in footage shot at Elstree.

Not sure if it’s the same scene as you mean but there are some outtake images and also perhaps the bunker scene where they flipped the scope? If I am remembering correctly

 

[thd9791]

Why do you say they reused the scope/bracket in ROTJ?

Deleted scene ROTJ Blaster

 

[kpax]

Scope is on backwards and in better images looks like the slipped a TOO long tube over the barrel with a FH on the end. Not sure there is a grill...

 

[kpax]

 

[ToddsCostumes]

Thanks, Kpax.

There is a SW promo image that shows the dovetail is the same.

I'd love to see that one. I've not seen one that clearly shows that there is a dovetail rail inside the bracket.

No other similar mount has ever been found as far as I know. I even contacted Mauser at one point as well as antique arms experts. They have never seen a mount like this either. If it was actually war surplus I imagine there would be a bunch out there. Never say never but not yet anyway.

Well, if this isn't the same bracket that means Bapty had at least two, right? Considering the mind-boggling number of weapons used in the first half of the 20th century, I'm not surprised in the least that it could be obscure.

The indicators you point out are not a match to my eye tho not inspecting it in person I could be wrong... but don't think so. It is missing some clear markings that the pre and post production images share.

Two points: First, the two original images don't reveal all of the same markings, so it does not surprise me that some marks do not show in the video, especially after all these years. Second, one mark shows clearly in ALL THREE PHOTOS - the horizontal mark running the full length of the cradle tube, right under the tabs. It's the same mark. Also, the grinding marks between the tabs are the same in all three photos.

the hollow cut under the cradle that brushes the under scope barrel.

That's the hardest to explain. Is what I see in that one original profile photo really a cut, or a reflection? I've gone back and forth over the years, and I've made them both ways because sometimes I see it one way and sometimes the other way. So, I'm really on the fence about that one. If someone's got a really clear picture of the underside of the bracket, I'd love to see it.

I don't trust photos that much. I could tell you stories about customers on my site that ask me to make their item like "the one in the second photo, not like the third" and they won't believe me when I tell them the pictures are of the same exact item. They'll argue with me. Really. Sometimes pictures are very deceiving.

The semi-circular gouge to the left of the thumb knob

That one doesn't bother me. It's quite possible that it has faded to the point it doesn't show in the photos. A close up inspection might reveal it in the right light.

The thumb knob turnings in the center share a distinct shape and pattern that the pawn stars lacks IMO

I don't think that's the same thumb screw. The knurl is very pronounced on the Pawn Stars gun, and should be easily seen if it were in the original photos. Also, it is much deeper and thicker than the original. Perhaps if they did use the mount and scope for ROTJ, they paired it with different hardware? At any rate, it didn't get put back together with the same screw.

Anyway, I appreciate your response and I wanted to reply. You've got some good points.

 

[kpax]

Thanks, Kpax.



I'd love to see that one. I've not seen one that clearly shows that there is a dovetail rail inside the bracket.



Well, if this isn't the same bracket that means Bapty had at least two, right? Considering the mind-boggling number of weapons used in the first half of the 20th century, I'm not surprised in the least that it could be obscure.



Two points: First, the two original images don't reveal all of the same markings, so it does not surprise me that some marks do not show in the video, especially after all these years. Second, one mark shows clearly in ALL THREE PHOTOS - the horizontal mark running the full length of the cradle tube, right under the tabs. It's the same mark. Also, the grinding marks between the tabs are the same in all three photos.



That's the hardest to explain. Is what I see in that one original profile photo really a cut, or a reflection? I've gone back and forth over the years, and I've made them both ways because sometimes I see it one way and sometimes the other way. So, I'm really on the fence about that one. If someone's got a really clear picture of the underside of the bracket, I'd love to see it.

I don't trust photos that much. I could tell you stories about customers on my site that ask me to make their item like "the one in the second photo, not like the third" and they won't believe me when I tell them the pictures are of the same exact item. They'll argue with me. Really. Sometimes pictures are very deceiving.



That one doesn't bother me. It's quite possible that it has faded to the point it doesn't show in the photos. A close up inspection might reveal it in the right light.



I don't think that's the same thumb screw. The knurl is very pronounced on the Pawn Stars gun, and should be easily seen if it were in the original photos. Also, it is much deeper and thicker than the original. Perhaps if they did use the mount and scope for ROTJ, they paired it with different hardware? At any rate, it didn't get put back together with the same screw.

Anyway, I appreciate your response and I wanted to reply. You've got some good points.

Thanks Todd, Also nice to discuss this prop again.

I do not believe Bapty had two mounts. I think they simply made a new one OR more likely bought a repro mount. I believe the mount is made more like the first reproductions from MR.

I did check with several very big antique arms collectors and historical experts and they had never seen a mount like this. If they did have 2 mounts they sure keep it secrete all these years. I know several people contacted Bapty over the many years and asked about the blaster.

To my eye and experience, the horizontal marks and indicative of any machine marks and as you point out, the photo angles and exposure can trick the eye. I try to find more pronounced marking to compare like the hollow area, knob gouge and missing dent on the left tube area.

In addition, note the shape of the squarecle opening. The real mount has even parallel straights but the Pawn mount has a hump pushing in on the right side. To be sure I show 2 angles to be certain it was not a shadow.

The vertical supports are also different. Note the top area where they transition to the scope tube barrel. The real mount blens smoothly with very little "step" but the Pawn version has a distinct STEP.

The Mauser is not original. The mount is not original. The prop lacks the grill or even the glue remnants and the mystery disk area is not even there.
Even if the scope is original and it likely is according to Scott. How much is that worth after Bapty tried to pass this off are the real deal. A million dollar prop! Obviously fake. Buyer beware! ; )

Whoever "remade" the prop, they built it as the original preproduction prop with no grill, mystery disk or finishing/paint on the crossbar etc.

I would have been happy to sell them my repro and split the cash with them At least it would have fooled more people! : )

Watched the clip again. Love the way they bang a million dollar prop around! And still wonder why Rick allowed the impression that it was the correct serial number when it clearly is not. I thought Rick had more integrity! ; )

Those are my thoughts. But I have been know to be wrong about these things... from time to time...

 

[scottjua]

You guys point out all the obvious tells... another is the center mount screw. The fake prop shows a DEEP recess in the center. The original prop screw wasn't as tall... and didn't have that deep a recess in the center. To me the top ring caps are more intriguing

 

[kpax]

You guys point out all the obvious tells... another is the center mount screw. The fake prop shows a DEEP recess in the center. The original prop screw wasn't as tall... and didn't have that deep a recess in the center. To me the top ring caps are more intriguing

I agree. The thumbscrew is wrong . I think there is an Image that shows the approximate depth in that it actually stands off the mount a bit and does not sit flush.

The ring caps would be interesting to see but there are no images available, at least not commonly available on the web.

There are some telltale markings dings and dents.

I would not imagine the rings would be authentic and the rest of the mound not. I do not think it was their objective to use as many authentic parts as possible on this prop.

I am puzzled by what that crazy old wizard from Bapty said about having four other guns that were effed for firing. Does this mean they could not fire?

I did not get the impression that they had built 4 blank fire DL44 For the show. The guy was not very clear but maybe he meant they built 4 other different guns but this was the one Lucas wanted. ?

I have never seen any images or screen caps that show even a minor different HERO blaster. And as have been pointed out many times. The budget was tight.

 

[scottjua]

The only way to explain it if the rings and cradle aren't the originals... which they don't seem to be... AND that bapty claims to have made multiples... is that the tooling marks support the theory there were more than one made??? It seems odd that the tooling marks are so similar... but not the same. To ME it's clearly ONLY the scope... and IF these are Bapty parts... whoever made them... made a copy(ies) or relatively similar parts. The bull barrel even is very similarly done.

OR

Someone tried very hard to make a REPLICA mount... because they KNEW they had the scope... and figured just making a new gun would seal the deal. Not accounting for anyone to notice the differences. It's potentially a million dollar idea if it doesn't get caught... so I would think it's work some effort on a forgery aspect. But they missed so much of the mark it boggles the mind.

We know the scope and mount went on to be seen again in ROTJ...

I'd be curious what the real story is. Did they just have multiple parts and simply get the wrong configuration put back together??? Or did they only have the scope and decide it was worth a million dollars to try to remake the rest???

 

[thd9791]

I'm very curious too. Scott, like you said, the tooling marks are quite similar but not all the way there. My ideas:

1.) A stripped, sanded, cleaned mount that lost details. I even see 2 dings - on the upper edge of the left scope ring top and scope cradle bottom ring that line up.

2.) Scott's idea that there were multiples made by bapty, machined the same way, leading to the similar bull barrel and mount. (Hell, maybe the continuity photo is of one of the "seconds" and not the hero itself)

3.) What if the dovetail was milled off for some reason. The pre-production photo shows the same amount of metal poking out behind the right side of the mount (where the dovetail would be).

For the Pre-production photo: is that the profile of a dovetail poking out?

 

[kpax]

We may never know the truth but it sure seems very convoluted at this point.

Watched the video and Carl again. I think I figured out what he meant. He says, ( ...we had 4 guns, they were "effed up" for firing...so I used those guns,,,we had much better ones... (so you used the bad ones?) ...("exactly) So he built the original one with parts from 4 guns.

1) The upper from Naked Runner with bull barrel. ( note rear bolt not welded yet! (carsons lump)
2) A working c96 lower sans left dual mounts from Naked runner.
3) The scope and mount from Sitting Target M712
4) The lower from Naked Runner with left side crossbar mount ( used for casting resin props like the MerrSonn.)

Another thing that kind of stuck out in my mind what is it that he banged the muzzle of the gun on the table. You know there was something funky about the way the FH was attached to the barrel on the movie prop. Always off kilter and not solidly attached. This FH is obviously a reproduction and Parkerized. They didn’t even try to find a vintage one.

They weren’t trying to pass this off as ONE of the hero blasters made for the film. They were trying to pass it off as THE hero blaster with the same serial number which we know is not correct. The whole deal makes no sense. Not a very well thought out forgery scheme.

Are there any views down the barrel? Curious to see if they Have a restrictor in there like the original.

Note the thumbscrew shape and dovetail area.

 

[thd9791]

Thank you!
You're right this is very convoluted, something doesn't add up. clearly not the hero pistol

Call me crazy, but that clear dovetail shape looks smaller than the metal poking out from behind the mount in the photos above. I mean, the "pre-production" shot looks closer to this fake and the B&W I can see the smaller dovetail block.

 

[ToddsCostumes]

I'd be curious what the real story is. Did they just have multiple parts and simply get the wrong configuration put back together???

That is plausible.

Or did they only have the scope and decide it was worth a million dollars to try to remake the rest???

I don't think this is plausible. And here is why:
1. No one is that good. If everything is newly made except the scope... It's a masterpiece. The patina shown in the video is extremely layered and subtle and clearly looks like a 100 year old gun and scope mount. I've seen good aging before, but that is a whole new level.
2. They did not make a replica of the gun as it appears in their reference photo. They made a replica of the gun 43 years older than the reference photo. Much more handling, more knocks and darkened metal. Super genius.
3. They did not make what people would expect. If they researched the fan sites and looked at prop replicas, they would have added a grill and greeblies and put on a dovetail mount. At the least they would have made a silver spot on the left side. They would never have made THAT. They would be either uninformed or super geniuses.
4. I don't think the two men in that video would have the guts to make a forgery, then go on television IN PERSON and vouch for it. Unimaginable guts. Especially Karl, who doesn't seem to give two cents, yet proudly presented it as his work. The owner has sold many SW weapons in the past and he knows the drill. He knows the scrutiny the prop will come under. If he had a known forgery he would unload it under the radar or through a proxy.

 

[kpax]

That is plausible.



I don't think this is plausible. And here is why:
1. No one is that good. If everything is newly made except the scope... It's a masterpiece. The patina shown in the video is extremely layered and subtle and clearly looks like a 100 year old gun and scope mount. I've seen good aging before, but that is a whole new level.
2. They did not make a replica of the gun as it appears in their reference photo. They made a replica of the gun 43 years older than the reference photo. Much more handling, more knocks and darkened metal. Super genius.
3. They did not make what people would expect. If they researched the fan sites and looked at prop replicas, they would have added a grill and greeblies and put on a dovetail mount. At the least they would have made a silver spot on the left side. They would never have made THAT. They would be either uninformed or super geniuses.
4. I don't think the two men in that video would have the guts to make a forgery, then go on television IN PERSON and vouch for it. Unimaginable guts. Especially Karl, who doesn't seem to give two cents, yet proudly presented it as his work. The owner has sold many SW weapons in the past and he knows the drill. He knows the scrutiny the prop will come under. If he had a known forgery he would unload it under the radar or through a proxy.

Which is the real one...

 

[kpax]

Thank you!
You're right this is very convoluted, something doesn't add up. clearly not the hero pistol

Call me crazy, but that clear dovetail shape looks smaller than the metal poking out from behind the mount in the photos above. I mean, the "pre-production" shot looks closer to this fake and the B&W I can see the smaller dovetail block.

...you're crazy... ; )

Here is some proof. Realized WHY the crossbar had the strange marking and pattern when I assembled my blaster.
The edges of the rear of the mount rub all the shiny areas of the crossbar and actually gouged the aluminum on the HERO.
The center rubs are from the thumbscrew not being removed completely and gouging the bar.
You can see Oliver Reed work the thumbscrew and mount in the movie.
Note how the gouges stop at the edge of the outer thumb nuts.
I actually used the mount to replicate the gouges on my blaster!