LIGHTSABER - GRAFLEX - LUKE ESB - Grips - Broken T-Strip in ESB Promo Photo
- Thread starter Ridire Firean
- Start date
clancampbell
Sr Member
Sym-Cha
Master Member
BUT Chhhhhaaaaaaimm, did they use rivets or screws?!?!?
They used screwits :wacko
Chaim
matty matt
Sr Member
Ok, screws or rivets aside, were they black or metal colored?
Tumbler
Well-Known Member
I agree 100%. Regardless of how the anomaly is described the result is to clean. The body of the flash gun is perfectly intact but the track is absent. I have done a ton of darkroom work and it sure does not look like a film/processing issue to me. Given that the "missing" section is right around where the cutout would have been for the screw/rivet it is way more likely that the track broke and the shot was the last one taken.
Just my 2 cents on the matter
JoMamma_Smurf
Master Member
I thought the consensus was that the screen used T-tracks were metal.
jkno
Legendary Member
BUT Chhhhhaaaaaaimm, did they use rivets or screws?!?!?
They used screwvets :ninja
Sym-Cha
Master Member
It's also very possible the broken grip was retouched with black ink in post before printing thus appearing intact in other pictures/magazines
Chaim
laszlo
Sr Member
It's also very possible the broken grip was retouched with black ink in post before printing thus appearing intact in other pictures/magazines
Chaim
I think you are right - that same grips edges look a bit soft at the top from the US cover
Honestly, I believe they used earlier thin-lipped graflexes for both movies. The Bubble Strip was pinched in the ANH Graflex. I might even go so far as to say they used some of the same flash parts to build the ESB graflex, considering how rare the thin-lip ones are. They did have a few complete units though, as some were used as fencing props.
But I do not know enough about Grafexes production to say what the stamp on the bottom was. I know factories back then were very hit or miss with product labeling and parts that the consumer didn't care about...like the stamping on the bottom of a flash unit. There might not even be any chronological continuity in factory production.
Best I can tell early folmers for BOTH movies.
Jedi Reali
Sr Member
Are you basing this assumption solely on the loose lever in the Tunisia photos?
What do you mean by thin-lipped Graflex? This is the first time I'm seeing that terminology used.
Do some digging on the site. It's mentioned in this thread and in a few others that discuss qualities of Graflex flashes. The earlier units had a thinner lip, meaning the bottom rim, around the stamped bottom plate. Later models are thicker. There are even differences in the lever's pin head: rounded/flush on earlier units and a raised machined pin in later units.
Tunisia photos, Toe-pic from Chaim and later production photos of it finally being closed. Also the ANH/ESB/ROTJ Vader saber that turned up recently uses the pinch method for its bubble strip.
That's not a "loose" lever. It's closed as much as it can. Bubble Strips are not wide enough to hold open a clamp the way you're thinking. Using most-efficiant problem solving like they did back then usually leads you to the pinch method - the distance between the clamp ridges is the closest dimension in comparison, it's the path of least resistance metaphorically, (the smallest sanding job as opposed to thinning the strip and making it slide back and forth underneath the clamp ridges). We've never seen the strip slid one way or the other. but we have seen the strip still too wide to let the clamp close. That exact thing happened to me when I was trying to make it fit. I was about 3/4 of the way through the sanding job. It seems like the team was rushed and that seemed to work for that scene. Later they were able to finish the job and close the clamp fully.
I think we may be jumping the (flash)gun on calling early Folmers all around. We have one shot from ESB that I will agree shows an early Folmer w/o the Patent Number for the Hoth saber but that's it. The "toe" picture is inconclusive -- the image suggests the thin outer edge so I'm certainly leaning "Folmer" at least but may have the patent number.
Then there is the "Ranch" saber. I don't know if we've nailed down if that it is screen used or not but it is in the archives at the very least and held up as a production piece by Lucasfilm. In the past it has been linked to the Dagobah scenes but I think that may be because in those shots the saber is missing a red button like the Ranch saber is. Does anyone have any shots of the end cap in decent resolution? I have the same old shots from the C3 convention and in one of those you can make out the lettering on one side that pretty clearly reads "MADE BY T" and "ROCHEST". The rest of the lettering is obscured by lighting and glue/gunk.
Now, when I take my Kobold clip and place it over my Folmer Patent Graflex it lines up very closely to what I can see in the C3 picture of the Ranch saber.
There is also a shot from the Original Prop Blog that shows the complete end cap of the Ranch saber. However it was posted in low enough resolution that while you can't read it clearly does look like a Patent Number type Folmer Graflex.
Further production related Graflex sabers include an ESB stunt saber auctioned at Christies many years ago and, if the thickness of the end cap ridge is truly anything to judge by, then that certainly looks like a later style Graflex -- but I'm not going to call it one way or the other. Then there's the Kurtz/Joiner Profiles in History saber which may or may not have been production made but is definitely a later "Manufactured by" Graflex.
Fun to talk Graflexes again after all theses years!
Dave
Then there is the "Ranch" saber. I don't know if we've nailed down if that it is screen used or not but it is in the archives at the very least and held up as a production piece by Lucasfilm. In the past it has been linked to the Dagobah scenes but I think that may be because in those shots the saber is missing a red button like the Ranch saber is. Does anyone have any shots of the end cap in decent resolution? I have the same old shots from the C3 convention and in one of those you can make out the lettering on one side that pretty clearly reads "MADE BY T" and "ROCHEST". The rest of the lettering is obscured by lighting and glue/gunk.
Now, when I take my Kobold clip and place it over my Folmer Patent Graflex it lines up very closely to what I can see in the C3 picture of the Ranch saber.
There is also a shot from the Original Prop Blog that shows the complete end cap of the Ranch saber. However it was posted in low enough resolution that while you can't read it clearly does look like a Patent Number type Folmer Graflex.
Further production related Graflex sabers include an ESB stunt saber auctioned at Christies many years ago and, if the thickness of the end cap ridge is truly anything to judge by, then that certainly looks like a later style Graflex -- but I'm not going to call it one way or the other. Then there's the Kurtz/Joiner Profiles in History saber which may or may not have been production made but is definitely a later "Manufactured by" Graflex.
Fun to talk Graflexes again after all theses years!
Dave
Jedi Reali
Sr Member
Here ya go. Definitely a patent number on the left side.
It's also worth noting that every Graflex we have reference of has straight pins, no caps. (Even the one pin that's left in the MoM Vader.)
Jedi Reali
Sr Member
I would argue that "using most efficient problem solving" would lead one to sand the bottom of the bubble strip, instead of the sides.
Recently I removed the bubble strip from my own Exactra and was faced with this very decision. To me, since the clamp rails exist to wrap around something, to grip something "inside" it, it makes sense to sand the bottom of the bubble strip, just along the edges, and gradually, until the edges fit snugly inside the rails. Then, if you have to, you can fill the gaps on either side with literally anything. Whatever is in there will never be seen. The pinch method just seems so much more tenuous of an option. With the pinch method the bubble strip is held on ("on" as opposed to "in") by the pressure between two thin rails alone. Pressure that is controlled by that lever, that we can see is jutting out, not even properly closed all the way. For something that's going to get banged around hanging from an actor's belt, the former option seems to offer a lot more security for the attached small plastic greeblie.
Certainly I realize the lever is not "loose". Ok, the not fully closed all the way lever. The Graflex in the photos below has the same issue. (We don't know for sure that it is the same prop we see in the Tunisia photos, but for the sake of argument let's say that it is.) The top has been rotated 180º and the lever still has not been closed all the way for some reason. What else do we notice?
Like the Chronicles Obi-Wan saber, the clamp is missing the square washer beneath its lever. Without that washer the lever functions a little differently. It's a little bit harder to turn. It has more of a grinding action than a smooth action. And also, the space/pressure within the clamp's rails would not change were you to push that lever fully closed.
I'll try to explain.
Let's look at the clamp the way it is positioned in the above photos. The lever would be fully closed at 9:00, and fully open at 6:00. Without the square washer, the clamp is as tight as it's going to get once that lever reaches 7:00. The movement of the lever between 7:00 and 9:00 no longer affects the tightness/grip/space within the clamp's rails. Therefore, in the above photos, it is not a slightly too wide pinched bubble strip that is preventing the lever from closing all the way. It simply has not been pushed closed all the way. And if that can be true in the above photos, it also must be counted as a possibility in the Tunisia photos (which obviously are not detailed enough to show us whether the square washer is present or not).
Also I will say, to my eye, it just looks like the bubble strip goes under the rail in the toe pic, particularly in the top left corner.
And then there's this pic:
If the bubble strip were pinched, the whole thing would sit higher in the clamp, and we'd see more of the bubbles in this photo.
As for the bubble strip in the ESB/ROTJ Vader saber, I think it's pretty clear that it is inside the clamp, not just pinched. I always thought it looked strange though because to me it appears to be raised on top, just between the clamp's rails, and we haven't seen any Exactra strip that looks like that. No one has ever posited the idea of sanding the top edges of an Exactra strip but it's worth posing all possibilities.
Now whether the bubble strip was sanded on the bottom or "pinched" on the ANH sabers, I have no idea. But it interests me, as I haven't installed my Exactra strips yet and whichever way I choose, it can never be undone. (And Exactra's ain't cheap!) I've just offered some of my own thoughts and observations on it and I'm interested in what others' theories are and why.
Last edited:
I NEVER noticed the missing washer, and the fact that it changes the way the lever works is fascinating! Thanks for taking the time to reply, I'll have to think more on this.
Also, I must have been thinking of the circuit board beneath the bubbles on the Vader saber, which is glued to the bottom and never touches the clamp. I knew something was weird, yea those bubbles are totally being choked by the MPP clamp
Also, I must have been thinking of the circuit board beneath the bubbles on the Vader saber, which is glued to the bottom and never touches the clamp. I knew something was weird, yea those bubbles are totally being choked by the MPP clamp
I would argue that "using most efficient problem solving" would lead one to sand the bottom of the bubble strip, instead of the sides.
Recently I removed the bubble strip from my own Exactra and was faced with this very decision. To me, since the clamp rails exist to wrap around something, to grip something "inside" it, it makes sense to sand the bottom of the bubble strip, just along the edges, and gradually, until the edges fit snugly inside the rails. Then, if you have to, you can fill the gaps on either side with literally anything. Whatever is in there will never be seen. The pinch method just seems so much more tenuous of an option. With the pinch method the bubble strip is held on ("on" as opposed to "in") by the pressure between two thin rails alone. Pressure that is controlled by that lever, that we can see is jutting out, not even properly closed all the way. For something that's going to get banged around hanging from an actor's belt, the former option seems to offer a lot more security for the attached small plastic greeblie.
Certainly I realize the lever is not "loose". Ok, the not fully closed all the way lever. The Graflex in the photos below has the same issue. (We don't know for sure that it is the same prop we see in the Tunisia photos, but for the sake of argument let's say that it is.) The top has been rotated 180º and the lever still has not been closed all the way for some reason. What else do we notice?
View attachment 607136 View attachment 607137
Like the Chronicles Obi-Wan saber, the clamp is missing the square washer beneath its lever. Without that washer the lever functions a little differently. It's a little bit harder to turn. It has more of a grinding action than a smooth action. And also, the space/pressure within the clamp's rails would not change were you to push that lever fully closed.
I'll try to explain.
Let's look at the clamp the way it is positioned in the above photos. The lever would be fully closed at 9:00, and fully open at 6:00. Without the square washer, the clamp is as tight as it's going to get once that lever reaches 7:00. The movement of the lever between 7:00 and 9:00 no longer affects the tightness/grip/space within the clamp's rails. Therefore, in the above photos, it is not a slightly too wide pinched bubble strip that is preventing the lever from closing all the way. It simply has not been pushed closed all the way. And if that can be true in the above photos, it also must be counted as a possibility in the Tunisia photos (which obviously are not detailed enough to show us whether the square washer is present or not).
Also I will say, to my eye, it just looks like the bubble strip goes under the rail in the toe pic, particularly in the top left corner.
And then there's this pic:
View attachment 607150
If the bubble strip were pinched, the whole thing would sit higher in the clamp, and we'd see more of the bubbles in this photo.
As for the bubble strip in the ESB/ROTJ Vader saber, I think it's pretty clear that it is inside the clamp, not just pinched. I always thought it looked strange though because to me it appears to be raised on top, just between the clamp's rails, and we haven't seen any Exactra strip that looks like that. No one has ever posited the idea of sanding the top edges of an Exactra strip but it's worth posing all possibilities.
View attachment 607158View attachment 607157View attachment 607156View attachment 607155
Now whether the bubble strip was sanded on the bottom or "pinched" on the ANH sabers, I have no idea. But it interests me, as I haven't installed my Exactra strips yet and whichever way I choose, it can never be undone. (And Exactra's ain't cheap!) I've just offered some of my own thoughts and observations on it and I'm interested in what others' theories are and why.
veektohr
Sr Member
Similar threads
