New Elstree Studio documentary with discarded Graflex.

Until every GRAFLEX hilt constructed for ANH has been accounted for and photographed, and conclusively shows that ALL D-rings had 2 rivets, I am fine with not altering my single rivet D-ring hilts.

We are talking about a prop that most likely had multiple iterations and most likely had no guidance as to the number of rivets required.

Until lost footage emerges of Heston declaring that an 11th Commandment stated “Thou Shalt Have 2 Rivets On Thy D-Rings...” I am content to not alter the work that I have already done.

6A066339-686A-4732-A46D-DE59C36BEB41.jpeg
 
Last edited:
That’s why my flash has the clip stuck on with double sided tape and a false rivet. Easy to change out when the opinion once again shifts. I remember all the people panicking and selling double drilled flashes back in 2002.
 
Greg, you talking about this saber having a d ring riveted to the bottom?

View attachment 993625

If so, mind showing me in currently fabricating this. And the reference I have doesn’t have any d rings on the bottom


No, I’m talking about the Barbican’s shroud d-ring (which probably didn’t have a d-ring during ANH). A stunt with a d-ring riveted for cosmetic reasons. Two rivets used, probably to keep it on securely during stuntwork. I’m just citing it an an example of a stunt with a cosmetic d-ring detail secured with two rivets.

821B6E09-6AC6-4A73-A868-361EEC4732A5.gif
 
Also the saber to the eye picture. These are floating around the Graflex group on FB. Also similar ones a page back, just reposting.

View attachment 993629
View attachment 993630

People keep citing this image, but it would mean that the bottom half is rotated 180 degrees from the toe pic and other accepted versions, so that the exposed, stamped portion of the endcap (when looking at the flash from the bottom, with the clamp pointing up, at 12:00) is at 6:00 when the clamp box is at 12:00, rather than the accepted configuration we all know, as in the toe pic, where the exposed half of the stamping is facing up, toward the clamp.

If the grips were as long as they appear to be, I can’t really see them swapping out or rotating clamps and bottom halves, since you can’t separate clamps from bottom halves when the grips are butting up against the clamp edge (unless you disassemble the clamp to remove it, rather than twisting it off of the bottom piece).
 
A really quick and dirty version of what I’m talking about, by rotating the bottom half of my old Larbel.


Toe pic orientation.

F38DF680-B2BF-40BA-87D8-1148532C3257.jpeg

Rotated.
C43731E2-0CB1-418F-B6E4-C21ADE1926F2.jpeg
 
I suggest examining the alternate footage from Ben’s hut. When I first posted it, it was to suggest the clip was off center due to the reflection being slightly toward the far side of the hilt. Just so happens to be off center toward the bubble side of the clamp, just like you mentioned, which means it matches the saber to the face picture that was likely taken at the same time.

More blurry reference, so it’s hard to get much from it.
 
Last edited:
Why some of you think Roger Christian or Roger Shaw would put a diferent number of rivets in the D-rings? What reason could they have to not make them all look the same?

The stunt saber John Stears did (the tube) had not Dring nor rivets. Because he doesnt need it, its just to make the blade effects, not to hang from belt. Why would the SFX team build a system to hang it from the belt if the stunt saber was going to be used with the Blade on (cant hang from the betl with the blade on)?.

The reason I think this is one of those only 3 lightsaber Christians always has said he built and not a constructed one by the FX team, is because the Dring. The sfx would never put that in, there was no reason to.

Any one correct me, but there is no evidence of more Lukes sabers built. Than the 3 christians, and the final stunt saber. Appart the weird looking prototypes of course. I mean the final design.
 
As to why they would put D-rings on stunt / bladed hilts, look no farther than Kenobi’s V2 and V3 stunt hilts.

Neither were ORIGINALLY designed to be belt hangers (specifically, the V2) yet both were given D-rings for the sake of detail continuity, it appears, prior to their promotion in the prop hierarchy in ROTJ.

Vader’s stunt ESB MPP hilt(s) also had the D-ring in the flash hood but were not intended as belt hangers.

I don’t think the Elstree GRAFLEX was intended to be a belt hanger. I believe, as stated before, that this was a failed stunt saber that had a D-ring attached for detail consistency vs. belt hanging functionality.
 
Why some of you think Roger Christian or Roger Shaw would put a diferent number of rivets in the D-rings? What reason could they have to not make them all look the same?
there are plenty of other lightsabers and props that have totally different parts, or orientated parts.. the prop teams didn’t care about making them all 100% identical

It comes down to, we need this now, make it.


The stunt saber John Stears did (the tube) had not Dring nor rivets. Because he doesnt need it, its just to make the blade effects, not to hang from belt. Why would the SFX team build a system to hang it from the belt if the stunt saber was going to be used with the Blade on (cant hang from the betl with the blade on)?.

many other lightsaber stunts through out the rest of the trilogy had d rings and were completed lightsabers, just had stunt blades attached.


The reason I think this is one of those only 3 lightsaber Christians always has said he built and not a constructed one by the FX team, is because the Dring. The sfx would never put that in, there was no reason to.
can’t say they wouldn’t put the d ring on.. I think like you said previously, Roger was tasked to build a few and he did. This one they used as a experiment stunt, it didn’t work so they literally tossed it

Any one correct me, but there is no evidence of more Lukes sabers built. Than the 3 christians, and the final stunt saber. Appart the weird looking prototypes of course. I mean the final design.


I honestly wish I could tell ya, or someone tell me.. to this day we can’t trust Rogers comments.. I’ve seen interviews with him saying he built 2 of each saber.. then interviews with him saying he build more.. and now he’s saying he’s got a BUNCH left over from the film that he found in storage...
 
As to why they would put D-rings on stunt / bladed hilts, look no farther than Kenobi’s V2 and V3 stunt hilts.

Neither were ORIGINALLY designed to be belt hangers (specifically, the V2) yet both were given D-rings for the sake of detail continuity, it appears, prior to their promotion in the prop hierarchy in ROTJ.
.

Perfect example, I didn’t even think of that
 
The saber tube is very different to a graflex, isnt even a graflex. They didnt put a dring there for detail consistency. Dont think that would worry them. As its hardly noticeable.

Maybe the Kenobis and Vader, being a different design and composition, the stunt could work as well as a bell hanger, maybe the blade could easly be detached. Which didnt happen to Lukes one.
 
To halliwax
"there are plenty of other lightsabers and props that have totally different parts, or orientated parts.. the prop teams didn’t care about making them all 100% identical"

We are talking now only about Lukes lightsaber. Christian says he did 3. Why would in ones he would put two rivets, and in others only 1. To save rivets? to save time? lazyness?
 
Yea, as far as i'm concerned, we plainly know this saber has 2 rivets on a tiny folded D-ring flap. I don't buy that they all were this way (it is more work). That's secured for me in the fact this saber has other alterations as well, and there's a story we don't know about it yet.
 
To halliwax
"there are plenty of other lightsabers and props that have totally different parts, or orientated parts.. the prop teams didn’t care about making them all 100% identical"

We are talking now only about Lukes lightsaber. Christian says he did 3. Why would in ones he would put two rivets, and in others only 1. To save rivets? to save time? lazyness?

There could be several reasons for not using the same number of rivets.
 
other question. Do anyone know when exactly Christian constructed the lightsabers? and when John Stears did the stunt tube saber?

I mean in what week before or while filming
 
The saber tube is very different to a graflex, isnt even a graflex. They didnt put a dring there for detail consistency. Dont think that would worry them. As its hardly noticeable.

Maybe the Kenobis and Vader, being a different design and composition, the stunt could work as well as a bell hanger, maybe the blade could easly be detached. Which didnt happen to Lukes one.

funnily enough, this Luke saber in Empire was used as a belt-hanger last minute and the blades could be removed. This was after they scrapped the electronic spinning motor idea and just went with metal blades and metal cores.
luke and yoda on dagobah.jpg
ESBBlade.jpg


That being said, this is from another movie, so back to ANH - looks like they accidentally broke the bubble strip, crushed the bulb socket and welded something in there. Still can't get over these alterations :D
 
The saber tube is very different to a graflex, isnt even a graflex. They didnt put a dring there for detail consistency. Dont think that would worry them. As its hardly noticeable.

Maybe the Kenobis and Vader, being a different design and composition, the stunt could work as well as a bell hanger, maybe the blade could easly be detached. Which didnt happen to Lukes one.

We don’t know the original intent though. Maybe storyboards called for some tight inserts shots-- close ups of hands on ignited sabers, (like we see all over the ST), so they intended to make them match as much as possible. When they couldn’t get the spinning blades to work inside the actual flash they went to the scratch built ones and abandoned any hope of a close up.

Just theorizing of course. While it’s true the OT is full of prop duplicates made with an “Eff it they’ll never notice” aesthetic, they at least strive for for a cursory similarity.

I feel like this new discovery was made before they settled on the spinning blade. the weld tells me that maybe they just wanted a rod attached so they could yell cut, the actors would freeze, and they could do a quick swap with stunts that matched the heroes, but with blades. When they changed the effect they had to go to scratch built stunts for all of them.
 
Last edited:
I suggest examining the alternate footage from Ben’s hut. When I first posted it, it was to suggest the clip was off center due to the reflection being slightly toward the far side of the hilt. Just so happens to be off center toward the bubble side of the clamp, just like you mentioned, which means it matches the saber to the face picture that was likely taken at the same time.

More blurry reference, so it’s hard to get much from it.


It’s SO blurry. At first glance, it looks to me like a shiny d-ring bracket mounted opposite the clamp box, oriented as it is in the toe pic. Almost impossible to tell, though.
 
They would have had to drill out that washer to install a blade. The socket hole is not centered (remember Halliwax?) My ESB metal plate has a wide center hole so the socket fell within range... so this attempt seems to have stopped short of a blade
fullsizeoutput_1473.jpeg
fullsizeoutput_1475.jpeg
 
Back
Top