I suspect that both sets of rivets are suffering from opposite problems in the photo: The rivets on the left are in shadow and are partly covered by the grips, and the rivets on the right are being exposed to direct sunlight, causing a light blooming/distortion effect (as with the belt rivets). Which might be causing the optical illusion that the left side rivets are much smaller and the right side rivets are much bigger than they actually are.
New Elstree Studio documentary with discarded Graflex.
- Thread starter Skelatorious
- Start date
Anything is possible, absolutely, but common sense tells me that if one set of the grip rivets are the same size as the d-ring rivets, then most likely they are all the same size, came out of the same box, and were installed at the same time.
I’m always happy to be wrong, but that’s what makes the most sense to me until/unless better photos are located and made public.
I’m always happy to be wrong, but that’s what makes the most sense to me until/unless better photos are located and made public.
That's where I'm at too. They do absolutely look bigger (take up more pixels) but not bigger enough (to me) to say for sure that they're a different size and not just lens warping, light blowout, etc. I ordered the rivet set from Roy, who as always, just accommodates us nerds with our every whim. LOL who the hell orders a couple of pop rivets by themselves? We do!!
But at least having options in front of me to play with while comparing to pics might help me decide one way or the other, or decide that it's still too close to know and realize that I don't really care haha.
PS James, you have me completely hooked on Grolsch now. That's all I buy now. Damn you sir.
Last edited:
PS James, you have me completely hooked on Grolsch now. That's all I buy now. Damn you sir.
LOL! Grolsch is from my home country! Way better than Heineken.
Last edited:
Grolsch is truly the finest, and my favorite.
Here are the two belt images next to each other and you can see that there is indeed some flaring (not that much though).
But if you want you can see 4 same size rivets on the bottom, in which case the two left rivets are half covered under the T-track. These four are definitely smaller than the belt rivets.
So, in other words: I have no clue. But I still think that the two small/two larger rivets is more accurate and a better option to fit underneath the grip.
Then again, "pulling them from the same tray" may been an Assortment tray. When I buy rivets I always get the box that has a bunch of different sizes. The difference here could be a bit of blow out, scaling of that other non-glared photo of the buckle, overlay not being exactly edge to edge, or a combination of all the above. so going back to look at the raw images and seeing what my gut tells me.... it's telling me I don't know LOL
Oh man, thank you for doing this. I think what I was trying to say was that the right set is suffering the same flare as the belt, which means they're smaller than they look, and I'm thinking the graflex can has all 2.4 mm rivets, except for the D ring as usual
Gerard2567
Well-Known Member
The pixels are definitely there to sharpen the image. Ahh if only I still had access to photoshop, and then maybe, just maybe we can determine the rivets once and for all.
The more I look at the photo, the more I agree with Roy on the uneven rivets. Maybe we just subconsciously don't want to accept it. XD
The more I look at the photo, the more I agree with Roy on the uneven rivets. Maybe we just subconsciously don't want to accept it. XD
Last edited:
PhotoShop aside, what about a negative-image color inversion? That might make the shape/size of the pop rivets...um...pop more.
Symmetrical rivets seems more like a natural conclusion, but we can't yet rule out asymmetry. Sure, they put the rivets on the non-camera side of the prop, but they probably would have wanted the look to be as clean as they could, just in case. Sort of like how they painted the ESB grip screws black in an attempt to hide them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the two rivet sizes would require two different drill bit sizes to bore into the flash tube, right? It would be more work to swap out drill bits than it would be to just grab four rivets of the same size. I can't imagine a dedicated prop crew having a rivet shortage.
Also, just to float the possibility out there: Maybe each set of rivets was added at different times, when it was decided that extra reinforcement was needed. Although the specific positioning of the rivets indicates it was all planned out at once, the rivets added, and the grips laid in after.
Of course, there are those shots (Sandcrawler scene) which feature a missing grip. Maybe the prop had a little accident, early on, and needed some repairs, like adding the rivets and reattaching the grip. Just spitballing, here.
Symmetrical rivets seems more like a natural conclusion, but we can't yet rule out asymmetry. Sure, they put the rivets on the non-camera side of the prop, but they probably would have wanted the look to be as clean as they could, just in case. Sort of like how they painted the ESB grip screws black in an attempt to hide them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the two rivet sizes would require two different drill bit sizes to bore into the flash tube, right? It would be more work to swap out drill bits than it would be to just grab four rivets of the same size. I can't imagine a dedicated prop crew having a rivet shortage.
Also, just to float the possibility out there: Maybe each set of rivets was added at different times, when it was decided that extra reinforcement was needed. Although the specific positioning of the rivets indicates it was all planned out at once, the rivets added, and the grips laid in after.
Of course, there are those shots (Sandcrawler scene) which feature a missing grip. Maybe the prop had a little accident, early on, and needed some repairs, like adding the rivets and reattaching the grip. Just spitballing, here.
Also, there HAS to be another photo out there, somewhere. We have three to work with. The top-view prop reference shot had the rivets BARELY visible in them for all these years, and we never noticed. Then, the prop-in-Hamill's-hand photo from the toe pic session revealed the existence of the left-side rivets to us in the first place. And then came the location on-belt photo, which revealed the second set of rivets.
There has to be some obscure photo out there which can clear this up! Three photos have taken us quite far, but not yet to the finish line. Aside from the bottom stamping orientation, this is pretty much the last major mystery surrounding one of the most iconic props in the history of cinema.
I heartily believe that the RPF can crack this! Go, team!
There has to be some obscure photo out there which can clear this up! Three photos have taken us quite far, but not yet to the finish line. Aside from the bottom stamping orientation, this is pretty much the last major mystery surrounding one of the most iconic props in the history of cinema.
I heartily believe that the RPF can crack this! Go, team!
Mouse Vader
Sr Member
Liam Lafferty
New Member
I would do the sharpening/negative conversion but My laptops hardrive failed yesterday. Gotta love unexpected expenses.
Similar threads
