Thanks for sharing this. It amazes me his name isn’t thrown around here more often
Sheers is the man who physically assembled obiwan a hero lightsaber?
PIH Selling Another "Original" Luke ANH Hilt
- Thread starter H0llyw00d
- Start date
Thanks for sharing this. It amazes me his name isn’t thrown around here more often
Sheers is the man who physically assembled obiwan a hero lightsaber?
So basically John Steers assembled a pile of unrelated parts and made what I think is the best looking saber ever made and Roger Christian grabbed a flashgun and superglued some grips on it. lol
scarf man
Master Member
I’m certain that Mr. Stears constructed the V2, V3, & Luke’s tube saber, I don’t know about the Ben Kenobi hero saber, it depends on how much you believe from Roger “ the rat” Christian.
Frank Bruton, Gerry Bourke, & Kieron Mcnamara are listed under "props" for ANH on IMDB so I guess any one of these guys may have constructed the Ben Kenobi hero, or just kept track of it during production.
Last edited:
scarf man
Master Member
I missed that thread. Thanks for the link. Good read so far...
Thanks, too bad he passed away... man this guy made some killer miniatures
I'd love to hear the origin story of how Obi-Wan's saber came together. Vader's obviously followed the chain of thought of the Graflex. If one flash worked, so would another.
I always wondered if a Busch or Canon flash had been in that box Christian got would they have been pressed into service as Obi-Wan's saber?
I'd just love to hear what thoughts went into putting which rando parts together.
I always wondered if a Busch or Canon flash had been in that box Christian got would they have been pressed into service as Obi-Wan's saber?
I'd just love to hear what thoughts went into putting which rando parts together.
matty matt
Sr Member
cyclocrosschris
Active Member
this photo is of the motorized saber. notice power cord up lukes sleve..
Totally agree. Not that it's impossible, but I've never seen a Set Decorator create or even really CARE to create a hand prop!
Things could've been different back then, but it's just weird to me.
Anyway, yeah, he's a jerk for the crap he's pulling. I smelled it coming, though.
I replied to Jason's (Original Prop Blog) YouTube video with all the coherence I could muster regarding my feeling and opinion on this situation, I hope he doesn't mind. Hopefully Roger Christian will see it.
Here's what I wrote, although I reckon you'd have to watch the video
to make sense of some of the things I'm talking about...
""
Not the same Graflex. The "machined divot" you're talking about is likely just a dimple/divot/dent from a center punch (mark for drilling the hole through the lever for the rivet/retaining pin) that was off the mark during manufacturing of the lever.
The LOA and BBC documentary show the same Graflex flash. The PIH pictures show a different unit altogether. The PIH Graflex's lever rivet retains it's chrome plating, and the "hammered-looking" rivet on the lever of the Graflex in the LOA and BBC pics no longer has any plating, and is showing its raw, tarnished brass.
Sure, both flashes have little scratches in roughly the same area on the side of the lever, but they're clearly not the same. "Changes in lighting" be damned, it is OBVIOUS that one Graflex has a plated lever rivet and one has a lever rivet which has lost its chrome plating.
Roger Christian is behaving really shadily about this whole thing. His story has changed regarding the lightsaber hilts (where they came from, when they were converted into lightsabers) he's auctioning off. It seems to me he's just trying to make a quick couple hundred thousand dollars by selling replicas with parts he claims he "had made" (calculator bubble strips, T tracks), when for years, replicas of these parts have been available, because fans have either made molds of the vintage parts, or found real vintage materials and had replicas made. Several years back, correct vintage T track was found and replicated (and has been and IS STILL available to be purchased from several vendors around the internet, same with the bubble strips). I strongly believe that Roger Christian is simply buying the replica parts that are already available and converting vintage Graflex flashes into lightsabers, exactly the way fans like us have done for years and years.
The D-ring at the bottom is an obvious present-day example of what was used on the original. The shape of both the ring and "sheet metal mounting band" that retains the D-ring (for lack of a better description) are slightly different from the original vintage part used. That's not to say that accurate examples of the D-ring cannot be found, just that Mr. Christian isn't using them. Also, from reference photos we've seen, the D-ring is mounted (with a pop rivet) in a slightly different orientation to the way he has done with the lightsaber he's auctioning. And he's using a screw/bolt to secure the D-ring to the bottom of the Graflex, not a rivet (what is widely believed to be what was used on at least ONE if not ALL the (Graflex) lightsabers made for the production of Star Wars (1977).
It's pretty distasteful, to say the least, that Roger Christian is attempting to pass this thing off as an original "production used" prop.
Anyone could make their own (more accurate) lightsaber using real vintage parts for a few hundred dollars, and thousands of people have. So, I guess if you're planning to bid on this "Set Decorator (not Prop Master/builder) Certified, "production-used" piece of Film History", you're basically paying for a REALLY expensive piece of paper with a signature at the bottom.
I suppose something could be said about the fact that the man who apparently made and conceived the original prop built this replica, but his lack of attention to (his own) detail leaves QUITE a bit to be desired. And the fact that there's even a hint of possible dishonesty surrounding it all leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.
Like Mark Hamill said, "Buyer Beware"!
""
It's pretty long-winded, but I hope that my knowledge regarding the originals (pop-riveted D-ring, accurate vintage T track being found, etc) is correct. I do seem to remember GINO being the first to offer exact reproductions of the vintage T track (and I bought sets for several hilts back when he originally offered them), but I cannot remember whether he actually found a sample to base his dimensions on, or if he extrapolated the dimensions from reference photos.
Either way, my point was that really really accurate stuff can be bought online these days, and that Roger Christian had no reason to, and most likely did NOT have replica T track made for himself personally. Same goes for the Exactra bubbles.
The way he words it in the interview or whatever he was quoted from makes it sound like he personally went out and found someone to produce dead-on copies of the T track and Exactra bubbles, in essence claiming credit for all the work this community has put into producing these replica parts. And that's one of the things that REALLY irks me the most.
Here's what I wrote, although I reckon you'd have to watch the video
""
Not the same Graflex. The "machined divot" you're talking about is likely just a dimple/divot/dent from a center punch (mark for drilling the hole through the lever for the rivet/retaining pin) that was off the mark during manufacturing of the lever.
The LOA and BBC documentary show the same Graflex flash. The PIH pictures show a different unit altogether. The PIH Graflex's lever rivet retains it's chrome plating, and the "hammered-looking" rivet on the lever of the Graflex in the LOA and BBC pics no longer has any plating, and is showing its raw, tarnished brass.
Sure, both flashes have little scratches in roughly the same area on the side of the lever, but they're clearly not the same. "Changes in lighting" be damned, it is OBVIOUS that one Graflex has a plated lever rivet and one has a lever rivet which has lost its chrome plating.
Roger Christian is behaving really shadily about this whole thing. His story has changed regarding the lightsaber hilts (where they came from, when they were converted into lightsabers) he's auctioning off. It seems to me he's just trying to make a quick couple hundred thousand dollars by selling replicas with parts he claims he "had made" (calculator bubble strips, T tracks), when for years, replicas of these parts have been available, because fans have either made molds of the vintage parts, or found real vintage materials and had replicas made. Several years back, correct vintage T track was found and replicated (and has been and IS STILL available to be purchased from several vendors around the internet, same with the bubble strips). I strongly believe that Roger Christian is simply buying the replica parts that are already available and converting vintage Graflex flashes into lightsabers, exactly the way fans like us have done for years and years.
The D-ring at the bottom is an obvious present-day example of what was used on the original. The shape of both the ring and "sheet metal mounting band" that retains the D-ring (for lack of a better description) are slightly different from the original vintage part used. That's not to say that accurate examples of the D-ring cannot be found, just that Mr. Christian isn't using them. Also, from reference photos we've seen, the D-ring is mounted (with a pop rivet) in a slightly different orientation to the way he has done with the lightsaber he's auctioning. And he's using a screw/bolt to secure the D-ring to the bottom of the Graflex, not a rivet (what is widely believed to be what was used on at least ONE if not ALL the (Graflex) lightsabers made for the production of Star Wars (1977).
It's pretty distasteful, to say the least, that Roger Christian is attempting to pass this thing off as an original "production used" prop.
Anyone could make their own (more accurate) lightsaber using real vintage parts for a few hundred dollars, and thousands of people have. So, I guess if you're planning to bid on this "Set Decorator (not Prop Master/builder) Certified, "production-used" piece of Film History", you're basically paying for a REALLY expensive piece of paper with a signature at the bottom.
I suppose something could be said about the fact that the man who apparently made and conceived the original prop built this replica, but his lack of attention to (his own) detail leaves QUITE a bit to be desired. And the fact that there's even a hint of possible dishonesty surrounding it all leaves a bitter taste in the mouth.
Like Mark Hamill said, "Buyer Beware"!
""
It's pretty long-winded, but I hope that my knowledge regarding the originals (pop-riveted D-ring, accurate vintage T track being found, etc) is correct. I do seem to remember GINO being the first to offer exact reproductions of the vintage T track (and I bought sets for several hilts back when he originally offered them), but I cannot remember whether he actually found a sample to base his dimensions on, or if he extrapolated the dimensions from reference photos.
Either way, my point was that really really accurate stuff can be bought online these days, and that Roger Christian had no reason to, and most likely did NOT have replica T track made for himself personally. Same goes for the Exactra bubbles.
The way he words it in the interview or whatever he was quoted from makes it sound like he personally went out and found someone to produce dead-on copies of the T track and Exactra bubbles, in essence claiming credit for all the work this community has put into producing these replica parts. And that's one of the things that REALLY irks me the most.
Very professional dann, nice work!
ghostryder
Legendary Member
Wow, I'm shocked that they pulled the auction. They really just paused it so the guy could get his story strait. I guess I'm a cynic. Sue me
From what I understood:
Roger Christian had sourced a box of Graflex flashes when he was scouring places for "bits of junk" to do the set dressing for the first film. From the more recent interviews, including the one with that radio interviewer, he brought along one of the remaining flashes from that box that he'd converted into a lightsaber. While it was an original flash, it was NOT used in the film itself, but replicated with the same method he used to create the ones for the films and done by him personally. While this is kind of cool in it's own right, it is also a VERY different thing than having a prop that was USED and can be screen matched to one that was used by Mark Hamill or Colin Skeaping.
The effects lightsabers were created by John Stears. He was even credited with this in J.W. Rinzler's The Making of Star Wars book, along with many, many other sources. He was the one who came up with the rotating pole with the reflective tape (or "movie screen material" as Mark Hamill referred to it as). Which to my mind would indicate that he created the Luke V2/ Special Effects Ben Kenobi saber, the Vader/ Luke shared Stunt from ANH and possibly a few other variations we may or may not be aware of.
I know I may be speaking only for myself, but not only could I never justify spending that kind of money on a prop, even if it WAS without a doubt the screen used Hero Prop from X,Y,Z film, it's because of situations like this that solidify my stance on owning screen used items. Not only could I never afford it, but with all of the fakes floating around in the market, not only could it devalue said prop, but also how would you know that it's authentic if even the people who worked on the films are willing to lie about it's provenance just to make some quick cash?
I'm not as well versed in a lot of the minutiae of these pieces but with the Star Wars films taking a hit because of the direction of Lucasfilm's creative decisions, it's things like this that make my involvement as a fan hard to deal with. I mean I love replicating things from these movies as a hobby, but reading about this honestly hampers my motivation to work on my favorite props and costumes. I'm not saying that everything about this franchise was ever perfect, but at least it was fun and exciting. It's like everywhere I turn there is some new negative controversy with Star Wars. That's not to say we should gloss over wrongdoing, it's just getting harder and harder to find enjoyment with it the older I get. Real life is full of enough heartbreak, cynicism and evil. Star Wars USED to be about how good triumphed over all that.
Roger Christian had sourced a box of Graflex flashes when he was scouring places for "bits of junk" to do the set dressing for the first film. From the more recent interviews, including the one with that radio interviewer, he brought along one of the remaining flashes from that box that he'd converted into a lightsaber. While it was an original flash, it was NOT used in the film itself, but replicated with the same method he used to create the ones for the films and done by him personally. While this is kind of cool in it's own right, it is also a VERY different thing than having a prop that was USED and can be screen matched to one that was used by Mark Hamill or Colin Skeaping.
The effects lightsabers were created by John Stears. He was even credited with this in J.W. Rinzler's The Making of Star Wars book, along with many, many other sources. He was the one who came up with the rotating pole with the reflective tape (or "movie screen material" as Mark Hamill referred to it as). Which to my mind would indicate that he created the Luke V2/ Special Effects Ben Kenobi saber, the Vader/ Luke shared Stunt from ANH and possibly a few other variations we may or may not be aware of.
I know I may be speaking only for myself, but not only could I never justify spending that kind of money on a prop, even if it WAS without a doubt the screen used Hero Prop from X,Y,Z film, it's because of situations like this that solidify my stance on owning screen used items. Not only could I never afford it, but with all of the fakes floating around in the market, not only could it devalue said prop, but also how would you know that it's authentic if even the people who worked on the films are willing to lie about it's provenance just to make some quick cash?
I'm not as well versed in a lot of the minutiae of these pieces but with the Star Wars films taking a hit because of the direction of Lucasfilm's creative decisions, it's things like this that make my involvement as a fan hard to deal with. I mean I love replicating things from these movies as a hobby, but reading about this honestly hampers my motivation to work on my favorite props and costumes. I'm not saying that everything about this franchise was ever perfect, but at least it was fun and exciting. It's like everywhere I turn there is some new negative controversy with Star Wars. That's not to say we should gloss over wrongdoing, it's just getting harder and harder to find enjoyment with it the older I get. Real life is full of enough heartbreak, cynicism and evil. Star Wars USED to be about how good triumphed over all that.
Last edited:
From what I understood:
Roger Christian had sourced a box of Graflex flashes when he was scouring places for "bits of junk" to do the set dressing for the first film. From the more recent interviews, including the one with that radio interviewer, he brought along one of the remaining flashes from that box that he'd converted into a lightsaber. While it was an original flash, it was NOT used in the film itself, but replicated with the same method he used to create the ones for the films and done by him personally. While this is kind of cool in it's own right, it is also a VERY different thing than having a prop that was USED and can be screen matched to one that was used by Mark Hamill or Colin Skeaping.
The effects lightsabers were created by John Stears. He was even credited with this in J.W. Rinzler's The Making of Star Wars book, along with many, many other sources. He was the one who came up with the rotating pole with the reflective tape (or "movie screen material" as Mark Hamill referred to it as). Which to my mind would indicate that he created the Luke V2/ Special Effects Ben Kenobi saber, the Vader/ Luke shared Stunt from ANH and possibly a few other variations we may or may not be aware of.
I know I may be speaking only for myself, but not only could I never justify spending that kind of money on a prop, even if it WAS without a doubt the screen used Hero Prop from X,Y,Z film, it's because of situations like this that solidify my stance on owning screen used items. Not only could I never afford it, but with all of the fakes floating around in the market, not only could it devalue said prop, but also how would you know that it's authentic if even the people who worked on the films are willing to lie about it's provenance just to make some quick cash?
I'm not as well versed in a lot of the minutiae of these pieces but with the Star Wars films taking a hit because of the direction of Lucasfilm's creative decisions, it's things like this that make my involvement as a fan hard to deal with. I mean I love replicating things from these movies as a hobby, but reading about this honestly hampers my motivation to work on my favorite props and costumes. I'm not saying that everything about this franchise was ever perfect, but at least it was fun and exciting. It's like everywhere I turn there is some new negative controversy with Star Wars. That's not to say we should gloss over wrongdoing, it's just getting harder and harder to find enjoyment with it the older I get. Real life is full of enough heartbreak, cynicism and evil. Star Wars USED to be about how good triumphed over all that.
I feel very much the same as you describe in that last paragraph. And for myself, working in the film industry as a Set Dresser (under Set Decorators) and as an On-Set Props Dude (under Prop Masters) for the last 7 years, having seen first hand some despicable behavior and shady dealings, it hampers my motivation to continue, and I'm glad I've decided to take a bit of a break and go back to school. (Though I'll miss the money!)
These folks (Set Decorators and Prop Masters) make stupid money for the amount of work they do, and to see them try to take advantage seriously lowers my opinion of them.
Similar threads
