The Ultimate Luke ANH Graflex Research & Discussion Thread

[APOLLO IND]

So to do list:
-Get new grips
-Round off the d-ring clip
(I'm also installing a vintage d-ring and vintage 3mm rivets)

These will be the updates correct? Am I missing anything?

 

[Gregatron]

Looks like the side rivets were placed before the grips.

In all props they have the bubbles show on the front side when hanging on the belt. I think it is by design like that.
But I can imagine it is also more comfortable as the ring is attached little to the rivet side of the saber and of course not having the control box bumping into you all the time.

Exactly. But, for that one photo, at least, the prop seems to have been hooked on the belt 180 degrees from normal, which wouldn’t be very comfy, since the clamp box would smack into Hamill’s leg. I can’t imagine that they initially had the rivet side of the Graflex lower in line with the clamp box (and therefore on the “beauty” side of the prop), then rotated it 180 degrees after that first day of filming. The prop was probably just hooked on backwards.

Also note that the ESB saber and its Kobold assembly specifically has the d-ring biased toward the edge of the lower’s endcap, on the side facing opposite the clamp box, which would allow for a more comfortable fit on the belt than the centered d-ring of the ANH prop. Sort of the same principle as having the d-ring run through one of the handwheel side cubes on the Obi ANH and Luke ROTJ sabers, rather than attached to the top of it.

 

[v312]

I‘d say the rivets just cover two holes in the prop which were the result of an earlier attempt to attach a ring or hook or whatever to hang the prop on Lukes belt.

I was thinking that too, but I didn't see a reason why it didn't work for them so they switched to mount it the other way. I mean just the 2 big rivets alone should be able to hold a loop that is strong enough for the purpose. Just what Gregatron wrote above - all the other sabers have the attach point on the side.

And I don't see under the rivets any leftovers that should be there if the rivets were used to attach something on the outside.

Still, I maybe like this theory more than the L-bracket

 

[Gregatron]

But, assuming they tried to side-mount a d-ring bracket (one ostensibly similar in design to the final version) on the side of the tube...why would the rivets be installed vertically instead of horizontally?

 

[v312]

View attachment 1427435

Like this SethS

And this is what bothers me with this design and where we the side rivets are (the larger ones):

We have a gap between the wall and the L-bracket because of the circle shape, and the rivets will be at an angle - but OK, there are rivets that should be long enough and it will hold.
But we have 3 mm (assuming the rivet is aligned with the edge of the bottom, that's what I see on the picture) from the edge to the center of the rivet. I don't have the measurements for the other parts, but it looks that it will need to go into the top plate of the L-bracket and possibly even hit the top rivet.

The smaller rivet is even close to the edge, so there might be even worse.

Edit: I don't have measurements, so it may actually fit, but in first look I think it does not.

 

[v312]

But, assuming they tried to side-mount a d-ring bracket (one ostensibly similar in design to the final version) on the side of the tube...why would the rivets be installed vertically instead of horizontally?

Think like the Kobold clip but installed on the side (like it is on the Kobold flash originally)

 

[Obi1Kenobi]

View attachment 1427435

Like this SethS

Roy, I can't tell you how freaky it is to see a sketch of exactly how I was picturing it in my head. Thanks.

Does v312 have a valid point that the two top rivets on the side might not fit? I think we're going to need your CAD expertise to answer this. It seems like it might work as long as the metal for the L-bracket is not too thick.

 

[uglyguitarguy]

The side rivets being there as the relic of a previous attempt to attach a D ring or belt clip seems to be the clearest possibility to me. Unless they had a flash that the end physically pulled out of while attempting to build the prop, or out on the first day of filming, I doubt the prop builders would be concerned about needing to reinforce it with an internal L bracket. Seems like solving for a problem they wouldn't have known existed.

Fwiw, I built a Goth3d chassis for mine and had to grind down the rivets internally with a dremel for it to fit, and have had zero problem with this still being completely structurally sound. It's a Roman Graflex, but it appears to have the same rolled, captive end without solder. Don't know if i'd have the guts to drill and rivet a Folmer Graflex if I ever decide to pull the trigger on one of those in the distant future...

 

[corliss1]

Don't know if i'd have the guts to drill and rivet a Folmer Graflex if I ever decide to pull the trigger on one of those in the distant future...

Most people don't now. Grips, screws, rivets, clips, all get glued on. That way they can be removed in the future if more details come out that are more accurate.

 

[SethS]

View attachment 1427435

Like this SethS

Thank you!

...but now I am wondering how you would get that down in there and keep it stable to rivet it in position.

 

[v312]

Most people don't now. Grips, screws, rivets, clips, all get glued on. That way they can be removed in the future if more details come out that are more accurate.

Yes, I just use Roy's 3m patches for everything even for the Kobold clips. But if you actually plan to walk around with the saber hanging on your belt probably is a good idea to really rivet it.

 

[James Kenobi 1138]

Do you think maybe the side rivets were originally installed for the straight wire part of a naked d-ring to go between the sets of rivets (between the top and bottom on each set) so the d-ring would be on the side instead of on the endcap, similar to how the d-ring is attached on the Vader MPP shroud or the Kenobi handwheel cube?

Then when that set-up failed miserably, they just added a d-ring with a clip on the endcap and left the side tube rivets because the grips were already glued on.

 

[SethS]

Do you think maybe the side rivets were originally installed for the straight wire part of a naked d-ring to go between the sets of rivets (between the top and bottom on each set) so the d-ring would be on the side instead of on the endcap, similar to how the d-ring is attached on the Vader MPP shroud or the Kenobi handwheel cube?

Then when that set-up failed miserably, they just added a d-ring with a clip on the endcap and left the side tube rivets because the grips were already glued on.

We got nothing to substantiate this... but there's a simple logic to it I like. Sometimes I wonder if they were holes for wires because it was going to be a stunt, and they just plugged them up ala cone knob/mystery chunk.

 

[uglyguitarguy]

Do you think maybe the side rivets were originally installed for the straight wire part of a naked d-ring to go between the sets of rivets (between the top and bottom on each set) so the d-ring would be on the side instead of on the endcap, similar to how the d-ring is attached on the Vader MPP shroud or the Kenobi handwheel cube?

Then when that set-up failed miserably, they just added a d-ring with a clip on the endcap and left the side tube rivets because the grips were already glued on.

Looking at mine, this actually makes a lot of sense to me. I could see the further-from-the-edge being the first attempt, but the ring didn't sit right, so they went it a little closer to the edge, and that still didn't work, so they threw some rivets in the holes and moved to and endcap ring. The only place this falls apart is the different size rivets, IMO. The different size rivets kind of tells me that they were installed at different times, otherwise they'd likely be all the same size...

The M Knight Shyamalan twist ending would be that if we've spent a bunch of time trying to understand why those rivets are there, but they were actually installed by the RAF for some unknown reason decades before they even had a hope of being on screen.

 

[BENnotKENOBI]

Looking at mine, this actually makes a lot of sense to me. I could see the further-from-the-edge being the first attempt, but the ring didn't sit right, so they went it a little closer to the edge, and that still didn't work, so they threw some rivets in the holes and moved to and endcap ring. The only place this falls apart is the different size rivets, IMO. The different size rivets kind of tells me that they were installed at different times, otherwise they'd likely be all the same size...

The M Knight Shyamalan twist ending would be that if we've spent a bunch of time trying to understand why those rivets are there, but they were actually installed by the RAF for some unknown reason decades before they even had a hope of being on screen.

Perhaps they were trying to attach different sizes of D-rings like this:

And they didn't work. (Probably far too small for the hook)

 

[Gregatron]

Think like the Kobold clip but installed on the side (like it is on the Kobold flash originally)

I know, but I was just spitballing in regards to a clip similar to what they ended up using.

 

[James Kenobi 1138]

I proposed my side-mount D-ring theory because those side tube rivets are there for 1 of 3 reasons:

1) The original photographer added them for some reason and the prop dept left them
2) The prop department added them because they served a purpose, such as holding an L-bracket for the endcap d-ring clip (or something else)
3) The rivets serve no purpose and were added for aesthetics, or they were added to serve a purpose but then were not needed (such as a failed side-mounted d-ring, or to plug drilled wire holes, or something) (...but why would you drill 4 holes to run 2 wires anyway?)

I would think based on the fact that the side rivets were still on the saber during filming that they do serve a purpose, or it was deemed too much trouble to remove them if they served no purpose, or removing them was unnecessary.

Also, if the rivets were added before the grips but then not needed/serve no purpose, why didn't they remove the rivets and cover the holes when they glued on the grips? Or just drill out the rivets and leave the holes? 4 tiny holes would barely show up in the film, especially given there are not really any close-up shots and you can 'hide' the holes away from the camera by wearing the saber with the holes toward the body or cover them with silver foil tape, or something.

The fact that the rivets are still there makes be believe they were intentionally added for a purpose, and that purpose was being used on that saber (such as the proposed L-bracket)

 

[Gregatron]

I can’t see the rivets being added for aesthetics.

“Let’s take the clean lines of this prop and throw in some mismatched rivets on the side nobody will see!”

 

[v312]

I think glare on the rivets is making them look bigger than they really are in that photo.

I've drilled and riveted a few bottom tubes, and reasonably close to edge (using Roy's grip guide template). No problems.

This got me thinking and so far I didn't look too close Nate's first picture.

Could it be that the 4 rivets are the same size and it is just the glare that makes the 2 look bigger than the ones in the shadow?

I think the glare probably adds about 1mm on the diameter as on the upper picture they are almost touching each other, and on the other there is a small gap.

 

[Gregatron]

This got me thinking and so far I didn't look too close Nate's first picture.

Could it be that the 4 rivets are the same size and it is just the glare that makes the 2 look bigger than the ones in the shadow?

View attachment 1427636
I think the glare probably adds about 1mm on the diameter as on the upper picture they are almost touching each other, and on the other there is a small gap.

We played with that theory in the Elstree thread, two years ago. Roy’s CAD-matching seemed to disprove it.