The Ultimate Luke ANH Graflex Research & Discussion Thread

I think it is pretty similar to the elstree prop
View attachment 1440342

quickly cut by hand (from a beer can?) , rivets not aligned , etc. Assuming the hero got much more "hanging time" it could be just wear, bending and deformation from the D-ring that make the clip look so asymmetrical.


I don’t think there would be deformation from wear and tear. As I’ve noted in the past, the prop sees very little action in the film. Unless the metal used was really thin and fragile (which sort of defeats the purpose of using it to begin with, in that case), I would presume that any wonkiness comes from how it was made, rather than on-set stress.
 
I’d be interested to see what Roy’s base design looks like without the folding, just to get a sense of how he thinks the original clip was cut to shape.

I don’t think there would be deformation from wear and tear. As I’ve noted in the past, the prop sees very little action in the film. Unless the metal used was really thin and fragile (which sort of defeats the purpose of using it to begin with, in that case), I would presume that any wonkiness comes from how it was made, rather than on-set stress.
5A9BF836-6A5E-47D3-AF83-E1AEE6CE8D65.jpeg


Here's the unfolded drawing. As you probably understand I have followed the shape based on that single back view image and reverse engineered it with this cut out shape as a result. Certain inaccuracies are unavoidable. But I didn't influence myself with the reasoning behind it nor by comparing it to the Elstree version. I do think the materials and the slopiness are similar and to me it does look like they used thin aluminium which is soft and easily bend and damaged.
As you can see from my unfolded shape it looks as if the initial cut was too wide and they cut or filed off some material on one side to loosen the D-ring. It's strange they haven't done it on both sides but maybe in the heat of the moment they just did it like this and mounted the bugger on the flash.
It's so dirty handiwork it would have been strange if it would have been the same as the Elstree D-ring.

Roy
 
I think most people that reject the new clip "design" do it just on the basis that it is ugly, but not because they see any error in Roy's interpretation of the pictures (that are the basis for the shape calculation). And that's ok, because sometimes when things look wrong or common sense tells you they are wrong - well, maybe there was an error somewhere that you can't exactly pin. For me the quality of that picture is so bad that I personally can only identify where the rivets are, but not the shape of the clip.

Anyway, here's a little test to see if in practice you can end up with a shape like this if you are a sloppy prop maker (which I'm not, so take it with a grain of salt).

Staring with a piece of aluminum sheet that I obviously cut too wide for the clip I have:

1616861201211.png


So, I take a mental measure where the clip is at the top of the sheet and do a sloppy cut at an angle, so it is OK at the top but it goes wider towards the middle and the bottom:

1616861368581.png
1616861416215.png


So it actually fits and I bend the sheet around the d-ring. However, since in the middle it is too wide - the clip cannot turn at all from that position. (which is exactly what happened with this clip the way I cut it)

Then I realize it is still too wide there at the middle. So I take the ring out, grab the cutters and just trim one of the sides at a random angle, because that's all I need for it to fit:

1616861669633.png
1616861751138.png


And now the clip fits and rotates as intended (and I have a very ugly clip, but hey - it works!) :

1616861827971.png
1616861851986.png


I didn't finish it with rounding and rivet holes, but I think I'll end up with something pretty similar if I just roughly cut it and drill the holes without taking any measures.
 
This comes back to something I have often emphasized: These props are only made A) To look good on-camera, which hides a multitude of sins; B) On-set functionality.

By default, I think we tend to expect idealized, pristine items, but the reality is that these props were often pretty crude. That being said, we’ve been examining footage and photos for decades, and only NOW have we possibly discovered this seemingly wonky clip shape. So, I’d say that the prop crew DID succeed in making it look good enough for the camera, didn’t they?

Personally, I’m trying to figure out where the prop crew found that balancing act. On the one hand, they were always trying to follow the above-mentioned rules, but, on the other hand, would they really be SO sloppy with their work?

Based on evidence seen in other props and costumes from the production, it’s clear that there’s a lot of sloppiness and shortcuts there, which we would never notice but for obsessive research and examination.
 
There gosh-darn well should be. The original film is one thing, in terms of having relatively scarce reference, but ESB and its saber props (which had a LOT more screentime) surely deserve some dedicated research like that seen in this thread.
 
I think making an ugly clip and a decent looking clip both require the same tools, just different attitude.
I used to work in the tin shop of a certain east coast outdoor history museum. We made clips like this for dozens of different items. Mainly these clips were soldered on, sometimes put in a slot and the ends bent flat. I’ll tell you what, it is very easy to make a crooked clip freehand. The sides can be less than parallel, or the bend goes crooked. And once you’ve made your crooked clip, it’s very hard to make it straight again. You’re better off saving the wire and making a new one.
Conversely, it only takes a few seconds to measure and draw a line parallel with the edge of the tin plate. All you have to do then is fold accurately. Add in a boatload of practice doing the same thing and your clips get better and better.
Now I can totally see a prop builder making a crooked clip, trying to fix it (because he doesn’t make very many of them, and how hard can it be?) and ending up with what we see here. Of course the next one will be better, because these people are really smart and good at making things.
 
I'd think it completely reasonable that the aluminum clip could have started out relatively straight sided and then, after some use hanging off Luke's belt while he ran around, got distorted by the D-ring bending up the edge at the fold point, much like what happened on the Elstree, resulting in the wonky shape seen in the reference photo.

Straight_Clip.jpg

629073.jpg 629064.jpg
 
It's been a long time since I last posted here but I think it's time to start over.

First of all I have to apologize for my stubbornness for the fact that now I know very well that I was wrong. And I want to especially thank my friend Drew for this quote which is the one that started what I believe to be an important discovery.

If your collection was curated using the belief that Folmers have dull rivets, which lead to only gathering dull-riveted Folmers, your photos are just repeating your bias. That would prove little more than "dull-riveted Folmers exist."

I admit that in fact at the time I had no idea that there was a Folmer model with beer tab pin head in shiny finish but as often happens the truth is there under our eyes, you just need to know how to see it.

So I decided to question everything and started from the beginning, or rather from the only certainty I had at that moment: Ian's RAF-Flex.

IMG_8508.JPG


Misfortune wanted this come to him without the original ears (and this is something I beg you to consider for later). Beyond this there are some characteristics to be observed of fundamental importance:
  • SHINY finish beer tab pin head
  • CHROME finish slotted screw
  • DULL finish and very wide aperture glass eye
  • STRAIGHT and ROUND head brass pins
  • SHORT knurling red button
  • Folmer NO PAT bottom
The thing that struck me most was the chrome slotted screw.. I only knew 2 types of Graflex that fitted that type of screw: Telegraph and 1928, the first 2 Graflex models, in chronological order. From here I started to think that the model I was looking for must have a correlation with these. My guess is that it was immediately after 1928 (but at the same time before what we usually call "Early Folmer"). From here I also began to think that the RAF-Flex could have, by default, chrome ears, as well as the Telegraph and the 1928.

And indeed…

I found the second Flex that I was able to check in the well-known Scott’s topic (Graflex Variations: Facts and vs. Replica) and it was also previously posted here. Scott himself intervened to reassure that they were "untouched" models, that is, with components not replaced or modified. I went to comb through his old topic and found these pics:

IMG_8586.JPG


As you can see the characteristics are completely identical to those of the RAF-Flex seen previously with the exception of the ears which (even if rusty) sports clearly a chrome ring. From here I thought I was on the right path.

After a few months this appears in the JY here on RPF:

IMG_8587.JPG


I remember the seller proposed it as a "good base" for ESB conversion. This in my opinion justifies the absence of the original glass eye and above all the presence of 2x long knurled red button that matches the typical ESB configuration. Beyond that, the other key features are all there (chrome ears included).

Not so long ago, my friend Nick Cline posted some pics of a fantastic purchase: another RAF-Flex! To tell the truth, the first time I saw the pics I was at the same time happy for him but disheartened by my research since I had immediately noticed that the ears mounted on his RAF-Flex were not chromed as I expected but simply brushed finish. So I asked Nick to send me some other pics and he was kind enough to send an avalanche!

IMG_8588.JPG


After seeing them I felt more relieved, it is clear that the ears have been replaced with newer ones from an INC model (to notice the 4 holes inside the ring and the ring pin head).

Now, for those who might consider ears replacement unlikely, do you remember before, when I told you to remember that Ian's RAF-Flex comes WITHOUT the mounted ears..? I have spoken.

I also add a consideration matured over the years: I have often found Flex chromed components particularly damaged and plagued by rust problems (not only ears but also levers). it is possible that this really depends on the chrome finish and it is also possible that’s the reason why at some point they decided to change the finish from chromed to brushed.
All these are obviously just personal theories.

A couple more…

IMG_8589.JPG


IMG_8635.JPG


These two are from eBay, both quite recent. The first one comes from a SW collector so I’m not surprised by the glass eye changed with a LATE Folmer model which obviously clashes with all the other components which instead fully reflect my theory.

Now let's move on to comparisons with the actual prop. In this summary pic I highlight the key features:

IMG_8590.jpg

  • SHINY finish beer tab pin head
  • DULL finish and very wide aperture glass eye
  • STRAIGHT and ROUND head brass pins
  • THIN lip bottom
I don't want to bore you by going to recomment things that have already been taken into consideration on this same thread.

These two remain:
  • CHROME finish slotted screw
  • CHROME finish bunny ears ring
About the ears, I believe there are no words can supplant what is already quite clear to the eye: I am referring to the lower left corner of the photo above.. The difference in finish between ears and top half is evident. Below I put another one where I compare the original with the others I told you about before in this post.

IMG_8636.JPG


Regarding the slotted screw, this is the most important reference, in my opinion:

IMG_3342.PNG


I don't know how many of you actually own (or at least have ever held) a genuine chrome slotted screw. the finish is particularly different from the more common brushed ones but even more evident is the reflection they emit when they are hit by the light. the contrast on the chromed screw is so evident that it creates particular "black spots" that cannot be found in the brushed, which instead reflects the light in a uniform way. To better understand what I'm talking about here is a comparison photo between the ones I own..

IMG_8600.JPG


Now, if we look closely at the image of the actual prop we can see how these spots are present on it.

IMG_8604.JPG


That’s it! Everything in one way or another makes sense or seems to make sense.

What do you think guys?
 
Last edited:
What do you think guys?

I have been a pretty vocal stick in the mud, insisting we couldn't rule out the ANH Graflex being a more recent Folmer with patent flash because so many features crossed over periods of production. I am blown away by this collection of evidence.

I know I'm not alone in owning Graflex flashes in a variety of finishes -- the high chromed "1928," a shiny brushed finish, and the satin brush finish. I had hesitated to read too much into the chrome finish in the old photos because of so many unknowable factors in lenses, film, processing, and reproduction -- but the photos are going to be internally consistent, and I think the key diagnostic features are visible in the photos.

I think you've cracked it, Diego. Great work!

(Also: thanks to Ian, Scott, Nick, and the other folks for sharing info and photos!)
 
Nice comparison for the screws! - I've tried, but I could not figure out how to capture well the difference on camera.
Since you've removed the bulb socket one thing I'm curious about (sorry it's little off topic) - did it have the small holes like it was meant for a telegraph flash?
This is what I've found on one of mine, that I decided to replace since the lip was broken (now on my "ranch saber" build, which serves as my dump place for broken/rusty parts):
1636920734469.png


However, just like with the rivet, let's not assume the Folmer no patent are the only one stamp with thin lip in existence, just because we have not seen one.

(Collected from other threads and/or ebay, not sure who's the current owner):

1636920137633.png


This last one is an Inc. It's converted to Maz Box, so unfortunately you can't see the stamp - It's lip is much thinner than the usual Inc. Not as thin as the thinnest Folmer no patent - but if this one exists, it only proves that there could be others even thinner.

1636920640331.png


I also lean towards Folmer no patent because of the other flash features, but since we don't know from how many flashes they mix and matched the prop I always keep in mind there's possibility it could be one of the other 2.
 
I'm not surprised at all that you found those particular holes on the bulb socket. I have the same holes in the bulb socket of my 1928:

AE30F899-9A47-4066-8C09-ED98228774A6.jpeg


I think this is the definitive proof that these 3 models are “chronologically” linked together ("Telegraph", "1928" and .. What do we want to call it? "ANH Folmer"?)

About the bottom.. The thin / thick lip issue in the light of the above actually takes on marginal importance. I mean.. It’s true that there are also Folmer PATs with thin lips but having ascertained that the one described above is actually the right top half then it would be illogical to think that the bottom is something other than a Folmer NO PAT. I don't know if I've made myself clear..
Also the INC you posted seems to me common THICK lip. Maybe you are fooled by the thickness of the chrome tape on the bottom.
 
Last edited:
When the light shines on them it kind of makes them look about the same size, but it's almost half the usual thickness ... tried to capture it as best as I can:
1636926626489.png



As for the early versions, there is clearly a connection, but also so many little variations, it's hard to pin the exact order. The shiny chrome screw was on the telegraph, as we see the sockets drilled for the telegraph were used in the later models - I guess they already had the inventory so they just used it. But for example both flashes with chrome screws that I have are with dull beer tab rivets and one had the kind of button and glass eye that I've only seen on pictures of the telegraph flash (I still have mine, but faster to just google some pics):
1636928132293.png
1636928192473.png



while the other were the more common classic "Folmer" eye and short knurl button.

Then the 2 Folmer no patent with shiny beer tab rivets that I was able to get (one 3 cell, one 2 cell) had everything else right except the screws are dull.

All of them had the type of "rusty dot" clamp lever though. So some parts swapping must have happened beyond just the button on the ANH prop, if they swapped the clamp maybe they swapped the bottom as well.
 
Now I am speaking from my personal experience and I tell you what I think is the correct chronological order:

1st: Telegraph
2nd: 1928
3rd: ANH Folmer

- The Telegraph has CHROME ring on ears, CHROME slotted screw, NO red button, and it was produced in 2 variants about glass eye: bayonet connection and threaded connection. Logic suggests to me that the bayonet connection was the very first one, after which they switched to threading without modifying anymore.

- 1928 has the same features, except for the red button that is present here. among other things, what you posted earlier is exactly the red button from 1928 and it'is an exclusive variant for this model. Among other things, in the pic you posted before you can see that button is mounted on a Telegraph, which is a mistake because the Telegraph as such cannot mount red threaded buttons on itself.

One more thing.. Telegraph and 1928 share another component that makes me think they are directly sequential: the screw head of the clamp lever is CHROME plated and SQUARE shaped! And this is another feature that belongs ONLY to these 2 models.

21176CBB-F70D-4006-AFD5-9E81DD4183FE.jpeg


I do not waste time listing again the characteristics of the ANH Folmer since I have already done it in the previous post, I just say that from this model onwards the screw head of the clap lever will be the classic ROUND shape.
 
Last edited:
When the light shines on them it kind of makes them look about the same size, but it's almost half the usual thickness ... tried to capture it as best as I can:
View attachment 1512614


As for the early versions, there is clearly a connection, but also so many little variations, it's hard to pin the exact order. The shiny chrome screw was on the telegraph, as we see the sockets drilled for the telegraph were used in the later models - I guess they already had the inventory so they just used it. But for example both flashes with chrome screws that I have are with dull beer tab rivets and one had the kind of button and glass eye that I've only seen on pictures of the telegraph flash (I still have mine, but faster to just google some pics):
View attachment 1512616View attachment 1512617


while the other were the more common classic "Folmer" eye and short knurl button.

Then the 2 Folmer no patent with shiny beer tab rivets that I was able to get (one 3 cell, one 2 cell) had everything else right except the screws are dull.

All of them had the type of "rusty dot" clamp lever though. So some parts swapping must have happened beyond just the button on the ANH prop, if they swapped the clamp maybe they swapped the bottom as well.
hey,
just be aware that this photo of the telegraph on the right is from my own flash and that photo was particularly to show that this glass eye was not original to the flash ;-) the glass eye is a later version that was rudely modified by someone to try to fit it to the bayonet style hole on the flash.
more detail and comparisons of the telegraphs flashes can be seen on that thread:

an interested detail for instance that I don't think I have seen listed here is the fact that the shiny chrome bunny ears present on the telegraph version also has a much much thicker chrome ring inside the the end of the flash,
pic courtesy of skoota73 for comparison here:
img_0472-jpg.jpg
 

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top