The Ultimate Luke ANH Graflex Research & Discussion Thread

[scottjua]

You can find them in the thread you quoted.

Graflex Variations: Facts and vs. Replica

In my quest to build my near screen accurate Luke ANH, and Luke ESB, I've learned a lot about Graflex Flashes and the replicas over the past couple of months. I posted all of this on the fx-sabers forums, but I thought it might be useful and helpful here too. When I started I got my hands on...

www.therpf.com

 

[Gregatron]

I'm not an expert in the flashgun variants, but the preponderance of the evidence still indicates to me that the ANH hero is mostly--or all--Folmer. It appears to have specific tells like the smooth pins and the glass eye, which the prop crew (or photographers) would have little or no reason to swap out.

I also don't think on-set damage and swapped parts is too likely of a scenario. The prop features very little in the film, and not in any scenes involving stunts or other physical activity (except for Luke running to his landspeeder and then again to his seat aboard the Falcon when the ship takes off from Docking Bay 94). It's literally a belt-hanger, and the only damage or changes we know of are the missing grip (early in production, on location) and the rotated upper half (Post-production?). And the clamp lever is wonky in both orientations, indicating either the same prop or (at least) the same clamp.


EMPIRE, on the other hand, is a different story. Lots of action, lots of stunts, with multiple versions required for different scenes. We know that there's a good chance the Ranch saber is a leftover hero (or hero parts) Frankensteined together from several props, and that it appears to have had a different upper during filming. The Hoth cave stunt bottom is a non-patent Folmer, and the Ranch bottom is a patent Folmer, right?

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but is there not a single hint of an Inc. being used for any of the OT props? From what we've seen of both ANH/ESB heroes and stunts, they all tend to lean toward non-patent or patent Folmers. It doesn't seem that Inc. variants enter the picture until the dreaded Disney Trilogy.

 

[Gregatron]

Oh, and a random observation: Comparing that new B&W, post-production prop reference photo (revealed in the first post of this thread) with the top-view photo we've come to know so well, it appears that the D-ring is fixed and not floppy. That is, when they turned the prop over to take photos from another angle, the ring apparently stayed in position. Hmmm.

 

[BENnotKENOBI]

If it is indeed broken, depends on the time when the pictures were taken. I think the upper is from a post production promo, and the lower I got from this picture, that should be during filming in Tunisia. Can't be first broken then not unless they changed the top at least.

Since the two pictures are of the opposite sides of the Graflex, is it possible that half of the "lip" chipped off? Or at least the corner?

 

[v312]

Since the two pictures are of the opposite sides of the Graflex, is it possible that half of the "lip" chipped off? Or at least the corner?

No, it is not broken on the promo pictures

Could be just the light and the low resolution that makes it look broken on that picture with George I don't know

 

[BENnotKENOBI]

No, it is not broken on the promo pictures View attachment 1426946
Could be just the light and the low resolution that makes it look broken on that picture with George I don't know

Something does look a little off here:

 

[Gregatron]

Something does look a little off here:
View attachment 1427024

Looks like a slight gap between the lip and the edge of the metal S-curve, to me. The gap seems to taper down as it nears the 6:00 position, in line with the slotted screw. Maybe the plastic part is slightly misaligned and not seated flush against the metal.

 

[thd9791]

I think it's neat how clear the bubble strip is. is that patch on the lever just glue do y'all think?

 

[BlandoCalrssian]

I’m just sitting here hoping my Inc with Folmer eye is now accurate

 

[Diego86]

You can find them in the thread you quoted.

Graflex Variations: Facts and vs. Replica

In my quest to build my near screen accurate Luke ANH, and Luke ESB, I've learned a lot about Graflex Flashes and the replicas over the past couple of months. I posted all of this on the fx-sabers forums, but I thought it might be useful and helpful here too. When I started I got my hands on...

www.therpf.com

So.. For the same reason I have to assume that, in your opinion, this is a complete replica and not a TGS red button mounted on an INC top half..??

 

[roygilsing]

Something does look a little off here:
View attachment 1427024

Looks like a slight gap between the lip and the edge of the metal S-curve, to me. The gap seems to taper down as it nears the 6:00 position, in line with the slotted screw. Maybe the plastic part is slightly misaligned and not seated flush against the metal.

I think it might be a chip in the chrome on the edge. You can see it here very blurry as well:

 

[teecrooz]

You guys are being a little obtuse. Now saying that everyone that does have an accurate one was swapping parts just because yours is off from what you perceive to be accurate? Those camera guys we bought them from before many of you were even aware it was a prop sure had a lot to gain by examining photos that they didn’t even know existed to match a prop. Come on...

 

[Gregatron]

So.. For the same reason I have to assume that, in your opinion, this is a complete replica and not a TGS red button mounted on an INC top half..??

View attachment 1427067

You don’t “have” to do anything. And that includes making bold claims with no real supporting evidence, and being borderline-rude to senior members of this forum. Take a chill pill.

 

[APOLLO IND]

You guys are being a little obtuse. Now saying that everyone that does have an accurate one was swapping parts just because yours is off from what you perceive to be accurate? Those camera guys we bought them from before many of you were even aware it was a prop sure had a lot to gain by examining photos that they didn’t even know existed to match a prop. Come on...

Hopefully you all understand anything I post I try to always carefully word only as a theory, and mostly to consider ideas haha. Few things can be stated as absolute fact when it comes to something with truly so many variations, especially when we aren't really in contact with the manufacturers it being so long ago. We make most of our theories on what we observe about them, which still leaves margin for error. Perhaps the variant is more rare than we thought for the ANH...(wouldn't be the first time for a saber prop--ehem....MPP B port lol) Perhaps it is a Folmer with a machined rivet? It truly seems more than likely a transitional era thing. But then again who knows for sure?

Also, I have to say Gregatron, I really enjoy your posts! They are thought out very well, and you come from a very practical viewpoint from every direction, Thanks!

 

[APOLLO IND]

Oh, and a random observation: Comparing that new B&W, post-production prop reference photo (revealed in the first post of this thread) with the top-view photo we've come to know so well, it appears that the D-ring is fixed and not floppy. That is, when they turned the prop over to take photos from another angle, the ring apparently stayed in position. Hmmm.

Yeah mine does that as well! I think this could have possibly been simply the ring diameter combined with how tightly the clip could have been riveted?

 

[Gregatron]

Hopefully you all understand anything I post I try to always carefully word only as a theory, and mostly to consider ideas haha. Few things can be stated as absolute fact when it comes to something with truly so many variations, especially when we aren't really in contact with the manufacturers it being so long ago. We make most of our theories on what we observe about them, which still leaves margin for error. Perhaps the variant is more rare than we thought for the ANH...(wouldn't be the first time for a saber prop--ehem....MPP B port lol) Perhaps it is a Folmer with a machined rivet? It truly seems more than likely a transitional era thing. But then again who knows for sure?

Also, I have to say Gregatron, I really enjoy your posts! They are thought out very well, and you come from a very practical viewpoint from every direction, Thanks!

Thanks! I think it’s important to step back and try and look at these things from a practical, logical viewpoint, rather than tossing out outlandish theories. That being said, it’s also good to examine things from different angles, and ask challenging questions (shooting down outlandish theories can lead to more plausible ones), but we need to stay tethered to reality, rather than going off into the stratosphere with conspiracy theories.

These were props thrown together from junk for a movie everyone thought would most likely fail. I don’t think anyone in their right mind would have wasted the time, money, or energy swapping out parts like the bunny ears or beer tab rivets UNLESS there was a legitimate reason to do so, like serious rust or damage.

Again, I stand by my assertion that, if anything, only the three major components may have been swapped around, and then only because they wanted to mix and match the least-blemished parts to create the best-looking prop, or because they idly mixed and matched parts while examining the flashguns without knowing there were manufacturing variants.

C’mon, guys, there are MISMATCHED RIVETS in-between the grips (probably to hold an inner core in place which would help anchor the d-ring bracket). If they didn’t care about how that looked, they certainly wouldn’t bother to swap out something like the contact pins or the beer tab rivet.


The simplest answer is usually the correct one. The flashguns were likely used as-is, with the other found parts stuck on. I think any mix of Folmer vs. Inc. parts we may be seeing is because of manufacturing variants, or because the prop crew stuck Upper A with Clamp B with Lower C without realizing it.

And as for the original photographers swapping out parts...guys, I don’t think the press was having the flashgun equivalent of 70s key parties, with everyone throwing their flashes in a pile and mixing ‘em up. Again, the simplest answer is that the flashguns were used as found, and that the parts were assembled just as as they came from the Folmer Graflex Corp. and/or Graflex, Inc.

 

[scottjua]

So.. For the same reason I have to assume that, in your opinion, this is a complete replica and not a TGS red button mounted on an INC top half..??

View attachment 1427067

I don't understand what you're missing.... For those purposes of illustration in that photo, I was comparing the buttons only and yes the replica was on a real top. I wanted a consistent photo comparison base for the buttons. It was clearly stating we were looking at the button differences for those photos.

Also, a TGS replica didn't exist at that time. It was a Parks button.

Are you trying to use my own post to discredit my opinions or facts shown? Because you're missing the context... Which so far these posts are proving.

 

[BTTUK]

I'm more willing to believe that previous owners did replace parts when required. Especially as the RAF comes into the story, where it's almost guaranteed that mixing and matching parts to get something bodged up and working again is something familiar to anyone with a service background.

Having said that, I doubt it'd apply to things like the beer tab rivet. That'd be such an effort to not be worth doing in my opinion. Either way, i'm personally convinced that Roger etc, did not go to that effort either.

 

[APOLLO IND]

Thanks! I think it’s important to step back and try and look at these things from a practical, logical viewpoint, rather than tossing out outlandish theories. That being said, it’s also good to examine things from different angles, and ask challenging questions (shooting down outlandish theories can lead to more plausible ones), but we need to stay tethered to reality, rather than going off into the stratosphere with conspiracy theories.

These were props thrown together from junk for a movie everyone thought would most likely fail. I don’t think anyone in their right mind would have wasted the time, money, or energy swapping out parts like the bunny ears or beer tab rivets UNLESS there was a legitimate reason to do so, like serious rust or damage.

Again, I stand by my assertion that, if anything, only the three major components may have been swapped around, and then only because they wanted to mix and match the least-blemished parts to create the best-looking prop, or because they idly mixed and matched parts while examining the flashguns without knowing there were manufacturing variants.

C’mon, guys, there are MISMATCHED RIVETS in-between the grips (probably to hold an inner core in place which would help anchor the d-ring bracket). If they didn’t care about how that looked, they certainly wouldn’t bother to swap out something like the contact pins or the beer tab rivet.


The simplest answer is usually the correct one. The flashguns were likely used as-is, with the other found parts stuck on. I think any mix of Folmer vs. Inc. parts we may be seeing is because of manufacturing variants, or because the prop crew stuck Upper A with Clamp B with Lower C without realizing it.

And as for the original photographers swapping out parts...guys, I don’t think the press was having the flashgun equivalent of 70s key parties, with everyone throwing their flashes in a pile and mixing ‘em up. Again, the simplest answer is that the flashguns were used as found, and that the parts were assembled just as as they came from the Folmer Graflex Corp. and/or Graflex, Inc.

Yes I definitely think this is the most likely case scenario. Parts probably weren't even switched around too terribly much by consumers during that time (unless it was broken or non-functioning) rather the factory worker just using whatever piece from the batch for assembling that flash. So some variation in all pieces is likely, even if that style favors the Inc. flash!

 

[Gregatron]

Yes I definitely think this is the most likely case scenario. Parts probably weren't even switched around too terribly much by consumers during that time (unless it was broken or non-functioning) rather the factory worker just using whatever piece from the batch for assembling that flash. So some variation in all pieces is likely, even if that style favors the Inc. flash!

So, the next logical step is attempting to match the prop’s traits from top to bottom with the known flashgun variants, and determine whether or not we’re actually dealing with a hybrid/manufacturing variant.

I need to start referencing photos and doing some studying, but my gut still tells me it’s mostly or all Folmer.