The Ultimate Luke ANH Graflex Research & Discussion Thread

[uglyguitarguy]

Assuming that the side rivets were indeed remnants of an attempt to install a d-ring bracket, then why FOUR rivets? Does that mean two separate, failed attempts? One attempt, but with an excessive amount of rivets?

Also, since the Elstree saber had ANH hero traits, no side rivets, and indications of an attempt to install an FX blade holder (or something) on the upper, that makes me think the Elstree was a failed attempt at an FX made after the hero design (with the d-ring mounted on the endcap) had been finalized.

Those are good questions, and the other one has to do with the different rivet sizes in the vertical direction. That means that they were likely drilled and riveted vertically, not horizontally, on separate occasions. Otherwise, why would they be different (other than by complete chance)? If they were drilled vertically (and they are quite close together in that direction), then the D-ring concept also falls apart. Horizontally they're also much wider apart than the rivets on the bottom D-ring clip, so the only hypothesis that supports horizontal is that they were trying to attach the D ring without the clip. If they drilled and riveted the holes vertically at separate times, then we've really gotta go back to the drawing board about what they would be there for...

 

[Obi1Kenobi]

Sure, it could be and they will fit closer to the wall of the tube. Might make it more problematic to position and secure them in place so you know where to drill. At least I feel Alley's idea will be easier to do without too much "engineering".

I still don't see a need to reinforce the plate unless it actually popped out when for example they tried to drill the d-ring clip holes and pressed too hard or something. You know, on a tight schedule and low budget "if ain't broke -don't fix it" should be like the golden rule.

And even if I decided that the 1mm brass plate needs reinforcing I will probably not think that a tiny 0.1-0.5mm aluminum (or even steel) l-bracket or cap will improve it drastically. But, if it did break on set or while working on it - and I was the one tasked to fix it "for yesterday" you know, the tiny cap or bracket will do just fine

This is a very plausible and interesting theory. I've been thinking to myself lately that this endcap was originally designed to hold the force of three D-cell batteries pushing outward on that endcap while the Graflex handle was held right-side-up as a camera flash; therefore, the standard, factory-mounted endcap would not seem to need any reinforcement for the (presumably) lighter force it would experience in the same outward direction while a (presumably) hollow saber was hanging up-side-down from a belt clip. But maybe the endcap accidentally pushed inward while the prop makers were pushing inward to drill the two rivet holes in the endcap. Which type of endcap failure is more likely - from an inward force or from an outward force?

 

[vadermania]

I‘m really tempted to test-install a D-ring after drilling the holes for the rivets into my Graflex (and yes, I still need to change the D-ring setup on my endcap).

 

[v312]

Respectfully, I say the L brackets, and now the inner "cup" theory still don't hold water for me (no pun intended). It would be a remarkable pain to try to put L brackets in the bottom, plus we've already identified that the bottom rivet(s) practically touch the bottom of the flash handle, so there's no way that's going through what would essentially be the bend of the L bracket, let alone doing that twice. As far as the "cup" concept, why would it only be riveted on only one side and not all the way around? Rivets between the grips all the way around would have actually lent itself to a pretty cool and consistent look, so thinking from a "prop-maker's perspective" that concept feels pretty loose.

To me, I still think it's far simpler and obvious. We're looking at prior attempt to attach the D ring (and I understand that concept still has it's flaws, like why different-sized rivets were used). Obviously without the original prop it's just Scroedinger's lightsaber, being both equally possible that we are all right and all wrong at the same time. I also don't meant to poo-poo opinions that people may be passionate about, so by all means, take my own opinion with a grain of salt.

I know you guys have probably been feeling this a lot longer than I have, but holy hell it's an absolute atrocity that this prop got lost somewhere in history, and that there's no way to reference it.

In defense of the cap theory - it needs to be very thigh fit so you can rivet it on all sides, but it can be any smaller size and will do the job by just riveting it on the back side. Then even if it fits perfectly and you can put rivets all the way around and make it look pretty you need to drill 10 more holes

Against it - one or two rivets on the side are sufficient for that and 4 is an overkill , different sizes rivets is still puzzling as you will first drill 4 holes with the same drill bit then put the rivets in.

 

[v312]

This is a very plausible and interesting theory. I've been thinking to myself lately that this endcap was originally designed to hold the force of three D-cell batteries pushing outward on that endcap while the Graflex handle was held right-side-up as a camera flash; therefore, the standard, factory-mounted endcap would not seem to need any reinforcement for the (presumably) lighter force it would experience in the same outward direction while a (presumably) hollow saber was hanging up-side-down from a belt clip. But maybe the endcap accidentally pushed inward while the prop makers were pushing inward to drill the two rivet holes in the endcap. Which type of endcap failure is more likely - from an inward force or from an outward force?

Actually, after revisiting post #179 I don't think the disc can pop into the tube as there's a step on which it sits.

Here's the two that I mentioned earlier as looking like the disc may pop out (separate flashes, but both are folmer with patent):

What I thought is trace of soldering on a closer look is just the chroming cracking and peeling making it look so.

 

[James Kenobi 1138]

I‘m really tempted to test-install a D-ring after drilling the holes for the rivets into my Graflex (and yes, I still need to change the D-ring setup on my endcap).

Like I said earlier in this Thread, if you think about the Obi and Vader saber the d-ring is attached to the side of the saber and not attached on the end. If you look at those sabers, you see that 2 holes were drilled (MPP shroud and handwheel cube) so a naked d-ring could be inserted and you wouldn't really see the saber attachment method when it's hanging on the belt.

I think it could be possible that 2 holes were drilled on either side of the grip and a d-ring was inserted but the d-ring was too low (too close to the clamp) and the top of the grip was rubbing on the saber belt hook so they drilled 2 more holes closer to the endcap and tried again and it still didn't work as well as the Obi and Vader (because those sabers have the d-rings in areas that stand off the saber body) so they decided to just add a d-ring with a clip on the endcap.

Then, they used rivets to plug the holes.

 

[Gregatron]

Actually, after revisiting post #179 I don't think the disc can pop into the tube as there's a step on which it sits.

Here's the two that I mentioned earlier as looking like the disc may pop out (separate flashes, but both are folmer with patent):
View attachment 1430286
What I thought is trace of soldering on a closer look is just the chroming cracking and peeling making it look so.

...I believe this may be another data point leaning in favor of the hero being constructed from a Folmer or Folmer with patent rather than an Inc. Can people compare endcaps to determine whether the Inc. endcaps have more solid construction? I believe there is (at least) a difference in the rolling of the lip on the end of the tube, yes?

 

[Captain Dunsel]

Regarding the mystery surrounding the 4 lower tube rivets...

With my knowledge of causality, obtained through watching countless hours of YouTube videos, I am pretty sure that through some sort of strange circuitous logic we can connect the reason why the answer continues to elude us to a conspiracy launched by Disney and Lucasfilm to subvert our expectations and to crush our dreams.

 

[Gregatron]

...not appropriate for this thread.

 

[SethS]

Like I said earlier in this Thread, if you think about the Obi and Vader saber the d-ring is attached to the side of the saber and not attached on the end. If you look at those sabers, you see that 2 holes were drilled (MPP shroud and handwheel cube) so a naked d-ring could be inserted and you wouldn't really see the saber attachment method when it's hanging on the belt.

I think it could be possible that 2 holes were drilled on either side of the grip and a d-ring was inserted but the d-ring was too low (too close to the clamp) and the top of the grip was rubbing on the saber belt hook so they drilled 2 more holes closer to the endcap and tried again and it still didn't work as well as the Obi and Vader (because those sabers have the d-rings in areas that stand off the saber body) so they decided to just add a d-ring with a clip on the endcap.

Then, they used rivets to plug the holes.

This is my favorite theory for two very poignant reasons.

1. It follows conventions used on other sabers

2. It fits the fact that movie props are almost always made quick and sloppy in the simplest way possible.

All these theories, even a simple piece inside, just sound like a lot of work for no discernible reason. The end caps don’t just go flying out. How many people here, using an old single single rivet, the double rivet, or a kobold have ever had the thing just fly apart while hanging on your belt?

 

[Brothervader]

Like I said earlier in this Thread, if you think about the Obi and Vader saber the d-ring is attached to the side of the saber and not attached on the end. If you look at those sabers, you see that 2 holes were drilled (MPP shroud and handwheel cube) so a naked d-ring could be inserted and you wouldn't really see the saber attachment method when it's hanging on the belt.

I think it could be possible that 2 holes were drilled on either side of the grip and a d-ring was inserted but the d-ring was too low (too close to the clamp) and the top of the grip was rubbing on the saber belt hook so they drilled 2 more holes closer to the endcap and tried again and it still didn't work as well as the Obi and Vader (because those sabers have the d-rings in areas that stand off the saber body) so they decided to just add a d-ring with a clip on the endcap.

Then, they used rivets to plug the holes.

Based on what you just said, my theory is that they drilled the two holes that are closest to the end cap first. Then they tried to insert the d-ring, but it wouldn't work because they were too close to the end of the hilt. It then makes sense that they would drill the holes slightly further up the hilt, so that the bent ends of the d-ring would fit inside the hilt. After the second attempt didn't work they attached it to the base like you said.

 

[BRRogers]

Or....
The unpaid prop intern misunderstood where they were supposed to rivet the thing and now we are all confused 44 years later

 

[AnubisGuard]

This is my favorite theory for two very poignant reasons.

1. It follows conventions used on other sabers

2. It fits the fact that movie props are almost always made quick and sloppy in the simplest way possible.

All these theories, even a simple piece inside, just sound like a lot of work for no discernible reason. The end caps don’t just go flying out. How many people here, using an old single single rivet, the double rivet, or a kobold have ever had the thing just fly apart while hanging on your belt?

It's a very plausible theory, but I do have one problem with it: why would they choose to hide the holes with additional rivets instead of shuffling the grips around to cover them? I just have a hard time believing they would have put visible fasteners in the side of the hilt if they didn't serve a structural purpose.

 

[v312]

Like I said earlier in this Thread, if you think about the Obi and Vader saber the d-ring is attached to the side of the saber and not attached on the end. If you look at those sabers, you see that 2 holes were drilled (MPP shroud and handwheel cube) so a naked d-ring could be inserted and you wouldn't really see the saber attachment method when it's hanging on the belt.

I think it could be possible that 2 holes were drilled on either side of the grip and a d-ring was inserted but the d-ring was too low (too close to the clamp) and the top of the grip was rubbing on the saber belt hook so they drilled 2 more holes closer to the endcap and tried again and it still didn't work as well as the Obi and Vader (because those sabers have the d-rings in areas that stand off the saber body) so they decided to just add a d-ring with a clip on the endcap.

Then, they used rivets to plug the holes.

I don't really have a theory of my own, so I'm just looking for flaws in everybody else's theories. Hope no one takes it personally

So for this one even if they thought this somehow could work and they needed 2 tries until they realized it does not - the rivets are not aligned horizontally. I'd like to give them some credit and assume that at least the second time they would try to mark them and drill it so the holes are aligned.

Also why bother to plug the holes and use 2 different sizes of rivets if they drilled the same size holes for the ring? Covering them with some foil tape is easier to do

 

[Gregatron]

It's a very plausible theory, but I do have one problem with it: why would they choose to hide the holes with additional rivets instead of shuffling the grips around to cover them? I just have a hard time believing they would have put visible fasteners in the side of the hilt if they didn't serve a structural purpose.

Considering that some of the rivets are very slightly covered by the grips, it seems likely that the rivets were installed first, BUT also likely that they didn’t care enough to bother gluing the grips over the rivets. That wouldn’t have been hard, even if it would have required removing some grip material to get them to sit flat. Then again, they didn’t even care enough to get the grips to sit flat against the MPP endcap’s ribbing on the Vader sabers.

So...they presumably installed the rivets first, and ostensibly in places they KNEW would end up being open spaces set in-between the grips. OR, the position of the grips was specifically determined by the location of the rivets, and and no attempt was made to cover them up.

Of course, unlike with the ESB version of the prop, they also weren’t worrying about spacing the grips in a symmetrical fashion (except maybe keeping the amount of space between each grip roughly equivalent, and maybe having one grip to either side of the space in-between the clamp bars, which gave the prop the illusion of symmetrical grips when viewed from its beauty side).

 

[Gregatron]

I don't really have a theory of my own, so I'm just looking for flaws in everybody else's theories. Hope no one takes it personally

So for this one I'd like to point out that even if they thought this somehow could work and they needed 2 tries until they realized it does not - the rivets are not aligned horizontally. I'd like to give them some credit and assume that at least the second time they would try to mark them and drill it so the holes are aligned.

Also why bother to plug the holes and use 2 different sizes of rivets if they drilled the same size holes for the ring? Covering them with some foil tape is easier to do

No one should take it personally! I like to toss out dumb and/or implausible ideas, because people shooting them down can lead to new and better ideas in the process. Pointing out flaws can lead to theories we might otherwise not have come up with. Keep up that skepticism!

 

[AnubisGuard]

Considering that some of the rivets are very slightly covered by the grips, it seems likely that the rivets were installed first, BUT also likely that they didn’t care enough to bother gluing the grips over the rivets.

Just to be clear, what I'm suggesting is, why bother with rivets at all? Cover the raw holes with the grips, no rivets required. Unless the rivets are structural, in which case, yeah, they have to be there and you have to arrange the grips around them.

 

[vadermania]

I bet the grips were already glued on the saber when they tried to install the D-ring, that‘s consistent with Christian‘s story how the prop was constructed and that the D-ring was installed last.

 

[roygilsing]

Just to be clear, what I'm suggesting is, why bother with rivets at all? Cover the raw holes with the grips, no rivets required. Unless the rivets are structural, in which case, yeah, they have to be there and you have to arrange the grips around them.

I said this already.

I bet the grips were already glued on the saber when they tried to install the D-ring, that‘s consistent with Christian‘s story how the prop was constructed and that the D-ring was installed last.

It would be no problem at all to take one off and re-apply it.

 

[vadermania]

I said this already.

It would be no problem at all to take one off and re-apply it.

Of course one or even more grips fell off the saber when they tried to install the D-ring, they were glued with superglue

But - would you take off all the superglued grips first, then drill the holes, fail miserably when trying to install a D-ring, remove the superglue residue from the lower Graflex tube and then re-glue the grips back on, covering the holes? I won't if I would have been the prop maker back in 1976.

I'd say the position of the (now riveted) holes in relation to the Graflex clamp, red button and bunny ears AND the spacing between those holes feels just right for the installation of a D-ring.