Vader cheek mark (c-scar)

[Holluba]

Like Immortal Goat, I am no Vader expert in any way shape or form. I do however know what I like. I've always wanted to own an "accurate" Vader head and by this I mean something that is the correct shape, hopefully with some link to any of the screen originals and not a sculpt made from scratch.

When the eFX Vader head came to my attention, I was full of beans and began to read the threads involved, but quickly I found myself confused by the argument for this, that and the other, claiming *this* was right or *that* was wrong. This combined with the endless bickering (not trying to be rude here as I fully understand people's passion for this kind of stuff) but it all left me alienated from the cause because quite frankly a lot of the chat went way over my head, so instead of coming away better informed to make my choice, I was back to square one, dithering and more confused than I was to start with.

What I'm trying to say is that I would be happy for a replica head that has some link to the original, but I don't really care if scars and dings were not included, thus I guess the Limited edition would suit my needs. Also, because the Legend version is more expensive and has all these little details such as scratches, pock marks and sloppy paint work (just like the original), to my mind, paying more for something that, to an outsider, looks as inferior in terms of workmanship, that kind of goes against the grain. Of course I do appreciate that this is what makes the head so special to those passionate about this piece, that direct replication of what was seen on screen, but for my tastes, I just want something that looks good and is the correct shape.

I've probably missed the boat now anyway, but there is always hope for the future as I'm only just getting into collecting. Hopefully my comments will be taken in the spirit that they were intended and not as a dig or an attack. I'm just trying to give the "Average Joe" perspective.

Holluba

 

[AJK001]

I was really hoping that after a who day of no posts, this thread was going to die a quiet death, but alas, it is not to be.

Everyone makes good points, but at the end of the day, we really don't know 100% what was where when the pulls were made. We have only seen the inside of one mold that does not show it. When I see the same kind of proof that does show it, I may change my mind. You can shout it out as for as long as you want too, but until you show the same kind of proof, it is no proof at all.

 

[demorathis]

It's a fair argument, KaanE, but to be perfectly frank, is not very applicable when thought through for more than a second or two. Different makes and models of cars are extremely distinct. I have never seen a Ford Contour drive by and think "That's a nice looking Mustang". You can instantly tell the difference.

On the flip side of the coin, Vader helmets, to the average viewer, are indistinguishable from each other. Sure, close up inspections will reveal little idiosyncrasies between buckets, but if it's well made, and the iconic details are there, nobody else is going to care if the scar is there or not. Collectors, sure, will care, but again, with the controversy over which school of thought is correct, nobody can be 100% sure that what they own is actually cast from the original. Even if the scar is correct, how can you tell the scar YOU have is the same one as the original, and not just fabricated by the seller? It isn't possible.

EDIT: Just to clarify, I am NOT saying that serious collectors shouldn't try and get as close to the original as possible. I am simply saying that until definitive proof is found, why argue about it? I don't think anyone here actually was involved in the making of the originals, so why cause such a divide?

I hear ya. At any rate, the differences we've seen when comparisons are made between the eFX and the ANH screenshots are practically nil.
The nature and origins of the superficial details can be debated, but from what the naked eye can tell, plus the fact that the mold was made in 1977 directly from the one and only ANH helmet -- whether altered in the least or not (c-scar or not) -- looks identical, minus some very very minor spots which we already know will happen. (minus perhaps a c-scar if it ever existed - which I could live without)

 

[KaanE]

Anyway, everyone buy props because HE likes them, not because others like. So, HE spends the money for something HE wants to see, not others, so if you want to spend a lot of money for a Rubies helmet, go for it, I for myself want to spend my money in something I wanna see, like an accurate Vader, I don't care if people see it, but I'm going to see it everyday, so I want it to be as accurate as possible for the money it costs.

That's why people care if the details is there or is not, not because others are going to see it, but because they owner/buyer want to see it. If not, he would have bought a nice and cheap Vader voice changer.

 

[demorathis]

Anyway, everyone buy props because HE likes them, not because others like. So, HE spends the money for something HE wants to see, not others, so if you want to spend a lot of money for a Rubies helmet, go for it, I for myself want to spend my money in something I wanna see, like an accurate Vader, I don't care if people see it, but I'm going to see it everyday, so I want it to be as accurate as possible for the money it costs.

That's why people care if the details is there or is not, not because others are going to see it, but because they owner/buyer want to see it. If not, he would have bought a nice and cheap Vader voice changer.

I also want a nice cheap voice changer -- I just like Vader stuff!!

 

[Zenwalker]

That is correct, KaanE. I buy props for my own satisfaction. Even then I rarely show them to others and even if I did they would not have the knowledge to appreciate all the accuracy and details. They could just as soon look at a Rubies and think it was a Screen accurate helmet. I on the other hand WOULD know the difference.

 

[KaanE]

That is correct, KaanE. I buy props for my own satisfaction. Even then I rarely show them to others and even if I did they would not have the knowledge to appreciate all the accuracy and details. They could just as soon look at a Rubies and think it was a Screen accurate helmet. I on the other hand WOULD know the difference.

That's exactly my point.

 

[vaderdarth]

Well said KaanE.

 

[OldKen]

I also want a nice cheap voice changer -- I just like Vader stuff!!

I have one I can sell you for under a grand! FREE SHIPPING!!! :lol

 

[Immortal Goat]

As I already stated, I understand the collector's mentality. I really do. I know there are huge differences between the Rubies model and ones pulled from the movie mold. My only argument has ever been that since there IS no definitive proof as to whether or not the original mold had the c-scar, why bicker about it if you know that the helmet was still pulled from the original mold, touched up or not? The important details are there, they are correct, why is the scar important? It's not present in one of the molds that's been verified as having been used back in 77, so I'd say that's a very good pedigree. Just because a painter or a filler got sloppy is no reason for the bile I've seen being spewed back and forth on this subject.

 

[micdavis]

The ones that argue are motivated by money or ego. Simple as that.

 

[demorathis]

I have one I can sell you for under a grand! FREE SHIPPING!!! :lol

only if I can say this is CNN, SImba, Zimunda, Verizon Wireless, and No Disintegrations and sound just like JEJ...

 

[OldKen]

only if I can say this is CNN, SImba, Zimunda, Verizon Wireless, and No Disintegrations and sound just like JEJ...

SOLD! I take Paypal and most major credit cards! :lol

And yeah the bitching about the one lil thing is kinda sad.

But welcome to an RPF Vader thread. They are always like this.

Sometimes one side might be right. Sometimes the other. But they always all think they are right and everyone else is wrong. Kinda like people who are REALLY far left or REALLY far right in politics. Whatever side they are on they are brilliant and saints. The other side is vile lying evil world destroying hate mongers.

Good times. :angel

 

[SithLord]

I wasn't around for the past 10 days so had to catch up from page 79 of the eFX thread....a lot to read. :confused


The TM C-scar is real, not fabricated, but it is from a later time than when the RB mold was taken. The TD ANH has the same scar and rabbit ear on the cheek as the SL ANH.

The SL ANH front right cheek compared to the original ANH....all I did was enhance the contrast on the SL ANH raw mask image....the C-scar is there, clear, and original.

The SL ANH C-scar, which is more correctly an L-scar, in closeup compared to the original ANH and the Corbis photo. I also can show the TM for comparison because the lower part of it is further above the lower edge of the cheek, like on the Corbis.

How do I know the SL ANH C-scar is original? Because every detail surrounding it is also original.

Whether it be the bumps to the inside of the scar...

The 45 deg paint line to the inside of the C-scar...

Or the rabbit ear to the outside of the scar as shown above..or the fine paint surface details to the outside edge of the cheek...

It's all there. In original form. The Rick Baker mold, I was told, was taken off the original ANH helmet at the time of the pickups, which would make sense since by that time the original helmet mold would have been discarded and they would have needed something to replace it for making the promotional helmets.

And I haven't even gotten into the left cheek. Inside the box is another paint detail I call the flower. I'd like someone to show me that detail at high resolution in a photo or their casting.

You won't find it on the Corbis images. At the time of the Corbis images that cheek was repainted along with the neck. By the time of the Chronicles, there was a major overall repaint.

So the SL ANH has it. And it should be in the eFX mold. But then again, the eFX master came out of the mold when it was 33 years old whereas the SL ANH came out of the mold when it was only 11 years old.

If I were to show an image of the SL ANH cheek as Gino did of the eFX mold (if that is a mold, it looks like a casting to me) with that kind of flat lighting and it being out of focus, as it is, then I wouldn't see the scar there either. But I see the lower part of it as Carsten pointed out....to the right of the two points in the box...

And the SL ANH neck is not warped...

And the hole on the top of the mask were drilled through only for the three tabs we know of, the other holes are incompletely drilled. But of course if someone only has seen an RB mold casting they wouldn't know this. The point is, originally the crew could have planned for two tabs, then decided that three would be necessary for stability.

The C-scar is not weathering. It makes no sense to weather one cheek and not the other. It is a simple loss of the top layer of paint probably during the early saber duel.

So I await similar detailed images from any casting out there.

 

[voice in the crowd]

Hi Thomas,

I only disagree on a couple of things. I personally think the UK mould was made pre RB mould but this just opinion from a few features on the mask. I also think the remnants of the C scar can still be seen in the Corbis photos.

I personally think the C scar exists I have seen it on more than one cast from very different sources.

There is no way of convincing the people who don't want to see it on the screen mask.

The SL, TM, TD, VP etc are all awesome Vaders and the eFX looks like it will be an awesome Vader as well.

I wouldn't waste your time and get yourself into trouble debating something with people who have all made their minds up.

Cheers Chris

 

[Trap Joe]

Anyway, everyone buy props because HE likes them, not because others like. So, HE spends the money for something HE wants to see, not others, so if you want to spend a lot of money for a Rubies helmet, go for it, I for myself want to spend my money in something I wanna see, like an accurate Vader, I don't care if people see it, but I'm going to see it everyday, so I want it to be as accurate as possible for the money it costs.

That's why people care if the details is there or is not, not because others are going to see it, but because they owner/buyer want to see it. If not, he would have bought a nice and cheap Vader voice changer.

great statement. Thanks.


I´m fine with it to let everyone believe what he´wants.:love

 

[Zombie Killer]

Still waitng for a pic of the mask after the scab was picked.

 

[vaderdarth]

I agree with Chris on the timeline of the two moulds Thomas. I think the UK mould came right around the time of production and the RB mould at the time of the promotional Post production as seen with all the cleanup of details. Ultimately the sterilized version became the advertisement and sales version for every product that followed. I also believe the C-scar to be dimensional on all versions of the helmet. It was filled in for the RB mould but it did not hide it completely. Other guys who have seen all these helmets in person call it this or that, to me it appears as a definite "dent" in the deepest part of the scar. It's faint, but it's obviously present. Some guys have seen it, some guys simply can't see it. All the rest is theory without an unaltered casting from that UK mould.

 

[GINO]

This debate is exhausting.
@ the pro-dimensional scar people:
Why bother posting anything at all, if you're not going to show pics of the actual stuff that needs to be seen to bring this debate to a conclusion?

In case you aren't sure what I'm referring to, what I'm talking about are actual pics of the original SL or the original TM. Anything else is worthless and no one will give it the time of day.
Like Sithlord's post above, there are lots of pics, but containing nothing of value and showing nothing of what we really need to see to further this debate in a meaningful way.

Thomas, if you want to show something helpful, why don't you show some actual photos of your original SL large enough (like other pics shown in this thread) that we can see what's going on in the cheek.
Not just macro close ups, but the whole faceplate. Non photoshopped pics.
Why exactly are you so unwilling to do this?

Like I stated earlier, there is no point in showing pics of castings from the TM or SL.
If people from either camp are unwilling to do this, then really this thread should just die as anything else added is just noise.

BTW the scar area on the SL castings shown do not match up with the scar area on the TM castings shown.



On a side note, I do agree that it is likely the Baker mold was taken at the tail end of the ANH production.
It only makes sense that the UK mold would have been created right before the beginning of the ESB production.



.

 

[GINO]

If I were to show an image of the SL ANH cheek as Gino did of the eFX mold (if that is a mold, it looks like a casting to me)

Is this your way of saying eFX and myself are lying about the pic we posted not being the actual baker mold?


.