Vader cheek mark (c-scar)

[GINO]

Again, you are assuming the chronicles helmet is THE screen used helmet.
No one can definitively say yes or no.

The original absolutely had it's tabs removed (all they had to do was unscrew them), and also had the grills removed for molding for the baker mold.
That is pretty standard procedure.
It is no big deal after molding to put the tabs back on and put the grills back.

Then later right before the ESB production, it is molded in the UK and the tabs were not taken off, nor was the mouth grill. But the chin vent was plugged from the front.

How is that a stretch?



.

 

[defstartrooper]

I disagree.
I believe the baker mold was created first at the end of filming, then the UK mold right before the ESB production.


SUMMARY

We have not seen any photos of the original TM or SL that show the scar.
Only one (of the TM), and it clearly shows it not being there.

TM
Basically JRX appears to have added the dimensional scar to the TM before the castings were made that everyone now has.
If he didn't then there are pics that some of the TM owners have that would prove or disprove this.
But they aren't showing anything. Wonder why?
Even one of the TM owners stated that JRX modified the scar area.


SL
Still, not one good shot of the original SL cheek area.
Good shot meaning showing the whole faceplate and non photoshopped and in decent res.
It's clear that a dimensional scar was added to the SL castings made available to people.
The original SL comes from the baker mold, and there is no scar in the baker mold (but ALL the other super minute details surround the scar area are clearly there and well defined).

The scar on the TM and SL castings do not match because they were both added in by different people.


We've seen NO proof that a dimensional scar exists on either the original TM or SL.
Only proof that is doesn't.




.

Summary:

You say there's no scar on the original or UK mould therefore the c-scar on the TM or SL must be fabricated.

We still haven't seen proof there's no scar on the original helmet or UK mould.

If you just show the proof you have there's no scar on the original helmet and no scar on the UK mould the rest is a given.

 

[SithLord]

Luckily Baker left enough remaining landmarks that the RB helmets exhibit that it's obvious it was sourced off the same filming helmet. But at a later and obviously altered condition. Yes it's still the same helmet, but it's had a minor (or major depending on who you ask) face lift.

There's no facelift on an RB pull.

UK helmets.....screen helmet with all it's major drips dings tabs etc......whole shebang

Not quite.

This is key. Show me this on the TM. It isn't there. It is on the SL. It isn't on the Corbis which was before the Chronicles. It is in the Don Post studio photos.

RB helmets.......chronicles helmet less overall huge details, no tabs or deep scars etc.

What do you mean "less overall huge details". If it has detail in the paint, then it also has the huge details. Yes the tabs were removed. But everything else is there. The front mouth surface has a bit of schmutz that isn't original but otherwise all there.

My opinion is that the overall scars exhibited in a UK helmet are closer to what we see on screen. Further, the RB helmets retain all the details we see on the Chronicles condition- post production version of the same screen helmet.

As I said, show me that detail on the left cheek on the TM.

Each version has details the other one doesn't and vice versa. To get the whole screen helmet equivalent, you need both sets of molds. I doubt there are more than a handful of people who would disagree with me on that.

SL, I do think that higher resolution images (same shots) that you have shown would answer far more than what you show because the closeup, blurry images don't register with folks who don't have the SL helmet in front of them etc...... It's hard to explain, but it's a matter of blowing these images up to the point that they look like alien landscapes rather than the facemask we are all familiar with.

I suggest doing the same basic shots, except, don't enlarge them. Use only original (cropping is fine) images in their best resolution and then let the chips fall. Your criticism is always gonna stem from your use of fuzzy or blurry images. Some of us can see what you are trying to show, but the majority is missing it because they can't see the forest for the trees. We wanna see the forest.

I just did. Have a look at the forest. :lol

 

[GINO]

Summary:

You say there's no scar on the original or UK mould therefore the c-scar on the TM or SL must be fabricated.

We still haven't seen proof there's no scar on the original helmet or UK mould.

Don't get it twisted.
I said there is no scar on the original TM or SL, therefore it must have been fabricated at some point to have been included on the subsequent castings.


No one has seen 'THE' UK mold. But we have seen many of the derivative castings that have come out of it and NONE of them have a dimensional scar.


.

 

[GINO]

Thomas,
I don't think you understand what we're looking for here in terms of pics.
Go back and see post #311 for a good example of what would go a long way in putting this to rest.

 

[vaderdarth]

Now that's a photo.

 

[vaderdarth]

I disagree gino, I think he put the exact photo up that we were asking. If you can't see it, then let's just agree to disagree and move on.

It shows a dimensional abnormality on the cheek face on a helmet from the RB mould. (the very earliest pull of all the RB mould helmets). That has been the point from the beginning of this thead.

 

[vaderdarth]

Show us a photo of the raw casting out of the baker mould pulled by eFX gino. I'm betting we'll see a similar albeit not as sharp detail......same location.....same detail.

go ask permission if you have to. We both know the photo exists and we both know it will show some degree of that detail.

Its on the SL, it's on the TD, it's on the DJ and it's on another casting from the baker mould not released to the public.

let's try not to feed some conspiracy theory by all these other owners.........put in place just to make you look like a moron. Most of these pulls were made before you were in the hobby............back when photographic evidence was scant at best. The only pics we had back in the day were from the Chronicles pics. Not relevant.

 

[defstartrooper]

Don't get it twisted.
I said there is no scar on the original TM or SL, therefore it must have been fabricated at some point to have been included on the subsequent castings.


No one has seen 'THE' UK mold. But we have seen many of the derivative castings that have come out of it and NONE of them have a dimensional scar.


.

Sorry am i mistaken or did this whole debate arise when you were asked about the c mark being painted on the cheek of the eFX in the eFX thread ?
To which you replied because the original helmet didn't have a c-scar and also said the UK mould has no c-scar and those helmets that do have it were fabricated ?

And a quote from your first post in this thread which is straight forward and clear.

There was no dimensional c-scar on the original helmet.
It does not appear on original castings from the baker mold, or the uk mold that created the ESB/ROTJ helmets.

How is that twisted ?

If you prove your statement about there being no c scar on the original helmet and UK mould you automatically prove that it must be fabricated on the fan owned casts like the TM or SL.

All you prove by looking at the TM or SL is they have a c scar, it doesn't prove the c scar is fabricated unless you prove it's not on the original helmet or UK mould.
Saying it doesn't exist on other pulls from the Uk mould proves nothing because we don't know if those copies were cleaned up or altered.

All i want to know is whether it's on the original helmet or not and proof either way, the rest doesn't matter.

 

[GINO]

Then by your reasoning, the only way to prove it is not dimensional is to actually see the 'UK mold'.
Most likely it doesn't even exist anymore.

What we can prove (and think has been done quite well) is that there is no dimensional scar on any of the UK mold derivatives such as the TM, TD, or VP.

If someone still wants to believe it is dimensional, then the only thing they have to base it on is personal opinion, and not anything grounded in physical evidence.


.

 

[vaderdarth]

Good points Defstartrooper. We can theorize all day long, but we only have all these castings to compare with the screen helmet. We do not have the screen helmet as it was on the day of filming. You do realize that if the scar was caused by some dimwit pushing his finger across wet paint/primer that it might wrinkle up on the one end......and once Baker got hold of it, it would have been removed with a solvent and a rag in seconds leaving very little evidence it ever existed. There is little doubt that it is on the screen helmet. A monkey could see it. It just isn't perfectly flat as gino asserts.

Just watch the film or a series of caps from the film in the order they were taken. It's quite obvious the detail has a raised side and a not raised side. The "physical evidence" is on film.

 

[GINO]

Its on the SL, it's on the TD, it's on the DJ and it's on another casting from the baker mould not released to the public.

It most certainly is not on any of those three castings.


All you can do is make noise. Still no quality pics.



.

 

[defstartrooper]

Then by your reasoning, the only way to prove it is not dimensional is to actually see the 'UK mold'.
Most likely it doesn't even exist anymore.

What we can prove (and think has been done quite well) is that there is no dimensional scar on any of the UK mold derivatives such as the TM, TD, or VP.

If someone still wants to believe it is dimensional, then the only thing they have to base it on is personal opinion, and not anything grounded in physical evidence.


.

No no now who's twisting, it was your statement that started the whole debate remember a straight forward factual statement that there's no scar on the original helmet or UK mould, if you can't prove that then that is your problem you shouldn't make factual statements about something you can't prove.

Now you've proven there's no dimensional scar on the TM or SL, earlier there was but it's fabricated i'm losing track here which is the real story ?

 

[GINO]

Here's a question for the SL and TM camps.

How do you explain the significant difference between the scar shown on the TM castings vs the scar on the SL castings?
They are very different.
Which one is correct according to you?


Which is kind of a silly question as they are both added in.



.

 

[GINO]

btw, here's a photo of the original SL from the ebay auction.
I don't see any dimensional scar.
And absolutely nothing that looks like what you see added in on the TM castings.

.

 

[OldKen]

Here's a question for the SL and TM camps.

How do you explain the significant difference between the scar shown on the TM castings vs the scar on the SL castings?
They are very different.
Which one is correct according to you?


Which is kind of a silly question as they are both added in.



.

Can't wait to hear this.

Cause yeah. they look a LOT different in the pics. And there are things in the comparison pics SL posted of the SL and the SU and there is stuff that appears different all over that cheek. And the artifact to the left of the C? Totally different place! One is right on the edge of the mouth and one is clearly further up.

Untill ANYONE can pony up pics of untouched original castings... Everything anyone says is completely pointless.

We might as well be arguing the ol chicken and the egg thing. All it comes down to are your personal beliefs or what you have been told.

I wanna see the PUDDIN!

I heard there was proof in it!!!

:angel

 

[thegreatgalling]

May I just briefly interupt and say that I am really happy these last few pages have been informative and interesting without being as ugly and personal? I like that both sides of the debate are contributing and think if things remain like the community may in fact benefit from these discussions.

 

[KaanE]

I think I'm actually seeing it.

 

[GINO]

Nope, what you're seeing on the ebay pic are the dimensional artifacts that are at the bottom of the scar area. Not the scar itself.
These artifacts are on all the baker castings.


.

 

[AJK001]

Let me get this straight.

1) Gino and EFX have released photo's showing their mold, that does NOT show a C-Scar.

2) No one else has shown a Mold or the original SL, TM Casting with a C-Scar, but they want us to believe them because they keep saying it is true.

3) Now people want Gino and EFX to release pictures of the Baker mold itself, which they probably can't. Why should they when others won't do the same.