Vader cheek mark (c-scar)

[SithLord]

@sithlord
Why won't you just post a normal pic like everyone else?
A pic of the SL faceplate (in decent res), non photoshopped showing the cheek?

I did.

We don't know for certain if the chronicles helmet is the actual ANH screen helmet. You are assuming this.
IF it is the screen used helmet, the baker mold was taken before the chronicles shoot.
You can tell because the chronicles helmet is missing almost all the finer details and the baker mold castings have ALL of them.

It is impossible for the baker mold to have been made from the chronicles helmet.


.

I agree that it is impossible for the Chronicles helmet to have produced the Baker mold. But the Chronicles as far as I can see is the original ANH helmet, or at least the mask.

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.
.

Just a point of information that the original grill wasn't removed when the RB mold was taken of the mask.

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.
.

I've shown the evidence in the form of screen accurate details that no one has seen before at that kind of high magnification/resolution. That is proof that cannot be fabricated.

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.



.

The SL scar is correct and I’ve shown that.

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.

.

Come on, how do you think you would see it with that kind of poor resolution/enlargement of the photo? I can see the lower portion of it. Obviously you cannot.

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.

Actually, that is the lower part of the scar. It is there.

Can't go along with that.
BTW, JRX added it to the TM, Ghost Host would have been the one to add it to the TD or SL castings as if I'm not mistaken, he was the one who molded them.


.

You get offended if someone implies you are lying, yet you have license to accuse JRX and Ghosthost of disreputable practices of modifying castings in order to make them look authentic?

As previously mentioned. The RB mold has clean up in that area the scar should be in the casting and is more than that of a scratch etc. These helmets have been cleaned to a degree no matter what is said.
No helmet has an accurate scar to date they are either cleaned or previously featured too much depth etc. Not to say there isn't a faceplate that doesn't feature it in the cast.My vagueness is for a reason but eventually more will be uncovered as time goes by.

There’s no cleanup there on the SL.

Let's be frank here.
The only reason the pro dimensional scar people (basically the TM and SL groups) keep posting in this thread is for the purpose of clouding the facts presented and create doubt in the minds of others (regardless of how small that doubt is).

All this only to keep some measure of superiority for themselves and the castings they own.
The reality is that the castings you have (the TM and SL group) aren't as special as you thought they were and have had modifications done to them (including the addition of a dimensional scar which is not on the original helmet).
And it's obvious to everyone reading this thread that you all are just sore that a LOT more people are finally going to have the chance to have something as good or better.

If you want to truly debate the scar issue then please do so by posting fantastic pics of the original castings you 'claim' to have them.
Every post you make where this does not happen makes you all look more and more petty, and only proves that this debate was never really about getting at the 'truth'.


.

I will be equally frank.

If someone says you are wrong, then all you do is recourse to accusing people of deliberately modifying their castings, and complaining about the clear evidence that has been shown. Why do you think that you are the only person who believes that the scar is a intentional weathering effect in the paint? Could it be that you are wrong? No other Vader expert agrees with you.

The reality of the situation is that the TM and SL are special, as is the eFX. Yet all you do is accuse people of deception, when you yourself get offended with the slightest intimation by someone that you might be lying, about anything. Yet you apparently have license to accuse people here without evidence whatsoever.


The SL ANH has the correct scar. This is the proof.

This shows two different images on the left and right of the original ANH mask right cheek showing the identical condition as seen on the Tantive IV scenes. The center top image is the SL ANH cheek in an untouched raw photo. The image bottom center is a contrast enhanced version of that photo. I've never shown this before because I'm not interested in people knowing how it should be. But this has gone far enough.

The only high resolution image previously seen of that area (on the left top and bottom), and I have the original 8x10 of that image from 1976), had a light reflection partially obscuring the L-scar. But I've known for a long time of a better image (on the right top and bottom) in which the lighting was uniform and the entire extent of the original L-scar could be seen. That was the one I was basing the actual shape off of, not a screen cap, but an actual still photograph of the original mask. The TM owners thought the TM scar was correct, but they didn't have this reference. And then Gino claims the scar was fabricated on every mask in private hands because he either clearly didn't notice it or couldn't find it on the eFX, because it is a very subtle but very real and physical detail that was there on the original, and it is there clear as day on the casting of the SL ANH along with all the high resolution details I showed earlier.

This is the shape, as I showed before...

It is not a "C", it is an "L".

And if I am wrong, how can I match even the minutest, finest details on that front cheek surface like this...

Or this...

Or this...right on the inside part of that scar...right next to it!

And I know what this detail looks like at high resolution but I've never shown it and don't plan to because all that is going on here is the defense of a fallacious assumption about what the scar is. An assumption based on a lack of knowledge of the original ANH mask.

No cleanup on the SL ANH, just the original cheek surface, the original scar.

 

[CSMacLaren]

It's amazing how a thread has carried on for this long with such a shortage of actual images. I've posted hi-res pics of the C-scar already on The Prop Den, which tells me this really isn't about the C-scar but rather it's about ego - i.e. who is right, who cannot possibly be wrong, and who cannot be corrected by other people.

Creating doubt for what purpose? Let's be frank here. I skimmed through the last several pages of this thread and see a lot of pro-dimensional opinion being twisted and insinuated as an attack against the eFX by people who want to basically politicize and demonize the opposition. That's poor form. Some TM and SL owners are future eFX customers. Yet nobody stops to consider this.

The C-scar is something TM owners have known for 3 years and have kept very quiet on for the past 3 years. We didn't go around beating people over the head, saying, "My helmet is derived from untainted original production pieces.... " And we suddenly made up the C-scar? Yet nobody stops to consider this.

Gino had said there needed to be cleanup, as the majority of SW fans don't know of the textural details, flaws, etc. and although some of us uber-geeks would have liked for it to not be cleaned up, it was necessary and understandable. So whether or not a C-scar was removed (even though we know the tabs are not part of the RB mold) by no means diminishes the value of the eFX, yet any discussion is considered an attack on eFX. If it ever had it, it's not on the eFX; if it never had it, it's still not going to be on the eFX. People have already accepted this. Yet nobody stops to consider this.

The TM and SL owners who are awaiting the eFX and understand what it is aren't out to attack the helmet. And why's that? Imagine a TM owner pairing the eFX dome with a TM mask. Instant ANH, baby. Yet nobody stops to consider this.

I'm sick of this demonization of TM and SL owners. For the record, we don't have issue with the eFX. We are not jealous of the eFX helmet. Hell, I want one, but some people got to buy two - and the thought that they'd troop in one while keeping one for posterity is not a pretty thought. My only gripe against eFX is they didn't say "Limit 1 per customer". I'm a huge fan of the RB mold. I love the look of the helmets it gave birth to.

Are we "jealous"? Well, let's see. According to Gino, we have so much money invested so we have something to protect. Again, read my comment on having a good ANH dome. The TM faceplate may be ANH configuration but the dome is still ESB. Don't forget that although the TM is categorically ESB, many of us are hardcore ANH fans and are still in search of the ultimate ANH helmet (aren't we all?) If the eFX is it, then its a huge boost, and one major step towards the journey's end. Yet nobody stops to consider this.

And regardless of whether the C-scar existed or not, there are still marvelous paintbrush stroke details, drips, tabs, etc. on the TM to enjoy. The "jealousy" card is overplayed. And remember, it can play BOTH ways and not just against TM/SL owners.

I told an admin that my posts had been ridiculed and evil intent insinuated of my character. He has to ask to tell him which posts, and yet the same admin tracks with fine, focused granularity the posts by one who is trying to post out of intellectual pursuit, yet dogs that user for "trolling".

So consider this. This really hasn't been about the C-scar. Nor is it about the eFX. It's about who is top dog.

Gino, we concede. You are top dog. Woof.

P.S. Someone once taught me: it's more difficult to disprove something than it is to prove something. To disprove something, you have to eliminate all possibilities that the subject might be true. You have to eliminate the possibility that there is no scar in the UK mold. But no fan here has seen the UK mold. And the burden of proof is on the one who is trying to disprove things.

 

[clancampbell]

Well said Mac, well said.

Rich

 

[GINO]

Nuff said.




.

 

[AJK001]

The only things I've learned in this that are that there are about a half dozen or so people with an ax to grind that keep asking for things that they themselves won't provide and that whenever they ask for and receive something, they then switch to dfferent arguments.

One post says this is not about EFX and then 10 posts later they themselves drag EFX back into it. You can't have it both ways, either this is about EFX and Gino or it isn't. Everything I've read in both of these threads points in that direction.

There are a lot of great helmets out there, but NONE of them are completely 100% accurate. Does that make one better than the other, no, it just means they are different.

What this seems to boil down to is that there are the choses that have been really ticked off because the un-chosen are now going to have a helmet that is just as good and they don't like it one bit. That comes through very loud and clear in both of these threads.

 

[Juansith]

Sithlord, is it possible to show us a good res picture of the SL cheek with C scar without that terrible highlight?

I did.




I agree that it is impossible for the Chronicles helmet to have produced the Baker mold. But the Chronicles as far as I can see is the original ANH helmet, or at least the mask.





Just a point of information that the original grill wasn't removed when the RB mold was taken of the mask.





I've shown the evidence in the form of screen accurate details that no one has seen before at that kind of high magnification/resolution. That is proof that cannot be fabricated.





The SL scar is correct and I’ve shown that.




Come on, how do you think you would see it with that kind of poor resolution/enlargement of the photo? I can see the lower portion of it. Obviously you cannot.



Actually, that is the lower part of the scar. It is there.




You get offended if someone implies you are lying, yet you have license to accuse JRX and Ghosthost of disreputable practices of modifying castings in order to make them look authentic?




There’s no cleanup there on the SL.





I will be equally frank.

If someone says you are wrong, then all you do is recourse to accusing people of deliberately modifying their castings, and complaining about the clear evidence that has been shown. Why do you think that you are the only person who believes that the scar is a intentional weathering effect in the paint? Could it be that you are wrong? No other Vader expert agrees with you.

The reality of the situation is that the TM and SL are special, as is the eFX. Yet all you do is accuse people of deception, when you yourself get offended with the slightest intimation by someone that you might be lying, about anything. Yet you apparently have license to accuse people here without evidence whatsoever.


The SL ANH has the correct scar. This is the proof.

This shows two different images on the left and right of the original ANH mask right cheek showing the identical condition as seen on the Tantive IV scenes. The center top image is the SL ANH cheek in an untouched raw photo. The image bottom center is a contrast enhanced version of that photo. I've never shown this before because I'm not interested in people knowing how it should be. But this has gone far enough.

The only high resolution image previously seen of that area (on the left top and bottom), and I have the original 8x10 of that image from 1976), had a light reflection partially obscuring the L-scar. But I've known for a long time of a better image (on the right top and bottom) in which the lighting was uniform and the entire extent of the original L-scar could be seen. That was the one I was basing the actual shape off of, not a screen cap, but an actual still photograph of the original mask. The TM owners thought the TM scar was correct, but they didn't have this reference. And then Gino claims the scar was fabricated on every mask in private hands because he either clearly didn't notice it or couldn't find it on the eFX, because it is a very subtle but very real and physical detail that was there on the original, and it is there clear as day on the casting of the SL ANH along with all the high resolution details I showed earlier.

This is the shape, as I showed before...

It is not a "C", it is an "L".

And if I am wrong, how can I match even the minutest, finest details on that front cheek surface like this...

Or this...

Or this...right on the inside part of that scar...right next to it!

And I know what this detail looks like at high resolution but I've never shown it and don't plan to because all that is going on here is the defense of a fallacious assumption about what the scar is. An assumption based on a lack of knowledge of the original ANH mask.

No cleanup on the SL ANH, just the original cheek surface, the original scar.

 

[Ging]

Nuff said.




.

What is the third photo (On the Right) proving ? It looks like a lower resolution that's all ?

 

[GINO]

Just that they all look different.

 

[defstartrooper]

The only things I've learned in this that are that there are about a half dozen or so people with an ax to grind that keep asking for things that they themselves won't provide and that whenever they ask for and receive something, they then switch to dfferent arguments.

One post says this is not about EFX and then 10 posts later they themselves drag EFX back into it. You can't have it both ways, either this is about EFX and Gino or it isn't. Everything I've read in both of these threads points in that direction.

There are a lot of great helmets out there, but NONE of them are completely 100% accurate. Does that make one better than the other, no, it just means they are different.

What this seems to boil down to is that there are the choses that have been really ticked off because the un-chosen are now going to have a helmet that is just as good and they don't like it one bit. That comes through very loud and clear in both of these threads.

You're the only one bringing eFX into it nobody else has mentioned it, but you know what i think i do agree this thread is totally about the eFX and people wanting to elevate the eFX by rubbishing other casts.
Notice all the super subtle statements such as " The reality is that the castings you have (the TM and SL group) aren't as special as you thought they were " ?
Not one of you has shown any interest in looking at the original screen used helmet you're too busy trying to smear other peoples property rather than looking at the one helmet that counts, the screen used one.

The truth is no matter what you prove or disprove about any of these casts or moulds proves anything about the screen used helmet and it doesn't make any of the casts any more or any less great.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Well, the angles in all three shots are different.

 

[GINO]

Not different enough to create that much variation.

 

[vaderdarth]

WE are all those who clearly see the C scar on the screen helmet and remnants of it on all the pedigree helmets except of course the one you fixed for eFX. WE have held these helmets in our actual hands. WE can also see it on all the screen caps and fan photos of pedigree RB helmets. There are more than just the SL, DJ and eFX you know.

Personally, if this RB Mould you guys used is exactly the same as all the rest, which I think most folks believe, then it has just gotten worn a bit over the years and isn't what it was when the other helmets came out of it. It is a sad truth about silicon moulds, but it's not the end of the world.

Otherwise, show us a photo of the unaltered casting from that mould and let us decide if you're full of crap. Afraid to show a little triangle??? Crop it man!!!

Do you dispute the photo of the raw casting you guys took from the RB mould exists??? We don't want to see eFX's own castings. We want the one pulled from the RB mould itself. YOU GOT THE POWER DUDE!!!!!!

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Why meet those demands though? Pictures exist of the one facemask you guys are trying to use to set the standard, but not one has popped up yet. There has been no quid pro quo exchange of facts here. Only one side, and that is what Bryan at eFX has allowed to be show. So, why should they capitulate and show anything else?

 

[vaderdarth]

Actually gino, that same comparison you keep poking fun at.....that you just posted, tells everyone all they need to know. Why you can't see what other's see is quite beyond my capacity. The blurry second shot of the SL, not needed. Doesn't add to the discussion, just look at the other two. It's right there as plain as the nose on your face.

 

[vaderdarth]

Qui, I took the TM off the table in this discussion as you guys already dismissed it. So lets just keep it to the RB mould for now. Why not prove it's not on the one master casting? Bryan isn't stopping anyone from showing a cropped triangle from the raw master casting, so stop using him for a crutch.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Qui, I took the TM off the table in this discussion as you guys already dismissed it. So lets just keep it to the RB mould for now. Why not prove it's not on the one master casting? Bryan isn't stopping anyone from showing a cropped triangle from the raw master casting, so stop using him for a crutch.

As far as you can assume he isn't. What would make you think that he would not want these pics seen? Seriously Dave, it is posts like yours that ARE slamming the eFX offering. Just come right out and say it and stop with the lame attempts at subterfuge. It is okay to state your opinion openly. No one is going to stone you for it.

 

[vaderdarth]

Qui, the only guy I ever saw slamming eFX was yourself. Way back in a thread you yourself started about an oversized trooper bucket and eFX's supposed misleading advertisement. You were wrong about eFX then and you're wrong to try to drag them down now by putting your own words in other's mouths. So just let it go man. I've purchased every offering from eFX that fit my collection. You are smoking crack or somthing. Do you own any eFX products Qui?

My point about the mould is that I believe the C scar is on that master casting, not absent as is being suggested. I have no delusions as to why gino would want to hide it. He's protecting his own personal copy. That doesn't in any way put eFX in a negative light.

Of course a couple silly photos of the raw casting would end this ridiculous discussion. The remnant is there. just accept it and we can move forward.

 

[thegreatgalling]

Any photos of anything that could end this discussion are welcome!

 

[thegreatgalling]

If however the pics of the master show no remnants, we are still back to square one unfortunately: was the scar filled in or did it never exist.

I would still love to hear from JRX, is he aware of these discussions? He may have helpful info to add.

 

[defstartrooper]

If however the pics of the master show no remnants, we are still back to square one unfortunately: was the scar filled in or did it never exist.

I would still love to hear from JRX, is he aware of these discussions? He may have helpful info to add.

Yes of course it'll be back to square one.
And the same will apply to pics of the TM,SL,VP,RB mould and UK mould not one of them is conclusive proof of there being a scar or not on the screen used helmet.

I don't think many people are concerned with what was on the actual helmet though they're far too busy trying to say the helmet they have bought is better than the other guys.

The only real persuasive evidence will be hi res images of the screen helmet during production showing either topical weathering or a dimensional scar.