Vader cheek mark (c-scar)

[defstartrooper]

That is what in a courtroom would be called diversion evidence.

Very interesting photos, for sure. But how do they prove that the original UK molds feature the C-scar as a dimensional artifact and original part of the mold exactly? I'm confused. Please educate us unwashed.

I'm not interested in debating with anyone like i said at the bottom of the post you decide for yourself if this leaves room for doubt about the presence of filler or not and therefore doubt about the scar being fabricated by Jesper or Vadermania.

 

[defstartrooper]

My first impression of the pics is on the top photo, below the red box, it looks gloppy and, well, slightly darker. The cheek on the other hand is smooth as a baby's bottom.

That's my point the area outlined in red looks smooth and dull but clearly there was filler there.

 

[GINO]

You can totally tell there is resin there.
It's not as obvious as the stuff on the brow, but still super obvious.

The cheek is not like that at all.



.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Not interested in debating, but brings in a debate worthy pic from the Den. You can see a difference in the two resins in that photo. If you cannot see the surface is shinier on the teeth before than it is after, no amount of imagery will change your tune.

According to what Paul posted, the TM was altered. Does it get more clear than that? Those alterations utterly destroy any research value in the facemask.

The only thing we would ever see is if Thomas strips the TD in much the same way, but I have a feeling that will NEVER happen.

Oh, looks like they missed some resin in between the teeth.

 

[Juansith]

OK, so after watching the pics and stuff, i always felt there was something wrong when i compared this two pics that i tweaked (without modifying the geometry) so that i could have a clearer look at the texture...the bump map if you will.
Now this is all for fun and one thing that came to mind, im not trying to bash or anything, just know what you think about what im thinking.

This is a cheek close up of the Original TM pic showed to us:

This is a close up of the TM with the C scar:

Now, it may be an optical illusion, but when i see both pics, obviously the TM original without scar seems to have a smoother area, but i felt there was something else.
Again, i dont know anything about the molding process but what ive read in this thread is that in order to find the scar they "removed resin from the cheek", in other words is like digging, right, digging below the surface....

That is the thing that its odd to me, because, somehow, it seemed that on the TM pic with the scar that instead of looking a layer below the surface, things came ABOVE the original surface.Like they added a layer on top of the original one in orther to recreate the scar (if they even did such a thing).

-Like if the original cheek surface is now below and a new layer was added above it.
Dont know why, maybe it was better to add a layer than digging and maybe damage the original layer, like painting, its always better adding on top than substracting, you may reach the canvas and hurt it, maybe even break it.......i dont know.

Again, this may be an optical illusion, i just want you to see what i mean:

Original TM pic, smooth surface:

Original pic, layer ABOVE added in white

TM cheek with scar:

Another pic with the layer that could be above marked in white:

TM with C scar pic Full:

TM original Pic:

Again, this is a thing that i thought while analizing athe pics, do not know if its right, im not assuming its true, but i think this is a solution as to why my eyes dont agree when i look at the smooth area on the Original TM and the pic with the C scar.

I just wanted to share it with you.

 

[vaderdarth]

well gino, let's not presume to know what he meant. He typed what he meant. He can clarify what he meant and everyone already knows about the TD. Like the TM, you can only speculate what the original TD helmet has under the paint. Unless you have X ray eyes that work on photos. Again, anything is possible on the TD. We can play a guessing game all day and night. We'd still be guessing unless it gets stripped and observed, right?

Qui, good for you. He also said that none of the helmets are 100% accurate, eFX included. I agree with him. That's why I said in an earlier post that to get the full picture for ANH, you need them all. Not a one of them has all the dings, chips, scratches dents divots or scars. Except the helmet I keep in my lock box. That one has EVERYTHING!!!!!! LOL

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Uh huh. Yet you still ignore his main points. The TM scar is not accurate. So, if that is not accurate, it cannot be cited as a reference. We've still seen nothing.

 

[AJK001]

Uh huh. Yet you still ignore his main points. The TM scar is not accurate. So, if that is not accurate, it cannot be cited as a reference. We've still seen nothing.

Exactly.

I'm not in one camp or the other. I don't know any of the players involved except for what I've read on this forum and I don't know much about the Vader helmet. But from what I've read since we first found out who eFX had chosen to help them I get the feeling there are a few people that really must think the rest of us are either blind or stupid.

 

[vaderdarth]

Qui, it seems you have decided to simply offer the opposite opinion to anything I type. I'm totally cool with that. Most people have already made their minds up about this ding or that divot. It seems that you have as well. JRX can change my mind. You cannot. The TM C scar is not nearly as important to me personally as the screen C scar. Therein lies our basic difference of opinion. The basic issue is: even slightly raised versus flat. Let's just move forward while trying to lower the confrontational aspect of every post. I'm not your enemy, we share a common goal, learn everything we can about Vader. Peace,

Dave

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Dave, you mistake me telling you my opinion for trying to change yours. You put words in people's mouths, even after the statements they have made have been quite clear. Every time someone in the know posts something you disagree with, you try to spin it to suit your needs. "TM C-scar is not accurate" is what is said and you say "That's not what he meant, he meant this". People are using that TM scar to try and prove there is a scar on the screen helmet. It's deflection and slight of hand to try and hide the fact that errors have been made.

The TM is an awesome facemask and would be the prize in anyone's collection. The fact is alterations HAVE been made. Period. Even you can see it diminishes its value as a research piece, but NOT as an awesome collectible.

Now, the ONLY one we know of who could clear up EXACTLY what is on the UK mold is Thomas. He would have to strip the TD, which people have been asking him to do for some time. He will not do it. Even that facemask has had work done to it.

Screen caps are NOT valid as a sole source of research. We have seen the inside of a mold, close up thanks to Bryan and Gino, that shows nothing of what has been expected and it seems to have a few people nonplussed so the first reaction is "Nuh uh it is this way!" This reaction has been given without proof.

When we see a UK helmet, stripped to the bare bones and there is a scar, I will listen. Until then, we have nothing to counter the proof offered by Bryan, Gino and Lucasfilm.

 

[vaderdarth]

Then my mistake about your intentions Qui. I agree, more information would be handy. Peace,

 

[Immortal Goat]

Perhaps this is just because I am still relatively new to this whole thing, and still view it as more of a hobby than a craft (at least insofar as my involvement, I am in no way saying that this is not a craft for many of you), but from a relative outsider's point of view, I have one question:

Why is this important? I understand that costumers basically fall into 2 different camps, those that want 100% screen accuracy, flaws included, and those that want to represent the SPIRIT of what was portrayed on screen, but why have a debate about it at all? At the end of the day, people will look at the owner of the helmet and say "Hey, that's Darth Vader", whether or not there is a c-scar on the cheek. I think that both sides of the argument can agree that the scar was unintentional in the finished product, so why not leave it at that? You want screen accuracy? Get one with a scar. You want to represent the spirit of the costume? Ignore the scar. Either way, you're still Darth Vader, and Darth Vader is awesome, so it seems like the argument is kinda silly.

Then again, like I said, I am an outsider, so I don't know the inner-workings of this field. But maybe that's what this argument needs. So many of you seem to have gotten so hung up on the minor details that you have forgotten that at the end of the day, what matters isn't necessarily 100% accuracy down to the last minute brushstroke, but how wearing these costumes makes us and the people around us feel. I have yet to meet a Star Wars fan who says "Well that Vader is alright I guess, but it's totally ruined without the cheek scar".

Just my 2 cents.

EDIT: Please do not take this the wrong way. I absolutely respect everyone who has done the wonderful work represented in this thread. As I said, I do not know the significance, but if someone would like to explain it to me, I'd be happy to listen. Thank you.

 

[Peacefrog35]

I don't want to stray too far off topic,but I understand your point of view. The way I think about it....if we went back to 76 with any one of these helmets and handed it to the prop master, David Prowse or even George Lucas , none of them would know the difference. That's good enough for me!:cool

 

[Trooper_trent]

That is a very good point, and one I come back to a lot. The short answer is, it's not about the scar itself, it's what the scar (or the absence of it) means.
It's all about pedigree; owning something that's as close to the original as possible. Not only in terms of how close it looks, but how close it's "related" in terms of lineage.

The scar is just an identifier that was at one point used to "prove" lineage. And now that identifier is coming into question as evidence is showing that it's not part of the original, therefore casts that have the scar are now having their pedigree called into question. So, for people involved or interested in that sort of thing, it's either very exciting or very upsetting.

That's all this really is.

 

[Immortal Goat]

Well I guess that makes sense, but it seems to me to be rather elitist. I can understand the desire to have something that is close in relation to the original, but at the same time, IF the scar is canon, it seems it has been relatively easy to replicate, and therefor, no matter what, authenticity is always in question.

Again, this may come across as ignorance due to my lack of knowledge on the subject, but I feel that issues like this really damage the solidarity that is necessary for this community to thrive. Especially when it comes to those that mold and sell their wares, unless a license is attached, it falls into a legal gray area, and disputes like this can bring unwanted attention to those that simply love their craft, and can hurt the community as a whole.

I am not naive enough to think that my small say in this matter will mend all rifts within the Vader community, but I felt compelled to simply point out the way an outsider sees it.

 

[Peacefrog35]

Ultimately that's why I went with the EFX limited.. .I'm all for pedigree...it's tied directly to the original,but I don't really care for all the exact scracthes.....they weren't meant to be there...I doubt. I do understand those that want them though.. I really do. I want the look I remember on screen as I watch the movie and not so much as when I pause and zoom in ect.
I'm glad the limited, while a little cleaner still retains that look including the slightly wavy surfances and the general mean bad a$$ ANH look. Everyone no matter what bucket they choose should just be happy. Defintely not worth arguing about, get what you want or believe in.... we can all enjoy!!!:thumbsup

 

[thegreatgalling]

I appreciate the sentiment IG and well said Peacefrog.

I personally don’t think its intentionally about elitism- I just think there are different ways to collect. Some go after the look, like you said, but others include a group of people who view certain props as a roadmap to screen history. For these sentimental few, emphasis on mental :lol, they want as close to the prop was on the day of shooting as possible. Each bump, pimple, and divot, as it was, brings them closer to that history. When you are of that mindset, collecting and researching can bring a rush when new details are revealed, and each item becomes a puzzle with certain mysteries to unlock. Dorky? Nerdy? Obsessive? Weird? Sure, maybe, but when you are part of it, and it makes you happy, it can be a great way to enjoy the hobby. That certainly does not mean I condone some of the ugliness that has transpired on both sides, but tis human nature.

Vader aficionados are certainly not alone. There are equal groups in other camps, the Trek TOS collectors are a good example. (I have the distinct insanity to be in both groups, albeit a recent Vader nerd).

With regard to the cheek issue, I have, who I would consider, friends, on both sides of the aisle. Some have been incredibly nice to me in my mission to learn more about the idiosyncrasies of the screen masks; members like Mac and Carsten have been willing to go out of their way to answer questions and point me in the right direction repeatedly. I have also had the good fortune of gaining enough trust to enjoy some amazing pieces of Vader history from other members.
And there have been those on the other side of the issue who have remained unbiased and have given honest opinions about what they believed to be true about the scar without hurling mud or bringing negativity into the picture. They have offered information and remained equally committed to their point of views. In addition, GINO has always been nice and courteous to me, and has also always been willing to answer questions and offer helpful information.

Since I respect everyone equally and don't really fall into either side of the debate, I also have another outside perspective of the issue. And that perspective is…

I HAVE NO IDEA WHO IS RIGHT.

Yep. That's where I am after reading the entire EFX thread, the entire scar thread, and the Den threads on the ESB TM, the scar, and the EFX helmet. And to me, that is unfortunate. As someone who does care about the dings and the bumps, I am sad that these threads have left me scratching my dome, whoops, I mean head.

This issue has consumed me over the last week as I have analyzed pictures, played in photoshop, and pretty much ate every one of your posts for breakfast. I enjoyed my popcorn, but at the end of the day, I have nothing to show for it.

Where does that leave us?

In my opinion, we are smack dab in the middle of two equally plausible situations. Here are some of my thoughts:

Situation 1: There was a scar. It was filled in before the Rick Baker mold.

The Rick Baker mold was made of the screenused ANH. We KNOW it shows evidence of filler details, particularly with regard to the undercut and perhaps even more areas. Is it possible a C-Scar existed during the time of filming and Baker simply filled it in so the casts would be cleaner? Yes. It is. If the scar was viewed as unintentional, and Baker didn’t give it much thought, why wouldn’t he fill it? It would be ugly and its removal would have practical benefits. 1. The cast would be easier to remove from the mold, 2. The mold would be more stable and 3. The resulting helmets wouldn’t have the ugly hole on it.

Hence we would NOT see a C-Scar in the mold or its subsequent castings, namely the DJ, SL, or EFX. And the TM could honestly be a fair representation of what existed. Why does the resin on the cheek look so smooth? Maybe it was sanded before it was painted. Why is that hard to believe?

Sadly, there is probably no evidence out there that can really help the TM crowd prove their side of the story to the masses. If JRX didn’t take any “and here I am taking some resin out of the C-crater hole” pics, they are left with hearsay and hope to back their story. Ironically enough, JRX apparently withheld information about the C-Scar because he didn’t trust GINO, the guy now asking for pictures of the very thing JRX tried to withhold. Wow, what a crazy thing!

Situation 2. There was no scar, and what we saw on screen was either a surface “scuff” or a paint detail.

In that case, JRX added the scar on the TM. Perhaps he saw a faint remnant and he was overzealous in his restoration. I think most of us agree that if it happened, it probably occurred with the best intentions in mind. The ESB TM, which JRX also worked on was being called the best ESB helmet, and for all intents and purposes that was a replica helmet. (with an authentic cast as a basis). That helmet was reverse engineered since there was no cast of the helmet in its ESB configuration. (Once casts were made of the helmet in the newly ANH form, JRX was then asked to “return” a copy to ESB configuration). Thus, if it was JRX’s duty to resculpt the ESB details BACK onto the TM for that helmet, all under the guise of accuracy and historic reference, why couldn’t he have mistakenly believed ADDING ANH details to the TM was proper?

And yes, staring at that smooth clear cheek on the TM pic, it’s a tough sell to believe the sloppy gooey resin on the teeth grill and eye is the same stuff. And Juan’s pics DO look like material could have been added on TOP of the cheek to create some of those details. It’s been argued that creating that close of a scar would be impossible, but I find that hard to believe. JRX was/is incredibly talented and just look at what some of RPF’s resident sculptors can create. Never mind just a scratch.

Anyway, so that’s it. Sorry I didn’t add anything new to this thread. I guess my point is, we are left nowhere. I for one would love to know the truth and hope things don’t end like this. IF EITHER SIDE has evidence that could clear this issue up for those in the community who do care, please share it. And here is hoping JRX could reenter the scene.

 

[OldKen]

This thread could be condensed down to this.

Situation 1: There was a scar. It was filled in before the Rick Baker mold.

The Rick Baker mold was made of the screenused ANH. We KNOW it shows evidence of filler details, particularly with regard to the undercut and perhaps even more areas. Is it possible a C-Scar existed during the time of filming and Baker simply filled it in so the casts would be cleaner? Yes. It is. If the scar was viewed as unintentional, and Baker didn’t give it much thought, why wouldn’t he fill it? It would be ugly and its removal would have practical benefits. 1. The cast would be easier to remove from the mold, 2. The mold would be more stable and 3. The resulting helmets wouldn’t have the ugly hole on it.

Hence we would NOT see a C-Scar in the mold or its subsequent castings, namely the DJ, SL, or EFX. And the TM could honestly be a fair representation of what existed. Why does the resin on the cheek look so smooth? Maybe it was sanded before it was painted. Why is that hard to believe?

Sadly, there is probably no evidence out there that can really help the TM crowd prove their side of the story to the masses. If JRX didn’t take any “and here I am taking some resin out of the C-crater hole” pics, they are left with hearsay and hope to back their story. Ironically enough, JRX apparently withheld information about the C-Scar because he didn’t trust GINO, the guy now asking for pictures of the very thing JRX tried to withhold. Wow, what a crazy thing!

Situation 2. There was no scar, and what we saw on screen was either a surface “scuff” or a paint detail.

In that case, JRX added the scar on the TM. Perhaps he saw a faint remnant and he was overzealous in his restoration. I think most of us agree that if it happened, it probably occurred with the best intentions in mind. The ESB TM, which JRX also worked on was being called the best ESB helmet, and for all intents and purposes that was a replica helmet. (with an authentic cast as a basis). That helmet was reverse engineered since there was no cast of the helmet in its ESB configuration. (Once casts were made of the helmet in the newly ANH form, JRX was then asked to “return” a copy to ESB configuration). Thus, if it was JRX’s duty to resculpt the ESB details BACK onto the TM for that helmet, all under the guise of accuracy and historic reference, why couldn’t he have mistakenly believed ADDING ANH details to the TM was proper?

And yes, staring at that smooth clear cheek on the TM pic, it’s a tough sell to believe the sloppy gooey resin on the teeth grill and eye is the same stuff. And Juan’s pics DO look like material could have been added on TOP of the cheek to create some of those details. It’s been argued that creating that close of a scar would be impossible, but I find that hard to believe. JRX was/is incredibly talented and just look at what some of RPF’s resident sculptors can create. Never mind just a scratch.

Anyway, so that’s it. Sorry I didn’t add anything new to this thread. I guess my point is, we are left nowhere. I for one would love to know the truth and hope things don’t end like this. IF EITHER SIDE has evidence that could clear this issue up for those in the community who do care, please share it. And here is hoping JRX could reenter the scene.

 

[KaanE]

Immortal Ghost, why would you buy a good and expensive car if at the end of the day people will look and say "Hey! It's a car!"? Because you're expending a lot of $$$ and because you like it.

 

[Immortal Goat]

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?