Vader cheek mark (c-scar)

[GINO]

Looks like a pencil mark on the original SL to me but hard to say without BETTER pics.
Either way, it certainly does not match up to the screen helmet.

.

 

[GINO]

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.

Pretty much.
But if they say it enough times and fill up the thread with unhelpful noise, then ultimately the other side of the argument gets hidden in the muck.
It's exhausting to thoroughly read through a thread like this. Most people just want to just skim though and when they do, they miss important nuggets of truth among the noise.
That is why we keep seeing the same old questions being brought up even though they've been answered multiple times.



.

 

[OldKen]

In THAT SL pic it looks like an incorrect line CLOSE to where it should be. And ANOTHER faint C under that... that isn't on the original.

Maybe the guy who SOLD it added it and BOTH sides are wrong about what is there!

At this point why not throw that in there as a possibility? That would mean that Gino may have been right that the Baker mold didn't have this as a scratch. And SL and others are right about JRX or someone involved on their side not adding it...

Hmmm...

I'm sorry Thomas I've always liked you as a member and respected your oppinions (still do) and love your helmet. It is awesome! But that just doesn't look right to me bud. I never thought YOU added it. And I really didn't want to believe JRX added and lied either. (him and I were always cool on the boards too) But it IS suspect that he ran the hell away after dealing with this helmet. Not suspect of YOU Thomas. But something about that never really sat right. And the more of this and the other thread I read...

I just really think it has had some minor stuff done to it. Not that ALL the others haven't I just have always had a hard time believing it was 100% or That ANY casting would/could be. Even the best guys on here have mess ups from time to time. Whoever had a chance to get their hands on this thing and cast it for themselves probably did it in a hurry. I know I would.

Would I buy a casting if it was available from you? Sure! I think it is an awesome piece of this prop-helmets history and a gorgeous 99% accurate piece. IMHO is the cheek C. The last pic REALLY looks off to me.

I could TOTALLY be wrong. And I am not trying to attack you or your casting. I've just been poosey footin around my thoughts and after Gino's last comparison of the SL and the screen used. My gut? I'ts CLOSE but not perfect. How could that be? Cause it was added.

Again just IMHO of what my eyes tell me. Could be a light thing? But I really don't think so.

Lets see some GOOD pics of what you recieved. Not the castings from it. THAT is the only way you will sway the people who aren't in aggreeance with you.

I know I would change my mind.

Just a suggestion.

 

[GINO]

And SL and others are right about JRX or someone involved on their side not adding it...

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.


.

 

[Trap Joe]

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 don´t know anything, poor man

 

[Juansith]

Ok, the only thing i see here is people with a looot of talent, a lot of attention to detail,and lots of interest in wanting their helmets to be the best of the best.

Unfortunately, the fact that youve spent a relatively ammount of time watching at screen caps and freezing frames to recognize little dots and details only add to the suspicion Just ask yourselves this question, if you have such a knowlege on those little details on the screen used helmet, what would stop you from adding those to your casts?.

Its not like they are hard to do or add, mostly are just lines and dots youre showing, you dont have to be Michelangelo to get those well.Only excellent attention to detail, and that you have plenty of .

Btw, the TM and SL so far look very different.

To me, obviously added, everything. Specially the C scar, also, the fact that you cannot let this rest gives me the certainty that this is in fact very fishy.


If you want to prove, prove it well, unphotoshopped, good resolution pics.I havent yet see a picture that leaves me no doubt. Either too close (macro) or photoshopped, or too wide without much res.

 

[defstartrooper]

Come on GINO you can end this whole thing in one quick swoop just show the proof that there's no scar on the original screen used helmet and the UK mould like you've stated half a dozen times at least, that's really all that will prove anything either way.
The truth is you can look at a thousand pics of the TM or the SL and you're still gonna say it's photoshopped,faked,fabricated,not the original cast etc etc the argument will be endless.
Even if you did prove the scar isn't on the TM or SL it still doesn't prove there's no scar on the original screen used helmet or UK mould as the TM and SL could well have been cleaned up after casting in that area.

At this point all you have to do is show the proof that there's no dimensional scar on the original screen used helmet or the UK mould and it's case closed.
If you don't have that proof can you please kindly stop making statements of fact about there being no dimensional scar on the original screen used helmet or UK mould as it's really just your belief,opinion,theory.

You always say you hate people putting non factual information out but that's what happens when people state things as fact without actual evidence and it's just their belief, however strong that belief may be it's still not fact, be fair now am i wrong there ?

 

[vaderdarth]

No it's a crappy ebay image but it's there.....Thomas posted an unedited cheek pic of his raw SL casting. I'm guessing you didn't see that either. I've held the raw RB castings over and over and it's remnants remain on those two.

So now you accuse Ghost Host of adding the C scar to one of Thomas' raw helmets? Your theory gets more and more pathetic. Neither Thomas nor GH had seen the TM by the time the SL was moulded. So nice try. I have no doubts its a pencil mark on your helmet gino.

Take a set of calipers and measure from the edges of the cheek if you like. The scar falls in the same spot as the screen helmet. It's obviously less pronounced than the screen helmet, yet it's there. Same for the other RB helmets. You guys really need to speak from first hand knowledge rather than taking gino's word for it. He's not even held all these helmets.

 

[vaderdarth]

The TM guys aren't even in this discussion gino, they got tired of the BS and moved on.

I'm the one who asked you to show a raw casting out of the RB mould. Your own photo (unedited of course) could at least show us you aren't soft in the head on this issue. When all the other RB helmets exhibit some remnant of that scar, nobody is buying your story 100%. Please show it. I'd like to ponder why your RB casting has one less characteristic than all the other RB mould helmets. I'm betting it's right on there like nobody's business.

Call me if you find a photo of the raw casting. We both know you took several.

Only proof I need that it's dimensional is on the one and only screen helmet.......I've proven it to myself by watching the scenes like 10 times.

 

[micdavis]

...................

 

[jme3]

Your sig is the brightest spot in this thread. Gotta love Rush. :lol

One day I feel I'm on top the world, and the next day it's falling in on me, I can get back on, I can get back on."--Far Cry, from Snakes & Arrows by RUSH, (Leifson, Lee, Peart)

 

[JediCarl]

Only proof I need that it's dimensional is on the one and only screen helmet.......I've proven it to myself by watching the scenes like 10 times.

You've proven nothing to yourself.

How many times do some of us have to explain to you people that no screen captures from the movie will prove whether a blemish of that size is dimensional or topical. I don't care how many times you watch, freeze or examine it. Unless you're a photography or cinematography expert your conclusion means nothing. You've proven only that you like to stare at Vader on your TV and/or computer screens and that you've little knowledge of cinematography/photography.

Just quit citing screen caps as evidence if you want to be taken seriously. The only thing that can prove whether that "scar" is dimensional or not is an examination of the molds.

 

[vaderdarth]

Not captures carl, the actual film. The caps are just some backup images for studying the morphology.

The only proof I need that it doesn't exist on the eFX casting is a photo of the cheek of the actual raw casting. We're still waiting patiently.

I could care less if you believe the actual film has no inherent value for there being a dimensional scar on the cheek. Believe anything you wish carl. I've told you I held all the baker castings aside from the eFX in my own two hands and the indent was present. What kind of further proof do you think I need? I touched it, I groped it, I smelled it and I tasted it with my bare tongue. It was a dent. Comments from someone like yourself that has also not held all these castings.........nearly as useless as teats on a boar.

 

[GINO]

'Other' baker castings.
Lots of talk, pics, not so much.


.

 

[FrogmanStudio]

How many times do some of us have to explain to you people that no screen captures from the movie will prove whether a blemish of that size is dimensional or topical. I don't care how many times you watch, freeze or examine it. Unless you're a photography or cinematography expert your conclusion means nothing. You've proven only that you like to stare at Vader on your TV and/or computer screens and that you've little knowledge of cinematography/photography.

I'm sorry but...if that were the case, then there would be no posts in this discussion, as its being done by FANS of the film, and the prop. Not cinematography experts. Sure, Gino and others may be 'experts' of Star Wars and specifically Darth Vader, but they are amateurs (not using the word in an insulting manner). So saying you have to not consider images from the actual film, means then by that logic you cannot then consider photos of others helmets made from molds that sound like one or two generations from the original (I am most likely wrong, as my knowledge of Darth Vader extends to just the movie, not the helmet castings).

Don't mean to be rude by saying that, but that statement just seemed really off, no offense intended.

 

[Davy Jones]

Good to see you posting some decent pictures SithLord.
I still would like to see a real closeup of the scar on your SL helmet though. Something close to the resolution Trap Joe showed of the TM's

If I may post one of your old pictures?

Here are the 3 helmets that claim to have a scar on them.
The TD and SL are the original masks I believe and the TM is a repaired casting.

Notice how clearly the scar is visible on the TM?
I cant seem to see it on the other two helmets though.

P.S Thomas I would like to know how those very tiny details shown on your TD helmet came to show up that well at all. Isnt there at least one layer of paint on that original casting that you never stripped?

 

[defstartrooper]

GINO could you answer my previous post please ?

Come on GINO you can end this whole thing in one quick swoop just show the proof that there's no scar on the original screen used helmet and the UK mould like you've stated half a dozen times at least, that's really all that will prove anything either way.
The truth is you can look at a thousand pics of the TM or the SL and you're still gonna say it's photoshopped,faked,fabricated,not the original cast etc etc the argument will be endless.
Even if you did prove the scar isn't on the TM or SL it still doesn't prove there's no scar on the original screen used helmet or UK mould as the TM and SL could well have been cleaned up after casting in that area.

At this point all you have to do is show the proof that there's no dimensional scar on the original screen used helmet or the UK mould and it's case closed.
If you don't have that proof can you please kindly stop making statements of fact about there being no dimensional scar on the original screen used helmet or UK mould as it's really just your belief,opinion,theory.

You always say you hate people putting non factual information out but that's what happens when people state things as fact without actual evidence and it's just their belief, however strong that belief may be it's still not fact, be fair now am i wrong there ?

All i'd like is the proof you have there's no scar on the original helmet or UK mould as you stated as fact or i'd like you to withdraw that statement with one saying it's just your opinion, as stating it as fact without proof is misleading i'm sure you'll agree, maybe it was just an oversight on your behalf but it's a fairly important distinction.

There's no c-scar on the original helmet and/or UK mould isn't quite the same as i belive,think or it's my opinion there's no c-scar on the original helmet and/or the UK mould.


I realise the original screen used helmet doesn't exist anymore at least in it's original state and you don't and never have had access to the UK mould before, infact you seem to be under the impression that probably doesn't exist too.
But i'm wondering perhaps you have some hi res imagery of either item or someone who has handled either item and can give a first hand account of details or something ?
The first would be preferable as we all know memory can be a bit hazy and tricky, you've said so yourself before.

Prove there's no scar on those items you automatically prove no scar could have originally been on the SL or TM.

The other way round doesn't work.
Prove there was no scar on the TM or SL doesn't prove there's no scar on the original screen helmet or UK mould, it just proves there's no scar on those particular castings, could be perfectly sensible reasons that would be, like the casts were repaired or restored after casting or a number of other things.

Prove the scar was fabricated on the TM or SL again doesn't prove the scar doesn't exist on the screen used helmet or UK mould it just proves it's fabricated on those two particular casts nothing more.

I think everyone is far more concerned if they're concerned at all about what was present on the actual screen used helmet and proving that automatically proves everything else.

Of course if you don't have that proof then this automatically just becomes conjecture and opinion again about the screen used helmet and UK mould and ergo by default your factual statement about the scar being fabricated is also opinion.

And don't get me wrong opinion and conjecture is fine everyone should be entitled to an opinion and i do mean everyone.
I don't think anyone is entitled to state opinion as fact though do you ?

 

[yakcam]

We need the guy who owns this to strip it back...

I wouldn't hold my breath though :lol

Cheers,

Kraig

 

[Trap Joe]

Well of course it's on the TM and SL Jesper and persons unknown fabricated it remember ?
What would be the purpose of showing you pics of those helmets IF the scar is fabricated ?
Seeing those helmets won't prove either way if it's fabricated or not unless you can prove it's not on the original helmet or UK mould as you stated it's isn't.
All seeing the original TM or SL will prove is there's a scar on the TM and SL what good is that to anyone ?
Think about the logic.

And i would suggest the reason people aren't posting is probably more likely the same reason you never do and never have posted any hi-res pics of your castings, you don't want people to see certain details which is fair enough.

Post some hi-res pics of the original helmet or UK mould then nobody has to share pics of their casts do they and we all know once and for all the scar doesn't exist on the original helmet.

Good to see there are people like you who do understand.

Gino post high rees pics of yours, please.
You are a master of turning the truth around. I also want the truth. But when I say, there are no pictures, I made from the not completed TM mask restauration, you state it to be sculpted and add your




.





under it. No reason to argue with such a rediculous thinking person like you.
Believe what you want. I want that you and I are happy with what we have. If this way needs to be necessary that you can....accepted.
I´ve already written everything in this thread.

The only picture I have, that might be interesting is a picture that shows the mask with the paint on. On this you can see the scar will appear when the paint is removed. This pictures is already made public.

 

[AJK001]

I love how people turn agruments around. This has nothing to do with EFX and yet some still insist that Gino and or Bryan show proof. EFX does not have to prove anything and yet they have shown the kind of proof that the others just will not do for some reason.

People keep screaming that they have proven it to themselves that the C-Scar if for real. That's great, how about proving it to the rest of us with the same kind of proof you keep asking Gino for. Screencaps mean nothing, watching the film means nothing. Pictures of the UK mold and/or pictures of the first pulls from it are the only thing that is going to convince me this isn't just a witch hunt that doesn't know when to stop.