Vader cheek mark (c-scar)

[RoCKo]

You´re still discussing a scratch???
Don´t you guys have a hobby? :rolleyes

 

[Art Andrews]

Did I type anywhere that Bryan was lying? NO That's the sort of horse crap you guys keep dishing out.....put your own words in someone else's mouth. That's not nice!!! I resent it! You're trolling and it's silly.

What I said was that you won't let the other side use the pic of the mould for their argument because it's not gonna show the details to make the point being monochromatic....your words not mine, yet you want to use it for your points. Ludicrous logic.

Stop trying to make Bryan the problem. Bryan has been crystal clear from the beginning. You guys keep dragging him and his company into the fray. Those guys have said nothing wrong or even remotely misleading. He was quite clear on his views. I should think everyone would appreciate his candor.

Actually, Dave, you are the one who is dragging Bryan and eFX into this by questioning the photo of the RB mold that was posted (which Bryan approved and allowed) and by continually demanding Gino post a photo of the master casting from the RB mold (which only Bryan could approve and allow). You of course realize anything relating to the RB mold and the casting that came out of it is the property of eFX, not Gino and it is up to eFX (Bryan) on what Gino can post or not. So, you ARE dragging Bryan into this and questioning him, even though you are desperately continuing to try to paint Gino as the bad guy, Bryan is the one who holds the reigns on these things, not Gino, so indirectly you are indeed questioning Bryan and eFX's integrity with your line of questioning.

 

[darthvaderv]

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.

 

[OldKen]

Paul. I get the feeling if you were allowed to... you could end this debate.

I think the truth lies in a grey area. And like I have said ad-nauseum. NONE of these helmets are 100%.

The eFX is gonna rock! Not 100% perfect. But darn close!

Maybe if someone had a TM, TD, SL, and eFX. (when they come out) they will see some things are on one and missing on another and we could all live as one...

I'm not gonna hold my breath though... LOL!!!

 

[GINO]

No helmet has an accurate scar to date they are either cleaned or previously featured too much depth etc.

I would like to know more specifically which helmets you feel have been cleaned up and which ones you feel featured too much depth. SL? TM? TD? VP?

Is the reason you don't want to give your opinion because you don't want your friends to be upset with you for coming out against them?

I still maintain that all of them have had work performed to this area to include a dimensional scar (at least the castings that have come from them, not necessarily the originals themselves as we're all still waiting for better pics).


.

 

[OldKen]

Yeah, how can you guys be counting on Gino to show pics of YOUR original pieces before casting?

Wouldn't it be EASIER for those of you who HAVE the pics of THEIR own helmets to just post em up?

I don't get the logic.

If your originals DID have the scar. Then I'm sure you have pics of it. I know I would have documented it extensively if I was the private collecter that just obtained that kind of holy grail piece.

So if you have them, show them.

If YOU don't have pics... HOW could Gino or anybody else have them?

I wonder if some of you even read what you write.

"OK Gino, then show us private pics of our stuff or else your wrong!"

What?

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

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.

Well, I can appreciate the statements Paul. If you are speaking about the eFX helmets, we have all been made aware that there is clean-up done to them and the reason for the clean up. Now, if you are talking about the helmet PRIOR to Baker molding it, that IS supposition. We can tell the tabs were removed, but why would one facet of the cheek be cleaned up, but the dings surrounding where the "scratch" would be are still there?

To Dave, it was not a trolling comment. You can either doubt the proof we have been freely given, or you can accept it as fact. IF you doubt the proof, that can only mean you doubt the word of the person who OK-ed that proof for release to us prop-geeks. Where did anyone say we would not take that mold shot as proof? It seems in this thread it is accepted to be proof. Hell, YOU were the one asking for that shot. You got it and it was not enough for you.

 

[vaderdarth]

Because gino has appointed himself the expert Ken. Why not? point being gino is not showing his raw casting (just the cheek would be enough) because if he has to show his cards, his points all become moot. He knows the scar remnant is still there.

talk to the hand qui, talk to the hand. gino, art, qui, You guys are pretty predictable.

 

[defstartrooper]

Ok i can see this discussion is clearly more about oneupmanship and dick waving than it is about facts and truth and that is what always sours thesee threads
.
All the chatter about the RB mould,UK mould,SL,TM,VP blah blah is pure smokescreen diverting from the one single truth that is at the heart of the matter and that is the presence or not of a dimensional scar on the original helmet.
None of those casts or moulds will prove conclusively the presence or not of said scar on the original screen used helmet.
All these casts have their own shortcomings every one of them, not one is perfect and one being better than another is down to personal taste and opinion why continue to try to sway eachother ?

I'll ask once more though just for clarification but as i appear to be being ignored i am not hopeful of an answer but nevertheless i'll ask anyway.
GINO are you still saying that there was never a dimensional scar on the original screen used helmet for a fact or is this infact just conjecture ?

If you are saying it's a fact i'd like to see the evidence please.

 

[OldKen]

I tend to agree with most everything Qui ever says. But THIS lil gem REALLY hit home.

YOU were the one asking for that shot. You got it and it was not enough for you.

Totally true.

You asked.

You recieved.

Now that he DID show it... it doesn't mean anything? Then why waste his time. Why not ask for the money shot pic instead of some crap that you thought wouldn't mean anything?

Or does it only not mean anything NOW? When you asked saying it would tell us everything... were you just banking on Gino being his old-way self and not showing his cards?

I really wish everyone could take their personal feelings out for a second... step back and re-read everything.

There are a lot of circles being talked around.

And the poor horse has been resurected and killed about 999,999,999 times.

We still may not have proof if the OTHER molds like the "UK" had it.

And you know who can show us that? I'll give you a hint... it is NOT Gino. :unsure

I know I would LOVE to see a SL BEFORE cleaning up and casting.

Or the insides of the UK mold.

So...

Lets see it! :love

Cmon.

You guys have always wanted to stick it to Gino! Right? HERE is your perfect once in a lifetime chance to totally discredit one of his "facts"!

And...

3...

2...

1...

GO!

:confused

Hello?

 

[vaderdarth]

defstartrooper, he'd have to have the actual helmet in his possession.......back during the filming of ANH to know that! How old were you in '76-'77 gino??? Show us your c scar on the raw casting gino. I wanna see the perfectly flat cheek you keep crowing about......the one that doesn't exist.......because all the other RB helmet cheeks are not perfectly flat. And that's a FACT!!! Since you can't tell fact from opinion.

 

[defstartrooper]

defstartrooper, he'd have to have the actual helmet in his possession.......back during the filming of ANH to know that! How old were you in '76-'77 gino??? Show us your c scar on the raw casting gino. I wanna see the perfectly flat cheek you keep crowing about......the one that doesn't exist.......because all the other RB helmet cheeks are not perfectly flat. And that's a FACT!!! Since you can't tell fact from opinion.

Sorry but i don't agree a hi res production still will suffice just as well showing that area, i don't know of any that are publically released but i'm sure they must exist as the production was well documented and many photographic records were taken.
I don't care about GINO's raw pull, i don't care about the TM, i don't care about the RB mould or the UK mould, none of these prove the presence or not of a dimensional scar on the original screen used helmet as stated by GINO which is all that matters.

If there's proof of no scar on the original screen used helmets as GINO stated as a fact that automatically means either the scar was fabricated later or is down to damage after production.
Of course if there is no proof that a scar didn't exist on the screen used helmet that automatically means everything else is conjecture.

And Ken you can't discredit a fact if there's no credit to to begin with and i have yet to see proof that a scar never existed on the original screen used helmet nor solid evidence that one did.
So i really wish people would stop saying this is fact and that is fact because nobody has proven anything as fact yet.

 

[OldKen]

defstartrooper, he'd have to have the actual helmet in his possession.......back during the filming of ANH to know that! How old were you in '76-'77 gino??? Show us your c scar on the raw casting gino. I wanna see the perfectly flat cheek you keep crowing about......the one that doesn't exist.......because all the other RB helmet cheeks are not perfectly flat. And that's a FACT!!! Since you can't tell fact from opinion.

He NEVER said it was perfectly flat. :lol

There is crap all over it. Just no C-SCRATCH.

All Gino has EVER said on this is the C you are seeing is PART actual artifacts, and part dry brushed silver. The artifacts do catch some of the silver paint. But he is saying the entire C the way some of the other castings was fabricated by fans.

Let's make sure we are clear.

He isn't saying the cheek on the limited version is what was in the baker mold.

Crap on a cracker. :unsure

 

[OldKen]

I don't care about GINO's raw pull, i don't care about the TM, i don't care about the RB mould or the UK mould, none of these prove the presence or not of a dimensional scar on the original screen used helmet as stated by GINO which is all that matters.

How in the hell do you figure? :confused

If the other RB mold helmets have the "scar" but in different places... That proves EVERYTHING Gino has said.

If they show the originals and they do not have the "scratch" that proves it.

If the originals have the scratch in different shapes or size that says a LOT.

Gino has showed the only cards he is holding this time.

We need to see the OTHER side of the argument.

We've HEARD the hell out of it...

Now can we see it FFS? :angry

 

[GINO]

All Gino has EVER said on this is the C you are seeing is PART actual artifacts, and part dry brushed silver. The artifacts do catch some of the silver paint. But he is saying the entire C the way some of the other castings was fabricated by fans.

Exactly and nice summary.


.

 

[voice in the crowd]

I find it strange that people talk about the UK mould as if it is something that still exists. I would very much doubt if it did after 30+ years. There may be masks that come from it still existing but the mould is gone.

The fact LFL still have the RB mould after this time is a miracle and one we should all be thankful of, but then again Star Wars is their business.

Nobody can show this evidence so I don't know why people think that some guys who talk about Darth Vader on the internet can produce a mould made at Elstree for the production of ESB in 1979.

It is pointless to ask for this in this discussion. I know it may be good for point scoring when arguing in circles but it really isn't something that we will ever see.

Cheers Chris

 

[vaderdarth]

You can't stick it to gino on this forum, he's the only self proclaimed expert in the history of the RPF that cannot ever be wrong about anything. He da man!!!!!! We're all blinded by his radiance!!!!! Gimme a break. If you are gonna be the only true expert, then teach the rest of us by example rather than asking for some proof about a helmet you have already dismissed. That's why the TM has been omitted from the discussion. it's value as well as all the other pedigree helmets depends in part on whether the screen helmet had a dimensional scar on vader's right cheek. Prove it doesn't exist and then you can by proxy, prove the other ones are all fakes. LOL.

Do we need to get a kindergartner to translate that? I'm really trying to simplify if for you guys not catching on.

If YOU are the guy who calls all the other pedigree helmets fakes, the burdon of proof falls onto YOU to provide evidence proving your own helmet doesn't look identical to all the rest from the same set of moulds.

I know you got it that time.

 

[defstartrooper]

How in the hell do you figure? :confused

If the other RB mold helmets have the "scar" but in different places... That proves EVERYTHING Gino has said.

If they show the originals and they do not have the "scratch" that proves it.

If the originals have the scratch in different shapes or size that says a LOT.

Gino has showed the only cards he is holding this time.

We need to see the OTHER side of the argument.

We've HEARD the hell out of it...

Now can we see it FFS? :angry

Sorry Ken you are confused with what i'm saying.

GINO said several times that for a fact the original screen used helmet never had a c-scar and that is why he knows the scar is fabricated on the other casts.

What is on or isn't on any of those casts or moulds doesn't prove one or the other what was on the screen used helmet at the time of production do you see what i mean ?

It's possible the helmet was cleaned up right after production and the UK mould and RB mould were poured.

It's possible at the time of production there was a scar and the helmet was cleaned up after the UK mould was poured but before the RB mould was.

It's possible some damage occured to the helmet following production and that damage is what is present in the UK mould if there is damage to it.

All these things are possibilities and there are a number of others too.

I fully accept GINO is in a position to say what is present on the RB mould but that doesn't conclusively prove one way or the other what was present on the original screen used helmet, neither does what's on or not on the UK mould or any casts deriving from any of those moulds.

Now am i the only person here concerned about what was on the screen used helmet and everyone else is just concerned with saying this that or the other cast is inferior and this that or the other person fabricated this or that ?

So with all due respect GINO hasn't shown proof of EVERYTHING he says as he hasn't shown proof that a scar never existed on the original screen used helmet and no amount of pictures of the RB mould,UK mould,eFX helmet, TM helmet,SL helmet or VP helmet is going to prove it because they are all moulds taken post production or helmets coming from moulds post production years later, even decades.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Because gino has appointed himself the expert Ken. Why not? point being gino is not showing his raw casting (just the cheek would be enough) because if he has to show his cards, his points all become moot. He knows the scar remnant is still there.

talk to the hand qui, talk to the hand. gino, art, qui, You guys are pretty predictable.

This is a mature way to handle a discussion, Dave. Duly noted. Facts are facts and this is how you refute them. We have been given proof, pretty solid proof, that there isn't a scratch there. We know the pedigree of the Baker mold. That should not be disputed. You were the one saying we were after facts here, but only one side has provided any CLEAR proof.

I thank Paul for his opinions because he has been forthright. No barbs, no subtle jabs at eFX. He ALSO has knowledge that, quite frankly Dave, you and I lack. I certainly do not feel insulted by his knowledge. I do not feel diminished because he knows more than I. I do not feel diminished because Gino knows more than I. I do not feel diminished because Pete knows more than I do. They got their knowledge the same way we are...ask questions, look at what is out there and above all...ask questions.

Gary, what you are missing is the Baker mold was made from a screen used helmet. So, one can draw a line and say "Well, it was on the screen used. It matches this mold exactly. So, it must not have been on the screen used helmet." It is simple reasoning and if you would stop with every single post being about Gino, you would see that. For once in a long long looooooooooong time, Gino has offered up proof thanks to eFX and Lucasfilm. Not one other person on this, or any board, can say the same.

 

[defstartrooper]

Gary, what you are missing is the Baker mold was made from a screen used helmet. So, one can draw a line and say "Well, it was on the screen used. It matches this mold exactly. So, it must not have been on the screen used helmet." It is simple reasoning and if you would stop with every single post being about Gino, you would see that. For once in a long long looooooooooong time, Gino has offered up proof thanks to eFX and Lucasfilm. Not one other person on this, or any board, can say the same.

No i haven't missed it at all Hector i don't deny the RB mould was made of the screen used helmet and i never have done have i ?

To say because the RB mould comes from the screen used helmet though does not and cannot conclusively prove the presence or not of a scar on the screen used helmet at the time of production.

The scar could very well have been cleaned up prior to moulding, this isn't to say it is the case but it certainly is a possibility, you will have noticed i hope i've said the same thing of both moulds and all casts from them ?

Your reasoning is flawed Hector because you are ASSUMING that the mould was taken of the screen used helmet in the same state it was at the time of production, this is not a fact it's an assumption.

And the only reason i have mentioned GINO's name in my posts is because GINO is the one who says he knows for a fact that a scar NEVER existed on the screen used helmet.
It's not about GINO it's about GINO's statement can you not seperate the two ?
I don't know of whom i should address my question to other than the person who made the statement.

Once again i'm not taking about the RB mould,UK mould,eFX, TM,SL,VP etc.
My one question still remains where is the proof that no c-scar EVER existed on the screen used original.
This is the statement that was made and the one i am disputing as being a fact, and the one that has remained unanswered.