Vader cheek mark (c-scar)

[Qui-Gonzalez]

I cannot discount the possibility since the tabs were removed as were the tusks, I am guessing. That said, it does NOT hide the fact that artifacts on the cheek that are present on the screen are ALSO on the Baker mold...all save one. So, we are supposed to accept the possibility that the screen mask had pieces taken off prior to molding and that the only cleanup we see is of an alleged "C-Scratch", forgoing all other dings and dents?

The simplest answer is the scar was not there.

Edit: As far as separating statements, the ONLY thing I am going on is the evidence presented. Simple as that. I am not slamming helmet makers, not slamming helmet owners. The TM is an awesome helmet, but in my opinion, the eFX Legend trumps it, even semi idealized as it is. There is no neck warpage like with the SL and it is not as cleaned up as the DJ. That does not mean that either of those two are bad helmets. It just means that in MY eyes (ONLY) they are very much on the same scale. Not perfect, but damned close to it. I cannot set one above the other in those three, and nor will I try.

The TM is a different matter.

 

[defstartrooper]

I cannot discount the possibility since the tabs were removed as were the tusks, I am guessing. That said, it does NOT hide the fact that artifacts on the cheek that are present on the screen are ALSO on the Baker mold...all save one. So, we are supposed to accept the possibility that the screen mask had pieces taken off prior to molding and that the only cleanup we see is of an alleged "C-Scratch", forgoing all other dings and dents?

The simplest answer is the scar was not there.

Again not disputing your scenario as a possibility but that doesn't make it a fact does it ?

If the c-scar did exist it looks to have been a far larger artifact than the others you mention, it seems plausible to me in a case like that they might repair what was concieved as really obvious damage while not worrying about what are teeny weeny almost imperceptible marks.

Subsequent pulls from the mould and a quick rub down,primer and paint would make those tiny marks even less noticable, maybe they just repaired the big area to save time with clean up of fresh pulls who knows ?

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Yup...all are possibilities. I have to keep an open mind in this, but I also have to base how *I* feel about what is accurate on the FACTS at hand. The ONLY facts we have are two shots of the Baker mold.

 

[defstartrooper]

Yup...all are possibilities. I have to keep an open mind in this, but I also have to base how *I* feel about what is accurate on the FACTS at hand. The ONLY facts we have are two shots of the Baker mold.

Yes shots which prove nothing about the original screen used helmet, and as GINO still hasn't changed his statement about that i can only assume he still stands by it and that's why i'm asking for that proof.

Until then it's just conjecture and bluster from either side.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

The shot of the inside of that mold is the best proof you can get. Do you know of anything else that was made from an ANH screen mask? I surely do not.

 

[thegreatgalling]

Until then it's just conjecture and bluster from either side.

Amen. More proof. More proof!

 

[defstartrooper]

The shot of the inside of that mold is the best proof you can get. Do you know of anything else that was made from an ANH screen mask? I surely do not.

Don't dispute that either Hector except we know at least one other mould was produced of the screen used mask post production but again whatever is present on that or not still doesn't prove what was present on the screen used helmet.

That's what i'm disputing Hector GINO's statement that he knows for a FACT that no scar ever existed on the screen used helmet, unless he has some photographic evidence of the scar being topical weathering on the screen used helmet the matter is and always will be open to conjecture until such evidence arises.

People need to stop using the word proof too there is a difference between proof and evidence.
One is disputable the other isn't.

 

[GINO]

If it isn't on any of the UK mold derivative helmets, and if it isn't on the baker mold castings, that is more than proof enough for me to call it FACT.


.

 

[defstartrooper]

If it isn't on any of the UK mold derivative helmets, and if it isn't on the baker mold castings, that is more than proof enough for me to call it FACT.


.

Are you now retracting the statement that it was never on the screen used helmet ?

Or are you saying because it's not on the RB mould,UK mould or any castings from them it proves it never existed ?

If it's the latter i dispute that as FACT because of reasons given earlier, the only way you can PROVE anything about the screen used helmet is with direct evidence from the screen used helmet nothing else, because you don't know for FACT that the mould's were taken from the helmet in it's original state.

 

[GINO]

Are you now retracting the statement that it was never on the screen used helmet ?

no

Or are you saying because it's not on the RB mould,UK mould or any castings from them it proves it never existed ?

yes

If it's the latter i dispute that as FACT because of reasons given earlier, theonly way you can PROVE anything about the screen used helmet is with direct evidence from the screen used helmet, nothing else.

Well we're never going to get that so there's no sense in you continuing to post/troll in this thread now is there?



.

 

[defstartrooper]

Well we're never going to get that so there's no sense in you continuing to post/troll in this thread now is there?

As i thought the proof doesn't exist so i was and am correct you can't state as FACT the scar never existed on the screen used helmet it's just conjecture on your part.
You say never well i don't i'm sure there are photos tucked away showing the original mask on set somewhere which may surface one day, i thought maybe you had some but obviously not.

The rest of this thread is a pure waste of time and all about ego and my stuff's better than yours, what a shame.

 

[GINO]

I don't believe you have to have the original helmet in front of you to determine facts about it.
The overwhelming physical evidence gathered from the known castings from the UK mold lineage as well as the baker mold and it's castings are plenty for me (and most others). 'That's the fact Jack!' -John Winger



.

 

[defstartrooper]

No even if it is overwhelming as you say it's only evidence no scar exists on those moulds and unless you have proof those moulds were poured on the helmet before remedial work was done it proves nothing about the original screen used helmet, it's a shame you can't distinguish fact from theory.

The RB mould certainly shows evidence of remedial work on the mask prior to moulding like the tusks and tabs for example so i question just how overwhelming your useless evidence about the screen used mask is anyway.
And nobody has seen the UK mould there could well have been remedial work prior to moulding there too, nobody knows either way for sure including you.

 

[GINO]

Remedial work?
Everything that was done to the original helmet prior to molding was completely reversible.
Attachment tabs were unscrewed (and later screwed back on after molding).
Mouth/chin grills were removed (and put back in place after molding).
Tusks were pulled out of their drill holes ( and then put back in after molding).

By your reasoning, I could say, 'the original helmet was made from cheese', then you could say, 'no it's a fact it wasn't', then I would say, 'how do you know, were you there on set to handle it? How could you TRULY know?'

See how dumb that is? But that's no different than what you're suggesting.


.

 

[Zombie Killer]

Where does the info that the helmet was cleaned up before casting by RB come from and what info on what "cleaned up" means do we have?

 

[defstartrooper]

Remedial work?
Everything that was done to the original helmet prior to molding was completely reversible.
Attachment tabs were unscrewed (and later screwed back on after molding).
Mouth/chin grills were removed (and put back in place after molding).
Tusks were pulled out of their drill holes ( and then put back in after molding).

By your reasoning, I could say, 'the original helmet was made from cheese', then you could say, 'no it's a fact it wasn't', then I would say, 'how do you know, were you there on set to handle it? How could you TRULY know?'

See how dumb that is? But that's no different than what you're suggesting.


.

No you're still confused what fact is and what theory is, my saying you don't know for a fact doesn't mean you're wrong it means what it says, you don't know for a fact.
It's just your best theory.

Have i said anywhere in this thread that there was a c-scar on the original screen helmet for a fact ?
Have i said anywhere in this thread there wasn't a c-scar on the original screen helmet for a fact ?

The answer to both questions is no and the reason it's no is because nobody here can say for a fact if there was or wasn't a scar on the screen helmet.

I don't go stating things as fact unless it's proven as a fact you do.
Why do you have an issue with saying it's just your theory ?

 

[vaderdarth]

snore.....................photos of the eFX unaltered casting would prove a plenty. The rest I dismiss. We already have the movie itself as evidence. We already have multiple RB castings as evidence.

 

[vaderdarth]

So before you guys tried to convince us the inside of the mould would tell us nothing about the screen helmet, but now you want to convince us it would tell us everything. Wow. Clear as mud now.

 

[GINO]

We already have multiple RB castings as evidence.

Who is 'we' exactly?
The only RB based evidence that has been posted here (which really is all that matters in this debate) shows there is no dimensional scar.

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'.


.

 

[Trap Joe]

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).


.

stop to claim this. It is not more than what you assume.
And you are wrong.

I don´t care which mask worth more. I will have both. I will compare them bit by bit, then.
I want that you stop mentioning your guesses all over and over again, claiming wrong facts about the scar that came from an air bubble underneath the polyesther which broke during ANH filming. And was poorely filled and repaired by just a lot of paint.

You don´t want that I start to prove your other "cast off original parts" you have on your Vaders, like how you "prove" the TM, don´t you?

So have peace.