Vader Helmet Opinions Sought
- Thread starter LeAngeSolitaire
- Start date
LeAngeSolitaire
Well-Known Member
Relax, it was only a newplast mockup, just as a quick experiment. It's not permanent.
LeAngeSolitaire
Well-Known Member
I know. I am trying to convince him to leave the original helmet untouched as it's looking likely that this could well be the Reveal helmet prototype, which makes it an important piece.
I would suggest looking at the dynode at the middle of the forehead of the mask above the bridge of the nose in either of this photo comparison Mac posted:
It's there that you can see the dynodes are similar in size. The ones that look larger only look larger due to focal distortion from someone taking a photo too closely to the helmet.
Did someone already point that out? I didn't see it anywhere. OH I found it. :lol
In fact, I bet is LeAnge get's the original owner to take a photo that close to the helmet it will also straighten out that 'cheekbone' line as well though it wouldn't explain how the tube is further back on the casting his friend has.
Last edited:
CSMacLaren
Sr Member
Earlier you mentioned that the grey Reveal has details that people could not have known about 20 years ago. However, the reverse is true. We have a better understanding of what an authentic prop looks like in terms of aesthetic flow, balance, proportions of features, etc.
I've already established that the essence, aesthetic flow, etc. of the DS 20th Century is a very good basis of comparison of facial feature proportions, angles, etc. when compared against the LFL Reveal tour mask. I have other accurate castings that corroborate with the 20th Century, so honestly, it's not a bad baseline. I use the 20th Century due to availability, so other 20th Cent owners can study this themselves.
This comparison you're about to see is challenging because there are various things about the grey Reveal that are proportionately off, and therefore getting a perfect overlay is not possible.
Again, were this a production-related mask, it had to have been based off of something of the UK lineage tree, just as the 20th Century is based off of the same tree.
Lets walk through the discrepancies. This is only a partial list. The numbers I'm going by correspond to the numbers in the image below.
1. Notice the eyebrow as it joins with the bridge of the nose and frown-bump. Not only has this been sanded down and the eyebrow now become sharp, but the angle of the eyebrow now causes it to meet the nose bridge lower than on the 20th Century.
2. The bridge of the nose on the grey Reveal is not as high as the 20th Century.
3. Again, like 1, the left eyebrow has been sanded down, and the brow reduced from a wider thickness to a sharp edge. It also joins the bridge of the nose lower than on a screen-accurate mask.
4. The nose bridge's 3 notches are now more compressed than on the 20th Century. Moreover, there is a decrease in width towards the bottom, which is inconsistent with that found on screen-used masks.
5. Here's where it gets interesting. Pardon the inherited damage on the 20th Century casting, but you can also use any picture of LFL props to corroborate this. The orange line represents material removed. There also appears to be significant sanding of not just the top of the nose but the whole arch of the nose as it rises up towards the nose bridge.
6. The inside nose has possibly been sharpened. The mouthwall on the right of the image appears to have been thickened, and the inside shape is simplified, similar to what you see on a Don Post Classic Action. Scroll back to the top pair of images and notice now how small the nose is and how wide the cheeks are in terms of proportions when you compare the grey Reveal against the 20th Century.
7. This is where things get interesting because of 8. As the whisker leaves the nose and moves outwards, it starts of kind of okay. Towards the nose, there is indication of sanding so the whisker is thinner. But as it moves outwards, it starts to narrow instead of widen. On the screen-used and accurate castings, it crescendos into a swell before swooping down and joining the edge of the cheek. Not so with the grey ROTJ. This can generally be explained by oversanding of this area.
8. This shows either a warpage of the fiberglass or that material was added to widen the face, but in so doing it interrupts the aesthetic flow when viewed from top to bottom. The earlier comparison of the side profile shows the cheek edge on the side being turned from a curve into a straight line, so it's possible this cheek was physically tampered with and re-interpreted. If extra material was indeed added, some excess might be obscuring the whisker (7) and overriding the swell.
There is more. I don't have time for photograph comparison but:
9. The teeth bars depth are inconsistent with that of screen accurate props. You'll have to refer to a 45 degree angle from one of your previous posts. They are extremely shallow towards the top of the bars.
10. The chin triangle on the grey appears to the a reasonably accurate shape, but the positioning is wrong. It's much too close to the edge of the mouth. Don't use the 20th Century as a basis of comparison, as the 20th Century chin triangle is smaller than screen-used (it might have been done on purpose as a tell to distinguish tour masks from production masks).
11. Bottom mouth line on the grey Reveal is slightly curving upward.
12. Mouth on grey Reveal is more symmetrical than the screen-used. As you look at it, the mouth wall has been thickened to achieve this effect.
13. Skull area has been narrowed.
14. Neck has been trimmed significantly.
... and more. And these are in addition to the inconsistencies that have already been discussed.
Hope all this helps. It's not to say this isn't production-related, and perhaps it was something someone tried to salvage. Even if it were a bad casting, the essential aesthetic flows would still have been there. The 20 Century that Darth Stone obtained as a bit beat up due to age and handling but is still quite elegant in shape and consistent with accurate masks. I can't, for any reason, see why someone would oversand the grey Reveal on one hand, and purposefully thicken the mouth and the left cheek (right, as you look at it). In other words, the person who was working on this was removing material in some parts and adding material in others, but for what reason?
If there was ever any direct connection to studio originals, it's been eradicated by whoever had worked on the mask. If the owner is looking for verification among the auction houses, they might tap one of the members of this community who would perhaps provide the same observations. The next point of verification for the auction houses would be establishing the authenticity of paperwork behind this mask, should they even feel the mask could go that far in the auction process.
Over the years, we've seen various individuals and Vader-vendors (eBay, online, etc.) who have had helmets purported to be production-related. A claim is made, and then the burden of disproving it is thrust upon the people to whom the helmet is presented. These are sometimes well-meaning people who have studied props for years or decades and thus spoke from a position of experience. Some have cited that their helmets were unused prototypes. Two Vader vendors made claims that turned out to be utter fabrications. We've had quite some history here, so we'd like to open-mindedly analyze things carefully.
Too much work has been done to convince me beyond a shadow of doubt that this has any connection with the production. And even if it were so, I find no logical reason to re-interpret so much, but because of so many inconsistencies, assuming this ever had connection with the production, the value of the mask is harmed because all the tells that would have verified its originality as a Vader mask are gone.
Now here's the clincher. If the owner were to remove the primer, what would it reveal? It would be interesting to see if material had been added to the mask prior to being shot in primer. If not, then it's a copy of something that had already been modified.
I've already established that the essence, aesthetic flow, etc. of the DS 20th Century is a very good basis of comparison of facial feature proportions, angles, etc. when compared against the LFL Reveal tour mask. I have other accurate castings that corroborate with the 20th Century, so honestly, it's not a bad baseline. I use the 20th Century due to availability, so other 20th Cent owners can study this themselves.
This comparison you're about to see is challenging because there are various things about the grey Reveal that are proportionately off, and therefore getting a perfect overlay is not possible.
Again, were this a production-related mask, it had to have been based off of something of the UK lineage tree, just as the 20th Century is based off of the same tree.
Lets walk through the discrepancies. This is only a partial list. The numbers I'm going by correspond to the numbers in the image below.
1. Notice the eyebrow as it joins with the bridge of the nose and frown-bump. Not only has this been sanded down and the eyebrow now become sharp, but the angle of the eyebrow now causes it to meet the nose bridge lower than on the 20th Century.
2. The bridge of the nose on the grey Reveal is not as high as the 20th Century.
3. Again, like 1, the left eyebrow has been sanded down, and the brow reduced from a wider thickness to a sharp edge. It also joins the bridge of the nose lower than on a screen-accurate mask.
4. The nose bridge's 3 notches are now more compressed than on the 20th Century. Moreover, there is a decrease in width towards the bottom, which is inconsistent with that found on screen-used masks.
5. Here's where it gets interesting. Pardon the inherited damage on the 20th Century casting, but you can also use any picture of LFL props to corroborate this. The orange line represents material removed. There also appears to be significant sanding of not just the top of the nose but the whole arch of the nose as it rises up towards the nose bridge.
6. The inside nose has possibly been sharpened. The mouthwall on the right of the image appears to have been thickened, and the inside shape is simplified, similar to what you see on a Don Post Classic Action. Scroll back to the top pair of images and notice now how small the nose is and how wide the cheeks are in terms of proportions when you compare the grey Reveal against the 20th Century.
7. This is where things get interesting because of 8. As the whisker leaves the nose and moves outwards, it starts of kind of okay. Towards the nose, there is indication of sanding so the whisker is thinner. But as it moves outwards, it starts to narrow instead of widen. On the screen-used and accurate castings, it crescendos into a swell before swooping down and joining the edge of the cheek. Not so with the grey ROTJ. This can generally be explained by oversanding of this area.
8. This shows either a warpage of the fiberglass or that material was added to widen the face, but in so doing it interrupts the aesthetic flow when viewed from top to bottom. The earlier comparison of the side profile shows the cheek edge on the side being turned from a curve into a straight line, so it's possible this cheek was physically tampered with and re-interpreted. If extra material was indeed added, some excess might be obscuring the whisker (7) and overriding the swell.
There is more. I don't have time for photograph comparison but:
9. The teeth bars depth are inconsistent with that of screen accurate props. You'll have to refer to a 45 degree angle from one of your previous posts. They are extremely shallow towards the top of the bars.
10. The chin triangle on the grey appears to the a reasonably accurate shape, but the positioning is wrong. It's much too close to the edge of the mouth. Don't use the 20th Century as a basis of comparison, as the 20th Century chin triangle is smaller than screen-used (it might have been done on purpose as a tell to distinguish tour masks from production masks).
11. Bottom mouth line on the grey Reveal is slightly curving upward.
12. Mouth on grey Reveal is more symmetrical than the screen-used. As you look at it, the mouth wall has been thickened to achieve this effect.
13. Skull area has been narrowed.
14. Neck has been trimmed significantly.
... and more. And these are in addition to the inconsistencies that have already been discussed.
Hope all this helps. It's not to say this isn't production-related, and perhaps it was something someone tried to salvage. Even if it were a bad casting, the essential aesthetic flows would still have been there. The 20 Century that Darth Stone obtained as a bit beat up due to age and handling but is still quite elegant in shape and consistent with accurate masks. I can't, for any reason, see why someone would oversand the grey Reveal on one hand, and purposefully thicken the mouth and the left cheek (right, as you look at it). In other words, the person who was working on this was removing material in some parts and adding material in others, but for what reason?
If there was ever any direct connection to studio originals, it's been eradicated by whoever had worked on the mask. If the owner is looking for verification among the auction houses, they might tap one of the members of this community who would perhaps provide the same observations. The next point of verification for the auction houses would be establishing the authenticity of paperwork behind this mask, should they even feel the mask could go that far in the auction process.
Over the years, we've seen various individuals and Vader-vendors (eBay, online, etc.) who have had helmets purported to be production-related. A claim is made, and then the burden of disproving it is thrust upon the people to whom the helmet is presented. These are sometimes well-meaning people who have studied props for years or decades and thus spoke from a position of experience. Some have cited that their helmets were unused prototypes. Two Vader vendors made claims that turned out to be utter fabrications. We've had quite some history here, so we'd like to open-mindedly analyze things carefully.
Too much work has been done to convince me beyond a shadow of doubt that this has any connection with the production. And even if it were so, I find no logical reason to re-interpret so much, but because of so many inconsistencies, assuming this ever had connection with the production, the value of the mask is harmed because all the tells that would have verified its originality as a Vader mask are gone.
Now here's the clincher. If the owner were to remove the primer, what would it reveal? It would be interesting to see if material had been added to the mask prior to being shot in primer. If not, then it's a copy of something that had already been modified.
CSMacLaren
Sr Member
Straightening it out may be a great modification, but any alteration done to an antique or something old decreases its auction value. So why is the owner so quick to do a mod like this? It doesn't increase its originality. And if he doesn't have an accurate reference object, he's not restoring it but reinterpreting it.
This is very odd.
jme3
Sr Member
The studio reveal dynodes are 1.055" in width. The slat number seems correct on the casting but they do seem smaller to my eyes.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
Interesting piece.
LeAngeSolitaire
Well-Known Member
Mac, what you are saying makes sense and your observations are correct.
When compared to a 20th C helmet.
For the life of me, I cannot understand this obsession with comparing my buddy's grey reveal to this when a like for like comparison to what this helmet is supposed to be makes more sense. It's like comparing an iPad 2 with an iPad 1. If my friend's helmet is another 20th C type helmet, sure, the comparisons make great sense. Doing a comparison with the known reveal like KaanE has done is much more productive. Seriously. I am sure you know your vader but please focus that knowledge on a comparison that actually makes some sense. Please.
If you must bring your 20th C casting into this, do a comparison with the 20th C and the known reveal helmet and this grey reveal.
Does anyone here want to see the results of that? I know do. It would be like Pacquiao Vs Mayweather.
I have also emailed your posting to the owner of the helmet and these are his replies (NOT mine):
"Which would be a valid and fair point if I were interested in selling this piece off, which I am not."
"I'm not that quick, it's taken me 6 months just to get around to pulling out of my garage after having been asked to."
"No, you're right, it doesn't."
"And frankly, I don't care as I've never seen it as a restoration project. It's just an object that I ought to tackle one day, nothing beyond that. I have no reverence to it. See below."
"Not really, I'm just not that passionate about it, in terms of uber accuracy, like some of the fine members of the RPF seem to be. To me, this is just a "Darth Vader" head, it's a curio that I'd like on my shelf one day. The only bit that I have never liked on it are the curved tops to the cheek bone area, I've always felt that this just looks wrong and so when I eventually do get around to it, I will flatten this out. Also, should I ever complete it, I would do so to a point that I would be happy to look at it on a regular basis, therefore I'd want it to represent how I remember Vader from my childhood. I'm not in the slightest bit bothered if I mixed this face plate (with filled in forehead grills and no greeblies on the crown) with an ealier helmet and then painted the entire thing black, rather than two tone.
The main goal is just to own something that a casual "fan" like me could look at and say, "Hey, that's Darth Vader. Cool!" because, and let's be honest here, most people wouldn't notice nor in deed care beyond how the thing looks at face value. Or to put it another way, my mum wouldn't come around to my house and chastise me for having a New Hope helmet with a Jedi Reveal Face Plate and that because of this prop faux pas, it's all wrong.
Thanks to all those who have given their input on it, it's given me something to think about."
(Incidentally, the dynoid apertures on the grey Reveal are 26.5mm high x 27.5mm wide)
When compared to a 20th C helmet.
For the life of me, I cannot understand this obsession with comparing my buddy's grey reveal to this when a like for like comparison to what this helmet is supposed to be makes more sense. It's like comparing an iPad 2 with an iPad 1. If my friend's helmet is another 20th C type helmet, sure, the comparisons make great sense. Doing a comparison with the known reveal like KaanE has done is much more productive. Seriously. I am sure you know your vader but please focus that knowledge on a comparison that actually makes some sense. Please.
If you must bring your 20th C casting into this, do a comparison with the 20th C and the known reveal helmet and this grey reveal.
Does anyone here want to see the results of that? I know do. It would be like Pacquiao Vs Mayweather.
I have also emailed your posting to the owner of the helmet and these are his replies (NOT mine):
"Which would be a valid and fair point if I were interested in selling this piece off, which I am not."
"I'm not that quick, it's taken me 6 months just to get around to pulling out of my garage after having been asked to."
"No, you're right, it doesn't."
"And frankly, I don't care as I've never seen it as a restoration project. It's just an object that I ought to tackle one day, nothing beyond that. I have no reverence to it. See below."
"Not really, I'm just not that passionate about it, in terms of uber accuracy, like some of the fine members of the RPF seem to be. To me, this is just a "Darth Vader" head, it's a curio that I'd like on my shelf one day. The only bit that I have never liked on it are the curved tops to the cheek bone area, I've always felt that this just looks wrong and so when I eventually do get around to it, I will flatten this out. Also, should I ever complete it, I would do so to a point that I would be happy to look at it on a regular basis, therefore I'd want it to represent how I remember Vader from my childhood. I'm not in the slightest bit bothered if I mixed this face plate (with filled in forehead grills and no greeblies on the crown) with an ealier helmet and then painted the entire thing black, rather than two tone.
The main goal is just to own something that a casual "fan" like me could look at and say, "Hey, that's Darth Vader. Cool!" because, and let's be honest here, most people wouldn't notice nor in deed care beyond how the thing looks at face value. Or to put it another way, my mum wouldn't come around to my house and chastise me for having a New Hope helmet with a Jedi Reveal Face Plate and that because of this prop faux pas, it's all wrong.
Thanks to all those who have given their input on it, it's given me something to think about."
(Incidentally, the dynoid apertures on the grey Reveal are 26.5mm high x 27.5mm wide)
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
Buy some reveal parts and paint that sucker up the way you want to, after having studied the screen used reveal. That's just my opinion. Make it up so you'll enjoy it and smile when you look at it, thinking: "I completed that and I'm happy."
I'm sure if you wanted it, the fine people here would love to help with suggestions on how to do things and where to get parts, but it is completely up to you, the owner, on what to do and how to finish it.
Good luck.
I'm sure if you wanted it, the fine people here would love to help with suggestions on how to do things and where to get parts, but it is completely up to you, the owner, on what to do and how to finish it.
Good luck.
jme3
Sr Member
LeAngeSolitaire,
You seem a lot more concerned to have it proven that there's a lineage to the original than your friend does! :lol He's definitely taken a laissez faire attitude about it, and ultimately, whether or not we as collectors are ourselves happy with what we have is all that matters. So I'd agree that he should greeblify it immediately and set it on display.
And to that end, I have two original Glenross expanders in the junkyard to get him started...
lol
You seem a lot more concerned to have it proven that there's a lineage to the original than your friend does! :lol He's definitely taken a laissez faire attitude about it, and ultimately, whether or not we as collectors are ourselves happy with what we have is all that matters. So I'd agree that he should greeblify it immediately and set it on display.
And to that end, I have two original Glenross expanders in the junkyard to get him started...
lol
CSMacLaren
Sr Member
LeAngeSolitaire,
Obsession, you say? Recall you named this thread saying "Opinions Sought". It's poor form to start such a thread, but instead state an authoritative supposition and then make community members do the legwork to disprove that supposition. The burden of proof is on you. The burden of disproof is not on the gentle readers here.
Somehow this obsession that this is an ROTJ production mask or prototype is clouding you from allowing people to draw clear-thinking comparisons. It's like you have a Honda Civic with added racing accoutrements, spoilers, racing stripes, etc. but now you're telling us it's no longer a Honda Civic and is therefore beyond compare to a stock condition Civic. I'm troubled by that logic, because we're trying to share opinions with you with an open mind, and we're getting stonewalled here.
If I were to remove the greebles and the skullcap and restore the head to an original state, the facial features would still be wrong. I apologize beforehand, but there is no polite way of saying this, but there is just no way to prove this to be an ROTJ production mask. Please do speak with Brian Muir. Accurate dynode size can be easily replicated using accurate dynodes - that is hardly proof. But Brian will know his own sculpt under all the greebles.
I hope you didn't sink $2,000 believing this to be a production piece and now just want everyone's opinions on it to change in your favor. But if you're getting this on the cheap, then super. It's a good starter helmet, and will be most enjoyable once fully built out and painted up. Congratulations on the find.
LeAngeSolitaire
Well-Known Member
Keep your hair on. I asked a valid question. Don't start derailing this with ego. I get it, you own a 20th C helmet. Good for you! You have 'studied Vader as sculpture' for 5 years. Good for you! I hope in that time you have learnt the difference between vac forming and fibreglassing. :lol. You have come in, made rather silly comments such as questioning whether this helmet has been switched out, or thinking it's a fan build which it patently isn't, interspersed it with some decent observational gems when comparing to a totally different helmet. What would you think if someone did that you you? You don't like having your 'authority' questioned do you? Get over it, it happens, this is life. I've refrained from getting shirty but to be honest, I find your last outburst offensive and a distraction from the point I made.
I only posted as a favour to the owner of the helmet. I asked a few pointed questions, put a few hypotheses in the air and asked for a comparison that any semi intelligent person would ask. If you want to start talking about a helmet that has nothing to do with this, go ahead, but I just wanted to point out that such comparisons are redundant for the reasons basic common sense would dictate. Sorry if that bruises your fragile ego :lol. I asked for opinions, not asked to be dictated to like an idiot with zero observational skills of my own. You have given you opinion, I have thanked you and I shall accord that opinion with the respect it merits.
The owner of the helmet has heard your views, he has compared them to his own observations and others outside the blinkered cloisters of the RPF, and can draw his own conclusions, but ultimately he couldn't care less and will continue on with his project and will let you chaps continue to argue about C scars and what not for the next decade. I have already posted his views, (see above).
Jamanticus
Well-Known Member
Well, you have both CSMacLaren and Gino agreeing with each other that the helmet isn't what you think it is. That counts for something :lol
(Joking, joking)
(Joking, joking)
Last edited:
CSMacLaren
Sr Member
I thought your initial inquiry was sincere. Each of these overlay analysis took considerable time out of my day, and required a degree of care to do right, and was done out of a spirit of friendship. I felt it was worth it. Sorry you didn't see it that way.
Have a good one. Live long and prosper! :thumbsup
Last edited:
wannab
Sr Member
Clutch
Master Member
JoeR
Sr Member
:lolIt's not important or valuable so sand and hack away.
To the OP right from the get go your mind was made up, so not really sure why you bothered asking here.
The knowledge on here is unrivalled anywhere, especially considering the fact that the original sculptor is a member and other members have studied pretty much every casting that is known about.
Take a chill pill.
JoeR
The Death Curse
Well-Known Member
'Looks pretty nice to me. There are a couple inconsistencies that I can spot in comparison to the screen-used Reveal (most of all the two upper tubes' length), but the overall face is so gorgeously sharp, shapely, and unique that I don't even mind. There are many, many details that seem to originate from the original Reveal mold or a casting directly from it.
I would personally love to own a casting of this face mask as a study piece!!
EDIT: Actually, I just realized something. Obviously, the Reveal design is a retool or resculpt of the ANH Vader design, right? Well, the sharp edges on this casting make perfect sense in that context, considering that large amounts of sanding, buffing, and fine trimming had to be done to the Reveal to make it more beautiful for the extreme close-ups (and therefore a true "one off" in the world of Vader castings)...That is the same way many character helmets are still fashioned for films today. (IE: Sculpt it to the best of the artist's ability, mold that sculpture, cast a thick copy, sand/dremel/smooth the casting extensively, and then add many layers of primer. Sometimes that piece is then remolded to make the final mold and product, but the "beauty prop" Reveal wouldn't need that sort of backup so it wouldn't be necessary in this case.) With that in mind, I would be willing to bet that the top of the dome, those sharp points extending backwards from the cheeks, and the top two tubes - amongst other details - were extensively hand-modified on the screen-used Reveal to make a more stream-lined and attractive product.
Cheers,
Ryan
There are a couple inconsistencies that I can spot in comparison to the screen-used Reveal (most of all the two upper tubes' length), but the overall face is so gorgeously sharp, shapely, and unique that I don't even mind. There are many, many details that seem to originate from the original Reveal mold or a casting directly from it.I would personally love to own a casting of this face mask as a study piece!!
EDIT: Actually, I just realized something. Obviously, the Reveal design is a retool or resculpt of the ANH Vader design, right? Well, the sharp edges on this casting make perfect sense in that context, considering that large amounts of sanding, buffing, and fine trimming had to be done to the Reveal to make it more beautiful for the extreme close-ups (and therefore a true "one off" in the world of Vader castings)...That is the same way many character helmets are still fashioned for films today. (IE: Sculpt it to the best of the artist's ability, mold that sculpture, cast a thick copy, sand/dremel/smooth the casting extensively, and then add many layers of primer. Sometimes that piece is then remolded to make the final mold and product, but the "beauty prop" Reveal wouldn't need that sort of backup so it wouldn't be necessary in this case.) With that in mind, I would be willing to bet that the top of the dome, those sharp points extending backwards from the cheeks, and the top two tubes - amongst other details - were extensively hand-modified on the screen-used Reveal to make a more stream-lined and attractive product.
Cheers,
Ryan
Last edited:
Similar threads
