You have never seen the Blade Runner blaster before - PHOTOS RESTORED

[Sporak]

Bryant had one too, though it's a stunt...This was posted somewhere.

Incidently...what were the 2 types of guns used for the BR Blaster?
I've heard a bulldog and a Steyr? What models etc...?
It would be interesting just to see what this started out as...

I tried searches based on that but I had no clue what I was looking for really.:lol
I'm just curious.

 

[Serafino]

Sporak:

Phil's Site, and

Rich's Site will give you the lowdown.

Although a Google search for 'bulldog' and 'steyr' gets you there just fine.

 

[Sporak]

Thanks Andres, I was just looking over Rich's site and Thanks for Phils...I've not seen that one before.

Well, now I know what I'm looking for LOL.
I still haven't found a pic of the original Steyr rifle yet though.

 

[Serafino]

There are some earlier in the thread.

 

[Noeland]

post #197

 

[Sporak]

Oh My...it's beautiful.
Thank you very much.

How the heck did I miss that post???
I'm old...and blind :lol

 

[terryr]

I've been thinking about the Mona Lisa. It is on public display every day. Artists can come and make copies of it, and even imitate the brush strokes. The museum doesn't freak out. There must be hundreds of thousands of copies of various skill levels. Yet the original is still very valuable. And no one has to worry about buying a fake, because everyone knows who has the real one.

Something for the fan-boys to think about.

 

[phase pistol]

The Mona Lisa is a terrific example. Copying has a LONG history in fine art, and copies made by masters can become significant pieces of art in their own right, alongside the originals (not equal to of course but singificant).

But somebody raised the question awhile back, if you owned a rare painting, would you allow people to see it, or would you hide it away for fear of forgeries being made?

I saw the other day a new book, "MONA LISA: Inside the Painting" (by Jean-Pierre Mohen; published by Harry N Abrams, $50) which was chock full of analysis done when the painting was retouched a few years ago. I'm talking about IN-DEPTH scientific analysis of crack patterns in the paint, infrared and x-ray photography, pictures of the BACK of the canvas, just incredible detail and information.

Surely such information could help a forger create a fake Mona Lisa that would be very hard to tell from the original. But for some reason, the Louvre allowed these guys to get their paws all over the painting, photograph it under studio lights, take 3-D laser scans, and otherwise probe its mysteries.

Only Mona Lisa's gynecologist knows more about her. :lol

- K

 

[atacpdx]

I'll say it again... Homework...

The reason the art world is so open about the details of so many paintings is that the brokers and collectors do their homeowrk. Therefore, the more info that is available, the less likely a broker will mistakenly broker a fake or a buyer will inadvertantly buy a fake.

There is extensive authentication done before a decent broker even attempts to sell a piece and a broker would never dream of asking his potential buyers to do his homework for him and determine a piece's authenticity. :angel

Hell even baseball card brokers and collectors are more open and forthcoming about info.


<div class='quotetop'>(phase pistol @ Sep 18 2006, 07:51 PM) [snapback]1322284[/snapback]</div>

The Mona Lisa is a terrific example. Copying has a LONG history in fine art, and copies made by masters can become significant pieces of art in their own right, alongside the originals (not equal to of course but singificant).

But somebody raised the question awhile back, if you owned a rare painting, would you allow people to see it, or would you hide it away for fear of forgeries being made?

I saw the other day a new book, "MONA LISA: Inside the Painting" (by Jean-Pierre Mohen; published by Harry N Abrams, $50) which was chock full of analysis done when the painting was retouched a few years ago. I'm talking about IN-DEPTH scientific analysis of crack patterns in the paint, infrared and x-ray photography, pictures of the BACK of the canvas, just incredible detail and information.

Surely such information could help a forger create a fake Mona Lisa that would be very hard to tell from the original. But for some reason, the Louvre allowed these guys to get their paws all over the painting, photograph it under studio lights, take 3-D laser scans, and otherwise probe its mysteries.

Only Mona Lisa's gynecologist knows more about her. :lol

- K
[/b]

 

[drusselmeyer]

No, no, no. Secrecy is the only way to protect provenance. Secret handshakes, locked boxes, encoded files and bulletproof cases in dark secret rooms are the ONLY way to prove that we have real props..

How dare you suggest we violate the rules of our secret prop society...

 

[Serafino]

Sadly not all museums are so cooperative. There are US museums which do not allow art students to copy--no doubt because the modernist-trained cronies who run the places believe realist art is a dead tradition anyway.

I specifically developed a color comparator device for recording objective notes on the appearance of the colors in a Leonardo painting which came to the US a while back. I had permission from the 'normal' permissions person at the museum to use it, but at the last minute the museum director put the quash on my using it, and she was quite mean-spirited about it, she had the regular gal pass on a message that she knew "exactly" what I was "up to" and that this refusal was not subject to further discussion. Uh, o-kayyyy. :rolleyes

 

[drusselmeyer]

<div class='quotetop'>(eltee @ Sep 14 2006, 04:02 PM) [snapback]1320072[/snapback]</div>

I forwarded photos, before the hoopla, to an associate who is an expert at Steyrs. Looking at the markings he said in his professional opinion it was a real Steyr, not a casting. The photos then went to the Steyr factory, where they, too, stated it was a real gun, not a copy and "The factory historians were fascinated with the pictures." I now have a contact at the Steyr factory if any relevant questions develop.

I remain confused a little, still. I love the BR gun, own a couple of Rich's inc. the (now old version) all metal blaster. I recall reading that the propmaster said something to the effect that only ONE hero was built, and a dozen or so stunt castings. Somewhere in this incredible thread someone said there are three Hero versions but that conflicts with what the propmaster from the movie was reported to have said. So, one hero (which would make the Worldcon seen one THE Hero?) or three heroes? :confused
[/b]

Isn't the propmaster quoted in Sammon's book as saying that he put TWO LEDs in the gun?? Does this rule out the Worldcon gun?? I don't think so.

Most witnesses in these kinds of cases are not reliable sources of information over time. I have seen this before. In one instance, a researcher found the builder of a vehicle had this long elaborate story of how it was procured, designed and built. It had various details about where it came from and who the source was.

As it turns out, all the information was wrong as anyone can see from photos. Even the make was wrong.

Over time, anyone can forget -even the people who worked on it.

 

[drusselmeyer]

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Sep 16 2006, 01:20 AM) [snapback]1321123[/snapback]</div>

A few more...

[/b]

It looks like a common variety Armitron. It might be hard to find now. Anything that common might not be considered worth keeping.

 

[Serafino]

<div class='quotetop'>(drusselmeyer @ Sep 18 2006, 09:48 PM) [snapback]1322551[/snapback]</div>

It looks like a common variety Armitron. It might be hard to find now. Anything that common might not be considered worth keeping.
[/b]

Oh, I dunno about that...

We said the same thing about Obi ANH handwheels until suddenly they started showing up. Luckily we live in a crazy age of collectors and sellers of everything conceivable.

(No I'm not saying that's 'the' watch...)

 

[phase pistol]

<div class='quotetop'>(atacpdx @ Sep 18 2006, 04:16 PM) [snapback]1322296[/snapback]</div>

I'll say it again... Homework...

The reason the art world is so open about the details of so many paintings is that the brokers and collectors do their homeowrk. Therefore, the more info that is available, the less likely a broker will mistakenly broker a fake or a buyer will inadvertantly buy a fake.
[/b]

A good point - from an "honest people trying to do honest business" perspective.

On the filp side, if you're out to do FRAUD, you want the customer to have as LITTLE information as possible.

I'm not insinuating anything nefarious, I'm just pointing out what must be painfully obvious by now.

- k

 

[Vaderman]

Holy cow. I read this thread when it started (1 or 2 pages?).... and just now jumped to the last page when I saw it was 36 pages. Um, can anyone catch me up on what's going on here or do I really need to go back and read the previous 5 million posts?

Thanks.

 

[temponaut]

You really need to go back and read the previous 5 million posts.

Seriously, if you are interested in this subject, I think it will be worth the time to read through the entire thread carefully. You'll learn a lot. I did.

If your interest is only passing, well, perhaps someone will offer up a Cliff Notes version for you. But such a summary will necessarily leave out a lot and may result in an unbalanced view.

 

[Howard]

It looks to me as though it says 'Casio' in the box.
But it could say something else.

 

[Vaderman]

Okay, have to start reading tomorrow.

That looks like it says ----- to me.

I love how you put a little box around it though, as if that makes it clear text..
LOL

I couldn't even tell it was a wristwatch from here. You guys are amazing at this stuff.

 

[Howard]

Okay, I admit it's a stretch.
I had perhaps 3 or so Casio watches during the 1980s, and this looks right to me.
The 'text' in the box looks to be the correct spacing and size to be 'Casio.'

I seem to remember the watches used in Alien were Casio - you know the double casings on the strap - used by Ripley?

Howard.