Who makes an accurate Darth Vader ROTJ lightsaber?

Years ago when I was making this saber for myself, the closest thing I ever found was a tire valve just like this, only it was missing that inner taper. This looks right to me! May have to make myself a new one!
 
Hi Drew, great find!
It looks almost perfect, but not completely perfect. I think the inner bevel is slightly smaller as you can see on this picture:

ea8832de0c96b18a1eafc8205ec44eda.jpg
 
I think the MR version looked very much like what you've found, which is what is triggering it looking "correct" to us...
 
A (not so) quick comparison photo. I was trying to match the inner bevel to see how closely the rest of the dome would match up.

close.jpg

(I used PureRef to hold the original photo in a transparent overlay over my camera's live view fed into OBS Studio over HDMI using an Elgato capture card. I think with a bit of practice it will be an excellent method for getting comparison shots, so I mention it. The software is pay what you like and free, respectively.)
 
A (not so) quick comparison photo. I was trying to match the inner bevel to see how closely the rest of the dome would match up.

View attachment 803383

(I used PureRef to hold the original photo in a transparent overlay over my camera's live view fed into OBS Studio over HDMI using an Elgato capture card. I think with a bit of practice it will be an excellent method for getting comparison shots, so I mention it. The software is pay what you like and free, respectively.)

Dang....that IS close! Really good find Drew!

Rich
 
I found this tire valve at the local Napa Auto Parts -- Item 90-438, online at https://www.napaonline.com/en/p/NTH90438 -- and I think it matches the prop's geometry pretty well. Thoughts?


View attachment 803289View attachment 803290View attachment 803291View attachment 803292View attachment 803293View attachment 803294View attachment 803295

Do you happen to have any spares?

The link you provided doesn´t show the accurate valve with the somewhat rounded top, but an obviously more modern style with tapered sides?!

s-l1600.jpg
 
I went back this morning and the one they had left was different than the first one. The center bevel is larger, but the central hole is hexagonal, not circular:

_DSC1121.JPG

Hooray for part variations, yet again.
 
vader45 -- if you've got a line on a single step vintage MPP I'm all ears!

Help replicating the MOM lightsaber would be nice, too. I got a few pieces off Shapeways and they'll work as place holders, but aren't particularly satisfying.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Look at you casually dropping ultra rare ROTJ promo pics showing the ESB hero on Vader’s belt!

Thats the whole point! Lol I want to debunk the Graflex being the hero as some still believe it. It was nothing but BS from Master Replicas in order to sell another hilt.
 
Thats the whole point! Lol I want to debunk the Graflex being the hero as some still believe it. It was nothing but BS from Master Replicas in order to sell another hilt.

Actually the stunt saber is the one that got the most screen time in ROTJ; similar to that of the V2. It's not the hero, but for some, it will be "the" hilt to have.
 
Actually the stunt saber is the one that got the most screen time in ROTJ; similar to that of the V2. It's not the hero, but for some, it will be "the" hilt to have.

It still is the hero as It hung on the belt, the Graflex did not. If you look closely the graflex only made and appearance during the second half of the duel. The first half was a MPP. The straight slant of the shroud can not be mistaken for the graflex. There are some posts here people made showing a screen shot.

See how far back the MPP is on the belt in the second photo? That is why It is hidden. Im 100% sure it was there entirely for filming till the duel as that photo was taken on set while another promo pic on the same set shows some chrome reflecting around the port holes.
 
Last edited:
Did I not just say that it wasn’t the hero? I said it was similar to the V2 in that it has the most screen time.
 
This thread is more than 3 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. This thread hasn't been active in some time. A new post in this thread might not contribute constructively to this discussion after so long.
If you wish to reply despite these issues, check the box below before replying.
Be aware that malicious compliance may result in more severe penalties.
Back
Top