New Luke ROTJ v2 3d model comparison and analysis

Well, to be quite frank, I am a bit bummed that it's going to be multi-piece construction for FX reasons. I'm not interested in FX pieces but I am very pleased with how accurate the new model looks. I was really hoping for something much closer to the original prop: it being a 4 piece construction (so far as we know). I mean, if we're going to have multiple pieces, I'd be much more keen on an almost solid emitter with a separate nipple piece, a single body construction down to the pommel, and a separate pommel piece. I don't think it's all that much crazier.

Considering the model presented, the thinness is being addressed, so I don't have much more to add beyond that. If it's possible, I'd like to see a 360 view of the Mystery Chunk that this model has. I'm 90% positive it's a leather craft stamp I have in mind and wonder if the shapes and scale line up.


Believe me, I wouldn't have sacrificed accuracy for fx. But, when I took a stab at having it both ways, I came up with a solution that allowed for both.
 
Good points. I'm wondering if he can offer the FX version, but also offer the none FX with less pieces.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but what would be the benefit of this to you if it looks the same either way?

Here is a close up of the mystery chunk. The stem will be threaded, although it is not present in the image
mystery chunk.jpg
 
Please don't take this the wrong way, but what would be the benefit of this to you if it looks the same either way?

Here is a close up of the mystery chunk. The stem will be threaded, although it is not present in the image
View attachment 771895

None overall as far as looks. Remember, I already have and finished your unibody design. I guess it would use be for having it closer to the original. But I also understand only a few really know what the original actually has ,as far as pieces are concerned.

Also, I didn't and won't take it the wrong way. I didn't mean to offend you if I did
 
Please don't take this the wrong way, but what would be the benefit of this to you if it looks the same either way?

I can only answer for myself but it would be function. A function that isn't just a surface detail that simulated that of the original but the function of the piece would be a near-perfect facsimile of the actual thing based on the original construcrtion. For me, that is a huge draw. Even though it's illusory, it would be like I was handling the real thing, itself. It's the very reason why I value and was drawn to your previous V2 run over Solo's Hold V2. They're both two great things but serve two different purposes.

It might be petty just to say, "Oh, but this one is built just like the actual, original prop," over "It's made to look and resemble the function of the original," but for someone who isn't going to be fulfilling the FX end of the prop, it'll feel incomplete to me. Like having an RC car but it's missing all its internals. Or, more accurately pertaining to the RPF, Roman's functioning Graflex or TGS' Graflex. I doubt that anyone will use Roman's functioning Graflex on a working 4x5 but the fact that it can is all the sweeter.

Don't get me wrong, you've done a man's job with this and your previous contributions (more than I could), and I'm sure as Shineola going to jump on the run of this.
 
Last edited:
I can only answer for myself but it would be function. A function that isn't just a surface detail that simulated that of the original but the function of the piece would be a near-perfect facsimile of the actual thing based on the original construcrtion. For me, that is a huge draw. Even though it's illusory, it would be like I was handling the real thing, itself. It's the very reason why I value and was drawn to your previous V2 run over Solo's Hold V2. They're both two great things but serve two different purposes.

It might be petty just to say, "Oh, but this one is built just like the actual, original prop," over "It's made to look and resemble the function of the original," but for someone who isn't going to be fulfilling the FX end of the prop, it'll feel incomplete to me. Like having an RC car but it's missing all its internals. Or, more accurately pertaining to the RPF, Roman's functioning Graflex or TGS' Graflex. I doubt that anyone will use Roman's functioning Graflex on a working 4x5 but the fact that it can is all the sweeter.

Don't get me wrong, you've done a man's job with this and your previous contributions (more than I could), and I'm sure as Shineola going to jump on the run of this.

Right, but this design will still allow for the spinning emitter. It can be set up to keep the spinning emitter function, even with the fx installed.
And actually, if you wanted to assemble it just like my old design, forgoing fx all together, you could do that too.
 
Well, to be quite frank, I am a bit bummed that it's going to be multi-piece construction for FX reasons. I'm not interested in FX pieces but I am very pleased with how accurate the new model looks. I was really hoping for something much closer to the original prop: it being a 4 piece construction (so far as we know). I mean, if we're going to have multiple pieces, I'd be much more keen on an almost solid emitter with a separate nipple piece, a single body construction down to the pommel, and a separate pommel piece. I don't think it's all that much crazier.

Considering the model presented, the thinness is being addressed, so I don't have much more to add beyond that. If it's possible, I'd like to see a 360 view of the Mystery Chunk that this model has. I'm 90% positive it's a leather craft stamp I have in mind and wonder if the shapes and scale line up.

Just remember who told u about that leather stamp ;)
 
Right, but this design will still allow for the spinning emitter. It can be set up to keep the spinning emitter function, even with the fx installed.
And actually, if you wanted to assemble it just like my old design, forgoing fx all together, you could do that too.

Here's a question - would it spin from the break in the neck like both surviving sabers? That side-cutaway made me think the big section of the emitter spun and the last step/neck stayed put.


That idea might just be a difference of feel of the hobby. I enjoy the heft/internal construction too, even though you can't see it on the outside, which I can see as being a bit irrational. Most replicas made do not take into account original engineering, as long as the outside is identical, it serves a purpose.

Anyway, the mystery chunk, I'm going by memory, but did it have a pattern or something on it? as opposed to just homogenous knurls
 
So maybe it’s time for me to share some of my research about the mystery chunk.

I spent a lot of time examining the pictures we have. Some of our best mystery chunk pictures is from “pop culture quest” with mark and Brandon.

I was thinking at first it was just a piece of metal like Brandon said, but a very reliable source told me it’s a found part

So I began digging and digging... I swear in the picture with Hamill Brandon that chunk has lettering on it (which I was proven wrong, but this helped me find what I think is the real chunk)

So first thing I thought was a X,8, or even M or N on the top of the chunk.
With my dad building race cars I grew up around many steel work tools, and I remember some alphabet stamps and numbers he had to stamp them into the steel. And sure enough the end of the stamps have that same “bevel”

I dug and dug for vintage stamps, that’s when I came across some vintage stamps on a old eBay listing... same color brown too. I don’t have that picture with me now, but I took that listing which had the name of the original company, and googled. It was a German leather tool company, so I googled that. This company has been around since WWI and has been sold to a company in China and they now produce the same tools but in a chrome-y finish

Check these photos out

a4c9b330abb0e61b2f1c74cbb3003a10.jpg


And here is what I believe is the mystery chunk

5c36e8af57f9c2d1a9f1241a2c91e197.jpg


Since there was a lot of leather work done in production... I can imagine this sitting on a bench some where... they need to plug the hole in the V2, here snap this off and jam it in that hole

I don’t mean for this to derail starkiller’s thread. I just figure I would share this here, and see what dan and ever other V2 nut thinks about the curvature of the chunk
 
So maybe it’s time for me to share some of my research about the mystery chunk.

I spent a lot of time examining the pictures we have. Some of our best mystery chunk pictures is from “pop culture quest” with mark and Brandon.

I was thinking at first it was just a piece of metal like Brandon said, but a very reliable source told me it’s a found part

So I began digging and digging... I swear in the picture with Hamill Brandon that chunk has lettering on it (which I was proven wrong, but this helped me find what I think is the real chunk)

So first thing I thought was a X,8, or even M or N on the top of the chunk.
With my dad building race cars I grew up around many steel work tools, and I remember some alphabet stamps and numbers he had to stamp them into the steel. And sure enough the end of the stamps have that same “bevel”

I dug and dug for vintage stamps, that’s when I came across some vintage stamps on a old eBay listing... same color brown too. I don’t have that picture with me now, but I took that listing which had the name of the original company, and googled. It was a German leather tool company, so I googled that. This company has been around since WWI and has been sold to a company in China and they now produce the same tools but in a chrome-y finish

Check these photos out

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171108/a4c9b330abb0e61b2f1c74cbb3003a10.jpg

And here is what I believe is the mystery chunk

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171108/5c36e8af57f9c2d1a9f1241a2c91e197.jpg

Since there was a lot of leather work done in production... I can imagine this sitting on a bench some where... they need to plug the hole in the V2, here snap this off and jam it in that hole

I don’t mean for this to derail starkiller’s thread. I just figure I would share this here, and see what dan and ever other V2 nut thinks about the curvature of the chunk

Excellent work man! We all thought the chunk was beveled or round or not and this interesting shape would explain the drama.

browninsh metal?
 
Yes. It spins from the break in the neck like both surviving sabers. Exactly like my last one.

The blade holder screws into the neck. But the entire emitter rotates around the blade holder. The emitter envelopes the emitter head and rotates around it, gliding on a thin walled needle roller bearing
 
Last edited:
So maybe it’s time for me to share some of my research about the mystery chunk...

You and me, Hal! You and me!

Excellent work man! We all thought the chunk was beveled or round or not and this interesting shape would explain the drama.

browninsh metal?

To me it looks like a brown dirty metal

I think the one originally used was steel or something, so it aged over time and use to that color (whether before or after its use on the V2, I don't know). I'm not sure if they make, or ever made them in steel, but currently these things are made typically in zinc. I think you can age zinc down and age it that color.
 
You and me, Hal! You and me!





I think the one originally used was steel or something, so it aged over time and use to that color (whether before or after its use on the V2, I don't know). I'm not sure if they make, or ever made them in steel, but currently these things are made typically in zinc. I think you can age zinc down and age it that color.

U those photos from me :p ;)
 
I think the leather tool is a good candidate for what might have been originally used. But, without better pictures, we won't really know for sure. Also, there are so many different types of these tools, it would be hard to reverse engineer from any given found item. We wouldn't know if we were working from the right one, unless we had exact measurements from Brandon, and then the discussion would be moot anyways. I've done my best to match the size and shape shown in the MH clip, which to me is the clearest picture that's been made publicly available, and incorporate the detail I've been told is there by those in the know.
 
http://i833.photobucket.com/albums/...17-11-07 om 18.51.30_zpsrtn4ttix.png~original

Nice progress Dan and Roy. Eh . . . do we know
what this circle is or what it's covering up in the
pommel section? And is that a tiny black arrow
seemingly to point to the center?

Chaïm

To me, this looks like a plug up for the wires used in the original lightsaber SFX. Since this was connected as Obi-Wan's SFX saber from a new hope it makes sense that they'd plug up the hole where the wires came out of the pommel that connected to the motor that made the emitter spin. You can kind of see the wires coming out of Ben's lightsaber in ANH in this screenshot below, looks like they were thin enough to be hidden in his robes and about the size of said hole. The arrow on the bit could be an orientation indicator made in a permanent marker so it never rubbed off even after the prop was completed

NJLadF2.png

Hello everyone,

Over the past few months, I've been revising my Luke V2 model and I think I've just about got it bang on.
I asked Roy last week to work his 3d magic and wip up some comparison photos from me and he has done an amazing job.

I submit them here for your consideration. Comments are welcome and appreciated. Roy noticed that the cone knob look off my a couple mm, and I've corrected this already on the step file.

What do you guys think?

View attachment 771804View attachment 771805View attachment 771806
View attachment 771807View attachment 771808View attachment 771809

Also, I think the top part of your emitter should be thicker, you can see in the first pic how there's no gaffers tape on the spinning part of the emitter. They probably did this for strength during the original production of ANH considering how rough this prop was used. The gaffer's tape does make it a tad thicker, but not as thick as your model sugggests, So far though it is near perfection :)
 
To me, this looks like a plug up for the wires used in the original lightsaber SFX. ..

Also, I think the top part of your emitter should be thicker, you can see in the first pic how there's no gaffers tape on the spinning part of the emitter. They probably did this for strength during the original production of ANH considering how rough this prop was used. The gaffer's tape does make it a tad thicker, but not as thick as your model sugggests, So far though it is near perfection :)


Circle is nothing more than a milling mark confirmed by a member that's handled it. The switch for the spinning motor came out the hole that the cone knob is plugging and the wire for the battery pack came out the hole the "Mystery Chunk" is plugging.

Gaffer tape was added to the "neck" to secure the emitter for use in RotJ, it only looks as thick as it does in these new photos because it's unfurling after 30 years.
 
Last edited:
Please don't take this the wrong way, but what would be the benefit of this to you if it looks the same either way?

Many people preferred the multi-piece design of you previous V2s, when once the saber was assembled and the neck prevented from rotating by gaffers tape was identical in outward appearance to the uni-body. And yet, having the correct hollow internals, ability to separate the saber, having the correct weight and balance as the original prop are HUGE positives for some, and the reason they went with your multi-piece V2 designs vs. Solo's Hold's FX-ready sabers.

Roman chose not to jettison his original OB1 sabers once he had his hollow effects versions ready for sale. He knew that many folks would still want a reproduction that was accurate on both the outside and inside so that these buyers could hold something of identical overall construction as the original, with its weight and balance.

Many folks prefer to have a Graflex replica with working internals to know that it's not just the outside that is accurate, but the inside parts as well. You'll note that when Roman did a poll of how many folks felt it was important to have a real working Graflex replica vs. just one that looked like a Graflex outwardly, the majority preferred a replica that was a Graflex through and through.

So I guess I prefer a replica that doesn't just LOOK like what Mark Hamill held on the set of ROTJ (having the correct outward dimensions), but also FEELS like what he held (number of parts, partially hollow for motor, etc., but not overly-hollow for FX, and the associated correct weight of the overall saber).

Nothing against your work. The model looks fantastic. Just trying my best to answer your question.
 
This thread is more than 4 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