Is this passing off a replica trooper helmet as original?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wanted to do a run yes, that proves nothing, it never happened, it was no secret. The moulds were destroyed.

Can I please see some evidence that this is a replica? Let's have a point by point analysis showing why it is a replica.

Is anyone else getting tired of this nonsense:lol

Joe


Ok, we'll do it your way.

Going to take me a little while to put these pm's and emails together.
Hold on.


.
 
If he made molds of the helmet when he owned it and was going to offer replicas from those molds, the problem would have been what?

Keith.

No problem at all. That's not what this is about.
Although I think it was bad form to have made molds with the intention of producing a bunch of replicas and then sell it to propstore without letting them know.

.
 
No problem at all. That's not what this is about.
Although I think it was bad form to have made molds with the intention of producing a bunch of replicas and then sell it to propstore without letting them know.

.

That is not true, as I said please email the new owner.

Mods please lock this crazy thread?

Joe
 
First you say, start a new thread, then you say lock it?
Don't you think people would be interested to see what the emails/pms say?

There's a lot, so it's going to take me a little time to put them all together in a readable post.
Just hang in there.


.
 
Let me get this straight Gino you're entire thinking that this is a replica is soley based on the fact that Joe previously owned another helmet which you say he has replicated and is passing it off as another original ?
Is that all you have really ?
If there is no other evidence this threads pretty pointless isn't it ?
Even if Joe did plan at some point to produce some casts of the helmet he sold and made some forms if you have no proof this helmet was pulled from those forms then it's simply one persons word against another.

Joe warm the oven up and make me one of those will you ? :D
 
I am happy to do a side by side analysis with my old helmet to put this BS to bed.
 
Last edited:
If he made molds of the helmet when he owned it and was going to offer replicas from those molds, the problem would have been what?

Keith.

It depends on if the buyer was of the belief that there had been no molds made, or the original was completely as is original and not modified or altered in any way. I know that if I bought an original helmet from Star Wars, that I would want it to be unique. Especially with what prices these originals command.
 
It depends on if the buyer was of the belief that there had been no molds made, or the original was completely as is original and not modified or altered in any way. I know that if I bought an original helmet from Star Wars, that I would want it to be unique. Especially with what prices these originals command.

I think you need to read my post again. A buyer of the helmet when it was offered for sale does not have anything to do with my question.

Keith.
 
It depends on if the buyer was of the belief that there had been no molds made, or the original was completely as is original and not modified or altered in any way. I know that if I bought an original helmet from Star Wars, that I would want it to be unique. Especially with what prices these originals command.

Really ? i seriously doubt any amount of replicas would adversely affect the worth of the original because the original is still exactly that, the real deal.
How many prints of the Mona Lisa do you suppose exist ? doesn't make the original worthless or cheap :)

The other point about wanting it to be unique i can concede as that would be personal preference but to me it wouldn't matter squat because i would still have the real thing.
 
Really ? i seriously doubt any amount of replicas would adversely affect the worth of the original because the original is still exactly that, the real deal.
How many prints of the Mona Lisa do you suppose exist ? doesn't make the original worthless or cheap :)

The other point about wanting it to be unique i can concede as that would be personal preference but to me it wouldn't matter squat because i would still have the real thing.

And on that last point, I probably would too concede when it comes to Star Wars stuff. Especially if the original was in good shape. I can tell everyone here is pretty passionate about props in general but Star Wars props carry a hell of a lot more weight as so many of us grew up with it.
 
Gino = nuts, who cares? Unless He is selling this helmet to you as an original and you have some evidence to the contrary besides very loose speculation then again who cares

Biker
 
I think there are a lot of people who would care very much if someone were to try to pass off a replica as an original.
Apparently, you don't have friends who collect screen used pieces.

.
 
I collect screen used pieces. That is what a majority of my collection is. If he thinks it is an original who cares what anyone else thinks. Unless you want to buy this and he doesnt have good backround of the piece who cares?
 
I think there are a great deal of people who would care.
Who's to say this piece won't eventually find it's way to an auction one day.

.
 
As with any Star Wars screen used prop if you know anything if there is not good history of the item that is the buyers fault. But as I understand it this is not for sale.

So we are quibbling over the potential future hmmm....
 
I think if I can help prevent someone from being taken advantage of, of course I'll do it. I wouldn't want to be the poor sucker who dishes out a ton of money only to find out that they bought a fake.

.
 
I have an idea...

Let's have JoeR run a contest thread.

Each person who wishes to participate will PM JoeR on what they think the specific background behind the helmet is.

JoeR will give a cool prize to the person who guesses the closest to the actual background surrounding this whole helmet fiasco.

But when a lucky member guesses correctly, JoeR will ask that the contest thread be closed immediately and will not speak of it again.

I think that would cool.
 
I don't necessarily agree with Gino's opinions or methods at times, but I do respect him for his convictions and quest for truth. Just because he is abrasive and confrontational is no reason to disregard his opinions.

If what Gino is saying is true, it doesn't necessarily mean Joe is lying at all. It does however bring forth some pointed questions that do indeed need some clarification and debate; a big dose of evidence from both sides would be welcomed as well.

I believe that Gino's intention here is genuine and is being done to preserve the integrity of the hobby, not because of some sour grapes from a run that never happened. If it is sour grapes, I agree this is all in bad form. As real/replica prop collectors though, none of us should run from scrutiny of any "screen/production used" prop, no matter who owns the prop or who is leveling the scrutiny. How many times do we need to find out that greed and ego have caused people to be fraudulent and outright criminal with regards to these collectibles?

I honestly hope when this is all over with that there is some consensus and that Joe has actually presented us with a pristine production used ROTJ. Until I see more, I'll keep an open mind and withhold judgement.
 
Gino, as you have posted Joe's PM's/replies to you, maybe you should post your PM's to him, so we can get a better idea of what the conversations were about.

Maybe this whole thing is leading to accurate 1st generation replicas of a ROTJ helmet being offered for the first time ever. That would be a good thing wouldn't it?

Keith.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top