ANH Darth Vader Helmet

[RKW]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SithLord @ Jan 3 2007, 08:49 PM) [snapback]1389806[/snapback]</div>

I posted this one...same dome...but I could make a comparison with a front view of the GH and that front view I posted of the UK ANH.
[/b]

I mainly interested in seeing the amount of air between the dome sides and the faceplate which is why I need to see a frontal shot for that. If you're happy you already have a pic of a GH at similar angles and focal lengths then great post that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SithLord @ Jan 3 2007, 08:49 PM) [snapback]1389806[/snapback]</div>

Also see my previous post:

This faceplate is larger than any fan helmet derived from the 20th Century faceplate (which is not surprising given it's an offshoot from ESB) and also nearly identical to the GH ANH master faceplate in terms of size.[/b]

By that I meant is that the 20th C is an offshoot so it will be (and is) smaller than an original ESB...
[/b]

Well that's the paragraph of yours that made me unsure if you're saying this new casting is a bit smaller or a bit larger than the GH. I'm assuming you mean a bit smaller as this new casting will also be an offshoot of an original ESB or perhaps even later ROTJ. Correct??

 

[voice in the crowd]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SithLord @ Jan 3 2007, 08:36 PM) [snapback]1389799[/snapback]</div>

We could refer to it as the UK ANH for now...or the SL ANH :lol
[/b]

How about calling it Ghost Hostess as it makes a great partner to the Host

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RKW @ Jan 3 2007, 04:06 PM) [snapback]1389817[/snapback]</div>

Well that's the paragraph of yours that made me unsure if you're saying this new casting is a bit smaller or a bit larger than the GH. I'm assuming you mean a bit smaller as this new casting will also be an offshoot of an original ESB or perhaps even later ROTJ. Correct??
[/b]

By nearly identical I mean they are very very close but the thing is that these are really two very different sources of helmet and very different periods of time as well. I wouldn't expect them to be the same size actually. This casting is not close to ESB size (it is smaller), and I don't have original ROTJ size to compare it with, but I'm guessing it's more on par with ROTJ size. This is an ANH faceplate, no question about it...but a smaller one. You can measure an Elstree or GH ROTJ and get an ideal of how big the faceplates are in proportion to the helmets...although those will be smaller as well than an original ROTJ. It's helmet mate is actually a ROTJ...so that's also what suggests it as being from that time. Even if you look at the screen ROTJ...the faceplate looks smaller than in ESB or ANH...at least it does to me.

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(voice in the crowd @ Jan 3 2007, 04:13 PM) [snapback]1389819[/snapback]</div>

How about calling it Ghost Hostess as it makes a great partner to the Host
[/b]

:lol

 

[Too Much Garlic]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SithLord @ Jan 3 2007, 10:55 PM) [snapback]1389856[/snapback]</div>

It's helmet mate is actually a ROTJ...so that's also what suggests it as being from that time. Even if you look at the screen ROTJ...the faceplate looks smaller than in ESB or ANH...at least it does to me.
[/b]

So, you're saying there's a dome accompanying this thing too?

 

[RKW]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SithLord @ Jan 3 2007, 09:55 PM) [snapback]1389856[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RKW @ Jan 3 2007, 04:06 PM) [snapback]1389817[/snapback]

Well that's the paragraph of yours that made me unsure if you're saying this new casting is a bit smaller or a bit larger than the GH. I'm assuming you mean a bit smaller as this new casting will also be an offshoot of an original ESB or perhaps even later ROTJ. Correct??
[/b]

By nearly identical I mean they are very very close but the thing is that these are really two very different sources of helmet and very different periods of time as well. I wouldn't expect them to be the same size actually. This casting is not close to ESB size (it is smaller), and I don't have original ROTJ size to compare it with, but I'm guessing it's more on par with ROTJ size. This is an ANH faceplate, no question about it...but a smaller one. You can measure an Elstree or GH ROTJ and get an ideal of how big the faceplates are in proportion to the helmets...although those will be smaller as well than an original ROTJ. It's helmet mate is actually a ROTJ...so that's also what suggests it as being from that time. Even if you look at the screen ROTJ...the faceplate looks smaller than in ESB or ANH...at least it does to me.
[/b][/quote]

See now this is what frustrates me on the whole size debate. You say two very different sources but ultimately it's only the ANH helmet that is the source. So we have the DJ casting which is the closest thing we know of at the moment to the original ANH which it seems only you have access to its measurements. Now you've said in the past that the GH is very very close in size to the DJ, not sure if you ever mentioned if it was larger/smaller but its been your belief along with others that the GH is closest generationally to the original ANH. We've got to atleast accept though that the GH has to be a few generations from the original source to account for clean up etc. So now you say that this latest casting which appears to come from the other end of the spectrum in the trilogy is also very very close in size to the GH and again we must also assume this casting is a generation or two from the original ESB/ROTJ source. So would I be correct in thinking that there has been very little noticeable casting shrinkage over the years? Nothing that couldn't be attributed to paint thickness, bondo/sanding and how quick it was removed from the mould? Do you think we are all giving too much meaning to the millimeter differences in castings?

 

[GINO]

I would say absolutely. It would take a lot of recastings (done very clumsily) to make a noticable difference in size. This whole bigger vs. smaller debate between generations is pointless.

 

[Ghost Host]

I guess that depends on what someone means by "noticeable". A measureable difference... yes, generally. Noticeable to the eye sitting on a table, I'd tend to agree with you. Not usually noticable, from one generation to the next.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GINO @ Jan 3 2007, 04:02 PM) [snapback]1389942[/snapback]</div>

I would say absolutely. It would take a lot of recastings (done very clumsily) to make a noticable difference in size. This whole bigger vs. smaller debate between generations is pointless.
[/b]

 

[GINO]

Anything less than a 1/16" is in my opinion ridiculous to be worked up over.
I think it's very difficult to measure things like a vader helmet to determine shrinkage especially because there is so much that can happen during and after de-molding that can widen or narrow specific areas. In polyester based resin (what most fiberglass vader helmets are made of) post cure and creep can cause a lot of variance in between parts from the very same mold.

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RKW @ Jan 3 2007, 04:06 PM) [snapback]1389817[/snapback]</div>

I mainly interested in seeing the amount of air between the dome sides and the faceplate which is why I need to see a frontal shot for that. If you're happy you already have a pic of a GH at similar angles and focal lengths then great post that.

[/b]

Here ya go.

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RKW @ Jan 3 2007, 06:20 PM) [snapback]1389912[/snapback]</div>

See now this is what frustrates me on the whole size debate. You say two very different sources but ultimately it's only the ANH helmet that is the source. So we have the DJ casting which is the closest thing we know of at the moment to the original ANH which it seems only you have access to its measurements. Now you've said in the past that the GH is very very close in size to the DJ, not sure if you ever mentioned if it was larger/smaller but its been your belief along with others that the GH is closest generationally to the original ANH. We've got to atleast accept though that the GH has to be a few generations from the original source to account for clean up etc. So now you say that this latest casting which appears to come from the other end of the spectrum in the trilogy is also very very close in size to the GH and again we must also assume this casting is a generation or two from the original ESB/ROTJ source. So would I be correct in thinking that there has been very little noticeable casting shrinkage over the years? Nothing that couldn't be attributed to paint thickness, bondo/sanding and how quick it was removed from the mould? Do you think we are all giving too much meaning to the millimeter differences in castings?
[/b]

Sorry to see you so frustrated.

I've explained the size relationships and they are based on sampling over 25 different helmets. That's a relevant sampling size if you know anything about statistics. You look for a distribution about the mean and for skewness in the distribution. If there's a question of continuity among helmets of a similar source, those measurements bare themselves out as being accurate. It's not rocket science, it's population sampling. Have you actually sat down and measured anything? You are looking for logical inconsistencies when there are none.

Here it is from largest to smallest.

1. ANH original

2. DJ ANH

3. GH ANH

4. UK ANH

 

[SithLord]

One more view...

 

[GINO]

You are missing the point. How do you go about measuring a vader facemask in the first place? Width of the neck? Cheek corner to cheek corner? Length of cheek tube?
Things like neck width and height are going to vary up to .25" for helmets coming from the same mold because those areas are the most subject to distortion and creep.
Areas like cheek corner to cheek corner are your best bet for an accurate measurement, but that distance is so small that even with 5 generations of helmet shrinkage, the difference will be minimal at best.

The whole reason I'm even responding to this thread is because I hate to see people try to validate the pedigree of something based on a flawed method of judgement.

People seriously interested in accurate vader helmet lineage and pedigree should be less concerned with "measurements" and more concerned with specific tells and sculptural details.

 

[Ghost Host]

Yikes, that would have to be an extreme example. I doubt if I've ever seen parts vary like that.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GINO @ Jan 3 2007, 06:57 PM) [snapback]1390045[/snapback]</div>

Things like neck width and height are going to vary up to .25" for helmets coming from the same mold because those areas are the most subject to distortion and creep.details.
[/b]

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GINO @ Jan 3 2007, 09:57 PM) [snapback]1390045[/snapback]</div>

You are missing the point. How do you go about measuring a vader facemask in the first place? Width of the neck? Cheek corner to cheek corner? Length of cheek tube?
Things like neck width and height are going to vary up to .25" for helmets coming from the same mold because those areas are the most subject to distortion and creep.
Areas like cheek corner to cheek corner are your best bet for an accurate measurement, but that distance is so small that even with 5 generations of helmet shrinkage, the difference will be minimal at best.

The whole reason I'm even responding to this thread is because I hate to see people try to validate the pedigree of something based on a flawed method of judgement.

People seriously interested in accurate vader helmet lineage and pedigree should be less concerned with "measurements" and more concerned with specific tells and sculptural details.
[/b]

What is flawed is that you are assuming there are no differences when there are. It's not a matter of judgement, it is a matter of picking up a set of calipers and doing the measurements. And yes it is a matter of knowing what to measure as yes certain features are more susceptible to variation like the rear of the neck.

And this has nothing to do with validating a helmet. I'm showing a new faceplate. I'm telling its size relationship in relation to other helmets. It's that simple. Does it look like it's from an original ANH to you? If so then what is the problem?

 

[GINO]

I certainly have and with some of my own pieces. (That was a long long time ago before I knew what I was doing though.) Caused by over kicking the resin or removing the part before it has had proper time to cure in the mold. Stuff that commonly happens with unexperienced people or people in a rush (like a prop house).


I wasn't attacking you so the potshots aren't really necessary.

 

[SithLord]

Ok I'll back off...but I encourage you to do the measurements.

 

[ROBOSTEVE 0671]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SithLord @ Jan 4 2007, 02:11 AM) [snapback]1390018[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(RKW @ Jan 3 2007, 04:06 PM) [snapback]1389817[/snapback]

I mainly interested in seeing the amount of air between the dome sides and the faceplate which is why I need to see a frontal shot for that. If you're happy you already have a pic of a GH at similar angles and focal lengths then great post that.

[/b]

Here ya go.

[/b][/quote]

Great shots there Thomas :thumbsup you can clearly see there are some differences between these two helmets. The angle of the mouth vents, the placement of the Thumbnail upper check slots and the curves of the triangle cheeks below the slots if that makes sense? and thats a tjsut a few seconds glance, Nice find.. Look forward to hearing and seeing more on this helmet.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

Just a thought in this measurement debate - how many have measured two or more helmets from the same maker? Theoretically these would be 100% identical right? But even the originals vary in their measurements, as stated by vadermania, so how can a comparison between fan-helmets be viable unless these helmets' source measurements are taken into account as well? Or am I just not getting it?

 

[darthvaderv]

Exactly. Even if say 4 helmets were made from the same mould etc.. would they really be 100% identical? No.

To the untrained eye? yes, absolutely.

The measurements are going to vary and I agree with both what Thomas and Gino said even though it's a conflicting view.

The measurement difference for most fanmades is varible and can be often noticable on some. This will be much more significant with multi-castings and generations as mentioned. We have seen many fanmades displayed next to each other comparing their sizes and measurements but is this really the benchmark for validity? Well if DJ's helmet is the biggest next to the ANH and it stands as the best than, yes, according to that method?

The whole bigger is better is not so IMO. Accuracy and the overall look is more important. I appreciate that noone wants a pin head Vader as their pride and joy but meaurements only go so far. It is still of interest to me don't get me wrong but fractional differences between props at the top end of the market are often minimal.