Opinion Thread Vader Experts, what's the origin...
- Thread starter propsculptor
- Start date
- Status
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
By all means, RabidEwok, voice your opinions. All I ask is why are you crusading for GH when he says it is not his helmet? It looks nothing like a GH. The neck is more narrow, it extends down more and is cleaner. Could some of the cleanliness come from bondoing over other pieces? It sure could have but explain the thickness of the neck and the width of the face, overall.
If the helmet looks like anything, I have to agree with GH that it is closer to a Fiberdyne than anything else that has been posted thus far.
If the helmet looks like anything, I have to agree with GH that it is closer to a Fiberdyne than anything else that has been posted thus far.
KevVader
Sr Member
Well, the way that I see it...if Propsculptor got the OK to cast it from the guy who sold it to him, then it is not "recasting"....correct? Now whether or not the seller got that approval....who knows? But how far back do you gotta check?
At the end of the day....all fan made Vader helmets are ultimately recast....the issue seems to be whether or not "permission" was granted to cast it.....
At the end of the day....all fan made Vader helmets are ultimately recast....the issue seems to be whether or not "permission" was granted to cast it.....
Studio Stasis
Sr Member
Well, permission to cast or not, the previous owner might have had a standard GH and modified it to sell it as some special helmet with pseudo provable provinance, right? How the heck would anyone know?
The only way to really know what you have is to call on experts to help sort it out, or take the word of the previous owner on faith that it is more than just a general casting of someone elses work, cleaned up.
I am as curious as anyone when it comes to finding out the differences/similarities between this helmet and previous helmets, but im no expert. When asked for any knowledge on who some resident RPF vader experts are by propsuclptor, I pointed him in the direction of sithlord, gino and few others since they seem to know their share about vader stuff.
Propsculptor seemed careful enough not to just gallop his way to the prop board to offer something when there was only the word of a previous owner to justify the origin of his helmet.
My main point to Rabid Ewok is how lovely it is to see someone publically stirring the pot when the person offering the helmet seems to have attempted to get previous owner permission, RPF mod permission, and even FAN permission to justify the originality of this piece before doing a single thing with it, while paying a heavy price for it in the first place (based on claims of its value).
The thing that bugs me is the direct jabs at propsulptor, given the circumstances. If you want to crusade your cause 'til your little heart is content, go ahead. Personally, I just think it makes you look like an ass.
The only way to really know what you have is to call on experts to help sort it out, or take the word of the previous owner on faith that it is more than just a general casting of someone elses work, cleaned up.
I am as curious as anyone when it comes to finding out the differences/similarities between this helmet and previous helmets, but im no expert. When asked for any knowledge on who some resident RPF vader experts are by propsuclptor, I pointed him in the direction of sithlord, gino and few others since they seem to know their share about vader stuff.
Propsculptor seemed careful enough not to just gallop his way to the prop board to offer something when there was only the word of a previous owner to justify the origin of his helmet.
My main point to Rabid Ewok is how lovely it is to see someone publically stirring the pot when the person offering the helmet seems to have attempted to get previous owner permission, RPF mod permission, and even FAN permission to justify the originality of this piece before doing a single thing with it, while paying a heavy price for it in the first place (based on claims of its value).
The thing that bugs me is the direct jabs at propsulptor, given the circumstances. If you want to crusade your cause 'til your little heart is content, go ahead. Personally, I just think it makes you look like an ass.
I think we can all appreciate what recasting is, and it's definition has been founded on the basis of permission or no permission. I agree with animetronic that Propsculptor has made an effort to bring this helmet to light, to understand where it came from and what it might be and in doing so has been entirely up front about it. No one has staked a claim to it, not even the person who did the modifications, so permission is not really an issue, nor did it seem to be as part of Propsculptor's deal in obtaining the helmet. If someone later on came forward here (Jeff?, Don Post?) to object to copies being made...there's the problem...then it could be considered recast and it would be a situation perhaps not too dissimilar to what happened with the GH helmet...
regards,
T
regards,
T
WinstonWolf359
Master Member
I wanted to clarify a few issues and while I'm at it ask everyone invloved to keep this discussion civil. There have already been a few comments teetering towards the edge, and for no reason.
Propsculptor came to us before this thread was started asking for our advice about this piece. It was the suggestion of the staff for him to start this thread so the community could discuss the lineage of the piece and pool its knowledge base to come to some kind of conclusion, or at least consensus.
It seems reasonable to say that propsculptor has been very up front and forthcoming about the lineage and chain of ownership of this helmet, and it seems the "permission to copy" issue has been examined already to the best of our ability.
One of the issues that complicates situations like this is when the item in question has roots in a screen used piece. The RPF's Code of Conduct makes exceptions for screen used pieces, and factors in qualifications relating to ownership and permission, but it's impossible to determine sometimes just how far back that chain of permission has to go for it to be "acceptable." That is why we suggested to propsculptor to start this thread, hoping that the dialogue might flesh out a consensus of opinion on this piece.
Our community has benefited from the knowledge gained and opportunity to obtain pieces derived from screen used items. The problem is that screen used pieces don't fall as neatly into the broad "don't recast another's work" that our community standards speak of. In the case of copies of screen used, or reworked copies from screen used items, the question becomes WHO gets to claim ownership of a piece like that? If someone reworks or cleans up or somehow modifies an original piece or casting, does "ownership" transfer to the one doing the cleaning up? Does modifying something you didnÂ’t create yourself give you veto power over its availability in the future? If so, for how long, five years, ten years, or perhaps no limit at all? Or, do screen used pieces have a certain life of their own, subject to examination on a case-by-case basis?
When considering questions like these I hope you can appreciate how difficult it can be to find answers that will satisfy the community and be fair to both artists and those wishing to share items from their collection. These issues have been discussed and dealt with in the past, which is why the RPF Code of Conduct included exceptions for screen used items, and why the staff frequently chooses to allow the community to decide for itself how to judge the trading of copies of screen used pieces.
I hope this helps, and possibly stimulates further discussion both about this piece specifically, and possibly screen used items in general.
-Matt
Propsculptor came to us before this thread was started asking for our advice about this piece. It was the suggestion of the staff for him to start this thread so the community could discuss the lineage of the piece and pool its knowledge base to come to some kind of conclusion, or at least consensus.
It seems reasonable to say that propsculptor has been very up front and forthcoming about the lineage and chain of ownership of this helmet, and it seems the "permission to copy" issue has been examined already to the best of our ability.
One of the issues that complicates situations like this is when the item in question has roots in a screen used piece. The RPF's Code of Conduct makes exceptions for screen used pieces, and factors in qualifications relating to ownership and permission, but it's impossible to determine sometimes just how far back that chain of permission has to go for it to be "acceptable." That is why we suggested to propsculptor to start this thread, hoping that the dialogue might flesh out a consensus of opinion on this piece.
Our community has benefited from the knowledge gained and opportunity to obtain pieces derived from screen used items. The problem is that screen used pieces don't fall as neatly into the broad "don't recast another's work" that our community standards speak of. In the case of copies of screen used, or reworked copies from screen used items, the question becomes WHO gets to claim ownership of a piece like that? If someone reworks or cleans up or somehow modifies an original piece or casting, does "ownership" transfer to the one doing the cleaning up? Does modifying something you didnÂ’t create yourself give you veto power over its availability in the future? If so, for how long, five years, ten years, or perhaps no limit at all? Or, do screen used pieces have a certain life of their own, subject to examination on a case-by-case basis?
When considering questions like these I hope you can appreciate how difficult it can be to find answers that will satisfy the community and be fair to both artists and those wishing to share items from their collection. These issues have been discussed and dealt with in the past, which is why the RPF Code of Conduct included exceptions for screen used items, and why the staff frequently chooses to allow the community to decide for itself how to judge the trading of copies of screen used pieces.
I hope this helps, and possibly stimulates further discussion both about this piece specifically, and possibly screen used items in general.
-Matt
Hope it's ok to continue discussion (sheepish grin :angel )....all very good and difficult questions. Just a point of inquiry.... I actually didn't know that the CoC made a specific exception for screen used pieces since the section on recasting doesn't specify this (?). The exception itself raises more questions in my mind...could "screen-used" also include original production pieces that are not screen-used? How about original pieces...that is to say...first generation pieces or pieces from original production molds that were not made during the production? If I have original molds, for example, do I have any say regarding the 1st generation castings that come from those molds? Would first generation be considered "original", or does production use define originality of a prop? To me, the original prop "exception" can be as potentially thorny as the issues surrounding under what conditions it's acceptable to copy (recast or remold) a replica. :confused
Well, just food for thought...again these are questions I have in my own mind at least, perhaps topics for other threads...
WinstonWolf359
Master Member
No please, like I said I'd hoped my comments would encourage more discussion, not end it.
Most sections of the CoC are expanded upon in the FAQ, but I think based on your comments Thomas, it might be safe to say they're not as well read.
The whole recasting FAQ entry is located here
http://www.rpf.invisionzone.com/index.php?...&CODE=01&HID=21
but the part about screen used items reads:
In general I think "made for production" items or items from the original mold probably would fall under the same "gray area" as honest-to-God screen used stuff. But that's further proving the difficulty in dealing with items like these.
Another reason why I think pieces made for production are held somewhat apart from other items is for the simple fact that in some cases theyÂ’ve been out there for SO long, and been through so many peopleÂ’s hands that trying to claim any kind of control over a piece like that is hard.
In the case of ANH Vader helmets specifically that gate’s been open for what, 29 years? I don’t think ANY amount of trying is going to get THAT genie back into the bottle. That’s why I think trying to ascribe some kind of proprietary “control” or “ownership” over a piece like a Vader helmet to just one or a few people is kinda silly. No one here sculpted that ANH Vader all those years ago, so we’re ALL just along for the ride. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Most sections of the CoC are expanded upon in the FAQ, but I think based on your comments Thomas, it might be safe to say they're not as well read.
The whole recasting FAQ entry is located here
http://www.rpf.invisionzone.com/index.php?...&CODE=01&HID=21
but the part about screen used items reads:
In general I think "made for production" items or items from the original mold probably would fall under the same "gray area" as honest-to-God screen used stuff. But that's further proving the difficulty in dealing with items like these.
Another reason why I think pieces made for production are held somewhat apart from other items is for the simple fact that in some cases theyÂ’ve been out there for SO long, and been through so many peopleÂ’s hands that trying to claim any kind of control over a piece like that is hard.
In the case of ANH Vader helmets specifically that gate’s been open for what, 29 years? I don’t think ANY amount of trying is going to get THAT genie back into the bottle. That’s why I think trying to ascribe some kind of proprietary “control” or “ownership” over a piece like a Vader helmet to just one or a few people is kinda silly. No one here sculpted that ANH Vader all those years ago, so we’re ALL just along for the ride. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
I did not know that Propsculptor had contacted the Mods before posting here. I was just surprised that an interest thread was posted so soon after the origins thread, making me feel that the origin of the helmet was somehow not as important as making copies and selling casts. I based my whole argument on the fact that it seemed as if he was planning to sell, regardless of what was figured out in the origins thread and whether he had permission from the original maker of the helmt. If this information had been shared up front - which I believe they weren't - then I wouldn't have brought up the recasting issue at all, nor having brought attention to the interest thread appearing so soon after the origin thread was started.
If I have offended anyone, then I do apologize. I was just trying to get a few things cleared up, which they now have... and I got the answers to the questions I had.
It is clear for all to see that it is NOT a GH helmet, but definitely a member of the GH ANH Vader Family Tree. There's no doubt about that. All I did was try to defend the maker of this helmet from being recast, but seeing now, as this isn't the case since the maker apparently gave his approval for copies to be made, I will back down and let things continue as they were.
If I have offended anyone, then I do apologize. I was just trying to get a few things cleared up, which they now have... and I got the answers to the questions I had.
It is clear for all to see that it is NOT a GH helmet, but definitely a member of the GH ANH Vader Family Tree. There's no doubt about that. All I did was try to defend the maker of this helmet from being recast, but seeing now, as this isn't the case since the maker apparently gave his approval for copies to be made, I will back down and let things continue as they were.
RKW
Sr Member
I'm just curious whether Propsculpter feels that hes been ripped off/scammed for paying so much for this helmet. I remember Gino being convinced about his helmets provenance but never openly discussing it. We also appear to have a discrepancy between what Fettpride considers this new helmets history is and the original owner Greg. I've shown this helmet has had more face lifts than Stalones mom and has been evolving for years yet this helmet is still commanding big $$$$ amongst collectors :confused
Seems to me like it's one of the biggest prop scams in the community thats been maintained for years because of the secrecy. Why pay so much money for something that's so far removed from an original that it would be cheaper to just purchase a DP and modify that?
With any luck Propsculpter can sell enough of these things to recoup his money.
Seems to me like it's one of the biggest prop scams in the community thats been maintained for years because of the secrecy. Why pay so much money for something that's so far removed from an original that it would be cheaper to just purchase a DP and modify that?
With any luck Propsculpter can sell enough of these things to recoup his money.
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
"I've shown"? Not to sound inflamatory at all, but the closest picture I have seen, comparison wise, is the Fiberdyne. Hell, there are discrepancies between this one and that one as well. The reason that this helmet is alledgedly commanding big dollars is the look of it. I like the way it looks, myself.
We go on and on about how screen accurate this or that ANH helmet is, but without the actual helmet in hand, it is impossible to tell. The only thing people can tell is whether or not a piece catches their fancy. That is the interest in this helmet.
Star Wars Helmets
Sr Member
RKW - Presumably people will be tempted by this helmet given its accuracy and provenance. I'm not going for one myself but can see why people are interested.
Reading your post, one could get the impression that you were trying to undermine Propsculpters new venture by suggesting he was "ripped off". That would be a shame as he seems to have done everything here in an "above board" way.
Cheers
Jez
RKW
Sr Member
I agree that Propsculpter is doing everything above board and hope he gets what he wants out of the project. I do personally feel he as well as others have probably been scammed into paying way too much money for this replica.
One of Gino's favourite sayings is "accuracy is not subjective" and this is true in regards what is wrong with these helmets. If people can't see that this helmet looks like one of the many Jeff derivatives then they obviously haven't been studying them for very long or are blinded by loyalty.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
I agree, though, I find it strange that that information revealed in the pm wasn't made publicly available in the first place, so that many misconceptions and misunderstandings and bickering could have been avoided.
If it had been revealed from the get-go that the mods had been involved even before the topic was posted and the fact that it appears that the original maker allowed propsculptor to make copies, then there would have been no talk of recasting in this topic at all - at least not from me.
Am I right that that was never shared or did I miss some posts explaining this (prior to page 4+5.)?
Thanks for the clarification, Matt. I certainly agree that no one person can claim ownership over all examples of an original character helmet.
This is just directed to the forum in general...the way I look at it is that, for example, let's say someone has his own original TK helmet and so he can make a couple extra copies if he likes. If someone were to take one of those copies and recast it without that person's permission AND the original owner can show that the recast came originally from his helmet, then he has a say about the recasting. That would not mean, I am guessing, that he has a say about any TK helmet copy out there. From my point of view at least, if someone owns an original piece, and can show that _that_ particular prop was copied without their permission, they would have a say and it would be recasting. Now, this _should_ apply to Vader helmets as well since they were created during the same production as the TK helmets so long ago.
Then I ask myself could that not apply to a piece that was "unique" even though it was not an original prop? The problem there I understand is trying to define what makes a replica unique or from a particular source. Artistic creation by default makes a piece "unique" and so making copies of it without permission is also considered recasting. It's much easier to define what an original prop is.
For example, if I have an original production lightsaber, and I see a copy of that lightsaber out there, I can't cry foul about it unless I can show that the lightsaber copy came from my particular piece. Let's say a licensed prop replica producer molds an original lightsaber. They then make a resin model and modify that model and make molds of it. Then, someone makes a 1st generation casting from the licensed producer's molds. Now that 1st gen casting could be an "original" in terms of being the licensed producer's work that they've been given permission to produce. I've asked myself whether that could be considered on par with an original prop since it was produced under contract to the rights holder of the original production piece? Based on the CoC probably not which is too bad because some people go out of their way to try to obtain something that is unique for their collection only to have it copied within the acceptable "grey area". :unsure Another example of a grey area would be helmets coming from original ILM molds (I know of at least three examples). Those are not production originals, but they would have unique sources. Not anyone can just walk into ILM and get a copy of a helmet from their molds. Under the present CoC guidelines, those collectors would not be protected. Why then show or share their pieces here? The CoC recasting guidelines are meant to protect owners of original props and artists of original work from unauthorized copying. But what if I have an original prop, make copies to sell, and then sell the original? Where does that leave the new owner? Does the previous owner still have rights to use the molds he took from his original to make more copies?
These are all issues I've gone over in my mind time and again to try and sort it out...
regards,
T
- Status
Similar threads
