Thanks to the Daetrin for reopening this thread
I?d like to add my views to this thread since I feel I may have some relevant views on this subject. As a point to note, my views are, though clearly influenced by numerous discussion in the past with Andrew Ainsworth, are also based on numerous other relevant experiences ? not least having handled a large number of original helmets over the past few years.
Firstly I would be wary of placing too greater emphasis on bumps/texture patterns on the original ANH/ESB helmets. Certainly there ARE some bumps which exist on more than one helmet (and possibly most or all helmets), but I don?t believe they are as profuse or observable as some might suggest.
As an indication, here?s a hi res pic of a couple of helmets, side by side in the same light and though there are some common markings (like on the trapezoid) ? they?re not particularly evident. I fact if anything its more apparent the bumps on one helmets that isn?t on the other.
On the second diagram I?ve lined up two front trapezoids from two different helmets, again in my opinion markings on one helmet AREN?T on another.
As a background to this its worth understanding the history of the original Stunt helmet manufacture process, back in 1976. As everyone knows they?re made of HDPE, which is actually not what you would consider as the ?ideal? choice for a helmet since its not considered the most forgiving material. However it is very flexible and unlike the ABS available at the time allowed a greater degree of undercut (as well as adhering to the troublesome male-female-male curves on the rear swoop). So the Stunt helmets were produced by AA, and according to his notes were not paid for in advance (nor an order received), hence he was in a position where he would not be paid for anything that wasn?t used. Because of this he used the available material he had in stock (the HDPE used for making fish ponds and other garden ornaments), and also probably the same vac former that was used to create the garden ornaments.
In summary therefore, the backdrop to this reveals a working process in 1976 that was not designed to yield high-quality helmets, and this extended to the moulds, the vac former, the material used, and the pace of production.
So to answer the questions, many of the bumps we see on HDPE helmets are irregular blemishes caused by the HDPE contorting as its heated, applied to the mould and then cooled and removed. My understanding is that the LESS surface definition present, the GREATER the contortions ? hence in essence why the back/cap is more irregular than the face.
But there clearly are some, REGULAR bumps that occur on more than one helmet, and these are caused by:
1) Contamination on the moulds. Evidence ? AA has said that they used the vac former which was previously used to create the fish ponds, made from vac forming HDPE over pieces of rock (resulting in bits flaking off)
2) Breakdown of the moulds. I do not believe the moulds were not made of a stable material like plaster or metal but instead some form of modelling material. Essentially the more the moulds were stressed and heated (through more frequent use), the more they would breakdown causing tiny ?eruptions? in the material ? showing up as bumps on the material vac formed over the top
3) Damage - This was a rush job. Helmets had to me made very quickly, often working through the night. The more the moulds were stressed and heated up the less easy it was to get the results required and the more likely they would have to cut the forms from the moulds. IMO this is a likely source of the damage to the back section of the helmet and the undercut
4) Bumps on the mould. Basically since these were background helmets I don?t believe a lot of attention was paid to them, and not surprisingly the back of them!. Though I?ve not seen the moulds (or to use the proper term ?tools?), I imagine they are cobbled together and may well include a number of ?foreign? objects that help form their structure. I?m hoping that as part of the LFL v SDS case we might finally see these moulds and will therefore gain a better understanding of their composition and how it affected the manufacture of the helmets.
Ultimately I don?t suppose anyone in 1976 could ever imagine that there would be a group of guys over 30 years later debating the intricate detail of these ?knocked together? plastic helmets :lol . I therefore bet that many of the bazaar processed they went through to make them (and many other items used in the films) are probably going to take us all by surprise
Hope this helps
Cheers
Jez
www.StarWarsHelmets.com
