Jump to content

HELP: NEW (maybe) DISCREPANCY IN LIGHTSABER PART!


Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

 

So I know this is not part of our normal discussions, and please feel free to move this to a more appropriate section if this is not. I need some help/opinions on a possible discrepancy I've found with a piece on the Obi Wan ANH Lightsaber!

 

The piece in question is the Pommel or Handwheel made by Armitage Shanks. The blocks on the sides slope down toward the front a back, and if you notice, the front slope is much closer to a 90* angle while the back slope is much shallower. There are other versions of "original" handwheels that have the opposite, with the shallower slope toward the ANM2 booster. There is a picture below that shows various pictures of this discrepancy, and was hoping someone might have more info. Without linking or mentioning specific people, several of the "incorrect" versions as I see it have been sold for hundreds upon hundreds of dollars in the past year alone, though all the "original parts" builds I have seen have the correct version, so no bubble bursting thank god. Anyway, thank you guys in advance for the help, and please see below for the pics and why I am posting this here. Great story...

 

lightsaber%20discrepancy_zps7xhbzkde.png

 

In the interest of full disclosure, I would post this on the RPF but I was banned before even posting a message (yes, I was in the middle of drafting it), which was intended to get clarification/in all honesty call out a very prominent member of these forums for giving self-contradicting and shady (to say the least) answers to people wondering how his information is "unquestionably better than everyone else's," and how his reproductions were "unquestionably more accurate than everyone else's." I'm sure you all know who this person is. The message itself was very straightforward and addressed the issues of lack of proof and and why this person refused to say why he would not provide proof (i.e. even if the person had signed a non-disclosure he could have legally said he signed a non-disclosure as the reason for this. It seems this person is not nearly as active anymore as people have understood these issues, but is nonetheless connected to the people who run the RPF, so I got the short end of the stick. Sucks, but that's how they run things.

 

As such, I might ask/beg someone who has interest in the matter might post this to the RPF website on my behalf, though you need not credit me or anything, and maybe PM me with any info received, or a link to the thread as I could still view it but not post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...