NJ Farmer Helmet/Armor PIH discussion

[SithLord]

Well, let's first of all go through what I posted on TPD:

What was the main reason for thInking it wasn't original? If its been filled, sanded and given a completely new paint job couldn't there be any thing under there?

Simple answer is that if the dome is ROTJ how could it be a production ESB dome?

But let's have a more in depth answer based on comparisons I did when the Christie's helmet appeared. All images below referring to Christie's helmet or "Zine" refer to the same one in this PIH auction (they are the same helmet).

Teeth gaps are significantly wider on the PIH mask than an original ESB or an ESB promo mask (20th Century ESB):

The PIH casting is far too thick to be an original ESB:

The tooth depth on the PIH mask match those of the MOM ROTJ mask. So it is a ROTJ mask, not ESB.

If you were to look at the inside of an authentic NJ Farmer helmet, it has a white painted number, not a pink painted letter as in the PIH helmet. Furthermore, the pink painted letter is the same as a known tour helmet also in ownership at the time by Zine. There would be no reason to falsify an ID letter if it was an original helmet.

The mask in the auction has a mounting ring added that is not original, not production. It also has added undercut in the rear, and why is that? Because if it was something like a promo mask (just using the VP ANH as an example), there would be less undercut than an original ESB, so someone added undercut and the boundary of that undercut matches the boundary of the rear of a promo mask as seen in the 50% overlay. There is also absolutely no detail between the tusk tubes and that is indicative of a later casting, not from the production.

The PIH helmet itself (the dome), is ROTJ as clearly shown by the center ridge shape and merging of the center ridge with the widow's peak as seen below in comparisons of original ROTJ, ESB and the PIH (Christie's) helmet front widow's peak area:

Knowing what an authentic NJ Farmer mask looks like, we can see below in this comparison that the tusk tubes on the PIH mask are thinner at the convergence point like a later promo casting, and unlike the thicker tusk tube end seen on the original Paul Allen ESB stunt mask. Looking at the left side of the mouth triangle near the tusk tube, we see on the PIH mask curvature on the front edge, just like the later promo mask. Instead, that area shows up on both an original ESB stunt mask and an authentic ESB-based NJ Farmer mask as being straight. Then, also, if we look at the right side of the nose bridge on the PIH mask, it is thicker and straighter on its front and rear edges. In contast, on an original ESB stunt mask or an authentic NJ Farmer mask, or even on a later promo mask, the front edge has a pronounced curvature, the rear edge is straight and the entire nosebridge side is thinner. So this cannot be a Farmer mask from the time of ESB.

I could go on but you get the general idea. I would be even that upon measuring this mask, that it is nowhere near the size of an original ESB mask and that fact alone would discount the claim of its origin.

It looks nothing like an original ESB helmet. In fact, it is ROTJ. And it also has nothing in common with a known authentic helmet from NJ Farmer.

Now to address VaderVader's first post (welcome to the RPF by the way)

VaderVader

Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1
VaderVader has not been awarded enough reputation to matter.

Re: Profiles in History "Hollywood Auction" PDF now online
Lets keep 2012 with positive and logical discussions on Vader

can we not take the grief out in advance again.
You comment on things that you say stating your opinion as fact when its just your 2 year old opinion not ironclad proof.Just blurry screen grabs and comparing pics when one pic taken is shot in the distance which gives the perception that what you see is smaller and taking one close up and saying its fatter or bigger is not being correct or giving a proper example to compare with or being objective and then saying its murphys law is just wrong.

If you can discount with clear evidence what I've shown to be the case, then please by all means do. This is an open forum for discussion of authenticity of props.

It states the Darth Vader is what it is an Original production from the set of ESB ,if you read it, it comes with a letter from Nicholas J farmer himself which he confirms this is the original he got from Lucasfilm and some repairs he did to it.Not you or I have the right to say it isnt what it is.

Have you seen ESB and ROTJ? Have you seen Darth Vader in those films? How then could you possible say that it is an ESB helmet when it is not? It doesn't take an expert to see that either. I have not seen the letter from Farmer, I am only going by what I see.

Let all our viewers know that when a true farmer touring costume complete was being sold this past december at profiles you said it wasnt even a farmer touring one,which is the same one you saw in 2010 .You Said it wasnt that one that you thought it was from this owner when in fact you were wrong it was the same owner and you stated something that undermines your ability to qauntify what is what.

When did Farmer give the owner the letter stating its provenance? When he got the suit? If so, then why would the owner need to go to so many people asking whether it is original or not? And that is right, the one from November 2010 had many things about it that were not typical of a Farmer suit, but that wasn't in contention since the auction was vague enough to only suggest the suit parts might be production, but clearly stated the helmet was production when it was not. This is the same helmet in the PIH auction, so the story hasn't changed. Two years won't change the fact that it is still a ROTJ helmet.

Cut copying and pasteing and writing facts till your blue in the face doesnt make us intelligent but having the nuetrality and objectivity to search and see what if something is what it is and not be blind to be what all experts are is reasearching in a learning capacity and not a knocking one.

I am perfectly capable of writing something new, but it is simply about the same issue as before.

when the touiring Vader in December was being sold you said that it wasnt the same consignor it was someone diffrent but you were wrong.

Also it came with documentation from farmer and you doubted it basically calling farmer a liar.

I haven't seen the documentation. So how could I be calling Farmer a liar. I am referring to the helmet and what is apparent in regard to its features that indicate it as being either ESB or not, or something else.

So is another letter from Farmer himself and shipping documenattion from farmer isnt good enough for you will you stand up and call Farmer a liar.

Shipping documentation from where? LFL? Of the suit? I haven't seen the documentation. Perhaps yes PIH has and that is enough for them. But it is obvious that there are problems with the helmet.

From those who are close to farmer The fact is farmer doesnt trust you cause you twist what you like around to benefit your untruthful position that you are currently stating.

The photos I show do not lie. What Mr. Farmer thinks is not relevant to what this issue is about this helmet and armor.

Id be careful the road you are going down with all thats on the record with you.He doesnt want you bothering him as you have harrased him enough.He was vague cause he wanted you to leave him alone.

I consider that a personal threat. And please, let us all see what is on the record about me.

I have the emails with Farmer. Perhaps you would like to show where I harrassed him? If you do not have such evidence, that is libel.

So you cant tell touring apart from the one sold in december from another touring one that you looked at for another person ,you said it was his and you showed you cant tell what from what.

Not only is your English and grammar poor, but unless you name names I have no idea what you are talking about. There was a helmet sourced at DP that belonged to BM. Otherwise I was always fully aware that there were two suits owned by the owner in question here, if it is the same one, and by your writing style I assume it is.

but when an item is being sold you stand on your podium making unfounded facts not taking the high road to research and see that the piece it what it is and noone has the right to say without a doubt its not what it is.

Then why don't you demonstrate where my analysis is wrong? I am happy to entertain that and would admit if I was.

Its in poor taste that you take whats on the Propden and try to stir the pot over here.

No, I posted here first, then on the Prop Den. Check the dates. You are the one stirring the pot here, and forcing me to address your personal threat against me, forcing me to defend my assessment. But I am happy to do so.

One of your unfounded facts why you say its Rotj and not Esb was the filled in center strip on the dome,lets touch upon that One, our good friend steve sansweet has on his original vader head with a filled in cenetr strip so is his a fake also and not to mention the vader profiles sold with a letter from george lucas stating it was from Empire strikes back a few years ago the don bies one it has the same filled in center strip.

Why then don't you ask Don Bies which helmet is ROTJ and which is ESB. He is a member here. Steve Sansweet's Vader has a ROTJ helmet on it and if you look very carefully, the chestbox is also distinctly ROTJ, not ESB.

So my point on that is you are also calling george lucas a liar as well.you choose to be pesimistic in your findings and research and that makes not for a Great Expert on Props.

No, George Lucas is not a liar, he is just not able to tell the difference and everyone knows that.

FYI Also its illegal to use a person name here or anywhere in the public domain with clear intent to defame.

Oh really. Well, the person's name was already used on the forums and the person in question actually had an interview on The Prop Blog advertising his auction Vader suit. So he put himself in the public domain open for discussion.

And there is no intent to defame here, I am simply providing an assessment of the prop offered up for auction. It would be no different if you consulted an art expert on a particular piece in regard to its authenticity.

 

[VaderVader]

Case #0010
Documented on the Record

The more you keep coming back all thats proven is go into a monologue cut, copy , paste monologue ,cut copy , paste the more you do this you prove to the viewers you do exactly whats been said.Then you get aggressive and attack then monologue ,cut,copy,paste.These actions are beneath me and only go to show that if anyone replies to your OPINION NOT FACTS you are putting out there you get defensive so monologue ,cut,copy,paste monologue,cut,copy,patse.i think we get the point.So do whats in your nature and prove us right that you'll do it over and over and over and over again.

All thats been proven is exactly typical overwhelm cut copy paste with nothing postive.An expert looks at the piece and not speak of an item he or she has never seen in person.Dont know what else to say but to doubt the documentation is to call Nick Farmer a Liar.
Many people try but you cant rent space in someones head whos been thru alot in life and understands that what we do in the moment is what defines us as caring people and sites like these are made for discussions not for us to bicker back and forth this is childish and making fun of someones grammar is not really adult like or professional now is it.This still DOESNT CHANGE THE FACTS that An expert looks at the piece and not speak of an item he or she has never seen in person and state things to MISLEAD OTHERS INTO BELIEVING THAT YOUR OPINION IS FACT WHEN WHAT VIEWERS NEED TO KNOW ITS YOUR OPINION AND NOT A DEFINITIVE.Dont know what else to say but to doubt the documentation never having seen it or the pieces themselves is BASELESS AND UNFOUNDED and to call Nick Farmer a LIAR.
photos to be compared properly must be taken in the same enviroment at teh same distance under the same lighting composition not by taking one thats far in the pic and compare to one thats shot upclose and then edit to zoom the far away one in close to give a falsehood that they are in the same context is grossly wrong.
People are on to what you are doing you in the profiles auction last year of the touring costume that sold for almost $150,000 you said that it wasnt the same consignor as this piece which you've seen pics as you have previously stated and said that its not his but someone elses ,you cant admit when you were wrong this shows you cant tell what is what and make a distinction.So you have no right to make statements that you know this and you know that.

As for libel when you went out of your way two years ago to contact lucasfilm direclty take an email that christies sent you which christies confirmed and then edit said email to put a different tone and send to lucasfilm saying that christies is saying that lucasfilm is confirming the piece was a lie and the fact that you bashed on ainsworth and how you tout around you dont like him for the public to see but we have the emails were you were going to him "ANDREW MY FRIEND I NEED YOUR HELP" asking for his help to scuttle the auction.You are engaging in acts to deliberately go out of your way to get involved in the sale of something to discredit it to effect its value based on nothing.We see there are no lengths you wont go if your not happy.
having an opinion is one thing whats libel and defame is when you cross the line and contact businesses and accuse people of passing off things as fraud as you did in the past is not a hypothetical but reality.
You have no right to use someones last name and associate it to anything, propblog had the right as that was an interview you have no legal right to publically use said persons name in a libel and slandering way as you have done.Vader can always be talked about its when someones gets personal or states things you know their intentions is a different matter altogether.

For your said actions Ma law.keep hanging yourself as everything you put is documented by Counsel.



People are entitled to there opinion and that is exactly whats going on here you have an opinion based on never looking at an item in hand.

THIS IS YOUR OPINION NOT FACT.

 

[Art Andrews]

For your said actions Ma law.keep hanging yourself as everything you put is documented by Counsel.

Ed, are you legally threatening one of our members?

I would like to remind you of our respect clause which states:

Respect
Please extend respect to others. Discussion and debate may lead to heated disagreement; approach them in a civil manner, showing respect for the other person's point of view.

Avoid personal attacks.
Avoid flaming, trolling or baiting which includes, but is not limited to creating content with the intent to disrupt.
Avoid hijacking threads. This includes making repetitive dissenting remarks that disrupt the purpose of the thread.
Avoid harassing or making any type of threat, implied or expressed, including physical threats, or legal threats.
Be cautious to not misrepresent or besmirch the reputation of any individual, group, site, or company.

You are more than welcome to argue for your beliefs regarding this matter, but you need to leave off the implied legal threats if you want to continue to post here.

 

[SithLord]

Well, I would be happy to address VaderVader's comments point by point, but I'll just state a few fundamental points here that bear emphasis and VaderVader is more than welcome to add this to his case if it so entertains VaderVader to do so.

Whatever I discussed with Christie's or anyone else is private, and yet VaderVader, in his own defense, brings it up here in a public forum. I was aware of private conversations VaderVader had with others, but I've shown him the courtesy not to disclose them in public, and yet he feels a need not to show me the same courtesy. That being said, I have a complete written record of all the discussions that transpired via email, with whomever you wish to name, so your efforts to somehow throw my own integrity into question won't work.

I've stuck to discussion of the prop and what I think it is, or is not. If the claim of what it is lies with someone named, then by extension questioning the nature of the prop could be questioning the validity of the claim. Questioning the validity of a claim is not the same as stating it is a lie, but that is a distinction that seems to fail Mr. VaderVader. Instead of misconstruing it as libel, it would I think be more constructive for VaderVader to make an effort to explain WHY it is ESB. If there is photographic evidence of a helmet similar to the one in the auction that appears in the ESB production or shortly thereafter in touring, I would be more than happy to see it and that would discount my view. We do see ESB-like helmets in ROTJ, but not vice versa. So to simply say it is an ESB helmet doesn't consider the lineage of Vader helmets in general. If it was claimed to be an ANH helmet and it was clearly ESB, then again the argument would not be one of questioning anyone's integrity, but rather of questioning the accuracy of the description, and therefore by extension the claim of the source of the prop. But this is all reasonable and any serious collector would be doing the same kind of evaluation before purchasing such an item in auction. Bringing up those concerns in a public forum for the discussion of props is perfectly valid.

The issue at hand is how it looks, not what someone says it is or is not. It isn't just opinion, it is simple observation. Further to that, your efforts to threaten me with what I write as being legally documented in a case will not change my opinion of the helmet. All your threats do is place your own position into question as I have no need to threaten you to make my point.

 

[SithLord]

People are on to what you are doing you in the profiles auction last year of the touring costume that sold for almost $150,000 you said that it wasnt the same consignor as this piece which you've seen pics as you have previously stated and said that its not his but someone elses ,you cant admit when you were wrong this shows you cant tell what is what and make a distinction.So you have no right to make statements that you know this and you know that.

By the way, I looked at the thread you were going on about.

Too Much Garlic said:

So, it's this guy trying again with his other suit?

And I responded:

No this is a different suit.

Then DarthJones posted on the same page:

No, look on page 6 of that same thread - scroll down to comparison. Is it that suit on the right?

And I then posted in response to DarthJones:

Oh that suit, yes actually Pete is right, it is the same suit. Heaven help us

So if you read the entire page, which obviously you didn't, you'll see that later on the same page in the same thread I admit that I was incorrect and that is was indeed the same suit.

So if you are using that as your prime example that I do not admit I am wrong, when I did, and that therefore I "cannot tell what is what", and therefore I "have no right to make statements that I know this and that I know that".

If I know something, or don't, I have every right to say so.

And you, sir, have no right to tell me that I have no right to say so, especially when your example shows exactly the opposite of what you wish to claim about me.