Sadly, nothing about this piece other than the scope and possibly the scope mount's top rings are authentic to Han's original C96; it was cobbled together from leftover parts in Bapty's inventory by Karl Schmidt (the man who made the original prop), and the serial number of the upper used on Han's C96 was clearly shown to be 2813 in images from Randall and Hopkirk (1969) and from resin casts of the Hero prop (see Luke's "Dagobah" prop blaster). The original C96 used in A New Hope was almost certainly broken down after principal filming ended, with the same base C96 possibly making a reappearance in a deleted scene in Return of the Jedi. Furthermore; the flash hider seen here has an entirely different appearance than how it was publicly shown in the Pawn Stars Collaboration; as Karl supposedly bead blasted the only remaining MG-81 flash hider in Bapty's inventory. This leads me to think that it was purposefully distressed to make it seem more weathered, and thus authentic (it is not the same flash hider used on the Hero prop either). Karl has also claimed to have heavily modified the scope mount after rediscovering it in a mangled condition, which if true would render it nigh worthless as it now is entirely impossible to link to the original Hero prop without documentation of its original condition. So without being able to prove if the mount is real either that too is functionally unverifiable. Finally; the crossbar, thumbnuts and bull barrel are all also modern pieces fabricated by Karl used to put this piece together. Karl has outright confirmed these pieces to be replicas. If at least the base C96 Mauser was the same used during the filming of Star Wars I could possibly understand labeling this as Han's authentic blaster prop, just with "additional" pieces to bring it together in a cohesive, visually finished product. But claiming a replica, even one fitted with some minor original pieces, as a "surviving original" blaster seems rather disingenuous to me when the vast majority of it is not authentic.

Amazing!😍

The difference between this and that X-wing (which sold in June for $2.4M incl. BP) is that Propstore presented abundant and unquestioned evidence for the entire piece’s authenticity. Here, RIA has shown virtually nothing to corroborate their claims about the base gun apart from a single 46-year-old memory communicated second-hand by the consignor. The scope/mount are mostly original; the rest appears to be wishful thinking.

I am reluctant to say this was a screen used blaster because there is NO heat sync on the front end of the pistol.

IF RIA actually charged someone their asking price of $300,000 to $500,000 for this thing then they committed fraud. This was NOT a screen used production gun. Here's why: 1) There was only ONE screen used production gun that Harrison Ford ever held and it was the same gun Frank Sinatra used in The Naked Runner. This has been confirmed. 2) The screen used gun remained in England when all filming in England ended. It had to by law thus a Los Angeles prop was made as a replacement for the added footage scene of Han unsnapping his holster and starting to pull the blaster out. That was also a non-firing prop made by MGC replicas. That prop clearly has differences. Idiots call it the Greedo Killer. 3) This prop in this glass case does NOT have a heat sync greeblie mounted on the front of the gun. The hero firing prop had it and even in ALL publicity photo stills he is holding the firing prop with a heat sync mounted. IF somebody bought this thing for that price without it being verified which they were NOT able to do, then RIA robbed them and that person should call the cops.

@Thomas_Esson

Жыл бұрын

Quick clarification: RIA’s portrayal IS definitely misleading; they’ve presented virtually no evidence for the authenticity of the C96, leaving the scope and upper mount pieces as the only verifiably original and screen-used components (thanks to very clear photo-matches). However, I’m not sure location and greeblies are the most effective arguments. The lot DOES originate from England (from Bapty). And it’s not unreasonable to think that greeblies were removed following production. Again, not discounting the overall point - there’s insufficient proof regardless. Just trying to keep opposition to the sale on the same page.