Fake Leia Pistol

[aussiejames]

So I am convinced these are fake, I would appreciate further discussion or evidence of these existing in people's collections:
http://www.imperialgunnery.com/

It's the blaster on the right with a distinct flat 'rectangle' on the back

 

[olisuds]

Hey James, what makes you think it is fake otherthan being slightly different mold?

 

[aussiejames]

I consider it a significantly different mould. There is going to be an argument about what makes anything authentic? To me it is finding example(s) sealed in a factory MOC/baggie. I and others have spent weeks checking, looking & asking- still nothing. Poor mould seam similar to other known fakes, the distinguishing feature at the back is the same as a known fake etc. Steve at UKG agrees, and I am working on getting an example to CAS & Derby.

 

[Awl Skulkerkey]

Totally different mould - it's significantly wider all the way down. Also I've noticed second from left looks wider and different from the slimmer other ones in photo?

 

[x-pack]

Does something in the repro manufacturing process make the finished product larger I wonder? Maybe the way moulds are taken.

Are other repros larger than the originals.

 

[Awl Skulkerkey]

I imagine that a repro's mould is made initially from an original piece. So naturally the hollow of the mould will be minutely bigger in area than the original? Also any mould will give a more curvy finish and with less detail. I only know this from arts & crafts!

 

[aussiejames]

Totally different mould - it's significantly wider all the way down. Also I've noticed second from left looks wider and different from the slimmer other ones in photo?

Yes second from the left is the 'largest' known original mould/shape. The seven originals are examples of the seven groups/versions that one collector splits his stash into, TIG groups them in 4.

 

[chipsteak]

I've bought two of these in recent times. Can I mention the eBayer who sold me them?

 

[aussiejames]

I've bought two of these in recent times. Can I mention the eBayer who sold me them?

I see no issue with letting people know ( the 'original' source is paugildin-6 )

 

[chipsteak]

I've bought two of these in recent times. Can I mention the eBayer who sold me them?

I see no issue with letting people know ( the 'original' source is paugildin-6 )

I thought I'd hold off posting again until I entered dialog with the eBayer.

it was indeed that seller and i'm happy to say that after a polite email or two, i got a full refund on both blasters after returning them to him.

 

[sparkysx]

If these are repro, then why did the 'maker' who is obviously an expert at this according to the comments from Steve at UKG, make the mould identical? why make it different? if he had made an identical mould then I don't think these ever would of been discovered.

 

[ScruffyLookingNH]

If these are repro, then why did the 'maker' who is obviously an expert at this according to the comments from Steve at UKG, make the mould identical? why make it different? if he had made an identical mould then I don't think these ever would of been discovered.

I think it's a relatively straightforward explanation: attention to detail. Even someone skilled at making molds may miss a detail or get it incorrect. Perhaps it was initially cut square and he meant to remove the corners to make it identical to the real deal and, quite simply, forgot to do so. It really could be that simple.

At the end of the day, it is the irregularities that identify fakes. If there were perfect fakes we would not know about them. I've seen some fakes that are amazing, simply made out of the wrong material so fail the old drop and float tests. But even if they had passed those tests there were other tiny, tiny details (far less obvious than these large square backs) that would have ID'd them as fake.

The real concern here is that this is so, so close. The overall chubiness and the square back give it away, but should the dick that had these made go back and invest in a new mold with these details changed then we would probably not know about it and the only tell would be the increase in availability and the drop in price of these blasters.

 

[edd_jedi]

It also doesn't help that the originals are so rough themselves, but these were designed as <10p accessories to £1.49 figures, not £40 collectables :roll:

 

[sparkysx]

I think I'd enjoy this hobby a lot more if I just sold off all of my weapons and just collected figures like I did when I was little. Never kept the weapons when I was little.

 

[Snaketibe]

I think I'd enjoy this hobby a lot more if I just sold off all of my weapons and just collected figures like I did when I was little. Never kept the weapons when I was little.

So YOU'RE responsible for the lack of vintage weapons left in the world today! Quick everyone, get him! :lol:

 

[sparkysx]

well soon I'll be responsible for adding an extra 80+ weapons back to the market then!

 

[Snaketibe]

well soon I'll be responsible for adding an extra 80+ weapons back to the market then!

That's more like it ;-)

 

[momike]

What did Steve at ukg have to say about these?

 

[sparkysx]

He thinks they are repro, but the best he has ever seen. I just don't get why the absence of one of these in a moc is classed as proof.... it isn't, they might not of made it into a moc if they were end of line and not used. IMO Palitoy are the only people qualified to state 100% that these are fake, so no one is ever going to know unless a repro mould turns up someone sporting this shape.

 

[lejackal]

The timing of the 'discovery' coinciding with the huge uplift in the value of Leia figures screams repro to me