Can you believe that this was an AA Phaser?
#1
Posted 19 September 2006 - 06:59 PM
#2
Posted 19 September 2006 - 07:49 PM
#3
Posted 19 September 2006 - 11:44 PM
#4
Posted 20 September 2006 - 05:45 AM
The weight and feel of it is perfect!
#5
Posted 20 September 2006 - 06:42 AM
#6
Posted 20 September 2006 - 11:14 AM
#7
Posted 20 September 2006 - 11:59 AM
But why take a perfectly screen accurate "In a Mirror Darkly" phaser and turn it into a wonderfull version of something we only saw a blurry onscreen glimps of in TOS? If it wasn't for some books about these props we never would have known they looked like that in the first place.
There's no way I'm gonna mess with mine!
I guess I'm just a licky guy. I wanted a MR Phaser and Communicator. But the Phaser was sold out. So I bought the MR Communicator and a AA Phaser only to have both versions accurized in "In a Mirror Darkly"
#8
Posted 20 September 2006 - 03:37 PM
http://store.roddenb...;parentID=11500
#9
Posted 21 September 2006 - 07:13 AM
http://store.roddenb...;parentID=11500
Nope, the Mirror Darkly Phasers were AA Phasers. Just look at the picture below. You can clearly see the screw hole on the P2 and the hole that releases the sound on the P1.
So my AA Phaser is screen accurate. I'd rather drop dead than to customize it into a wonderfull piece of art that isn't screen accurate.
#10
Posted 21 September 2006 - 07:35 AM
AA purchased the original Phaser kit from Rodd.com back in 2003,which was manufactoried by HMS, Steve Horch and Mike Moore both who I know personally, they used this one kit to produced what we commonly know as the AA/DST phaser II today.
The deal was that credit would be given by means of noting on the packaging by knowledging Rodd.com and HMS for the design, well this did not happen on the original release, AA/DST was contacted by the said parties and they were told that the acknowledgement would be included on the packaging for the Black/White release from AA/DST, well once again this did not happen and to my knowldedge, has not happened as of this date.
So if you or Scott Bakula are holding a AA phaser in your hand, it is a product of both HMS and AA/DST.
That is the AA/DST Phaser II you see it that episode of Enterprise, also of note, the MR Communicator was also used in this episode.
BTW, if you guys want to see something really screen used:
#11
Posted 21 September 2006 - 07:52 AM
Yup, making me the proud owner of two screen accurate props.
BTW: Weren't the HMS Phasers used in Triles and Tribulations (DS9)?
#12
Posted 21 September 2006 - 10:08 AM
AA is a great company.
#13
Posted 21 September 2006 - 10:48 AM
And no jewel between the dials of the P1? Sometimes there is a jewel, sometimes not. And when there is one, sometimes it's red, sometimes it's blue. I don't think two TOS screen used phasers were alike. That's why I prefere a screen accurate Mirror Darkly Phaser to one that might just look like one of those they used on TOS.
Usually for TV shows three versions of a prop are made. A detailed one for close-up filming (usually called "hero" prop, but it may be used by an extra as well if the prop is filmed from closeby), inexpensive ones for background use and rubber ones for stunts (so the stunt people don't hurt themselves with them).
Yet is Star Trek, it would seem that sometimes they used a background prop for close filming. On top of that I don't even think two "hero" Phasers were alike.
#14
Posted 21 September 2006 - 11:15 AM
HMS made the TOS phasers for T&T. The Rod.com kits are slightly retooled, but are of the T&T lineage. They are a result of the T&T phasers.
For the longest time, it was thought that the HMS "flat top" TOS phasers were used in T&T. This was not the case. HMS did make TOS phasers with a flat top P1, but these were made as a high end exclusive for the Paramount Store that used to be in Chicago.
I think that was exactly what they did later in the series.
#15
Posted 21 September 2006 - 11:27 AM
#16
Posted 08 October 2006 - 09:58 AM
Yet an "In a Mirror Darkly" AA phaser sold for $5500 at the Christie's auction. And mine is exactly the same thing, down to the molecular structure! You turned your screen accurate "In a Mirror Darkly" Phaser and turned it to something that might look a little like a TOS Phaser. I keep mine as is, knowing one like that sold for $5500 at Christie's.
#17
Posted 08 October 2006 - 11:08 AM
not the phaser
and I think that we both know that.
It could have been an old shoe at that auction that had screen time, in this case it just happened to be a phaser. What we had here was a bunch of people with more money then brains bidding on what they thought was their last chance to get something Trek.
#18
Posted 08 October 2006 - 11:31 AM
not the phaser
and I think that we both know that.
It could have been an old shoe at that auction that had screen time, in this case it just happened to be a phaser.
Oh, I agree. But any fool can say he bought the Phaser from the person who bought it at Christie's and sell his AA as screen used one on eBay now. Because there is no difference. Even microscopic examination of the prop couldn't say which one was screen used and which one wasn't. That's my point. No, mine isn't screen used, but yes it is screen accurate. Altering it in any way takes away the screen accuracy. I know mine will never be worth $5500 but it is an exact copy of the one that is. Yours is a magnificent piece of art and I mean that. But it is not screen accurate. It's a wonderfully idealized Phaser but it is not a screen accurate representation of either a TOS nor an ENT version of the prop. An off the shelf, out of the box AA Phaser on the other hand is an exact copy of the one seen in ENT, an exact copy of the one that was sold for $5500. So if in a few years an AA Phaser will be hard to find and will sell for hounderds of Dollars and I would wake up one day and see that a friend of mine would have turned the one I have into one like the one you have (or for that matter if that friend exchanged mine for a MR or a Coyle version), I would kill that friend of mine! That's what I'm trying to say.
#19
Posted 08 October 2006 - 02:57 PM
As for not messing with one. I have an un-opened one of each and in one case almost a case of un-opened ones so either way I am covered.
#20
Posted 08 October 2006 - 03:28 PM
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users