You can see that in the comparison photos posted on the previous page. There is a marked difference between the vine design of the LOTR and the Hobbit versions. Can I also get confirmation that the weathering on the vines is intentional?Sorry, I'm not really understanding where the confusion is. the sword design seems to indicate that the vines have been spaced out according to the Hobbit Sting design? The metal fittings on the Hobbit version also lack the scrollwork, which like the blade runes, are assumed to have been added after Bilbo returned from Erebor.īut if UC haven't ever updated their design of LOTR Sting then how have I been sent this picture from a reputable UK supplier (see photos of the boxes) i.e. UC also made two scabbards, the original one for the LOTR version which is covered in a reddish suede, and the Hobbit version, which is dark brown leather. So, when speaking strictly of United's versions, there are three: misalignment of the curved line etching on the blade (as I noted in another post, I believe this to be an unintentional continuity error and am unsure if the actual prop had this problem as well) slightly different spacing of the vine design on the hilt ![]() This is is what leads to some confusion because though UC has changed packaging several times throughout the years, the sword inside has remained the same with the only alteration I'm aware of being the production date stamped on the New Line Cinema etching on the blade.Īfter the Hobbit movies were released, UC put out a new version of Sting to replicate the one seen in those movies. It was United's first ever released LOTR replica, and has been in constant production since around 2002. When I say "normal" United Cutlery version, yes, I mean the original, non-Museum Collection release of Sting. There is also the MR Light-up Sting and the NC Actor-scale Sting, but we'll leave those out.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |