Want a screen-accurate sonic from MFX?

Do any of MFX's UK customers want a screen accurate Sonic that matches their prototype?

Having spoken to my lawyers there is a very strong case under UK statutes that in light of Mr Gorton's statements, means that you can get 'specific performance' from MFX to deliver what they promised: a 'screen accurate' sonic.

Stay tuned and all will be revealed.....

MFX Inaccuracies - A theory

Having thought about this whole inaccuracy thing I want to propose a theory as to the MFX Sonic Screwdriver's undeniable inaccuracies despite Neill Gorton's denials to the contrary. I'm not going to get personal or snarky as this has no bearing on the matter. What I will stick to is cold hard fact. So, what do we know for sure?

1. 
   
   
   
   MFX employee Chris Martin wrote on the RPF: "both the Sonic Screwdriver and Master Laser Driver should be  faithful duplicates of the actual props . He [Neill Gorton] and I went down to the studios in Cardiff to  measure and photograph both props in order to duplicate them as exactly as possible." . Further he continues "To illustrate how much effort has gone into making these as faithful as possible, here are pictures of both the original we were working from and the duplicates I created from the reference material." He then posts the picture of the prop they are using as reference:
   
   
   

Therefore it stands to reason that the replica should be IDENTICAL to the above prop. And it pretty much is. The pics he posts of his prototypes are spectacular:

2.     On the MFX website it is written:

"Is it an exact replica sonic screwdriver?

This replica prop was built using the original prop as a guide. All the measurements, dimensions, materials and paints used are exact to the original filming prop used by David Tennant. Even the inner workings follow the exact same build technique as the original prop.

Where it differs is in some small areas where we have made its construction stronger by adding threaded joints rather than a glued joint. None of these minor variations in any way affect the aesthetic of the piece. "

 

The implication stated is that it will be dimensionally accurate to the prop. When added to the picture of an accurate prototype shown when compared to the original reference prop, it can be reasonably expected that what he is selling is indeed represented as 'screen accurate'.

 

3.    In early October they release their final production versions. What they delivered differed vastly from not only the reference prop, but also their prototype above. The main differences are detailed here: http://celestialtoystore.blogspot.com/2009/10/analysis-of-mfx-sonic-screwdriver-and.html. It is immediately obvious that visually, the production versions differed substantially to what was promised but it is only to someone like me who has measured and detailed a filming prop and has detailed dims, apparent just how different it was. The data presented in the above blog can be independently verified by anyone with some Verniers and Photoshop.

 

4.   Despite having these differences pointed out to him, Neill Gorton refuses to acknowledge that the production sonic is inaccurate and maintains that his sonic is accurate to the reference prop they had access to. This flies in the face of common sense and visual data.

 

5.   Gorton has claimed that their were many props used hence the differences. But he has said that they only used one prop for reference and his replica was a replica of that single reference prop. This is contradictory and inconsistent since logically his replica should be a faithful replica of that reference prop.

 

6.    When the fact that the spacer at the top of the slider channel was unpainted was pointed out, he again used the excuse that multiple props were used. But didn't he say that they only referenced the one prop to copy? That reference prop had a painted spacer as did the prototype drawn from that. So is the MFX a faithful copy of the single reference prop as claimed or isn't it?

 

7.     No screenshot of a prop matching the MFX has ever surfaced, especially in regard the basic features such as the strut edge thickness and the window placement.

 

8.     No direct answer has ever been given by Neill Gorton as to why the inaccurate MFX replica differs so much from the accurate prototype.

 

 

So let's recap:

 

• 
  
  Neill has denied selling his replica on a 'screen accurate' ticket. LIE
  
  
  
• 
  
  Neill/MFX have stated that have used one prop for reference and that is the prop they are copying. Neill has stated he has made an accurate copy of that one reference prop. LIE (unless he's blind and stupid  and whilst he's many things, he's neither)
  
  
  
• 
  
  Neill has stated he cannot be expected to produce perfection yet he came close enough with his prototype. LIE
  
  
  

So why the lies and the inconsistencies? Look at the following rather cryptic quote:

 

Neill said: "It's like those Persian carpets where they put a deliberate mistake in the pattern because, in the laws of their religion, only God can achieve perfection.".

 

Knowing what I do about Neill and his work, and also knowing that he is in a very, very difficult position in regards to what he can or cannot say, I am willing to bet the above was veiled speech for the following:

 

THE BBC HAVE REQUESTED THAT MFX CHANGE THE DESIGN AS THEIR PROTOTYPE WAS A LITTLE TOO ACCURATE AND ONLY THEY (BEING METAPHORICALLY 'GOD'AND 'THE LAWS OF THEIR RELIGION' BEING THE LICENCE AGREEMENT) WERE ALLOWED TO POSSESS A PERFECTLY ACCURATE SONIC SCREWDRIVER THEREFORE MFX HAVE HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO DELIBERATELY WATER DOWN THEIR DESIGN AND NEILL CANNOT PUBLICALLY ADMIT THIS SO HAS TO BITE HIS LIP AND TOW THE PARTY LINE.

 

To me, this is a very roundabout way of admitting that yes, the MFX is wrong and differs from the prototype but due to a deliberate act at the behest of the licensor. To wit, Neill is aware that the MFX sonic is less than perfect in this veiled admission but it was requested by the BBC for reasons unknown. Not an uncommon occurance with licenced props as we've seen many times with George Lucas and Star Wars replicas.

So there you have it. Under the circumstances that's the best we're ever going to get so I'm going to drop it now and I hope others do too.

 

Gorton answers the question...sort of (actually he didn't)

Having been called out loudly and quite emphatically Neill Gorton has finally answered the questions everyone wants to know the answer to....except he hasn't. What follows is a circuitous, inconsistent LIE designed to placate the casual fanboy but leaves the tough question unanswered:

"Why was the PROTOTYPE accurate and why does the PRODUCTION version differ so much?"

His answer is just PR bullshit and has holes big enough to drive the Voyage of the Damned bus through. Here is his full post and my answers in RED

"Firstly Straker I haven't ducked any questions as you have implied. Anyone who asks a question I answer and I think everyone here will attest to that fact. Was the head CNC'd or cast. CNC'd actually, etc. etc. etc. Not thus far you haven't. You are only addressing this question because Straker called you out.

Secondly have you bought one of our sonics? If you have and you feel you were miss sold the item then simply return it in good condition and we give you a full refund without question. Refunding someone's money is an easy cop out. It's the equivalent of shortchanging someone and when caught you plead the mistake and give them the correct change - except in this case you haven't got an accurate sonic screwdriver to give them.

With regard to the accusations you make this is simply a no win argument and no matter what I say you will simply pick holes and try and argue the opposite just as CT does. Afterall CT is the guy who claims he can make the most accurate sonic even though he also admits to idealising several props and clearly states his to be made from different materials than the originals! No Neill, you're using me as an excuse to avoid addressing the difficult issue. You are obviously fucking clueless as yes, I admit that I am idealising several props but I know the differences between a Penny Howarth sonic and a Nick Robatto one and although I am producing an idealised hybrid sonic, it is still VISUALLY accurate to an on screen version.  I asked this question to Primrodo and I'm now asking it to you: Can you visually tell the difference between  aluminium and stainless steel? I certainly can't. So it's ok for you to idealise and change certain things for the sake of durability but not for me? At least you cannot see my changes and they don't affect visual accuracy. Don't insult my intelligence you beardy clown. Like I said he says whatever suits his purpose at the time. His sole aim in this is to cast doubt on our products I the hope that it will bring more sales his way. No actually. If you had released your prototype, I would have been the first to congratulated you and laud you. In fact, for a long time I was debating whether to release my Season 3/4 given how perfect your prototype was. How the fuck can you fuck up so badly?! If he's your prop guru then feel free to buy his product and not ours. No one is forcing you to purchase either. You're free to do whatever you wish with your money. I am not forcing you to buy my products if you even have. You have free will. If you feel the MFX sonic is good and acurate then great. If you don't then don't buy it but please don't 'demand' that I enter in to some senseless debate with someone who is steeling from me to satisfy your curiosity or attempt to sway your opinion. I have free will to. Yeah, yeah, use me as a convenient reason to avoid the question. It's your choice but it's therefore my choice if I think you're an evasive little toad.

 

With regard to the claim this is advertised as 100% screen acurate I would refer you to my website (you may not have advertised it with those exact words but the implication was the same and it was pushed on RPF and on other boards as being exact to the filming prop - 'Screen accurate');

http://shop.mfxwarehouse.co.uk/collectibles/prop-replicas/collectables/sonic-screwdriver.htm

I don't actually see that wording there (but the implication is the same) but, nevermind, it states clearly that there have been minor changes to accomodate manufacture and improve aspects but that the piece is aesthetically accurate.

On your site, in the FAQ section:

Is it an exact replica sonic screwdriver?



This replica prop was built using the original prop as a guide. All the measurements, dimensions, materials and paints used are exact to the original filming prop used by David Tennant. Even the inner workings follow the exact same build technique as the original prop. That is bollocks. It does not use the same built technique either. The head cage should screw into the ball join using a 7mm coupler. Your's doesn't.


Where it differs is in some small areas where we have made its construction stronger by adding threaded joints rather than a glued joint. None of these minor variations in any way affect the aesthetic of the piece. Again that is bollocks. The 'aesthetics' of your's is all over the place.

On your care sheet that you include with each and every sonic you write:
"Your replica has been hand made by us using, wherever possible, the most accurate dimensions, processes, materials and finishes as used on the original filming props. Whilst this guarantees this replica prop to be as faithful as possible to the original filming prop..."

Your guy Chris posted the following on RPF on the 28th July 2008 (I've highlighted the relevant text):

"I assume Neill won't mind me posting this to complement what he's already said but both the Sonic Screwdriver and Master Laser Driver should be faithful duplicates of the actual props. He and I went down to the studios in Cardiff to measure and photograph both props in order to duplicate them as exactly as possible. With regards to the Sonic, the original we viewed has been handled a great deal and as a result, the finish is both more buffed and just plain grubby, however, the paint is in theory the same one used on the actual thing. Basically, Neill and Chris both wanted to make these as accurate as possible according to the prop they were given to examine, which is here:

Similarly, the Master's Laser Driver is a dimensionally faithful replica of the one used in the show. Both the MLD and the SS are handmade working props so it's always a balancing act between tidying things up for a display piece or deliberately machining some features badly to match the original. Where quirks of the original are arguably features, for example where things aren't exactly at ninety degrees to each other and would look wrong when 'corrected', the quirks have remained. Similarly there is some dulling and oxidation of the metal on the originals which is a natural result of age on the materials involved so the prototypes look a little brighter than the patina they will eventually settle into.

To illustrate how much effort has gone into making these as faithful as possible, here are pictures of both the original we were working from and the duplicates I created from the reference material. BTW the picture of the original is a composite photo so don't panic about the nose being extended yet the slider switch shown in the closed position. The reason for making the duplicates in the first place is that obviously the Dr Who people needed to retain the originals because they were using them and also it's much easier to create a run of something if you can hand someone a finished item and tell them to make some more exactly like that rather than working purely from photos and drawings

And yes, the wiring is yellow in this particular example as per the original. Photos of the MLD have already been posted so there's not much point in posting additional ones. I was flattered to be asked to do these and I can't think of a better combination of people involved with MFX to bring these excellent props to the market. "

They succeeded - in prototype form anyway. The prototype (in particular the upper extended one in this pic) is 99% identical to the prop above:

They have shown that they can do it. This is the one everyone was expecting them to sell.

SO WHY THE FLAMING FUCK DID IT ALL GO WRONG???????

By not acknowledging the fact that the production sonics bear nothing but a passing similarity to the props above Neill is insulting the intelligence of each and every one of his customers. His steadfast silence on this key point is telling and damning.

It's easy to argue one way or another if something is 100% accurate and 'simply put' NOTHING can be 100% acurate. Even the simple fact that the components on the original where mchined by hand while we have ours produced via CNC immediately negates this. The finish changes fractionally between the two processes. Striving for perfection and actually achieving perfection are two separate things. You can strive for perfection and if you miss you can be proud you gave it your best shot. It doesn't even look like you tried on the production version. What exactly were you doing on the day the production version was signed off? Sitting in your office khazi smoking a B & H and having a wank? Actually, you can make something near 100% accurate by taking accurate measurements, detailed observations and making sure your production processes observe tight tolerances. Just like you (or someone else) did when it came to making the prototype above. The changes you mention is not the difference between machined by hand and CNC, it is the difference between CNC milling and die casting combined with deliberate fudging of key dims.

It's like those Persian carpets where they put a deliberate mistake in the pattern because, in the laws of their religion, only God can achieve perfection. Did we machine these to a tolerance of a 10th of a mm. If so then you'll argue that it shoudl have been machined to a 100th of a mm or a 1000th of a mm to be 100% acurate.... in your opinion! Is this a veiled way of saying that the changes were deliberate? Hint, hint ;-) You have to decide on a tolerance when it comes to making these things - if accuracy is your goal which it appeared to be. A tolerance of 0.1mm is acceptable on something this small. However, your production piece  is off by over 5 times that on some places!!!!!!! That is nowhere near perfection. That is a fucking piss take.

In addition there are several sonics so to which one do you refer? Each machiend by hand and each with subtle - and some times major - variations. Do not insult our collective intelligences. I am referring to the prop above which Chris posted the pic of. That is the one you went to Cardiff to measure right? That is the one you you took detail photographs and measrements of? Ergo, your prototype was identical to that prop. So why not the production version? Cut the fucking bullshit Neill, it stinks.

So I strive even further to make it 100% accurate. I hire the guy who machined the original ones, I buy the metal stock from the same metal supplier, I don't use an etch primer to help keep the paint on because, well, the originals didn't. I buy all the componenets from the same stores, I turn all the pieces on the same milling machine and the same lathe and what will I get. I product that costs $3,000 each that no-one can afford and, AND it's still not 100% accurate because that's simply not possible. That is big hairy bollocks and you know it. I can do it. Why not you? Because you are fucking lazy and want to cheapskate it to maximise your profits? Here's how you do it: Step 1: Take detailed measurements of an original prop to within .01mm accuracy. Step 2: Build a detailed 3d CAD model using the data. Step 3: Load tool path data into a multi million dollar 5-axis Mikron milling machine and voila! You can have micron accurate pieces day in, day out. And it doesn't cost $3000. That's just how much Robatto charges.

So what we have is a product that may vary in tiny areas. subtle nuances. Someone finds a picture of 'a' sonic and says the curve on the ribs on the body look fractionally more rounded than the MFX one! Okay, well, on 'that' sonic maybe they were but on two others they're not and so it goes on and on and on and on! Actually Neill, the curves on the ridges are from the pic of the actual hero prop you guys posted and say is the one you copied. Therefore it stands to reason that a direct comparison between yours and the claimed source material is not only fair but justified.

I am completely satisfied that we have done everything within our power to make this as acurate as we possibly can. So you are claiming screen accuracy or not?We had access to an original prop (Yes, the one pictured above!!!!!) - not all props - just one as this is the one the art department deamed their best sonic. they have the choice in the matter and I, as a license holder, can not 'demand' to see the others. There's rules to this and if this is the one the art department on doctor Who deem to be their 'hero' prop then that's the one I copy. We took numerous measurements with digital micrometers, we measured, photographed, dissasembled, we questioned and we were thorough. We chose the acurate materials - maybe not bought form the same stockist or metals produced by the same foundry. Even the aluminium may be a slightly different grade but it is brass and aluminium just as the originals were. More bullshit. You know you haven't and I have proven you are a big fat hairy liar time and time again. If you could only copy one prop as you are claiming, and it is the prop pictured, which you are also claiming, how come a 1:1 analysis shows that it is FUNDAMENTALLY and substantially different from the one you produced??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, go ahead. You can argue and nit pick it all to pieces. You can find photographs and screen grabs and analyse and extrapolate all you like and each time you will find somethting different. The lens on the camera that took the photograph was different, the image was compressed a fraction or widened to make a more aesthetically pleasing picture in a book. Publishers don't care. I've seen my work distorted to hell in photographs. They're not printing them for you to measure, they print them to look nice in a magazine or book! So you will always find some variation, some minor aesthetic difference and shout "Aha! not 100% accurate!!!" and you'll be right and you'll be wrong. No Neill, we are comparing your replica to the prop you allegedly copied and to your prototypes (which you laid out conveniently on metric graph paper). No compressions, distortions or camera trickery imvolved. Just basic cold hard measurement.

I could spend the rest of my life answering questions about every tiny thing that someone has extrapolated form a phtograph or claims to know. I could spend weeks writing up my own Blog defending every nuance. Ultimately I'd be defending myself against so called 'overwhelming evidence' presented by an indivivual who has a very clear 'agenda' and axe to grind against me. He's not searching for truth and the perfect prop. Actually, if that was the case I would have released something really fucking shoddy like the Animainment guys, not given a flying cluster fuck and just taken customer's money a long time ago. You make me sound like Steve Scott! He's searching for profit! Aren't we all? But making a perfect prop along the way doesn't harm the cause and in the long run produces MORE profit. I'm not the one promising a high quality accurate piece then cutting corners to produce an inaccurate, cheaply made fob-off and then trying to convince the world it is screen accurate. So you can fuck right off. He is selling you a product. Er, no shit Sherlock. He will always skew whatever so called evidence he has in his favour because of that 'agenda'. So if I go and start getting in to detailed debates with this guy (someone who is steeling from me and bad mouthing me even though he has never met me and knows nothing about me!) and his so called 'evidence' it will never end because it can never end. It can end if you'd answer the question put to you and admit what we all can see, that you fucked it it up either through hamfistedness or deliberate behest of the BBC. There are no simple answers. Yes there are, just answer the question put. He said the head on our sonic was cast. No, I said the basic blank was cast, then finished by CNC.  He insisted he new and presented 'evidence'. Yes, and you can read all about it on this blog. He's wrong of course and several peole with common sense on this forum could, independantly, also see that it wasn't and that it would actually be a silly way to manufacture when you can simply have them CNC'd as we do. No, it would make perfect sense to cast a blank then finish it by CNC. If I was a money grabbing cunt with the morals of a Jewish stamp dealer I probably would do it that way. But he was adamant and claimed to have 'evidence'. I could go on defending all his agenda skewed claims....... but I won't.  You may not like me and I may not like you. Those differences aside, my findings have WEIGHT and cannot be ignored. Ignoring me, attacking me back does not change the fact that my data can be independently verified. Anyone with an MFX, some Verniers and photoshop can do the exact same analysis as I have done. How do you explain that the alloy used is a cheap casting alloy used to improve flow? How do you explain the fact that the thing is not entirely circular which it would be if the thing was entirely CNCed? You'd have to be a dickhead to fuck up something so basic as a perfectly circular diameter using a CNC machine.  My theory stands.  Stop being such a fucking tool and admit that you have been rumbled and let's all move on with our lives.

Why? because it would be a complete waste of time because he has an agenda and for the fact that there will never be such a thing as a 100% acurate prop. It's a complete falicy and it doesn't exist. The only 100% acurate prop in existence is the original and even they often have new parts added as filmign goes along meaning they're no longer 100% acurate to the prop seen in the previous episode or series.  No, you're right but you can replicate a prop at a moment in time that you have it for. Just as you did with that season 3 sonic photographed above.

You're asking the impossible and I can't deliver the impossible. All I can do is the best job I can. I spent two years making this happen. It was a lot of heard work and I think we've done a pretty good job. If you don't think we have then send it right back and refund you entirely. Same goes for anyone else not happy or who thinks we've done a poor job or have cheeted you in some way. The fact that no-one has done this should tell you something. No we're not. If making a screen accurate sonic is impossible, then you have already proven you can do the impossible - your prototype above. All that is asked is that you do what you have shown you can do and what you have promised us you can do. If the production version is the best you can manage, then quite simply your best is not good enough or you are not prepared to invest the time and money to make it perfect . How the fuck can you NAIL it with the prototype then fuck up so  spectacularly with the production versions? It's like missing an elephant at point blank with a Bren Ten.

Fact is it ultimately comes down to opinions. In my oprinion I've produced a screen accurate sonic. So yes, you have just confirmed again that yours is sold on the basis that it is 'screen-accurate'. In yours and CT's opinion I haven't and the opinions of all the people on this forum will differ from one to the other or somewhere inbetween. Then either you are deluded or your opinion of yourself is lower than one would expect for someone in your position with your unquestionable talent.

What you're asking me to do is 'change your opinion'. Fact is I don't want to. Have it, keep it, it's yours. Treasure it as it's the thing that drives you to the keyboard every day and encourages you to write down your thoughts. Having opinions is good. The world would be a dull place if we all had the same opinion. It's just that some opinions are a bit more grounded in reality than others.

Now, that reallyis my final word on the matter We'll see.

Best

Neill

P.S. a forum administartor has informed me that CT has now been banned. I want to make it clear that this was nothing to do with me. I wasn't about to complain about his illegal operation as it simply draws more attention to him. He got himself banned all by himself. "

So there you have it, a whitewash so thorough that Nixon himself must be looking down from heaven and giving his best benevolent paternal smile at Neill Gorton. What we were expecting was an up front and honest answer. What we got was an evasive, inconsistent and inaccurate PR offensive that skirts the issue. Seems to be the only thing Neill Gorton is good at these days.

Response to Greatwazoo42

Ron Daniels aka Greatwazoo42 posted the following incredible piece of insight (my comments in RED):

"Straker - I've owned two original Richard Coyle Star Trek 3 phaser pistols. Both pulled from the same mold he used for the hand props in the film. Both had differences from each other and from the filmed prop because each one involved hand work and also as each one was built the artist's hand improved the design. I look at the MFX sonic in the same light. Keep telling yourself this if it makes you feel better. If Nick Robatto himself had built each of the 500 MFX screwdrivers using the same methods and the same materials and the same design as his original screen used props then maybe, just maybe you have a point. However, he didn't, so you don't. The comparison is totally wrong.

Unless you have everything made by machine using the exact same starting materials under the exact same conditions there will ALWAYS be differences. Some of the work in the sonics was hand work. Also there are always refinements between a prototype and a final product. Obviously you are showing your ignorance of this prop and the way it is constructed. These props were originally machined and were machined using defined, immutable templates with very little play in the basic dims. All the dims have to be proportional to each other or else it will be a different design. The construction also needs to be substantially the same. The only differences that manifest itself through handwork is the paint job and the blue activation stripe. Everything else should have been done by CNC. Here's a thought for you: all the MFX have the same errors in exactly the same place. If all or some of the work was done by hand, each and every one would be dimensionally different for your argument to hold water.  Obviously you are a numbnut or something but MFX's prototype was IDENTICAL to the prop. Their final product is not a refinement. Quite the reverse. It is a devolution. As ASP9mm pointed out, there is not a SINGLE screenshot or published picture where the sonic screwdriver prop looks like the MFX. Not a single fucking one. Plenty where it looks like their prototype though. Explain that one if you can you sad, deluded fool.

If you want better go build your own. If you can't then you'll have to settle for what you can buy. That is precisely what I am doing.

It sounds like you're demanding people justify themselves specifically to you and unless you have a badge and a gun (drawn) no one needs to. If you join a forum like the RPF, and sell a product on a screen accurate ticket then you are expressly allowing other members to question you on it and pull you up on it. You can't expect to use a forum like the RPF to sell a product and not expect difficult questions. Straker has a right to ask these questions and whether Neill chooses to answer them or not is his choice but that does not mean other members cannot draw inferences from his evasion or silence "

Essex boy Defstartrooper confirms what we all knew...

...that Essex boys are as thick as pig shit. Observe (my reply in RED):

"When have you ever seen a licensed replica be 100% exact to what is seen on screen from any licensed producer ? I admit, it is rare but it does happen and even the ones that are close are a lot closer than the MFX sonic is to the original prop. Most producers don't harp on that their products are 100% screen accurate. MFX did. If MFX hadn't promised a 100% accurate prop in the first place then what they delivered wouldn't be an issue.



Never, satisfactory answer ? No actually. Refer to my previous answer. Ironically, MFX's masks and helmets are virtually 100%. For fuck's sake, I know I keep going on about it, the prototype they exhibited is practically 100% screen accurate. So don't use this fucking argument with me you stupid fucking twat.


No offense intended towards Neil or MFX that's just the facts of the industry for varying reasons. You're a fantasist. A wannabe. You haven't a fucking clue about the industry, if you did you wouldn't need to suck up so hard.


For what it's worth Neil i'm sure the majority of folks see CT for what he is. So what am I? (Use comment box below so we can all have a good laugh) "

The mystery of the white ring

The classic sonic screwdriver has always featured what appears to be a white ring around the middle section.

As can be seen here:

This 'white' band has been consistently seen on the prop since it's introduction and for most of this period has also featured what appears to be a gouge or paint chip.

There are several theories as to what it can be.

1) White Paint - This is the obvious and easiest answer however it does not explain how in some shots this white area is clearly reflective silver yet displays the telltale flake mark. Such as here:

It therefore seems highly unlikely it is white paint. However that brings me onto the second theory

2) Chrome Paint - This is actually a pretty sound idea. When the prop, as built by Tony Dunsterville, first appears in Thunderbirds, the middle section is indeed a very shiny chromed finish:

What lends this idea added credence is that Chrome paint contains real metal (usually nickel or aluminium) and I have been told quite reliably, has a tendency to turn white and cloudy over time due to oxidation. This would explain why the prop goes quite visibly from silver during Thunderbirds and during Pertwee's time with the prop, to white during Davison's era.

However, I have doubts. Chrome paint is not particularly durable and would have flaked off almost entirely during the 15 years the prop was in use, not just exhibited the relatively minor flaking seen. For this reason alone I believe that while it is entirely possible, it is not very probable.

3)  Polished Finish - It has been suggested that the chromed finish on the middle section is down to the metal being turned at a higher speed, effectively polishing it into a mirror shine. I don't buy that at all. This would make the finish intrinsic to the material itself. This is intuitively wrong as the wear pattern can only be the result of something being remove from the base material: ie: electroplate or paint. This brings me onto my final theory and it's one I believe holds the answer.

4) Galvanic Corrosion - I believe that the prop was turned from aluminium and the ring section was plated in nickel to give it a bright chrome finish. However, it is widely known that nickel plating on aluminium is problematic because of the adhesion problems with nickel on aluminium (a quick Google will show the extent of flaking of nickel plate) and also, the danger of galvanic corrosion as a result of bad adhesion. Instead of me explaining what this process is, let me quote John Demakis of http://www.duro-chrome.com/:

"Galvanic corrosion refers to the damage induced when two dissimilar metals are coupled in a corrosive electrolyte. When this occurs, the less noble (less able to resist this type of corrosion) of the metals in the reaction becomes the anode (positive) and corrodes more quickly than it would by itself, whereas the more noble metal becomes the cathode (negative) and corrodes more slowly than it would alone.

What Is It?

Try to think of it in these terms. Consider the way a battery works. Typically in most batteries there are three things that must be present to create the desired reaction.

•A positive electrode that receives electrons from the external circuit when the cell is discharged. With respect to galvanic corrosion, this refers to the more noble of the two metals.

•A negative electrode that donates electrons to the external circuit as the cell discharges. This refers to the less noble metal or the anode.

•An electrolyte that provides a mechanism for a charge to flow between positive and negative electrodes. This would be the water in the solution for plating or the type of plastic used in the application or any other substance used. Even moisture in the air could act as a catalyst for the reaction.

Once all three of these elements are present, the battery creates energy in which galvanic corrosion is entirely responsible. When this sort of reaction occurs outside of a battery setting, for instance in a mold shop, the energy created by galvanic corrosion manifests itself between the two dissimilar metals and eats away at the less noble of the two.

 Aluminum has very little nobility and consequently is much more likely to corrode more quickly. Applying a nickel-based coating on your aluminum parts may be what is necessary to protect them from galvanic corrosion.

...suppose that you are using a nickel solution to plate an aluminum part. Now, if there were any imperfections in that aluminum part, such as pitting, there is a possibility that during the plating process some of the solution or a water molecule could get trapped in that deformity in the part. That water molecule ultimately could become the electrolytic component needed to complete a galvanic cell. The aluminum is less noble than the nickel and so in the plating process used to prevent corrosion and to prolong the life of your part, one could actually be promoting corrosion, and lessening the life of your tool.

So what do we have here? Essentially the above says that nickel can protect aluminium from corrosion IF the aluminium surface has been adequately prepared for the plating process. If it hasn't, galvanic corrosion can be quite rapid.

Here's the rub: the sonic prop was made from aluminium. The surface wasn't prepped properly prior to the nickel plating of the middle section, as can be evidence by the subsequent flaking and wear, which caused the less noble aluminium underneath (that was exposed via the microscopic pitting) to corrode at an accelerated rate in the presence of an electrolyte. In this case, the salt and moisture from sweat is the electrolyte, and this results in the formation of white aluminium oxides, or in this case, aluminium hydroxide - an opaque white substance.

The Charge of the Arse Brigade

Following on from Neill Gorton's delightfully obfuscative tirade against me and those that don't dismiss my scribblings as those of a madman, there has followed a sageley nodding bunch of morally self righteous arse licking hypocritical fuckmunches eager to be seen to be doing the right thing by voicing their outrage against me. Amongst the first is a toady little shite called Phez who posted the following (my reply in RED):

"Neill

You offer a fully licensed product, made in house by the effects team that works on the show with unquestionable proof that you have direct access to the screen used prop as reference. You have also been polite and shown great customer service to support your product (I have had no problems with my two but am very impressed with how you have helped out others in this thread). Actually Phez, Neill has not actually proved convincingly that he has had access to the prop. Because if he did, why the fuck did he produce what he did? All I can say for sure is someone did, and that was the person who made the prototype. I don't think it was MFX. As for great customer service, that is EXPECTED. It's not something that you give extra brownie points for.

That is being balanced against someone who is not licensed, has no affiliation to the show and absolutally no proof that they are using any refrence material that is not currently publicly avalible. The persons behavior has been very un-bussiness like (to say the least) and I would fully expect to be instructed to stick the product up my *** if I bought one of his products and had a problem with it. Well, actually you stupid fucking cunt, I'd like you to produce something that is to my level of accuracy using public domain material. The fact that I have dims that NO ONE ELSE should, except those that have studied and handled the actual prop, proves pretty danm convincingly that I have.  Neill knows I have. How else could I have called him out on the dims being off? I think I have proven my chops. If  anything, Neill needs to prove his. And he hasn't. Not one iota. His replica looks like it was made using photo reference material it is that inaccurate. As for my business practices, my customers will attest that I have amongst the finest out there. My testimonials speak volumes. Just because I take no crap from fucking morons does not make me a shit businessman. If you were my customer I would deal with your issue quickly, professionally and to your 100% satisfaction. As my customers will agree. So take your snide little suppositions and shove it up your rectum. Prick.

Keep up the good work man, if I can throw a few bucks in the direction of the people who are making stuff for a show I enjoy and get a sweet prop out of the deal, all is good

I'm happy you're happy. "