I just wanted to address and attempt to shed some possible light on the actual origins of the Don Post 1998 Prototype Captain Kirk mask. It has been popularly held that the 98 proto was a laser scanned copy of an actual Don Post 1975 Captain Kirk, however, there does not seem to be any actual evidence to support this claim readily available online, and for a while, I believed this to simply be a baseless hoax. It turns out that this rumor is not entirely baseless, but, as I will attempt to prove, is certainly false none the less.
First off, where did this rumor originate? As I have researched in the past, there are only members and moderators in these forums simply stating the popular laser scanning narrative, but there doesn’t appear to be any direct source that this was drawn from. Recently, however, I believe that I may have found the possible factual source that this narrative is based on.
It turns out that Don Post studios did in fact use laser scanning to revive the old Calendar masks for the Calendar reissues in 98/99. The process is chronicled in ‘The Illustrated History of Don Post Studios’ by Lee Lambert, on pages 475 and 476:
“What is public knowledge is that original masks were laser scanned and electronically reproduced on a lathe. The original test run used a 1/8” needle which did not capture the detail of Pat Newman’s sculpture. Despite the increased cost of using a finer needle, Don agreed to spend the necessary $1500 per mask to use a 1/6" needle which was the finest one available. The hard foam 3D copies that were produced in this process were improved, however still had the appearance of a slightly melted sculpture. To improve the sculptures, the 3D scanned copies were claypressed and turned over to sculptor Darren Perks for the painstaking task of recreating Pat Newman’s sculptures. Perks took each sculpture and, using original masks and photos as reference, was able to ensure each and every wrinkle, pock-mark, pore and fold was resculpted in the exact same location and depth as the original sculpture. Several masks required more work than others with the Creature A, Glenn Strange Frankenstein, Wolf Man A, and the Mummy A requiring the most work. As Perks explained; “Once molded, a sculpture is ‘softened’ slightly and a generation is lost when the mask is pulled. The detail needed to be over-sculpted back in so the production re-issues would have the same depth and consistency as in the originals.” Once Perks had completed his sculpting, molds were made for the master copies to be produced."
“The one distinct advantage of the process used is that they were able to digitally enlarge the masks to create the properly sized, wearable masks out of the bootleg copies. that was especially neat with respect to the Mr. Hyde, as the original had been pulled from production within a year due to it’s small size making it impossible for most adults to wear.”
Then after the 3 pages documenting the process of the re-issue, there are several pages of pictures further chronicling the stages of the process. What is missing from this book is any reference of this process being used on anything outside of the calendar re-issues. In fact, the only written mention of the 98 is a footnote on page 469, mentioning the mask’s re-release as the “Shatner”.
So, other than proving beyond a reasonable doubt that laser scanning was used in the same time period as the release of the Don Post 98, why is this information so problematic to the story of the laser scanned kirk?
Well, first off, even the finest lathe was unable to reproduce the fine surface details of the original calendar masks, and what do we know about the original 75 Kirks? That’s right, they are the very definition of soft subtle detail. If the lathe had attempted to reproduce the Kirk, the entire surface would have had to of been completely resculpted. So, what if the 98’s are a meticulous retool of a laser scanned, lathe cut, clay pressed Kirk? One problem, the subtle detail of the Kirk mask is legendary for being almost impossible to resculpt accurately, even in the hands of the most competent artists who often resort to recasting either an old DP Kirk, or a lifecast. What do we know about the surface of the DP 98 protos? Other than some specific small casting flaws, small pocks and knicks, it has all the same precise details of the original production 75’s. The only exception being that the detail is arguably slightly softer than early, mint DP 75 pulls.
Second, all of the Calender masks were digitally scaled up. What do we know about the DP 98 proto’s? They are small. If they were indeed reproduced on a lathe, why weren’t they scaled up? The protos should have been at least the same size as the 75’s if not larger, but they are smaller than most production 75 copies. Based on multiple direct measurements of original 75’s the average circumferance above the brow is 24", the same measurement of the 98 protos is 23". 4.2% smaller than the prodction 75’s. I have no direct evidence that I can share to prove that measurement, but feel free to ask any of the known owners of the existing 98 protos in the community. Their measurements will undoubtedly corroborate my statement. In other words, don’t just take my word for it. Do your own research.
So, all of the above information is factual, observable, researchable, etc. This next part essentially just adds up to educated conjecture on my part.
With the DP 98 protos being under 5% smaller than the production 75s, it could be argued that they are recasts of production 75s. However, the details, and perhaps even more importantly, the forms of the 98s are pristine, and not in any way flattened or washed out when compared to it’s 75 counterpart. Add to this the known fact that in the 70’s Don Post was notorious for adding fillers to their clay to cut cost. Adding fillers to latex can be known to reduce the shrinkage caused by the drying process. Furthermore still, the 75’s were cast pretty thin, which reduces shrinkage, while the 98s were cast quite thick. These factors would easily account for the discrepancy in size from the 75 to the 98 proto.
To cut to the chase, I am saying that I firmly believe the Don Post 98 Prototype Kirks to be cast from an old 1975 Kirk production mold. Also, I do not believe the 98s to have been cast in the 90’s at all, but were cast most likely in the early 1980’s, perhaps around the same time as the 80’s back up Kirks for Halloween 2, or around the same time as the early Don Post ‘the Mask’ prototypes. These castings were most likely held by Don Post studios for around 5-7 years until they were able to work out some form of licensing to re-release the Kirk mask in one form or another.
To further illustrate my point, here is a DP ‘the Mask’ prototype. Most likely from '83 directly next to a DP 98 proto. Even the hairing is very similar.
So, there is my theory. Admittedly, much of the information is both anecdotal and circumstantial, but if you believe my conclusions to be in error, I would love to see any evidence that contradicts them. Thank you.
