original trooper face mould?

[voice in the crowd]

<div class='quotetop'>(AnsonJames @ Sep 22 2006, 04:29 PM) [snapback]1324489[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>

AA didn't make the original molds. But I suppose he may have heard details about it.
JJ
[/b]

Here we go :rolleyes
[/b][/quote]


JJ you are so right I think also AA may have heard some details about it as he clearly had no real significant involvement in any of the original production. I don't think he has even seen the real moulds or would have any idea of how they were made or what they are made from after all that is no business of a professional vac forming company employed by George Lucas and John Mollo to know these things.

The original sculptor (who obviously died the day after completing the props as he has never been heard of since) apparently dumped 13 full sets of armour and 27 helmets on the pavement outside of AA's place of work in 1976 as a prank. Here is a photograph of AA photographing the evidence to tell the Metropolitan Police that somebody has dumped litter on his property.

I would love to know who actually sculpted all the props falsely attributed to AA can't wait for your next post to tell us.

Going back on topic I thought AA vac formed lots of pieces at one time like the photos of full suits of armour to save time rather than making multiple moulds.

Does anybody know if the helmet pieces were pulled on the same huge sheets of plastic with the armour and were just removed at the time of photography or were the helmets made separate from the suits of armour? If so then there would be one helmet per suit of armour and no need for a double faceplate mould as you would end up with double the amount of faceplates needed so in my opinion the Ebay mould design wouldn't make sense and it is clearly not what it says it is.

Cheers Chris.

 

[Too Much Garlic]

<div class='quotetop'>(troopermaster @ Sep 22 2006, 07:27 PM) [snapback]1324547[/snapback]</div>

Taking a mould from inside a vacformed pull will NOT give you the same mould it was pulled from.Yeah some parts will be sharp,the outer hard edges but where the plastic need pulling into crevices and doesn't quite pull hard enough,you get soft lines and those get softer each time you recast a plastic formed part.It's evident with TE's helmet's.The original he used was a very good pull but his reproductions are much softer so go figure.

The bump on the tooth hole is all the evidence I need to see that this helmet is a copy of a TE/meatsock.There is no way on this earth that the bump could ever be there if the mould was taken from anything else except a replica helmet.Only TE's mould had this bump for some reason whether it was something he filled the hole in the tooth when he recast the original or it was just a flaw I don't know but it's there on his and it's there on this.
[/b]

Okay... that makes sense. I'm convinced.

 

[troopermaster]

<div class='quotetop'>(voice in the crowd @ Sep 22 2006, 07:34 PM) [snapback]1324585[/snapback]</div>

Does anybody know if the helmet pieces were pulled on the same huge sheets of plastic with the armour and were just removed at the time of photography or were the helmets made separate from the suits of armour?
[/b]

Well Chris,the armour is white and the helmets are beige so....... :love Unless you mean the face plates and cap/backs were done on the same sheet?

 

[gonk27]

<div class='quotetop'>(voice in the crowd @ Sep 22 2006, 06:34 PM) [snapback]1324585[/snapback]</div>

Does anybody know if the helmet pieces were pulled on the same huge sheets of plastic with the armour and were just removed at the time of photography or were the helmets made separate from the suits of armour? If so then there would be one helmet per suit of armour and no need for a double faceplate mould as you would end up with double the amount of faceplates needed so in my opinion the Ebay mould design wouldn't make sense and it is clearly not what it says it is.

Cheers Chris.
[/b]

The helmets couldn't have been formed on the same sheets as the armour as they were made with a different plastic.

It's an interesting artefact. I don't see much evidence of the bump under the trooper's right eye that's apparent on most helmets, to me this makes it look a lot like a Joiner helmet. Same with the slightly squashed cheek tubes.

Jeremy

 

[Too Much Garlic]

I guess I'm not as up on my whole trooper makers knowledge as I thought... who's joiner and what does his helmet casts look like? Sorry to go OT.

 

[gonk27]

<div class='quotetop'>(troopermaster @ Sep 22 2006, 07:35 PM) [snapback]1324616[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(voice in the crowd @ Sep 22 2006, 07:34 PM) [snapback]1324585[/snapback]

Does anybody know if the helmet pieces were pulled on the same huge sheets of plastic with the armour and were just removed at the time of photography or were the helmets made separate from the suits of armour?
[/b]

Well Chris,the armour is white and the helmets are beige so....... :love Unless you mean the face plates and cap/backs were done on the same sheet?
[/b][/quote]


Ah. Troopermaster, you beat me to it. (curse my metal fingers, I wasn't fast enough.)



NHM, J.Joiner is a prop collector here in the UK he made a few vacced trooper suits that had fibreglass helmets some time around the mid-late 90's I think. One was sold by Profiles In History not long ago.


Jeremy

 

[Jumpin Jax]

Dooobee doobie dooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo :angel

 

[RKW]

 

[PMTrooper]

troopermaster
maybe looks like a copy of a TE
but IMO this is a recast from 2 original helmets
someone other wanted to do copy´s for ?????
not the best recassting knowledge
and that´s the point for me that shows me the moulds are a lil older than maybe the first TE
mike could be right
the wood on the back looks very old

the casting looks like a fast casting
maybe someone was very busy and someone had no time to wait
LFL?

like someone said before
maybe a cheap tour suit or anythink
haven´t seen so many pics from this suits

but thats only my opinion

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

<div class='quotetop'>(Jumpin Jax @ Sep 22 2006, 08:09 PM) [snapback]1324635[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(BingoBongo275 @ Sep 22 2006, 11:14 AM) [snapback]1324573[/snapback]

Well I'm sure a number of people here would like to hear some evidence of this.
Or is this going to be another of those "well I know but I just cant say"
[/b]

Yet. Have no fear, Jez. I will be happy to share this fact when the time is right. So...so VERY...happy. You truly have no inkling of how happy, sorry if I ramble. Carry on So, any other theories?
JJ
[/b][/quote]

God don't you guys love the DRAMA.

"So VERY Happy"

I presume you're alluding to the fact that your mate Matt Gautier aka "Trooper Expert" is the one assisting LFL in its case against SDS. Its probably the worst-kept secret since he pretty much announced it himself on the boards :lol

The irony of a man who's been illegally reproducing Lucasfilm-copyright helmets and armour longer than anyone else (even claiming HE gave AA the idea to start remaking them when he tried to go into business with him), he's the individual helping them try to nail the one person who actually made the helmets in the first place

Cheers

Jez

 

[Jumpin Jax]

Is there a case going on?

 

[Star Wars Helmets]

<div class='quotetop'>(Jumpin Jax @ Sep 22 2006, 10:18 PM) [snapback]1324694[/snapback]</div>

Of course everyone knew. Are you now in the habit of outing propmakers on this public forum? Banned or not, it's poor form.

PMtrooper, it appears to be a Meatsock copy.
JJ
[/b]

If everyone knew then how can I be outing him? :lol

Cheers

Jez

 

[Art Andrews]

ACK. BAD RKW. BAD. Now you are proving that not only is this "original mold" actually a TE recast but even the prototype helmets were TE recasts. AA you monkey... You recast TE's work WAY back in the day. I hate you. I hate you... How could you do this to TE, when he was just a babe. :lol :lol :lol

Still waiting for that glorious day when TE reveals all his mysterious knowledge to us so we can all grovel at his feet and bask in the glow of his holiness... Whatever....

<div class='quotetop'>(RKW @ Sep 22 2006, 04:21 PM) [snapback]1324640[/snapback]</div>

[/b]

 

[Jumpin Jax]

When will the madness end?
jj

<div class='quotetop'>(Brak's Buddy @ Sep 22 2006, 03:57 PM) [snapback]1324708[/snapback]</div>

Still waiting for that glorious day when TE reveals all his mysterious knowledge to us so we can all grovel at his feet and bask in the glow of his holiness... Whatever....

[/b]

Lemme just ask you something, call it hypothetical.
Say he proved what he said? Say that there is proof that is truly unimpeachable. Would you accept it? Or reject it out of principle? I know the way most people on this board probably would react, but I wonder if there's any objectivity left.

 

[Art Andrews]

<div class='quotetop'>(Jumpin Jax @ Sep 22 2006, 09:05 PM) [snapback]1324755[/snapback]</div>

When will the madness end?
jj

<div class='quotetop'>(Brak's Buddy @ Sep 22 2006, 03:57 PM) [snapback]1324708[/snapback]

Still waiting for that glorious day when TE reveals all his mysterious knowledge to us so we can all grovel at his feet and bask in the glow of his holiness... Whatever....

[/b]

Lemme just ask you something, call it hypothetical.
Say he proved what he said? Say that there is proof that is truly unimpeachable. Would you accept it? Or reject it out of principle? I know the way most people on this board probably would react, but I wonder if there's any objectivity left.
[/b][/quote]

That is a totally fair and valid question, especially considering the way many people respond to issues like this. As for myself, if Matt (or anyone) proved (and I mean proved, not just stated as Matt is so well known for doing) ANYTHING than I would believe it. That is my biggest hangup with Matt and all of his so called "facts." So often he makes big claims but for some "reason of the day" he can't give proof and we just have to take him at his word. I have seen this from him from day one. The problem is, over the years, I have come to find that so many of these things that I was just supposed to accept were utter bull or blown so out of proportion that they really no longer resembled the truth. However, if he were to actually give proof of any claim, not just his claims about AA, I would be willing to accept them. I never dismiss things simply because they come from Matt. I simply take them with a grain of salt when he doesn't back them up because I have seen him be wrong or outright llie on so many occasions. Am I skeptical of anything coming from Matt or his camp? Absolutely. I would be a fool not be skeptical. Would reject it simply because it came from Matt, especially if he offered proof that didn't involve me just trusting him? No way. However, I think in the end what it will be is him telling us (through you or some other friend) that AA did indeed do all these evil whatevers, but he can't show us because LFL, Lucas, or the tooth fairy won't let him and once again we will just have to take his word for it. If that is the case... yeah, you can count me out.

 

[SithLord]

<div class='quotetop'>(Brak's Buddy @ Sep 22 2006, 09:24 PM) [snapback]1324763[/snapback]</div>

Lemme just ask you something, call it hypothetical.
Say he proved what he said? Say that there is proof that is truly unimpeachable. Would you accept it? Or reject it out of principle? I know the way most people on this board probably would react, but I wonder if there's any objectivity left.
[/b]

Your question implies that TE has proof. Proof is proof and should be accepted as such. But any so-called proof must stand the test of scrutiny and interpretation to determine its validity. There's a saying in science that you can never prove something, but only disprove other possibilities. There's a difference between proof and evidence. Evidence is supportive of a premise, absolute proof is a rare commodity indeed...if it's suggestive then it's only evidence.

Also, even if TE has proof, it is irrelevant to the case as it stands. There was no counterpoint by AA to show his evidence and what LFL showed is IMHO not proof that it has the original molds or that it's people under contract created the original TK helmets. So we have default. But if the case goes to another level, it will be interesting to see the so-called proof come into play, from both sides.

 

[Art Andrews]

<div class='quotetop'>(SithLord @ Sep 22 2006, 10:43 PM) [snapback]1324789[/snapback]</div>

There's a difference between proof and evidence. Evidence is supportive of a premise, absolute proof is a rare commodity indeed...if it's suggestive then it's only evidence.
[/b]

From TE I would be impressed with even evidence. Usually all we get is the whole "I know but can't tell you or show you" thing.

 

[TK8410]

<div class='quotetop'>(Jumpin Jax @ Sep 22 2006, 10:18 AM) [snapback]1324484[/snapback]</div>

AA didn't make the original molds.
[/b]

I did.

I can't show or tell you how, you'll just have to believe me...honestly, it was me. I have proof, I could show you, but I wont. All those other helmets out there are just copies of mine.

Really.



Cheers, Gord.

P.S. Popcorn anyone?

 

[GeneralMayhem]

You gotta love all the debate subjects like this always spark... It's just so...geeky... lol

 

[voice in the crowd]

<div class='quotetop'>(gonk27 @ Sep 22 2006, 08:56 PM) [snapback]1324630[/snapback]</div>

<div class='quotetop'>(troopermaster @ Sep 22 2006, 07:35 PM) [snapback]1324616[/snapback]

<div class='quotetop'>(voice in the crowd @ Sep 22 2006, 07:34 PM) [snapback]1324585[/snapback]

Does anybody know if the helmet pieces were pulled on the same huge sheets of plastic with the armour and were just removed at the time of photography or were the helmets made separate from the suits of armour?
[/b]

Well Chris,the armour is white and the helmets are beige so....... :love Unless you mean the face plates and cap/backs were done on the same sheet?
[/b][/quote]


Ah. Troopermaster, you beat me to it. (curse my metal fingers, I wasn't fast enough.)



NHM, J.Joiner is a prop collector here in the UK he made a few vacced trooper suits that had fibreglass helmets some time around the mid-late 90's I think. One was sold by Profiles In History not long ago.


Jeremy
[/b][/quote]


Paul thanks for the info on the vac forming I worded it quite poorly when I was talking about AAs production methods. I was saying that if the suits were vacuum formed at one time and if the helmets faceplate, back/cap and earcaps which was all made of the same material were vacuumed at the same time unless he had two back/caps and two sets of earcaps the double faceplate mould would be illogical.

Jeremy also thanks for the info on the JJ tour suit I knew the helmet was fibreglass and had presumed the armour to be the same but obviously not.

Another point about the claimed source from this Ebay seller is John Frost gave him them what do we know about John Frost? I had read he was actually an employee who worked for AA but I am unsure if that is true. Is the seller saying he got his interior of the falcon and R2D2 moulds from the same source as well? If so why would an employee of SDS have anything to do with the other props?

Cheers Chris.