original trooper face mould?
- Thread starter PMTrooper
- Start date
- Status
voice in the crowd
Sr Member
<div class='quotetop'>(FON @ Sep 23 2006, 09:19 AM) [snapback]1324898[/snapback]</div>
Yep its gone. It did have two bids on it last time I looked. Possibly it was been removed by Ebay if a complaint has been received.
The seller may have removed it if somebody made an offer outside of Ebay that he was willing to take.
I do know a member here email the seller and told him his thoughts on his moulds so I wonder if the seller will reply to him.
Chris.
Yep its gone. It did have two bids on it last time I looked. Possibly it was been removed by Ebay if a complaint has been received.
The seller may have removed it if somebody made an offer outside of Ebay that he was willing to take.
I do know a member here email the seller and told him his thoughts on his moulds so I wonder if the seller will reply to him.
Chris.
Star Wars Helmets
Sr Member
<div class='quotetop'>(Jumpin Jax @ Sep 23 2006, 01:05 AM) [snapback]1324755[/snapback]</div>
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]
The "madness" will end when we get some real FACTS round here and not an "I know but canÂ’t tell you but trust me" from Matt.
There's no doubt that Matt is helping LFL, so could have an inside track on whats happening. Excuse me if I find this a little hypocritical and ironic – I just hope LFL is fully aware of his history... . I can only presume they’re prepared to "wipe the slate clean" with regard to his numerous previous (and current) copyright infringements in return for his assistance in nailing SDS, his competitor.
Reading the original LFL complaints, it always struck me that the “Plaintiff is informed and believes” language suggested they were relying on 3rd party evidence (i.e. Matt). These guys should have clear evidence that AA didn’t sculpt the helmets, and yet have still not provided anything. Surely if there was a sculpt done by an LFL-employee that a photo must exist, something?
So I’m not sure what Matt’s getting his 30 pieces of silver for, other than to say “well the under cut is too short, the tumblehome is wrong etc. etc.”.
Just give us cold hard facts and weÂ’ll gladly accept them. If I was wrong IÂ’ll apologise. Gladly.
Cheers
Jez
btw I recon LFL pulled the Ebay auction thru the VERO programme
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]
The "madness" will end when we get some real FACTS round here and not an "I know but canÂ’t tell you but trust me" from Matt.
There's no doubt that Matt is helping LFL, so could have an inside track on whats happening. Excuse me if I find this a little hypocritical and ironic – I just hope LFL is fully aware of his history... . I can only presume they’re prepared to "wipe the slate clean" with regard to his numerous previous (and current) copyright infringements in return for his assistance in nailing SDS, his competitor.
Reading the original LFL complaints, it always struck me that the “Plaintiff is informed and believes” language suggested they were relying on 3rd party evidence (i.e. Matt). These guys should have clear evidence that AA didn’t sculpt the helmets, and yet have still not provided anything. Surely if there was a sculpt done by an LFL-employee that a photo must exist, something?
So I’m not sure what Matt’s getting his 30 pieces of silver for, other than to say “well the under cut is too short, the tumblehome is wrong etc. etc.”.
Just give us cold hard facts and weÂ’ll gladly accept them. If I was wrong IÂ’ll apologise. Gladly.
Cheers
Jez
btw I recon LFL pulled the Ebay auction thru the VERO programme
<div class='quotetop'>(BingoBongo275 @ Sep 23 2006, 05:53 AM) [snapback]1324919[/snapback]</div>
We've seen AA's photos of his work from 1976...with him posing in the photos as well in front of the same shop, and photos were definitely taken in the art department at that time. So clearly LFL has found no record of the helmets being produced in the art department. Because they weren't. That's a known fact. As to who sculpted the helmets, there is no one that has come forward, neither has LFL been able to document who sculpted them as whomever did would have to be under contract and therefore LFL would have a record of that. Their whole case would hinge on that, and they've failed to provide that evidence. It doesn't matter what minor differences there might be between the SDS helmet and an original casting from that time, because AA wrote on his website that there were minor changes to the molds as with the undercut. My guess is that AA modified the undercut so that it is easier to pull the face off the mold and didn't realize it would affect perception of the accuracy of the helmet so severely. His lawyers wouldn't be so naive to take on his case unless they knew he had the goods.
We've seen AA's photos of his work from 1976...with him posing in the photos as well in front of the same shop, and photos were definitely taken in the art department at that time. So clearly LFL has found no record of the helmets being produced in the art department. Because they weren't. That's a known fact. As to who sculpted the helmets, there is no one that has come forward, neither has LFL been able to document who sculpted them as whomever did would have to be under contract and therefore LFL would have a record of that. Their whole case would hinge on that, and they've failed to provide that evidence. It doesn't matter what minor differences there might be between the SDS helmet and an original casting from that time, because AA wrote on his website that there were minor changes to the molds as with the undercut. My guess is that AA modified the undercut so that it is easier to pull the face off the mold and didn't realize it would affect perception of the accuracy of the helmet so severely. His lawyers wouldn't be so naive to take on his case unless they knew he had the goods.
Keith
Sr Member
I wouldn't say the differences between the SDS replicas and the originals are minor.
The face is wrong, the main problem being the bottom of it hangs down and the ears and cap/back are TOATLLY different. Thats all 4 main plastic parts that make the helmet.
When i bought my SDS helmet, the only work that AA said he had done to the molds was "minor clean-up".
He only said he had done work to the cap/back, rebuilt the ear molds and repaired to the bottom of the face after people started asking why its so different to the originals.
Keith.
The face is wrong, the main problem being the bottom of it hangs down and the ears and cap/back are TOATLLY different. Thats all 4 main plastic parts that make the helmet.
When i bought my SDS helmet, the only work that AA said he had done to the molds was "minor clean-up".
He only said he had done work to the cap/back, rebuilt the ear molds and repaired to the bottom of the face after people started asking why its so different to the originals.
Keith.
exoray
Master Member
<div class='quotetop'></div>
It's standard legal talk, you will find it in almost every case like this... LFL is a corporation a entity in itself no a single person, so it makes total sense the LFL the corporation (the one filing suit) is informed and believes as the corporation in itself doesn't have first hand information... Rather "the corporation" LFL has 3rd party information from employees, witnesses etc.... If it was a single person they you could state it first hand, no one person can speak for all the corporation though and such is the wording in the documents... Also consider that the paperwork is prepared by yet another 3rd party (the legal team) and they won't state first hand either... Add to the mix that LFL the corporation did not exist when this went down so again LFL the corporationof course would not have first person knowledge...
<div class='quotetop'></div>
Well even from watching court TV you should be well aware you don't let all the cats out of the bag right off the bat... The case NEVER made it to the Discovery stage, this is the part of the trial that you submit (and request) your evidense to back up your claims... AA bailed prior to this stage so, the case then jumped right to the end for judgement... You only have to show a little bit of evidense to file the claims to show legit basis for the filing, that was done... If AA has stuck it out a little longer both sides would have had to provide evidense to support their claims...
It's standard legal talk, you will find it in almost every case like this... LFL is a corporation a entity in itself no a single person, so it makes total sense the LFL the corporation (the one filing suit) is informed and believes as the corporation in itself doesn't have first hand information... Rather "the corporation" LFL has 3rd party information from employees, witnesses etc.... If it was a single person they you could state it first hand, no one person can speak for all the corporation though and such is the wording in the documents... Also consider that the paperwork is prepared by yet another 3rd party (the legal team) and they won't state first hand either... Add to the mix that LFL the corporation did not exist when this went down so again LFL the corporationof course would not have first person knowledge...
<div class='quotetop'></div>
Well even from watching court TV you should be well aware you don't let all the cats out of the bag right off the bat... The case NEVER made it to the Discovery stage, this is the part of the trial that you submit (and request) your evidense to back up your claims... AA bailed prior to this stage so, the case then jumped right to the end for judgement... You only have to show a little bit of evidense to file the claims to show legit basis for the filing, that was done... If AA has stuck it out a little longer both sides would have had to provide evidense to support their claims...
<div class='quotetop'>(Keith @ Sep 23 2006, 03:32 PM) [snapback]1325115[/snapback]</div>
I think the face is pretty good. The helmet is assembled incorrectly, that's all. I've studied the inside of the face of the SDS vs the originals and in my view they are from the same source. Although yes I think that AA had to make improvements to the molds given their age. Also you're comparing the SDS with the TE helmet, not with other originals. The TE helmet ears are softer and cut differently than SDS. So yes the SDS is very different from the TE. But the TE helmet is NOT the model of what every original TK helmet looked like, not by a long shot.
(note I'm using the Gino helmet just as an example of a helmet derived from the TE original)
I think the face is pretty good. The helmet is assembled incorrectly, that's all. I've studied the inside of the face of the SDS vs the originals and in my view they are from the same source. Although yes I think that AA had to make improvements to the molds given their age. Also you're comparing the SDS with the TE helmet, not with other originals. The TE helmet ears are softer and cut differently than SDS. So yes the SDS is very different from the TE. But the TE helmet is NOT the model of what every original TK helmet looked like, not by a long shot.
(note I'm using the Gino helmet just as an example of a helmet derived from the TE original)
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
Assembly means a great deal to the look of the SDS helmet, the stunt in particular, from what I can see. The back cap is altered - too large for the face, which then stretches out and pulling the front in, making it look flat and wide and warped. The back/cap is the whole problem, from what I can tell, on the stunt helmets... a part that was corrected greatly with the battle spec helmets, making it look more accurate.
Can't remember if the back/cap was altered on the hero helmets... but the stunt definitely has issues with that part... and the assembly of the helmet, making it look a bit strange.
Can't remember if the back/cap was altered on the hero helmets... but the stunt definitely has issues with that part... and the assembly of the helmet, making it look a bit strange.
You know I am amazed. Amazed that anyone is foolish enough to continue to argue that "AA Hasn't shown his game yet". After all the clear and concise legal analysis given here by attorneys and / or Law Firm owners, I would have thought it was clear...AA Lost and had no defense. There will be no miracle trial in the UK. The UK hearing will be concerned only with proving how many violations AA is guilty of and therefore how much of the US decision and award the UK court will honor. It is over in terms of proof in either direction of who has the rights. AA lost because he never even got in the game. As for this ridiculous statement that keeps appearing of "AA's attorneys would never take a losing case"....hellooooo can you say naive?.? Attorneys take losers all the time if there is a paycheck in advance... Look folks, the issue is settled as to who has the rights to the helmet design and the answer is clearly LFL.
Keith
Sr Member
I'm comparing the SDS helmet to every photo and frame of film i've ever seen of the originals and also two original helmets i spent an hour and a half looking at in person. Not just the helmets TE used to own. Infact, if anything the last helmet i would compare the SDS to is the TE1 helmet.
I have said many times before that the only helmet you can really replicate using the least modified replica parts that are available to us (which come from the TE1 helmet) is a replica of the TE1 helmet. Thats why i would love it if someone got hold of another original helmet and made unmodified molds from that.
The first thing i did when i received my SDS helmet was take it apart, retrim the ears and assemble it again, but it can't be put together to match the orignals, as the parts of the helmet are different.
I've seen an orignal "prototype" trooper helmet in person and it was clear that the SDS came from that.
If you don't think the SDS comes from the prototype and you think its from the orginal molds, then great, i'm happy for you. I really really wish it was from the original molds.
Keith.
I have said many times before that the only helmet you can really replicate using the least modified replica parts that are available to us (which come from the TE1 helmet) is a replica of the TE1 helmet. Thats why i would love it if someone got hold of another original helmet and made unmodified molds from that.
The first thing i did when i received my SDS helmet was take it apart, retrim the ears and assemble it again, but it can't be put together to match the orignals, as the parts of the helmet are different.
I've seen an orignal "prototype" trooper helmet in person and it was clear that the SDS came from that.
If you don't think the SDS comes from the prototype and you think its from the orginal molds, then great, i'm happy for you. I really really wish it was from the original molds.
Keith.
voice in the crowd
Sr Member
Read this thread title.
I am amazed this thread about an obvious Ebay scammer who has clearly ripped off TE has turned into a completely different topic.
Possibly the thread title should be changed to what is happening in the SDS legal battle. Oh wait there already is one of them on the go at the moment.
This thread is about are these moulds from an original trooper face mould.
The answer is no they are poorly cast TE helmet.
End of debate.
This forum is obsessed with SDS and will destroy or distort a thread at the drop of a hat.
For all the people who want to argue about SDS and with each other to score points or just argue in general just start a new thread titled 'anyone fancy arguing about the same SDS crap over and over again'. I am sure there will be plenty of takers. I can even get the ball rolling
http://www.therpf.com/index.php?showtopic=117272
Enjoy yourselves.
I am amazed this thread about an obvious Ebay scammer who has clearly ripped off TE has turned into a completely different topic.
Possibly the thread title should be changed to what is happening in the SDS legal battle. Oh wait there already is one of them on the go at the moment.
This thread is about are these moulds from an original trooper face mould.
The answer is no they are poorly cast TE helmet.
End of debate.
This forum is obsessed with SDS and will destroy or distort a thread at the drop of a hat.
For all the people who want to argue about SDS and with each other to score points or just argue in general just start a new thread titled 'anyone fancy arguing about the same SDS crap over and over again'. I am sure there will be plenty of takers. I can even get the ball rolling
http://www.therpf.com/index.php?showtopic=117272
Enjoy yourselves.
Too Much Garlic
Master Member
EDITED. :rolleyes
rocketeer25
Sr Member
Fair enough.
<div class='quotetop'></div>
<div class='quotetop'></div>
- Status
Similar threads
