Chef

So you've decided you want to get the white stuff, and a Scout at that... And rightly so. Now armour doesn't come cheap, and it's going to be a hefty outlay of your 'hard earned' and probably something you're going to want to run smoothly and stress free. Now, not wanting to cause alarm and send you all running for the Bunker to batten down the hatches, it may or may not come as a surprise to hear that there are a number of issues with the costuming world that seem to be becoming more and more common place. Number 1: Stuff not being delivered on time. This is the prime cause of disgruntlement, and naturally causes all the others. Number 2: Disputes over money, with regards to products. Number 3: Damaged or Defective products. So what can you DO about it?? There are a number of very simple ways i which you can protect yourself and your cash when it comes to Online or distance purchases. PAYMENT: 1: Use a Credit Card to make the payment. This generally covers you against fraud and disputes. You will need to check your individual card supplier on their terms. 2: Use PayPal. But BE ADVISED. Paypal only covers you for 45 days, in which to log a dispute. Sending Payments as "gifts or payments owed" DOES NOT give you "Buyer Protection". Use this option at your own risk. This is very important. 3: Try not to send cash or other non redeemable payment source. YOUR SUPPLIER: First and foremost you are a CUSTOMER. It doesn't matter whether they are a massive company or some one man band. You are 'paying' for a product and have statutory rights with regards to that purchase. Your suppliers personal circumstances in no way should affect your transaction. If you've parted with money, you are a priority. Time Scales: Always make sure you get a definitive date on when your purchase will be ready. IF it falls outside of the time scales for the 'Payment Protection' of your funding source, then seriously consider whether to use that supplier, because it is putting you on the fastest course to not being able to get your money back should things go wrong. If the time scale is beyond these, consider asking to be put on a waiting list, with payment not due until the item can be delivered within that time scale. If they are not agreeable, alarm bells should be ringing. They Request PAYMENT IN FULL UP FRONT, with a massive wait time. This should be the number one alarm bell.... What other product in the world do you do this with?? Asking for all the cash up front and then making you wait 3-6-12 months (or more in some cases) IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. This is becoming the norm, and it only ends badly. If their product is SO GOOD that it requires a 12 month waiting list, then they should either upscale or stop taking orders until they've cleared their backlog. Deposits: If you negotiate a deposit for initial material cost outlay, make sure you see progress on the build within any specific 'protection' period to make sure work is actually being carried out. So you've paid your money, and you're feeling worried!! Contact your seller and request an update. This is the first port of call in any situation. Get the low down from them. If you're getting close to your 'payment protection' windows, then FILE A DISPUTE. Do this as a matter of course. Yes it may upset your seller a bit, but better they be upset than you loose your protection. They should understand if the time scale gets this high. If you don't receive any response within a week (which is plenty... even for the most seriously unconnected person), then consider filing a dispute. It is a courtesy to let them know that this is what you are doing and why, so it doesn't come as a shock to them. A quick courtesy email from your supplier shouldn't be a drama for them. SHIPPING: If you've got an expensive item coming to you, make sure it comes via a TRACKED AND INSURED method of delivery. 90% of all international shipping comes with these, and yes it may cost more, but you can't put a price on 'peace of mind'. OBTAIN A TRACKING NUMBER. Get it... check it. If it comes up with a funny result. Contact your seller. REMEMBER. The parcel remains the responsibility of the SENDER until you have received it. If it gets lost, damaged or otherwise delayed. THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT.... NOT YOU. It's not 'tough luck', it's for the sender to reimburse you and them to chase the shipping company or arrange a replacement at no additional cost to yourself. IF your vendor won't offer a tracked service (bearing in mind UPS and the likes can get practically EVERYWHERE in the world), then seriously consider whether they are worthy of your cash. If the seller chooses to send it uninsured, well... that's tough luck for them! ITEMS DAMAGED or BAD QUALITY. If the box is damaged or the items inside are... DON'T SIGN FOR IT... Or sign it as damaged on your shipping waybill. If the quality inside isn't up to your expected standard. Contact your seller. If you're not happy, you are entitled to a refund or a replacement. If they get funny about this... Start a dispute with your 'payment protection'. They should be ready to sort any issues you may have. REMEMBER, THIS IS YOUR MONEY. BE CAREFUL WITH IT. CAVEAT EMPTOR - IT MEANS 'BUYER BEWARE'.

I'll grab you on the Garrison boards Simon.

And seeing as I never seem to stop... Apart from the Lid updates, I tackled the chest plate and back plates again today. widened the neck a fraction, canted the outer edges of the shoulder straps downwards and added the little notch in to the bottom of the chest plate. (It's rough trimmed around the edges at the moment, needs sanding smooth). then had to re-match up the straps to the back plate.

We've discussed in another thread, that whilst the Imperial Boots offering, is nice. There are a number of design issues that may prevent them being cleared at basic level, depending on your individual GML, and they certainly WILL NOT get you clearance at Lancer spec. Caveat Emptor is the watch word.

They're OK... They're not the best... Ideally you need to look for a pair that don't have the two-tone sole which the one above has. If you did go for that set, you would need to paint out the sole so it's all one colour.

It largely doesn't matter. There are a few bits that need to marry up together, but it's a bit 'chicken and egg' because it's things like the chest armour/ bund and pouches / belt area that need to be sized together. It's not an exact science. You don't need the soft parts to be able to make your armour, and you don't need the armour to make the soft parts. It's just there is a bit of jiggling about when it comes to putting them all together.

If you look... the consensus is that they 'might' pass standard approval, but in no way would be good enough for Lancer. I say 'might' because each Garrison GML interprets the CRL's ever so slightly differently and what may get passed some, will definitely be rejected by others. But since you ask. The boot soles. The two tone nature of the sole is a complete no-no and probably the biggest barrier to the 'standard' clearance that I can see. It's what our UK GML would take serious issue with. The sole is also very wide compared to the rest of the boot. The screen ones sat very flush with the rest of the main boot. The lack of ribbing on the sole sides would also be a massive fail on the Lancer side of things. The front toe strap seems a little thin. Whilst probably not a clearance thing, it does look a bit off. Stitching on the dog bone. It's too short. The stitch lines should go around the vast majority of the bottom curve of the dog bone. The rear construction method is also off for Lancer. Yes I know these are made like proper boots, and I get that. They look 'well made', but the screen used scout boots were essentially 'not well made' and were covers for a base boot, with the rear bit overhanging the back of the sole to some extent. You should be able to see what I mean with the above points here... I can't see if you've used the 25mm velcro closure at the back. So can't comment on whether that exists or not. I also can't see any stitching around the top of the boot 'neck'. That's probably just due to the exposure on the picture (or my eyes getting worse as time goes on). Don't get me wrong, they look a nice well made boot, so all credit to you. They're just not exactly what a scout boot should look like.

ear vents should be cut out bud. Paint the INSIDE of the ears black to create depth. As for gaps... Personally, I'd fill the gap and paint the entire bucket, but I know of a lot of scouts who don't and just deal with any small gaps.

Yeah, they'll do. But when making them, you need to make sure you bring the vinyl down as much as possible to the sole, to try and cover over those faux stitches on the top face of the sole.

They seem OK... Cast looks a bit rough and the price is a bit steep (read... a lot steep) Lou (Darth Vorhees) on here does a nice snout cast. I'm sure there are others your side of the pond that can do it at a more reasonable cost.

Whether they'd get you standard approval is largely a matter for your local GML. I doubt they'd get passed the UKG GML's And they certainly wouldn't get you Lancer on here.

Nice find. But I'm sure you're aware that the single point that was used for the Scout blaster was the conical shaped end (Night) version, and not the domed (Day) one. They're practically identical apart from the end shape, and the adjustment turrets are a little different.

Quick note... If you're going "Lancer" then you will need 'real suede'. Also, getting a specific 'leather' needle for your machine rather than just a heavy duty/denim needle will make a world of difference. The head of the needle is more spade shaped and punches a hole for the thread to catch on, rather than piercing it and allowing the warp/weft of the fabric to do the rest. Trust me, it will result in a lot less 'dropped' stitches on your machine.

Thanks for the update on here. It's been a while! You are correct, the chin cup isn't necessary as part of the Lancer Standard. Obviously there have been a few updates to the CRL's within the 18 months since your last post. The only one of those updates that you're going to fall foul of is the change from 6 to 5 ribs for the cummerbund. The only other bit that sticks out to me, is that your bund is slipping below your belt. That's a real easy fix, just hoist it up a bit, so none of the bund pokes below the belt line. To make sure that it doesn't happen whilst trooping, I suggest adding a bit of velcro to the bottom edge of the bund, and same on the belt, so they stick together. Pouch stitching you've done... So that's all good. I'm sure Marcel and Chex will chime in, in good time.

I think for the most part, it comes down to what I call 'social conditioning'. I mean, who can truly say, all they do is look at the film and/or screen used buckets all the time?? We are vastly exposed to fan sculpts of (be it DP, MC, Rubies, SC what ever) the Scout bucket that eventually they creep into the subconscious about how something 'should look'. It's only natural, but it doesn't help. It certainly doesn't take much in terms of something being askew for it to throw the whole look out, and I'm certain this is the case with the DP. When you're talking about discrepancies of about 5-10mm over something which is 250mm in it's entirety, then that's practically 5%. Which is actually quite significant. The human eye is good for noticing discrepancies of less than 1mm. But 'overall', the sizing of the DP is reasonably accurate. Certainly in terms of it's volume. So when you have a lid next to one, that is noticeably larger (in every aspect), that is the one which is likely to be wrong. It's not that the DP is small.... it's the other is probably too big! We also have to remember that the actors were probably only average size. So when you get a 'standard' size lid on some hulking lump of lard like myself, then it may look a little small. All food for thought.

It is possible yes... Not so sure about vinyl, but Fibreglass (GRP) definitely can shrink. Polyester resin (which is what is commonly used in Fibreglass) 'can' have up to 10% shrinkage. But that said... I've used GRP a lot over the years, on various car body panels etc and have never witnessed such a high degree of shrinkage, yeah maybe 1-2% in extreme cases, but 10% is on the manufacturers spec. But shrinkage is usually uniform and affects most of the part. So I would doubt that shrinkage would be the cause of just a few of the bits being off such as the top dome, but leave the rest in perfect order. Warping on the other hand may be the cause of the visor shroud being out. Especially if it's been squashed. The dreaded 'flare' is a prime example of this. But it's more likely to be a change at the sculpting stage in my opinion. As unsubstantiated as that is. So in answer to your initial query, I'd say yes. With some modification (heavy in some parts), the DP can be made to be screen accurate in both terms of looks and scale.

well, the results (over a cup of tea and some lebkuchen). I would say that the DP is 'practically' scaled correctly. Using a picture from the new EFX lid (which we know to have screen accurate lineage, thanks Gino), I sized it using the known values of the helmet bolt and the snout greeblies (I've got original bolts and snout to measure from). Thus giving a correct scale for the picture. Then using the measure tool of the photoshop programme, I took a stack of referencing dimensions from various bits of the lid. I then cross referenced this against my own DP lid The faceplate is good, +/- 1mm The upper part of the shroud front is shy by 8mm, which is what I think is causing all the 'looks wrong' issues. The top dome ring is shy by 5mm in height. All all other measurements are essentially 'on spec'. As I said, I think the two main components that throw the look of the DP out are the top dome and the upper shroud, making it more squat looking. I'm reasonably convinced that whether or not the DP came from screen lineage, it is pretty correct in terms of it's over all size and scale (short of those bits listed above).

well.... You say that Lou. There may be some credence in the rumour. Some of the early DP Deluxe models were reported to be cast from original helmets. We must understand that DP WAS the licensee at back since 1977, and only relinquished that to Rubies in 2000 (ish) when the prequels bombed. So they would have potentially had similar access to the helmets, the same as EFx has now. So it is possible. I've found a few sources that say the same thing. I know the upper dome bit on the Rubies tends to be a bit on the shy side. but how far out the face plate is... well. I'm going to do some scaling of images over breakfast, to get some definitive sizes for various parts of the helmet.

22mm to be precise. You sure those bolts are 1"?? they look very big. 1" = 25.4mm.

It is expensive... But it's a vastly superior option to the EFX, which is. A: Not made from the original materials B: More expensive. They'll sell alright. That's for sure. EFX are lucky this wasn't announced prior to their bucket launch. Otherwise it would have bombed.

Whut... Did someone mention my name?

The lid they had on display was a LoneWolf one. Being there all weekend, I spent a large amount of time talking to Rob and Simon (especially over a few drinks at the Ball). They have indeed bought the Prop Store lid, and will be looking to retro make lids from it. At the moment, they haven't taken delivery of it, but are aiming to get this 'soon'. It won't be at least until May next year that they will be looking at production. At this stage, and this is subject to rumour control, and I am sure Rob and Si will illicit more details in the near future, the costs of the finished lid are going to be closer to the £400 mark.

Yup.... No boot stripes.

And you should be proud.... It's difficult to make changes against resistance. Especially when those changes are necessary and the right thing to do. But look at the detachment now. It's probably one of the best inhabited, easy going and engaged groups there is. And I think that people striving for accuracy for the sake of accuracy, rather than a 'badge' is actually a good thing. The standards have improved, and thats only credit to yourself, and those who build their costumes. What a lot of people don't realise is that now, their costumes are probably up to Lancer Spec as it is (short of maybe a few tweaks). They probably just need to go through the submission process. Maybe time for a bit of a push?? From what I see, having Multiple levels such as the FISD, has only been divisive and caused argument. As it stands, what we have here is a mindset to be the best we can be, but with a clearly defined "goal line" for people to get over. We don't compartmentalise people into "my costume is better than yours because...."

Mine are attached to my armour, and hang free. Mainly for transport, and it means I can position them correctly without having to worry about them shifting in relation to the chest armour as I troop.