Chef

Yeah, the gap is actually because we believe (from the evidence above) that the cod section of the cummerbund was not actually attached to the main torso section, but was attached to the belt instead. But you can see from the above pictures (I'll try and rip a load more screen grabs, but anyone feel free to add some in!!) that the boxes don't sit 'exactly' on the sides, but are biased ever so slightly to the front. How close they sit to the cod part will ultimately depend on a number of factors. The size of your boxes, your overall girth and the size of your cod flap. It's not a major issue. Certainly nothing that would stop basic clearance. Just as long as their not hanging round your knees or using them as ear-muffs. I always advise people to have them half way between the bottom of the belt and the top of your thigh straps (obviously this will differ visually from person to person) and that they sit towards the outside of the thigh and are close to being level front to rear. Generally the only person who you really need to 'please' is your GML, and generally they'll accept pictorial evidence that supports your position. Then there is the Lancer panel if you choose to go that route. Everyone else is really just supposition. Go with what you see on screen, use screen grabs etc to back up your argument. It will never look 100% because the armour sets are not exactly cast from screen used, so sizing differences creep in, and most of us are not the same size and build of the movie actors, so once again, things shift about and will not look 100%. So anyway... I wouldn't worry quite so much about it. When it's right, it'll look right. When it's not... it'll look like these. (and I apologise in advance if you recognise yourself or anyone you know in the following pictures. These were ripped from the internet. It's not intended to poke fun or belittle anyone... Just examples of how it shouldn't be done). Too high Too Low Hanging round the back (and too low) All kinds of wrong..

That's a very tidy solution Eric... nice one.

That's not a good picture??? That's archive material from LFL. Doesn't get much better than that. In truth, there is no hard and fast rule, no millimetre measurement to correctly place the boxes. What can be said about them is that 1: they should not be so high up as to touch the main belt itself. 2: Not so low down that they are hanging over the thigh straps (or where they should be!), 3: Not round the front so they look like a pair of cricket boxes 4: Not so far round the back you risk sitting on them! Here are some screen shots and other LFL related material to illustrate where they sort of should be. Again, as each costume was different slightly and shifted during filming, there may be slight variation. As you can see on this one, because of the sitting position, they look like they've shifted around the sides more. Here's some of the clearance shots of various scouts that have come through the doors. (ignore any annotations). I'll see if I can find any pictures of what NOT to do.

Here is this picture... It's not specifically for the boxes, but it illustrates it quite nicely. They should sit right in the centre of the thigh, half way between the belt line and the thigh straps. Biased slightly towards the front.

Looks alright to me.

I think they've about covered it all... A few more bits for Lancer, but address those as and when you need to.

No and No... Let your OCD run riot front to back, and functional clips will be fine. Just make what ever you do, tidy.

The vinyl that I use is quite thick and has a cotton weave backing to it, rather than a furry felt style one. It's not exactly rigid, but it does hold it shape quite well. The downside is that it's quite difficult to shape initially. With the holster and blaster in it, it does sag when on it's own, but when worn, they stay up perfectly week. I think the trick is to get the top of the boot exactly the right size for your calf. I've used E6000 glue on all my boots (of which there have been many) and it's been great. My own personal boots have lasted for 6 years and are still going strong. They need to be a bit taller for screen accuracies sake, but they haven't fallen apart sufficiently for me to justify making a new pair! If you need any tips etc, just drop me a PM or shout up in here.

Just thought I'd share this with you. Here's my updated greeblie complete with the 'found part' added in on the top. Found part, from some Tamiya kit or other, was kindly supplied by Mr Howard, the UK Garrison's resident 'parts wrangler'. There's a few tiny little casting bubbles, but it's much worse in the picture than in the flesh.

Gino... Not being funny, but please read what I've put. Have I said "No-one used them". No. I have said that their on screen usage is at best 'minimal'. That's very different to saying they were not there at all. Is it 'clear' to see from the above photo... Not exactly what I would call 'clear'. Yes it hints at it. But it's not like the balls on a bulldog now is it. More prevalent than you might think... Well, go dig out the screen grabs that show it. I'm all ears. Here are some screen grabs from the film. That pretty much covers a large number of the scenes where Scouts appear and a neck is clearly visible. Not much conclusive evidence to suggest the 'common' prevalence of a neck seal in my opinion. Probably quite the contrary. Does the Archive have one.. Probably. It's difficult to say conclusively when that material is not freely available to the public. Does the BluRay have one.. Yes. Definitely. Does the above trump the screen evidence. NO. It's only used to back up an argument. We're all well aware of the things like tank stripes. 0,1,4 and 6 are the ones that appear on screen. Hence the reason the CRL caters for any number. Can a red tank square be seen... NO. Hence it's not allowed. Can a neck seal be seen... possibly. Hence why it may get an 'optional'. That would be the debate. I'm all for the debate. But it has to be backed up with Bona Fide evidence that is in the public domain, not some "hush hush, eer check this out, guv'ner!" type photos that are for 'eyes only'. So for those who really want to prove it's existence in a 'more often than not' sense. Go grab the Blu-rays... sift through the screen grabs and present your evidence to the world. I'd love to see it.

I still think in terms of how the 501st Pathfinders will look at it is that through the ON SCREEN evidence from the film, the usage of a neck seal is very minimal at best, if not 'inconclusive'. It would need a debate, and then only likely get an 'optional' status. There is rafts of screen evidence to suggest that one was not present, and that's pretty irrefutable. It's no good saying "I've seen one, it's there, but I can't tell you about it", because with the best will in the world, anyone could say that. We have to use hard evidence to back up arguments. Yes, there can be one seen on the Blu-Ray walk around, and maybe one in the archives. But when coupled with the screen evidence that clearly shows one NOT in existence, unfortunately the screen evidence trumps the lot. The same has been shown with the red square on the tank topper. It's a worthy debate though.

The joy of using a buck and the original construction method is that you will ALWAYS get some variation in the shape of the lid. I get that on mine all the time. It really depends on how things are trimmed, and ultimately how they all sit together. This is quite obvious when you look at the pictures that Christian has supplied above. Some have the shroud pulled in nice and tight, others have a wider flare. Some have a smaller tidier lens, others have a bigger one. I've added a grid to Batninja's graphic as it helps illustrate the bits I'm going to outline. Now we must remember, NO lid will be exactly the same as the originals. Even the EFX, as the further away you go from the original method, the more inconsistencies get added in. So this is no criticism of the CB lid. Purely just some observations. 1: I think the snout is too high, and tilted at a more vertical angle than the screen used one. I know there is some perspective shift on the above image, but it looks like the faceplate is a little tilted forward. 2: The helmet bolts don't look to sit in the right place (too low) and the rake from the helmet bolts to the front of the shroud is at too high an angle 3: Shroud: I think the biggest thing that throws it off is the sides of the shroud. They are long and this causes the eye to be drawn to it. 4: Ears, as said, the ears are a bit on the large side, which has probably contributed to the shroud sides being long as it's followed the same line. As for the overall size, it's difficult to say as BatNinja has scaled the two images to match nicely. but referring to my above post, I'm estimating the overall height of the lid to be approx 255mm. We are talking in Millimetres here, so it's not a BAD lid in the same region of Star Fortress by any stretch of the imagination. So don't see any of the above as a major criticism, these are purely my observations. It's not 'Spot On' as some people seem to think, but then no lid is ever likely to be.

Christian... Just to see if my scaling is working to any degree. I estimate the height of your grey snout to be 115mm. Is that anywhere near??

I've been doing a bit of measuring, and I'll say this first... This is by no means definitive. I've been working from a picture of a screen used bucket (courtesy of StarwarsHelmets), and with everything in pictures, it's difficult to translate 2D into 3D, so some of these measurements may well be off a touch. Perspective and all that being a factor. But taking a known length (snout greeblie), I have calculated (via the measure function on PhotoShop) that the total height of the Screen Used lid to be approximately 255mm The height of the grey area of the snout to be 100mm (maybe a touch less) I'm sure Gino could confirm one way or another. Here is the picture I've been working from. Tried to find one that has the least perspective distortion etc. I'll say again... these measurements may well be wrong. But having scaled the original image to a known size, and using the measure function to ascertain all the others... that's what I've come up with. Based on those measurements, I know which bits of my own lid need to be addressed. I'm 10mm shy in overall height. I'll get around to adjusting it one day... There are a myriad of things that can throw these measurements out. So it's by no means conclusive. I suppose we'll all find out when the EFX one is released.

No, I think they're fine. They should cover the gap between the bottom of your chest plate and the belt anyway. So they're probably just about right.

I agree it's possible, and we also have to remember a large number of the shots actually used the scale maquettes, so who knows. It's difficult to nail down without any real credible evidence though. But that's what we're here for. People like you and I (and the members in general) to sift through screen stills, background footage and everything that goes with it.

Yup, their on the wrong sides unfortunately... Should be diagonal side outermost. Please excuse Emilio (my mannequin), he doesn't dress well.

I can't see the pictures all that well for some reason (might be my eyes... it is early). I'd suggest bringing in the pouches, they look very wide. Get the inner edges lined up with the ribbing on the cummerbund. Also, are the pouch flaps vertical side inwards? Rather than diagonal side innermost. I can't quite make it out. If I was being fussy, I'd say the rear closure should be right over left, rather than left over right, not that it should stop clearance. But it does have the big X cross stitch which personally I would try and remove, as this would be a problem should you try and go for Lancer. But it fits well, looks nice and sturdy. Should serve you well.

I think we've had this debate before.... Whilst there are a few things that 'could' be misconstrued as a neck-seal, there are a LOT of other shots which seem to say otherwise. I'm with Marcel on this one.

I'm with Philipp on this one. There are many discrepancies between any pre or post production items, as has been highlighted by Philipp. My view is that on EVERY scout costume that has a chin cup, it is 'clearly' visible in any pictures that are taken with them on. Now, by that logic, if it is clearly visible, why is it you can't see it on screen?? The shot where the scout is falling backwards and you can see the skin colour underneath the lid. Surely that's the prime shot to see whether one was present or not. The practicality of having something under your head like that on a stunt suit may have precluded it's use as it is probably quite dangerous in that situation. Here is another screen grab from the same sequence and it looks like that part is actually a shadow/highlight on the collar of the suit. The angle at which it is at is far too vertical to be part of a chin-cup. Plus I think the little bit under the snout is how they cut the underside of the chin. Here is the direct link to the original file. If you click on the picture, it scales up to a much bigger clearer image. http://ladymanson.com/galleries/movies/MoviesRS/displayimage.php?album=22&pid=114948#top_display_media Rather than being rounded (as mine is in the picture below), it was cut squarer similar to the red dotted line. (probably not quite that far in though). So whilst I am in no doubt that at some point during the production of RotJ there was a 'chin-cup' in existence. I am still awaiting definitive "screen proof" that one can be clearly seen. If it can't, then those who have them are going beyond screen canon. If they CAN't be seen, then it should not appear on the Lancer specs as it doesn't currently. Optional is fine, if you want to have one then you fill your boots. I'm not having one, not from a practicality point of view, but basically because of the above. I can't see it on screen, therefore it doesn't exist. Be interesting to see if EFX have one on their 'screen accurate' lid!

I think they're stock photos of the vac-formed halves on the original buck. Gino did say they took a pull, and assembled the lid, and then took the moulds for the GRP ones from that made lid from the bucks.

If that's the case Milo, then that's a further detraction from being screen accurate. Why would they do that?

I don't think that's really an major concern of eFX's, Tim (incidentally, I agree with your every word). They'll sell at that price point, no doubt about it. Because there are enough people out there in the world willing to pay it. Purely because of the lineage. So the relevant material/production costs are largely moot. If that was a fan sculpt and was absolutely spot on would it be worth that much. Not on your life. You'd think the person had gone down the path with the faeries. But it's not, it has the lineage and they know they can put what ever price they want on it. IT WILL SELL. I don't think that the fact it's out of the price range of some of us 'normal folk' is of any concern to them. That's business, I'm afraid. What irks me slightly was the justification through development, production and material costs... Simply not the case, when you know what's involved. They'd have been much better off just saying. " It's got lineage, we know some of you'll pay it no matter what, so the price is high. Don't like it... Tough. Don't buy it". Maybe LFL wanted a massive slice in royalties. I can fully accept that. Hey ho... it's not really for us to moan about or deride Gino for. The price is what it is. Happy... buy it. Not happy... Don't buy it. I just think they missed a trick doing it in GRP.

I have to disagree Gino. It is expensive considering the costs of raw materials of GRP. Yes, you're paying for the lineage and there is no quantifiable value on that, so is it overpriced?? Only your customers can make that choice. Production... With GRP you need to have moulds. Those moulds cost money. I know that... I've made enough GRP lids to last me a lifetime. But once you have those moulds, the lay-up and construction is very simple. Time consuming, but simple. But with those you can only ever use one mould at a time. There is lay-up time, curing time etc... Very little finishing time if you've done it correctly. So effectively you only really need one person doing these unless you are making multiple moulds, which again isn't cost effective. So in terms of Labour, it's not very cost effective (hence why I've moved away from it). You're having these done in China, where labour is cheap, so that part of it is slightly negated. If it were me... I'd have used the original bucks and vac-formed them as per the originals. You then get authenticity in the build, which unfortunately a GRP one will lack. You can bang out vac form parts in a fraction of the time it takes to do a GRP one (if they're being done properly), and then you can have multiple persons working on the fit and finish of the parts as they come off the former. A better use of available labour (assuming more than one person is working on these). Initial tooling costs are less because you only need one set of bucks and you get a much more authentic product at the end of it. Yes the post forming construction phase takes longer, but as already pointed out. Cheap Chinese labour costs negate this issue a little. But that's just me. Will I get one... I doubt it. As lovely as it looks. It's still made of GRP and I can eventually source an LW lid for a fraction of the cost and that is constructed in the same fashion and materials as the original and the detail is pretty much spot on too. So overall that is a much better package. But no doubt you will sell them. It's not a dig... It's just my honest observation on this lid. I disagree with your assessment of production/manufacture/costs/complexity issues, that is all. At the end of the day, what price can you put on screen lineage??

Singer or Brother... My Singer 427 was made in 1967 and is still going strong. It's done cotton, poly, suede, leather, canvas and vinyl. I've done more suits, boots, bunds, pouches and vests than I care to mention and the machine doesn't miss a beat. You can get old machines at a reasonable price and they still produce all the replacement parts (yes, even for a 50 year old machine!).