gino

On the originals the red areas were decal material.

Just cut through. No black paint.

All the ones I've seen in the archives were cut through.

Thanks Cole. It was made using patterns taken from a suit in the archives.

Ok that's a lot of stuff. Let me try to respond a bit at a time. Ok cool. Sometimes the line is blurry so it's not something I toy around with. Ask people who have met me in person, I'm more likely to share pics and such in person where I would never post them online. I agree, nothing is equivalent to screed-used. I will say however in this case, the line between a screen-used and my suit is very very thin. With the exception of the found item boot, everything else about the boots is exact to the screen used. Same type of leather, construction, and right off the actual patterns. See this is my problem. Personally I could care less about what you guys do with your standards. I certainly have my own opinions about them but that's another topic. What I do take issue with is when people try to call me out for something (which is correct on screen-used suits) simply because it is not reflected in your CRLs. This also happened when I first showed off the ANH hero trooper. Just because you don't know about it, or because it's not in your guidelines doesn't mean it's not how they actually were on screen. I think a lot of 501st people need reminding of that. Not all, but a lot. I agree, no replica is 100%. But yes there are lots of instances where 'this is exactly how it was' applies and is the case. I've been pretty upfront with the things about my suit that are different (even if they are only temporarily different). If I didn't mention it, then the 'this is exactly how it was' pretty much applies. They are both screen-used. Whenever I discuss replicas I always compare them to how the real stuff is. What you guys do with your standards is not on my radar. What I think would be the smartest thing would be to be more inclusive with your standards if it is a feature that is definitive on a screen-used costume. For example, if the tank topper was detailed in 5 different configurations (not saying that's the case), then include all of those configurations in the CRL as opposed to trying to standardizing them into just one. And when I say that, I'm not talking about EVERY micro variation, like just one guy having a piece of gaffer tape on his bicep as a fluke. But if a third of all the costumes had it then I'd be more inclined to say, yeah that's how they were, even if it was ugly. That very subject is something that I still personally struggle with on my own. I'll come across an ugly or ridiculous 'makes no sense' feature that is legit and I have to debate with myself about whether or not to include it. Perfect example would be my recent sandtroper backpack. The left side just looks horrible. You can even clearly see where they didn't even complete the painting of one of the boxes. You can see the spray paint just stopping mid spray. I'm like wtf? Am I really going to do mine that way?? Then after giving myself much grief, 9 times out of 10 I end up doing it the way they did it and then later I'm fine with it.

Thanks Jeremy, appreciate it.

I think I've shared quite a lot already. Maybe I'm reading it wrong but you're coming across pretty condescending especially considering the circumstances. .

Thanks Shaun!

Here's the background on my suit. What's correct about it and what still needs work. It was made directly from a complete armor set that was made for ROTJ. Some of the vac parts are still on the untrimmed sheet. The helmet was made from a combination of pieces taken right off the original molds as well as pieces made from molds taken directly from a screen-used helmet. So when it comes to the armor and helmet, they are identically consistent with the screen-used pieces. The soft parts were made using a combination of the original patterns in the archives along with other screen-used suits to cross check along side the patterns. All the fabrics were matched so once again the finished soft parts are virtually identical. The boots on this display are my old ones. I have a set of sierra sneakers that are 3/4 of the way converted but couldn't get them finished in time for the show. Gloves are vintage originals. All the strapping and hardware was matched as well as all the construction. Still need the correct square greebly on the bicept. Still need to convert my thermal detonator hose to the correct style using wrapped wire. That's about it. Everything else is pretty much indistinguishable from the screen-used pieces. Another thing to point out is that there was a decent amount of variance in the way the screen-used scouts were finished. For example the backpack was detailed in multiple ways. The thermal detonator was attached in both orientations. And there are even some scouts with holsters on the opposite side of the leg! I realize for 501st purposes and when people are coming up with standards that guidelines need to be created for consistency. However some of the things that I've been accused of having wrong on my suit in the past were actually correct for how they were in the film. It's just that not every screen-used suit has the exact same detailing.

Pic?

Getting very close now, but no not yet, any official news would come from an EFX email or website update (when the new site goes live very soon), not from me posting on a forum.

Just to clarify, the screen used helmets were painted gloss white (not high gloss mirror finish but definitely gloss). Matte white is incorrect. All the armor was unpainted so you're actually seeing the natural finish of the ABS.

Just fyi, the originals were glossy. The thing about the matte vs gloss was a factory mishap on one of their samples.

All the TD's had neck seals, it's just hard to see them because they are worn under the flight suit.

All the helmets had the same smoke tinted acrylic lens piece. Tinted yes, but if enough light shines directly through the front of the visor you can see a person's face in there. Most of the time it just looks black. .