Gino's Scout

[SulacoBoy]

[SulacoBoy]

[SulacoBoy]

Gino's " Star Wars Life Size" Scout Trooper. One of the best out there. Took pics if anyone wants to replicate the weathering.

[gmrhodes13]

Impressive, weathering is nice, shame the belt isn't covering the cummerbund, closure on the back not centred, something going on with that hump position, best I double the size of my black stripes too

[SulacoBoy]

Impressive, weathering is nice, shame the belt isn't covering the cummerbund, closure on the back not centred, something going on with that hump position, best I double the size of my black stripes too

 

Remember its not screen accurate. Although parts are derived from originals. Gino molded these parts from the original TB suit. And he took measurements of the soft parts.

[ShaunPug]

 

Remember its not screen accurate. Although parts are derived from originals. Gino molded these parts from the original TB suit. And he took measurements of the soft parts.

A few things are definitely strange (I'm looking at you tank topper), but seeing as how all of the parts are molded from a real suit and the soft parts were crafted using original templates, it's spot on.

I wasn't able to attend C8, but after reviewing a ton of photos, I think this is an incredible tool we can use to increase our accuracy. Especially on soft parts.

 

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

 

[Chef]

What we have to remember here is that it is still not 'screen used'.

 

Yes it is 'derived' from the screen used archive suit so it does provide a good reference, but there are still 'some' issues with it. Thermal detonator on the wrong way round anyone??

 

We do have a large amount of reference that has been gathered over the years and this can be used to greatly supplement it and it allows us to check certain things that get thrown up as questions as a result.

 

 

For instance, something a few of us have long suspected is that the Bicep straps are 2" and not 1,3/4". Gino's scout seems to confirm this, and it is consistent with the screen used reference we have when it's checked with a bit more alacrity.

 

Pouch size again... it's allowed us to narrow those down to a more definitive measurement.

 

But it should not be used as the 'be all and end all'... Merely a very good cross reference tool with all the other stuff we have available.

[Bobik96]

Could someone fill me in on Gino. I've been here a few yeas now and still don't know his background.

 

Also, how did we come to the measurements of the pouches? Did he allow someone to measure outside of the display case?

 

This is just curiosity. I'm not making an argument. My pouches happen to be very close to what his are reported to be. Mine are just 1/2 inch wider.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gino]

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.

[ShaunPug]

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.

Thanks dude! You are seriously killing it with those didplays. Amazing.

 

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

 

[gino]

Thanks Shaun!

[ShaunPug]

Thanks Shaun!

Hey man, you deserve it!

Now, about those templates

 

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

 

[Bobik96]

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.

 

Thank you for the information Gino. We are fortunate to have someone with your unique knowledge active and responding here. All of your costumes look great! I appreciate that I was able to see the scout in person.

 

It seems to me that as a detachment we should consider the pouch flap / Velcro stitching and the knee elastic on the next CRL update.

[Chopper]

Is there any new information we can glean from Gino's scout that would help lock down what sort of material was used for the bund and cod? Based on the example at SWC, is taffeta the material that was used?

[Chef]

Gino...

 

Considering that this is a suit that YOU made (and not something out of the archives).

 

Would you be willing to give us the details from your suit?

 

Such as what material you used for your bund etc.

 

Various sizes and stuff that we need to nail down?

 

You've had that mannequin on public display, so technically this information is already out in the public domain.

[gino]

Gino...

 

Considering that this is a suit that YOU made (and not something out of the archives).

 

Would you be willing to give us the details from your suit?

 

Such as what material you used for your bund etc.

 

Various sizes and stuff that we need to nail down?

 

You've had that mannequin on public display, so technically this information is already out in the public domain.

 

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.

 

 

 

.

[Bubonos]

I didn't know the td was either way on set, if lancer crl is edited for this costume, then theoretically the position of the td should have no effect on lancer approval. If the purpose of lancer is to be as screen accurate as possible that is to say.

 

I knew that the holsters were on either boot, you see this on screen if you look closely. I mean, I'm sure rhe empire didn't only recruit right handed troopers. I haven't seen a kit with this option, and imagine you would have to alter it to fit a scout pistol due to the scope. But I think it would be cool to see kits with this option!

I'm sorry Gino if you have experienced negative response to your suit from members, we aren't all like that in the legion and many of us respect that you have offered what you have to us. I have only seen it in pics, but I'm impressed. I have also said that the scout was the most thrown together trooper in the ot and most didn't match the next. In my research, I've seen one scout on screen with masking tape holding the chest together, left side holsters, tanks and armor w/o revits, and the list goes on. I'm sure lots of it was held together by hot glue on some on screen scouts and fixed between shots.

Thank you for sharing with us, this answers questions and backs up theories I've had.

 

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120A using Tapatalk

[gino]

Thanks Jeremy, appreciate it.

[rottie]

Ok ok just mail it to me....

[Chef]

Gino, I think you're reading it wrong. There's nothing condescending intended at all, and if it's been received that way I apologise.

(inflection is conveyed by the reader not the writer).

 

 

What I am saying is that because 'you' made these items personally, you shouldn't need to be concerned with NDA's or the such like with showing stuff that is from the archives and potentially putting yourself in a situation because of it. You're not discussing stuff from the archives, you're discussing stuff that you have made.

 

 

So I'd be curious as to why you feel as though what I said was condescending.

 

 

Your suit is the closest thing out there... I've said that before, I'm sure. That's no mean feat and high praise indeed.

But it isn't 'screen used'.

That's not a criticism, merely a fact.

 

 

And with anything that is not screen used, there is an element of difference.

 

We know the boots aren't sierra ones (yet.. I know you've got some and are working on it), nothing wrong with that because they are as rare as rocking horse poop. But because of that we can't say "this is how they were..." with the ones you have on your mannequin currently.

 

We know the Thermal Det tube is the wrapped type, but still haven't identified what was actually used, same for the clips.

As for the orientation, well...

 

I know for certain that the greeblie was placed on any which way. Tabs both up or down. We've screen evidence for this. As for the dot on the left or right, we also know that it did 'appear' on both, but some of those shots were cinematic flips.

 

I'm not saying I'm right (far from it), and always willing to see a screen grab to illustrate otherwise.

Likewise the tank topper detail.

 

Maybe there were ones on set that had that detail, but short of a screen grab to confirm it, unfortunately we can't add it into the detail for the specs here.

As fantastic as archive stuff is, unless it's in the public domain it's simply not 'admissible'.

 

Yes, it can make us look more closely at certain elements that are in the public domain to confirm it (zip tie shoulders for instance) but without it being available for scrutiny, then we really can't use it as justification.

 

Same goes for fabric...

Is it categorically the same item as was used back on the film set? Or as close as you can find currently?

 

Again, that's not a criticism, merely a fact of 'time'. We're 30 years down the line. Finding a batch of the original fabric is practically impossible. I'm well aware of that and no-one is knocking it.

But with that 'time' comes discrepancy.

 

No replica is 100%.

 

Hence we can't say 100% that "this is how it was".

 

 

Again, don't take that as a criticism. Just a fact of the matter.

 

You have to remember we've picked apart the MotM exhibit for not having the greeblies on and the red square on the tank topper, and the Blue-Ray walk round for being badly dressed and all those other little idiosyncrasies. And they ARE screen used (or at least production made).

 

This is the quest for knowledge and being able to definitively nail stuff down. Not pulling apart your work.

 

 

You've also touched on the 'standards' that we need to have to create our CRL's. This is very true and where discrepancy lies (even on the film set stuff), we need to standardise it at some point to create consistency.

 

That's an unfortunate by-product of film set sloppiness (remember they didn't expect us geeks to be poring over the detail for hours and hours) versus the nerdy OCD afflicted masses.

[Bubonos]

And don't take my comment directed at you Chef, it was directed at Gino's comment about hearing negative feedback from members in the past.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120A using Tapatalk

 

 

[bikerscout73]

Gino's suit is the best out there......I hope other scouts learn from his suit. I'm sorry to say at celebration there were a lot of scouts out of regs. After seeing Gino's I'm revamping my whole suit. Our detachment needs a lot of tightening up. I know it can be the best detachment.

[gino]

Ok that's a lot of stuff. Let me try to respond a bit at a time.

 

Gino, I think you're reading it wrong. There's nothing condescending intended at all, and if it's been received that way I apologise.

(inflection is conveyed by the reader not the writer).

 

Ok cool.

 

What I am saying is that because 'you' made these items personally, you shouldn't need to be concerned with NDA's or the such like with showing stuff that is from the archives and potentially putting yourself in a situation because of it. You're not discussing stuff from the archives, you're discussing stuff that you have made.

 

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.

 

 

Your suit is the closest thing out there... I've said that before, I'm sure. That's no mean feat and high praise indeed.

But it isn't 'screen used'.

That's not a criticism, merely a fact.

And with anything that is not screen used, there is an element of difference.

 

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.

 

We know the boots aren't sierra ones (yet.. I know you've got some and are working on it), nothing wrong with that because they are as rare as rocking horse poop. But because of that we can't say "this is how they were..." with the ones you have on your mannequin currently.

 

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.

 

Likewise the tank topper detail.

 

Maybe there were ones on set that had that detail, but short of a screen grab to confirm it, unfortunately we can't add it into the detail for the specs here.

As fantastic as archive stuff is, unless it's in the public domain it's simply not 'admissible'.

 

Yes, it can make us look more closely at certain elements that are in the public domain to confirm it (zip tie shoulders for instance) but without it being available for scrutiny, then we really can't use it as justification.

 

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.

 

No replica is 100%.

Hence we can't say 100% that "this is how it was".

Again, don't take that as a criticism. Just a fact of the matter.

 

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.

 

You have to remember we've picked apart the MotM exhibit for not having the greeblies on and the red square on the tank topper, and the Blue-Ray walk round for being badly dressed and all those other little idiosyncrasies. And they ARE screen used (or at least production made).

 

They are both screen-used.

 

You've also touched on the 'standards' that we need to have to create our CRL's. This is very true and where discrepancy lies (even on the film set stuff), we need to standardise it at some point to create consistency.

That's an unfortunate by-product of film set sloppiness (remember they didn't expect us geeks to be poring over the detail for hours and hours) versus the nerdy OCD afflicted masses.

 

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.

[BikerScout007]

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 can 100% vouch for this. Gino has always been as generous with info as he can, within reason I and a few of the others have seen his pics and they were eye-opening

[Cbrant]

Gino,

 

I saw your suit in person and it is excellent - I particularly enjoyed the weathering.

 

I noticed you made no direct mention of the flightsuit you used. If I may, is it one you made from patterns in the archives or one you sourced? Thanks! The information you've provided to the community is invaluable.