Black Series Helmet - NOT APPROVABLE

[troygordon2]

On 6/30/2023 at 4:30 PM, Chopper said:

Alright everyone, now that we have a helmet in hand, I wanted to share the armory team's review of the Black Series helmet.

Overall, as Hask said, this is a pretty nice display helmet, but ultimately it is not appovable out of the box. Furthermore, there are some elements to the design that, even modified, would make it difficult, if not impossible, to approve for 501st use.

Here's some of the major items we picked out in terms of 501st approval:

• Ear openings would need to be drilled out.
• Mesh on mic would need to be painted black.
• Any and all seams, such as those around the battery compartment and around the ears on the sides would need to be filled, sanded, and painted. You'd probably have to paint the whole helmet.
• Indented features or "vents" not present on the original helmets, such as the faceplate decals, the black parts of the rear traps, or the black bars on the lower rear, would need to be filled, sanded, painted, and replaced with the proper stickers or decals.
• Bottom edge of the face plate should be all white, not half black, half white.
• Rotator bolts have no indent and would need to match the 3M bolts (Level 2 criteria).
• And here's the big one: unfortunately, the inner part of the visor shroud is a major issue with the helmet. For approval, a helmet needs to be "true to the shape of original screen used helmet", which means that the inner portion of the visor should have a return edge. That's not the case here, as the inner portion of the visor shroud seems to be flush with the rim.

Sorry folks. It does look nice on a shelf, but you should stick to the vetted vendors for 501st approval.

 

So, I saw this and felt it needed to be addressed.  The 501st requirements are pretty clear about what needs to be done for approval, and right now the term "true to the shape of the original screen used helmet" is used to describe the design.  I could swear that it was "general shape" very recently...  I agree that things like the battery pack and inset vents defy that, but this return edge may require some specificity in the CRL.  If the return edge needs to be present, what's the width? What's the sharpness? Why not say, "vac formed from XX width plastic?" As somebody who made his own helmet that isn't vac formed, this means I'm out of spec and no longer approved?  I'm willing to bet that many others who made theirs with 3d printed designs are also now out of spec.  Am I wrong on all of this?  

 

[BikerScout007]

1 hour ago, troygordon2 said:

So, I saw this and felt it needed to be addressed.  The 501st requirements are pretty clear about what needs to be done for approval, and right now the term "true to the shape of the original screen used helmet" is used to describe the design.  I could swear that it was "general shape" very recently...  I agree that things like the battery pack and inset vents defy that, but this return edge may require some specificity in the CRL.  If the return edge needs to be present, what's the width? What's the sharpness? Why not say, "vac formed from XX width plastic?" As somebody who made his own helmet that isn't vac formed, this means I'm out of spec and no longer approved?  I'm willing to bet that many others who made theirs with 3d printed designs are also now out of spec.  Am I wrong on all of this?  

 

I'm not sure what you are asking here.  First you say "Why not say, "vac formed from XX width plastic?", and then you say "well if it needs to be vac formed then I guess my helmets are out".   Nobody said anything about making them vac formed except you.   That's nothing we are calling for.  The helmet needs a return edge.   Jesus Salmeron's 3D helmet has a return edge, so there's no issue with 3D helmets provided they are modeled correctly

A CRL is text AND images, because description is not always capable of capturing every nuance of a piece.  

[Kievan Mereel]

I'd like to add in my voice about this return edge on the visor as well. I've been looking at alternatives to the Hasbro, and many offerings (fiberglass, 3d print) have said that they've been approved but they don't seem to have a return edge. 

Since the CRL doesn't state this requirement, I really don't think that local GMOs are looking for this detail. I could see it as a requirement for detachment lancer status, but for basic approval of a Hasbro Black Series, I'd be willing to paint the nose speaker, fix the ear vents, and hide the battery component. The Hasbro seems a very accurate and recognizable option for the price point and a bit of modification. 

Are there other aspects which might dissuade us from using it? Based on review videos, I am somewhat concerned about ventilation with the close fit and all the padding.  The built in voice changer is a selling point for me on paper, but I wonder if it holds up to other voice maps like an Aker etc.

Has anyone tried trooping an event with a Black Series?  We've already got a modification report, but a trooping field report would be really beneficial. 

 

[BikerScout007]

16 minutes ago, Kievan Mereel said:

"many offerings (fiberglass, 3d print) have said that they've been approved but they don't seem to have a return edge. "

What offerings?  Vendors say a lot of things on their websites that aren't true all the time.  And do they "seem" to not have a return edge or do they actually not have one?  If you got pics, I'd like to see them.

17 minutes ago, Kievan Mereel said:

Are there other aspects which might dissuade us from using it? 

Those were all listed above, but I'll post the links

 

[Hask]

For those thinking about cutting the ears out before displaying be advised there are screw fixtures just behind them. 

[Mikey]

Based on the details given, I don’t think a Black Series Scout Helmet is something we will see approved any time soon, just due to the modifications. I have one on order in hopes that my 6 year old likes it better than the 3D printed one I made her, but in the end it can be a shelf piece. As a former GML for my garrison the 3 things that stand out to me that would prevent it from being approved:

- Helmet is true to the shape of original screen used helmet.
- Earholes are cut out -- mesh or paint is not acceptable
- Area behind earholes inside the helmet is blacked out, either with paint or tape. No interior white should show from the outside of the helmet when worn.

And the only reason I feel ear holes cut out and area behind needs to be blacked out is because @Hask mentioned that the screw mounts are right behind the ears. But just my 2¢. I do love that the scout got a black series bucket, just not completely screen accurate.

[BikerScout007]

Well folks just to put this matter to bed once and for all, we have now added the Level 1 requirement:

Quote

• A return edge is present on the visor.

This is to all CRLs using the ROTJ base helmet -- so ROTJ, JFO and Mando Scouts.  

Now I know some of you will take this as a challenge to totally convert one of these Hasbro helmets, and I look forward to what you come up with.  But if you consider the base cost of the helmet, along with the time and materials invested -- you'll no doubt be better off picking up an offering from one of the many vendors out there that understand our requirements and make their stuff accordingly.  I mean, I just picked up a Kropserkel kit for my son that was under $200.  And it has a return edge.  This stuff ain't rocket science.  

And I will take this time to reiterate -- toymakers do not determine our standards, we do.  The visor shroud with a return edge and hollow interior is one of the basic requirements of this helmet.  Makers have been getting this detail right for decades -- including going back to Don Post.  The fact the black series skipped over this is pretty surprising to me, but no doubt they needed to run wires or other electronics in that space.  But that is their issue, not ours.  

[troygordon2]

Again, I could have sworn the standard not long ago was "general shape." That's some good wiggle room for things like visor shape and dimensions. There was nothing about a "return edge" when I designed my helmet and got approved, which is now present.  Am I'm no longer approved?  "True to shape" should, at this level of specificity, now require the particular materials used, no? Dimensions at least? PLA at so and so mm thickness? There needs to be more detail now that this can of worms has been opened.  We take scale into consideration when looking at approval, but looking over that Jesus Salmeron file, I'd say the angles on the face plate are FAR sharper than those used in the vac formed screen used props.  It's not "true to shape." Never mind the hard edges I'm seeing in and around the ears. I think we owe it to everybody who is willing to put the time and effort in to be specific and exact.  I personally find this frustrating as a maker, yes, but I expect a lot of people out there will wonder what else isn't "exact" about their build.  The Hasbro helmet looks like garbage in my opinion.  Fine for a shelf, a shred above Spirit Halloween, and inadequate for approval for a wide variety of reasons. The Salmeron helmet isn't much better in its current incarnation. I can't fathom the requirements for the EC-11 given the quality of the props used in filming... I recommend adding more details regarding that return edge comment to clear up any ambiguity on this. Perhaps "The visor is XX mm thickness throughout the entire component with a return edge on the face and gently curving bevel around the rear and hinge area where it meets the main body of the helmet," or something like that.  Maybe there is no confusion in your mind, but there is in mine. This makes me suspect others in class don't want to raise their hands, so I'll speak up and take the talking to. 

 

[BikerScout007]

10 hours ago, troygordon2 said:

Again, I could have sworn the standard not long ago was "general shape." 

Well you're mistaken.  It has said "Helmet is true to the shape of original screen used helmet." for several years now.  In fact, I'd say at least 5.   The reason that language was put in was because years and years and years ago, folks tried to get approved with Don Post helmets with flared visors that looked like someone sat on them.  There used to be a long list of requirements detailing all the things that needed to be corrected for those and it made the CRL unwieldy.   So it was simplified to 1 sentence.   CRLs are not build instructions, they are a general guideline for approval for GMLs.  

So now we have another toy that people think should be approvable just because of its price point and ease of availability and once again we have to modify the CRL to address a deficiency.  Same as we did when a rash of 3D helmets hit the market with real vents and no earholes.

There are a wide range of helmets out there, from Kropserkel to EFX that meet our requirements, and some of them don't even look as good as the black series helmet does.  But a defining characteristic of the Scout helmet, which is the visor shroud with a return edge, is something that can't just be waved away because there's a new popular helmet out that doesn't have it.  

Again --- prop makers have been making helmets with the return edge for decades with absolutely no issue.  Just because Hasbro comes along without it doesn't mean we have to devise a whole chapter in the CRL addressing it.  It's either true to the shape or it isn't.  

Sometimes the best advice is "make it look like the picture."  In this regard, Hasbro dropped the ball.  But their aim wasn't to make an approvable prop for trooping.  Their aim was to sell toys.  

 

 

[Hask]

Speaking as LMO. I fully support the detachment on this.

[kay_dee]

Hi, I did my best to use the "search" function on the forum and didn't find my answer.

Can the experts who approve costumes for garrisons/the legion or write the CRL weight in if the new Black Series Scout helmet is approvable? (I have an armor kit I need to put together, but was hoping I could swap into the black series helmet). 

[Aradun]

It is not approvable as is. See the following thread for details.

http://forum.501stpathfinders.com/topic/23685-hasbro-scout-trooper-helmet/

[Dragon_a]

On 7/30/2023 at 2:55 AM, Kievan Mereel said:

  The built in voice changer is a selling point for me on paper, but I wonder if it holds up to other voice maps like an Aker etc.

 

I don't own the Scout, but I do have several other Black Series helmets.  On all the ones I have the voice changers are absolute garbage.

[Darth Voorhees]

** this is my thought, not an offical PF/Legion stance or anything that im aware of thus far**

i dont think it would be approvable at all due to not having a return edge on the visor and i have no idea how one would put that there. Everything else with some work i think can be made to an approveable level, but not seeing how that one thing could be remedied. 

[Chopper]

16 minutes ago, Darth Voorhees said:

** this is my thought, not an offical PF/Legion stance or anything that im aware of thus far**

i dont think it would be approvable at all due to not having a return edge on the visor and i have no idea how one would put that there. Everything else with some work i think can be made to an approveable level, but not seeing how that one thing could be remedied. 

Yep, agreed. That is essentially the TL:DR summary of the post that Dennis linked to.

[tk 7261]

I've been out of the game for a while on this. So I'm sure there is much I don't understand. The thing that's strange to me is the return edge stuff. From back before the RS helmet or the EFX ones, I would say none of them had a shape as close as this Hasbro one. All of the gap filling makes complete sense to me. New decals, filling the gaps, drilling the ears, new paint, all that makes sense. If someone did all that because they couldn't afford another one, then couldn't use the helmet because of a return edge seems kind of too much to me. Not my call though, obviously.

[BikerScout007]

15 minutes ago, tk 7261 said:

I've been out of the game for a while on this. So I'm sure there is much I don't understand. The thing that's strange to me is the return edge stuff. From back before the RS helmet or the EFX ones, I would say none of them had a shape as close as this Hasbro one. All of the gap filling makes complete sense to me. New decals, filling the gaps, drilling the ears, new paint, all that makes sense. If someone did all that because they couldn't afford another one, then couldn't use the helmet because of a return edge seems kind of too much to me. Not my call though, obviously.

All the major helmet makers back in the day had the return edge around the visor.  Even before RS and EFX.  

Just going through the first couple of posts in this thread, which dates back to 2013, you can see it in all of the major helmet makers at the time, including the Don Post.

The Black Series one filled that area in for the electronics and that's what disqualifies it.  

[tk 7261]

On 1/26/2024 at 5:22 PM, BikerScout007 said:

All the major helmet makers back in the day had the return edge around the visor.  Even before RS and EFX.  

Just going through the first couple of posts in this thread, which dates back to 2013, you can see it in all of the major helmet makers at the time, including the Don Post.

The Black Series one filled that area in for the electronics and that's what disqualifies it.  

My point is, not being able to use a helmet that has a shape that looks closer to the screen because of a mundane detail like a return edge, while being able to use one that has a shape that looks less like the originals because it has said mundane detail makes little sense in my opinion.