Is the pocket flap on the Last Crusade jacket larger?

[CM]

This one might best answered by Platon, whose eye for detail I admire. Can anyone find out how large the pocket flap on the LC movie jacket was? It looks larger than the others. And, given that the pockets themselves are meant to be larger than the ROTLA version ( to hold the Grail Diary), this must be the case. The Smithsonian pocket flaps seem huge and they cover a much larger section of the entire pocket. I would love to get their measurements if anyone has the tracings that were taken of it.

[PLATON]

Actually, the pockets of the LC were small. It was the inside pocket, if I recall well that was supposed to carry the diary.

So, the pockets were small (see also distance from bottom) but the flaps were big and squared and roughly-cut without any scallopness.




AND another detail never mentioned before is that the LC jacket is shorter (maybe by 1 inch or more) than the Rotla.

See photo below (and above) and compare length of sleeves with length of body. If you still don't believe me take out of the closet your size 40R Rotla jacket and measure body and sleeves. You 'll see.


Flap looking good on this one.
Actually there was a variety of pocket flaps to choose from


Some of them weren't that bad. See below



Stay tuned for more details on the pending analysis of the LC jacket.


PS: I understand you have a problem with your pockets. I guess your flaps are small. Try altering the size of the flaps instead of the size of the pockets.

[CM]

Fantastic! You're the man, Platon. I always thought the pockets looked smaller, but MK stated somewhere that they were larger than 7 inches after seeing a tracing. You'd have to agree that the LC movie jacket is a different beast. I eagerly await more info.

[PLATON]

If the pockets were 8 inches then I am Pope John Paul the II the deceased.

The pockets are 8 inches on my standard Rotla jacket. (You see why I am trying to order a new jacket).

Generally, speaking about pockets and sorting from smaller to bigger the jackets are as foll.

ToD
LC
RotLA

[Kt Templar]

The fly in the ointment with that theory is...

The Raiders jacket is much more fitted and a smaller size than the LC, perhaps going from a 40 to a 44.. It is also longer.

All the photographic evidence siggest the LC pocket is placed higher on the jacket too.

Theoretically If the same pocket were on both jackets the one on the the larger LC jacket would look smaller.

[PLATON]

KT Templar, maybe you didn't notice what I said before that the Rotla jacket is longer than the LC. Compare and you will see.

Also, the theory that HF wore 40 in Rotla and 44 in LC doesn't stand because 4 sizes is TOO much. But even if that was the case, the size difference would be ONLY in the circumference, unless you suggest that HF increased 4 sizes in height as well. The circumference difference would not affect how the pockets look.

To support the above, before I ordered my Wested measured myself and found that I am a 40R exactly. The jacket I received is not tight on my body though. When I zip it and pull it away from my body, holding it from the storm flap, I find that it is 7 inches away from my body.

When I ordered the jacket was 162 pounds and now I weigh 176. The jacket is 7 inches away.

Just how much weight you think HF put on to wear 4 sizes bigger? 70 pounds?

[Kt Templar]

KT Templar, maybe you didn't notice what I said before that the Rotla jacket is longer than the LC. Compare and you will see.

Also, the theory that HF wore 40 in Rotla and 44 in LC doesn't stand because 4 sizes is TOO much. But even if that was the case, the size difference would be ONLY in the circumference, unless you suggest that HF increased 4 sizes in height as well. The circumference difference would not affect how the pockets look.

To support the above, before I ordered my Wested measured myself and found that I am a 40R exactly. The jacket I received is not tight on my body though. When I zip it and pull it away from my body, holding it from the storm flap, I find that it is 7 inches away from my body.

When I ordered the jacket was 162 pounds and now I weigh 176. The jacket is 7 inches away.

Just how much weight you think HF put on to wear 4 sizes bigger? 70 pounds?

Now, you're making fun of me .

Were talking 4 inches around the chest, 2" can be explained by the looser fit, 2" by weight gain. BTW the difference between a 40 and a 44 is 2 sizes.

By a ready reconning that gives 2 inches more leather front and back, One inch per side left and right. Only 1/2 an inch either side of each pocket. So perhaps not noticeable.

You may be right. And the LC pockets may be smaller.

From the physical evidence I've seen of the jacket MK traced, that particular jacket had a bigger pocket than mine, perhaps 7.5 x 7.

[PLATON]

Now, you're making fun of me .

Were talking 4 inches around the chest, 2" can be explained by the looser fit, 2" by weight gain. BTW the difference between a 40 and a 44 is 2 sizes.

By a ready reconning that gives 2 inches more leather front and back, One inch per side left and right. Only 1/2 an inch either side of each pocket. So perhaps not noticeable.

I haven't thought about it this way. This way sounds reasonable.
I would NEVER make fun of you. I respect you and appreciate your opinion and I THANK you for the pocket drawing.

I think the more we talk about these things the more close we get in our conclusions.

Best regards,

[Kt Templar]

Now, you're making fun of me .

Were talking 4 inches around the chest, 2" can be explained by the looser fit, 2" by weight gain. BTW the difference between a 40 and a 44 is 2 sizes.

By a ready reconning that gives 2 inches more leather front and back, One inch per side left and right. Only 1/2 an inch either side of each pocket. So perhaps not noticeable.

I haven't thought about it this way. This way sounds reasonable.
I would NEVER make fun of you. I respect you and appreciate your opinion and I THANK you for the pocket drawing.

I think the more we talk about these things the more close we get in our conclusions.

Best regards,

Thank you, I was getting concerned.

I have noticed that the lower parts of the sleeve seem more tapered too what do you think?

[PLATON]

In the 1st pic yes, but in the others I don't know. We need to compare more photos/screen caps.

[CM]

This is a great discusion, guys. The evidence of photos doesn't always work for me. The angle, lighting and perspective makes things look very different to how they are in life. I see the photos more as a gentle guide. Sometimes the discussion about half inch measurements, etc sounds like those people who try to solve who killed Kennedy from that scratchy Zapruder film.

My eyes see the LC pockets as smaller and that's it. Jacket size and HF's girth with increasing years does not make a compelling argument. My theory is that if the LC pockets are 7 .5 inches, they must have a 3.5 inch flap, given how far down the pocket it reaches.

[Kt Templar]

Another pic to add to the jacket length pot.

[Kt Templar]

Check out Stevie's jacket!

[Michaelson]

On more than one occasion, Steven Spielberg has been known to order a Raiders jacket directly from Wested, according to Peter.

Regards! Michaelson

[Bogie1943]

Even The Berg is a gearhead!

[Michaelson]

Hi Josh!!

Long time no see!!!

HIGH regards! Michaelson

[Kt Templar]

And another interesting pic... thanks to TIE for all of these btw!

[PLATON]

By comparing the two below photos it is obvious that the Rotla jacket is longer than the LC

[VP]

Or Ford just wears his pants higher in RotLA. Also the pics aren't taken from the same angle, so there might be some optical illusion going on.

[PLATON]

Do you or do you not agree that the storm flap seems to be wider than Rotla or wider than any jacket sold by Wested as LC?

Lucas is a G1 fan btw.

[VP]

No comment. It looks pretty wide in that beach shot with the Webley.

[orb]

Doesn't look that short here:


Much regards

orb

[Michaelson]

That one is almost car coat length....but has always been one of my favorite shots from LC regarding jacket and fedora.

Regards! Michaelson

[Erri]

In al the action shots I'm quite sure that Ford pulled up the trousers to run and move better. I wouldn't give too much importance to how long the jacket is compared to the trousers height. Maybe it would be more accurate if we consider the length of the arm although harder to measure.

[Michaelson]

I'm looking more at the position of his elbow in relationship to the bottom of the jacket. Trousers can go up and down. Elbows pretty much stay in the same place on an arm.

That's a long jacket in that photo.

Regards! Michaelson

[Erri]

I'm looking more at the position of his elbow in relationship to the bottom of the jacket. Trousers can go up and down. Elbows pretty much stay in the same place on an arm.

That's a long jacket in that photo.

Regards! Michaelson

I'm just doing the devil's advocate... but the sleeve is much looser than in the picture on the beach... how can you know if what you're looking at is his elbow and there is not a big gap between the leather instead?

[Michaelson]

True, but unless Ford's arms are deformed, one can pretty well tell where his elbows are in the machine gun photo, and on both sides of the jacket. The bottom of the jacket appears to fall a good foot, or possibily more, below the elbow. That's quite a drop when compared to any jackets I've owned to date, including my LC Wested's.

It could be the angle of the photo, or my flatscreen. Who knows. It still looks extremely long to my eye. Not complaining either. I prefer the longer jacket myself.

Regards! Michaelson

[PLATON]

This photo shows a long jacket. It seems the jacket are different in these two shots.

[VP]

What photo?

[Michaelson]

This one.

Regards! Michaelson

[Puppetboy]

Check out the collar in the above examples - see how askew it is? That can explain why it looks so long on one side.

[Michaelson]

Now THAT makes sense, Todd. You're absolutely correct!

Regards! Michaelson

[Michaelson]

Since when?

Regards! Michaelson

[Michaelson]

[Indiana G]

the poison dates scene with salah has always perplexed me in regards to the jacket. that jacket always looked longer than the rest in this scene.....or was it his pants was pulled up? i don't know....they look like the waist is sitting where it always sits.....

[PLATON]

[img]the%20poison%20dates%20scene%20with%20salah%20has%20always%20perplexed%20me%20in%20regards%20to%20the%20jacket.%20that%20jacket%20always%20looked%20longer%20than%20the%20rest%20in%20this%20scene.....or%20was%20it%20his%20pants%20was%20pulled%20up?%20i%20don't%20know....they%20look%20like%20the%20waist%20is%20sitting%20where%20it%20always%20sits.....[/img]


If you read this post
viewtopic.php?t=20467
you will see that my conclusions are that this jacket is different from the other we see 95% of the time in the movie. It has a totally different collar.

[Indiana G]

thanks platon. it looks like that jacket has got a bunch of elements from the whole trilogy.....TOD length, bigger LC collar, and the raiders pockets (guess we can call it raiders pockets as it is in the movie).....perhaps this hybrid would be a nice jacket to get in the future.......now where did i put that number for wested.......

[CM]

I don't think you can see any real difference in the jacket's length. HF's posture, the angle, his pants, the leather drape and how the jacket is being worn create deseptive changes of length.

Those pocket flaps however do seem very large.