Observation on the Akubra "Stretch marks"

3thoubucks · Post by **3thoubucks** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 12:35 am

I said I might cut the top off a new Federation, to see if the softer felt within the side stretch marks was thinner- stretched thinner. But using a marked needle, I have observed that the softer felt within the marks is THICKER, not thinner than the rest. ..... Fedora has tried it, and doesn't like the idea of the hat being stretched to shape- BUT.. what if a heated expanding block was just used like a wooden block. A wet hat body pulled over it, but the crank never turned. The heated metal halves would in effect, "iron" the hat from the inside, but the area between the halves wouldn't get compressed and hardend, by this "ironing", and would remain thicker and softer? This could be a shortcut in production, as the hat would dry quicker, and wouldn't need to be ironed by hand.

Here's The marks on a turned Fed.

All you would need was a metal cap on the top of the block. Here on this Fed, it looks like maybe an "X" shaped metal plate was used.

The only other explainations I can think of for the marks on the Raiders hat would be the wierd stitches on the ribbon, or a gap in some stuffing under the sweat.

darthjones · Post by **darthjones** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:27 am

Wow - that is the EXACT hat stretcher I own here. Is that yours?

3thoubucks · Post by **3thoubucks** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 1:34 am

I'm pretty sure that IS yours, Darth. Here's one I think Fedora might have.

Here's one a lot like yours.

I don't know what Michaelson's looks like.

darthjones · Post by **darthjones** » Wed Mar 14, 2007 6:10 am

Hahaaaa!!!!!! You're right! I had forgotten that green table which is now gone. Thought it was someone else's. How funny!

I should maybe drink less too.

3thoubucks · Post by **3thoubucks** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 12:42 am

Another explaination just came to me. The Akubra Bushman has a 5/8 inch gap where the sweat is not sewn in at all, and it's reinforced with heavy stitching. The chin strap goes though the gap between the sweat and inside of the crown and hooks onto a flange on the back side of the metal gromet. --- This would lend a lot of creedence to the idea that the Raiders hat was Australian. For sure an Australian model, though I guess HJ could have made it..

Fedora · Post by **Fedora** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 1:32 pm

I said I might cut the top off a new Federation, to see if the softer felt within the side stretch marks was thinner- stretched thinner

Where ya been 3M$ ? Have not seen you much lately. Hey, on the pic above of the Federation with the indentation on the sides, right above the knot on the bow, Ron said that came from the hats being stacked one inside the other. When the knot of the bow is pressed by the hat that is on top of it, it is pushed in and you get that line you see running up from the bow to the top of the hat. Not from a stretcher he says. I am seeing the same thing on the HJs I am getting it as they are stacked one inside the other.

On exactly what Mr Swales did to create the Raiders fedora, we may never know!! From what I have been told recently, Swales made Ford's hats in the small shop, and not from the factory. Personally, I think he had that Raiders block in his shop, and it was not used at the factory. I also think the next two films used hats straight from the factory, and that may be why they are not the same. Did he use some sort of heated stretcher to create the Raiders blockshape? Well, it would be foolish of me to say no, because I really don't know! My guess is he used a block he had in hand at the small shop. Afterall, the larger sized hat for Terry was identical to Fords in block shape. Now, if he had used that heated block to make Terry's hat too, he would have ended up with an oblong hat, because those stretchers stretch fore and aft. Terry is not wearing an oblong hat, or a long, long, long oval. The oval on his hat is just the common oval shape. Like Ford's. This tends to make me think that Swales reblocked the hats. Maybe they were just piled up the way we have heard about them being piled up on a shelf, and to freshen these hats up for the film, he pulled all of them over a block he had in house. And the Raiders fedora was created. When they ordered for the next film, perhaps he just called the factory and told them to send him 45 hats in the various sizes, all in brown. That would explain why the bowwork on the other two films is identical, but totally different than what Swales personally put on the Raiders fedora, by hand. Yeah, I think Swales personally handmade those Raider fedoras, including the superiour work on the bows. It just reeks of a handmade hat in that area. Fedora

3thoubucks · Post by **3thoubucks** » Thu Mar 15, 2007 10:44 pm

Hi Fedora.

Since my Mythbusters Bushman post, I have bought 2 old Akubras on e-bay. One is an old "Digger" model sold by Eddie Bauer. It's the Australian Military Slouch hat, but the crown is very full, like a Fed or Bushman.. I bought it because it could be from the 70's, and has "Superfine" felt. I have owned a couple of Squatters with Superfine felt, and it's a thin felt. So I couldn't understand why Ron of Hatsdirect thought Superfine was a thick felt. Well, this hat's Superfine felt is as thick as a Fed's or Bushman's. So "Supefine" is related to felt quality, not thickness. The block is compareable to a Fed or Bushman, but it's too tall to use at 6 inches, size 57. == I also bought an older Bushman, but it's one size bigger (58} than my David Morgan, so i can leave the sweat in. My guess it's 10 to 20 years old. The block is the same, The felt is as thick, but much softer. The David Morgan has the same red and gold on white liner as a Fed, but this one has a black crest on a slightly golden liner. ....................... ........................... .................

the indentation on the sides, right above the knot on the bow, Ron said that came from the hats being stacked one inside the other.

The line on the Raiders hat above is NOT on the bow side. Do you think Swales would jamstack his personally hand blocked hats that tight? Even before they left the shop?.....................................................

because those stretchers stretch fore and aft.

......Read my post again Fedora! I'm saying the hat was NEVER stretched--- That the expanding block was never expanded after the hat body was pulled over it. .....................................

From what I have been told recently

I think you are refering to your conversation with "Nicky at HJ" In your "Mystical HJ" post. WHO is Nicky? Did Nicky have a personal relationship with Swales? Did he give Nicky any specific details about the Raiders hat? Did Nicky ever work at the same shop as Swales? How old is Nicky? Is Nicky a receptionist who has been with HJ for six months?

....................... ............................ .........................Here's the Akubra/Bauer.

Here's my older Bushman and it's liner.

......................

Fedora · Post by **Fedora** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:26 am

Read my post again Fedora! I'm saying the hat was NEVER stretched--- That the expanding block was never expanded after the hat body was pulled over it.

Yes, I know, but in order to get Terry's hat made with the same blockshape, the stretcher would not work. It would have to be run out to compensate for the larger size. Hence, a long, long oval would be yielded, even if they just run out the stretcher and pulled the hat over it. This is where some knowledge of hatmaking starts to shine. You have to account not only for Ford's hat but Terry's larger size too. So, that dog won't hunt, IMHO.

think you are refering to your conversation with "Nicky at HJ" In your "Mystical HJ" post. WHO is Nicky? Did Nicky have a personal relationship with Swales? Did he give Nicky any specific details about the Raiders hat? Did Nicky ever work at the same shop as Swales? How old is Nicky? Is Nicky a receptionist who has been with HJ for six months?

She is the contact person when dealing with HJ at a wholesale level. I think she has been there since SAB bought the company. From what I understand, she personally talked to Mr. Swales at least at one point in time. At least she made mention of "this is what Mr. Swales told us" And Mr. Swales told them that he made the hats in the shop. I have to trust that, as she would have no dog in this race. But, take her statements as you will. It is afterall, anecdotal as far as we are concerned. Now, whether he blocked the hats in the small shop, I don't know, that is conjecture, but she did say he hand cut the brims, and changed out the ribbon for sure.

When I first talked to HJ 3 years ago about the wholesale price of the HJ, I talked to Nicky, so she has been there at least that long. I assumed she was a SAB employee who assumed the position of head of sales. Fedora

Post by **Michaelson** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:06 am

From past experience, you're right on the nose, Steve. She was indeed the point person from SAB when HJ was purchased, and she was the person who had direct contact with Swales as the transfer took place.

She's been their contact person for years! Even I have talked to her in the past.

Regards! Michaelson

3thoubucks · Post by **3thoubucks** » Fri Mar 16, 2007 11:51 pm

What if they had 10 seperate expanding blocks, each a different size? Except for size 60 plus, where the HJ guy said they switched to wooden blocks? Why would expanding blocks only come in one size? Or not have different size/shape block havles you could change out on the same machine? ........................ I know Nadoolman and Swales both have their critics, but just for the heck of it, I'll quote her again.

It's a pretty simple story but I am afraid that I do not remember Mr.Swales involvement. However he may have been associated with the sequels. Mr. Ford put the hat on his head, period.

I don't know who to believe- Deborah's name runs in the credits of some of the most popular movies of all time. Richard Swales is just a guy who worked in a hat shop, unless, he was the genius behind the Raiders hat. ... I DO KNOW... for CERTAIN... there's an indentation up the non-bow side of the Raiders hat just behind Indy's right ear. ....... Why?........ I offer 5 explainations- Heated expanding block, intense hat stacking, wierd stitches on the ribbon, a gap in sweat stuffing, and the Akubra chin strap gap. .... Any new sugestions? Any votes for the aforementioned?

darthjones · Post by **darthjones** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 1:51 am

As far as Swales goes I was in that shop in 1986 and again in 1999. He told me the first time that the hats were completely shaped on site and that the very "cruel" pinch, as he put it, was done in the basement. He talked about replacing the ribbon, cutting the brim, and blocking it. He mentioned the bleach as well but said that someone else did that.

Told the same stuff to a friend of mine, right in front of me, in '99.

3thoubucks · Post by **3thoubucks** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 1:59 am

86 is 5 years after 80. 2 years after Temple of Doom. The first views of the Raiders hat filmed were the Bantu Wind dock scene and the Tarantula scene. The hat wasn't yet turned in either. It got turned in the whip swing over the Peruvian Pit. I think it was turned and re-PINCHED on set. I doubt they sent it back to Swales to turn and re-PINCH it. Any tight front pinch could be called a "cruel pinch" Swales didn't invent the tight front pinch. If I want to be cruel to a fedora, I'll remember to do it in the BASEMENT!.

Just kidding Darth. Your input is invaluable. Think you could get a look at The Ford Raiders hat, Terry or Vic hat? This controversy could be resoved with direct observation of the liners and sweats of the orignal hats, which probably still exist somewhere. ,,,,, Anyway, WHAT'S the explaination for THIIIIISS!!!

darthjones · Post by **darthjones** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 4:26 am

I will definitely say that, while at ILM years and years ago I did definitely keep my eye out for a distinctively Raiders hat either by pinch or by bleached out and saw neither, dang it.

Fedora · Post by **Fedora** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 9:59 am

Why would expanding blocks only come in one size?

I think they came in one size because they were used strictly for stretching out hats, by first heating them. Those tools are just hat stretchers. And if you look at old hatshop pics, you generally see just one of those machines. They were tools used to stretch out shrunk up hats, and were not intended to be used to take the place of the hat block proper. You are wanting a hatter to do unconventional things in creating a hat. If those stretchers were used the way you think Swales used them, this would fly in the face of how hats are made. And, hat shops would have had one of these stretchers in each size, and would not even use the wood blocks to block the hats. To me, this is just so far in left field that it is implausible.

Perhaps the indentations you see in the Raiders fedora have other explanations? I think they do. Remember, you thought the Akubras were stretched because you saw those indentations on the sides. Are you not accepting what Ron says about these? As I said, these HJs I am getting in are stacked, and they have those same indentations. And I know they ain't using a stretcher on these.

Any new sugestions?

Yeah, I got one. The indentation is there because the felt was pushed in. That's all. Nothing mystical about it, at least to me. I see this all the time. Now, if felt did not indent naturally with pressure, I would re-think it.

Anyway, WHAT'S the explaination for THIIIIISS!!!

3M$, are you trying to tell me you can't push a dent in one of your hats, and it stays that way?? I just don't get it. Do your own hats spring back out if you push a dent into it? I am not understanding your point here.

He told me the first time that the hats were completely shaped on site and that the very "cruel" pinch, as he put it, was done in the basement

Darth, that is intriquing!! I always assumed Deborah did the styling, and that is why the other two films did not feature the tight front crease. Apparently Swales forgot how he styled the hats on the first film!!!!! And I thought it was due to different costumers being involved. Our info is just so contradictory, that it presents a petri dish where all sorts of theories can be grown. I still think we need to employ Occam's Razor here.

There are some things I think we can all agree on. We can agree that the Raiders fedora was unlike what followed. The block shape was different. The felt was different. The The crease of the hat was different. The hatters crest varied.
We can also clearly see that the bowwork on TLC fedora, and the TOD fedora was the same that was used in the hats that we could buy from HJ after TLC. The center knot of the bow has 4 distinct tack points on TLC, the TOD, and the current HJs.

Now, if I were just a hatter who knew nothing of the history of all 3 hats, and was shown all 3 film hats side by side, my conclusion would be that the Raiders fedora was not made by HJ!!!! Afterall, on a detailed level, the Raiders fedora shares nothing in common with the latter two film hats. That would be a completely logical conclusion too. The sweats were not even attached the same way for God's sake!! The bowwork is not the same. The blockshape is not the same. Different hatmakers. Who threw the monkey wrench in the gears?.

Fedora

agent5 · Post by **agent5** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:39 am

The first views of the Raiders hat filmed were the Bantu Wind dock scene and the Tarantula scene.

Actually the docks were the first time the hat is seen but the second was at Imam's house where the hat sat on the table.

Indiana G · Post by **Indiana G** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:59 pm

IMO, those marks could have come from anything. anything at all. the way the costume department stored the hat, harrison ford's fat wallet when he sat on it, a bracelet or ring from deborah when she rolled it up in a little ball. anything, anything at all. i won't disprove the hat stretcher theory because i can't....then again, you can't disprove any of mine either

darthjones · Post by **darthjones** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 4:57 pm

Darth, that is intriquing!! I always assumed Deborah did the styling, and that is why the other two films did not feature the tight front crease. Apparently Swales forgot how he styled the hats on the first film!!!!! And I thought it was due to different costumers being involved. Our info is just so contradictory, that it presents a petri dish where all sorts of theories can be grown. I still think we need to employ Occam's Razor here.

Hey, Steve! I completely agree with you on Occam's Razor - I just assume the following: When Raiders was in pre-production and they were figuring out the hat, remember that Noodlechick brought an old hat to them (or something like that, right?) and said "can you make this?" At that point, Swales did it up in the shop and then presented the 'this is what I came up with' hat. From that point, I doubt he put that much work into the following hats but simply got them up to speed and Noodle People took over.

For TOD and TLC I doubt that anyone ever even visited HJ. In fact, Swales told me that he simply got an order for 20 hats, give or take, and was annoyed by the fact that they wanted them "yesterday," as he put it.

Anyway, something like that. I'm breezing through it at this point.

3thoubucks · Post by **3thoubucks** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 4:48 am

There are actually 2 marks, one is further back, seperated by a ridge.

. This is duplicated in these Akubra marks, the overall width of the mark/marks about 2 1/2 inches.

These marks are there in the Raven (pictured way above) The Peruvian cave, and Cairo. ... The felt in these marks is thicker and softer than the rest, which to me, points to a two piece heated block, as reported to be the method the Raiders hat was made. (the position of the Raiders marks seem to indicate a 2+ inch turn, which is what I have given my last 2 hats.) ...... I don't know if the "Australian Model" Nadoolman selected was an Akubra or a Swales creation. ...I found a web page a couple years ago tiltled "Diminutives in Australian English". It's no longer published, but it listed an Australian slang term for Herbert Johnson- Herbie ...Herbie J or something.. anyway it seems HJ's were popular enough in Australia to get a nickname.

Fedora · Post by **Fedora** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 10:57 am

The felt in these marks is thicker and softer than the rest, which to me, points to a two piece heated block, as reported to be the method the Raiders hat was made.

I think if that two piece heated stretcher was used, you would see perfectly straight lines on both sides of the hat, towards the center of the hat. Not the diagonal lines in the felt that we see in the pics you posted. That line in the felt in those pics is in the wrong place.

Now, what would, or could make the diagonal marks you see? The answer is many things, non of which would be the track marks of the heated stretcher. Anyone who owns and wears a hat would tell you the same thing.

Of course, I think you should take one of those stretchers, crank it out to 23 and 1/4 an inch in diameter(to create the 7 1/4 hat size) and then take a size 7 1/8 and pull it over the block. Leave it on long enough, until you can get the ugle wrinkles out of the top of the crown. Pull it off and take pics of what the hat looks like coming off of the heated stretcher. Now run the stretcher out to 24 and 1/2 to make a 7 5/8 hat. Pull a 7 1/2 size hat over the stretcher and sit back and admire your extra long oval hat. Then put that hat on a 7 5/8 head. What you will see at once is the head pushes out the sides and you get a very tapered hat when it is on the head. Just like if you put an extra long oval hat on a regular oval head. Using a hat stretcher to make hats would be obvious if you know anything about the ovals commonly used in hatmaking, i.e. round oval, regular oval, long oval, extra long oval, etc. What I am saying, is a hat made on a stretcher, in various sizes would stand out like a sore thumb. And, I can't see that sore thumb on Ford's hat, or the stunt hat that Terry wore. All that I see are regular oval hats. Your theory of the hat stretcher would leave more footprints than your diagonal line(which it would not leave).

If Swales would have had a stretcher in each size of hat, he would own a heated stretcher that I have never heard of. On the base of these heated stretchers is the sizing chart that shows the size of the expanding block. It could start at a 6 5/8 hat size and go all the way to say, a 7 3/4. Remember, these stretchers were used to stretch a given hat out, so you could then pull it over the block size the hat was originally blocked on. What I mean is this. If you had a size 7 1/4 hat, and it had shrunk up so badly that there was no way you could get it over the 7 1/4 block, you pulled out the heated stretcher. You then stretched the hat out, with heat and mechanical pressure to get it large enough to get it on the wood block. It did not matter if you ended up with an extra extra long oval, because you were just stretching it out to put back on the regular oval block. And that was what the stretcher was primarily designed for. To use a stretcher to make a hat is alien to hatmaking. No reputable hatter would do it, IMHO. It flies in the face of hatmaking. Fedora

darthjones · Post by **darthjones** » Sun Mar 18, 2007 5:01 pm

Hey, gang! I do own one of the stretchers in the pictures above (so I realized later :b) and have to agree with Steve on the "lines" that are produced when stretching out a hat. What I do though is not heat it up all the way but, when my hat shrinks and is still a tiny bit wet, I get the stretcher up to some real warmth (just hot enough so I can touch it) and then stretch my hat back out to my size.

After the lines appear I close the stretcher halves a bit and then turn the hat sideways, crank it out a tiny bit, take the hat off again, close the stretcher halves completely, and then use the still slightly warm device to smooth out the lines from within by taking each side of the hat from underneath and lightly pulling it over the shape her and there with continued motion.

I do a "light" version of the above with my AB and a HEAVY version of it for my HJ of course.

Was actually able to recover an HJ by using the stretcher on high heat and working a soaked hat back out in different directions over an hour or so.

BUT - I can see no way of making a hat from scratch on a stretcher.

Fedora · Post by **Fedora** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:15 pm

I can't say that Mr. Swales did not do that. I just find it improbable, but certainly not impossible. But, the Raiders fedora is so unlike what followed in the other two films, that it gives us fertile ground to let our minds drift into all sorts of theories. If you stripped away all of the info we have heard about the origins of this hat, and just looked at it with a unbiased mind, I think an experienced hat wearer would just say it had a different block used. That is the most logical explanation. This hat does not lie outside the norm that you see in the old films. If it did, I would be searching and musing along with 3M$. When he looks and sees a crease here, a crease there, he looks for non typical explanations, I look towards the more typical. I am thinking inside the box, and he is outside it. We may never know who is correct, and even if Mr Swales showed up here and gave us an in depth detailed account, there would be some of us who would not believe him.

That is how this hobby is. We can be a skeptical bunch, and you can put me in that camp too.

One guy from the Indyfan days once said something that has never left me. He said that even if you put the real hat in our hands, some of us would say, "nope, that ain't it"!!! I doubt we will ever have common agreement on some things. And sharp eyes will catch something like the regular oval of the Raiders fedora morphing into a round oval at the crest of the crown. No one else ever caught that, including myself. But, if you look, knowing it is there, you can see it. It just jumps out at me now, where it never did prior. I am surprised 3M$ did not catch this early on, since he has an extraordinary eye for detail. Fedora

Post by **Michaelson** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:46 pm

Fedora wrote: One guy from the Indyfan days once said something that has never left me. He said that even if you put the real hat in our hands, some of us would say, "nope, that ain't it"!!! Fedora

We said the same about the jacket....and the shirt....and the trousers....and the.....

Regards! Michaelson

Fedora · Post by **Fedora** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:56 pm

We said the same about the jacket....and the shirt....and the trousers....and the.....

Yeah, humans are just this way. Can you imagine ANYONE trying to push anything on us? This is the wrong crowd for that.

Fedora

darthjones · Post by **darthjones** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:57 pm

TWO POINTS:

1. Wow, you hit something on the head here - when I saw the one real Raiders hat in 1984 (was behind glass) the two first things that went through my mind were "wow, thats just an old hat" and "dang, that brim is uneven."

I do recall that it had that seeming "gathering" or vertical fold of felt coming up from behind the ribbon just over Ford's right eye too. 3$ did this by sewing an actual fold in on an Akubra, I think, and it looked kinda like that.

And the center crease in front was the tightest I had ever seen on a hat.

The felt looked very thin in contrast to the Borsalino I was wearing that same day (blocked up like Indy) and the whole top of the Raiders hat was pushed in from above (kinda teardroppish with no center dome) and was lying flat - flat brim all around - on top of his jacket.

Given all this AND the fact that it was very obviously bleached I still came away with my bubble "burst" a little bit in that looked more like just an old hat than anything else.

2. Given the very different nature of the felt between ROTLA and the other films, we have to remember that Swales had to do far less perhaps to "age" that hat into the shape we know. Just look at the hat displayed here by Steve and Pagey - it looks totally perfect and has not even been jacked up (I suspect) like the Raiders screen hat.

Just behavior of the felt. I'm sure Swales didn't slave over anything. He turned the shape over to those who sat on it, bleached it, etc. I suspect.

3thoubucks · Post by **3thoubucks** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 1:49 am

"dang, that brim is uneven."

Darth, it's been long rumored the Raiders brim was cut kind of quick and sloppily. Is this what you mean by "uneven"? Or could you also be noticeing the effect of the turn? The first is unturned, the second turned 2 inches.

........... ................ .......... ..............................

the regular oval of the Raiders fedora morphing into a round oval at the crest of the crown. No one else ever caught that, including myself. But, if you look, knowing it is there, you can see it. It just jumps out at me now, where it never did prior. I am surprised 3M$ did not catch this early on, since he has an extraordinary eye for detail. Fedora

I was aware of it Fedora, but having only ever owned regular oval hats, no round ovals, I didn't think of it in regular vs. round oval terms. I posted pics a while back where I laid a ruler across a regular bash and a turned bash, demonstrating the turned bash was shorter. That was with a sub 1 inch turn. With a two inch turn. you really notice the "round oval" crown you are talking about. ..................................................... ............................... .....................People have gotten great results blocking hats on coffee cans and tupperware. I doubt you couldn't block a hat on a heated expanding hat block. It's not even called a "hat stretcher" by the HJ guy, it's termed a "block". A "Heated Metal Expanding Block". As I pointed out, I assume there's a heat conducting metal form placed on the top of the block, only leaving marks on the sides.

darthjones · Post by **darthjones** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:35 am

Hey, 3$. Great question. No, the brim cut was noticeably wavy in and of itself, apart from any turn.

I wouldn't say it was hastily done but it was nowhere near the smooth transition of a Steve cut AB dimensional brim. Nowhere near.

Also not as smoothly transitioned as the LC hats I saw at ILM.

I do recall that the brim had a very wide - relatively speaking - section in the front right (if you're wearing it) as it transitioned from front of the hat brim to side of the brim. I remember this well because I kept staring at it thinking WTF?! It was wavy elsewhere too but that part stuck out a bit (literally).

I have a Swales cut brim over here and it is not quite as wavy as that Raiders hat was.

3thoubucks · Post by **3thoubucks** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:43 am

I do recall that the brim had a very wide section in the front right (if you're wearing it) as it transitioned from front of the hat brim to side of the brim. I remember this well because I kept staring at it thinking WTF?!

Like this?

darthjones · Post by **darthjones** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:49 am

Hmm. Maybe a little bit. Its possible I guess but I was not aware enough at the time to look for a "turn."

But when I say uneven this thing was UNeven. The area I'm talking about had a relative point on it, for lack of a better word. Its like Swales was cutting in one direction and then angled into a different direction very suddenly with only a very small area of change in direction. There were a couple spots like that.

Some would definitely call it sloppy.

3thoubucks · Post by **3thoubucks** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 4:56 am

the brim had a very wide - relatively speaking - section in the front right (if you're wearing it)

I changed the pic to a better one while you were posting I think, Dathjones. Sounds like you were saying the right front brim was wider than the left front brim?

That's the case on this hat because a quarter inch of the crown has been transitioned into brim, the apex being the pleat in the right front dent, (The hat turned 2 1/4 inches.) .................................. ...............

There were a couple spots like that.

If this hat was a clock, where would you say those points were? (That's probably too much to remember?)

darthjones · Post by **darthjones** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 5:29 am

Hmm. I'd say at about 1:30 - 1:45.

Boy, we're sick, aren't we?! Up at this hour writing about hats. I love it!

Fedora · Post by **Fedora** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:49 am

Its like Swales was cutting in one direction and then angled into a different direction very suddenly with only a very small area of change in direction.

I have seen several Swales HJs from the 90's that were like this. He did not seem to take much time in trying to get smooth transition points. And I have seen some of his hats where one side might be 2 1/2 and the other side 2 3/8. I always figured he was having a bout of the "shakes" when he cut the brims. He probably needed a drink to steady his hands.

Fedora

darthjones · Post by **darthjones** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 2:38 pm

Absolutely. I had an early gray HJ here where one side of the hat was 2 1/2 and the other a full 2 3/4.

Would have been cool to take a template off that Raiders hat though!

Renderking Fisk · Post by **Renderking Fisk** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 3:48 pm

Question is - where can one find a hat strecher like that.

Fedora · Post by **Fedora** » Tue Mar 20, 2007 9:46 pm

Question is - where can one find a hat strecher like that.

You can find them quite often on ebay. Regards, Fedora

3thoubucks · Post by **3thoubucks** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:59 am

Feora said:

Hey, on the pic above of the Federation with the indentation on the sides, right above the knot on the bow, Ron said that came from the hats being stacked one inside the other.

He was talking about this hat. He noticed the ribbon was smashed, because Hatdirects sent me two hats, one jammed down on this one. This exagerated the marks also, but they are there on every Fed and Bushman. He also said he wasn't even aware of them on new Federations.

I have conceeded, the marks could partially be due to stacking. The thing is, I have never seen them on any other hats. Not my Miller 256 and 257 Indys, Miller 6x, Borsalino, Dobbs, Old and new Akubra Squatters, Akubra Pastoralist, Akubra Colley, ...I have a black Huckle I pulled out of a stack of them in the cardboard shipping box in a Burlington Coat Factory, and that doesn't have any marks.

: If the marks on the Raiders crown, are caused by stacking, I'd guess the Raiders hat was an Akubra, because I doubt a high class place like HJ would scar hats, when most hats escape this scarring. If an expanding block made the marks, I'd favor HJ, because they say they made the Raiders hat with one, But if the marks are from an expanding block, Akubra would have to be using them too. ?

Fedora · Post by **Fedora** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 9:19 am

I'd guess the Raiders hat was an Akubra, because I doubt a high class place like HJ would scar hats,

Have you not read the accounts where the hats at HJ were just thrown on a shelf, stacked on top of one another? There have been a couple of guys who said that. Like they were selling cans of beans, rather than hats.

If an expanding block made the marks, I'd favor HJ, because they say they made the Raiders hat with one,

We have heard this from ONE person, and it is anecdotal at best. I find it odd that in all of the years that we have heard Swales comments, this one never came up until in the last year or so. Do you recall who attributed that to Swales? I think before WE assume it is true, we at least need another account, from a different source. You know how easily anecdotal evidence can become concrete evidence, in this hobby.

Fedora

Post by **Michaelson** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 10:52 am

Fedora wrote:You know how easily anecdotal evidence can become concrete evidence, in this hobby. Fedora

That's the plain fact. Once a comment or observation is repeated enough times over the years, somehow it becomes 'fact', and 'indisputable fact' at that!

Regards! Michaelson

Fedora · Post by **Fedora** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:03 am

That's the plain fact. Once a comment or observation is repeated enough times over the years, somehow it becomes 'fact', and 'indisputable fact' at that!

All too common. And myths arise from this sort of stuff. As long as we note them as myths, it is ok. But now we are ASSUMING this report is indeed factual, when it may not be. This is bothersome to folks who want to deal in facts. Garbage in, garbage out. Fedora

darthjones · Post by **darthjones** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:24 am

Think of it this way too, 3$ -

When someone says they "made" the Raiders hat using a stretcher they could have easily meant that an existing HJ poet was taken and "made" using an x-acto knife, sandpaper, a hat stretcher, and different ribbon to jack it up a bit from its rather pristine beginnings.

Just from owning one of these devices I'd have to say that there is no way to take a raw felt hood and iron it into shape over this thing.

No way.

PM me with your email again and I can send you a couple pics. of HJ's that have had to be VERY stretched out on this device because of extreme shrinkage.

binkmeisterRick · Post by **binkmeisterRick** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 12:40 pm

Maybe the HJ stretch marks are because it had baby HJ's?

8-[

Fedora · Post by **Fedora** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 2:39 pm

Maybe the HJ stretch marks are because it had baby HJ's?

Bink, I think you just explained how the Raiders fedora was followed by those, ill thought of offspring, known as Doom and Crusade. The Raiders fedora had children!! That would explain the mushroom look. Those bulges was from babies!!! Now, the question is, who is the father? A lowly Homburg? A dandy Bowler? Perhaps Bogie's hat? Doom and Crusade all share common traits with all 3 potential fathers!

I will go for Bogie's hat. That hat had class! Fedora

binkmeisterRick · Post by **binkmeisterRick** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 3:07 pm

I don't know, Fedora, it didn't really start looking 'shroomy until Cairo, so maybe Salah's fez is the father.

3thoubucks · Post by **3thoubucks** » Wed Mar 21, 2007 11:48 pm

You know how easily anecdotal evidence can become concrete evidence, in this hobby. Fedora

That's the plain fact. Once a comment or observation is repeated enough times over the years, somehow it becomes 'fact', and 'indisputable fact' at that!

...... The report from the HJ employee wasn't anecdotal, a comment or a casual observation. If it wasn't a fabrication, it was from someone AT Herbert Johnson, who understood the current offering was deficient, and was intent on reproducing the original hat, - with Swales in the loop!

The final part of the blocking process was done by hand and I am going to contact Mr. Swales to have a chat with him about this nearer the time the hats will be ready which is still some months off.

I have learned from Mr. Swales, the original hatter that the hat was indeed changed by the then CEO (John De Brunyi) and a buyer who will remain nameless as she still works for us. The reasons for the switch seem to be due to a personality clash between said parties and the felt supplier

Either this was a scam ........or it wasn't. It should be completely disregarded, - or taken very seriously. .....I think maybe Swales ended up taking this guy to the Basement and being very cruel to him. - That's why we haven't heard from him again.

I have recovered the original blocks used which were in storage in Cambridge - One is a metal heated expanding block which is circa 1952 and uses a corkscrew turning wheel. The other was used for very large sizes 62+ and is wooden but the same shape. Both are totally flat sided and are very high to accommodate the crown height with a slightly domed top.
The final part of the blocking process was done by hand and I am going to contact Mr. Swales to have a chat with him about this nearer the time the hats will be ready which is still some months off.

darthjones · Post by **darthjones** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:52 am

I do remember Swales saying something about switching companies at some point. The way he told it to me is that the original felt supplier started really cutting corners. He said that they had been supplying felt for years and years and then started going down hill fast for some reason so HJ dropped them early to mid 90's or so.

Something like that.

3thoubucks · Post by **3thoubucks** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:19 am

Hey Darth, is there a date on your block? Perhaps a patent date? Like 1952?

darthjones · Post by **darthjones** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:23 am

Hmm. I'll go look right now. Just a sec.

Okay - there looks to HAVE been a patent mark but it is rubbed out. Dang. The serial # is B -1476 but thats all I can see.

Fedora · Post by **Fedora** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:36 am

The report from the HJ employee wasn't anecdotal, a comment or a casual observation. If it wasn't a fabrication, it was from someone AT Herbert Johnson, who understood the current offering was deficient, and was intent on reproducing the original hat, - with Swales in the loop! Quote:
The final part of the blocking process was done by hand and I am going to contact Mr. Swales to have a chat with him about this nearer the time the hats will be ready which is still some months off.
Quote:
I have learned from Mr. Swales, the original hatter that the hat was indeed changed by the then CEO (John De Brunyi) and a buyer who will remain nameless as she still works for us. The reasons for the switch seem to be due to a personality clash between said parties and the felt supplier
Either this was a scam ........or it wasn't. It should be completely disregarded, - or taken very seriously. .....I think maybe Swales ended up taking this guy to the Basement and being very cruel to him. - That's why we haven't heard from him again. Quote:
I have recovered the original blocks used which were in storage in Cambridge - One is a metal heated expanding block which is circa 1952 and uses a corkscrew turning wheel. The other was used for very large sizes 62+ and is wooden but the same shape. Both are totally flat sided and are very high to accommodate the crown height with a slightly domed top.
The final part of the blocking process was done by hand and I am going to contact Mr. Swales to have a chat with him about this nearer the time the hats will be ready which is still some months off.

Who made this post? The post that was giving us the story about the HJ employee? Does he still post here?

He said this. " have recovered the original blocks used which were in storage in Cambridge - One is a metal heated expanding block which is circa 1952 and uses a corkscrew turning wheel. The other was used for very large sizes 62+ and is wooden but the same shape. Both are totally flat sided and are very high to accommodate the crown height with a slightly domed top. "

This sounds to me like the tools that were in the shop Swales resided at, were in storage. There was a metal, heated, expanding block there. But please realize that this tool was present in most hat shops!!! It's purpose was to stretch out a customers hat that had shrunk up to where it gave him a headache. That used to be the purpose of that tool, and still is, to this very day. To make the leap that he actually used this stretcher to make the Raiders fedora is a..................stretch.

I also find it odd that this new and revised HJ has never seen the light of day. Wonder why?

The ones that I get are the LC and TOD blockshape.

Don't you find it rather odd that with all that Swales told various visitors over the years, that this expanding block deal never came up?

Occam's Razor would tell us exactly what Swales told us. He took a stock hat off the shelf, hand cut the brim, changed out the ribbon, and voila' you have it. The Raiders HJ. Since the same blockshape appears in the old HJ catalog, that nails it for me. I think some of us just like conspiracy theories. Fedora

Fedora · Post by **Fedora** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 10:57 am

It just occured to me that Lee Kepler could shine a light here. I was lucky enough to have seen Mike's Raiders HJ that he bought from Lee, back when Lee was importing these HJs. Mike's HJ was NOT like the current flock. Although it had shrunk over the years and tapered, it was still not as tapered as what I have seen out of HJ over the last 12 years. If Lee could tell us he saw two distinct block shapes, this should put this whole idea of the ""stretcher made hat to rest. Or if he told us, what he got was the straighter Raiders blocked fedora, that would put this to rest. We can already see the more tapered hat in the HJ catalog, so we know that it existed. Some of the guys who could help out are no longer active posters. And that is a shame. Fedora

Post by **Michaelson** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 11:50 am

Lee peeks in every now and again, but he's literallly a road warrior driving from gun show to gun show now, and has little computer access anymore.

Regards! Michaelson

Fedora · Post by **Fedora** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:23 pm

Lee peeks in every now and again, but he's literallly a road warrior driving from gun show to gun show now, and has little computer access anymore.

Yes, I have heard as much. Lee Kepler probably knows more about the HJ than we might think. He did find out who made the originals, and even offered them prior to the internet. There is no doubt, quite a few of them went through his hands. And that makes me conjecture. Lee was boo'ed by some when he stated several years ago that we were wanting the hat to be too tall. Like 5 3/4 open crown height. He said it was 5 1/2. The current crops of HJs with the taper block comes in at 5 3/4. Now, I conjecture that if Lee noticed that what he sold was 5 1/2, this would of course prompt him to elicit the remark about the 5 3/4 being too tall.

I would just about bet that at least some of the HJs he was getting from Swales were non tapered 5 1/2 open crowned hats. Otherwise, he would have never made his statement. And this non tapered 5 1/2 inch crown HJ matches up with the studies our local surveyor has done with the heights and dimensions of the original hat. Now, isn't that a heckuva coincidence?? Does any one here think Swales made Lee's HJs on a stretcher? I personally don't, but I would also be foolish to say it was impossible. Improbable yes, but not impossible. But, there is that problem of making all the sizes on a stretcher. Or even more than one size. You get long ovals, long long ovals, extra long ovals and triple long ovals, all depending upon the size of the hat.

The number 62 and larger blocks are 7 3/4 and above sizes, and those sizes are rarely sold as not many people have heads that large. I think Terry was the 7 5/8 hat size, but doubt any other stunt guy had a head larger than that. His head does look big, if you look at the behind the scenes footage. I have made and reblocked over 1000 hats to date. I have sold perhaps 4 hats in the 7 3/4 and larger sizes. That is how rare they are.

So that would mean, the heated stretcher was used to not only make Ford's 7 1/4, but also any 7 3/8s, 7 1/2s, and 7 5/8s that were needed. And I don't think that dog will hunt. The devil is in the details on this one, I think. Fedora