Oversized MkVII?

Castor Dioscuri · Post by **Castor Dioscuri** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:30 pm

Just a side note, is it just me, or does anyone else notice that Indy's satchel always appears MUCH bigger in the movies, as opposed to the MKVIIs we find?

I mean, the thing practically looks like a laptop bag!

I wish mine was that big... I can hardly fit a legal pad in mine..

Mulceber · Post by **Mulceber** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:33 pm

Nope, that's about the size mine is. :junior: -IJ

RobbyT43 · Post by **RobbyT43** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:33 pm

That looks like the regular size to me, but I cannot tell

. I don't know if Harrison got to use a slightly larger bag to fir his body type better or not.

-Robby

Castor Dioscuri · Post by **Castor Dioscuri** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:14 pm

I don't know, but comparing the above pictures to this bag for example:

http://www.whatpriceglory.com/pic/IJBag.jpg

Those pictures above just look way bigger. I mean, pay attention to the distance between the press-studs on both bags.

Perceval · Post by **Perceval** » Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:56 pm

If you you compare the distance of the press-studs relative to the location and distance between the drain holes on the bottom of both bags (which look the same on both bags), it looks as if it's the same size bag...maybe it's just the angle, or lighting/dead spots. Photography can really play tricks on the eye.

I'm not saying this as if I know it's the case here...just a thought.

~Perceval

Jaredraptor · Post by **Jaredraptor** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:25 am

Or, it could be that MkVII bags come in multiple sizes. The U.S. World War 2 sachels did....can't see why the British one's would be different in that respect. If HF got a large MkVII, then some people nowadays may be getting smalls or mediums.

Just my 2 cents.

Erri · Post by **Erri** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 4:23 am

Never heard of these bags coming in different sizes. I'm sure it's just a trick of the eyes. Doesn't look big to me anyway.

Kt Templar · Post by **Kt Templar** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:02 am

It could be just Ford was quite slim back them and it looked big.

I'm sure our resident bag experts know if there were variations in size.

Chewbacca Jones · Post by **Chewbacca Jones** » Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:03 pm

I've noticed that the bag looks bigger when viewed on another person, but always seems smaller when I look at it on myself. The size of the person doesn't seem to matter. Now I used to have a slightly bigger bag, and when worn Indy style, with gear or not, it was clearly too big. I'm also fairly sure that the movie guys took steps to keep the bag in shape just so for the look they wanted.

Texas Raider · Post by **Texas Raider** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:56 pm

Yes, the bags are different sizes, depending on the size of the mask they were made to hold. I've had tons of these in my possession and I've seen them sometimes labeled small, medium ,large and they are different. I think the small and medium may be the same size, but the large is bigger.

TR

Swindiana · Post by **Swindiana** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:10 pm

If you look at THIS LINK you can see that there are somewhat alternate measurements to some of the respirator bags, but only by 1-2cm (Around half an inch) or so.

TR;
How much bigger would the L be? Al just got a bag with an L stamped close to the broad arrow. Would be interesting to know.

EDIT: Just found out that N would stand for Normal, S would stand for Small.

Regards,
Swindiana

ob1al · Post by **ob1al** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:50 pm

My bag is a L, but is the front width seems to match the specs given on the Indygear main page, 10.5" - maybe a fraction over.

Perhaps the depth and side width is different, I'd have to remeasure to check.

Al

McFly · Post by **McFly** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:34 pm

Swindy - that link was really cool! It's awesome to see how the bag developed, from the MkIV to the MkVII and even a couple other ones at the end there. Nice!!

Thanks!

In Christ,
Shane

Texas Raider · Post by **Texas Raider** » Tue Jul 17, 2007 7:48 pm

Swindie,
Yeah, 1/2 to 1 inch seems about right. The girth (thickness) is a bit more as well, maybe 1/4 inch. It normally seems most noticeable in the interior pockets. You know, the two pockets on the back side. On the smalls, I can't get my hand into the smaller of the two pockets, on the large my hand fits in completely.

The large ones do seem a bit more baggy, and it looks as thought indy has a large in those pics.

I'll see if I still have different sizes in my collection and I'll take measurements if I do.

TR

Indywannabe · Post by **Indywannabe** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:45 am

*****, not only it s hard to get hands on, now we have to look for the right size aswell?

EDIT BY MODERATOR

Castor Dioscuri · Post by **Castor Dioscuri** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:11 am

Nobody said it was easy

Perceval · Post by **Perceval** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:49 am

Is there a way we can know for sure what size Indy's bag is?
Maybe they used different sizes...I can't imagine they would worry too much about the size of the bag.

~Perceval

Swindiana · Post by **Swindiana** » Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:02 pm

THIS BAG looks huge on me, and I'm 6'4". The bag is "standard" size though. ..
It would be nice to see some comparison shots between an L size bag and an N one.

THIS SITE says there were xtra large, large, normal, small, and extra small sizes for the face pieces, though I can't imagine the measurements would differ so much that you'd need a huge bag for the XL, the mask being rubber and all for the Mk V Service Respirator.

Regards,
Swindiana

Castor Dioscuri · Post by **Castor Dioscuri** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:17 pm

You know, this makes me wonder...

Do you guys suppose that if you take a MKVII satchel (authentic or replica), immerse it in water, and then stretch it till it dries, do you suppose that that might help actually make the satchel wider or bigger?

I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that the standard dimensions of a MKVII are still pretty small for the packrats in all of us!

ob1al · Post by **ob1al** » Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:43 pm

Perceval wrote:If you you compare the distance of the press-studs relative to the location and distance between the drain holes on the bottom of both bags (which look the same on both bags), it looks as if it's the same size bag...maybe it's just the angle, or lighting/dead spots. Photography can really play tricks on the eye.

I'm not saying this as if I know it's the case here...just a thought.

~Perceval

I agree with Perceval, in that the angle and perspective of the shots posted above play a big part in the bag appearing to be larger than it actually is.

In shot 1, the bag seems to be the 'regular' size

In shots 2 and 3, it's closest to the camera and therefore appears to be bigger.

Not saying the bags don't come in different sizes (as Swindy has clearly demonstrated that they do) but the difference may not be as great as the screencaps suggest.

Al

Flyer05 · Post by **Flyer05** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:05 am

I've always thought the screen bag looked larger as well. When I finally got my original bag a few months ago, I was really surprised at how small it was. I'm 6'3", and it looks small on me...more like a purse than a rugged all-purpose bag. I wore it to work and an old Marine who works for me said "nice fag bag". I laughed and told him it was genuine WW II issue. He laughed and said, "sure, nice story".

It's not a big bag. I have a hard time fitting much more than my camera and sunglasses in it. I've often wondered if they did come in larger sizes. Erri_wan's looks positively HUGE, like a laptop bag. Harrison's looks noticeably larger as well, and I don't think it's a matter of his body size. He's not a tiny guy.

ob1al · Post by **ob1al** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:39 am

Here are some screen shots in which the bag appears to be 'regular size':

Streets of Cairo:

South America:

Another shot of Indy in action, in which the bag appears slightly larger - but note it's the object closest to the camera lense:

I wonder if the bag was kept to shape with a piece of cardboard (or similar) inside to give it a square shape, at least in some scenes? For the majority of scenes, it appears to be empty (makes sense for the action scenes - a full bag would be cumbersome and a nuisance) yet it keeps it shape. Some form of simple reinforcement inside could account for that.

Al

VP · Post by VP » Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:39 pm

This one's an L:

I'm 6'2".

ob1al · Post by **ob1al** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 1:05 pm

VP, what does it measure across the front, in inches?

My MKVII is also a L and measures about 10.5".

VP · Post by VP » Fri Jul 20, 2007 1:10 pm

26.6cms which is roughly 10.47 inches.

Swindiana · Post by **Swindiana** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 1:23 pm

This one is 280x270x80cm, marked with a B. My brain hurts.

Regards,
Swindiana

Indiana Jess · Post by **Indiana Jess** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:32 pm

Swindiana wrote: ... My brain hurts.

Regards,
Swindiana

Well Swindiana, at least you have one! 8-[

VP · Post by VP » Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:33 pm

That's what the B stands for.

ob1al · Post by **ob1al** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:35 pm

Baffled?

Swindiana · Post by **Swindiana** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:51 pm

Baffled? Wink

Or.. Bluffed? It's a conspiracy against me!! "Schneeky..."

Well Swindiana, at least you have one!

Yeah, and I still hope my upgrade to the 2.0 comes without the crank shaft...

Regards,
Swindiana

Indiana Jess · Post by **Indiana Jess** » Fri Jul 20, 2007 3:53 pm

If a crank shaft does arrive with the upgrade, send it my way.

Texas Raider · Post by **Texas Raider** » Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:38 pm

Here is a couple pics of different sizes that I have currently.

[img][img]http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/2065/0000845vh5.th.jpg[/img][/img] Ironically, the larger one on top say ... .jpg[/img][/img][/url]

TR

Swindiana · Post by **Swindiana** » Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:52 am

Thanks a bunch, TR!

I would think so too. Small details differ from maker to maker, and probably the size would too. Since the only really solid part of the respirator would be the filter my guess is the rubber mask would fit in any bag even if the measurements are +-2cm or so apart.

Should we set it at that, guys?

The couple of Canadian bags I've handled (one still in my collection) both were/are a tad bigger than the British ones aswell.

High regards,
Swindiana

Texas Raider · Post by **Texas Raider** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:27 am

Yeah, Swindie, you're right! I had my Canadian bag hanging downstairs and didn't even include it in the pics!
The Canadian bag is a goliath compared to the others. The interior pockets are huge!
The Canadian is in the middle,with the largest of the other three bags on top and the green one that says nothing in it on the bottom.

[img][img]http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/4007/0000847kz7.th.jpg[/img][/img] Canadian measures 11 3/4 inches acros ... TR

Swindiana · Post by **Swindiana** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:12 pm

You'd better put some water repellant on those babies before I come and drool all over them.

What a collection!

Thanks for the shots!

Regards,
Swindiana

Bufflehead Jones · Post by **Bufflehead Jones** » Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:55 pm

The Canadian bags needed some extra room for some beer.

VP · Post by VP » Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:59 pm

So by that logic the soldiers carried beer to the battlefield in their gas mask bags in the first place?

Castor Dioscuri · Post by **Castor Dioscuri** » Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:21 am

VP wrote:So by that logic the soldiers carried beer to the battlefield in their gas mask bags in the first place?

Wouldn't you?

What a way to go, eh?