Indy truck gloves; i am sure i know what they are.

Doeindy · Post by **Doeindy** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:39 pm

I was working with a film crew today and the camera man was wearing a pair of yellow leather gloves. I looked at them and knew instantly that the gloves looked exactly like the Raiders truck scene gloves. I asked the camera man where he got the gloves from and he said the gloves are a pair of African mineing gloves. He also said that the gloves are used by gold miners in Africa. I tell you now that these gloves looked exactly like the ones in Raiders. I am 99.9% sure that the Raiders gloves where mine workers gloves. The gloves where made out of a yellow rough hide and the colour was also screen acurate. I have no pictures to back my claim up but i will be looking for a pair of these gloves when i get a chance. I just thought i would share my find as i feel that i am on to something.

Paul.

scot2525 · Post by **scot2525** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:44 pm

I thought it had already been determined that the gloves were Wells Lamont. I cannot remember the pattern but I know it is here.

agent5 · Post by **agent5** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:14 pm

Yes, Wells Lamont 1130's. For a long time it was thought they were the 1123's but closer looks proved that wrong. There are some who think that gloves by Midwest were used as well.

Indiana Joyce · Post by **Indiana Joyce** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 9:19 pm

ok well also just out of curiousity, do the gloves have a suede palm or are they the white leather througout, because ive seen gloves but most of the time its the suede palm and i dont want to get them and have it not be right.

agent5 · Post by **agent5** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 9:56 pm

Indiana G · Post by **Indiana G** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 10:17 pm

Indiana Joyce wrote:ok well also just out of curiousity, do the gloves have a suede palm or are they the white leather througout, because ive seen gloves but most of the time its the suede palm and i dont want to get them and have it not be right.

no suede ;-)

the closest offering is todd's WL gloves.....pretty pricey for work gloves but todd takes off the non-SA coloured binding on the edge and installs the correct coloured ones...........man, that's a twisted thing to ask from a vendor.......wish i thought of that

Puppetboy · Post by **Puppetboy** » Wed Nov 26, 2008 10:45 pm

The gloves were made at Western Costumes. They used a pair of WL driver's gloves as a pattern. Probably they didn't want the mule logo to show, so they made plain ones.

I've spoken to a collector who was very interested in buying the pair of WLs for auction by Profiles in History. However, PIH had no proof whatsoever that they were used for filming, and the wardrobe call sheets for Raiders do not list that pair of gloves in the schedule at all. The fact that they were still at Ellstree doesn't mean much.

Indiana MarkVII · Post by **Indiana MarkVII** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 12:46 am

I've got two pair of Todd's gloves. One pair I asked him to do his magic distressing job on, and one pair I'm distressing naturally - even with a bit of real blood on them. I don't have that pair ready for a comparison shot, yet, but that is my goal.

agent5 · Post by **agent5** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 12:53 am

The gloves were made at Western Costumes. They used a pair of WL driver's gloves as a pattern.

First I've ever heard this one. Please tell us your source of this info. I'm curious why they would print 'LARGE' across the bottom if they were just made in house? What would the purpose of that be? When I spoke to reps at Wells Lamont they confirmed that the older gloves used to have the sizes printed on the gloves themselves and not on tags, just as you see it in the film. If I recall correctly I was also told they used to not have tags in them at all.

Puppetboy · Post by **Puppetboy** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 12:57 pm

The Wells Lamonts on auction at PIH did indeed have tags inside and no printing on the outside. HMMM... same vintage gloves?

The information comes from a collector named Dan who has friends at Western Costumes and at Lucas Archives. He has obtained Western Costumes records relating to the Raiders productions including the daily wardrobe call sheets. The information was confirmed by the Lucas archivist and his sources at Western Costumes.

Why did they print "large" on them? Don't know. I'll ask Dan if he knows. Being a costume house, you can bet they have size stamps like that to mark their wardrobe. Perhaps they marked them for identification or to coincide with other work gloves they had seen.

gwyddion · Post by **gwyddion** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 8:17 pm

agent5 wrote:
The gloves were made at Western Costumes. They used a pair of WL driver's gloves as a pattern.
First I've ever heard this one. Please tell us your source of this info. I'm curious why they would print 'LARGE' across the bottom if they were just made in house? What would the purpose of that be? When I spoke to reps at Wells Lamont they confirmed that the older gloves used to have the sizes printed on the gloves themselves and not on tags, just as you see it in the film. If I recall correctly I was also told they used to not have tags in them at all.

Agent5, I do not remember who said it here, but I remember reading that they used real WL gloves in the scene on top of the Well of Souls, but replicas in all the other scenes. The only caps I've seen with the "large" printed on the wrist were from the "snakes, why did it have to be snakes" sequence and were posted by TheMechanic I believe

Regards, Geert

Post by **Holt** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 8:26 pm

thats right my fellow dutchman.the snakes scene

agent5 · Post by **agent5** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 9:30 pm

Actually, to be fair, it was spotted and posted years before Mechanic was a member here but then again, most stuff was and is rehashed years later as a new find. I could be wrong but I thought that the WL horse logo was also spotted on the gloves as well. Not saying Todd is wrong but I've never heard that story before. I cannot think why they'd contract gloves to be made when they could just stamp out the logo. Why make it when a found item could be used just as easily? Yes, I know, it's movie making. Anything is possible.

gwyddion · Post by **gwyddion** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 11:04 pm

It probably was posted countless times before that, but I probably wasn't a member back then ;-)

Why they would replicate them? I don't know, but maybe it has to do with contracts. I wish I could remember the thread I read it in so I could ask if the person who posted that knows why they copied them instead of buying them, but that is the story I remember reading.

Regards, Geert

Puppetboy · Post by **Puppetboy** » Thu Nov 27, 2008 11:41 pm

Yes, the information is that that the WL were used for shooting when they were jacked from a stage-hand. Spielberg immediately ordered five copies from Western Costumes. Perhaps someone familiar with the shooting schedule can verify whether the "snakes" scene was early in the schedule. My friend's information is that the WL pair were put into the wardrobe inventory but not actually used again. That may be the pair with the "large" stamp (maybe that's why they didn't use them again).

If it is true that the original WL were the only pair stamped "Large", then the pair auctioned by PIH are fishy for sure because they were not stamped, as I mentioned. It's not hard to pull a pair of work gloves out of a drawer and write "HF 3" inside. "Hey, Eddie! These were Harrison Ford's gloves, right? Yeeeah, that's the ticket!" "Oh, and how are those rubber snakes coming along?"

Yeah, I've wondered why they wouldn't just run out to Lowes and buy five more pairs, but you're right, A5, that's Hollywood. It might have been a contractual thing, or perhaps matching gloves weren't readily available at that time in the UK?

Indiana Hutch · Post by **Indiana Hutch** » Tue Dec 09, 2008 6:12 pm

Its funny how I get my gear. I was digging through my dads old toolbox when I found a pair of yellow-white, cowhide gloves that seemed oddly familiar. Low and behold, they were a pair of Wells Lamont gloves. They are really worn in, but they fit like a charm. I find most of my stuff that way.
WL are pretty SA and they don't have the suede palm.

Adey · Post by **Adey** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 4:51 pm

got myself a pair of gloves today from a local garden centre, town and country and they will do for me, cost $5, the green label will be coming off and i will have to use them a bit.

[/img]

Post by **Tennessee Smith** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 5:21 pm

Good find Adey... just get outside and pull some weeds!!! That'll age 'em nicely.

...Not sure using the Playstation will get the desired screen accurate look though. ;-)

tym · Post by **tym** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 6:20 pm

Can the suede "palm patches" be removed from a pair of current production Wells Lamont 1130s?

Given that a pair only costs $15-$20, what's there to lose?

Does anyone know where the current production WL gloves are made?

Indiana Charles · Post by **Indiana Charles** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 7:03 pm

If you go to the Wells Lamont industry group website, I think they have 1130's w/o the suade palm. http://www.wellslamontindustry.com/FullLeather.htm

- I.C.

scot2525 · Post by **scot2525** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 9:28 pm

Yes the suede palm patches can be removed and it is not difficult. However you will have small holes from the removed stitches that are very prominent after removal. They do not bother me as it is on the palm side of the glove.

tym · Post by **tym** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:07 pm

Thanks for the info, scot2525. I also checked Indy Charles' link and there is an 1130 variant without the palm patches, though I have yet to find a good source online (will keep looking).

At the price of roughly $15 a pair, I presume that they're made in Wells Lamont's "Far East" (read "China") manufacturing facility? Any opinions on build quality?

Forrest_Bell · Post by **Forrest_Bell** » Thu Dec 11, 2008 10:58 pm

scot2525 wrote:Yes the suede palm patches can be removed and it is not difficult. However you will have small holes from the removed stitches that are very prominent after removal. They do not bother me as it is on the palm side of the glove.

I personally removed the palm as soon as I got them and used them heavily afterwords. I can barely see the holes now. I still think its the easiest way to get some good gloves.

RaiderZee · Post by **RaiderZee** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:32 am

Howdy,

What do you think about the WL 1133? Looks great, made in pigskin:

http://www.wellslamont.com/pg_styledeta ... style=1759

RaiderZee

tym · Post by **tym** » Fri Dec 12, 2008 1:23 am

RaiderZee wrote:Howdy,

What do you think about the WL 1133? Looks great, made in pigskin:

http://www.wellslamont.com/pg_styledeta ... style=1759

RaiderZee

Yeah, I was wondering about those too. The only other difference I note is that the wrist is listed as (single) shirred not double shirred. I can't seem to find the 1130s without the palm patch anywhere online.

EDIT: Well, I couldn't resist. I ordered one pair each of the 1133s and the 1130s with palm patches (couldn't find any without them). I should have the gloves by the end of the week for under $30 total!

tym · Post by **tym** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 1:15 am

I have received my Wells Lamont gloves and now provide a brief review with pictures.

I ordered one pair of the 1130L cow-hide gloves with suede palm patches and one pair of the 1133L in pigskin. Both were large size. The 1130s were manufactured in India and the 1133s in China.

The leather for both gloves showed minor imperfections. The pigskin used in the 1133s was quite coarse and appeared to be of generally lower quality than the cowhide and was of a grayer color. The pigskin had large pores and a dull exterior. The cowhide was finer and finished to have a shinier appearance. The 1130s were double-shirred at the wrist; the 1133s were single-shirred. Both gloves fit my hand relatively well, though the 1130s were more comfortable due to the elasticity and smoothness of the cowhide. Overall, I think the 1130 is the better glove, even if it does have the palm patches.

Which pair do others like better? The top picture is of the gloves with no flash; the second picture is with flash. In both pictures, the upper gloves are 1130s.

Cammer · Post by **Cammer** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:25 pm

The only problem with going with the Wells Lamont 1130 model is that not all of the 1130s have a straight thumb. As you can see from Tym's example here, and from my own personal experience, some 1130s have a keyhole thumb. I believe that the gloves that Indy wore had a straight thumb and no suede palm patch.

tym wrote:I have received my Wells Lamont gloves and now provide a brief review with pictures.

I ordered one pair of the 1130L cow-hide gloves with suede palm patches and one pair of the 1133L in pigskin. Both were large size. The 1130s were manufactured in India and the 1133s in China.

The leather for both gloves showed minor imperfections. The pigskin used in the 1133s was quite coarse and appeared to be of generally lower quality than the cowhide and was of a grayer color. The pigskin had large pores and a dull exterior. The cowhide was finer and finished to have a shinier appearance. The 1130s were double-shirred at the wrist; the 1133s were single-shirred. Both gloves fit my hand relatively well, though the 1130s were more comfortable due to the elasticity and smoothness of the cowhide. Overall, I think the 1130 is the better glove, even if it does have the palm patches.

Which pair do others like better? The top picture is of the gloves with no flash; the second picture is with flash. In both pictures, the upper gloves are 1130s.

Indiana Charles · Post by **Indiana Charles** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 9:43 pm

I can't seem to find the 1130s without the palm patch anywhere online.

I belive the 1130's I posted above have to be purchased directly from Wells Lamont and are only sold a dozen at a time.

- I.C.

Cammer · Post by **Cammer** » Sun Dec 21, 2008 10:35 pm

Indiana Charles wrote:
I can't seem to find the 1130s without the palm patch anywhere online.

I belive the 1130's I posted above have to be purchased directly from Wells Lamont and are only sold a dozen at a time.

- I.C.

I'm not sure about that. I just purchased a pair about two weeks ago off of an Ebay vendor that specializes in gloves.

It doesn't really matter anyhow. I don't think that those are the gloves that we are after.

tym · Post by **tym** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:31 am

^ Interesting point regarding straight vs. keyhole thumb. But for about $14 a pair, they're good enough for me.

maboot38 · Post by **maboot38** » Mon Dec 22, 2008 10:15 pm

I'm a little curious to learn what happened to Doeindy since this thread was started with the claim that they were almost 100% sure that the gloves were "African Mining Gloves".

Not a peep since the initial post. Of course there is no reason to believe that the African miners spoken of were not wearing Wells Lamont gloves!

Imahomer · Post by **Imahomer** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:27 am

I have a pair of Wells Lamont that I broke in by wearing to the gym and using them when I lifted weights. They've really molded to the fit of my hands and they are just worn enough looking! ;-)

Redinight · Post by **Redinight** » Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:53 am

agent5 wrote:

These are exactly what I have... I bought them in 2005 from a tractor supply store. I guess they had very old stock

What I find interesting is that I also found a medium 1130 in the same type of glove but it's very tight leather and the egde is not as yellow but more of a stone color to match the glove.

I am pleased that I found such accurate gear just down the road waiting for me. And I believe they were the last ones left

Chachap · Post by **Chachap** » Thu Jan 15, 2009 12:27 pm

maboot38 wrote:...there is no reason to believe that the African miners...were not wearing Wells Lamont gloves!

I think that's a logical conclusion here -- the type of glove that Indy (and African miners maybe) wore are generally termed 'leather DRIVERS' (as in 'driving the herd' or mule team, not a car), and are a very common industrial pattern made by many companies over the years (perhaps dating back over a century??). As Wells-Lamont notes at their selection of Full Leather Drivers at the link posted above, "There is virtually no end to the variety of leathers commercially available today."

With regard to the ones Indy used, specifically, pretty sure it's been established in prev. threads that important 'SA' attributes are the STRAIGHT THUMB cut, vs. the refined 'keystone' stitching around the thumb, along with the 'buff' (off-white/bone white) color. Common to see the zig-zag shirring across the back of wrist, too, where I believe the straight-across 'double' stitch is accurate.

It's certain that WL has reused the "1130" style number, but CHANGED the cut & features of their 1130's in the years since 'ROTLA', and if you browse down thru that list of current 'leathers', looks to me like the ones that come closest to 'SA' now are the Y0122's

belloq · Post by **belloq** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 3:14 pm

0122 is the screen accurate model. That's the model that Todd's Costumes uses and adds the correct tan color cuff edging.

This is the old thread:
viewtopic.php?p=122312&highlight=#122312

tym · Post by **tym** » Sun Jan 18, 2009 3:59 pm

Thanks for this. I see the gloves listed by vendors as both "Y0122" and "WK-0122," but the photos and descriptions are the same. Guess I'll have to buy a pair!

EDIT: I received my pair of WK-0122 gloves this week-end. Very supple cowhide and nicely made. I do prefer the fit and thumb style of the 1130s from a purely aesthetic viewpoint, but don't mind having this pair of SA gloves as well.