Stars Pic!?

JohnNdy · Post by **JohnNdy** » Sat Oct 04, 2003 4:04 am

Hi all! I am trying to get some shots of the underarm gussets, the collar stand, and the Indy jacket in general and I know that the Stars picture is a well lit shot that especially shows those gussets...would anyone be able to post it? Also, perhaps we could add a "reference image" page to the site, where we could have reference stills from the films showing diff shots of the gear...just a thought...

-John

Post by **Mike** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 1:08 pm

Here ya go, John:

And, yep... this image is referred to so much, I'll be including it on the new site layout.

Mike

SAB · Post by **SAB** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 8:22 pm

He looks kind of odd in this picture, the gear hasn't been damaged.

It just doesn't look right to see the shirt that clean!

Indiana Texas-girl · Post by **Indiana Texas-girl** » Sun Oct 05, 2003 11:57 pm

Something I've not noticed before on this picture: the pleats that run vertically along his chest are very wrinkled.

Gobler · Post by **Gobler** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 1:38 am

Is it me or does the strap look like it's 1 1/2 inchs wide?

Cheers,
Jeff

Post by **Mike** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:32 am

Gobler, you also don't see the buckle. There has been speculation that they didn't have a bag for use in the photo, so a belt or something may have been substituted. I think this may be a likely senario.

Mike

Dr. Jones Jr. · Post by **Dr. Jones Jr.** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:37 am

I especially like the ragged looking knees in the pants yet no other gear is damaged, anybody know if this pic is a press release or something like that?

FLATHEAD · Post by **FLATHEAD** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:51 am

Is there really a gusset under the armpit, or is it just a fold and
crease in the leather? I can't tell in this picture.

Also, you can see how much the pockets are scalloped. Nice.

And, you can see where there is some distressing on the jacket,
so its not just his pants that I can see.

Flathead

Paul_Stenhouse · Post by **Paul_Stenhouse** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 10:52 am

Did Indy trade in his bullwhip for a target bullwhip? Look at that handle length. I'm guessing about 12+ inches.

LNBright · Post by **LNBright** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 10:54 am

I don't think so... it looks like the handle itself is short, but the thicker part of the whip body is extending out straight.....

See what I mean? Look close to his hand, and you should be able to spot the transition between the two....

-L

PropReplicator · Post by **PropReplicator** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 10:56 am

Paul_Stenhouse wrote:Did Indy trade in his bullwhip for a target bullwhip? Look at that handle length. I'm guessing about 12+ inches.

I noticed that, too. On a regular target whip, is the keeper knot at the handle/thong junction, or is it slid back more toward the butt of the handle like the one in this pic?

Maybe this is a "stunt" whip. The keeper knot is at roughly the same area where it would be on a bullwhip, but the added length of the handle, extending beyond the 8" of the bullwhip handle, gives him better accuracy. Is that a possibility?

LNBright · Post by **LNBright** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 11:11 am

Or, his hand is around the turk's head, which is leaving a lot more handle forward of his hand....

-L

PropReplicator · Post by **PropReplicator** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 11:15 am

Well, his hand should be around the turkshead, that's the way you should hold a whip. But the handle is still waaaay long for a regular bullwhip handle. Yet, the keeper turkshead isn't at the end of the handle, it's in the middle of the handle.

agent5 · Post by **agent5** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 11:15 am

OK. If you look at the pic of Ford and Speilberg, the one where HF is sitting next to the Bantu Wind, you can see he's wearing the same pants. I can tell you that I threw alot of fullers on my NH shirt and it does not show up on camera, so if this is what was doen the shirt may not look so dirty as the rest of the gear. As far as the bag strap, I think it is the real bag and strap. You can see the corner of the bag right off his leg next to the end of the whip holder. I believe the guy who took this pic and the rest of this series worked for Rolling Stone at the time, I think. He was probably allowed on set to get these pics. If you look at the US magazine w/ HF on the cover from when Raiders came out, there is another pic from the photographers series of pics from the same shoot. He probably asked Ford to crack his whip and took 4-5 pics very quickly while he did it. I also think the whip handle is an illusion and it's the same whip we all know and love. I think he just holds it lightly around the bottom knot.

PropReplicator · Post by **PropReplicator** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 11:20 am

You can see the turkshead knot in his hand, that's evident. You can also see the keeper turkshead at the point where the handle/thong junction is, and that is about the correct length for a regular bullwhip handle: 8" or so from the very butt-end of the whip.

HOWEVER, the straightness of the whip AFTER that keeper knot is what is in question. On a regular bullwhip, I don't think it should be that straight. I think that there is a longer handle underneath that part of the whip, making it a target whip. They are more accurate to work with, that's why I think it may be a stunt whip. The keeper knot was placed at about 8" to make it look like the other Indy whips, but the added handle length was there for accuracy.

Then again, maybe I'm just bored and I'm over-analyzing this picture to death and I'm totally off.

Post by **Mike** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 11:22 am

agent5 wrote:As far as the bag strap, I think it is the real bag and strap. You can see the corner of the bag right off his leg next to the end of the whip holder.

hmmm. This could be, maybe it's just on backwards, ala the fight in the Cairo Market Square. But I always thought that corner of the bag to just be another rip in the pants as it looks to be the same color here on my monitor. I'll have to take a look at the actual photo at home.

Mike

rick5150 · Post by **rick5150** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 11:26 am

But I always thought that corner of the bag to just be another rip in the pants as it looks to be the same color here on my monitor. I'll have to take a look at the actual photo at home.

It looks like the pocket flap to me...

cliffhanger · Post by **cliffhanger** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 11:35 am

rick5150 wrote:
It looks like the pocket flap to me...

Ditto. If it IS a bag, where is the buckle on the strap? I could always be wrong however.

Also, what year was this taken? After LC is what I thought.

Peace,
Cliffhanger

Paul_Stenhouse · Post by **Paul_Stenhouse** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 11:50 am

I still think it's about a 6-7 foot target whip. The turk's head knot on the transition in the pattern can be anywhere. No way the thong is that straight during cracking. Maybe it's just a photo optical conclusion (ilusion) but I still stick by my original opinion.

PropReplicator · Post by **PropReplicator** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 11:57 am

I'm with you, Paul (see my above posts).

Sergei · Post by **Sergei** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 12:00 pm

Well Paul, I see what you are saying, but I have a hard type believing that this whip is none other from the movie, Raiders. In 1981, we know David was placing the knot at 8 inches. He wasn't making target whips. It could be a Terry Jacka (but the Kangaroo embargo was still in effect), so it is highly unlikely. So who made the whip? Remember the first 5 whips came from Glenn Randalls stash of 5, which were all Morgan's. We know an order was placed with Morgan shortly after production got started. That leaves the only possibility is that since this was a publicity shot, maybe the whip came from someone else's prop department. Highly unprobably, but possible.

I think it's just the picture. I suppose we can try to recreate the picture to see if the handle junction area straightens out like that.

-Sergei

Post by **Mike** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 12:27 pm

rick5150 wrote:It looks like the pocket flap to me...

cliffhanger wrote:Ditto. If it IS a bag, where is the buckle on the strap? I could always be wrong however.

OK, guys, quit looking at his butt.

That is obviously the pocket flap, but I was talking about the little corner of material that's aparent under his whip holder off his left thigh, which is what I took Agent5 to mean.

And Cliffhanger, he could be wearing the back backwards, with the front flap in towards his hip. This would put the buckle around his back. He did this during some takes of the Cairo fight, when they first start fist fighting.

cliffhanger · Post by **cliffhanger** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 12:44 pm

Mike wrote:OK, guys, quit looking at his butt. That is obviously the pocket flap, but I was talking about the little corner of material that's aparent under his whip holder off his left thigh, which is what I took Agent5 to mean.

Well, he IS a Hollywood mega-star

. Just Kidding!

That's one of my favorite scenes, and I have NEVER noticed that before. Thanks for the pic. I see that little tiny bit of material now as well.

Also, I could have sworn that pic was taken around/after LC. If its around Raiders, and with that pic, I'm now thinking that is his bag. As for the whip, you got me. I think it would be neat if one of us tried to recreate that pic, in a lighted studio and all.

Peace,
Cliffhanger

rick5150 · Post by **rick5150** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 12:48 pm

Okay Mike;

Now that I am not mezmerized by his butt, I see what you mean

Was this picture taken against a white background, or was HF digitally edited out. I know this is usually obvious when you look at the hair in a photo, for instance, but I am curious. I would guess a rip or wrinkle...

Paul_Stenhouse · Post by **Paul_Stenhouse** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 12:50 pm

I'm still going to stick to my original thought, because if you look at the whip itself, it has been cracked from his right to left. I think that the whip, if truly having an 8 inch handle foundation, would also be bent to his left after the ring knot. Besides, how short is this whip anyways? Is that the fall hitch in the upper right of the picture that's blurred out? I am going to recreate this at home and see if I can keep the thong straight for about 1.5 feet past the handle. Even though I think I see a wrist loop in there as well, I still think it's a target whip. I guess we can agree to disagree. Truly, I was not there when the picture was taken.

Best Regards,

Paul Stenhouse

agent5 · Post by **agent5** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 12:50 pm

BEFORE...

...AND AFTER.

The pocket flap can be seen in both pics, but the area I'm talking about which shows the bag is on pic 2 in the middle of his right leg. It looks like a little arrow sticking out. That is the corner of the bag. This pic should clear up the fact that it's not a stock whip as yo can see the flixibility above the handle quite well. I don't know what's up with the missing buckle. It may be on backwards as stated.

Paul_Stenhouse · Post by **Paul_Stenhouse** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 1:08 pm

The above picture looks right in terms of the whip. I see what you indicating on his pants. Could that be a snag of fabric that is sticking out?

By the way, this is an excellent discussion. It's helping me to stay awake at work! Thanks.

agent5 · Post by **agent5** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 1:18 pm

Ya know, after thinking about it more, I'd be willing to bet that what has been said to be the pocket flap is actually the bag in both pics. It's in the right place for it to be the bag and I don't think the pocket flap is long enough to stick out like that. The color pic shows it best. What you think is the pocket flap is the top of the bag and the part on his leg, the bottom. The space between the two is about right. Also remember that he's in motion and these things would be swinging around a bit so the bag flap may be swinging. I'd bet my bag that it's the bag. After all, why would they choose to put together faux gear (a leather belt) for a production pic which is in effect advertising for the film? This was taken on the set somewhere when Raiders was in production to answer Cliffhangers question.

cliffhanger · Post by **cliffhanger** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 1:20 pm

agent5 wrote:After all, why would they choose to put together faux gear (a leather belt) for a production pic which is in effect advertising for the film? This was taken on the set somewhere when Raiders was in production to answer Cliffhangers question.

Thanks agent5, and that makes sense to me. That just goes to show how some stories can be taken as gospel truth over the years.

Peace,
Cliff

agent5 · Post by **agent5** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 1:22 pm

I'd also like to point out that this pic is a pretty good reference for Marions shoes. Another interesting fact is that I saw that sword on the left side of the picture sell on Ebay 3 years ago. Just thought I'd throw that in there.

indy_guitarist · Post by **indy_guitarist** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 1:23 pm

Could that be a snag of fabric that is sticking out?

i dunno guys, i mean look at the rest of his pants, they're shredded. that little flap looks like its just a rip in his pants. those are some seriously distressed pants.

Paul_Stenhouse · Post by **Paul_Stenhouse** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 1:34 pm

I guess I'll retract my thoughts...I didn't know this was taken at the set. I always figured it was an after the fact shoot, where they had to round up some of the gear.

Best Regards,

Paul Stenhouse

Koreana Jones · Post by **Koreana Jones** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 1:42 pm

I didn't read every post but concerning the bag strap, its a leather belt. They didn't have a bag at the time.

JohnNdy · Post by **JohnNdy** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 3:59 pm

Look at what a discussion the stars photo has started! That is really a perfect picture for showing all the gear...

Now that I look at the picture, I guess I don't see the gussets as clearly as I thought. Are there any pics that do show the gussets clearly? I ordered gussets with my wested, but they do not look like the "lips" of the Flight suits jacket. I know that the lips look of the gussets is accurate, but I am curious as to whether they work better than the one-piece gusset construction of the wested. If possible I might like to have my wested tailored to reflect the double piece look (I am going to make a screen accurate mannequin), but I want to see stills of the gussets to see how different they really are. It doesn't appear that there are any in that stars pic...interesting....

-John

Post by **Mike** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 4:27 pm

John,

The acutal photo does show off the gussets a lot better than this. I'll see if I can get this tired ol' brain to remember to bring in the pic and scan it in better.

But, the "lips" construction of the gusset actually isn't the screen accurate construction. Peter, as shown in a better version of the photo, always used a single piece of leather for the construction. FS put the "lips" in to make the gusset more functional as opposed to decorative, in their opinion.

Mike

The_Edge · Post by **The_Edge** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 4:32 pm

When I first saw this picture many moons ago I was in complete agreement with Paul that this not a Morgan but a target whip of some sort. Then just today I notice the wrist loop and that started me thinking it was a Morgan but I couldn't get past that perfectly straight thong. It had to be a target whip! Then I continue reading the thread and Agent5 posts that great photo (which I had never seen) of the same shoot showing the same whip flexing at the junction and brings the issue to a close. Definitely a Morgan. Thanks A5.

I'd also like to add this: A BULLWHIP DOES NOT HAVE A KEEPER KNOT! Only stock whips have keeper knots. I'll flog the next person that calls it a keeper turks head! Ah, that feels much better.

The_Edge · Post by **The_Edge** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 4:34 pm

Mike wrote:
FS put the "lips" in to make the gusset more functional as opposed to decorative, in their opinion.

Didn't _, who is MIA, say that the gussets on the FS are built just like the screen used jacket he inspected?

Post by **Michaelson** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 4:37 pm

Not that I recall. He used to laugh and call the FS gussets 'Mick Jagger lips' when he first saw them, but never referred to the gussets that way when he observed and spec'd the original. He'd have to clear that up, though, but that's how I remember it. Regards. Michaelson

agent5 · Post by **agent5** » Mon Oct 06, 2003 4:58 pm

its a leather belt. They didn't have a bag a the time

I'm not saying your wrong, but did you read that somewhere or can you tell us how you came by this. I just like to know is all. I'm interested in these petty things if it has to do with Raiders.

Post by **Mike** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 10:00 am

The_Edge wrote:Didn't _, who is MIA, say that the gussets on the FS are built just like the screen used jacket he inspected?

Nope, I concur with Michaelson regarding the nickname for them. I believe Lee told me on the phone about the two parted gusset being FS's issue to make it more functional and while the parties that went into the designing the jacket with them all agreed it was not screen accurate, conceded the point to FS's expertice.

Mike

SAB · Post by **SAB** » Tue Oct 07, 2003 9:01 pm

Has anyone had both types of gussets ?

Do the 'jaggerlip' gussets really make that much difference ?

Indiana Janice · Post by **Indiana Janice** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 8:19 am

rick5150 wrote:Okay Mike;

Now that I am not mezmerized by his butt, I see what you mean

I've ALWAYS been mezmerized by his butt!

Anyways, I find this thread very interesting

Janice

Canyon · Post by **Canyon** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 3:31 pm

agent5 wrote:OK. If you look at the pic of Ford and Speilberg, the one where HF is sitting next to the Bantu Wind, you can see he's wearing the same pants.

I'm trying to find a specific picture which shows the side of the Raiders jacket in some detail. But for now...

agent5 · Post by **agent5** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 6:02 pm

I'm trying to find a specific picture which shows the side of the Raiders jacket in some detail. But for now...

The pic you want is in the American Cinematographer issue featuring Raiders. A complete side view of the jacket and you can even make out the X box pattern on the side straps.

Swindiana · Post by **Swindiana** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 6:11 pm

In this picture, find one thing that wouldn't belong in the 30's.

Regards,
Swindiana

Sergei · Post by **Sergei** » Wed Oct 08, 2003 9:12 pm

Just to close the matter with the gusset construction, I had lunch with Lee Keppler and Dave Marshall today. We were mostly there to check out the new leather (the cowhide looks great guys), and see Rundquist buy 2 more jackets.

I brought up the subject of the Mick Jagger lips on the gusset. Lee emphatically remembers that the sketch of the lips came from _'s analysis of the Raiders Jacket (Terry Leonards). Dave concurred that the design was not influenced in anyway with the Flight Suits staff. It was authentically recreated from _'s very detailed notes. That was the intention, to have the most screen accurate jacket.

Anyway, I thought I would clear that up.

-Sergei

Lee Keppler · Post by **Lee Keppler** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 12:46 am

The "crescent moon" gusset visible in the Stars! photo is the way the "Mick" gusset happened to be photographed in, oh...1/100th of a second and just happened to lay that way. My jackets that were made for me by Flight Suits but not marketed by them in the mid 1980s featured this Stars! gusset because we were working from pictures. By the way, I sold around a hundred of these jackets. You can't back engineer a three dimentional item from a two dimentional image. The current Expedition, made and marketed by Flight Suits, was modeled on Terry Leonard's jacket. Also, the "little arrow" on Ford's right side is the retention strap on the holster.

schwammy · Post by **schwammy** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 1:21 am

Actually, Lee, I think they're talking about the 'arrow' on Ford's left side. Much smaller than the holster strap. More of a tiny, pointy bump than an arrow.

The strap is absolutely not the bag strap. I'm looking at the actual back of the Stars! book, and that is a belt. The strap in Raiders was very thin and lightweight. You could tell by the way it went through the buckle, and by how easily the bag swung around. The belt is too wide, too thick, wrong light a shade of brown, it has no buckle, and it has stitching visible along the outside edges.

cliffhanger wrote:Also, what year was this taken? After LC is what I thought.

I don't know for certain when the photo was taken, but the Stars! book was published in 1984. It has a filmography of Harrison Ford that ends with Temple of Doom. Clearly, though, this shot predates that, because Ford is wearing his Raiders gear. The giveaway is the attached whip holder, as well as the Smith & Wesson holster, and the hat with the telltale Raiders lazy V on the bow.

Ford is clean-shaven and his hands are very clean, which indicates that this was either taken either before filming actually began, which I doubt, during a break in filming, a luxury which I'm not sure they actually had, during filming of a scene where Indy is in civilian clothes, which is possible, or after completion of filming, which I think is most likely. Publicity photos are usually taken after completion of filming. I agree that this was from the same shoot that included the Rolling Stone cover. Ford's facial expression is almost identical to that cover. That puts it right around the time of the release of Raiders.

Comparing the jacket to my new Wested, here's what I notice. The color is dead on. The pocket is much more scalloped in the photo. The zipper on mine is about 3 times bigger. (What's with the giant gauge zipper?) The lining on the photo looks like satin. And there are no leather facings on the inside along the zipper in the photo.

I'm so in love with my new jacket...

TheOther Jones · Post by **TheOther Jones** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 3:47 am

Here's a different pic from the same shoot, published in US magazine in 1981. In "The Making of Raiders", you can see the photo shoot with Karen Allen taken with a white background, and she's wearing her Bantu Wind gown. Harry's shoot was probably done around the same time. And the shoot most probably took place in England.

Post by **Mike** » Thu Oct 09, 2003 8:58 am

Sergei wrote:I brought up the subject of the Mick Jagger lips on the gusset. Lee emphatically remembers that the sketch of the lips came from _'s analysis of the Raiders Jacket (Terry Leonards). Dave concurred that the design was not influenced in anyway with the Flight Suits staff. It was authentically recreated from _'s very detailed notes. That was the intention, to have the most screen accurate jacket.

Sergei, thanks for correcting me, and sorry to not get the story straight, Lee. I guess as the hair on top of the head gets thinner, the memories get fuzzier. Odd.

Mike

Stars Pic!?

Stars Pic!?

Lips construction of the Gussets

Re: Lips construction of the Gussets