THE Raiders Block Uncovered? - With shots of new hat

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 4:43 pm

Hi all,

Just to give a little background, a few months ago I started a little project to build myself a hatblock in order to reblock an old Akubra of mine, and to see what I could do with a Christys to make it a closer match to a Raiders blockshape. I looked at as many vintage blocks as I could to get a feel for what the Raiders block could have been in 3D. Over the Christmas break I got some time to really get into this and try and unearth the right block shape sitting in the lump of huon pine in front of me. It was just a matter of removing the right bits, wasn't it?

I had a few ideas as to what the quirks of the block could be and worked towards both the right shape, and being able to learn first hand what curve / angle / shape / size would result in XYZ effect. I would then compare shots of my test hat to screen grabs of Raiders to see where it needed a slight adjustment. Anyway, long story short, I think I may have something very compelling. When taking photos of my test hat and superimposing them over the grabs, everything lines up identically.

To give you some background of my test hat, it's an old Huckel - very soft, and has practically no stiffener left now. All I have done is tack a sweatband in it and slip a pinned-together ribbon around it, then given the hat a bash to match the studio scenes. I didn't change this bash in any of the shots you see here, apart from the tiny changes that would occur when holding it. The whole point of the exercise to me is to find the shape that should simply yield "the" hat, without much tweaking at all. It made sense to compare it to the first, early studio scenes as that is where that hat would appear in it's "purest" form. Similarly, I have not photoshopped these images in any way whatsoever beyond simple size and rotate. I haven't even unevenly scaled a thing. It's all stright out of the camera.

Most of these are overlays set at 40% opacity. That's where you can most clearly see a mismatch if there was one because you get a doubling. You see that in a couple of frames where the pin on the side of the hat has caused it to warp outwards a little where the bow would normally be. Anyway, so here are the comparisons - (the big & better ones are done as links below these due to size restrictions here):

Bruce Wayne · Post by **Bruce Wayne** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 5:50 pm

Hmmm,

you might be onto something with this block.

Post by **Holt** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 6:00 pm

I think it is very difficult to see the real shape of the hat because of the overlay. IMO it creates an optical illusion and it may look spot on becasue you have the shadows of the real hat underneath...

Bruce Wayne · Post by **Bruce Wayne** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 6:08 pm

Indiana Holt wrote:I think it is very difficult to see the real shape of the hat because of the overlay. IMO it creates an optical illusion and it may look spot on becasue you have the shadows of the real hat underneath...

Holt has a valid poinit. How about just some "plain" shots of the hat?
Thanx!!!
Charlie

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 6:29 pm

Yeah, it's a difficult thing to try and show so people see the connection without posting a LOT of different opacities - You can see I've done it with the Idol grab (and a few others) where I did the progression of opacities so you can see I'm not "faking". (just switched a couple of shots from link to pic so you can see) I can upload additional versions for the others showing say 100 / 40 / 0% - were there any particular ones you wanted?

RCSignals · Post by **RCSignals** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 6:51 pm

the original hat match up with the overlay looks pretty much spot on. I don't see the problem with this method.

bigrex · Post by **bigrex** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 8:00 pm

Looks good to me, I guess 100% opacity would be better, but working with Photoshop I don't think anyone will be able to tell much difference between the 80 & 100% if you presented them side by side. It would be nice to see someone wearing this hat now that you have done the hard part. So, when are you going to be producing these for sale?

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 8:52 pm

bigrex wrote:Looks good to me, I guess 100% opacity would be better, but working with Photoshop I don't think anyone will be able to tell much difference between the 80 & 100% if you presented them side by side. It would be nice to see someone wearing this hat now that you have done the hard part. So, when are you going to be producing these for sale?

Let's not get ahead of ourselves, Rex!

I thought about it for the big Idol Grab one, but came to the same conclusion you did - there's no visible difference to the hat area between 80 and 100%, but at 80 you could at least see how it fits into the background.

But I've added the 100% and 0% to the pit jump above and here is the Idol Grab at 100% - http://i644.photobucket.com/albums/uu16 ... ce-100.jpg

I've reblocked a Christys on this same Raiders block which I'm putting together now, and will post shots of it when it's done.

crismans · Post by **crismans** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 10:00 pm

Looking good! Can't wait to see the reblocked Christies.

eazybox · Post by **eazybox** » Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:03 pm

This is intriguing...

Jack

DR Ulloa · Post by **DR Ulloa** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:33 am

The really great thing here is that you've managed to pull off looks from the whole film with this one block. That is one of the elusice aspects of THE Raiders block that most guys cannot achieve. I think you've done a bang up job on this block. I would love to see some shots of the hat on your head. Don't worry about flanging the brim, just plop that thing on yer noggin and snap a couple shots off.

Dave

Fedora · Post by **Fedora** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:44 am

Looks nice. The thing I found out over the years is I could get a certain look, but when I used the same blockshape to get another look, it feel short. I attributed this to shrinkage of the hats. But, I could be wrong! So, take it with a grain of salt. Fedora

Mitch LaRue · Post by **Mitch LaRue** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 12:51 pm

Pretty impressive stuff here...

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:51 pm

Fedora wrote:Looks nice. The thing I found out over the years is I could get a certain look, but when I used the same blockshape to get another look, it feel short. I attributed this to shrinkage of the hats. But, I could be wrong! So, take it with a grain of salt. Fedora

I absolutely agree re the shrinkage, or "over-bashing" at the very least - especially when comparing the SoC hat. I did compare this shape to the SoC and found that the shape is essentially the same, with a little tapering and over pinching at the front which has caused deeper / lower front bashes. But my goal wasn't to make an SoC hat so I didn't do all the comparison shots.

Satipo · Post by **Satipo** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:03 pm

It all looks very good to me, Yojimbo. You must have been very busy with this project.

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 4:42 pm

Ok, here is the new Christys which I have literally just put together. This is with about 2 minutes of bashing, and no real attempt to replicate any particular look. It's a bit stiff at the moment (as Christys apparently are at first), so all the nuances aren't there, especially as it's more rigid than the vintage test hat. But I've given this one a brim shape that's a bit of a fusion between the studio shots and SoC as a personal preference. The felt has only been given a 320 grit pounce as I prefer the rougher, slightly unfinished look that I picture the film hat as having (looks rougher in pictures than in person though).

RaidersBash · Post by **RaidersBash** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 5:20 pm

Looks Great!!!

When can we start sending you hats for reblocking!?!??!

crismans · Post by **crismans** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 5:49 pm

Hmm, I really think you're on to something here, Yojimbo. I'm especially impressed with the pics of it on. That's when you really can tell how a hat looks. It looks dead on in many of those pics!

ON another topic, how did the Christy's react to you shrinking it? Didn't you get one a couple sizes bigger and shrink it to your block? Did it help stabalize the felt?

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:29 pm

I just noticed something with this photo of myself:

http://i644.photobucket.com/albums/uu16 ... 144918.jpg

I superimposed the classic Hawaii shot (the posed version of the reveal of Indy), and got this. Bear in mind I didn't pose to match this. (I didn't bash it to match or sit at that slight angle so the top left is a little off).

binkmeisterRick · Post by **binkmeisterRick** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:30 pm

Yojimbo Jones wrote:
...and a bunch more from different angles as I think I'm at my photo limit:

Well, since you mention it, you're actually over the limit by four.

http://indygear.com/cow/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=41780 I'll let you choose the four you want to make links instead. Also, if you wouldn't mind reducing the size of some of those pics, too, that would be great.

That said, since this thread currently has value in trying to show your research in providing the "perfect block" (isn't that every hatter's goal?

) and since it is fostering discussion regarding what makes that perfect block and hat, I'll let you post more links than usual (as mentioned in the above linked rule). I might suggest that you condense some of your links, and the suggestion of creating an off site album for all these is still a good one, but as long as your additional links are within reason, you may proceed.

Regards!

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:37 pm

crismans wrote:Hmm, I really think you're on to something here, Yojimbo. I'm especially impressed with the pics of it on. That's when you really can tell how a hat looks. It looks dead on in many of those pics!

ON another topic, how did the Christy's react to you shrinking it? Didn't you get one a couple sizes bigger and shrink it to your block? Did it help stabalize the felt?

It SHRUNK! LOL. Yeah, I bought a size 60 and it barely made it to my 57.5-ish sized head. The brim front is about 2-3mm short and that was the edge of the Christys, but I trimmed the sizes a smidge. And yes, after a couple of goes on the not-perfect-yet block, on this go around it didn't shrink any further at all. So to answer reblock queries I've been getting, unfortunately you'd need a bigger hat to your size to start with, especially since most hats just aren't tall enough for the proper blockshape (ie the Fed).

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:07 pm

Ok mate, I'm on it.

binkmeisterRick wrote:
Yojimbo Jones wrote:
...and a bunch more from different angles as I think I'm at my photo limit:
Well, since you mention it, you're actually over the limit by four. http://indygear.com/cow/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=41780 I'll let you choose the four you want to make links instead. Also, if you wouldn't mind reducing the size of some of those pics, too, that would be great.

That said, since this thread currently has value in trying to show your research in providing the "perfect block" (isn't that every hatter's goal? ) and since it is fostering discussion regarding what makes that perfect block and hat, I'll let you post more links than usual (as mentioned in the above linked rule). I might suggest that you condense some of your links, and the suggestion of creating an off site album for all these is still a good one, but as long as your additional links are within reason, you may proceed.

Regards!

binkmeisterRick · Post by **binkmeisterRick** » Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:14 pm

Yojimbo Jones wrote:Ok mate, I'm on it.

Thanks!

Bartram · Post by **Bartram** » Tue Jan 05, 2010 9:14 am

Yojimbo,
VERY compelling.

Keep up the good work.

B

Fedora · Post by **Fedora** » Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:18 pm

It SHRUNK! LOL. Yeah, I bought a size 60 and it barely made it to my 57.5-ish sized head.

I think I currently hold the record. I took a size 63 HJ, a new one, and turned it into a size 6 7/8 hat!! With NO problem whatsoever. But the final 6 7/8 sized hat was very, very stable. When felt shrinks up this much, it is a sure indication that the hat was not made properly at the factory. Because that hat, if left in the original size, would have shrunk up on the wearers head with a bit of time, IF, worn in the rain. Yeah, I know we have anecdotal accounts of how this or that HJ or Christy was a year old and still no shrinkage. Which amazes me, and fills me with disbelief. All you have to do is work with that felt to see the shortcomings, as you have done. But, once shrunk up on a block, it ends up pretty darn good! The felt that is. Once felt is stretched, in the hatmaking process, it has an inward desire to get rid of the stretch, and just waits for the right opportunity, like a rain, and then a drying phase. Of course, the felt has to be actually wet, not just a topical wetness, that isn't deep. What the HJs and Christies have going for it, is the color. I love the color they use, for the brown. The new thicker felt HJ is sending Magnoli is a bit better, i.e. a bit more stable, but will still shrink, if enough heat and water is added, while on the block. But not nearly as much as the older, thinner felt they used to use. The thing is, that felt, from both companies, is not bad stuff, if proper hatmaking techniques are used with it. It's not so much the felt itself, as it is how the hats are made at the factory. The more you work with it, the more you realize this fact. I actually now love the felt, after I rework em'. With shrinkage on the block, the felt tightens up and becomes denser. That is what shrinkage does to felt. And the denser the felt, the more time you can stand in the rain without it leaking. Fedora

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Tue Jan 05, 2010 4:07 pm

Yeah - it makes sense. I've also seen what you've mentioned before about making new felt good in that way vs. the vintage stuff. It's amazing that the grey vintage hat I used for these tests above didn't shrink at all, and the feel of it was always soft and beautiful. Whereas the Christy I could get to something approximating that but it took work, the first stage of which was just shrinking that sucker down to the point where it would stop shrinking. I want to rest easy knowing that if it won't shrink after being steamed over an open pot on the stove, a splash of rain ain't gonna make a dent.

bigrex · Post by **bigrex** » Tue Jan 05, 2010 11:16 pm

Yojimbo Jones wrote:
bigrex wrote:Looks good to me, I guess 100% opacity would be better, but working with Photoshop I don't think anyone will be able to tell much difference between the 80 & 100% if you presented them side by side. It would be nice to see someone wearing this hat now that you have done the hard part. So, when are you going to be producing these for sale?
Let's not get ahead of ourselves, Rex!

I was just interjecting some humor since there's an up tick in more hat options, more is always nice, but it wasn't a call to hurry up already.

gwyddion · Post by **gwyddion** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:18 am

Well, what Yojimbo has done looks pretty good, impressive even, so no doubt that there would be some people interested in that bigrex

Regards, Geert

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 8:24 am

Just posted this to find out:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=44764

generalFROSTY · Post by **generalFROSTY** » Wed Jan 06, 2010 2:51 pm

"Two thumbs way up! A riveting ride from start to finsh!"

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Thu Jan 07, 2010 5:28 am

generalFROSTY wrote:"Two thumbs way up! A riveting ride from start to finsh!"

LOL. Thanks for the review.

generalFROSTY · Post by **generalFROSTY** » Sat Jan 09, 2010 5:08 pm

So are you def looking to reblock Christy's hats for interested owners??

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Sat Jan 09, 2010 6:10 pm

I had given considerable thought to the options (and still am). But the problem with reblocking a Christys that someone already owns is the shrinkage factor. It can result in some negative size effects, from a stingy-brim hat to what could be dubbed the all-new "Indy-Fez" model. You can lose half an inch or more from a brim in the blink of an eye.

So as my focus is on giving people the highest quality possible, plus screen accuracy, PLUS value for money, reblocking that sort of hat wouldn't really stack up from a cost vs. quality perspective. So if you check out this thread viewtopic.php?f=1&t=44764 you can see what the better options are that I'm getting feedback on before announcing which way(s) I'm going.

Fedora · Post by **Fedora** » Sat Mar 27, 2010 12:00 pm

Gosh, I had completely forgotten about this thread!! Even after posting on it.

This is really great work you have done Yohimbe. And what I love about what you came up with, is, no caricatures, that generally get thrown in when replicating this block shape.

How about a side by side shot of your hat with the SOC hat, but from the back side. You know the photo where Indy is moving towards the truch and it explodes. Now granted this is the bulgy SOC fedora, but I want to look at the top of the crown. And would love to see a side by side of the exterior temple hat, where it is creased high, front and back with small front creases. You get a good front view and side view in the film. And this has always been the problem hat for many, to replicate. I think probably because you get to see more of the actual blockshape, due to the high creases and small front crease. And that hat dosn't appear to be turned, which would take out the turned distortion.

Hope this isn't asking too much, I am just real curious is all. But so far from the looks, if you had the exact same felt as the film, you are dead on it. Fedora

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 10:04 am

I never intended the hat to be an SoC hat. I just figured if I could get the "original" block right, the rest would work. This is the first time I have even compared it to an SoC framegrab. Please note my personal brim size is purposely narrower than the screen hat. However, this is my regular hat. It has been treated quite roughly (got smashed about a dozen times at a kids playground with my kid today alone) but NOT bashed as an SoC clone. I just wear it.

edit: I'll try to get to the Hawaii hat sometime in the next few days.

Erri · Post by **Erri** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 6:50 pm

I have noticed that I'm better at saying things straight-forward than beating around the bush... so I'll say it straight and probably it's more useful for you that way:

The block you have made is remarkably impressive, possible the best one we have around...

BUT

The last scene comparison that you posted didn't convince me on the top back part. The raiders hat in that scene appears (to my eyes) to have more volume on the sides (I don't mean it's wider but more "full"... does it make sense?).

Take this observation of mine for what is worth since it could be due to a different:

1) POSITION OF THE LIGHTS
2) BASH
3) ANGLE you took the photograph
4) distress (considering that yours has none while the Raiders hat in Tunisia was heavily "handled")
or a bit of all these factors.

It might even be my wonky eye!

If it's the block I could suggest to do very minimal corrections on the top dome. I couln't tell you if to make it slightly more domed or a little more flat... by no means I'm not expert in this.

I'm telling you my observation with no intention of putting you down (it is afterall minutiae what I'm referring to), I admire what you have done. I think you're block is really great and very very close to what we see on screen. I wonder what would be the result if we tried a similar side-by-side comparison on other brands (possibly a disaster in most cases... if not ALL)
I wish you a commercial success.

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 7:52 pm

Thanks Erri. It's not your wonky eye - I do think it's the things you mention, plus the degree of turn. At this particular angle, the bash does play a large role as well. Again, this hat was not bashed to look like a SoC. In fact, I have set it to look more like a WoS / Temple hat. If I was doing an SoC I would have also made sure the turn was correct and cinched the ribbon tighter. These all contribute to create the bulge and widen the crest of the curve that you see top right.

The thing is, to satisfy my criteria, it has to look right at multiple angles within the same shot and/or have certain angles correlate across scenes. I've done that across many key, non-heat-affected scenes. I purposely left any Tunisian stuff out of the analysis wbecause it introduces WAY too many random factors that would make the hat LESS accurate if they were included.

Yes, absolutely, I would love a side-by-side.

Erri · Post by **Erri** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:01 pm

Yojimbo Jones wrote:I purposely left any Tunisian stuff out of the analysis wbecause it introduces WAY too many random factors that would make the hat LESS accurate if they were included.

Too true

Yes, absolutely, I would love a side-by-side.

Hat vendors would kill you for asking it... but I might just attempt something like that. Wish I had more time... and a handy photographer to help me. We will see
You have seen my "clipper hat" already I believe? That has some nice side-by-side shots although it was merely to show an identical bash rather than an identical block... but who knows, with some photoshop transparencies what would come out

Long John Tinfoil · Post by **Long John Tinfoil** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:05 pm

So the price point, for now at least, is...?

LJ

EDIT Ooops! wrong thread.

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:08 pm

...SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than those listed above. PM me with your needs and we can talk. The first few people to order will get a very good price.

Long John Tinfoil · Post by **Long John Tinfoil** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 8:10 pm

PM sent.

LJ

generalFROSTY · Post by **generalFROSTY** » Sun Mar 28, 2010 11:47 pm

The next Indy movie should have him going after the original Raiders block. "Indiana Jones and the Raiders Block Quest"

Indiana Bugs · Post by **Indiana Bugs** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:21 am

. . . or as I posted in a thread here elsewhere, Raiders of the Lost Block.

riothamus · Post by **riothamus** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 8:56 am

PM sent.

Excelsior!
Riothamus

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 9:36 am

Erri wrote:
Yojimbo Jones wrote:I purposely left any Tunisian stuff out of the analysis wbecause it introduces WAY too many random factors that would make the hat LESS accurate if they were included.
Too true

Yes, absolutely, I would love a side-by-side.
Hat vendors would kill you for asking it... but I might just attempt something like that. Wish I had more time... and a handy photographer to help me. We will see
You have seen my "clipper hat" already I believe? That has some nice side-by-side shots although it was merely to show an identical bash rather than an identical block... but who knows, with some photoshop transparencies what would come out

I did - a while ago.

The thread's a few pages back.

Yeah man - I saw them. They looked pretty cool. Can still picutre them now, actually. With the wider ribbon. Have a go at transparencies. Set the overlay at 40% transparency, and don't cheat by scaling unevenly.

You may be shocked by what you find. I didn't know what the SoC shot above was like until I lined it up. Side-by-side only tells you so much. Doing it this way gives you a WHOLE new perspective of your hat, and forces you to face reality, not your projection of what you THINK it is.

Fedora · Post by **Fedora** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:07 am

Thanks Yohimbe. I see a little difference in the back of the hat shots, but definetely the best replication I have seen to date here. Very impressive! And I think you are certainly on to something. This is indeed outstanding work and pictures don't lie.

Still curious about the outside the temple hat, that was creased shallowly, and I eagerly await your posting of the comparison. But going by what I have seen so far, if it isn't a dead ringer, I will be greatly surprised.

On comparing with other vendors, hey, I am good to go on that, but not sure if others would be. I doubt my own Raiders fedora would match as well as yours does, as this photo overlay is something I could never do when trying to replicate this hat. But what a great tool! It sure would have made replicating this hat a whole lot easier though.

LLS did this overlay with my own hats a few years ago, but nothing as comprehensive as yours. It showed mine as being close, but not perfect, and yet I changed my blocks after that.

To me, where your hat really nails the look is on the radius on the top sides of the hat. The best I have seen. That has always been a difficult part for me to get right, and IMO is the most difficult part to achieve. It actually is a very important part of the Raiders look, IMO.

So, from a guy who has worked on this hat for a long time, I am astounded at your work and accuracy. I tip my hat to you.

What is very noticable is how the kind of felt used, is such a key issue. The type of felt actually infuences perceptions. When you used the Christy felt, while the overlays matched, that hat itself looked off. Off, only because of the felt. I knew felt mattered, but did not realize just how much it mattered until I perused your pics. I feel if you blocked a beaver felt on your block, it might match in overlays, but the perception would be, it did not match the film hat, due to the type of felt. Am I making sense? That is, a hat could match perfectly in an overlay, yet still look "off" due to the felt. Fedora

Fedora · Post by **Fedora** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 11:23 am

The last scene comparison that you posted didn't convince me on the top back part. The raiders hat in that scene appears (to my eyes) to have more volume on the sides (I don't mean it's wider but more "full"... does it make sense?).

Yeah, this looks just a little off, but nothing drastic. And angles should be considered too. The film hat does look to have more volume, as you said, at least from this angle. But I think Yohimbe is closer rather than farther.

To me it would seem rather difficult to match the angles of the film exactly, and unless exactly matched comparisons(overlays) might have a weak point. Yet on most of the overlays, Yohimbe seems to be matching the angles nicely. How he does this, tells me he is a good photographer. I am sure he had to take many pics to get these angles close. He has scientifically studied this hat, and his efforts have not been wasted time. And as he said, this overlay takes away personal impressions and perceptions, which will always cloud things. My only question is, why did I not think of this?

Looks to me like Yohimbe will have the most accurate Raiders fedora yet. He deserves a big pat on the back....and many orders! Hope you sell a ton! And I would love to see you source some good felt from Portugal, rabbit, no stiffener, and start your own line of new hats. If you do, I want one! Fedora

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Mon Mar 29, 2010 6:34 pm

Thanks very much Steve. I really appreciate it. I'll get you the shots of a HW-style hat soon. I'll just have to reblock my test hat, as my 2 year old son has been using it to play "Dindy" with.

Ok, those Hawaii shots posted in this new thread:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=46220

Hat sales thread with less confusing options is now here:
viewtopic.php?f=40&t=44764

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Thu Apr 08, 2010 8:51 pm

Oh, I'm sure I'm developing OCD with this hat thing. Seeing screencaps in my sleep, just about. Anyway, I looked across to where my hat was sitting behind my desk and saw this angle, so I thought I'd take a quick photo. It's not quite right, but it's interesting what getting this hat repeatedly wet, stepped on, thrown to the ground, and smashed into kids play equipment across the course of an Aussie summer will do.

Well, not much, really. But to me it's slowly morphing into an SoC. But that could be the craziness talking...

Bartram · Post by **Bartram** » Thu Apr 08, 2010 10:24 pm

Wow....again.
You're really onto something with this block of yours!

B