So AUSTRALIAN HJs DO EXIST AFTERALL!!!

Erri · Post by **Erri** » Thu Feb 11, 2010 7:43 pm

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... 3D1&_rdc=1

item number: 160401485911
We can't say anything to Nadoolman anymore can we?

So who scored it?

3thoubucks · Post by **3thoubucks** » Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:51 pm

I scored it Erri!

It vindicates D.N.L's story. - from Fedora's report on the Fan DVD from a year ago -

3) She settled upon a classic Aussie styled hat, with the brim turned up on one side, as is typical of this style of hat. She chose it because it had a broad brim, that she could cut down to what she was after. This was apparently to be the prototype, and once she(they, HJ) had the hat bespoked(custom made) this prototype was used to replicate the order for the film.

--I don't think it's the Rosetta Stone for the Raiders block though. I figured out the camera was so close, it made the crown look full- that's been the case with almost every hat I've won on e-bay. - I asked the seller if the white sweat was leather, she though it might be vinyl. She said the previous owner indicated it was 60's vintage, but who knows. I think it might be floppy felt. Look at the first pic, the edge of the brim just right of center- it seems to be conforming to ridges on the suface it's on.

BendingOak · Post by **BendingOak** » Thu Feb 11, 2010 8:59 pm

I for one never doubted he story in the least. I don't think this shape was used just the body was used for the proto type.

Mighty_Draw · Post by **Mighty_Draw** » Thu Feb 11, 2010 9:19 pm

Thats really cool, looks like that crown could be creased in to a nice raiders style. I'm glad I quit looking on ebay or I may have been possessed to bid as well.

3thoubucks · Post by **3thoubucks** » Thu Feb 11, 2010 9:20 pm

Sorry Mods! Can't believe I did that!

(Moderator Edit: NO posting of live eBay auctions! )

generalFROSTY · Post by **generalFROSTY** » Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:22 pm

I hope you didn't pay much for it!

Erri · Post by **Erri** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:52 am

Good score 3thobucks! When it went over $50 I knew there was a COWer behind it. I wasn't bidding on it but I was kind enough not to post this thread before the auction ended in order to prevent price inflation

I agree that the block is probably not the indy one but it's definitely what D.N. was referring to and finally it showed up. I think this hat deserves a little space into Indygear.com website, into the hat section, just a suggestion.

3thobucks, what was wrong with your bush hat? Why you threw it away?

Post by **Michaelson** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 8:05 am

Erri wrote: item number: 160401485911
We can't say anything to Nadoolman anymore can we?

Well, sure we can.

No one ever said there wasn't such a hat in existance. Richard Swales was the one who said they never carried them in their shop, and that Nadoolman had picked an untrimmed 'Poet', so it's still a 'he said/she said' situation.

Nothing has changed on that account.

Unfortunately Mr. Swales has passed away. Just because DN outlived him does not make her side of the story the final word.

The photos are compelling, but the usual questions like:

'So, if this were the hat, how did they get around the vents and hole left in the sides of the crown when the side snap was removed?'

....leading to:

'so, if they FIXED those holes, why would they spend so much time, effort and money on this when the Poet WAS there at the store, as claimed by Swales?'

The usual reply that comes back is :

'The Austrialian model they used probably didn't have the crown vents.' (still not answering how they fixed the hole made by the snap removal)

Which would come right back around the barn to:

'So, if the hat they used didn't HAVE vents, then THIS particular model COULDN'T have been the hat they used'.

You're right back where you started.

The debate and theorizing goes on.

Regards! Michaelson

Erri · Post by **Erri** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:01 am

Michaelson wrote: No one ever said there wasn't such a hat in existance.

But no one had seen one yet so one could doubt Nadoolman's words from the start. With my words I just stated that Nadoolman was indeed referring to an australian hat made by Herbert-Johnson and now we can say that HJ did produce that kind of hats. Nothing more than that. Just a little jigsaw piece added, that's it.

I didn't meant that D.M. is right on everything else, just that an "australian model" did in fact exist and now we know what it looked like.

Should I correct my post in

We can't say anything to Nadoolman anymore about the existance of an australian model, can we?

Should I really be THAT picky and go to edit my post?

Post by **Michaelson** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:05 am

Erri wrote:But no one had seen one yet so one could doubt Nadoolman's words from the start.

On the contrary:
viewtopic.php?f=1&t=41023&hilit=Herbert ... Australian

Last June this particular HJ model DID appeared in discussion and photo, and those very questions I quoted above showed up in the thread.

I didn't meant that D.M. is right on everything else, just that an "australian model" did in fact exist and now we know what it looked like.

Understood.

As I've just pointed out, this hat HAS been seen before, and discussed.

As a comparison, and a 'golden oldie', read this thread from 2005. DN states herself in an email in her own words that she doesn't remember Swales being involved at all, let alone her mention it being an Australian model of ANYTHING.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12647&hilit=Herbert ... Australian

Yet in an email received by the COW adm. a year before in 2004, she said, quote:

Herbert Johnson did not carry a hat in their catalogue even close to the one I designed for Harrison - it was an Australian model that I converted to suit his face (and the cameraman's requirements!

A year later an Australian connection is not even mentioned.

Swales, on the other hand, claimed it was one she chose there in the shop, and it was an untrimmed Poet. They came with a 3 in brim before trimming. He also said:

Richard Swales wrote:
To make the hat very distinctive, I shaped the brim into an ovoid to give protection to the eyes and neck, reducing the sides also helped with camera angles. The brim was pulled down to give an explorer/safari look, the original ribbon being changed from 2" to 1 ½" to make the crown appear even taller.

The hat shown in this current photo, as well as the old post, sure doesn't appear to have a 2" ribbon to me in it's 'original' configuration. So, what did they use? Should we read more into his comment the brim was 'pulled down'? What did THAT mean? You could take that argument in many directions, including the support of THIS theory.

A lot of discrepencies discussed over the years, and the only source of that Australian hat comment is attributed to the designer, and it seems to come and go with each telling of the story.

Still interesting all these years later.

Regards! Michaelson

Fedora · Post by **Fedora** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:07 pm

First off, great buy!! I wished I knew it was up for sale, early. I have some deep pockets when it comes to specific hats. This one here is indeed a prize, for an Indy gear guy.

On the various accounts, over the years from Mr. Swales and D.N. they seem contradictory in some aspects. With that said, I lean toward's D.L's story. She mentioned in that one Indy Fan interview that the only fedoras at H.J. were the short brimmmed low crown Borsalino style that were popular in that era. That makes perfect sense. A hat shop would naturally stock what was in vogue, at the time. And this era was still stuck in the 60's style of hat, short brims, low crowns, as so far as dress hats go. That was the last major style of hats, from what I can see.

Her story about choosing the Australian type hat, (a story by the way that dates back to the release of the 3 dvd Indy set, with the bonus dvd) because it had enough brim to cut down, also is so sensical, it is hard not to accept this account.

Mr. Swales maintained he used an off the shelf Poet, with the wide ribbon and the 3 inch brim, but he may have forgot that this was what he ordered and used to replicate the Aussie prototype. To me, this would be very logical. Aferall, he needed more brim than the Italiian hats had, and going back to an old style, the Poet, gave him the 3 inch brim, that he cut down. Also, his early story said the ribbon the used to replace the wide ribbon was some old stock he still had in the shop.

That D.N. only had one hat to take to France at the outset of filming, tells us HJ did not have the hats ready at that time. This time lag means to me, they were either waiting on the Poets to come in from the factory, or they had them but not yet transformed this into the Raiders fedora. But, there was that time lage there, going by what she said.

It also seems that she mentioned in that interview that the other hats that were replicating the Aussie hat, had no holes. Now, I think she said that!

I need to rent the dvd and listen to it again.

Also one last point. Since D.N. said this hat was bespoke, and was not offered by HJ at the time, logically could be the reason I have never seen a Raiders fedora from HJ, that looked identical to the one on screen. I just can't see HJ, bespoking this hat if some Indy fan ordered one! Too much work! Instead, it would be very easy to grab a stock Poet, and cut down the brim, without changing out the ribbon(ordered in the Indy size from the factory) and send that off to the fans. And we know that the hats in at least TLC were factory, just by looking at the bow work. All of those external stitches that are still used today.

Regardless, this is part of the mystique of the Raiders fedora. And I love it!!! A little mystery makes it even more interesting. And gives me plenty of room to conjecture!

Anyways great catch! We now know for sure that HJ did indeed at one time, offered this style of hat. Which adds to the credence of what D.L. has said. For me, I believe her account more than Mr. Swales. He was there for all 3 films, and supplied the hats for all 3. And we can all see the big change in hats, from Raiders to TOD. Definetly not the same hat, at least to these eyes. And having supplied all 3 film hats, it would be easy to get things confused. I always wondered why the hat changed so much as the films went on. Of course, D.N. was not involved in the other two. And to me, it just seems Swales was not up to custom making another load of hats for the film. So, he grabbed the Poet, and whacked off the brim, thereby giving us the TOD fedora, and later on, TLC fedora. I see differences between the TOD and TLC fedora, almost like they used a different block to make these hats. Which would happen if suppliers were changed between the films. And suppliers were changed over the years between Raiders and CS. I think the oval HJ crest was originally used in hats made by Borsalino, because it resembles the Borsa crest in shape. But, this is just guessing.

We know that the original crest from HJ was the gold and blue one, followed by perhaps the octogon crest as seen in TLC. Then, the first HJ I saw, made in the 90's had the burgundy oval. Why change crests? Kinda odd, from a hatter point of view, especially from a really old company like HJ. They tend to keep the same crests, and with Stetson, you can almost tell when the company changed hands, due to the crest changing. With folks like HJ, their crest die would be kept at the factory who made their hats. So, when suppliers changed, they apparently did not have the old supplier send the new supplier the crest die. Instead, they came up with a new one. Fedora

Post by **Michaelson** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:35 pm

All makes sense, Steve. The only problems I keep stumbling across is her on again, off again claims that pre-date the DVD's by several years. She was waffling on this point back before Raiders was even available on VHS, let alone a 'making of' DVD.

Second, according to her, Swales never SAW an example. DN herself states in the email from 2005 that she only took the specifications to HJ after test hats were placed on Ford's head at B&N, and they made the hat based on what she brought them on paper. She 'chose' a hat, and they did the work. Those are her own words.

We know it wasn't one with vents, so it kind of negates the possiblilty of the hat in THIS thread as an example. We already knew back last June from THAT discovery that HJ DID produce an Australian model...and it had vents too. We're still not 'there' regarding this particular theory, as none has been portrayed without vents. Theory still abounds!

Regardless, this is part of the mystique of the Raiders fedora. And I love it!!! A little mystery makes it even more interesting. And gives me plenty of room to conjecture!

My point exactly. Thank you!

Regards! Michaelson

Post by **Michaelson** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:46 pm

Fedora wrote: Anyways great catch! We now know for sure that HJ did indeed at one time, offered this style of hat.

We knew that last June. Check my supplied link above. You participated in that discussion too, and recommended 3m copy the photo.

And there is 3M$ telescope crown!!! Save this pic 3M. It gives credence to your theory. Fedora

It keeps coming around to this hat, doesn't it?

HIGH regards! Michaelson

p.s. By the way, Erri. See what happens when you go to bed or what ever you have been doing since your last post? You had to read all THESE ramblings to get caught up!

Erri · Post by **Erri** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 2:59 pm

Yeah... you can't leave a thread half a day that you have a pamphlet to read. Fedora's posts in particular are always a pleasure to read but require some spare time

By the way, I remember the thread on the bushman hat from HJ but you have to admit, this one is MUCH more australian looking than the other one.

Post by **Michaelson** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:01 pm

Well, you know me....but in case you hadn't figured it out.....just scan over mine, read Fedora's' word for word, and you're good to go!

That will save you a TON of time too!

Regard! Michaelson

Fedora · Post by **Fedora** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:02 pm

Ah, NOW I remember!!!

Yeah, I had forgotten about the other Aussie hat. Thanks.

You know, I have never seen this stye of hat, without the eyelets, of some kind. I have an Aussie made safari hat, with zebra skin band, that was made in South Africa by that now defunct hat factory, that has holes, but not eyelets. It instead has a group of tiny holes in each side of the crown, to allow for ventilation. I also have the Aussie military hat, with the pungaree and eyelets on each side of the crown.

The hat that was bought from ebay, above, is a nice hat! I like the color as my other Aussie hats are all moss green. This one here looks tannish. A nice color!

I wonder where the above HJ was sold from? Here is a chronological list of the HJ location which might give us an idea of the era it came from.

38 New Bond St.
13 Old Burlington St.
30 New Bond St.
10 Old Bond St.
54 Saint James St.

But not sure as to what date coincides with the location. I have an HJ a tannish one, a fedora, 3 inch brim that has 38 New Bond on the sweatband. So, must be an earlier HJ. Seems like I do recall when they went to the last address a few years ago. Fedora

Post by **Michaelson** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:03 pm

Erri wrote: By the way, I remember the thread on the bushman hat from HJ but you have to admit, this one is MUCH more australian looking than the other one.

I concur.

Regards! Michaelson

Erri · Post by **Erri** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:04 pm

I scan over anyone who posts more than 10 lines don't worry

(also explains a lot of possible misunderstandings)

edit: GEE guys, your fingers must be steaming, 1 minute and you already posted 2-3 new posts?

kinda hard to keep up

Fedora · Post by **Fedora** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:08 pm

Yeah... you can't leave a thread half a day that you have a pamphlet to read. Fedora's posts in particular are always a pleasure to read but require some spare time

Hey, if you think that is bad, try talking to me on the phone!

I talk like I write. My mouth has a hard time keeping up with my brain.

I wish I could be brief! I envy those that are. But once the old mind gets to a going, it just keeps throwing stuff out. Until it gets exhausted. Heck, I can't even read my own posts. I don't envy those that do either. Just think what you would get from me, IF you messed up and asked for my opinon! Lord help us all!

edit: GEE guys, your fingers must be steaming, 1 minute and you already posted 2-3 new posts? kinda hard to keep up

I am glad I am a lightening fast typer. As you can see from my mistakes. Fedora

Post by **Michaelson** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:14 pm

Look at my post count, Erri. I'm just a wordy old bugger myself.

Regards! Michaelson

Fedora · Post by **Fedora** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:18 pm

You know, the more that I look at that hat, the more I feel this was like the one D.N. used for the prototype. If that story is true. Plus, it says made in England right on it. England used to make alot of hats, even after they lost much of their biz after WW2. Plus, in so far as hats, this style of hat seems to have always been around, even when dress hats changed in style. I could see it still being in stock when the dress hats shrunk in dimensions.

3M$, I would love to see some pics after you get it. Open crown. The front and back already look pretty straight up, instead of being tapered much. Hope you post some pics of this hat once you get it so we can see the open crown shape. If this is the same hat as D.N. saw, this would be an interesting thing to look at. And interesting to know the open crown height too. Fedora

DR Ulloa · Post by **DR Ulloa** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:49 pm

Steve, do you know around when HJ moved from the 38 New Bond St. Address? My HJ has that address with the blue cest so I'd obviously like to know approximately how old it is.

3M$, very nice, my friend. I toyed around with getting this one but after buying that grey HJ last week on ebay, I still need to let the account recoup. I'd love to see those pictures too.

Dave

Erri · Post by **Erri** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 5:20 pm

Michaelson wrote:Look at my post count, Erri. I'm just a wordy old bugger myself.

Regards! Michaelson

Now that you make me notice it... whoosh, the idea of you and Steve talking together!

Fedora wrote:Heck, I can't even read my own posts. I don't envy those that do either. Just think what you would get from me, IF you messed up and asked for my opinon! Lord help us all!

When I see long posts I always think "that must be Steve" even before seeing your avatar. Several times I've decided I would read your post "eventually". Usually I get the point from the replies

If one has some 15 minutes to spare on one single post it's always a pleasure to read your stuff though

Fedora wrote:Hey, if you think that is bad, try talking to me on the phone!

It would be nice but I don't think I can afford it!

Post by **Michaelson** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 8:38 pm

Erri wrote:... whoosh, the idea of you and Steve talking together!

We've done it on more than one occasion over the years.

Regards! Michaelson

DR Ulloa · Post by **DR Ulloa** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:56 pm

Stevw, I've found speaking with you a blast. Your a great dude. Wish we could speak more often but your so dang busy. I'm going to keep on buying hats from you till you close your doors, though, so there's plenty of time for talking, though you'll probably start answering my calls by saying "What do you want now?" as I'm notorious for complicating a rather simple thing...just ask John.

Dave

3thoubucks · Post by **3thoubucks** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:58 am

If there's anything about this hat's block that could relate to the Raiders hat, I promise it will be revealed.

BendingOak · Post by **BendingOak** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:36 am

Part of me thinks that even if this is the hat (or like the hat that) DN used for the proto-type hat. It's not the same felt body used for the movie hats. I can't see where this brings us closer to the Raiders hat, just closer to the proto-type hat. Does that make any sense to anyone?

3thoubucks · Post by **3thoubucks** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 4:17 am

I thought this felt looked a hair too thick, but I never felt shure about that. I've already explained why I think it's floppy. If it's 60's vintage, it could be 20 years younger than the Raiders hat.

Erri · Post by **Erri** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 5:06 am

Michaelson wrote:We've done it on more than one occasion over the years.

Did sunrise break the conversation?

BendingOak wrote:Part of me thinks that even if this is the hat (or like the hat that) DN used for the proto-type hat. It's not the same felt body used for the movie hats. I can't see where this brings us closer to the Raiders hat, just closer to the proto-type hat. Does that make any sense to anyone?

It makes perfect sense. It's like having a vintage flight jacket and pinks because those inspired the costum designer of Indy. It doesn't bring a person any closer to the actual gear of course, it's more of a insight into the world of speculation, as to say "this is probably what inspired the Indy hat". Nothing more
Most likely it is not the same block, felt or anything, just something that Nadoolman was referring to, that's all.

3thoubucks · Post by **3thoubucks** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 5:19 am

You gatta love this white sweat, and silver, 'Made in England'. - Looks like a dang wedding invitation..

Fedora · Post by **Fedora** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 9:24 am

Part of me thinks that even if this is the hat (or like the hat that) DN used for the proto-type hat. It's not the same felt body used for the movie hats. I can't see where this brings us closer to the Raiders hat, just closer to the proto-type hat. Does that make any sense to anyone?

Right, it wouldn't be. But, I would just love to see perhaps WHAT she started with. If we take her accounts as true, she used a hat like this, or similiar as the proto type. But other than cutting down the brim, we really don't have any other information, from her, than that. Like, we don't know if this hat was reblocked at the shop, to change the crown shape. But, I have to assume that she got this hat to looking like what she wanted replicated, using the Poet. Surely the Aussie hat was the model for what was yet to come. Otherwise, why invest the time in making the proto type? Fedora

Post by **Michaelson** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 10:37 am

Erri wrote:
Michaelson wrote:We've done it on more than one occasion over the years.
Did sunrise break the conversation?

Believe it or not, our conversations have usually been about gardening!

Yep. He's really an honest down to earth human that I would be proud to call a next door neighbor, hat maker or not.

Regards! Michaelson

Long John Tinfoil · Post by **Long John Tinfoil** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 10:53 am

Is it reasonable to presume that a hat like this would have come from the factory open-crown so that the bash, eyelets and snap would have been added at the hat shop? This would give the customer some latitude with the final look and might also explain how a hat body for the "prototype" was available without all the holes in it.

LJ

Post by **Michaelson** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 12:26 pm

These hats were usually military ordered, so it would have more than likely followed what ever the mil-spec was rather than individual customer order.

Regards! Michaelson

generalFROSTY · Post by **generalFROSTY** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 12:45 pm

Isn't that part of the allure of the Raiders hat though? The mystery behind it - not truly knowing 100% sure of its origins? I think so!
A mystery is both entertaining and frustrating, and though we may NEVER learn the absolute factual origin of the screen-used Raiders hat, at least we as fans have many options to buy a Raiders-style fedora....I can't imaging what it was like for fans wanting one back before the Internet!

Post by **Michaelson** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:36 pm

generalFROSTY wrote:I can't imaging what it was like for fans wanting one back before the Internet!

Believe me....you don't WANT to know.

Regards! Michaelson

BendingOak · Post by **BendingOak** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:47 pm

Michaelson wrote:
generalFROSTY wrote:I can't imaging what it was like for fans wanting one back before the Internet!
Believe me....you don't WANT to know.

Regards! Michaelson

Exactly.

3thoubucks · Post by **3thoubucks** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:50 pm

..Uhhhh... Is that a chin strap at seven o'clock?

I looked at the DVD and it's not something on the floor.

Post by **Michaelson** » Sun Feb 14, 2010 11:02 am

Looks like the tip of the coiled whip to me.

Regards! Michaelson

Erri · Post by **Erri** » Sun Feb 14, 2010 2:57 pm

Same thought as Michaelson

BendingOak · Post by **BendingOak** » Sun Feb 14, 2010 3:37 pm

Michaelson wrote:Looks like the tip of the coiled whip to me.

Regards! Michaelson

I agree.

I really don't think her proto type hat ever made it on screen

What I think she did is take this model or some model just like this and took it apart. Used the felt as a raw body because it was a tall crown and big brim hat. Finished the hat. Those details are not talked about but the hat was finished and there was a proto-type and swales used it to work off of.

Post by **Indiana Jeff** » Sun Feb 14, 2010 11:21 pm

Michaelson wrote:The only problems I keep stumbling across is her on again, off again claims that pre-date the DVD's by several years. She was waffling on this point back before Raiders was even available on VHS, let alone a 'making of' DVD.

Second, according to her, Swales never SAW an example. DN herself states in the email from 2005 that she only took the specifications to HJ after test hats were placed on Ford's head at B&N, and they made the hat based on what she brought them on paper. She 'chose' a hat, and they did the work. Those are her own words. Regards! Michaelson

And this is the rub for me. There are these seemingly conflicting reports about whether DN and Swales did or did not have direct contact for a bespoken hat or if SS and HF wandered into HJ on their own and found a hat, coupled with _'s revelations regarding SS frustration with DN's work on the jacket and (my conjecture) costume in general. I take anything DN has to say about her work on the costume with a grain of salt. I realize there have been a number of DN interviews, some conducted by COW members, in which DN describes the process she used in selecting the hat, but as Michaelson pointed out her stories have changed over the years. I wouldn't put it past her to inflate her importance with this iconic hat.

Heck, even Bernie to a lesser extent inflated his importance in the costuming process. In interviews he stated all the original suppliers were either dead or out of business so he had to start the hunt from scratch to find craftsmen up to the challenge. Now, no one can question his choices of hat and jacket makers, but to listen to him he had to completely reinvent the wheel.

Regards,

Indiana Jeff

DR Ulloa · Post by **DR Ulloa** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:05 am

Pollack isn't necessarily lying. Swales has died and Leather Concessionairies and Cooper no longer exist as those intellectual entities. It can be said he was telling the truth, though stretching it quite a bit. I've never heard that though. Can you cite where he said that?

Dave

RCSignals · Post by **RCSignals** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 1:14 am

It's actually a British Army style cap that dates back at least to the South African War. the Australian slouch is styled after it, but slightly different.
I had one of the British ones and sold it on eBay a couple of years ago. Mine was exactly the same pattern but not a H-J make .

3thoubucks · Post by **3thoubucks** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 2:24 am

Did the Raiders brim have any flange at all? Or was it flat like - an Aussie slouch? The reason I spotted what looks like a chin strap, is because I was looking for lack of brim flange in the hat just sitting on the table.. Do you see any flange? I don't. And this is supposed to be the first scene shot at Elstree. (remember, the hat is sitting on magazines, so there Is a shadow under the brim in front)

Notice in this shot, the folded corner of a magazine is supporting the edge of the brim. Was this magazine corner folded on purpose just to mimic some brim curl, so the hat looks like it's got some brim curl like a normal fedora? The far side of the brim looks propped up, and the very back of the brim looks totally flat.

Ford snuggs the hat down with a lot of effort on top of the Well of Souls and in the Waco plane. A tight fitting hat will PUT flange in a flat brim. I've tested this by padding the sweat in an Akubra slouch- the brim curls. And after Ford puts the hat on in the Waco plane, he starts CURLING the brim, digging his fingertips into his palms with the the brim in between. I figure, when the tight fit started to losen up, Ford started hand-curling the brim. Screenused's hat has no flange. ... ... does anyone have a good enough TV and DVD player to figure out where the end of the whip should be, weather the loop sticking out from under the hat is flat brown leather or round brown leather? I guess it's the whip, why would they be sloppy enuff to show a chin strap in a set-shot like this (Then again, why were they sloppy enough to destroy the top bash?) .... it would be interesting to me to know for shure.

Post by **Indiana Jeff** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 3:35 am

DR Ulloa wrote:Pollack isn't necessarily lying. Swales has died and Leather Concessionairies and Cooper no longer exist as those intellectual entities. It can be said he was telling the truth, though stretching it quite a bit. I've never heard that though. Can you cite where he said that? Dave

viewtopic.php?t=29310 About half way down the page the article is posted with Bernie's quote.

I can see your point that by the narrowest definition it could be argued that the original makers are no longer around, but really, put 'Indiana Jones Leather Jacket' or 'Indiana Jones Fedora' into Google and you'll get hits for Wested and a myriad of references to HJ. Bernie works in the film industry, he would know what industry suppliers from the trilogy are around and which no longer are regardless of individual staffing or company name/ownership changes. Now, I'll agree that he did have to put in time and energy to find new suppliers in Steve, Marc, and Tony, but to say he had to start from scratch is overstating it. It was Peter Botwright that referred Bernie to AB so obviously Bernie knew about one of the original suppliers.

So, to bring it back around the barn as Michaelson might say, we are fortunate to have interviews with the actual suppliers (AB), recorded basically in real time, that allows us to know exactly how the hat evolved from samples (Steve/Marc pushing for a tight Raiders bash that Bernie didn't like) to the screen used hats. Back in the day, by the time some of our founders started chasing down leads for ROLA gear (via phone and snail mail), memories had already started to fade and stories didn't always line up on all sides of the supply chain. Add to that the issues SS had with DN's work on the jacket and I go back to my original 'grain of salt' post. To me, just because DN says it's so, don't necessarily make it so.

Regards,

Indiana Jeff

Erri · Post by **Erri** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 8:27 am

Giving themselves some importance is, to various extents, a feature of most costume designers. Sometimes their "mistakes" are actually honest though (especially when they worked on a film 20-30 years ago).

Indiana Jeff wrote: Heck, even Bernie to a lesser extent inflated his importance in the costuming process.

Lesser extent? To me sounds like Bernie is the champion of self-importance

just an impression I got of him. Not to mention that he has no idea of what "used look" and "distress" mean, considering that every part of the gear in the last film just looked dusty but brand new.

I can't even imagine, if we didn't have Steve and Marc with us, what sort of stories we could have got from someone like Bernie Pollack about the hat

Indiana Jeff wrote:Bernie works in the film industry, he would know what industry suppliers from the trilogy are around and which no longer are regardless of individual staffing or company name/ownership changes. Now, I'll agree that he did have to put in time and energy to find new suppliers in Steve, Marc, and Tony, but to say he had to start from scratch is overstating it. It was Peter Botwright that referred Bernie to AB so obviously Bernie knew about one of the original suppliers.

You're right, the only reason why he ignored the previous manufacturers is that they were mostly British and this time they were not shooting in Elstree so they went for American manufacturers and suppliers which were closer and cheaper.
Any other reason for not going for the original suppliers is simply a cover-up based on very loose facts. Matter of factly a pure lie because to my knowledge Noel Howard was actually contacted during the pre-production but, like it happened with Peter, they didn't end up doing any contract or agreement. I guess the first idea was to go for the original manufacturers and shortly after someone must have come in and said "hey watch for the budget! Buying from the UK would cost too much".

An obvious choice for the marketing department of course

hp · Post by hp » Mon Feb 15, 2010 8:51 am

Hi,

I don't think money for some hats, jackets and whips mattered. Unless Noel et al. were not too greedy.
I mean we are talking about a multi-million dollar budget film...

Cheers
HP

Erri · Post by **Erri** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 8:57 am

You think so? Every penny matters, especially when you're making a multimillion dollar film. It doesn't mean they went "cheap" (Tony Nowak seems much more expensive than Wested). It's just a simple logistic choice. If there is a problem it takes longer to send the jackets or the hats back to England to be corrected, alterated or fixed.

If Steve wasn't from the States I'm sure that they would have never gave him the job, for the simple reason that moving hats over seas would slow things down if any problem occurred.

About what you said on Noel Howard and others, Noel didn't seem to be bothered at all by the fact that they didn't contact him again. He already had plenty of work and I'm sure he was not going to accept anyway if they had asked. In that period he was away to Syria for months and was just considering a new job in Libya (which he eventually accepted).

BendingOak · Post by **BendingOak** » Mon Feb 15, 2010 9:09 am

3thoubucks wrote:Did the Raiders brim have any flange at all? Or was it flat like - an Aussie slouch? The reason I spotted what looks like a chin strap, is because I was looking for lack of brim flange in the hat just sitting on the table.. Do you see any flange? I don't. And this is supposed to be the first scene shot at Elstree. (remember, the hat is sitting on magazines, so there Is a shadow under the brim in front) Notice in this shot, the folded corner of a magazine is supporting the edge of the brim. Was this magazine corner folded on purpose just to mimic some brim curl, so the hat looks like it's got some brim curl like a normal fedora? The far side of the brim looks propped up, and the very back of the brim looks totally flat. Ford snuggs the hat down with a lot of effort on top of the Well of Souls and in the Waco plane. A tight fitting hat will PUT flange in a flat brim. I've tested this by padding the sweat in an Akubra slouch- the brim curls. And after Ford puts the hat on in the Waco plane, he starts CURLING the brim, digging his fingertips into his palms with the the brim in between. I figure, when the tight fit started to losen up, Ford started hand-curling the brim. Screenused's hat has no flange. ... ... does anyone have a good enough TV and DVD player to figure out where the end of the whip should be, weather the loop sticking out from under the hat is flat brown leather or round brown leather? I guess it's the whip, why would they be sloppy enuff to show a chin strap in a set-shot like this (Then again, why were they sloppy enough to destroy the top bash?) .... it would be interesting to me to know for shure.

I think you can't go by those shots about having a chin strap or flange curl. I very much doubt that they went to all that effort to give the hat a look of a brim flange. My Raiders beaver hat when placed on a table looks to have no brim flange at all but it does.

It's funny how people want to take DL credit from her but what is the one factor that changed from Indy 1 to Indy 2 and 3. And what is the big difference in the hat. Lets keep it simple.