Leather used for Raiders Hero...

crismans · Post by **crismans** » Sun May 16, 2010 11:48 am

Indiana Holt wrote:yes, its lamb like but it is not lamb. you can tell the difference between the two.

at least that is what I have been told by a guy who works with leather for his daily bread.

I personally believe that the jacket Tony got was lambskin. the man obviously knew his leather. but of course there can have been made a mistake and confused it with lamb. its possible. he was only human. but IMO I doubt it.

again, this is just my opinion. take it for what it is worth.

This is where I'm at as well, Holt. I believe _ has spoken with Neil Cooper and that Neil made 2 jackets out of calfskin. No problem there.

But, like many here, I spoke with Tony several times and he was adamant that the Raiders jacket he examined was shrunken lamb. I heard this several times from the man himself. It wasn't "it might be", "I'm pretty sure it was", he stated emphatically that it was shrunken lamb.

So three possibilities here. 1.) Tony lied about the hide. 2.) He was mistaken about what he had. 3.) The jacket he received was made of shrunken lamb.

Here's my take: 1.) There was no reason to lie about the hide. Tony could have saved a lot of grief by saying it was something else. Instead, he said what he thought it was and stuck to it. Also, I have never known of Tony being dishonest in any business dealings (I can say this for myself and others I've spoken to). I don't know of anyone who's ever produced anything that showed Tony in anything but an honest light.

2.) Tony knew his leather. He had worked with this type of leather before. If I'm not mistaken, the man who he had bought this type of hide from before, ended up in a building behind Tony's shop and Tony discussed the hide with him. As has been said, Tony went over the jacket with a "microscope". He counted the teeth on the zipper (his words to me). Is someone who's going to go into minutia like that going to take a chance on missing what the jacket's made of? Could he be mistaken about the hide? Sure, anything is possible. But I don't think it's very likely at all.

3). I believe that the jacket Tony received was, in fact, shrunken lamb.

So, to reconcile the fact that I believe _ and what Cooper has told him and what Tony told me personally, I can only come to the conclusion that the jacket Tony received wasn't a Cooper. It was probably one of the Leather Concessionaires jackets that Peter made for the production.

And Hollowpond, I'm with you that it is a big revelation that Cooper has given us (thanks for getting it for us, _!). Now, we have to assimilate it into what we already know.

gwyddion · Post by **gwyddion** » Sun May 16, 2010 12:19 pm

I have not read all of the posts in this thread, as I kind of promised myself I wouldn't get into jacket debates any more, but this is what I am reading here:

According to Neil Cooper the jackets he produced for Raiders were made of "irregular oil-pulled calfskin", a hide that will produce the same looks as "shrunken lamb" when it comes into contact with moisture (in the air or from perspiration). Calfskin is extremely hard to tell apart from lambskin due to similar denseness, feel and weight.

If I'm wrong in my understanding of these findings as done by _, please slap me.

From this I surmise that the jacket Tony thought was "shrunken lamb" (along with us, through his statement) could well have been from this "oil-pulled calfskin". A logical mistake regarding those two are virtually identical in almost every way but DNA (can you actually get DNA from something that is tanned?). Do I care if this mistake was made? No. Why not? Because there is hardly a way to distinguish the two types of leather anyway, and the looks of "shrunken lamb" are spot-on IMO, so why fret that the creature my jacket came from báááh-ed in stead of mooo-ed?

Regards, Geert

Weston · Post by **Weston** » Sun May 16, 2010 12:57 pm

gwyddion wrote: Do I care if this mistake was made? No. Why not? Because there is hardly a way to distinguish the two types of leather anyway, and the looks of "shrunken lamb" are spot-on IMO, so why fret that the creature my jacket came from báááh-ed in stead of mooo-ed?

Regards, Geert

Here's my first post in these recent jacket threads, I haven't commented so far because I can't keep up (maybe that's a good thing). I agree there gwyddion. I might have cared at one point, but why get worked up about it. I take Neil Cooper at his word. He was very specific about what he said, down to the ounce. It's a great little detail, and nice to know, or at least think about as we haven't heard anything like this before.

But what I think is most important, and seems to have been eclipsed in the discussion is the fact that Neil Cooper himself has seen fit to participate in our wacko hobby at all! To me, that is much more significant.

Weston

crismans · Post by **crismans** » Sun May 16, 2010 2:11 pm

I'm not trying to step on anybody's toes here (honest!), but I have to admit that I don't understand the need to post and then say "Of course, none of this is important to me anyway" or "None of this really matters". Of course, none of this matters in the grand scheme of things. I'm sure that everybody participating in these discussions knows that, and I seriously doubt that anyone has a gun pressed to their head saying "It better have been shrunken lamb!!".

But it is a hobby that all of us love for different reasons and there's nothing wrong with getting into it a little as long as you keep it in it's proper perspective. I love to debate this stuff and try to figure it out but it doesn't interfere with my day job and I don't harbor any deep grudges against anyone I've disagreed with here. Quite the contrary, I've made some good friends on both sides of the fence.

And I sincerely hope that I'm not offending anyone with this post. But I think it's great that we now have it from Cooper that he made two jackets in a here-to-fore undiscussed hide. Now, I want to know (for sure) who manufactured the other jackets, what scenes each was used in, etc. To some, this is crazy to want to know this much, but it's all in what interests you.

For instance, I'm not that interested in how many walks Mickey Mantle had in 1961. But some people live, eat, and breathe that knowledge. As long as my fedora looks the part, I'm not terribly interested (for right now, anyway) where the felt for the Indy fedora came from. But, some here are very interested in just that knowledge and I completely understand and respect their interest.

gwyddion · Post by **gwyddion** » Sun May 16, 2010 2:31 pm

I'm in no way offended crismans, don't worry

It's not that I don't care at all, just that I don't care because the leathers are the same in appearance and feel. That is important to me. I wanted the jacket I saw on screen, and as far as I'm concerned I got it. It turns out it isn't the right animal, but it's got it where it counts: looks. And if calfskin and lambskin are as similar as stated I don't think the long term behaviour and durability would be that much different between the two. So that's why I don't care I got the "wrong" leather.

Is it important to me to know what leather the jacket Neil made was? Sure, but that's because I'm also one of the guys who chose this hobby and who likes to learn as much as possible about all of this.

Regards, Geert

Texan Scott · Post by **Texan Scott** » Sun May 16, 2010 3:14 pm

In certain ways, each of these discussions represent 'new' frontiers, new trails that need to be or could be blazed.

Experts and fans in each forum are contributing to a 'body' of knowledge that possibly has not been common knowledge in the past. The end result is that we ultimately get a better hat or jacket for instance, and add to the collective knowledge that was started way back when by a handful of the faithful few. Probably it is the reverse...knowledge then the aftermarket effect.

I don't see the harm in studying the film history of Indy and his stuff the way people get together and tak about model cars, airplanes, guns, stamp collecting, baseball stats and the like. To me, it is to some degree, wanting to know and understand better this specific piece of film history that was Rola, the history & items etc. that surround it.

Weston · Post by **Weston** » Sun May 16, 2010 4:34 pm

I didn't mean to come across as condescending in my post, but I can see how it could have been taken that way. I apologize crismans, if my last post seemed to belittle anyones efforts or interest. That was not my intention. I think it was more a reaction to the heat that has been generated in the jacket section lately. I am interested in these details, just not enough to get riled up about them. To me, it is enough that we have new details to discuss, and that they come straight from guys like Neil who were there at the beginning.

Weston

crismans · Post by **crismans** » Sun May 16, 2010 4:45 pm

And, on my side, I wasn't trying to come across like Mola Ram on a bad day!

No need to apologize to me! I know that the minutia of this stuff isn't for everyone. My wife reminds me of that every day!

And I've also been known to get myself in a twist over it as well, which it isn't worth doing. I do think it's very interesting, however.

On the present subject, I fully agree that the new info _ has brought us concerning Cooper's jackets is great stuff. To be honest, however, and as I've said before, it casts into doubt (for me) that Tony received a Cooper jacket to copy. Tony was emphatic that the jacket he received was shrunken lamb. In fact, I got my ears burned off in one phone call over that leather. He had called me to ask if I liked my new SL jacket and I said that I loved the fit but the leather would take some getting used to as I hadn't had anything like it before. Tony launched into a speech filled with the most colorful of metaphors on how people were questioning whether it was shrunken lamb or not and how he knew what it was as he had worked with it before. Took me a couple of minutes to talk him off the ledge.

At any rate, Tony was positive, after examining the jacket in detail, that the jacket he handled was SL. I, personally, consider Tony a master craftsman with leather jackets right up there with the best (I also put Neil Cooper in this category). Could Tony have been wrong on the leather? Sure. I've not seen irregular oil pulled calfskin leather. It might be the twin of SL. Tony might have made a mistake. But, until I see it, I have to go with Tony's assertion. Which leads me to believe that he didn't get one of the Cooper's to examine.

Indydawg · Post by **Indydawg** » Sun May 16, 2010 5:50 pm

On the other hand, crismans...we have it, from very good authority, and from people who were the decision makers at the time, that the jacket sent to Tony WAS one of the Cooper jackets...

So...what do we do about the disconnect?

Indydawg

RCSignals · Post by **RCSignals** » Sun May 16, 2010 6:59 pm

For me the disconnect is simple. Cooper made at least two jackets in what we know as 'shrunken lamb'
A leather that would have been familiar to him in 1980.

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Sun May 16, 2010 7:22 pm

Ok, breaking down the logic of which jacket was what with what we know:

1. How do we know how similar calfskin is to shrunken lamb? Can anyone post pictures? Because there are a LOT of assumptions flying around here.

2. Puting aside the jacket Tony got was examined with someone with many years of professional experience and was ID'd as shrunken lamb, there is more to the texture of the Main Jacket that saw the majority of the screen time than a generic texture. There are the striations. They are very specifically far apart. The pattern only occurs on one breed of SHEEP. They are on every visible panel of the jacket. These are facts that can be seen on screen. When you make a jacket out of striated shrunken lamb, you have to rotate the pattern to make the panels fit the size and shape of each hide. This means that the striations HAVE to end up at certain places in the jacket in order to fit each panel. What we see in the Raiders jacket's striations is consistent with these (necessary) patterns. It is there in both chest panels, the sleeves, and the back.

3. None of these signs are present on the Bantu Wind or Imam's jackets, which look more "Cow-ish".

So, Occam's Razor... seems pretty clear.

crismans · Post by **crismans** » Sun May 16, 2010 7:30 pm

Indydawg wrote:On the other hand, crismans...we have it, from very good authority, and from people who were the decision makers at the time, that the jacket sent to Tony WAS one of the Cooper jackets...

So...what do we do about the disconnect?

Indydawg

Indydawg, I spend a great portion of my life in the realm of the disconnect.

I do understand what you're saying and I don't know how to answer that disconnect, right now. As to what to do? We do what I always do, we wait it out. Something will break loose somewhere.

1. How do we know how similar calfskin is to shrunken lamb? Can anyone post pictures?

It's pretty easy to get pictures of calfskin jackets, of course. Here's one I've found:

http://kfrankstyle.com/images/uploads/b7072e96_orig.jpg

But, I would imagine it would be pretty darn hard to find "3 oz, irregular oil pulled calfskin" jackets. And if you don't have the right stuff, then you're doing the famous apples to oranges trick.

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Sun May 16, 2010 7:56 pm

Well Crismans, if we WERE going with comparing the texture of that hide, it bears most resemblance to the Imams house jacket.

Check this out - this may help explain part of my thinking:

Tony said he had the jacket used in Hawaii. He said it was shrunken lamb. He identified it from the film, and I understand it was also what he was told (?)

Anyway, look at how different it is to the jacket I've identified as Bantu Wind / Imams / Terry Leonard. Very unmistakable zipper gap. They're absolutely mutually exclusive. When you plug that info into the rest of the stuff I explained in my Tracking jackets threads, it all adds up to the Coopers being worn for Bantu Wind / Imams / Terry Leonard.

theman · Post by **theman** » Mon May 17, 2010 1:08 am

Haven't seen anything in Calf that looks like striated shrunken lamb yet, but if you wanna look at some various calf including shrunken...

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/handmade ... eather.jpg

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/handmadeleather/4139.jpg

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/handmadeleather/4153.jpg

http://www.millvalleyleather.com/assets ... 8150br.jpg

http://www.pierotucci.com/data/imgprodo ... 3_zoom.jpg

bigrex · Post by **bigrex** » Mon May 17, 2010 2:09 am

Hmm, I guess now the debate would be "what we are seeing on the screen the most", which is difficult to really ascertain as far as a hide would be concerned, if we think what is most viewed on the screen is lamb, then Mr. Botwright's offering made "hero" status, if it looks like calf skin then Mr. Cooper made the so called "hero". I guess Yojimbo's thread is the best someone can do when as far as attempting to nail down specific jackets using scuffs and pattern design. I would imagine there is no way to tell hides very well for much of the movie.

Did Mr. Spielberg maintain that the Cooper jacket was intended to be used for the majority of the film and it indeed did serve this purpose, or (speculation) did Harrison baulk at the somewhat heavier (possibly hotter) calf skin design and use the lamb more often? I thought I'd heard before that the cow was mainly used for stunt scenes?

RCSignals · Post by **RCSignals** » Mon May 17, 2010 5:11 am

theman wrote:Haven't seen anything in Calf that looks like striated shrunken lamb yet, but if you wanna look at some various calf including shrunken...

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/handmade ... eather.jpg

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/handmadeleather/4139.jpg

http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/handmadeleather/4153.jpg

http://www.millvalleyleather.com/assets ... 8150br.jpg

http://www.pierotucci.com/data/imgprodo ... 3_zoom.jpg

Doesn't even look like the non-striated shrunken lamb. Not even close. It's not in it's DNA to do so.

Indydawg · Post by **Indydawg** » Mon May 17, 2010 8:58 am

I'm sorry...but how, exactly, can you extract DNA from a photo? I must have missed that episode of CSI...

I jest, of course...but...seriously...are you really that skilled at leather type determination based on nothing more than photographic analysis?

I don't want to come across as flippant, RC...really, I don't, but....that's pretty exacting skill you've got, if you can.

Regards!
Indydawg

gwyddion · Post by **gwyddion** » Mon May 17, 2010 9:50 am

theman wrote: http://www.pierotucci.com/data/imgprodo ... 3_zoom.jpg

now that doesn't look too different from my back-panel

Could be just me though, and it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. Far from it in fact

Regards, Geert

Texan Scott · Post by **Texan Scott** » Mon May 17, 2010 10:12 am

It would seem that if you attempt to prove the maker of the 'hero' jacket based on what type of skin was used in relation to stills and other photographic evidence, you might have a very steep hill to climb. The jacket was a very dark brown color, already. Add to it shadows, action type movement, artifical lighting in many cases, production lighting, film quality, etc...

What would seem more reliable would be nuances in the jacket such as where the collar meets the stand in relation to the storm flap, placement of the pockets and straps, etc.

Tibor · Post by **Tibor** » Mon May 17, 2010 10:14 am

(they may have swapped out the zipper during production - just sayin')

crismans · Post by **crismans** » Mon May 17, 2010 10:49 am

Tibor wrote:(they may have swapped out the zipper during production - just sayin')

I believe there are other indicators as well.

RCSignals · Post by **RCSignals** » Mon May 17, 2010 1:22 pm

Indydawg wrote:I'm sorry...but how, exactly, can you extract DNA from a photo? I must have missed that episode of CSI...

I jest, of course...but...seriously...are you really that skilled at leather type determination based on nothing more than photographic analysis?

I don't want to come across as flippant, RC...really, I don't, but....that's pretty exacting skill you've got, if you can.

Regards!
Indydawg

You know i mean that they are different species, I'm sure.

They appear completely different Dawg, completely. shrunken process lamb is distinct, and looks nothing like calf, and certainly it is clear in those photos. It is seeing, not a skill.

Tony Nowak had it in hand, 'the' jacket. He had an exacting skill....and was more than positive what it was made of.

Post by **Mike** » Mon May 17, 2010 1:44 pm

I'd have to say too, that if you're calling Tony out on the hide of jacket, then you'd also have to do so to Peter…though his stated hide has changed from time to time over the years. Usually to match the latest preferred offering from this group. Not a meant as a slam, they can be found if you dig through.

PETER wrote:Only problem is he never made the actual 'Hero' jacket. Also it was made from lambskin.

Indydawg · Post by **Indydawg** » Mon May 17, 2010 1:49 pm

I'll certainly not drink from THAT cup either, thank you very much!

"He chose.....poorly."

Indydawg

jasonalun · Post by **jasonalun** » Mon May 17, 2010 2:10 pm

Yojimbo Jones wrote:Ok, breaking down the logic of which jacket was what with what we know:

1. How do we know how similar calfskin is to shrunken lamb? Can anyone post pictures? Because there are a LOT of assumptions flying around here.

2. Puting aside the jacket Tony got was examined with someone with many years of professional experience and was ID'd as shrunken lamb, there is more to the texture of the Main Jacket that saw the majority of the screen time than a generic texture. There are the striations. They are very specifically far apart. The pattern only occurs on one breed of SHEEP. They are on every visible panel of the jacket. These are facts that can be seen on screen. When you make a jacket out of striated shrunken lamb, you have to rotate the pattern to make the panels fit the size and shape of each hide. This means that the striations HAVE to end up at certain places in the jacket in order to fit each panel. What we see in the Raiders jacket's striations is consistent with these (necessary) patterns. It is there in both chest panels, the sleeves, and the back.

3. None of these signs are present on the Bantu Wind or Imam's jackets, which look more "Cow-ish".

So, Occam's Razor... seems pretty clear.

I'm with Yojimbo. Seems pretty cut and dried to me - the Hero jacket was "striated" lamb and not calfskin. Also, KT Templar's research from the university professors who are experts in leather identified the leather as Merino "ribby" lamb. They didn't exhibit any doubt about that and as far as I'm concerned, that beats anyone's vague recollections. viewtopic.php?f=2&t=41028&hilit=ribby

Baldwyn · Post by **Baldwyn** » Mon May 17, 2010 2:25 pm

gwyddion wrote:
theman wrote: http://www.pierotucci.com/data/imgprodo ... 3_zoom.jpg
now that doesn't look too different from my back-panel

Could be just me though, and it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. Far from it in fact

Regards, Geert

I agree, that jacket's texture looks Hawaii-jacket like to me. And is not far off from the lamb Tony made the 000 jacket out of.

RCSignals · Post by **RCSignals** » Mon May 17, 2010 2:36 pm

_ wrote:I have discussed this idea of identifying leather's by photographs with those I would consider real "experts", i.e. people who make a living working with leathers with their hands. This included Tony Nowak, David Marshall, Neil Cooper, and David Morgan. The unanamous opinion is that you cannot do what Yojimbo et al say they are doing.

And RC - Tony Nowak admitted that while the leather looked like shrunken lamb, he could never be certain. Shrunken lamb was his best guess, and that was all. And he was clear about that.

You are reading the bumps on skulls, tea leaves, the entrails of chickens...

Simply stated, you are making fools of yourselves...

I'd pass on this particular batch of Koolaid...

Sorry _. Tony Nowak never said any such thing...He was definite it was shrunken lamb. He even bet on it, I think the thread is still here.

He said it to me many many times...It was shrunken lamb. It was not a guess, full stop.

RCSignals · Post by **RCSignals** » Mon May 17, 2010 2:43 pm

Baldwyn wrote:
gwyddion wrote:
theman wrote: http://www.pierotucci.com/data/imgprodo ... 3_zoom.jpg
now that doesn't look too different from my back-panel

Could be just me though, and it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. Far from it in fact

Regards, Geert
I agree, that jacket's texture looks Hawaii-jacket like to me. And is not far off from the lamb Tony made the 000 jacket out of.

As you know Baldwyn, jacket #000/888 was not made of shrunken lamb. Tony did not have his special batch in yet which he developed to look like the original jacket in texture and colour.

Tony always said the best 'duplicate' jacket he made as far as the appearance to the original jacket was whiskyman's shrunken lamb.
It doesn't look like Geert's leather as Geert's jacket was not made out of that original batch of shrunken lamb.

Hatches was, and a few others that have been presented here as well were.

Geert's jacket is made of the version of Shrunken lamb Tony sourced because of all the complaints from people (mostly who never bought a jacket even) about the original scaley Shrunken lamb. 'Those guys beat me up over it' he said.
So Geert's jacket hide although Shrunken lamb, is a different version, from a different breed of sheep, does not represent what the original jacket was made of.

gwyddion · Post by **gwyddion** » Mon May 17, 2010 3:02 pm

RCSignals wrote:
Baldwyn wrote:
gwyddion wrote:
theman wrote: http://www.pierotucci.com/data/imgprodo ... 3_zoom.jpg
now that doesn't look too different from my back-panel

Could be just me though, and it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. Far from it in fact

Regards, Geert
I agree, that jacket's texture looks Hawaii-jacket like to me. And is not far off from the lamb Tony made the 000 jacket out of.

As you know Baldwyn, jacket #000/888 was not made of shrunken lamb. Tony did not have his special batch in yet which he developed to look like the original jacket in texture and colour.

Tony always said the best 'duplicate' jacket he made as far as the appearance to the original jacket was whiskyman's shrunken lam.
It doesn't look like Geert's leather as Geert's jacket was not made out of that original batch of shrunken lamb.

Hatches was, and a few others that have been presented here as well were.

RC, there is all kinds of shrunken lamb effects all over my jacket. It ranges from what you see there in that picture of the lower part of the back-panel, to dino-hide like texture on the sleeves and parts of the front-panels

The way I understand it, as Tony explained this to me, this variation was due to the differences in the DNA of the lambs involved (which Tony told me were 6 in total!

)

I like it that way. Didn't request it myself, but love the way it looks. Some have requested it though.

Regards, Geert

crismans · Post by **crismans** » Mon May 17, 2010 3:09 pm

And RC - Tony Nowak admitted that while the leather looked like shrunken lamb, he could never be certain. Shrunken lamb was his best guess, and that was all. And he was clear about that.

This has more twists than a roller coaster, I'm afraid. He may have phrased it that way to you, _, but he told me on several occasions that the jacket he examined was shrunken lamb, no ifs, ands, or buts to it. Like I said, he thought I was doubting it was the leather one time and I had to hear a five minute tirade (not toward me and not hateful, you know how Tony was) on how it was the leather and he knew it was leather. He was quite adamant about it. Again, could he have been wrong? Sure, but I learned to greatly respect his knowledge in the short time I knew him.

It's just another sad thing that this info is coming to light now when Big Tony's not around to give his take on it.

I'd have to say too, that if you're calling Tony out on the hide of jacket, then you'd also have to do so to Peter…though his stated hide has changed from time to time over the years. Usually to match the latest preferred offering from this group. Not a meant as a slam, they can be found if you dig through.

Not a slam at all in my book as, like you said, its well documented. But Tony never wavered from what he first said the jacket was. It would have been a lot easier for him to do it too, after all the furor it caused. It would have been a lot easier to say, "Maybe, you're right, I think it's this cheaper stuff, I'll sell my jackets for $300." But he didn't. He said it was shrunken lamb at the beginning right up to the end.

At any rate, I am happy that Cooper's involvement is finally coming to light and he's getting the recognition he deserves! And, best case scenario, we've got another leather that we can use to have an SA jacket.

LatteJed · Post by **LatteJed** » Mon May 17, 2010 3:11 pm

Thanks to _ for all the background material he has supplied.
I hope this is not off-topic, but I am curious as to how and when did Neil Cooper and Steven Spielberg meet and connect over the leather jacket issue.

Baldwyn · Post by **Baldwyn** » Mon May 17, 2010 5:06 pm

crismans wrote:
And RC - Tony Nowak admitted that while the leather looked like shrunken lamb, he could never be certain. Shrunken lamb was his best guess, and that was all. And he was clear about that.
This has more twists than a roller coaster, I'm afraid. He may have phrased it that way to you, _, but he told me on several occasions that the jacket he examined was shrunken lamb, no ifs, ands, or buts to it. Like I said, he thought I was doubting it was the leather one time and I had to hear a five minute tirade (not toward me and not hateful, you know how Tony was) on how it was the leather and he knew it was leather. He was quite adamant about it. Again, could he have been wrong? Sure, but I learned to greatly respect his knowledge in the short time I knew him.

Asiana's initial post is a good re-read just about now

viewtopic.php?f=25&t=36638

Notice that Asiana says "The most important thing for Tony when creating his initial offerings after his #000/888 jacket were to come as close to the leather type, texture, feel, fit, weight, and color of the HERO that he handled." and "Tony is also very adamant that the shrunken leather that he sourced was the closest thing to the HERO he had in hand." (Of course, maybe Asiana is more careful in choosing words than Tony was)

So many debates about texture in those days, it's hard to separate the certainty that the jacket was textured from the certainty that it was made from shrunken lamb.

What I'm really curious about is that Blue Label jacket. If it was a Cooper made, un-distressed left over stunt Raiders jacket, what the heck is it made of!!!! Is the leather representative of a hero Raiders jacket?! Is it made of irregular oil-pulled calfskin?

RCSignals · Post by **RCSignals** » Mon May 17, 2010 6:28 pm

Baldwyn wrote:...

Asiana's initial post is a good re-read just about now
viewtopic.php?f=25&t=36638

Notice that Asiana says "The most important thing for Tony when creating his initial offerings after his #000/888 jacket were to come as close to the leather type, texture, feel, fit, weight, and color of the HERO that he handled." and "Tony is also very adamant that the shrunken leather that he sourced was the closest thing to the HERO he had in hand." (Of course, maybe Asiana is more careful in choosing words than Tony was)

So many debates about texture in those days, it's hard to separate the certainty that the jacket was textured from the certainty that it was made from shrunken lamb.

...........

there is no debating Tony's Words to me, and to other people to which he said the same thing.

Asiana's words were his own, not Tony's

NOW, What Asiana states applies to the leather Tony used to make #000, as he made it of the leather he had on hand, however, it was not the leather he chose to make the production jackets, which were made of shrunken lamb, selected, created, and colour match specifically by Tony.

As I posted above about #000/888

Tony did not have his special batch in yet which he developed to look like the original jacket in texture and colour

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Mon May 17, 2010 6:32 pm

_, nothing you're saying is addressing the way the facts add up from every angle, and there are easily a dozen people who got a different assessment from Tony to what you did, and theirs have all been consistent.

What I'm hearing is that it doesn't matter how much work anyone else does, or how much it is plausible, if they disagree with your interpretation of things, they're wrong.

RCSignals · Post by **RCSignals** » Mon May 17, 2010 6:35 pm

_ wrote:
RCSignals wrote: Sorry _. Tony Nowak never said any such thing...He was definite it was shrunken lamb. He even bet on it, I think the thread is still here.

He said it to me many many times...It was shrunken lamb. It was not a guess, full stop.
RC - Listen to what you are saying.

How much time did you spend, face-to-face, making eye contact, shooting the #### with the man? My guess is "none"...

I sat with him at ft mac, being eaten by bugs because the sun was going down and everyone but him, me, and neutronbomb were left swapping stories and looking at leather. Being a reasonable man, when pressed he admitted he could really only guess. There is so much variation out there - especially in the circles he found stuff. I made the comment "it coul be woodchuck for all you know if it was processed the same way." a reasonable answer came back "of course."

This dogmatic stance is just not a good idea...

y'all are sticking you're necks out on the wrong block. With all due respect to Steve, leather ain't felt.

I'm not losing sleep, mind you. The conclusion is forgone. There are just too many smart people out there that make a living buying tons (literally) of every iteration of leather who say this little tangent is just spitting in the wind.

But it would make a great monty python skit...

_, Listen to what you are saying.

Do not try to diminish the conversations I had with Tony Nowak.
I'm not making anything up, not convoluting any discussions. the man knew what he was saying, he even made a bet about it. When these conversations would come up just like thos one, he would say 'Tell them the bet still stands'
Difference is he can't say it now, but I can remind you.

Post by **Holt** » Mon May 17, 2010 6:39 pm

What I'm hearing is that it doesn't matter how much work anyone else does, or how much it is plausible, if they disagree with your interpretation of things, they're wrong.

but what do you call work? sitting in front of a computer hitting print screen? no offence. I do the same thing sometimes and it can help making it all clearer, but sometimes it really can mudden the water aswell. however, I gotto to say that screen grabs isnt really hard work in compare to what meetings are, talking with the guys, looking at documents. etc.etc. thats just my honest opinion.

I mean, how many people in here can say that they meet with people who were there?

I cant.

RCSignals · Post by **RCSignals** » Mon May 17, 2010 6:41 pm

gwyddion wrote:
RCSignals wrote:
Baldwyn wrote:
gwyddion wrote:
theman wrote: http://www.pierotucci.com/data/imgprodo ... 3_zoom.jpg
now that doesn't look too different from my back-panel

Could be just me though, and it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. Far from it in fact

Regards, Geert
I agree, that jacket's texture looks Hawaii-jacket like to me. And is not far off from the lamb Tony made the 000 jacket out of.

As you know Baldwyn, jacket #000/888 was not made of shrunken lamb. Tony did not have his special batch in yet which he developed to look like the original jacket in texture and colour.

Tony always said the best 'duplicate' jacket he made as far as the appearance to the original jacket was whiskyman's shrunken lam.
It doesn't look like Geert's leather as Geert's jacket was not made out of that original batch of shrunken lamb.

Hatches was, and a few others that have been presented here as well were.
RC, there is all kinds of shrunken lamb effects all over my jacket. It ranges from what you see there in that picture of the lower part of the back-panel, to dino-hide like texture on the sleeves and parts of the front-panels The way I understand it, as Tony explained this to me, this variation was due to the differences in the DNA of the lambs involved (which Tony told me were 6 in total! )

I like it that way. Didn't request it myself, but love the way it looks. Some have requested it though.

Regards, Geert

Correct Geert, your jacket is made from the smoother hides sourced by tony to satisfy a few complainers.
It is not made from the hides he first sourced which matched the jacket he copied.
that is the important point.

The man could have made things much easier on himself had he made the jackets out of anything else (He actually preferred Cowhides)
Shrunken lamb in matching grade and was hard to source and had to be specially made. It wasn't simply chosen from a leather catalog. shrunken lamb he said is also difficult to work worth, and he could make many CS jackets in the time it took him to make one Raiders in shrunken lamb.
So it was not just a convenient choice, it was not just leather he had laying around, it was purposely and carefully selected.

Indydawg · Post by **Indydawg** » Mon May 17, 2010 6:50 pm

With all due respect, RC-

Maybe this:

What I'm hearing is that it doesn't matter how much work anyone else does, or how much it is plausible, if they disagree with your interpretation of things, they're wrong.

Is because if you disagree with what, not only _, but MANY OTHERS HERE KNOW to be true, "they" are just that...wrong.

I am afraid you are just chasing shadows, man....I don't know what else to say or how else to say it.

Regards!
Indydawg

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Mon May 17, 2010 6:55 pm

Don't get me wrong Holt - of course, I wasn't saying _ did nothing. But the reality is there is value to what's factually on screen and clearly visible, vs. people's recollections that can and do fade over time. It doesn't mean that those discussions are worthless - far from it - it's just a different sort of tool.

The thing is, when you look at everything on balance, it adds up and FITS a certain way. Some people seem to be disputing that fit without giving any logical reason - just that you can't trust screen grabs. Apparently no matter how clear they are.

And yeah, it's all work. I do both as part of my real job, and actually, I do prefer the meetings with people over the sitting in front of a computer for hours. Who wouldn't?

Yojimbo Jones · Post by **Yojimbo Jones** » Mon May 17, 2010 7:01 pm

Indydawg wrote:With all due respect, RC-

Maybe this:

What I'm hearing is that it doesn't matter how much work anyone else does, or how much it is plausible, if they disagree with your interpretation of things, they're wrong.

Is because if you disagree with what, not only _, but MANY OTHERS HERE KNOW to be true, "they" are just that...wrong.

I am afraid you are just chasing shadows, man....I don't know what else to say or how else to say it.

Regards!
Indydawg

Actually Dawg, that was me. I would say that there is a breakdown in the facts somewhere because that "truth" doesn't add up given all the info we have. I'd just ask that you analyse everything and see what it adds up to.

I'll have more substantial stuff - not just screen grabs - to add to this discussion in a few weeks.

Indydawg · Post by **Indydawg** » Mon May 17, 2010 7:19 pm

Oops

My mistake, Yojimbo...sorry, RC!

Indydawg

scot2525 · Post by **scot2525** » Mon May 17, 2010 7:29 pm

IMHO I believe many of us here have overcomplicated the issue of "who" made the ROLA hero jacket. It is obvious several people had a hand in it and multiple jackets can be classified as a "Hero" jacket.

Neil Cooper made two jackets and states they were made from calf skin. At least one if not both see screen time on Ford.

Peter Botwright and his company LC made 14 jackets for the production, as I recall, and 4 were made by Peter himself. Peter states he made the jackets from lamb. At least one of the jackets Peter made sees screen time on Ford. Peter should back down from his stance that the ROLA jacket design is his original design/ creation, as it is very apparrent it is not.

I know Tony Nowak had the opportunity to copy a "Hero" jacket from ROLA and was fairly certain it was shrunken lamb. I also know that every Nowak ROLA I have seen looks fantastic. I also know that Tony was hesitant about making an exact copy of the jacket as it was made poorly/ wrong!

I have seen the following two questions asked before many times:

Why doesn't my Wested look like what I see in ROLA?

Why doesn't my US Wings look like what I see in ROLA?

Simple answer they dont want to make a poorly constructed jacket as the Hero jackets were.

jasonalun · Post by **jasonalun** » Mon May 17, 2010 9:29 pm

I for one don't view YJ's explanations as fantasy - far from it.

This is a discussion about the leather used in the hero jacket, so I don't think differing opinions should be banished to separate threads, just because _ doesn't agree with them.

RCSignals · Post by **RCSignals** » Mon May 17, 2010 9:29 pm

scot2525 wrote:IMHO I believe many of us here have overcomplicated the issue of "who" made the ROLA hero jacket. It is obvious several people had a hand in it and multiple jackets can be classified as a "Hero" jacket.

Neil Cooper made two jackets and states they were made from calf skin. At least one if not both see screen time on Ford.

Peter Botwright and his company LC made 14 jackets for the production, as I recall, and 4 were made by Peter himself. Peter states he made the jackets from lamb. At least one of the jackets Peter made sees screen time on Ford. Peter should back down from his stance that the ROLA jacket design is his original design/ creation, as it is very apparrent it is not.

I know Tony Nowak had the opportunity to copy a "Hero" jacket from ROLA and was fairly certain it was shrunken lamb. I also know that every Nowak ROLA I have seen looks fantastic. I also know that Tony was hesitant about making an exact copy of the jacket as it was made poorly/ wrong!

I have seen the following two questions asked before many times:

Why doesn't my Wested look like what I see in ROLA?

Why doesn't my US Wings look like what I see in ROLA?

Simple answer they dont want to make a poorly constructed jacket as the Hero jackets were.

Scot, Tony initially thought he could correct the errors of the construction of he jacket, even improve it, he quickly learned that people didn't want that, so he made the jackets with all the imperfections, which was primarily the upper area which effects the fit around the shoulders.
(Note here, this is not to say Neil Cooper did not know how to make a jacket. Indeed he may have made it 'wrong' on purpose.)
Todd of Todd's costumes has commented on this, hoe tony copied the errors and how he imself did not want to do that. That post is here somewhere to be found.

As I've been saying Tony was 100% certain of what the jacket was made...lamb, specifically shrunken lamb. I know this to be fact, there was zero doubt.
Others have doubted this fro the beginning, questioned it, tried to muddy the information. Tony was steadfast and unwaivering.

Now I've said before that I believe Neil Cooper made jackets. I even believe he made the jacket tony had to copy. However, if he made that jacket he made it of lamb, shrunken lamb. There is no way around that.

that_dog · Post by **that_dog** » Mon May 17, 2010 11:15 pm

RCSignals wrote:As I've been saying Tony was 100% certain of what the jacket was made...lamb, specifically shrunken lamb. I know this to be fact, there was zero doubt.
Others have doubted this fro the beginning, questioned it, tried to muddy the information. Tony was steadfast and unwaivering.

Now I've said before that I believe Neil Cooper made jackets. I even believe he made the jacket tony had to copy. However, if he made that jacket he made it of lamb, shrunken lamb. There is no way around that.

Seriously, this is just nuts.

Tony Nowak was a master craftsman and a great guy. Of that there is no doubt. However, what is equally beyond doubt is that he was not infallible. He may very well have believed to 100% certainty that the jacket he copied was shrunken lamb. But he also may very well have been wrong about that. (The fact that he was willing to "bet" on the shrunken lamb is meaningless... a bet is a bet, not a guarantee, and people lose bets all the time.)

If Neil Cooper himself says the jacket HE MADE was calf, that's pretty conclusive evidence. (Not, "It may have been calf, I don't quite remember." Not, "It was probably calf, I was working with it a lot at that time.") Another jacket maker looking at the product 30 years (!!!) later and opining on the material used is far less conclusive. Screenshots even less so.

I get why people like Tony and why people like his jackets. But I don't get the apparent need to vindicate whatever he said as if it were the gospel truth.

RCSignals · Post by **RCSignals** » Tue May 18, 2010 12:00 am

that_dog wrote:
RCSignals wrote:As I've been saying Tony was 100% certain of what the jacket was made...lamb, specifically shrunken lamb. I know this to be fact, there was zero doubt.
Others have doubted this fro the beginning, questioned it, tried to muddy the information. Tony was steadfast and unwaivering.

Now I've said before that I believe Neil Cooper made jackets. I even believe he made the jacket tony had to copy. However, if he made that jacket he made it of lamb, shrunken lamb. There is no way around that.
Seriously, this is just nuts.

Tony Nowak was a master craftsman and a great guy. Of that there is no doubt. However, what is equally beyond doubt is that he was not infallible. He may very well have believed to 100% certainty that the jacket he copied was shrunken lamb. But he also may very well have been wrong about that. (The fact that he was willing to "bet" on the shrunken lamb is meaningless... a bet is a bet, not a guarantee, and people lose bets all the time.)

If Neil Cooper himself says the jacket HE MADE was calf, that's pretty conclusive evidence. (Not, "It may have been calf, I don't quite remember." Not, "It was probably calf, I was working with it a lot at that time.") Another jacket maker looking at the product 30 years (!!!) later and opining on the material used is far less conclusive. Screenshots even less so.

I get why people like Tony and why people like his jackets. But I don't get the apparent need to vindicate whatever he said as if it were the gospel truth.

I'm relating what Tony Nowak said, and said more than once, to more persons than just me.
He was absolutely positive. That is not 'Nuts'

Believe it or don't believe it. 'IT IS WHAT IT IS'

A jacket maker, not just 'looking at' but handling and examining the jacket in minute detail 30 years after the fact is not inconclusive, and was not inconclusive to Tony.

Neil Cooper may well have produced a jacket, even two jackets in calfskin. I do not disbelieve that. The 'Hawaii' jacket also attributed to Neil Cooper however, was not.

You can opine all you like, believe what you like.

that_dog · Post by **that_dog** » Tue May 18, 2010 12:05 am

RCSignals wrote:Now I've said before that I believe Neil Cooper made jackets. I even believe he made the jacket tony had to copy.

RCSignals wrote:Neil Cooper may well have produced a jacket, even two jackets in calfskin. I do not disbelieve that. The 'Hawaii' jacket also attributed to Neil Cooper however, was not.

Did Cooper make the jacket Tony copied or didn't he?

RaiderZee · Post by **RaiderZee** » Tue May 18, 2010 1:11 am

Oh boy, here goes:

NC and DH have a letter from GL stating that the jacket in his office was made by NC. NC made two jackets for the film, and says in no uncertain terms that they were made from 3oz. irregular oil-pulled calfskinin. This jacket, pulled from GLs office, was delivered to Tony for his examination prior to making the CS jacket.

Tony said he was willing to bet it was shrunken lamb, was even certain, but when pressed said that he could be wrong.

I'm a professional, have been in my profession for many years, and am an expert in what I do. But I make mistakes sometimes.

Big Tony, rest in peace. What you did for our hobby cannot be overestimated. How you treated people and life in general is an inspiration for us all.

But in a court of law, Tony's admittedly immaculate opinion would be easily trumped by the testimony of the maker of the jacket and his bosses who PERSONALLY supervised the making of the jacket.

Tony lost the bet.

Did Peter make jackets? Of course. Did they see screen time? Most probably. Did he design the jacket largely by himself as he claims? All EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY BY IMMENSELY CREDIBLE PERSONS say no. Which jackets are used shot-by-shot? Photographic evidence may help clear that up to a degree, but to argue about types of leather from screenshots is folly.

RZ

RCSignals · Post by **RCSignals** » Tue May 18, 2010 1:20 am

RaiderZee wrote:Oh boy, here goes:

.............

Tony said he was willing to bet it was shrunken lamb, was even certain, but when pressed said that he could be wrong.

...........

RZ

this is based upon what Raider Z?

that_dog · Post by **that_dog** » Tue May 18, 2010 1:35 am

It doesn't matter if Tony admitted that he could be wrong or not. He could have been 100% positive, willing to bet his life, and he still could have been wrong.

Tony's certainty is not proof of anything but how strongly he held his opinion as to what the jacket was made of. Is that opinion worth anything? Of course it is... but it is far less conclusive than the direct testimony of the maker himself.