Club Obi Wan

In the last picture (which is of a very poor quality) I see no smooth leather. On the contrary, the sleave seems to have a grainy texture.

Dutch_jones wrote: And this one shows how smooth the jacket was:
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g183/ ... re23-1.png

Wow! You obviously don't realise this, Dutch, but you could have just taken a picture of the sleeve of my shrunken lamb jacket. That texture is DEAD ON. If that's your definition of smooth.... okey dokey...

(btw Dutch would you care to comment on this?
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=40756&p=579466#p579466
And post your own version of the Cobra shot for texture as discussed? It's relevant to this discussion of yours.)

By smooth jacket I mean anything but this:


In these Hi res Promo shots you will see that it does not have it on the jacket the one that does seem to have ( colored pic ) it is Deborah's "personally aged" jacket.

http://img281.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... 02hri0.jpg


http://img267.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... 01hlx1.jpg


http://img296.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... 05hog4.jpg

Dutch, having never owned a shrunken lamb Raiders jacket what you don't understand is that lighting plays a HUGE role in how it appears. Note shots of my pockets here:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=40809
See how a slight angle difference and the way the light bounces differently, creating different grain from shot to shot? Well, that was with only 10mm or so of camera movement under the exact same lighting - Imagine on a film! EVERYTHING changes!
But you have chosen one extreme version of a jacket - personally I think that one looks a bit much for my taste, but it also is heavily affected by the angle of light reflecting, which the sort of distressing you are talking about would actually REDUCE! So that kind of puts a hole in your logic too. Besides, there are plenty of others out there that are spot on. You need only ask the right vendor for the exact degree of grain you're after and he will achieve it for you. It's just a non-issue.

Oh iam not here trying to convince you at all , because we each see our own vision of the jacket, And the Raiders jackets might have been shrunken in distressing. I think Until the bluray version come out we'll be looking at dvd caps lol thinking !

Yojimbo Jones wrote:Dutch, having never owned a shrunken lamb Raiders jacket what you don't understand is that lighting plays a HUGE role in how it appears. Note shots of my pockets here:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=40809
See how a slight angle difference and the way the light bounces differently, creating different grain from shot to shot? Well, that was with only 10mm or so of camera movement under the exact same lighting - Imagine on a film! EVERYTHING changes!
But you have chosen one extreme version of a jacket - personally I think that one looks a bit much for my taste, but it also is heavily affected by the angle of light reflecting, which the sort of distressing you are talking about would actually REDUCE! So that kind of puts a hole in your logic too. Besides, there are plenty of others out there that are spot on. You need only ask the right vendor for the exact degree of grain you're after and he will achieve it for you. It's just a non-issue.

I guess the question is really about how the original jackets were supplied to the set pre-distressing.

We don't know that part. I agree that your leather on your TN looks awesome and looks the part. That being said, it looks when compared to a jacket that was distressed. Of course, if the goal is to have a jacket leather that looks like it jumped off the screen, then I think you have that.

Personally, I am curious as to how they were supplied pre distressing for my own curiosity. Probably another one of those things that we will never know I guess. Peter says that he supplied smooth skins, or something to that extent. I unfortunately am not sure how much Peter recalls of the little details from over almost 30 years ago. Heck, anyone for that matter.

In some of those pics, I can see where the jacket looks smooth. To me, it looks like a hybrid where some panels are smooth and others are textured but I can't imagine that the jackets were made that way

I agree with Yojimbo that lighting can play a huge part in how much grain you see. For instance, look at this picture:



It doesn't appear to have that much grain at all in this picture. Now look at this:



This is the same jacket but under different lighting and photographed much closer to the jacket.

What this demonstrates is that not only can we not go by screengrabs, but pictures can be pretty decieving as well.

Regards, Geert

Dutch_jones wrote:Oh iam not here trying to convince you at all , because we each see our own vision of the jacket, And the Raiders jackets might have been shrunken in distressing. I think Until the bluray version come out we'll be looking at dvd caps lol thinking !

Well, you HAVE been trying to lay out an argument, but it's good to hear you still have an open mind. Like you, I cant wait for that Bluray!

Zendragon wrote: I guess the question is really about how the original jackets were supplied to the set pre-distressing.

Zen, Just bear in mind this area of questioning only really happened as a result of Peter trying to explain a lot of difficult questions given his stories over the years. Given all evidence at hand, the hides were shrunken, jackets made, sent to set for distressing. No big mystery beyond that that isn't trying to play with semantics to rationalise... I don't know what anymore...!

Thanks for the compliment, btw!

Yojimbo Jones wrote:

Zendragon wrote: I guess the question is really about how the original jackets were supplied to the set pre-distressing.

Zen, Just bear in mind this area of questioning only really happened as a result of Peter trying to explain a lot of difficult questions given his stories over the years. Given all evidence at hand, the hides were shrunken, jackets made, sent to set for distressing. No big mystery beyond that that isn't trying to play with semantics to rationalise... I don't know what anymore...!

Thanks for the compliment, btw!

I think you can't say that the hides were shrunken because none of us saw the Jackets before they were distressed. I think that is what Zen is saying also. There is no evidence the jackets were made of Shrunken hide, purely opinion on what we see on screen on jackets that have been heavily distressed. If they looked shrunken new, i'd believe you but we JUST don't know ! So we'll have to take the word from the guy who made them for it.

Yojimbo Jones wrote:

Zendragon wrote: I guess the question is really about how the original jackets were supplied to the set pre-distressing.

Zen, Just bear in mind this area of questioning only really happened as a result of Peter trying to explain a lot of difficult questions given his stories over the years. Given all evidence at hand, the hides were shrunken, jackets made, sent to set for distressing. No big mystery beyond that that isn't trying to play with semantics to rationalise... I don't know what anymore...!

Thanks for the compliment, btw!

haha, no prob, like I said, I like how you chose the leather panels for where on the jacket, it really makes the look.

For me, I don't think I trust any opinion or words from anyone at this point. 30 years is a long time to remember anything. I know actors for example who really don't know much about their movies... much less what they were wearing.

If it isn't written down or documented in some way, then it's all up for grabs IMO.

As far as I can tell, there is no evidence to say that they are shrunken or smooth. Peter says a little bit of both and TN, well that's an opinion from a guy who didn't work on Raider's, based on what he sees on screen and the jacket he copied. Considering that we don't actually know which jacket was copied or the condition it was in, again hard to say... to me at least.

I have seen so much debate over stuff that can't be proved. I think we just like to argue about something

I think we just like to argue about something

Yep.

Regards! Michaelson

Us? Endlessly debate stuff for that sake of it!?! Never!

The thought had occurred to me to leave the old Shrunken Lamb debate thread alone, and kick off a new one with both current information as well as make it a bit more of a comparison thread where we could post screenshots / stills in comparison to our own jackets. SO that way it's far more concrete with the old one, which was a lot of endless waffle,etc. Again, US? Never!

Zendragon wrote:30 years is a long time to remember anything. ... As far as I can tell, there is no evidence to say that they are shrunken or smooth. Peter says a little bit of both and TN, well that's an opinion from a guy who didn't work on Raider's, based on what he sees on screen and the jacket he copied. Considering that we don't actually know which jacket was copied or the condition it was in, again hard to say... to me at least.

I get what you're saying, but I'd put a professional with no real investment in the situation (at the time) examining an actual jacket; over 30 year old memories, Peter's to-ing and fro-ing aside.

This is why I think we need a new thread to compare / discuss - oops - I see TS already has!

Yojimbo Jones wrote:

Zendragon wrote:30 years is a long time to remember anything. ... As far as I can tell, there is no evidence to say that they are shrunken or smooth. Peter says a little bit of both and TN, well that's an opinion from a guy who didn't work on Raider's, based on what he sees on screen and the jacket he copied. Considering that we don't actually know which jacket was copied or the condition it was in, again hard to say... to me at least.

I get what you're saying, but I'd put a professional with no real investment in the situation (at the time) examining an actual jacket; over 30 year old memories, Peter's to-ing and fro-ing aside.

This is why I think we need a new thread to compare / discuss - oops - I see TS already has!

And that would be your choice, but sadly, no more reliable. Basically you have one person's opinion and one persons 30 year old memories. Now mind you, I certainly respect TN's opinion, and he may be right, but it is still just that. And with Peter, well, I am not sure what to think is the correct answer.

Now I would accept Peter's memories if there were other stories from other people there to support them

Zendragon wrote: And that would be your choice, but sadly, no more reliable. Basically you have one person's opinion and one persons 30 year old memories. Now mind you, I certainly respect TN's opinion, and he may be right, but it is still just that. And with Peter, well, I am not sure what to think is the correct answer.

Now I would accept Peter's memories if there were other stories from other people there to support them

I'd say he is more reliable given what you even note above is the alternative.

But yes, like many things in life the best we get is shades of grey. There is no such thing as absolutes in a case like this. However, if you do enough digging and show enough supporting evidence, and can filter out misdirection and made up stories, people will be left with a pretty good indication of what's what.

Yojimbo Jones wrote:

Zendragon wrote: And that would be your choice, but sadly, no more reliable. Basically you have one person's opinion and one persons 30 year old memories. Now mind you, I certainly respect TN's opinion, and he may be right, but it is still just that. And with Peter, well, I am not sure what to think is the correct answer.

Now I would accept Peter's memories if there were other stories from other people there to support them

I'd say he is more reliable given what you even note above is the alternative.

But yes, like many things in life the best we get is shades of grey. There is no such thing as absolutes in a case like this. However, if you do enough digging and show enough supporting evidence, and can filter out misdirection and made up stories, people will be left with a pretty good indication of what's what.

I am sure he is in your opinion.

and I totally agree with the other. When we get enough supporting evidence, then we should be pointed in the right direction. For now... all we can do is go with what feels right.

Zendragon wrote:

Yojimbo Jones wrote:

Zendragon wrote: And that would be your choice, but sadly, no more reliable. Basically you have one person's opinion and one persons 30 year old memories. Now mind you, I certainly respect TN's opinion, and he may be right, but it is still just that. And with Peter, well, I am not sure what to think is the correct answer.

Now I would accept Peter's memories if there were other stories from other people there to support them

I'd say he is more reliable given what you even note above is the alternative.

But yes, like many things in life the best we get is shades of grey. There is no such thing as absolutes in a case like this. However, if you do enough digging and show enough supporting evidence, and can filter out misdirection and made up stories, people will be left with a pretty good indication of what's what.

I am sure he is in your opinion.

and I totally agree with the other. When we get enough supporting evidence, then we should be pointed in the right direction. For now... all we can do is go with what feels right.

Here we go again on 'opinion'. What about a person who has worked with shrunken lamb for 30 years examining a leather jacket and declaring it to be made of shrunken lamb? Is that simple opinion or expert opinion?
It has been well established in these discussions that shrunken lamb is unique in it's properties. It is not the same as 'washed' lamb or 'pre-washed' lamb or any other combination of similar words that has been drummed up in the discussion to try to dismiss it.
What is it that Ripley says?

neutronbomb wrote:It seems this smooth grain/shrunken lamb debate needs to go in the still open shrunken lamb debate thread. There is 14 pages of discussion, information, and pictures about this very topic. It seems to me this thread has been hijacked on this topic. If not and I'm wrong on this, then that's cool, but why have this discussion duplicated across multiple threads.

I tend to agree. It really is just the continuing discussion, and may as well be all together. JMO

PETER wrote:I am also saying that the films jackets were made from aust/nz sheep purchased by me from Hume and Thompson in Scotland in wet blue raw state and sent to Turn Leather in Tormorden where they were contract tanned into brown with a light dressing pegged out to dry naturally. The skins were then dry drummed to rough them up a bit before pressing.
That is fact and well documented.

PETER wrote:The original jackets made by me were in the NZ Lamb/sheep skins as supplied to me by Turn Leather they were not rough or shrunken hide.

Has anyone tried to contact Hume and Thompson or Turn Leather? It seems like the final answer might lie with them.

RCSignals wrote:What is it that Ripley says?

Get away from her, you #####!

But I don't see what that's got to do with anything.

RCSignals wrote: Here we go again on 'opinion'. What about a person who has worked with shrunken lamb for 30 years examining a leather jacket and declaring it to be made of shrunken lamb? Is that simple opinion or expert opinion?
It has been well established in these discussions that shrunken lamb is unique in it's properties. It is not the same as 'washed' lamb or 'pre-washed' lamb or any other combination of similar words that has been drummed up in the discussion to try to dismiss it.
What is it that Ripley says?

I won't drag out in this thread beyond this. An opinion, and an expert opinion are ultimately still opinions. In TN's case, sure he knows leather, but not like a tanner would for example, so I don't think I would call him an expert. Expert in jacket making... yes, expert in fitting a piece of clothing to your body type, yes... but it sounds to me that when he needs an expert in leather, he consults his tanner friend. See my point?

Like I said, TN's opinion is a valuable one, certainly worth more than the majority of us I would imagine, but it is still coming from someone who wasn't a witness to the original jackets supplied. What he saw was a nearly 30 year old jacket post distressing and then looked at the DVD to try to see what else he could learn. IMO, that is very different. Mind you, I am not saying that was Peter says is any more valuable, just because his answers have changed depending on what the weather is outside

Also regarding shrunken lamb. How many tanners and other leather experts have you talked to to form your own opinion on the properties of shrunken lamb? You talk about it being "well established". So I am just curious as to what other sources of information helped establish this. Please advise.

Satipo wrote: Has anyone tried to contact Hume and Thompson or Turn Leather? It seems like the final answer might lie with them.

You sir are onto something... to me, that is a great idea.

What is it that Ripley says?

Yeah, what quote from any of the Alien movies is going to help us out here?

Zen,
While I agree with you more than 100% on your opinions that either party may be correct in determining the leather used, there are those here (you know exactly who) that you won't be able to even entertain the idea that Tony MAY not be correct in his opinion. I think this is one of the largest up-hill battles we have yet seen here on this forum and a solid waste of time trying to get anyone to understand where you're coming from. In some peoples mind, Tony being incorrect is a total imposibility nomatter what the circumstances. Why this is I am still stumped on, but it is true as you can see. As you know, generally this used to be a place of open-mindedness. I find it alarming that with some people there just is no room for second guessing as there used to be, there are only concrete absolutes based on ones word. What happened I don't know. I just think to debate certain things about certain people with certain people here anymore is just a total waste of time.

As you know, generally this used to be a place of open-mindedness.

Since when, '5'? How soon we forget the Optima battles, or the Expedition vs. Wested battles, the Federation fedora, or ANYTHING Wings ever produces and posts about here. It's an uphill battle ANY time a new product is introduced and another product camp decides it deserves a good trouncing. Agreed, this one seems to go on and on, and round and round, but it's the same pattern.

Zen, as I recall Peter saying on several occasions, those businesses you mentioned have been out of business since the early 80's. That's why he's had to source his leather from Italy and South America in past years.

Regards! Michaelson

Not so much to me. We've always had fan camps or assumed anti-fan camps of certain vendors and both sides have always been passionate, but I can't recall a time when so much is taken out of context and misconstrued as attacks or digs when all that is being done is an honest assessment. It just kind of irks me when some people don't seem to have the common sense to admit that there are two opinions on the table to believe in and both have the opportunity to be correct and incorrect. That it's okay to be passionate to the core but to at least keep an open mind. That makes sense to me. I don't get how some people just feel that there is no other alternative to what their beliefs are. As I said, no room for second guessing. It's almost as if there is no acknowlegment of other posibilities in the least. We've always had a he said/she said thing going on here with one person or another about a great many subjects, but IMO even though some felt very strong about their opinions there was always an openness for other posibilites and other options. It seems at least in some circles that is changing here.

Michaelson wrote: Zen, as I recall Peter saying on several occasions, those businesses you mentioned have been out of business since the early 80's. That's why he's had to source his leather from Italy and South America in past years.
Regards! Michaelson

There have got to be plenty of tanneries out there who can enlighten us, maybe not those guys, but if we talked to several tanneries, leather shops etc... we should be albe to get a better idea as to what might have been available at that time 30 years ago, what shrunken lamb is, if it's properties are consistent with what is being said, etc...

My thought here though, in regards to TN is that he talked to a leather expert who said, this looks like "X" type of leather. TN went back and watched Raiders, watched how the leather moved and draped and came to the same conclusion. Based on X, Y and Z, the leather is most likely this.

Well, speaking from my own personal research and experience in this study, I've found each tannery seems to have its own vocabulary when it comes to describer words regarding their wares.

As you've read, Peter called the leather 'crisp', Tony called it 'shrunken', a tannery I spoke to locally never heard of either. They just supposed it was 'aged' (no more information was supplied to explain THAT designation), so from my research, it a depends on who you're talking to at the time as to what the 'bottom line' might be.

Regards! Michaelson

Michaelson wrote:Well, speaking from my own personal research and experience in this study, I've found each tannery seems to have its own vocabulary when it comes to describer words regarding their wares.

As you've read, Peter called the leather 'crisp', Tony called it 'shrunken', a tannery I spoke to locally never heard of either. They just supposed it was 'aged' (no more information was supplied to explain THAT designation), so from my research, it a depends on who you're talking to at the time as to what the 'bottom line' might be.

Regards! Michaelson

That's actually really interested yet not surprising... I find that funny because we could be arguing about a term that might not even exist lol

Zendragon wrote:There have got to be plenty of tanneries out there who can enlighten us, maybe not those guys, but if we talked to several tanneries, leather shops etc... we should be albe to get a better idea as to what might have been available at that time 30 years ago, what shrunken lamb is, if it's properties are consistent with what is being said, etc...

Isn't that what Neutronbomb already did? IIRC he spoke to almost every tanner he could find to either disprove or confirm the shrunken lamb bit and asked (showing screengrabs and publicity photos) what they thought the leather could be. Shrunken grain leather was what was mentioned most, if not exclusively.

for all I know it could be that the effect was caused by something they did to the jackets After the jackets were made, and maybe we need to ask an expert (a tanner) if this is possible and/or likely. I just don't know enough about leather to dismiss this possibility.

Regards, Geert

gwyddion wrote:

Zendragon wrote:There have got to be plenty of tanneries out there who can enlighten us, maybe not those guys, but if we talked to several tanneries, leather shops etc... we should be albe to get a better idea as to what might have been available at that time 30 years ago, what shrunken lamb is, if it's properties are consistent with what is being said, etc...

Isn't that what Neutronbomb already did? IIRC he spoke to almost every tanner he could find to either disprove or confirm the shrunken lamb bit and asked (showing screengrabs and publicity photos) what they thought the leather could be. Shrunken grain leather was what was mentioned most, if not exclusively.

for all I know it could be that the effect was caused by something they did to the jackets After the jackets were made, and maybe we need to ask an expert (a tanner) if this is possible and/or likely. I just don't know enough about leather to dismiss this possibility.

Regards, Geert

I am actually not familiar with what Neutron did. But if Michaelson's comments are accurate, you would think that he would have gotten some different responses of "Huh?" and "I don't know what that is". Perhaps a list of those tanneries would be useful?

neutronbomb wrote:That's not my understanding at all Zen. Tony has been working with "Shrunken Lamb" leather for decades. He has spent a career developing and sourcing leather for movies while working with tanneries that specialize in this. The way this particular leather drapes and handles and feels is pretty unique. It's done through the tanning process with the way chemicals used for this interact with lambskin. Which incidentally is vastly different than how these chemicals interact with adult sheep skin. It seems clear to me that a leather expert who has handled "shrunken lamb" extensively and worked very closely with tanneries to get the right look of it in the different ways that it can visually look for the movies he needs it for, would know it when he see it and handles and feels it.

This leather is dynamic and unless you have personal experience with it, I find it tough to listen to those whose opinions come from a two dimensional world. I've heard so many opinions on how Tony just sourced the leather that looked like what he had and this is just not so. It's not just a visual thing. Yes, that's important especially for our hobby, but the actual leather type is what he sourced.

I feel that many on here just don't give enough consideration to Tony's credentials. In my opinion it's a gift to have access to him as one of the options for our jacket replicas.

I think that question was asked about Tony's credentials. I have heard people say that he has years of experience in Hollywood, yet haven't seen too much talk of what films. It would be helpful to know more about this experience. I don't really know about it, so if what you are saying is true, then his opinion certainly would be more along the lines of an expert. It would still be based on the post distressed 30 year old jacket he held in his hands and what he saw on screen, but certainly more informed then the rest of us.

neutronbomb wrote: I have done my own research. Before I ever met up with Tony. And this is where my disillusionment began with the information that was available and being stated as fact from one of our vendors. I didn't start out to disagree or find it lacking in accuracy. I have satisfied myself as to the leather, but for the rest of us COW members it would probably go a long ways to having one of our members who lives near a major tannery in Italy to help get their tanner to join COW so we can ask them questions to our hearts content.

Sorry I missed this last post. One thing that I will agree with, the smooth Westeds that I would see did look too smooth to me. My G&B lamb though over time has developed texture and more resembles what I would expect to see on a Raiders jacket.

Zendragon wrote:.......... In TN's case, sure he knows leather, but not like a tanner would for example, so I don't think I would call him an expert. Expert in jacket making... yes, expert in fitting a piece of clothing to your body type, yes... but it sounds to me that when he needs an expert in leather, he consults his tanner friend. See my point?

Really? you know the depth of knowledge he has as relates to leather and tanning?
What 'tanner friend' would this be?

Zendragon wrote:Like I said, TN's opinion is a valuable one, certainly worth more than the majority of us I would imagine, but it is still coming from someone who wasn't a witness to the original jackets supplied. What he saw was a nearly 30 year old jacket post distressing and then looked at the DVD to try to see what else he could learn. IMO, that is very different.

Again what do you base this statement on? You've drawn conclusions based upon what intimate knowledge of what transpired with the jacket and how TN drew his conclusion that it was made of shrunken lamb?

Zendragon wrote:Also regarding shrunken lamb. How many tanners and other leather experts have you talked to to form your own opinion on the properties of shrunken lamb? You talk about it being "well established". So I am just curious as to what other sources of information helped establish this. Please advise.

It has been well established in the now almost countless discussions here. Perhaps you've not read everything yet?
Please advise your own experience and knowledge of the properties of shrunken lamb.

Zendragon wrote:...........

My thought here though, in regards to TN is that he talked to a leather expert who said, this looks like "X" type of leather. TN went back and watched Raiders, watched how the leather moved and draped and came to the same conclusion. Based on X, Y and Z, the leather is most likely this.

There is a twist to the story. What have you read that has given you that 'thought'?

RCSignals wrote:

Zendragon wrote:.......... In TN's case, sure he knows leather, but not like a tanner would for example, so I don't think I would call him an expert. Expert in jacket making... yes, expert in fitting a piece of clothing to your body type, yes... but it sounds to me that when he needs an expert in leather, he consults his tanner friend. See my point?

Really? you know the depth of knowledge he has as relates to leather and tanning?
What 'tanner friend' would this be?

Zendragon wrote:Like I said, TN's opinion is a valuable one, certainly worth more than the majority of us I would imagine, but it is still coming from someone who wasn't a witness to the original jackets supplied. What he saw was a nearly 30 year old jacket post distressing and then looked at the DVD to try to see what else he could learn. IMO, that is very different.

Again what do you base this statement on? You've drawn conclusions based upon what intimate knowledge of what transpired with the jacket and how TN drew his conclusion that it was made of shrunken lamb?

Zendragon wrote:Also regarding shrunken lamb. How many tanners and other leather experts have you talked to to form your own opinion on the properties of shrunken lamb? You talk about it being "well established". So I am just curious as to what other sources of information helped establish this. Please advise.

It has been well established in the now almost countless discussions here. Perhaps you've not read everything yet?
Please advise your own experience and knowledge of the properties of shrunken lamb.

Dude, relax. Just a discussion. So... let's answer your questions here. About TN's knowledge of tanning and his leather friend. I recall, and now I will have to go look for which thread it was, discussion about a tannery across the street from his shop that TN goes to when needing info about different or other types of leather. Let me see if I can find it... http://indygear.com/cow/viewtopic.php?f ... 47+cowhide So it is a guy who used to be a tanner. But still a person that he clearly interacts with.

About how TN came to the opinion that it must be Shrunken grain. My information on this subject comes from this thread. http://indygear.com/cow/viewtopic.php?f ... it=000\888 and references his opinions on the type of leather and his certainty.

RC, finally, you didn't answer the question of "How" it has been well established and by whom? My knowledge of shrunken lamb or leather in general? About as much as will fit into a thimble. But then I am not claiming to have knowledge of leather either.

Zendragon wrote: So it is a guy who used to be a tanner. But still a person that he clearly interacts with.

IIRC, that guy is still a tanner and I believe it's even the same guy who makes the shrunken lamb for Tony, but I could be wrong on this G would know.

Regards, Geert

But if Michaelson's comments are accurate, you would think that he would have gotten some different responses of "Huh?" and "I don't know what that is". Perhaps a list of those tanneries would be useful?

Unfortunately, the tanneries I spoke to have long been out of business as well. Two of them were located right near me, and they provided hides for a jacket company also near by. All of those companies are LONG gone. To tell you the truth, until this all came up, I hadn't thought about it for years.

None of this is new, but once again what was once old is now new again.

Regards! Michaelson

Zendragon wrote:

RCSignals wrote:

Zendragon wrote:.......... In TN's case, sure he knows leather, but not like a tanner would for example, so I don't think I would call him an expert. Expert in jacket making... yes, expert in fitting a piece of clothing to your body type, yes... but it sounds to me that when he needs an expert in leather, he consults his tanner friend. See my point?

Really? you know the depth of knowledge he has as relates to leather and tanning?
What 'tanner friend' would this be?

Zendragon wrote:Like I said, TN's opinion is a valuable one, certainly worth more than the majority of us I would imagine, but it is still coming from someone who wasn't a witness to the original jackets supplied. What he saw was a nearly 30 year old jacket post distressing and then looked at the DVD to try to see what else he could learn. IMO, that is very different.

Again what do you base this statement on? You've drawn conclusions based upon what intimate knowledge of what transpired with the jacket and how TN drew his conclusion that it was made of shrunken lamb?

Zendragon wrote:Also regarding shrunken lamb. How many tanners and other leather experts have you talked to to form your own opinion on the properties of shrunken lamb? You talk about it being "well established". So I am just curious as to what other sources of information helped establish this. Please advise.

It has been well established in the now almost countless discussions here. Perhaps you've not read everything yet?
Please advise your own experience and knowledge of the properties of shrunken lamb.

Dude, relax. Just a discussion. So... let's answer your questions here. About TN's knowledge of tanning and his leather friend. I recall, and now I will have to go look for which thread it was, discussion about a tannery across the street from his shop that TN goes to when needing info about different or other types of leather. Let me see if I can find it... http://indygear.com/cow/viewtopic.php?f ... 47+cowhide So it is a guy who used to be a tanner. But still a person that he clearly interacts with.

About how TN came to the opinion that it must be Shrunken grain. My information on this subject comes from this thread. http://indygear.com/cow/viewtopic.php?f ... it=000\888 and references his opinions on the type of leather and his certainty.

RC, finally, you didn't answer the question of "How" it has been well established and by whom? My knowledge of shrunken lamb or leather in general? About as much as will fit into a thimble. But then I am not claiming to have knowledge of leather either.

Dude! I am relaxed. I have nothing to not be relaxed about.

Your time line is off, and interpretation is off. TN had the jacket long before his old friend moved into the spot across the alley from him. TN did not consult with him about what the jacket was made from, he didn't need to.
He discovered he still had a 25 or so year old shrunken lamb hide still about the same time as his old friend moved into teh shop behind, and they both thought it was an interesting coincidence. That 25 or so year old hide is one with striations.

His watching the movie and looking at the jacket was not to decide what the jacket was made of it was to see the jacket in action, and when doing so he saw that the texture was noticeable in the movie. He saw on screen the texture of the jacket he had to copy. He already knew what the hide was.

Michaelson wrote:

But if Michaelson's comments are accurate, you would think that he would have gotten some different responses of "Huh?" and "I don't know what that is". Perhaps a list of those tanneries would be useful?

Unfortunately, the tanneries I spoke to have long been out of business as well. Two of them were located right near me, and they provided hides for a jacket company also near by. All of those companies are LONG gone. To tell you the truth, until this all came up, I hadn't thought about it for years.

None of this is new, but once again what was once old is now new again.

Regards! Michaelson

Sadly many of the old US tanneries are closed now. One that was over 100 years old and still family run closed near here a year ago.

agent5 wrote:

What is it that Ripley says?

Yeah, what quote from any of the Alien movies is going to help us out here?

Zen,
While I agree with you more than 100% on your opinions that either party may be correct in determining the leather used, there are those here (you know exactly who) that you won't be able to even entertain the idea that Tony MAY not be correct in his opinion. I think this is one of the largest up-hill battles we have yet seen here on this forum and a solid waste of time trying to get anyone to understand where you're coming from. In some peoples mind, Tony being incorrect is a total imposibility nomatter what the circumstances. Why this is I am still stumped on, but it is true as you can see. As you know, generally this used to be a place of open-mindedness. I find it alarming that with some people there just is no room for second guessing as there used to be, there are only concrete absolutes based on ones word. What happened I don't know. I just think to debate certain things about certain people with certain people here anymore is just a total waste of time.

That's quite a one sided point of view it seems. You singularly mention Tony Nowak and his opinion.

Who are the people who keep starting the hide discussions? The single minded who can't be convinced Tony Nowak could be wrong or the single minded people who can't believe Tony Nowak could be right?

RCSignals wrote: Dude! I am relaxed. I have nothing to not be relaxed about.

Your time line is off, and interpretation is off. TN had the jacket long before his old friend moved into the spot across the alley from him. TN did not consult with him about what the jacket was made from, he didn't need to.
He discovered he still had a 25 or so year old shrunken lamb hide still about the same time as his old friend moved into teh shop behind, and they both thought it was an interesting coincidence. That 25 or so year old hide is one with striations.

His watching the movie and looking at the jacket was not to decide what the jacket was made of it was to see the jacket in action, and when doing so he saw that the texture was noticeable in the movie. He saw on screen the texture of the jacket he had to copy. He already knew what the hide was.

Ok good you are relaxed, it is hard to interpret tone in these messages, so just checking

Ok, my time line and interpretation may be off. What does that show though? In the end, we still have a guy, who wasn't a witness to what type of leather jackets that were provided pre-distressing 30 years ago? So even though he is saying that he is certain that it is shrunken lamb, he can't be 100%, it is still his opinion. He may be right, but we can't confirm that. This is why I ask how some of you guys are soooo positive that it is what TN says it is?

What was that argument on friends that Phoebe said...

Phoebe: Ok, Ross, could you just open your mind like this much, ok? Wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the world was flat? And, up until like what, 50 years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess of @#$% came out. Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?

P.S. and for the record, I have acknowledged that TN could be dead on with this.

RCSignals wrote:Sadly many of the old US tanneries are closed now. One that was over 100 years old and still family run closed near here a year ago.

There's only one left still left in operation in a nearby town, but all they make are hides for use in the production of softballs, so though not totally dead, it's dying around these parts.

Regards! Michaelson

Zendragon wrote:..........

Ok, my time line and interpretation may be off. What does that show though? In the end, we still have a guy, who wasn't a witness to what type of leather jackets that were provided pre-distressing 30 years ago? So even though he is saying that he is certain that it is shrunken lamb, he can't be 100%, it is still his opinion. He may be right, but we can't confirm that. This is why I ask how some of you guys are soooo positive that it is what TN says it is?

.......

So you believe that over 30 years the hide could have changed?
Shrunken lamb has unique properties, as such it is recognisable. This is along with his experience with shrunken lamb is what told him it was indeed shrunken lamb. Shrunken lamb that was 30 years old and had been distressed.
For some it will never be 'confirmed' which is why people keep bringing up this topic and insisting that the hide was not shrunken lamb.
For some reason for them it is a sore point and belies everything they have come to believe. Acceptance of new ideas and information is difficult for some people sometimes.

It can also be asked how some of you guys are soooo positive that it is not what TN says it is

RCSignals wrote:

Zendragon wrote:..........

Ok, my time line and interpretation may be off. What does that show though? In the end, we still have a guy, who wasn't a witness to what type of leather jackets that were provided pre-distressing 30 years ago? So even though he is saying that he is certain that it is shrunken lamb, he can't be 100%, it is still his opinion. He may be right, but we can't confirm that. This is why I ask how some of you guys are soooo positive that it is what TN says it is?

.......

So you believe that over 30 years the hide could have changed?
Shrunken lamb has unique properties, as such it is recognisable. This is along with his experience with shrunken lamb is what told him it was indeed shrunken lamb. Shrunken lamb that was 30 years old and had been distressed.
For some it will never be 'confirmed' which is why people keep bringing up this topic and insisting that the hide was not shrunken lamb.
For some reason for them it is a sore point and belies everything they have come to believe. Acceptance of new ideas and information is difficult for some people sometimes.

It can also be asked how some of you guys are soooo positive that it is not what TN says it is

The hide on the jacket could have changed, sure. I don't see why that is out of the realm of possibility.

I don't have much knowledge on shrunken lamb and it's recognizable properties, so I can't comment on that part.
I believe that he believes that it is shrunken lamb, but you can't add the "indeed" to it. He can not say with 100% absolute certainty because he wasn't there. Can he feel that he is 99% positive and bet his life on it? Sure. But that still isn't 100%. And that's the thing, right now, it can't be confirmed. I can't speak for others, but I am not insisting that it isn't shrunken hide, only noting that we can't be 100% that it is. Some folks around here will swear that it is, but they don't know either.

Like I said before, TN could be dead on the money with his assessment of the hide, but he also could be mistaken.

Zendragon wrote:

RCSignals wrote:

Zendragon wrote:..........

Ok, my time line and interpretation may be off. What does that show though? In the end, we still have a guy, who wasn't a witness to what type of leather jackets that were provided pre-distressing 30 years ago? So even though he is saying that he is certain that it is shrunken lamb, he can't be 100%, it is still his opinion. He may be right, but we can't confirm that. This is why I ask how some of you guys are soooo positive that it is what TN says it is?

.......

So you believe that over 30 years the hide could have changed?
Shrunken lamb has unique properties, as such it is recognisable. This is along with his experience with shrunken lamb is what told him it was indeed shrunken lamb. Shrunken lamb that was 30 years old and had been distressed.
For some it will never be 'confirmed' which is why people keep bringing up this topic and insisting that the hide was not shrunken lamb.
For some reason for them it is a sore point and belies everything they have come to believe. Acceptance of new ideas and information is difficult for some people sometimes.

It can also be asked how some of you guys are soooo positive that it is not what TN says it is

The hide on the jacket could have changed, sure. I don't see why that is out of the realm of possibility.

I don't have much knowledge on shrunken lamb and it's recognizable properties, so I can't comment on that part.
I believe that he believes that it is shrunken lamb, but you can't add the "indeed" to it. He can not say with 100% absolute certainty because he wasn't there. Can he feel that he is 99% positive and bet his life on it? Sure. But that still isn't 100%. And that's the thing, right now, it can't be confirmed. I can't speak for others, but I am not insisting that it isn't shrunken hide, only noting that we can't be 100% that it is. Some folks around here will swear that it is, but they don't know either.

Like I said before, TN could be dead on the money with his assessment of the hide, but he also could be mistaken.

a hide that is not shrunken lamb isn't going to change into shunken lamb mysteriously after 30 years, just as it isn't going to stop being shrunken lamb after 30 years.

"but you can't add the "indeed" to it." Yes, I can, and did.

"Can he feel that he is 99% positive and bet his life on it?" No he can feel 100% sure and bet money on it, and did.

"right now, it can't be confirmed." to you it can't be confirmed. to others here it can't be confirmed or even accepted.

Like I said before, for some people the whole issue is a sore point and belies everything they have come to believe.

agent5 wrote:

What is it that Ripley says?

Yeah, what quote from any of the Alien movies is going to help us out here?

Zen,
While I agree with you more than 100% on your opinions that either party may be correct in determining the leather used, there are those here (you know exactly who) that you won't be able to even entertain the idea that Tony MAY not be correct in his opinion. I think this is one of the largest up-hill battles we have yet seen here on this forum and a solid waste of time trying to get anyone to understand where you're coming from. In some peoples mind, Tony being incorrect is a total imposibility nomatter what the circumstances. Why this is I am still stumped on, but it is true as you can see. As you know, generally this used to be a place of open-mindedness. I find it alarming that with some people there just is no room for second guessing as there used to be, there are only concrete absolutes based on ones word. What happened I don't know. I just think to debate certain things about certain people with certain people here anymore is just a total waste of time.

I can't speak for any of the other exactly who but, from my perspective, I'm sure at times I've reacted in a "knee jerk" manner. It seems for any Nowak posted the question of the leather comes up, the pockets are off, the pocket flaps are off, it's too short, and dozens of other critiques from the same few people. It gets tiring and, frankly, makes me closed minded as I don't like people trying (in my opinion) manipulate the issue. I try not to be a Nowak fanboy but I have his product, I've spoken to the man and I trust his product and his answers over the product and answers (or nonanswers in some cases) of others.

But I absolutely admit that I could be wrong on the issues being discussed. But, in thinking that some people are just pushing an agenda rather than trying to just get to answers (and we know exactly who) it does make it for me to be more open-minded. Without sarcasm meant, I will endeavor to do better.

RCSignals wrote:
a hide that is not shrunken lamb isn't going to change into shunken lamb mysteriously after 30 years, just as it isn't going to stop being shrunken lamb after 30 years.

"but you can't add the "indeed" to it." Yes, I can, and did.

"Can he feel that he is 99% positive and bet his life on it?" No he can feel 100% sure and bet money on it, and did.

"right now, it can't be confirmed." to you it can't be confirmed. to others here it can't be confirmed or even accepted.

Like I said before, for some people the whole issue is a sore point and belies everything they have come to believe.

"a hide that is not shrunken lamb isn't going to change into shunken lamb mysteriously after 30 years, just as it isn't going to stop being shrunken lamb after 30 years." True, if that is what it was. Again, he is looking at a hide that has been altered and who knows how it was maintained. So in his opinion it is a shrunken hide

"but you can't add the "indeed" to it." Yes, I can, and did
well yes you did, didn't you lol. But, just because you believe something isn't true doesn't make it that way.

"No he can feel 100% sure and bet money on it, and did" When you are right, you are right, I know he says he is a 100% sure and was willing to bet on it, again, I am sure he believes he is right based on his knowledge, training and experience. I come from the school that if you can't be 100% sure on something that you should never say so and because he wasn't the person who supplied the original Raiders jackets to the set, then there is no way for him to be 100%

"to you it can't be confirmed. to others here it can't be confirmed or even accepted.

Like I said before, for some people the whole issue is a sore point and belies everything they have come to believe."

Well not just to me, please tell me again what we have to confirm this?

I do agree with you that some folks may never accept it even if it was confirmed.

crismans wrote: I can't speak for any of the other exactly who but, from my perspective, I'm sure at times I've reacted in a "knee jerk" manner. It seems for any Nowak posted the question of the leather comes up, the pockets are off, the pocket flaps are off, it's too short, and dozens of other critiques from the same few people. It gets tiring and, frankly, makes me closed minded as I don't like people trying (in my opinion) manipulate the issue. I try not to be a Nowak fanboy but I have his product, I've spoken to the man and I trust his product and his answers over the product and answers (or nonanswers in some cases) of others.

But I absolutely admit that I could be wrong on the issues being discussed. But, in thinking that some people are just pushing an agenda rather than trying to just get to answers (and we know exactly who) it does make it for me to be more open-minded. Without sarcasm meant, I will endeavor to do better.

I agree with you there.

Zen, could I respectfully ask you to maybe not read these threads for a while.........I worry for your health.......there is a 'Red Bull' toxicity level.......it does get tiresome hearing you go in the same circle,over and over and over.........thanks

Hatch wrote:Zen, could I respectfully ask you to maybe not read these threads for a while.........I worry for your health.......there is a 'Red Bull' toxicity level.......it does get tiresome hearing you go in the same circle,over and over and over.........thanks

hahahahaahha.... I guess I wouldn't have to say it over and over if a few folks wouldn't keep making say it over and over and over.

Thanks for adding some comedic relieve although personally, I am not stressed, angered, riled, or worried about anything here. This place is a nice break from my day job.

and just for you, I think I have made my point and will say nothing else regarding this particular subject.































For 5 minutes

Zen,
I understand your point but I think that you are also defending your position in a way that, somehow, could be considered as one-sided as the one you are denouncing. You have decided to be in the side of those who will always be skeptic… Let me explain you why I think this and, please, don't consider it an attack as I appreciate very much your comments:
What is necessary to be 100% sure of something? Being in the place where it happened? Well, even if you could find someone who was there, could you rely in his statement? In the end anything he could tell you would be just an interpretation of what he saw there or what he thinks or remembers he saw. So just another opinion.
Then, what would be a perfect prove… A paper? Yes, maybe. But then, it could be fake an you would have to hear the opinion of an expert… Yet, another opinion.
What I am trying to say is that you could never be 100% of anything that happens unless you decide to rely on something. Things are reliable when, considered together, they make sense. That is what happens, in my opinion with TN conclusions: they enlighten things, specially when they are compared with Peter’s. And, most of all when you see his jackets. This doesn’t mean that the man can’t be wrong. Of course he can, like anybody else… But that’s another story.
So, TN conclusions are not just another opinion but a very acceptable hypothesis of how this jacket was made and, in my opinion (yes, this is right now an opinion like any other else's) the best one we had until now. You may not be convinced with them but this conclusions are much more relevant than just an opinion. They are the best thing we can have for the time being.

Zen Posted..........."hahahahaahha.... I guess I wouldn't have to say it over and over if a few folks wouldn't keep making say it over and over and over."
That's the problem you're letting a "few folks " control your life and push your buttons.........only you are suffering.....

Raskolnikov wrote:Zen,
I understand your point but I think that you are also defending your position in a way that, somehow, could be considered as one-sided as the one you are denouncing. You have decided to be in the side of those who will always be skeptic… Let me explain you why I think this and, please, don't consider it an attack as I appreciate very much your comments:
What is necessary to be 100% sure of something? Being in the place where it happened? Well, even if you could find someone who was there, could you rely in his statement? In the end anything he could tell you would be just an interpretation of what he saw there or what he thinks or remembers he saw. So just another opinion.
Then, what would be a perfect prove… A paper? Yes, maybe. But then, it could be fake an you would have to hear the opinion of an expert… Yet, another opinion.
What I am trying to say is that you could never be 100% of anything that happens unless you decide to rely on something. Things are reliable when, considered together, they make sense. That is what happens, in my opinion with TN conclusions: they enlighten things, specially when they are compared with Peter’s. And, most of all when you see his jackets. This doesn’t mean that the man can’t be wrong. Of course he can, like anybody else… But that’s another story.
So, TN conclusions are not just another opinion but a very acceptable hypothesis of how this jacket was made and, in my opinion (yes, this is right now an opinion like any other else's) the best one we had until now. You may not be convinced with them but this conclusions are much more relevant than just an opinion. They are the best thing we can have for the time being.

You know Rask, I see your point. I have noticed that I get lumped in with those guys

100% sure of something comes from documented proof and mind you, even that can be falsified. But if we had access to the type of information we have now, we can be pretty certain of some stuff. For the Pirate's movie, Jack Sparrows boots were made by this company out of this leather, it's documented and there is photographic evidence to support it, etc...

This is different than a guy talked to one guy who told him this and now he's telling everyone it's a fact.
That's the kinda stuff that makes me post.

Hatch wrote:Zen Posted..........."hahahahaahha.... I guess I wouldn't have to say it over and over if a few folks wouldn't keep making say it over and over and over."
That's the problem you're letting a "few folks " control your life and push your buttons.........only you are suffering.....

I appreciate your concern but I am having fun. I wouldn't be here if I wasn't

Zen, once again I must say that I do understand what you are doing, but that is some left over damage from being a philosophy student for two years I guess

In the literal sence we don't have conclusive evidence that the jacket was made in shrunken lamb. We just don't. But on the other side you must admit that based on the evidence and expert testimonials we have (including one stuntman/eyewitness to the jacket) that this is a hypothesis with a high probability rate. yeah it's true that, like Socrates claimed, we can't know anything for certain, so we have to ask ourselves: "what is most probable?" and go from there. I am fully aware that this implies a personal judgement and therefore a high measure of subjectivity, but it's the only option we have for now.

As you know most people have trouble discerning probability from certainty as this is a trait deeply imbedded in the human psyche. I know you dislike this, otherwise you wouldn't question the claims of those who do, but I believe it would be better to replace claims of certainty for claims of probability when you read them and not call them out, as some people will not understand what you are trying to make clear.

Regards, Geert