Club Obi Wan

Erri wrote:

when we know he did not make any jackets for Temple of Doom

Michaelson, what happened to the story of Noel Howard bringing Peter in Temple of Doom? Has that detail being ignored? Or am I confusing it with something else?

I remember that one, and was on the old site. It was a quote by Noel, who later said 'he was misquoted', whatever that meant.

Regards !Michaelson

Michaelson wrote:

Erri wrote:

when we know he did not make any jackets for Temple of Doom

Michaelson, what happened to the story of Noel Howard bringing Peter in Temple of Doom? Has that detail being ignored? Or am I confusing it with something else?

I remember that one, and was on the old site. It was a quote by Noel, who later said 'he was misquoted', whatever that meant.

Regards !Michaelson

I see, quoting is a xxxx sometimes

I really liked Noel. He emailed me quite often just to say 'hello'. One of the most personable individuals I've come across from the original cast of players in our hobby. I miss him.

Regards! Michaelson

Tell me about it! (you can PM about it)

At least to me he never lied (and my cross-checking his words until now has brought no contraddiction), if then some people interview him with the sole aim of getting self-contraddictory statement on a job as old as 30 years I don't doubt they will end up getting what they want. I can't blame Peter for not remembering everything that he's asked right away.

I know that this has gotten away from the original thread and I don't want to derail further but I feel compelled to say that he has recently done much the same thing with the Layer Cake jacket as with the Indy jacket over the years, so the old tricks are still coming. Much like _ is saying with Nadoolman, it's the "boy who cried wolf" syndrone. You put out contradictory statements enough and people begin to doubt even what you legitimately have a right to claim.

Erri and others. Put the jacket talk where it belongs. And lets not bring in arguments from other sites here.

On this note, I'm out of here..................

Sorry Mike, my fault for going off topic

_ wrote:I have to attribute you interpretation of the jacket information as being due to "casual review" you mention.
[...]
But if calling a dishonest man a dishonest man offends, then prepare to continue to be offended by me.

Perhaps is indeed my casual review, I haven't been around too much. I was just talking of "impressions" I've had as a very casual reader.
I am certainly not offended.

_ wrote:I've had the morning to spend some time in the archives. There is a bunch of general "stuff" in banker boxes and among it I found an order form from Herbert Johnson's, signed by Swales and Steven, where Swales notes the alteration to the brim and "custom ribbon" with a drawing of the bow. It notes to leave the crown open. The date is the date Steven and Harrison went shopping. There is a note "pick-up at 1 pm" with a second signature by Steven below that with a note for "hold rem sable + 1 grey for pu 3 days".

By iteslf, this tells me Deb was either never really there or did not leave any instruction for anything for Steven later. Given the amount of sensitivity I'm detecting to criticism of Deb? I decided to Skype Steven for a follow-up...

He reiterated what he'd said before and was specific that HJ was recommended by Berman himself to Steven. He (Steven) and Ford went throught the fedora's at HJ for what he guesses was over an hour with the assistance of the man who completed the order (Swales). He recalled he and Harrison went for lunch and picked up the altered fedora afterwards and completed an order for up to 10 if they had them.

I asked about the stories and pics of Deb showing her doing this or that and that was his reply, that "She was hanging around doing this or that and staying out of my way, and things cooled off." She was "doting" over Ford, and he does recall something about her sitting on the hat.

I asked about another "australian fedora" at HJ and he said nothing like that was ever considered - beyond the hat she brought with her from LA. The "Australian" thing was her idea. Steven wanted a fedora.

I decided to push it and asked about her appearing on the interview and his response was "Did she?" He honestly did not know. He said he would not have stopped it or interfered. "Life's too short to live like that."

Before anybody asks - There are no copies allowed given the purpose of my visit. Take my word or not, but I have to say I'm not wholly surprised.

I've called in way more political capital on this than I ever planned, so if y'all don't mind I'm going to let this go as it is.

_ - You are great. Thanks for going to the wall on this one and for pushing this one. Us hat folk appreciate it immensely. What you found in the archives helps to nail some things down about the trimming of the brim for sure. ALso, the fact that Bermans told SS about HJs s was insightful.
best
Canada

_,
When I found this forum in 2004, I was so excited to read the "authentic" letter that comes from Wested when you get the jacket. The jacket made by the man for the man, WOW! The letter Swale's wrote regarding the hat. I took these as truths. As time went on, I came to doubt the Wested claim, Doubted Swales claim and latched on the Deborah's spoken words. These were authoritative people to me. Your research has narrowed down "truth and fact". I had always tried to piece together Swales and DN stories. I think that DN has truth, but like Ben Kenobi said "from a certain point of view". My doubts about Swales sent me thinking he was confusing Temple of Doom with Raiders of the lost Ark. Both DN and Swales claim to have never met each other. I believe that is true. This archive data proves Swale's to be correct. I used the hat differences in hat styles as a guide to think that Swale's had little to do with Raiders. He had all the time. I am reminded of the time when Steve sent me that vintage HJ. I told him at that time, this hat was something that someone could have picked off the shelf in 1980 from Swale's shop. It looks as if that was so. The differences in the hats is simply going to be the different way the Poet was locked in 1980 versus 1983. That one little gap in time was enough to trap the Poet hat with its style of crown from 1980 in Raiders and by the time Temple was in production, the Poet hat block had changed. That simple, I think.

LLS

_ wrote: In fact, that first Wested eventually found it's way to Fedora. Serendipity? Maybe...
Highest regards,

-Todd

Could be!

Regard! Michaelson

_ wrote:With that I'm going to step back. Thank you for the kind words and feedback. I appreciate the thoughtful interpretations and responses. I'm sorry to have debunked or disenfranchised anyone. Fedora is a wise and tempered man, and the observation that there is joy in the mystery is correct. The solutions to mystery kills possibility, and that us always unfortunate.

I remember how cool I thought my Wested COA was too. In fact, that first Wested eventually found it's way to Fedora. Serendipity? Maybe...

Kudos, and I look forward to reading your continued thoughts.

Highest regards,

-Todd

Personally I think is quite possibly the most interesting thread I have ever read here at COW. How much better can it get than interjections from SS and even a personal hello from GL? And lets not forget Ian's input or _'s trip to the archives. And the discussion from all has been great. I feel like Indy in Venice crashing around the catacombs. Fantastic. I personally feel better informed and in terms of anything being debunked - when it comes to trying to figuring out the truth I say debunk away!
again thanks for great thread.
Gary

Local Land Surveyor wrote:_,
When I found this forum in 2004, I was so excited to read the "authentic" letter that comes from Wested when you get the jacket. The jacket made by the man for the man, WOW! The letter Swale's wrote regarding the hat. I took these as truths.

LLS

_ wrote:
I remember how cool I thought my Wested COA was too.

-Todd

Kinda reminds me of Tommy Boy's sales pitch on guarantees,
Tommy: Let's think about this for a sec, Ted. Why would somebody put a guarantee on a box? Hmmm, very interesting.
Ted Nelson, Customer: Go on, I'm listening.
Tommy: Here's the way I see it, Ted. Guy puts a fancy guarantee on a box 'cause he wants you to feel all warm and toasty inside.
Ted Nelson, Customer: Yeah, makes a man feel good.
Tommy: 'Course it does. Why shouldn't it? Ya figure you put that little box under your pillow at night, the Guarantee Fairy might come by and leave a quarter, am I right, Ted?
[chuckles until he sees that Ted is not laughing]
Ted Nelson, Customer: [impatiently] What's your point?
Tommy: The point is, how do you know the fairy isn't a crazy glue sniffer? "Building model airplanes" says the little fairy; well, we're not buying it. He sneaks into your house once, that's all it takes. The next thing you know, there's money missing off the dresser, and your daughter's knocked up. I seen it a hundred times.
Ted Nelson, Customer: But why do they put a guarantee on the box?
Tommy: Because they know all they sold ya was a guaranteed piece of (expletive deleted ). That's all it is, isn't it? Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time. But for now, for your customer's sake, for your daughter's sake, ya might wanna think about buying a quality product from me.

Just insert the word COA for guarantee and thats pretty much it.

BendingOak wrote:



You know how many drawings they go though to get what they want? and most of the time the finish product doesn't look anything like what they started with. Most of the time these drawing is to get the color down and the over all feel.

In "the complete making of" book, it states that the sketch was done by kelly kimball... Dunno how accurate the book is seeing that they misspelled steve delk's and tony nowak's names...

This has been a great thread! It's unlikely anything will ever be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt", but for me the "balance of probabilities" has been established. Thanx _, and all the rest who have brought their input.

LJ

_ wrote:

whiskyman wrote:I guess it must be Grace then - but what's up with that jacket, it looks like it has a suit jacket lapel?!

Nope - It is the flap and the zip folded back and washed out in direct light... Really...

YJ, et al may scoff, but this is why screen-grabs and other static pics cannot be trusted 100%. They are problematic and full of opportunity to think one knows more than they do... JMO...

That makes sense for people who just 'look' (casual review) at the representation, as example Whiskyman's comment, and do no in depth examination of details and comparisons. It does not apply to what YJ and some others have done.

Even you _ have made your determination from examining the screen grab, as you were not there in person when the photo was taken. It helps to know what the jacket would look like with the zip folded back.

This applies to screen grab representation of the hat. Examination in detail is required.

I have read that costume designers do a "design bible" for productions and this includes sketches, color swatches etc. All things having to do with the costumes. I have read (Deborah) that one existed for Raiders and I am wondering if anyone knows what happened to this. It might answer some questions. Also, we like to focus on the hero costumes worn in Raiders but there seems to me to be a lot of great costumes for which I imagine that Deborah was responsible for and which would have taken a lot of time to get together - the classroom scene, the Cairo dig, the markets. there are a lot of costumes that would have to be researched and sourced out and maybe she dropped the ball with the Indy Costume but I think the movie really looks great (and as Fedora said - the hat really turned out excellent).
best
Canada

Hey, _ -

Re: The HJ receipt in archives - just curious is ALL - what is the date they went shopping at HJ?! Had to be 1980 some time, right?

Their switch away from Raiders fur was probably a couple years after that, huh...

_ wrote: Harrison and I worked on the look and changed the hat's shape using hot water, and wash cloth and a steam iron. That was the advice given to us by the guy working at the hat shop."

Maybe we should forget about finding "the Block"... Who knows what setting the iron was on, or how soaked the felt was - These expert hatters could have altered the heck out of the thing. If they ironed the crown, what did they pull the hat over? -incredible.. .. Ironing could explain the flat brim on Screenused's hat. I made a post at Indyfan about a decade ago, pointing out what looked like the outline of an iron on top of the left rear quarter of the brim, and posted the frame grab. There was some agereement that that is what it looked like. (I'm searching for that post, but as usual, the Indyvault 'search' is pretty useless.) Quite a goldmine _!!! Thank you! ... _, I know you're a "Jacket Guy" but I assume you know that THE HAT has been located? (There are pictures of it in the IndyGear Main, Fedora section.) Has GL, SS, or HF purchased it yet? Anyone even know if Screenused still has it? Well if those guys don't know about it yet, tell 'em for me, and all I ask in return, after they buy it, are some shots of it open crowned taken at mid crown level from at least 4 feet away, front and side. Thanks!

3thoubucks wrote:Has GL, SS, or HF purchased it yet? Anyone even know if Screenused still has it? Well if those guys don't know about it yet, tell 'em for me, and all I ask in return, after they buy it, are some shots of it open crowned taken at mid crown level from at least 4 feet away, front and side. Thanks!

It's still in ScreenUsed's private collection. The only thing he let go off recently, was the Smith & Wesson. I'm not sure why any of the big three would want to buy the hat, though, since it was in their possession from the get go.

_ wrote:To answer this and the inquiry above, Kelly did the conceptual drawings and put this bible together.

I was just digging through the Raiders Collector's Album this morning and all of the character costume sketches in it were credited to Kelly.

…yes, even the Hovitos.

While the Indy one wasn't in the book, they were all drawn in the same style, so I have no doubt that Kelly did all the sketch work. Time permitting, I'll scan and post the images from the book.

As time went on, I came to doubt the Wested claim, Doubted Swales claim and latched on the Deborah's spoken words. These were authoritative people to me. Your research has narrowed down "truth and fact". I had always tried to piece together Swales and DN stories. I think that DN has truth, but like Ben Kenobi said "from a certain point of view". My doubts about Swales sent me thinking he was confusing Temple of Doom with Raiders of the lost Ark. Both DN and Swales claim to have never met each other. I believe that is true. This archive data proves Swale's to be correct. I used the hat differences in hat styles as a guide to think that Swale's had little to do with Raiders. He had all the time. I am reminded of the time when Steve sent me that vintage HJ. I told him at that time, this hat was something that someone could have picked off the shelf in 1980 from Swale's shop. It looks as if that was so. The differences in the hats is simply going to be the different way the Poet was locked in 1980 versus 1983. That one little gap in time was enough to trap the Poet hat with its style of crown from 1980 in Raiders and by the time Temple was in production, the Poet hat block had changed. That simple, I think.

And today, I feel this is what happened. Forget the bespoke hat. Unless, cutting down a brim and changing out the Poet's wider ribbon qualifies for a bespoke hat.

Taking what _ has given us, and Swales accounts this now finally does make perfectly good sense to me. And it is a much simpler scenerio, which make it believable to me personally. Many here have always felt the Raiders fedora used a different block to make that hat. We thought it was perhaps a block used by Swales, and was no longer available. Now, it seems the Poet of 1980 was not the Poet of 1983. HJ must have changed suppliers, and the blocks changed, which would be logical. The felt also changed, at least from Raiders to TLC. Totally different felt that is visually discernable on those films. And I think that HJ that LLS held in hand was the same as was bought in 1980 at Hj. I think I actually owned a real deal Raiders era HJ. And I sold it!!! Both LLS and I know what this HJ looked like, and it is different from other HJs I have seen. And by the way, I think the color of that HJ was fawn. Or something similar. Fedora

Not only has this thread given us some great info on the hat, but also an insight into how films are made, as is often the case when _ is involved. Great read!

Thank you for your research & getting info from those who know, and for explaining how things work on a production _!

Regards, Geert

Fedora wrote: And by the way, I think the color of that HJ was fawn. Or something similar. Fedora

Well, according to the note, it was sable:

There is a note "pick-up at 1 pm" with a second signature by Steven below that with a note for "hold rem sable + 1 grey for pu 3 days".

Regards! Michaelson

Well, according to the note, it was sable:

Yes, I was referring back earlier in this thread when fawn came up. Fedora

Fedora wrote:And I think that HJ that LLS held in hand was the same as was bought in 1980 at Hj. I think I actually owned a real deal Raiders era HJ. And I sold it!!! Both LLS and I know what this HJ looked like, and it is different from other HJs I have seen. And by the way, I think the color of that HJ was fawn. Or something similar. Fedora

Where is that hat now?

_ wrote:RC - I hear you, but it is not only possible, but not uncommon for jackets made in the same way with the same undelying constructuion to distress in the same way. It's also not unreasonable to expect those distressing them to attempt to get them to look the same. While I feel YJ's work is valuable, I also believe his analysis takes what is n fact 4 Westeds and say they are only 1 jacket. I still thnk people assume they know more than they can with pics.

It is valuable, but it is inherantly flawed this way. And I trust it less in he hands if one who feels it is definitive. They, like Whiskey did here, may say "obviously this or that" when nothng of the kind is obvious. Properly used and tempered, it us one leg of the stool.

Sorry _ but your reasoning on this is flawed.

Photo interpretation is a science and it is accurate. It's practiced by the military, Law Enforcement, and Intelligence Agencies.
It can mean the difference from 'believing' there are four jackets to 'revealing' that there are in fact two.
This however takes in depth study, not casual observation. It is not about assumption, and it is about keeping an open unbiased mind. Both YJ and Holt are skilled at this. Holt successful revealed the Noel Howard ToD jacket was screen used, and even convinced you, using some of these methods. The same has been done to some extent with the hat, and I hope we some more of that analysis.
Properly used it can be the whole stool.
I find it amusing you think there could be 4 jackets so identical that they would pass as one

The thing is I for one am happy to say "prove me wrong". Any analytical method is just a thesis. I think there is far more straightforward evidence of there being far fewer jackets used than is commonly accepted. Analysing in the way people like Holt and myself do (among others - nod to Platon's great past work) - allow us to discover things like HOW the collar shape on the main jacket ended up like it did. That info is forthcoming. At this point in time, I'd that that sort of approach over heresay from people that for all we know never said this or that. It's simply not hard evidence.

I personally have a really hard time accepting "evidence" from interviews without any form of recording whatsoever. I can't prove or disprove anything _ has said over the years, and that's an issue, isn't it? Especially when so many stories and insights really seem to change so much of the time. I mean, when people have to start replacing analysis of what they have access to with faith, it becomes more of a religion than a research process.

But bringing it back to the hat forum, I introduced a new method to finding out the actual block shape of the Raiders hat. I had seen so many hats over the years from high quality vendors, but it was very rare that they didn't look "off" in some way in regard to the shape. They either looked like a regular "raiders-ish" fedora or like a charicature of it. SO I thought I'd have a go at doing it myself. The technique I devised enabled me to cross-check from half a dozen sources for each angle of the hat, and resulted in accuracy to the millimetre.

These discoveries blew my mind that not only was I the first person to be able to find out hat the block looked like in 3D, but that I could offer a hat or block replica with actual visual 3D evidence for people that are a very picky market. What I found odd was that apart from a few "Wow / Cogratulations's", there were crickets. I think most people have made their bed when it comes to what they want to believe. They don't want to be told something they've invested a lot of money in is wrong. We have seen that repeatedly in the jacket thread with the "Wested vs. Nowak Wars of '09".

So brand loyalty comes into play, and it's often blinding. It's kind of frustrating for someone like myself, but it all comes down to what you want out of the hobby. I get a buzz out of making those analytical connections, not so much over stories that give warm fuzzy feelings.

(I hope this doesn't come across al angsty. I've just woken up and always seem to lack tact before having my morning coffee. )

Hi _,

You misunderstand. If I KNEW for a fact that you had a relationship with these people, etc. I'd think that was really cool. And I respect the sorts of agreements you mention and the limitations they impose. That's fine.

What I have an issue with is the splinter in my mind that keeps referencing when so many of your disclosures either don't add up or contradict each other, or so many other forms of evidence.

It just irritates me on that analytical level of not knowing what to treat as fact and what I have to dismiss. But we've had these discussions before!

Just a point of view...

Yojimbo Jones wrote:These discoveries blew my mind that not only was I the first person to be able to find out hat the block looked like in 3D, but that I could offer a hat or block replica with actual visual 3D evidence for people that are a very picky market. What I found odd was that apart from a few "Wow / Cogratulations's", there were crickets.

I'm finding this out only now, if you heard crickets it's because I haven't been around much lately. I'm off reading your threads!

_ wrote:RC/YJ? I appreciate your opinions and insight. I cannot believe you are arguing that photo evidence - by itself - is bullet-proof and sufficient. By itself? Read what I said. I said it is important, but it is not sufficient. And, based on your responses I'd say you are falling heavily for the very fallacy I mentioned.

As to my work - accept it or don't. It does not matter to me. I do it for the fun of it and to benefit the community. But if you have problems with it - my rules of disclosure, etc. Well, those are your problems, not mine. But the criticisms come off smelling of the green monster - over and over.

Come on, guys...

How 'bout we agree to disagree on how accurate one can be?

I think you may be become too polar. (not bipolar)
No one is saying entirely by itself. Proper in depth of photographs is very relevant, more so than you want to give credit.

Your work is an important component, but not the whole stool

Did someone say bears and lap dances?

BendingOak wrote:Did someone say bears and lap dances?

Maybe if you imagine a pole in this picture...


just pulling your leg Oak

That's all fine, and i would like nothing better than to take you up on your offer, as long as you're not the one GIVING the lap dances.

Erri wrote:

BendingOak wrote:Did someone say bears and lap dances?

Maybe if you imagine a pole in this picture...


just pulling your leg Oak

Geez...I thought Bink was back there for a minute.

Travis

_ wrote:.......
RC - Here we are saying the same thing. I'm not the one who compared what I was doing to military spy technology that reads license plates from orbit. That's a joke - not a slam?

...

no no I wasn't referring to 'spy' orbital photography, more ordinary aerial photography. Slight difference.
It's the principle of photographic examination that I used it as an example, but I think you got that point....
With good examination it is not difficult to discover differences between objects, and determine if one is viewing the same or different items.
It helps to be able to compare against known record or data as well. They can be confirming as well as dismissing of each other. Acceptance of result is always the difficult part.

Hollowpond wrote:

Erri wrote:

BendingOak wrote:Did someone say bears and lap dances?

Maybe if you imagine a pole in this picture...


just pulling your leg Oak

Geez...I thought Bink was back there for a minute.

Travis

You guys are way to fast with the photo's. Do you keep these images handy just for me.


Just proves some people shouldn't drink and type.

Couldn't resist

I think that to bring in as many methods of looking at this as possible is the way to go. Do I think the careful analysis of film stills is the only method? Not by far, but it is a valuable method if done in the correct spirit. Another benefit is that, after Yojimbo has put his "presentation" together, it's being put out there for other people to look at and examine. For a scientific analogy, it's putting out your results to see if other scientists can recreate your findings.

And, _, I certainly understand that you have to draw a line. This hobby isn't worth endangering your livelihood by any means. You are in a position where you have to withhold some things. I respect that.

But, by the same token, I hope you can understand the position the rest of us are in. We are being asked to accept certain things on someone's word alone. Now, you have a well-established (and from everything I've seen since I've been here), well-deserved reputation and that gives your words far more credence that, say, member Hawaii Hobo, but it is still someone's word that we're going on, and someone that we know only in an internet situation. I would be inclined to believe your word on the subject of the Indy jacket over many people, but I guess I'm just cynical enough to want to ally that word with some facts I can see as well. I think it would be great if YJ's research and you research mesh for us to finally have a clear picture of the history of this jacket.

Now, now. No reason to bash Mr. Hobo.

Hat Question -

In reading a post by Fedora about him renting the Indyfan movie made me curious to go back and rewatch it. In the special features there is an interview with Deborah about the fedora. Quite interesting. She mentions she goes to HJ and looks at the hats but found they were all too narrow in the brim. She says that is why she went with an Aussie model because she could cut it down and because it had the right crown size.One thing I get from the interview is that she never expected him to wear the aussie hat but just wanted to use it as the starting point for the hat. The interview is worth watching if you have not seen it to see her passion about this hat.

So here is a question for those more in the know with Herbert Johnson hats - Did they ever make an Australian model or could you order one through them? I imagine they do make military hats so it would not be a stretch to think they might.
Canada

HJ DID at one point make an Australian model:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45425

HJ did make 'em, but _ has already established that the only Australian model he has a receipt for came from David Morgan and it was an Akubra. Deb's statements don't seem to be consistent on these matters, so one should be critical.

Cheers ,

Richard

Thanks for the thread link. I have been rereading/relistening to things she has said with what _ has revealed. I have heard her continually, and again in Indyfan make it clear that SS was in charge and he had to approve everything. She uses the image of a wheel saying he was the hub and everyone else was the spokes.
Canada

Thanks so much for this info, _. This story, that both Steven and Harrison went to HJ to get the hat, exactly matches what Richard Swales told me in a 1993 letter. Case closed, I hope.

Jack

jnicktem wrote:HJ DID at one point make an Australian model:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=45425

the hat in that photo is not 'Australian'

It is a British army hat (as I said in that thread) although the band (sometimes called a pugree on that cap) is wrong. The British army actually used these before the Australian did, but it always gets labeled as Australian these days. Actually the Acubra is slightly different.
It makes sense that Herbert Johnson would supply a personal purchase model.

This may be what DN had, although _ has said she purchased an Acubra in the US.
The Acubra would have a different side fastener (probably not a snap), and likely have a bound edge brim.

either way it is highly doubtful the movie hat was made by altering either hat.

_, here's the original "T H E Hat" thread. Nearly everyone here thought it was the real thing at first sight. I wasn't serious about needing to get pics of it from SS after he bought it, I'd be happy if you'd just describe his reaction when you flashed him a couple pics of it on your i-phone. ... He might 'owe you one' if you hook him up with the Holy Grail, the Ruby Slippers, the Maltese Falcon statue, of hats, that you've just discovered he sculped with his own hands. http://indygear.com/cow/viewtopic.php?f ... rt+Johnson

Canada Jones wrote:She mentions she goes to HJ and looks at the hats but found they were all too narrow in the brim.

Maybe I'm missing something, but if the brims were all too narrow, how is it that not all that much later SS and HF are having the brim cut down?

LJ

Yes Long John there is some missing data between the two.
I wonder if this 'Australian' model at HJ being referenced was actually a 'slouch' style and maybe not just a wide brim outback or stockman style.

Dang!!! I was going to try and order a stainless steel bbq and set of carving knives using Steven Spielberg's 1980 credit card number!!!

Guess I tipped my hand too soon...

1980 is good though - Swales told me, in person, in 1986, that H Ford did come into the shop for his fitting along with S. Spielberg. Have to say that I have never heard anything here convincing enough to sway me otherwise and its nice to see this scenario gain better footing.

Swales seemed to be such an honest and no frills guy that I doubt he'd make anything up. He was just plain cool I thought.