Club Obi Wan

I don't see an X. I clearly see NO X.

Also the strap is not set into the side seam. The inside of the pocket is pulled out and the side panel is pulled over the side seam.

It also does show the distance from the bottom to the strap to be 5".

I can't see any stitching of any sort. Even when I invert the colors. It's difficult because it's a black and white image, maybe if we could get a color pic it might yeld a different result.



- I.C.

Indiana Kev wrote:Abner1925, that's a good point, I've seen some wested pockets that looked way too big, but I like the size of my pockets because I do use the side entry pockets and I think they look good in proportion to my jacket size.

What are the pockets like on your Expeditions?


Todd did you change the size of the pockets from the picture Platon posted and the jacket you made for G-MANN or are they the same?

I just measured the pockets on all mine and here are the results:

Older Expedition (size 42) - 7-3/4" Tall (Top of flap to bottom of pocket), 7" Wide.
Newer Expedition (size 46) - 8" Tall, 6-1/2" Wide
Wested (size 44) - 8-3/8" Tall, 7" Wide
Wested (size 44) - 8-1/2" Tall, 6-3/4" Wide

I have no idea why two Wested's of exactly the same jacket size, have two different size pockets. I have never bothered to measure any of them before, so it has been somewhat surprising to find out the two Wested's differ like that. Though there doesn't seem to be a giant variance in pocket size between the G&B's and the Wested's, keep in mind that the size 46 G&B still has slightly smaller pockets than the 44 Wested's. It's not much, of course. But, these jackets are a good bit bigger than a size medium would surely measure out to be from either company (hopefully anyway).

I have always liked the pocket size on this particular Wested. The pockets aren't even exactly the same size, the one on the left is 7.75" tall, while the one on the right is 7.5" tall. They are both 6.5" wide however.



Another Wested I ordered the same time as this one (I have more than I care to admit ) has pockets that are 7" x 8". One of them even has more of a "scallop" to the cargo flaps.

DeWayne, I'm sorry to hear about the varying pocket sizes you have. I'm afraid to go and measure the other pocket of both Wested's, for fear that one will be different! That's really weird about the flap shape being different too.

Anyway, it looks like Todd is very much on top of trying to get the right shape and size. I believe he will do his best to keep them consistently proportional for jacket sizes, and the same on each jacket.

Puppetboy wrote:
BTW, the "stripes" on the jacket in the screen cap are the natural stretch marks in lambskin. They radiate perpendicular to the spine of the animal. G-MANN has some of those on his jacket. In more finished leather they cover them up, but they are visible in leather with a more natural grain.

Todd

AND, it's easily seen in the photos that GMann posted.






That leather may not look like what we are used to, but you can bet your arse it looks like the leather that is in Raiders. We are so used to brand new, shiny leather jackets, that we can't see the forest through the trees.
I mean, if one is going to spend a nice chunk of change on a new jacket, they want a new jacket. We can decide after getting it, if we are going to distress it or not.

Now, Todds jacket is something that (hopefully ) comes to you halfway there. Little fixes here and there aside, that grain and texture is what I see on screen in Raiders. I bet if Gmann were to distress that jacket, we would start to see some interesting things.
'Blues

The reason I posted that pic is to show the X on the front stitch. It's there clear as day.

Okay, I see it now. My eyes must have been burned out or something.



- I.C.

Abner1925 wrote:DeWayne, I'm sorry to hear about the varying pocket sizes you have. I'm afraid to go and measure the other pocket of both Wested's, for fear that one will be different! That's really weird about the flap shape being different too.

Anyway, it looks like Todd is very much on top of trying to get the right shape and size. I believe he will do his best to keep them consistently proportional for jacket sizes, and the same on each jacket.

I understand Abner. I think my post might have come off wrong. The pocket thing doesn't bother me at all. In fact it's things like that that make me like the jacket even more. I'm sure the argument has already been made about indiviuality. The film used jackets were probably quite different from each other, and not perfectly symmetrical in themselves. Most likely far from it.

I think the more "perfect" you make an Indy jacket, the less personality it's going to have. Kind of like they managed to do with the Darth Vader mask in Episode III. Made it "perfect", and also stunk the life right out of it.

I agree about the jacket and the Darth Vader mask!

The reason I posted that pic is to show the X on the front stitch. It's there clear as day.

I disagree. Look at it again. Notice where the strap attaches to the front panel. See where the front panel leather is being pulled into a fold? That is where the strap is stitched to the front panel. If there were an X there, the front panel leather would be attached to it another inch back. I think what you see are crinkles in the strap due to the pulling. It's pulling into a "v" shape like the front panel is.

In other words, the stress wrinkles show that the front panel and strap only overlap each other about 1/4". If there were a square X there it would overlap 1" or more.

I'll post more pics tomorrow when I get to my other computer.

I dunno, man. When I hold my jakcet up to the screen it looks exact to that. I see a box with the X inside. Try squinting. I see it better when I squint too.

I see an x too, A5... hmm!

In Christ,
Shane

If I squint hard enough and tilt my head to the left, I see an X, or something that could be an X, but if I squint a little less and tilt my head to the right, I can sort of see the V Todd is talking about. Either way, I don't see enough to say with any certainty that there is an X there or there isn't an X there. That picture may not be the best example for the sake of this debate, because if you look hard enough at it, you can pretty much see what you want to see.



-GCR

Abner1925 wrote:I just measured the pockets on all mine and here are the results:

Older Expedition (size 42) - 7-3/4" Tall (Top of flap to bottom of pocket), 7" Wide.
Newer Expedition (size 46) - 8" Tall, 6-1/2" Wide
Wested (size 44) - 8-3/8" Tall, 7" Wide
Wested (size 44) - 8-1/2" Tall, 6-3/4" Wide

I have no idea why two Wested's of exactly the same jacket size, have two different size pockets. I have never bothered to measure any of them before, so it has been somewhat surprising to find out the two Wested's differ like that. Though there doesn't seem to be a giant variance in pocket size between the G&B's and the Wested's, keep in mind that the size 46 G&B still has slightly smaller pockets than the 44 Wested's. It's not much, of course. But, these jackets are a good bit bigger than a size medium would surely measure out to be from either company (hopefully anyway).

Thanks for those measurements. It looks like your second jacket is the same as my jacket that I just got. I only measured the pocket on the right (as you look at the jacket, would be the left pocket if you were wearing it). It is strange that your pocket sizes on the same jacket would change like that.

And as far as I can tell, that could be an X or a V, it's hard to tell in the black and white photo, although I can see how it looks like an X when you squint, but not squinting I couldn't say either way. However, I do think the pockets look more rectangular than square in that pic.

X marks the spot?

I swear I see an X there.

I don't see any x-box here, do you?



In the photo agent5 posted...

I can measure the height of the pocket to be 7 inches, width I can't

Hey Puppetboy, your jacket pocket flap and my pants pocket flap are the best there is. I am gonna send you some photos that show that the photo is a little bigger than G-MANN's jacket for your consideration.

In this photo I measure the pocket 6.70 x 6.10 and distance from bottom 1.5 inches.

Do you agree?

In its center the pocket flap measures 3 inches, agree?
The strap seems to be 4 inches away from bottom, agree?

I agree, the picture Agent 5 posted is a strong indicator, to me, that the film pockets may not be as small as we often believe.

PLATON wrote:

In this photo I measure the pocket 6.70 x 6.10 and distance from bottom 1.5 inches.

Do you agree?

In its center the pocket flap measures 3 inches, agree?
The strap seems to be 4 inches away from bottom, agree?

When I invert the colors in the above pic I sure I see an X. I really like those pocket too.



- I.C.

and I don't want to hear ever again that the FS is the most accurate jacket around. Look at the strap attachments.

The below photo shows that this jacket with the small pockets
(photo from regular-guy.com, larger one is no longer there)

http://images.picsearch.com/is?2tS2i09k ... Hp54XsU38M

could have been the jacket worn by Terry Leonard in Raiders.

It is common knowledge that the jacket FS produces is a copy of a stunt jacket used in Raiders. I'm sure that for the "hero" jackets, there were dual X-boxes, and as for stunt jackets, there may have only been one because putting two on there wouldn't have made any sense, since it was going to get beat to @#$% and almost ruined anyway.

In the pic PLATON posted of Indy reaching into Satipo's pack, I see an X, too. Remember, hero jackets and stunt jackets are going to be made differently, because their purposes are different.

Whilst not being a fan of "absolute" measurements, I thought I'd do some measures based on proportions. We usually assume the stormflap is 1.5 inch right?



So this makes the bottom of the pocket 1.5 from the bottom of the jacket.

Pocket approx 6 inches high approx 5 inches wide. Centre point of the flap approx 2 1/4 inches to the point.

Centre of the strap 4.5 inches or halfway up the pocket.

Nice job, KT!!

Regards! Michaelson

Personally, I think that the jacket is a little too "loose-looking" on G-Mann. As if it were one size too large. No offense to the jacket's creator or G-Mann, as I realize it was a prototype and all. That is the problem I have with off-the-rack sizes. They are rarely trim-fitting jackets due to the large variations of people that they must fit.

That photo that Agent5 posted has always been one of my favorites as I liken the Raider's fit to that of a denim jacket. It shows how the jacket is generally shorter than most wear as well, but it is the slim fit -especially in the sleeves that I like.

It never made much sense to me to go through the procedure of ordering every detail for a screen accurate jacket - then getting it large enough to put a sweater under it. It throws off the very thing that makes the jacket appear screen accurate! The trim fit proportions. To me that is much more identifiable with a Raiders jacket than pocket placement and which way side straps face.

I have seen many random leather jackets that look more Indyish than some actual Indy jackets by the big manufacturers. I know that the Indy purists do not agree as each datail counts, but never forget the "spirit of adventure..."

The jacket is definitely one of the more interesting entries that I have seen though. Very promising. I hope Todd is able to get this going.

I disagree, Rick. The jacket is perfect....G-MANN just needs to put on a little weight now.

Regards! Michaelson

He pulls his pants up to the midway point of the pocket with is correct placement for him and in actuality, the sleeves ARE the correct length. They're supposed to come up to the knuckles, especially in a jacket such as this where there is very little ride.
Now, are they a little long for a standard Indy jacket, yes. Are they correct placement if you're not 100% concerned with screen accuracy, yes. G-Mann seems to love it and that's all that matters.
If and when you order your Todd jacket I'm sure all of this can be worked out for you.

Platon, You have to understand that he MAY (although most likely not) have worn a different jacket in each scene. The pic from the front of the truck and the one I posted are two different jackets. One more thing of note is that the pic I posted does not show the tri-glide.

It seems that the more people we get looking for this stuff the more different and inconsitant things we find. In the end it makes it better for all of us cuz we can all say our jackets are screen accurate and have them all be slightly different. Just pick a scene and go with it.

Thanks agent5, Also I just wanted to let everyone know that Todd has offered to change anything that I felt needed changing.

I think once the sleeves start to wrinkle up they will ride up a bit higher. Which is bound to happen as I wear my gear through rain and shine, I don't treat my gear with kid gloves. Especially my jackets.

Cheers,
G-MANN

agent5 wrote: G-Mann seems to love it and that's all that matters.

That's the bottom line, agent5, and well said. Everything else discussed here is, well, just discussion.

Regards! Michaelson

Thanks for playing "The Measuring Game"!

The best way to do measurements is to bring the picture into Photoshop or Illustrator, and use the "measure tool" to measure exact pixels from one point to the other. Make a ratio like x pixels = y inches. Get your ratio from something you know the size of, like the storm flap or the MKVII bag. Measure in at least a half dozen places and average your results. When it's right, things will start to click. You know it's getting close when measurements start to make sense, like even inches or half-inches. This only works on photos without a lot of lens distortion or perspective, and when the items you want to compare are on the same plane relative to the camera lens.

I don't want to hear ever again that the FS is the most accurate jacket around. Look at the strap attachments.

Two possibilities:

1. The stunt jacket used as a template did not match the hero jacket(s)
2. They altered the design in favor of durability.

I would not blame them for altering the front strap attachment.

Two possibilities:

1. The stunt jacket used as a template did not match the hero jacket(s)
2. They altered the design in favor of durability.

I would not blame them for altering the front strap attachment.

I'd say yes, yes and yes.

As one of the folks involved in it's creation.....'yes' to both questions .

Regards! Michaelson

Thanks for playing "The Measuring Game"!

The best way to do measurements is to bring the picture into Photoshop or Illustrator, and use the "measure tool" to measure exact pixels from one point to the other. Make a ratio like x pixels = y inches. Get your ratio from something you know the size of, like the storm flap or the MKVII bag. Measure in at least a half dozen places and average your results. When it's right, things will start to click. You know it's getting close when measurements start to make sense, like even inches or half-inches. This only works on photos without a lot of lens distortion or perspective, and when the items you want to compare are on the same plane relative to the camera lens.

To: Todd

I totally agree and think that the safest assumption is that the strap measures 1 inch wide.

I will try to supply you with clean screen caps of the pocket in order that you can measure. I am afraid that the jacket he wears in the temple scene is different than the other jacket he wears later in the film so we may experience variations in the size pocket. But your careful measurement will tell.

PLATON wrote:

Thanks for playing "The Measuring Game"!

The best way to do measurements is to bring the picture into Photoshop or Illustrator, and use the "measure tool" to measure exact pixels from one point to the other. Make a ratio like x pixels = y inches. Get your ratio from something you know the size of, like the storm flap or the MKVII bag. Measure in at least a half dozen places and average your results. When it's right, things will start to click. You know it's getting close when measurements start to make sense, like even inches or half-inches. This only works on photos without a lot of lens distortion or perspective, and when the items you want to compare are on the same plane relative to the camera lens.

To: Todd

I totally agree and think that the safest assumption is that the strap measures 1 inch wide.

I will try to supply you with clean screen caps of the pocket in order that you can measure. I am afraid that the jacket he wears in the temple scene is different than the other jacket he wears later in the film so we may experience variations in the size pocket. But your careful measurement will tell.

If you look at the drawing that's what I have done, measuring pixels is going a bit far. There isn't any more information in that pic. I work with photoshop and illustrator all day every day. For this exercise I've taken the storm flap as a "rule of thumb".

The proportions are there, and you can guestimate measurements, that's about it.

One proportion that is vital and the hardest to measure is the height of the pocket and flap VS the height of the jacket. As the jacket curves back at the top (towards the shoulder, you never know really what the true ratio is. So when you see jackets on hangers or laying flat the pockets "may" look smaller in relation to the rest of the jacket because you have more (height to the jacket) at the top due to the removal of the effect of foreshortening.

However, here are 3 things you can deduce from that pic. As the pocket IS exactly face-on to the camera in this shot.

1) The pocket is the same distance away from the bottom hem as the width of the storm flap.

2) The height of the pocket is approxmately 4 times the width of the storm flap.

3) The correct positioning of the strap is at the centre of the height of the pocket.

And for what it's worth I'm looking for a jacket that looks like the hero jacket rather than the stunt.

This discussion made a lightbulb go on and I decided to go at it from a different angle. After looking at the screen cap again, I see that there is some perspective at work. The pocket is not as perpendicular to the camera as it seems. Here is the screen cap:



Next let's define the edges of the pocket:



Right? We all agree that is the pocket? Next, I used the stormflap as a guide and created a grid with 1.5" guides. I applied perspective to the grid and placed it along the center and hem of the jacket. Here's how it looks:



Does it look like it lines up? Going from this grid, the pocket is 6.25" wide and 7" high. Looks like I was off my 1/2". Also, it looks like the pocket is a little more than 1.5" from the bottom. The top of the pocket looks like it is an even 9" from the bottom. So what I get is the pocket is 7" high, 2" from the hem to the bottom and 9" from the hem to the top. Also, the grid clearly show the pocket is 2.25" from the edge of the flap.

The height of the pocket flap is a little less than 3". Do you think the flap is wider than the pocket, or is that just perspective?

What do you think? Do you agree with this?

I totally agree if you take this jacket/pocket as granted.

Can you please repeat the same experiment on this photo, just to make sure that the height of the pocket is the same? (Cause I am under the impression that the height here is 7.5 inch, I think, while the distance from the strap to the bottom of the jacket is 5.5 inch)

Likewise distance from bottom of pocket to hem appears to be 1.5 inch

This one is much more difficult, and I wouldn't rely on it too much. Too much contour to the fabric, perspective, etc.



I took the 1.5" measurement from the belt, but here again, the belt is round, so you have to try to take the measurement where it is the same distance from the lens as the pocket. Still, the measurement comes out close to 7", maybe 7.25". Based on how I manipulated the grid, I could make it come out anywhere from 6.5" to 7.5". But I wouldn't put a lot of stock in it, as I said. The other photo is much more reliable.

As for the front strap attachment, below is a drawing showing where the stitching is on the strap:



The stretch originates at the ends of the stitch - that is the anchor point. If there were an X there, the anchor point would be an inch further back on the strap as shown below:



Since most of the other stitching is not visible (the stitches along the edges of the strap, the stitches around the edges of the pockets, etc.) you shouldn't expect to see an X there. Based on where the leather pulls from, it is fairly simple to me to know where the stitch is. It might not convince any hard-core X-boxers, but it's proof to me.

At least some of the sceen used jackets were far from perfect when it came to leather texture consistancy.

I kind of assumed that that was just from heavy distressing.

Great work Puppetboy and others. That's .5" would make a noticeable difference, I think. I agree with agent5 that they're just a bit small - or short. Just a bit longer might be a hit. I wonder if there's a golden proportion there.

Also, I've noticed something - the pockets in the film look flat or smoother against the jacket, whereas Todd's pockets look a bit stiff, protruding a bit. Is that just the quality of the pictures or angle or lighting?

Overall, the jacket looks nice, Todd. I think offering up a prototype to get a few tweaks here and there and getting input from this forum would be a slam dunk for you. But as a fan and customer, this is exciting...screen accuracy becoming a science!

I don't agree with the small stitching you are talking about. There has to be a square if not x-box there. Look below phoro the stretch originates from the back of the square

In this picture and the B&W one I think it could be and xbox but not a square one. They look like a tall rectangle to me, but I do kind of see the X in the B&W one but it looks rectangular also.

There has to be a square if not x-box there.

Not really. I think this photo of the LC jacket in the Smithsonian might be a clue:



The only thing you can tell from the B&W photo and the truck cap is where the inner stitching is. In the case of the truck cap it is here:



Remember, there are stitches running along the edges of the strap too, so that might look like a box. Whether or not there are more stitches is something you really can't prove from these photos. I think the LC strap is the answer.

Please keep in mind the jacket above may also be made by another maker other than Leather Concessionaries who may never have used the X-Box configuration.

Oh, and that pic of the Last Crusade jacket wasn't from the Smithsonian, it was taken by me in Chicago when it was on display. Here's another.

No X-Box in the front or back.

Thanks for correcting me on that pic, Agent5. Those rings aren't even "D" rings! Wow!

You are correct on all points. If it was made by Peter, it might be a clue as to how he (or the worker who stitched the hero jackets) attached the front strap. It does look like what I see in those pictures... a small attachment area that causes severe stretching of the leather.

As I recall, the x-box stitch was one of the very first things Peter added after a great many complaints by buyers due to the fact that the straps were easily ripping completely out of the seam of the original lambskin jackets. By adding the x-box, that seemed to eliminate the problem.

That's one of the bridges you're going to have to cross....screen accurate but inherenting the original problems, or strength and a slight departure from screen accuracy. Keep in mind, Peter has ALWAYS referred to these as costume jackets...it wasn't until we came along that he began putting in the little changes to make the jackets honest to gosh 'user' jackets. So, if you're re-creating the 'costume jacket', that will definitely separate who is going to buy, and who isn't going to want a wall hanger.

Just tossing that out there.....

Regards! Michaelson

Good point on that one Michaelson !

it's the eternal problem, as for the hat, props etc...

some people are so convinced by what they think is the truth then when an answer, a proof comes to light they dont want to beleive it !

i hope Peter still have the original specs for his jackets ! with years he has to make some changes for fans.

exemple: my LC jacket looks exactly as the one in the movie ! i bought it 6 years ago and when i've ordered, i never ask any specs just the LC jacket. My raiders jackets have no xbox stitch on back panel ?

Ok OK ! just a personal story and not help

Are the pockets consistently the same distance from the storm flap throughout the films? Also, is the storm flap consistently 1.5"? The reason I ask is because looking at the Todd pics, the pockets seem to be placed close to the stitching of the storm flap, like some of the screen caps posted here, but in some pictures, the pockets seem farther apart, like in the Terry Leonard jacket. Just in stunt jackets? Hm, I've seen it on the hero as well.

The following picture was posted by g-mann in indylounge (hopefully i'm not stepping on two sets of toes):



Granted, it is a temple jacket, but the pocket size/dimensions still support the small pocket theory or SPT, so perhaps we could compare the storm flap width and distance from the pockets. Notice how far the pockets are from the stitching of the storm flap.

I don't know if this hurts or helps the discussion, but it's just something that I noticed. By the way, if 2.25" is the distance from pocket edge to end of storm flap, what is the distance that we see on the Todd prototype as worn by G-mann? Because the pockets do appear to be a bit close together.

Well, I must say, regardless of pocket sizes, placement, x-boxes, and all that... Todd looks to have whipped up a heck of a nice jacket, and I want one! I was debating a second Wested, but I think I'd rather have one of these. I especially like the fact that it's a longer jacket than usual. With my heavy frame, it will look better. I can't wait for these to become regularly available! BRAVO TODD!
Chewie