Club Obi Wan

Zendragon wrote: I think what it comes down to is whether you believe what you are told or not. If you do, then there aren't many arguments that will change your mind.

Didn't you go to visit Tony in person?

If you haven't taken the time yourself to at least ask questions directly, why the argument? I mean, what's at stake? I didn't want a shrunken lamb jacket but that had nothing to do with what I feel is SA. Tony will still say his first jackets were closest (as well as those being made now with that texture) and hasn't wavered. He gives people what they want - the customer's always right - but that doesn't change what the original was said to be.

Raider S wrote:

Zendragon wrote: I think what it comes down to is whether you believe what you are told or not. If you do, then there aren't many arguments that will change your mind.

Didn't you go to visit Tony in person?

If you haven't taken the time yourself to at least ask questions directly, why the argument? I mean, what's at stake? I didn't want a shrunken lamb jacket but that had nothing to do with what I feel is SA. Tony will still say his first jackets were closest (as well as those being made now with that texture) and hasn't wavered. He gives people what they want - the customer's always right - but that doesn't change what the original was said to be.

Nope, I was unable to while I was in that area. Plan to next time though.

Asking the questions myself wouldn't really change my position. I would still understand that the information provided was TN's opinion on what type of leather it was. No different than when a costume maker says "Based on what I am seeing on screen, the way it moves, etc... and my experience with fabrics, I believe it to be "this". Even having the item in their hands they may be certain it is something other than what it is. So I accept their opinion because of the experience that they have, knowing that they could be wrong.

And as for the arguments? I don't really have a position on this and am not voting for or against one or the other. I am only pointing out things that either don't add up or question the certainty of in this case the shrunken lamb.

In this case I have to take the word of one person versus the word of another. Each has done a good job of showing their true character and I make my judgements based on those actions.

Zendragon wrote:........... I don't really have a position on this ............

You seem to be struggling

If we are going by what we see, then I direct your attention to Whiskeyman's latest pics of his shrunken lamb jacket:

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=40912

If we're going by what our eyes can see (as has been suggested) then this is the closest I've seen to the Raiders jacket being duplicated. I mean, if we're going by our eyes. The jacket appears to have smooth areas as well as wrinkled areas (mine does this as well but WM's pictures are far superior to my own). It really creates the Raiders look.

And I washed an ROLA I had in the authentic lamb a couple times. Other than taking the shine off, it had no effect on the leather. I hate to think what kind of soaking would be required to get the effect of the Raiders jackets (even allowing for differences in today's leathers).

neutronbomb wrote: So yes Zen. It does come down to who you believe or want to believe and who has credibility in each person's mind. For me personally it is clear where the lack of credibility lies. For me, Tony isn't the one trying to hold up the world is flat theory. For me, he provided to be a source with what I consider to be an expert opinion on what something is/was and for me, I choose to interpret his personal opinion on the leather of a jacket he examined as a basis for the world is actually round and not flat theory. For me, I choose to use the information to base what I believe on from a source that I deem reliable versus a source that I deem to be unreliable and untrustworthy.

After handling the "shrunken lamb" hide in it's different forms and borrowing and wearing Tony's extremely beaten up personal "Shrunken Lamb" jacket around and watching the movie a million times and closely examining other members "shrunken lamb" and non "shrunken lamb" pictures, Whiskeyman's is still my favorite, I have personally come to the conclusion for myself that 'shrunken grain' leather was used in the jackets for ROTLA due to the entire way the jacket presents.

That is a reasonable response. This isn't so much an argument/debate about TN, as much is it is for me about the leather. It isn't a Peter or Tony is right or wrong thing either. For me, it is mainly about those who argue that something is a fact when it is only opinion.

I respect the fact that you did your homework, trust and respect the opinion of the person who made your jacket based on his knowledge and experience, and based on all of that, is the reason why you feel the way you do.

And yes, Whiskey's is one of the nicest I have seen to date!

RCSignals wrote:

Zendragon wrote:........... I don't really have a position on this ............

You seem to be struggling

I don't really know what this means.

I am not saying that it the leather was smooth or textured. No struggle there, I admit readily that I have no idea as to which it was and don't have much of an opinion on it. But when someone like yourself speaks to something as if it is fact when it is not, I will argue against that

While it may seem like I am arguing against the shrunken lamb, I would be the first person to question what Peter says about the leather too, just because he has been inconsistent with his answers.

Note: (edited from consistent, sorry my mistake there)

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

RCSignals wrote:

Zendragon wrote:........... I don't really have a position on this ............

You seem to be struggling

I don't really know what this means.

I am not saying that it the leather was smooth or textured. No struggle there, I admit readily that I have no idea as to which it was and don't have much of an opinion on it. But when someone like yourself speaks to something as if it is fact when it is not, I will argue against that

While it may seem like I am arguing against the shrunken lamb, I would be the first person to question what Peter says about the leather too, just because he has been consistent with his answers.

But you obviously do have an opinion on it, or you wouldn't be constantly arguing about it and stating an opinion.

"But when someone like yourself speaks to something as if it is fact when it is not, I will argue against that "

Someone like me? I'd have more respect for that if I saw you posting the same way to the people who insist that the jacket was not shrunken lamb. Have I just missed those posts from you?
What is it you are arguing against? The fact that you do not accept it as fact? Will you ever accept it as fact? I have my doubts that you will. You are only arguing for arguments sake?


"While it may seem like I am arguing against the shrunken lamb, I would be the first person to question what Peter says about the leather too, just because he has been consistent with his answers" Do you mean 'consisent' or 'inconsistent' .


Have you questioned Peter when he makes his claim, with the voracity you question shrunken lamb? You have had the opportunity.

Texan Scott wrote:After having access to a screen used stunt man's jacket, why didn't G&B, Todd and others make purely shrunken leather jackets from the beginning?

2 Reasons (assuming they SAW it, which they may well not have) - price elasticity and production / cost concerns. The hide is more expensive, and is much more difficult to work with. This would mean more training for staff, more time required to work on each garment, decrease in capacity and thus a higher cost they'd have to pass onto the customer. There would likely be less customers for that style of jacket because of both the cost and the niche-style of leather (larger businesses do analyses of capacity KPI's in relation to sales) so they probably wouldn't have given it serious consideration anyway.

RCSignals wrote: But you obviously do have an opinion on it, or you wouldn't be constantly arguing about it and stating an opinion.

"But when someone like yourself speaks to something as if it is fact when it is not, I will argue against that "

Someone like me? I'd have more respect for that if I saw you posting the same way to the people who insist that the jacket was not shrunken lamb. Have I just missed those posts from you?
What is it you are arguing against? The fact that you do not accept it as fact? Will you ever accept it as fact? I have my doubts that you will. You are only arguing for arguments sake?


"While it may seem like I am arguing against the shrunken lamb, I would be the first person to question what Peter says about the leather too, just because he has been consistent with his answers" Do you mean 'consisent' or 'inconsistent' .


Have you questioned Peter when he makes his claim, with the voracity you question shrunken lamb? You have had the opportunity.

You are good at the word twisting. Let me explain.

When I say this... I mean, the debate on if it is shrunken or not. And that's to say that I don't think it is one or the other. I am not arguing that it is or isn't. My opinion is that it doesn't look like the dyno hide first presented to us and it doesn't look like the smooth hide that Peter makes his in either.

Someone like yourself, isn't saying anything bad about you, more meaning, "people" who are arguing anything as fact that isn't. If you read my post, you will note that they include comments about the leather not being smooth either. Although I haven't read one yet where someone is saying that "it is, positively without fail, smooth skin hide". Maybe those post are out there but I haven't read them.

What is my argument? I think I have stated it plenty of times. But I have no issue if it turns out that it is fact. Heck that would be awesome news, now we know! We can rejoice and moved onto something else to debate lol.

Regarding Peter, my bad, I meant "inconsistent"

I have not questioned Peter because in all honesty I already don't fully trust his memory on the subject and not only that but the questions had already been asked in Yohimbo's thread, so it made no logic at that time to ask it again. It is clear that Peter's answers have not been consistent, that right off the bat makes me question the smooth hide.

While we have mainly read Tony's opinion of the leather through many other people, the information has been pretty consistent from what I can tell. The biggest question is that TN initially said it was that the leather was that dyno hide and most people have gotten away from that. If he is correct, it would seem that many TN jacket owners either don't think the assessment is correct or they don't like that answer, one of the two, either way, I haven't seen too many people get it in that hide. Even Chris King replaced his. That leads me to believe that there is some question about that hide.

Regular Wested washed lamb (washed 2 additional times, first time with only warm water, last time soaked in soapy water for 20 minutes to remove leather lotion, rinsed and water wrung out by hand, then put on spin cycle to remove more water, then left to air dry) no other distressing applied:

Zendragon wrote:The biggest question is that TN initially said it was that the leather was that dyno hide and most people have gotten away from that. If he is correct, it would seem that many TN jacket owners either don't think the assessment is correct or they don't like that answer, one of the two, either way, I haven't seen too many people get it in that hide. Even Chris King replaced his. That leads me to believe that there is some question about that hide.

I can only speak for myself on this. I believe Tony is credible in his assessment of the hide, and that the original dino-type is more or less correct. As I've noted elsewhere, washing and distressing would likely dull it's full-on-ness (ok, new word). However, the way the jackets look onscreen at those resolutions diminish it's patterned effect. For that rerason, I went with a toned-down version that would replicate the same sort of pattern, with certain areas more lumpy than others, but in a toned down way that would match the movie, but IN PERSON.

Funny thing is, now I've got it, I'm kinda wanting even more texture, but that's just personal taste.

bigrex wrote:Regular Wested washed lamb (washed 2 additional times, last time water wrung out by hand and left to air dry) no other distressing applied

Nice jacket, BR, but not the same effect. That looks more wrinkled than anything. My Wested HH got some nice wrinkling down the front after a washing machine tumble, but it's different to the shrunken lamb.

Zendragon wrote:....... Although I haven't read one yet where someone is saying that "it is, positively without fail, smooth skin hide". Maybe those post are out there but I haven't read them.

I guess you miss them them, along with the posts that claim for a fact it was not shrunken lamb.

Zendragon wrote: The biggest question is that TN initially said it was that the leather was that dyno hide and most people have gotten away from that. If he is correct, it would seem that many TN jacket owners either don't think the assessment is correct or they don't like that answer, one of the two, either way, I haven't seen too many people get it in that hide. Even Chris King replaced his. That leads me to believe that there is some question about that hide.

There have actually been plenty of people who bought and own the 'original' version and love it. Likely more than not. Unfortunately we hear mostly from the very few who don't. Their opinions don't equate in anyway to there being a question of the hide from Tony. As you've been told by other's he's simply giving the customer what they ask for. The hide isn't for everyone, and if Chris King questions the hide appearance it just means he doesn't like the look of it, not that it is the incorrect hide.
Tony stands by the original offering as 'it'.
Accept that or don't accept that.

Yojimbo Jones wrote:

bigrex wrote:Regular Wested washed lamb (washed 2 additional times, last time water wrung out by hand and left to air dry) no other distressing applied

Nice jacket, BR, but not the same effect. That looks more wrinkled than anything. My Wested HH got some nice wrinkling down the front after a washing machine tumble, but it's different to the shrunken lamb.

It definitely is different than shrunken lamb, but to me it replicates what is found in some of those screen shots as well, or in some cases better than the shrunken lamb. I will admit that the latest version of the shrunken lamb comes pretty close with it's more irregular and less exaggerated pattern. To me the grain of the Indy Raiders jacket looked rumpled, and did not owe it's looks solely to the original hide pattern.

I'm with you Yojimbo. I really have taken to jacket #12 with the course grain. Just a nice look and contrasts nicely with more "civilized" dress. And when you want to look rough and ready, it's just the thing.

Bigrex, did it shrink a lot as it got the texture?

Tibor wrote:I'm with you Yojimbo. I really have taken to jacket #12 with the course grain. Just a nice look and contrasts nicely with more "civilized" dress. And when you want to look rough and ready, it's just the thing.

Bigrex, did it shrink a lot as it got the texture?

I think it must have done all it's shrinking the first time around since that is what I was after having purchased an oversized jacket on purpose with the intent to shrink it. I threw it in the dryer the first time around. The second time no noticeable shrinking took place, and of course it slow dried after the second washing.

I'm closing this thread down at the request of the thread's author. Move along.