Club Obi Wan

DarenHenryW wrote:believe me, my smile fades when I study my credit card bill . . .

DHW

Well, at least make the REST of us smile by posting some photos of that gorgeous jacket once you get it, okay, Daren? Ya lucky so-and-so...

Castor Dioscuri wrote:Out of curiousity, what is that material that the lettering is stitched on? It's not the lining, is it? Looks a bit... different.

RC got it -- it's the pocket turned inside out to show the stitching. Here is a shot of the pocket where you can see how the stitching and label are placed. (I love having the lining be completely clean looking -- very cool.)

DarenHenryW wrote:I asked if he could have it ready for me by Oct. 8th for an Indy thing I'm doing, and he said simply, "Absolutely!"

I know ! It's my birthday and your planning to give it to me as a gift, thanks !!!

There's no fooling you speedRcr

that_dog wrote:

Castor Dioscuri wrote:Out of curiousity, what is that material that the lettering is stitched on? It's not the lining, is it? Looks a bit... different.

RC got it -- it's the pocket turned inside out to show the stitching. Here is a shot of the pocket where you can see how the stitching and label are placed. (I love having the lining be completely clean looking -- very cool.)

Ah! Can't believe I missed that! And that right there is reason why I need to get on the phone with Tony for my next jacket! Amazing jacket, and I like the 'hidden' number feature! Makes it 'screen accurate' on outer-lining, while still making it your own!

What will it be this time Castor?

Dog, niciiiiceeejacket!

a question, you added an inch front up to 24? and 2 inch back to 25? or 25 +2 inch up to 27?
is the jacket 25 or 27 inch back now?

because my jacket is 22 front and 26 rear?

anyway great jacket....cheers!

Rudolf wrote:Dog, niciiiiceeejacket!

a question, you added an inch front up to 24? and 2 inch back to 25? or 25 +2 inch up to 27?
is the jacket 25 or 27 inch back now?

because my jacket is 22 front and 26 rear?

anyway great jacket....cheers!

Thanks, I'm quite smitten with it, if you couldn't tell.

According to Tony, the original HF jacket was 23" long on both the front and back. This is very unusual, as jackets will almost always be longer in the back than in the front (just like yours -- which movie's version do you have? I believe the CS jacket has about a 4" difference between front and back).

23" is too short for me, so I had the front lengthened to 24". I also wanted the back to be not quite as short as the front, while still retaining something of the distinctive Raiders short-back look. So I added to the back, but only one inch more than the front (instead of two to four inches like a normal jacket would have). So the back length is 25".

Rudolf wrote:Dog, niciiiiceeejacket!

a question, you added an inch front up to 24? and 2 inch back to 25? or 25 +2 inch up to 27?
is the jacket 25 or 27 inch back now?

because my jacket is 22 front and 26 rear?

anyway great jacket....cheers!

You have a CS jacket from Tony?

You know that Dog, looking at your photos I think you could have been fine an inch shorter front and back even with your height.

Well, those are Sugar Cane repros of 1947 501s I'm wearing in the pics -- relatively high-waisted denim. You can see on the side shot the back of the jacket is already above the pockets. If I went with 23" front and back, it would be getting up to my waist. Even a 24" back would be too short for me, IMO. 25" seemed a good compromise between the original jacket specs and what I've worn in the past. (My G&B had a 24" front and a 26" back.) Plus, I was willing to forego some degree of "screen accuracy" to get a jacket I'd be happy wearing. (To me it looks pretty freakin' screen accurate, but tastes and opinions will obviously vary.)

The great thing about ordering a jacket from Tony is he will give you what you want without questioning or second-guessing. I wanted mine a little longer, and he obliged. Some want the jacket shorter, some want it longer. So long as everyone is happy with his jacket, no one is wrong.

Tony asked me if I wanted my SA Raiders jacket to have an "inside facing" or not. He said it wasn't screen accurate, but that it would make for a better, longer lasting jacket. So I said, "yes". I noticed both of my Westeds have it, and so does the TN KOTCS jacket. The inside facing is the 1" strip of leather that is inside behind the zipper before the liner.

Any thoughts? Pics of a TN Raiders WITHOUT an inside leather facing?

DHW

What leather will you get?
If you get the shrunken lambskin you should get it original. So without leather facings. This will recreate the same drape as on the film used jackets.

Regards

orb

DarenHenryW wrote: Any thoughts? Pics of a TN Raiders WITHOUT an inside leather facing?

DHW

If I'm not mistaken, every TN Raiders that's been posted so far has been without inside facings.

No facings on mine. My G&Bs did not have facings, and neither do my repro A-2s. (My Wested did have facings, though.)

Facings are probably desireable in a leather jacket, but if you want the zip to get that wavy Raiders look, I think it's better to go without.

moses wrote:

DarenHenryW wrote: Any thoughts? Pics of a TN Raiders WITHOUT an inside leather facing?

DHW

If I'm not mistaken, every TN Raiders that's been posted so far has been without inside facings.

Most do not as the original jacket didn't a few people have them in their TN Raiders though because the like them, Raider s for instance.

that_dog wrote:Well, those are Sugar Cane repros of 1947 501s I'm wearing in the pics -- relatively high-waisted denim. You can see on the side shot the back of the jacket is already above the pockets. If I went with 23" front and back, it would be getting up to my waist. Even a 24" back would be too short for me, IMO. 25" seemed a good compromise between the original jacket specs and what I've worn in the past. (My G&B had a 24" front and a 26" back.) Plus, I was willing to forego some degree of "screen accuracy" to get a jacket I'd be happy wearing. (To me it looks pretty freakin' screen accurate, but tastes and opinions will obviously vary.)

The great thing about ordering a jacket from Tony is he will give you what you want without questioning or second-guessing. I wanted mine a little longer, and he obliged. Some want the jacket shorter, some want it longer. So long as everyone is happy with his jacket, no one is wrong.

I agree of foremost importance is that YOU are happy.
I'm not saying you are wrong in your choice of lngth just commenting that IMO from the photos you could have safely gone an inch shorter than you did front and back.
Fact is though the extra inch is barely noticeable in casual looking.

What I found with mine is that the one with a 23" back falls in the same place as the one with a 24" back. Seems to me that with a longer back panel the jacket does not fall back as much as the jacket with the original 23" back length.
It's something one would never get unless one can experience it first hand.

RCSignals wrote:

that_dog wrote:Well, those are Sugar Cane repros of 1947 501s I'm wearing in the pics -- relatively high-waisted denim. You can see on the side shot the back of the jacket is already above the pockets. If I went with 23" front and back, it would be getting up to my waist. Even a 24" back would be too short for me, IMO. 25" seemed a good compromise between the original jacket specs and what I've worn in the past. (My G&B had a 24" front and a 26" back.) Plus, I was willing to forego some degree of "screen accuracy" to get a jacket I'd be happy wearing. (To me it looks pretty freakin' screen accurate, but tastes and opinions will obviously vary.)

The great thing about ordering a jacket from Tony is he will give you what you want without questioning or second-guessing. I wanted mine a little longer, and he obliged. Some want the jacket shorter, some want it longer. So long as everyone is happy with his jacket, no one is wrong.

I agree of foremost importance is that YOU are happy.
I'm not saying you are wrong in your choice of lngth just commenting that IMO from the photos you could have safely gone an inch shorter than you did front and back.
Fact is though the extra inch is barely noticeable in casual looking.

What I found with mine is that the one with a 23" back falls in the same place as the one with a 24" back. Seems to me that with a longer back panel the jacket does not fall back as much as the jacket with the original 23" back length.
It's something one would never get unless one can experience it first hand.

By "does not fall back as much" do you mean, does not fall back flat against the wearer's spine/back?

Clutters wrote: By "does not fall back as much" do you mean, does not fall back flat against the wearer's spine/back?

Most jackets stay in place on the shoulders and with the back of the collar close to the back of the neck. When falling back the jacket slips backwards, back off the shoulders and the collar back away from the neck. This has hte effect of making hte bottom of the back panel lower than it other wise would be. The Raiders jacket in it's native configuration falls back in this way. When the jacket is lengthened it seems to me from my experience that it does not fall back as much.

I hope I've made the explanation clear, it's not easy to understand if one does not experience the phenomenon.

RCSignals wrote:

Clutters wrote: By "does not fall back as much" do you mean, does not fall back flat against the wearer's spine/back?

Most jackets stay in place on the shoulders and with the back of the collar close to the back of the neck. When falling back the jacket slips backwards, back off the shoulders and the collar back away from the neck. This has hte effect of making hte bottom of the back panel lower than it other wise would be. The Raiders jacket in it's native configuration falls back in this way. When the jacket is lengthened it seems to me from my experience that it does not fall back as much.

I hope I've made the explanation clear, it's not easy to understand if one does not experience the phenomenon.

Ah, that reads well, I get it now. Thanks.