Club Obi Wan

Hehe. You kinda are a bit all over the place here Tex. I don't know what else to tell you but those two jackets are completly different. The Terry jacket is the bantu wind jacket. The Ford jacket is a temple jacket made AFTER Raiders. You cannot base evidence on sleeve wrinkling even though they are similiar low yoke or not. Two different animals. And for a fact, sleeve wrinkles go away over a time period when not in use. When a new person puts the jacket on it forms to THAT new persons body all over again so sleeve wrinkles is really not something I would base my evidence on.

I don't know if the prototype (dock-Bantu Wind-PoS) jacket as some refer to it, I just call it the dock jacket, if that is the TL jacket, not sure, and looks difficult to prove. But I was not trying to say that the dock jacket was the TL stunt jacket, etc. To me. the deep upper left sleeve creases are a feature that would be hard to reproduce, but very noticeable.

Not hard to replicate sleeve creases. It comes natural..

Please observe.

Thanks Holt and that is exactly why screen capture "evidence" can be such a lot of bull.

Yes, it can be bull. It all depends. Screen evidence has to be put in perspective. If say, we base evidence on folds in a jacket that has been stored in the archives for some time and then to be re used by a different person in a different film a year or two later. I would not put much weight on it. Leather looses it's character (especially sleeves) when not used. It limps out.

If we would base evidence on folds when the jacket is seen on two different persons in the SAME film with constant use between stunt and actors.. I could put it in the evidence box.

I would prefer that this be the last post in this thread, because speaking in general terms, a thread reaches a crescendo, then has a tendency to degenerate.

The "jacket wars" of old was a 'struggle' to discern the truth, and if a member, who asserted his position, really had no authority then it was a matter of time before the inevitable happened and they were booted and they were. Over and over again, people chose up sides, joined up around vendor lines at times, and then went after each other.

My desire here, was to try to step back from any preconceived notions that myself or anyone else would have had about the origins of these jackets and then to try to rightly find truth. Yet, years have turned into decades, and people have either passed on, or gone on to other things, other endeavors which are much more important than close ups of screen caps and the like. It is for these reasons, as Mark (Kramstar) mentioned, and others, that we will probably never know the full truth, and that's ok. It's just for fun and to while away the time, as any other interest of hobby, preoccupation with things that in the end, do not matter.

I think that if anyone is really interested in "origins" then there is enough still photos and back stories that a person could be busy for quite some time. I think that certainly, Cooper made aftermarket jackets, but as to their degree or level of involvement in the series, that has always been a question in my mind.

Beyond an honest search for the truth, though, subtle hints (and maybe not so, at times) of degradation will not get us there.

I was reminded of an older, aftermarket jacket which I had forgotten about, that I will leave you with. I would prefer that this thread not continue and be locked, all things considered. thanks.

I don't think anyone was trying to degrade you or the thread Tex. We all love to dig deeper to find the truth. I think most people just thought we were beating the proverbial dead horse here. It is interesting subject matter, that's for sure.

Chris


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Texan Scott wrote:The "jacket wars" of old was a 'struggle' to discern the truth, and if a member, who asserted his position, really had no authority then it was a matter of time before the inevitable happened and they were booted and they were.

I'm calling you on this one, Tex.

That was uncalled for, and untrue. If that were the case, you would have been tossed off this site multiple times.

Folks who have been removed from this site were removed for their disruptive activities, ignoring the posted rules after being reminded several times, and were even given 3 chances to get back on the rails before being shown the door.

No one has EVER been 'booted' based on their 'assertions' on ANY topic here, and to say so is gross mis-information.

I think you owe the moderators, administrators and members an apology for even suggesting this to be true.

Michaelson

And I couldn't know everything that was going on behind the scenes, nor did I choose to. In those days, as you may recall, I chose to stay out of most of those discussions. It was fruitless and a source of strife in all fairness. On that level, it looked more like a dysfunctional labor and not as a hobby for amusement...to get involved in those types of discussions, that is.

Going down a path like this does not yield any good thing productive, and has been in the past, very divisive, as this thread demonstrates as well. It requires more energy and effort than I care to commit, in all honesty, and nothing good stems from it, other than more fallout and division.

Yet, I'll take the high road, as I have always tried to in the forum and in helping others, but if I have offended it certainly was not my intention.

To this day, I just don't believe that a constructive discussion on the topic is possible.

We will never know who made the jackets for these movies. The only jacket maker we know for sure is Tony Nowak for Crystal Skull.

We'll never know for sure who made the Raiders jacket that appeared on screen, or the Temple jackets.

I think it is pretty common knowledge that Peter/Wested made the Last Crusade jackets, but again has their been definitive proof?

Tex if you didn't believe that constructive discussion was possible and the thread would be divisive, why did you start it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Texan Scott wrote:And I couldn't know everything that was going on behind the scenes, nor did I choose to. In those days, as you may recall, I chose to stay out of most of those discussions. It was fruitless and a source of strife in all fairness. On that level, it looked more like a dysfunctional labor and not as a hobby for amusement...to get involved in those types of discussions, that is.

Going down a path like this does not yield any good thing productive, and has been in the past, very divisive, as this thread demonstrates as well. It requires more energy and effort than I care to commit, in all honesty, and nothing good stems from it, other than more fallout and division.

Yet, I'll take the high road, as I have always tried to in the forum and in helping others, but if I have offended it certainly was not my intention.

To this day, I just don't believe that a constructive discussion on the topic is possible.

This has absolutely nothing to do with what I called you out on, Tex, and you know it.

To state that members who posted an assertion of a theory contrary to others beliefs or theories were 'booted' off the site, is absolutely NOT true.

Past administrators, webmasters and moderators, including all current volunteers, have worked long and hard to allow give and take on all topics as long as they stayed within the confines of the posted rules of this website, and as agreed to by ALL individuals when they registered.

It is only when individuals refused to either adhere to the rules or became abusive to others BECAUSE they disagreed, were/are they suspended for a period of time....and will continue to be suspended up to 3 times. If they haven't learned to be able to discuss in a dignified, civil manner after 3 attempts, they are then shown the door.

So, to state anyone was booted off the site for 'asserting their position' is just plain wrong. It gives the false impression to new members their opinions are not valid. Once again, WRONG!

That was not taking the 'high road' by any stretch of the imagination. That was a low blow, and not appreciated by ANYONE who works here, past and present, on their own time and dime to keep the conversations flowing.

Michaelson

I really don't understand what Tex is referring too and I find it odd indeed that since he built the discussion here he now says this discussion has gone bad in some way. Are you ok, Tex? I can't see anything here but an amiable if sprawling discussion.

Is it bad Tex because you aren't abel to confirm your theories or there something else going on for you? I ask this because you seem to me to be struggling to articulate your points which have been meandering and diffuse - is this because you felt you were unable to say what you really think?

This thread seems fairly harmless to me and I think it's been an interesting discussion, but maybe there's subtext, or a back story I'm ignorant of.

I will say Tex I find it puzzling that you repeat the same things and ignore people's solid responses, so for a while I thought you were just playing with us (I won't say trolling as that is too strong) to provoke reactions for whatever reason.

I enjoy this hobby and in a world with so many troubles it is nice respite to be able come here to discuss the crazy history of a jacket from a film made long ago.

This site isn't too lively about jacket history at the moment and I'd love to see more action on this but maybe people feel they have enough information and I am being unrealistic.

No hard feelings from me Tex. I still have questions about that dratted jacket.

If I may fella's, the reason I believe these threads cannot work is because there are so many theories - about which some feel very strongly - all being stacked up against vague screen caps, faulty record keeping, blatant lies from opinionated members who have since been discredited and banned (thank goodness) and wild theories. Its passion that drives these threads and indeed this very web site and its that passion that everyone feeds off. Sadly though, its that same passion that can lead to stand-offs, painful arguments and hurt feelings.

In the case of something like the jackets, passion rides even higher and this is mostly IMO because of peoples preferences and sometimes bias because lets be honest, its terribly hard to be objective about something we care so much about.

The reason I posted what I did earlier was not to denigrate anyone's posts and theories or to trash the passion but to rather try and show everyone how inconclusive this entire issue is - even at the highest levels within Lucasfilm. People talk about GWL's jacket (which he DOES have) with revered respect but I can tell you that even GWL doesn't know the details you amazing guys know and in fact, he doesn't generally care.

Debate is fantastic and the forensic dissection you guys put into these would put CSI Miami to shame - because almost everything we know has come from your tireless investigations so lets not spoil it all with wild accusations and angry exchanges.

Come for the gear, stay for the PEOPLE!

Regards
M

Michaelson wrote:That's not what the letter from Lucasfilm lawyers to David Hack says, but what ever.

The information has been reconfigured and repackaged so many times since we first posted the information given to us by the original players, it's not even worth debating anymore. As I said in the CS jacket discussion, those original players are either gone or just don't care anymore as to whom claims what. It just doesn't matter.

They got paid, they've defended their positions over and over again for years, only to have these contrary opinions posted yet again.....so it's just not worth fighting the same hill again and again......so.....

"When the legend becomes fact... print the legend".

Regard! Michaelson

That's pretty much what I said in my very first post on Monday, Mark, but you put it much more eloquently.

Regard! Michaelson

KramStaar wrote:If I may fella's, the reason I believe these threads cannot work is because there are so many theories - about which some feel very strongly - all being stacked up against vague screen caps, faulty record keeping, blatant lies from opinionated members who have since been discredited and banned (thank goodness) and wild theories. Its passion that drives these threads and indeed this very web site and its that passion that everyone feeds off. Sadly though, its that same passion that can lead to stand-offs, painful arguments and hurt feelings.

In the case of something like the jackets, passion rides even higher and this is mostly IMO because of peoples preferences and sometimes bias because lets be honest, its terribly hard to be objective about something we care so much about.

The reason I posted what I did earlier was not to denigrate anyone's posts and theories or to trash the passion but to rather try and show everyone how inconclusive this entire issue is - even at the highest levels within Lucasfilm. People talk about GWL's jacket (which he DOES have) with revered respect but I can tell you that even GWL doesn't know the details you amazing guys know and in fact, he doesn't generally care.

Debate is fantastic and the forensic dissection you guys put into these would put CSI Miami to shame - because almost everything we know has come from your tireless investigations so lets not spoil it all with wild accusations and angry exchanges.

Come for the gear, stay for the PEOPLE!

Regards
M

THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR POSTING THIS.

You have put into words my exact feelings and thoughts.

CM wrote:I remember back when Peter was given the Howard jacket to copy - he certainly said he didn't make it and it was put together in a very different way to any jacket he had ever made. Glued hem, very unusual back vent, odd hardware.

I wanted to post something about this, right when you posted. But I forgot...
And now I'm working on a ToD jacket, and come back to my memory.

This is just a funny and interesting data.
I remember when Peter said that, about the Howard ToD jacket.
Maybe someone can confirm with Peter, but I think he was mainly referring to the patterns being odd or wierd.
Not only to the hardware, back vent configuration and glued hem. Those are simply features, or ways to assemble and finishing a jacket.

The ToD patterns are similar to a "suit jacket".
Patterns for a leather jacket ussually differ a lot from that.

That's the interesting, here's the funny: Raiders jacket patterns are also similar to a suit jacket.

Cheers.-

I think that there can be and has been a vendor bias in the forum historically and that when someone presents evidence or theories to the contrary, then it would seem the sensible thing to do would be to take a step back and consider it. Yet when explanations have been presented to the contrary its time to go one the offensive. It has been insenuated that I was playing with you guys, you question if I am having problems , usining screen caps is a bunch of COW, I mean bull. If you were not there then what do you use as examples to support your claims?

It has occured to me that the simplest and easiest explanation is often the accurate one. Yet it seems as though that when anyone mentions Cooper, then that is when the tales get taller? Suddenly he was flown in the day before shooting and stayed up all night making jackets or was in Steven's back pocket like a Swiss/Cooper utility knife just at the ready. There was one who made considerable contributions to the jacket lore, write ups, but the Cooper involvement has been very questionable in my mind. No one doubts they made and still make aftermarket jackets.

Conversely no one seems to put up any evidence of the Cooper involvement, just that by golly, Cooper made the jackets. Ok, post the evidence. I've come to suspect that based upon a proponderance of the evidece and screen caps that the conspicuous initials CM, must certainly mean Cooper Myth.

This is what I mean, Tex, we've covered off on this already - read back over the thread. I'm not "insinuating" you are playing with us, I am saying that your responses keep overlooking people's answers and you repeatedly ask the same things. This makes it look like you are just playing around. Either that or you're just having a discussion with yourself. I don't think I have much to add. But if you feel like continuing it might be nice if you could address some of the responses to your premises.

Happy to accept the ToD's are not Coopers if you have the evidence. It actually makes no difference who made the things as long as we have some good evidence. I am certainly aware of the theory that the Terry Leonard truck jacket is the prototype (Bantu WInd) jacket with small pockets and no side vent. Maybe this is where you are coming from.

Indiego Jones wrote:

CM wrote:I remember back when Peter was given the Howard jacket to copy - he certainly said he didn't make it and it was put together in a very different way to any jacket he had ever made. Glued hem, very unusual back vent, odd hardware.

I wanted to post something about this, right when you posted. But I forgot...
And now I'm working on a ToD jacket, and come back to my memory.

This is just a funny and interesting data.
I remember when Peter said that, about the Howard ToD jacket.
Maybe someone can confirm with Peter, but I think he was mainly referring to the patterns being odd or wierd.
Not only to the hardware, back vent configuration and glued hem. Those are simply features, or ways to assemble and finishing a jacket.

The ToD patterns are similar to a "suit jacket".
Patterns for a leather jacket ussually differ a lot from that.

That's the interesting, here's the funny: Raiders jacket patterns are also similar to a suit jacket.

Cheers.-

I spoke to Peter about this some years ago and his response was the jacket was not put together like any jacket he had ever made. He had not seen such small pockets and he thought the use of glue and hem/vent design were very unusual. I think Kt T posted similar information at the time. Since I do not make jackets I can only accept these words and can't interpret past the "I didn't make this". proposition. Since all the jackets in ToD appear to have been constructed like the Noel Howard jacket, I can only conclude that Peter says he didn't make the jackets we saw on screen.

Michaelson wrote:

Texan Scott wrote:The "jacket wars" of old was a 'struggle' to discern the truth, and if a member, who asserted his position, really had no authority then it was a matter of time before the inevitable happened and they were booted and they were.

I'm calling you on this one, Tex.

That was uncalled for, and untrue. If that were the case, you would have been tossed off this site multiple times.

Folks who have been removed from this site were removed for their disruptive activities, ignoring the posted rules after being reminded several times, and were even given 3 chances to get back on the rails before being shown the door.

No one has EVER been 'booted' based on their 'assertions' on ANY topic here, and to say so is gross mis-information.

I think you owe the moderators, administrators and members an apology for even suggesting this to be true.

Michaelson

Tex,

Are you ignoring Mark's post? You have not repsonded to it.

Holt, do you think the ToD jackets are Cooper made? I wasn't sure what you were getting at before when you mentioned the French hardware.

I've been convinced that at least a couple jackets left over from Raiders that went mostly unused for continuity reasons ended up being pulled out of storage for Temple. In that regard, it's likely that Peter's jackets did make it on screen at least a bit in Temple, even though he didn't make them for Temple.

As for where others came from, I'd lean towards Europe as they look nothing at all like Cooper's work. Not impossible, but highly improbable.

It's also fun to see some scenes with Temple jackets sneaking into Crusade. That, I thought, was a great observation.

It's always easier to make used jackets look used than it is to start with a new jacket. Now all that said, I still remember the rubbish collar on the Temple Jacket that looked like somebody ironed it flat. I really wondered, how they go from such excellent jackets in Raiders to the wrecks in Temple. Regardless of Deb Nadoolman's faulty memory on things, she did a heck of a job with the full Raiders look.

hi, what scenes in last crusade were temple jackets used ?

donovan wrote:hi, what scenes in last crusade were temple jackets used ?

Tank scenes.
ToD jackets were used by stuntmen.

See here: http://indygear.com/cow/viewtopic.php?p=851028#p851028" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cheers.-

ok, thanks.