Club Obi Wan

http://www.screenused.com/items/item_de ... tem_id=770
Check it out, looks authentic.

regards
Fredrik

It looks very Authentic, but can you really know that it is the ''Real thing''?
It's really easy to use photoshop these days...

Is this for sale or what?

Ken

It WAS for sale, apparently.
Some chum bought it up.

Indywannabe wrote:It WAS for sale, apparently.
Some chum bought it up.

Let us hope chum and not chump!
The website claims impeccable documentation. I hope for the sake of the buyer that is an authentic TOD hat. It is not impossible to bash a hat to make it look like a particular scene. Heck, most of us here strive and achieve the look!

We were sent this link as well, unfortunately AFTER it was bought. I was tempted to ask for a shot of the liner, but figured it pointless since they probably didn't have it in their possesion anymore.

It looks good, but then again, we've proven that pretty much any hat can be bashed to look like an Indy's. Without seeing the paper trail (which won't be shown to protect the buyer), I'd like to believe and be envious of the buyer, but may always have a bit of skepticism about it.

Mike

I think that it is funny that it purports to be the worst hat of the Indy Trilogy: the dreaded tapered plane hat of TOD. It actually does look exactly like it and their side by side comparisons are convincing. Still, out of all the screen used hats to have, it's funny that it is this one.

Hemingway Jones wrote:I think that it is funny that it purports to be the worst hat of the Indy Trilogy: the dreaded tapered plane hat of TOD.

Yes, I thought that too...

Hemingway Jones wrote:Still, out of all the screen used hats to have, it's funny that it is this one.

That fact makes me question it's authenticity. Faking THE hat might draw too much attention and scruitiny. Making a knock off of the lesser iconic hat might slip under the radar... I have read of so many art and historical relic forgeries lately that I am growing too suspicious!

I hope for the sake of the purchaser it is indeed what it claims to be. That would be a refreshing event.

Is it me, or does the crown look a little low? I realize that the top dent is squished in a little, but I still expect to see a bit more height in the crown. Other than that, it very well could be a real ToD hat, though I'd be suprised if any one hat was worn for the majority of that movie. It could be a stunt, too.

bink

I think it is the same hat. Gosh, in one of those pics, that ribbon(at the bow) looks to be 1 3/4!! Wonder what it actually is on this hat. Hard to call that sometimes. Fedora

It might be authentic, but I doubt that he wore it in mots of the movie. I haven't seen ToD in a while, but I don't remember seeing the badly tapered plane hat in other scenes.

It does look like it! Gosh, the pics make me want to start dirtying up my ToD Fed. And make the top dent lopsided. This is a crazy hobby.

Well, the next time we see a tapered lid, we can point to these photos and say, "See yours is screen accurate too!"

Hmmm... I find the wording of some of the stuff very interesting, but why also go to so much trouble with the pictures & captions "Has this matching" etc.

Surely it's as simple as "We have an original hat. Here is a picture. We have excellent proof of authenticity", without the need to post multiple pictures of different angles of the hat & screen caps in what almost appears to be a desperate attempt to convince the buying public

JMHO

Great buy there, Tone. You're wearing a piece of history!

This is an EXACT screen matching fedora in the majority of scenes in the movie.

This sentance is the most confusing for me. Is it a screen used hat or is it an exact replica of a screen used hat?

If I have a hat that was used in a scene, I am going to say that it was used in this scene when I show a picture of it. I am not going to say that it is an "exact screen matching fedora".

Maybe I am just arguing semantics here, but I don't think that most people that have a hat that was used in the movie would say it like this. They would emphasize that this is "the hat" that was used.

I usually think that when language is slightly confusing like this that it is done on purpose to protect the seller. If they are caught selling a fake, they can point out that they didn't say it was "the hat" that was used, they said it was an "EXACT screen matching fedora".

Bufflehead Jones wrote:Maybe I am just arguing semantics here

No, I don't think so.

Bufflehead Jones wrote:I don't think that most people that have a hat that was used in the movie would say it like this. They would emphasize that this is "the hat" that was used.

Of course.

Bufflehead Jones wrote:I usually think that when language is slightly confusing like this that it is done on purpose to protect the seller. If they are caught selling a fake, they can point out that they didn't say it was "the hat" that was used, they said it was an "EXACT screen matching fedora".

My feeling exactly. If this is the case, then it's done that way so that the seller can claim ignorance later on if the buyer raises any cane about it. If I were a potential buyer, I would not have been after I read that sentence.

Regards,

Bufflehead Jones wrote:

This is an EXACT screen matching fedora in the majority of scenes in the movie.

This sentance is the most confusing for me. Is it a screen used hat or is it an exact replica of a screen used hat?

If I have a hat that was used in a scene, I am going to say that it was used in this scene when I show a picture of it. I am not going to say that it is an "exact screen matching fedora".

Maybe I am just arguing semantics here, but I don't think that most people that have a hat that was used in the movie would say it like this. They would emphasize that this is "the hat" that was used.

I usually think that when language is slightly confusing like this that it is done on purpose to protect the seller. If they are caught selling a fake, they can point out that they didn't say it was "the hat" that was used, they said it was an "EXACT screen matching fedora".

Agreed.

Remember, that hat wasn't as tapered as it looked. Willie had just crushed it, thus the taper. The stains on the ribbon do seem to match.

We can never know how this hat is connected to the film unless we have access to and can analyse the impeccable documentation.

For some reason this hat looks like a distressed/bashed Dorfman/Disney to me. The ribbon looks identical to one anyways. Also, just the shape is similar too.

I don't know, maybe it's just that I've seen "Authentic" everywhere and then I see it's just a Dorfman....

I WANT to believe this is a screen used hat. I find it suspicious that the hat would look the same after all these years, in terms of having the exact same bash, especially if it was not probably stored/displayed all these years.. Stains could be easy to replicate, as well as creases in a ribbon. I'm also skeptical because they don't go into detail of what the impeccable documentation is.

Guys... it looks a lot like my 1984 stetson, are you sure it's original?? Look at the middle of the humps offcentered! it's the same shape, maybe they changed the brim

Hmm...now thats interesting.

Do we actually know who is in possession of this "screen-used" hat, or how much it went for?

Was the plane scene a Stetson or was that the bridge scene I'm thinking of?

Indiana Texas-girl wrote:Was the plane scene a Stetson or was that the bridge scene I'm thinking of?

I think the plane scene, but i'm not sure of it.

Sorry to disappoint everyone but I own the original TOD hat.

I too have impeccable documentation.

[quote="erri_wan"]Guys... it looks a lot like my 1984 stetson, are you sure it's original?? Look at the middle of the humps offcentered! it's the same shape, maybe they changed the brim

Your hat's ribbon is shiny, indicating polyester or rayon content. The 'screen' hat's ribbon is dull, indicating probably an all cotton content, and thus at least the ribbon is more screen accurate. I'm not toally convinced of this hat's authenticity, but the ribbon looks real at any rate.

Ok, time for a tid bit from the REAL old rumor mill of the Paramount prop folks.....they told me back in the late 80's that when Paramount and Stetson planned on offering to sell the infamous 'TofD' hat in the lobbies of the Paramount movie theaters when Temple came out, they gave Ford one of the Stetson's in different scenes to wear now and again just to promote the sales of the lobby hats. That's why (they said) the hat seems to change almost from shot to shot in many of the scenes shot in the stage areas (not the ones on location).

The hat idea fell through (though the hats were made and stored in the Paramount prop warehouse for several years, until they were taken back by Stetson and sold through outlets and retailers), and that was the end of that idea.

I believe this is one of those hats, and explains why it looks like one of the Stetsons. It probably IS one of the Stetsons, and makes both claims correct, if we believe what I was told way back when. :

Regards! Michaelson

I'm not toally convinced of this hat's authenticity, but the ribbon looks real at any rate.

It does, doesn't it. The ribbon is dead on. I wonder why they did not list a brand? Surely it was on the liner,or sweat. Still, that is one ugly hat. Fedora

Yeah, I think the ribon, especially the bow would be very hard to get the folds to match that accuratly. Even Fedora said he's not that good at bows.

You guys are an incredibly anal bunch when it comes to these screen used items.

Yes, it's ok to question any items but I think the photographic proof is fairly stong here. What I see here from some of you is complete and utter disbelief that this could be the hat from the film and that HF could have worn this hat for all those scenes shown.
This happens here EACH AND EVERY TIME some supposed screen used item flows through the veins of COW. It is first shot down cold before anyone actually gives it a chance. I guess some of you would only be satisfied if Ford himself gave it to you, but even then I bet some of you would still question him as to the authenticity of any item.

I could see it now.

Ford: "Here you go (fill in your COW name here). I wore this in almost all my scenes in TOD."

COW member: "Really? The ribbon looks just like the one on my Stetson."

Ford: "???"

COW member: "Let's have a looksy, shall we? Look at the way the bash is the same on my cheap Stetson as it is on the hat you CLAAAAIM was used in the film."

Ford: "But... I did wear this in the film. Let me show y.."

Cow member: (interupting)"No, no, no. That's ok. What are silly screen grabs going to prove? I'd like further proof please. Do you have God's number? I'd love to call him up and get his take on this whole thing."

Ford: "You mean Steven or George?"

COW member: "No, God. You know, God? Who made the earth? I'm sure of all people and God's, he'd be able to tell me if this is what you CLAAAAIM it to be."

Ford: "Ummmmm... I gotta go. You're kind of insane."








Some of you guys kill me.

Well, if Ford was saying this was the one he wore, then yeah that'd be good enough proof for me. But the fact is there are crooked people out there and when the wording is suspicious, it makes the reader suspicious.

If Ford handed me his main Indy hat, I'd probably get a glazed over look and faint dead away.

Can we be sure that was an authentic agent5 rant and not an imposter trying to convince us of a fake hat's authenticity?

Arkansas Smith

You got me. That Agent 5 character is a nut and a fool. Not to mention a complete idiot!

I agree with ITG that of course, there will be suspicion of every screen used item, but the pics sure are a pretty convincing start. It's just that certain people around here just say they don't believe it's a screen used item right off the bat instead of doing more research on it themselves. Do they really know THAT much about this film and this hat to make that judgement so early on? I think not, although I could be wrong. I'm not a TOD guy.

Agent 5,

You are wrong in your assesment as far as I am concerned. I believe they are screen used items until something proves otherwise. I usually do not speak out as a naysayer, but in this case, the wording is what bothers me.

It is one of two things. It is a fake and they purposely worded it this way to protect themselves. Or, it is a real screen used item and the ad was worded poorly and the person that wrote it should be fired from their job.

They should not have worded it to be so vague. How about a brief mention of where their documentation comes from? I would be interested in seeing the documentation that they had. I just hope it is written better than this ad.

I do agree that if someone brings forth a reportedly screen used item to the members of COW, it will face intense scrutiny. I think this is only natural considering how highly we regard these items.

If I had the financial resources to be able to afford these screen used items, COW is the first place that I would turn for advice in helping to authenticate my proposed purchases.

It is one of two things. It is a fake and they purposely worded it this way to protect themselves. Or, it is a real screen used item and the ad was worded poorly and the person that wrote it should be fired from their job.

You guys are much more savy than me. But, you are right Bufflehead. Something odd about the wording. Fedora

E-mail sent to Screenused.com:

Dear Screenused.com staff,

Recently, your auction of the fedora that was used in "Indiana Jones
and the Temple of Doom" was brought to my attention. Myself and
several friends of mine are part of an online forum dedicated to
discussing Indiana Jones clothing and equipment, and consider
ourselves to be Indiana Jones "afficionados", if you will. As such, we
have a few questions for you regarding the hat, even though the hat
has already been sold.

As I'm sure you're aware, there are those in this world who would
purposely seek to defraud an unsuspecting public of their money by
claiming an item was "screen used". However, I am sure your company
would never dream of doing something like this, but I am sure you can
understand our concern and interest, as we have all seen items come
and go that sellers claimed to be "screen used" (as you probably have,
too, most likely). We are all wondering if you would be so kind as to
answer a few simple questions.

1.) What is the brand of this hat?

2.) What size is this hat? (If you don't know this one, it's okay.)

3.) You say the hat comes with "impeccible documentation".
Documentation of what? Of the hat's authenticity? What is the
"impeccible documentation" you have, and could you possibly scan it
and send it to me?

Those are all the questions we have. We sure would appreciate your
answers, as it would not only help us out, but would help to bolster
your company's credibility in the Indiana Jones community. Thank you
very much for your time.

Let's see if they respond.

Regards,

COW is the first place that I would turn for advice in helping to authenticate my proposed purchases.

Not me. I'd do my own research and try to trace the trail of provenance given by the seller. Although the provenance they give at the time of purchase should be credible enough. See, as far as I'm aware, only one other person on the board is in possession of an original screen used hat so I doubt anyone else here would be able to do more than speculate as well as you or I. I'm sure there is some expertise here which may help but I doubt there is one person here who can help authenticate any screen used props in total.

What's funny is that the person who supposedly owns the screen used hat was also critisized, bached, ridiculed and heavily questioned immediately after he posted it. In short, he was so angered by the onslaught that he declined to help any of us here further in any respect to screen used props. He also claimed to have access to other private collections with various screen used items from the trilogy. It was the heavy handedness which sent him away and I for one, do not blame him. We still have no idea if any of his claims were completely true as the he only posted a few pics which he removed after his lashing and he never posted pics of it again. We could have had a real connection there and it was the people who thought that because the supposed screen used hat did not have the same bash as their PB that it had to be fake, instead of letting the guy tell his story and giving him credit before discredit.

The bottom line is to be more like Mulder and search for the truth. Don't be the Scully and have the desire to debunk from the start. If people have screen used stuff then they should be welcomed here with open arms of discussion instead of thoughts of dismissal based on sheer conjecture. I tell ya.

Strider, Old Sport, I hope you didn't send that. I think it is good that you didn't name us. You really should be careful about speaking on behalf of this forum, which you do not. Really, the only people who speak on behalf of this forum are the moderators and admins.

You could have also been a little more tactful. You practically accuse them of being charlatans; deceitful and of misleading the public. If you wanted to satisfy your curiosity, a bit of humble and respectful inquiring would probably glean you more than this thinly veiled attack on their credibility. I imagine that this message will be met with defensiveness.

I would not have sent it, if I were you.

I think what Strider's intention was was to help get some info to help solve the mystery. When he stated the following, he made a point to say he doesn't think they are trying to defraud anyone, but is just seeking clarity. I am glad though that Indygear wasn't mentioned directly.

As I'm sure you're aware, there are those in this world who would
purposely seek to defraud an unsuspecting public of their money by
claiming an item was "screen used". However, I am sure your company
would never dream of doing something like this, but I am sure you can
understand our concern and interest, as we have all seen items come
and go that sellers claimed to be "screen used" (as you probably have,
too, most likely). We are all wondering if you would be so kind as to
answer a few simple questions.

Agent5, I remember when the other screen used hat was introduced, and was quite surprised with much of the resistance shown as this guy willingly stepped forth to share pics of his hat. Just because it had taper and wasn't in the best of shape doesn't mean it wasn't one from the movies. That was a real loss for the hobby. I was thinking it was a Raiders hat, but I could be wrong, which if that was the case, could the 2 hats we speak of be one in the same?

First of all, Strider and I are, have been, and alway will be complete pals, so if I get critical of him and him me, we both can take it. I wanted to say that for the record.

My admonishment of his letter was based more of my perception of his intent: chastising them with sarcasm, rather than constructively approaching them for information, information we could have used. I was critical of his tactics, not his character. He is a fine young gentleman.

As for the part I wrote about being careful to not speak for this forum, that is my opinion for any of us, myself included, though Strider didn't cross that threshold; he came to the first check-point, showed his passport, and turned around.

I just wanted to clarify a few things. Sometimes when I write, it sounds a bit harsher than I intend it to be. Sometimes when you strive for clarity you arrive at words that convey a bit more seriousness than that which was intended. I certainly don't want anyone to think that Strider and I share any bad blood between us.

Reply recieved!

Alan,

Thank you for your email and your interest. I am out of the country right now but will be back home this weekend, when
I can provide some information, but I'm typing this on my phone right now.
Which forum are you with?

...Desi

My reply:

Desi,
Thanks for your e-mail! I sure appreciate your time, and hope to hear
from you soon. The forum I post at wishes to remain anonymous for many different reasons, but you can rest assured that they will hear anything you have to say regarding the authenticity of your item through me. I hope I did not come off as condescending in my first e-mail to you, as such was definetly not my intention. I only humbly seek to gather information, not to scrutinize. Again, thank you ever so much.

So, we shall see what happens next.

Regards,

What the heck is wrong with you people!?





have a day.

I wuz ah...I wuz ah...I wuz ah, born this way. What's your excuse?

agent5 wrote: Ford: "Here you go (fill in your COW name here). I wore this in almost all my scenes in TOD."

COW member: "Really? The ribbon looks just like the one on my Stetson."

Ford: "???"

COW member: "Let's have a looksy, shall we? Look at the way the bash is the same on my cheap Stetson as it is on the hat you CLAAAAIM was used in the film."

Ford: "But... I did wear this in the film. Let me show y.."

Cow member: (interupting)"No, no, no. That's ok. What are silly screen grabs going to prove? I'd like further proof please. Do you have God's number? I'd love to call him up and get his take on this whole thing."

Ford: "You mean Steven or George?"

COW member: "No, God. You know, God? Who made the earth? I'm sure of all people and God's, he'd be able to tell me if this is what you CLAAAAIM it to be."

Ford: "Ummmmm... I gotta go. You're kind of insane."

Great story

Indiana_Tone wrote:First thing that was missed here is this: "Indywannabe, WELCOME TO COW!

Thanks! im not really i newbie here, im just using a different nickname.
As you can see, i had another knickname in the past.

I wrote to these folks right after I saw this initial post on this thread. He just told me that he has joined COW and waiting on approval to post. He said he would make a post to answer all questions instead of answering individual emails. Fedora

Ah, so I was not the only one to write. Well, I eagerly await their responses here, and welcome them to COW!

By the way, I made it a point not to say the name of this place, so however they found it, it was not from anything I said.

Regards,