Page 1 of 1

Oversized MkVII?

Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:30 pm
by Castor Dioscuri
Just a side note, is it just me, or does anyone else notice that Indy's satchel always appears MUCH bigger in the movies, as opposed to the MKVIIs we find?

I mean, the thing practically looks like a laptop bag!

Image
Image
Image

I wish mine was that big... I can hardly fit a legal pad in mine..

Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:33 pm
by Mulceber
Nope, that's about the size mine is. :junior: -IJ

Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 9:33 pm
by RobbyT43
That looks like the regular size to me, but I cannot tell :? . I don't know if Harrison got to use a slightly larger bag to fir his body type better or not.

-Robby

Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:14 pm
by Castor Dioscuri
I don't know, but comparing the above pictures to this bag for example:

http://www.whatpriceglory.com/pic/IJBag.jpg

Those pictures above just look way bigger. I mean, pay attention to the distance between the press-studs on both bags.

Posted: Sun Jul 15, 2007 10:56 pm
by Perceval
If you you compare the distance of the press-studs relative to the location and distance between the drain holes on the bottom of both bags (which look the same on both bags), it looks as if it's the same size bag...maybe it's just the angle, or lighting/dead spots. Photography can really play tricks on the eye.

I'm not saying this as if I know it's the case here...just a thought.

~Perceval

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:25 am
by Jaredraptor
Or, it could be that MkVII bags come in multiple sizes. The U.S. World War 2 sachels did....can't see why the British one's would be different in that respect. If HF got a large MkVII, then some people nowadays may be getting smalls or mediums.

Just my 2 cents.

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 4:23 am
by Erri
Never heard of these bags coming in different sizes. I'm sure it's just a trick of the eyes. Doesn't look big to me anyway.

Image

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:02 am
by Kt Templar
It could be just Ford was quite slim back them and it looked big.

I'm sure our resident bag experts know if there were variations in size.

Posted: Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:03 pm
by Chewbacca Jones
I've noticed that the bag looks bigger when viewed on another person, but always seems smaller when I look at it on myself. The size of the person doesn't seem to matter. Now I used to have a slightly bigger bag, and when worn Indy style, with gear or not, it was clearly too big. I'm also fairly sure that the movie guys took steps to keep the bag in shape just so for the look they wanted.

Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:56 pm
by Texas Raider
Yes, the bags are different sizes, depending on the size of the mask they were made to hold. I've had tons of these in my possession and I've seen them sometimes labeled small, medium ,large and they are different. I think the small and medium may be the same size, but the large is bigger.

TR

Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:10 pm
by Swindiana
If you look at THIS LINK you can see that there are somewhat alternate measurements to some of the respirator bags, but only by 1-2cm (Around half an inch) or so.

TR;
How much bigger would the L be? Al just got a bag with an L stamped close to the broad arrow. Would be interesting to know.

EDIT: Just found out that N would stand for Normal, S would stand for Small.

Regards,
Swindiana

Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:50 pm
by ob1al
My bag is a L, but is the front width seems to match the specs given on the Indygear main page, 10.5" - maybe a fraction over.

Perhaps the depth and side width is different, I'd have to remeasure to check.

Al

Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 5:34 pm
by McFly
Swindy - that link was really cool! It's awesome to see how the bag developed, from the MkIV to the MkVII and even a couple other ones at the end there. Nice!! :tup:

Thanks!

In Christ,
Shane

Posted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 7:48 pm
by Texas Raider
Swindie,
Yeah, 1/2 to 1 inch seems about right. The girth (thickness) is a bit more as well, maybe 1/4 inch. It normally seems most noticeable in the interior pockets. You know, the two pockets on the back side. On the smalls, I can't get my hand into the smaller of the two pockets, on the large my hand fits in completely.

The large ones do seem a bit more baggy, and it looks as thought indy has a large in those pics.

I'll see if I still have different sizes in my collection and I'll take measurements if I do.

TR

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 7:45 am
by Indywannabe
*****, not only it s hard to get hands on, now we have to look for the right size aswell?

EDIT BY MODERATOR

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 9:11 am
by Castor Dioscuri
Nobody said it was easy ;)

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:49 am
by Perceval
Is there a way we can know for sure what size Indy's bag is?
Maybe they used different sizes...I can't imagine they would worry too much about the size of the bag.

~Perceval

Posted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:02 pm
by Swindiana
THIS BAG looks huge on me, and I'm 6'4". The bag is "standard" size though. ..
It would be nice to see some comparison shots between an L size bag and an N one.

THIS SITE says there were xtra large, large, normal, small, and extra small sizes for the face pieces, though I can't imagine the measurements would differ so much that you'd need a huge bag for the XL, the mask being rubber and all for the Mk V Service Respirator.

Regards,
Swindiana

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 6:17 pm
by Castor Dioscuri
You know, this makes me wonder...

Do you guys suppose that if you take a MKVII satchel (authentic or replica), immerse it in water, and then stretch it till it dries, do you suppose that that might help actually make the satchel wider or bigger?

I'm sure I'm not alone when I say that the standard dimensions of a MKVII are still pretty small for the packrats in all of us!

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:43 pm
by ob1al
Perceval wrote:If you you compare the distance of the press-studs relative to the location and distance between the drain holes on the bottom of both bags (which look the same on both bags), it looks as if it's the same size bag...maybe it's just the angle, or lighting/dead spots. Photography can really play tricks on the eye.

I'm not saying this as if I know it's the case here...just a thought.

~Perceval
I agree with Perceval, in that the angle and perspective of the shots posted above play a big part in the bag appearing to be larger than it actually is.

In shot 1, the bag seems to be the 'regular' size

In shots 2 and 3, it's closest to the camera and therefore appears to be bigger.

Not saying the bags don't come in different sizes (as Swindy has clearly demonstrated that they do) but the difference may not be as great as the screencaps suggest.

Al

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:05 am
by Flyer05
I've always thought the screen bag looked larger as well. When I finally got my original bag a few months ago, I was really surprised at how small it was. I'm 6'3", and it looks small on me...more like a purse than a rugged all-purpose bag. I wore it to work and an old Marine who works for me said "nice fag bag". I laughed and told him it was genuine WW II issue. He laughed and said, "sure, nice story".

It's not a big bag. I have a hard time fitting much more than my camera and sunglasses in it. I've often wondered if they did come in larger sizes. Erri_wan's looks positively HUGE, like a laptop bag. Harrison's looks noticeably larger as well, and I don't think it's a matter of his body size. He's not a tiny guy.

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:39 am
by ob1al
Here are some screen shots in which the bag appears to be 'regular size':

Streets of Cairo:

Image

South America:

Image

Another shot of Indy in action, in which the bag appears slightly larger - but note it's the object closest to the camera lense:

Image

I wonder if the bag was kept to shape with a piece of cardboard (or similar) inside to give it a square shape, at least in some scenes? For the majority of scenes, it appears to be empty (makes sense for the action scenes - a full bag would be cumbersome and a nuisance) yet it keeps it shape. Some form of simple reinforcement inside could account for that.

Image

Al

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 12:39 pm
by VP
This one's an L:

Image

I'm 6'2".

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 1:05 pm
by ob1al
VP, what does it measure across the front, in inches?

My MKVII is also a L and measures about 10.5".

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 1:10 pm
by VP
26.6cms which is roughly 10.47 inches.

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 1:23 pm
by Swindiana
This one is 280x270x80cm, marked with a B. My brain hurts. :lol:

Regards,
Swindiana

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:32 pm
by Indiana Jess
Swindiana wrote: ... My brain hurts. :lol:

Regards,
Swindiana
Well Swindiana, at least you have one! 8-[ :wink:

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:33 pm
by VP
That's what the B stands for. 8)

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:35 pm
by ob1al
Baffled? :wink:

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:51 pm
by Swindiana
Baffled? Wink
Or.. Bluffed? It's a conspiracy against me!! "Schneeky..." :D
Well Swindiana, at least you have one!
Yeah, and I still hope my upgrade to the 2.0 comes without the crank shaft... :-k

Regards,
Swindiana

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2007 3:53 pm
by Indiana Jess
If a crank shaft does arrive with the upgrade, send it my way.

Posted: Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:38 pm
by Texas Raider
Here is a couple pics of different sizes that I have currently.

[img][img]http://img65.imageshack.us/img65/2065/0000845vh5.th.jpg[/img][/img] Ironically, the larger one on top say ... .jpg[/img][/img][/url]

TR

Posted: Mon Jul 23, 2007 5:52 am
by Swindiana
Thanks a bunch, TR!

I would think so too. Small details differ from maker to maker, and probably the size would too. Since the only really solid part of the respirator would be the filter my guess is the rubber mask would fit in any bag even if the measurements are +-2cm or so apart.

Should we set it at that, guys? 8)

The couple of Canadian bags I've handled (one still in my collection) both were/are a tad bigger than the British ones aswell.

High regards,
Swindiana

Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 11:27 am
by Texas Raider
Yeah, Swindie, you're right! I had my Canadian bag hanging downstairs and didn't even include it in the pics!
The Canadian bag is a goliath compared to the others. The interior pockets are huge!
The Canadian is in the middle,with the largest of the other three bags on top and the green one that says nothing in it on the bottom.

[img][img]http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/4007/0000847kz7.th.jpg[/img][/img] Canadian measures 11 3/4 inches acros ... TR

Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:12 pm
by Swindiana
You'd better put some water repellant on those babies before I come and drool all over them. =P~ ;)

What a collection!

Thanks for the shots!

Regards,
Swindiana

Posted: Tue Jul 24, 2007 9:55 pm
by Bufflehead Jones
The Canadian bags needed some extra room for some beer. :shock:

Posted: Wed Jul 25, 2007 2:59 pm
by VP
So by that logic the soldiers carried beer to the battlefield in their gas mask bags in the first place?

Posted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 12:21 am
by Castor Dioscuri
VP wrote:So by that logic the soldiers carried beer to the battlefield in their gas mask bags in the first place?
Wouldn't you? ;)

What a way to go, eh?