Origins of the AA/SDS Armor

[RKW]

Our new armour is an accurate replica of the armour we produced in 1976

There in lies the problem, It's not.

 

[Lord Abaddon]

To some it might be accurate, to some it isn't. You forget that this little group goes to the nth degree for accuracy, which is why no licensed (or mass) prop maker to date has ever been "accurate" (hell, at times even you guys can't agree on each other's work. ).

As for the header "original molds", that's his site logo and he says clearly in his ad "replica of the armor" but under the ones that are from original molds, he states that.

 

[exoray]

Originally posted by Ghost Host+Jan 5 2006, 01:07 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Ghost Host @ Jan 5 2006, 01:07 PM)</div>

Hijack?  Talk to Exoray.[/b]

Hijack, no just pointing out a double standard...

What would the underside of a real ANH AB plate prove either way? The SDS AB plate as well as the GF/TE is not accurate to the screen used ones, that is a fact... What we do see is the SDS AB plate shares the very same inaccuracies to the GF one and even has obvious signs of reworking, to not be a 100% recast...

<!--QuoteBegin-vaderdarth@Jan 5 2006, 10:11 AM
Flynn,  I have at my fingertips,  more reference material than you can fathom.  There are far more "trooper experts" on this board than TE,GF or Gino.

[snapback]1151232[/snapback]​

Well then feel free to post or inform us of what you know... Do you have a clear picture of the real deal ANH AB plate front or back side?

The majority of the SDS suit is a recast of some elses work or a new sculpt, as it is clearly not ANH so why do we need to explore ANH parts as the suit is clearly not from there...

 

[Ghost Host]

Again, here's my correspondence with AA regarding his vac-bucks back in August.

"As I understand it, like the first helmets you offered, this armor is also from your original Star Wars "buck" forms   ...with a few "missing" pieces being fabricated?  Is this correct?"

To this he responded:

Thanks for the order...delivery about 4 weeks  or maybe sooner...
There were 27 mouldings in the armour and the studios were pushing  us for instant results, and so we did not make some of the moulds as sturdy as the  helmet moulds. All the moulds are there, but some had degraded with pourosity in the surfaces and broken down with the pressure of moulding. Typically at the tops of the thighs, the early mouIdings were crisp but as we got nearer the 50, they were getting a little ropey.I have dug out problems like
this and rebuilt the surface with modern durable mouldmaking materials.  Other areas are the belt and knee mouldings, which were only made from softwood., and so it was much easier to remake them in hardwood and retain the crisp appearance of the early sets of armour. The better sets were also used for the hero`s, and so all in all, I think everone should be
pleased with this armour - I know I am.

Kind Regards
Andrew Ainsworth

Yes, it's kinda slick-worded. But he does mention remaking that knee and belt... and "rebuilding" the thighs.

[EDIT] Exoray, there is NO part of your reasoning above that is logical, and I don't have the patience to point out why. Should be straightforward.

 

[Gytheran]

Originally posted by Lord Abaddon@Jan 5 2006, 04:56 PM
To some it might be accurate, to some it isn't.  You forget that this little group goes to the nth degree for accuracy, which is why no licensed (or mass) prop maker to date has ever been "accurate" (hell, at times even you guys can't agree on each other's work.  ).

As for the header "original molds", that's his site logo and he says clearly in his ad "replica of the armor" but under the ones that are from original molds, he states that.

[snapback]1151622[/snapback]​

Yep, and that is the header for his armor, also. This is called false advertising. How is anyone suppose to know the armor is not cast from the original molds, let alone from someone ELSE's armor unless they are a member here? As you stated, emails and PMs were returned stating they were from the original molds. Whatever doubts made by the website were backed up by lies from his own mouth(or rather fingers).

 

[KevVader]

Originally posted by Ghost Host@Jan 5 2006, 06:05 PM
Again, here's my correspondence with AA regarding his vac-bucks back in August.

"As I understand it, like the first helmets you offered, this armor is also from your original Star Wars "buck" forms   ...with a few "missing" pieces being fabricated?  Is this correct?"

To this he responded:

Thanks for the order...delivery about 4 weeks  or maybe sooner...
There were 27 mouldings in the armour and the studios were pushing  us for instant results, and so we did not make some of the moulds as sturdy as the  helmet moulds. All the moulds are there, but some had degraded with pourosity in the surfaces and broken down with the pressure of moulding. Typically at the tops of the thighs, the early mouIdings were crisp but as we got nearer the 50, they were getting a little ropey.I have dug out problems like
this and rebuilt the surface with modern durable mouldmaking materials.  Other areas are the belt and knee mouldings, which were only made from softwood., and so it was much easier to remake them in hardwood and retain the crisp appearance of the early sets of armour. The better sets were also used for the hero`s, and so all in all, I think everone should be
pleased with this armour - I know I am.

Kind Regards
Andrew Ainsworth

Yes, it's kinda slick-worded. But he does mention remaking that knee and belt... and "rebuilding" the thighs.


[EDIT] Exoray, there is NO part of your posting above that is logical, and I don't have the patience to point out why. Should be straightforward.

[snapback]1151631[/snapback]​

....as a neutral observer, one thing that struck me about his reply is that in an interview posted with AA in another thread here not too long ago was that he stated that the molds were not affected by the vac-forming process since there is very little force/pressure involved. Perhaps this is something that he discovered once he started making the armor?.... :confused

 

[exoray]

Originally posted by KevVader@Jan 5 2006, 06:13 PM
....as a neutral observer, one thing that struck me about his reply is that in an interview posted with AA in another thread here not too long ago was that he stated that the molds were not affected by the vac-forming process since there is very little force/pressure involved. Perhaps this is something that he discovered once he started making the armor?.... :confused

[snapback]1151634[/snapback]​

Well as time goes on it is becoming clearer and clearer that it is not beyond AA to stretch the true, tell untruths or completely flat out lie, even when under oath on court papers... So if he is more than willing to do it under oath in the court of law then we can only assume he has no issues on misleading the public by the written word on his website and in emails... Thus, I believe that is why we have the ever changing stories from him...

 

[RKW]

Originally posted by Ghost Host@Jan 5 2006, 11:05 PM
Yes, it's kinda slick-worded.  But he does mention remaking that knee and belt...  and "rebuilding" the thighs.

Considering he scratch built his it still amazes me how it matches the scratch built TE/GF version. He also had to somehow explain away the ROTJ overlaps on the back of his thighs. The comment about the top of the thighs being rough is interesting because TE was the only person to offer thighs which had damaged tops. I should know because I own a set which again came from ROTJ thighs.

 

[CWR]

If Andrew has all of the moulds, could someone that knows him ask him to make a suit using them? I already have a TE suit and have had a GF suit as well so I have no need for his most current offering (it looks too much like what I already have). I am sure all of us just want a completely accurate ANH suit. That is what I was hoping for when he announced the possibility of making armor.

From what I understand that is going to be hard without AA going to the archive building at the Ranch and digging up the remaining parts that they have there.

 

[Ghost Host]

:lol

 

[CWR]

Sorry for the last post, I just thought I would throw out a bit of sarcastic humor. I hope we can get back on topic and start solidifying the true origins of the SDS suit. Does anyone think that there are parts from ANH? If so which ones and if not are we saying that Andrew might have sourced a set of Jedi armor and made moulds similar to the way TE did?

Just wondering,

 

[RKW]

For me the only parts that you could still debate the origins are:-

1) Shoulder bells
2) Shoulder Straps
3) 1 Forearm
4) Hand plates
5) Drop down belt boxes
6) Butt plate

Everything else is clearly a modified GF/TE suit. If AA had gotten hold of an original ROTJ suit then the chest armour and ab plate wouldn't have turned out the way they did on his first incarnation of the armour.

 

[exoray]

Since AA long ago posted a pic of a black shoulder bell, I would venture to say that his trooper ones are probably derived from that one...

The drop boxes are most likely a newly created item, it's such a simple mold to make a reliable new one, rather then mess with an existing piece...

 

[jeezycreezy]

I know GF claims that the back isn't a recast of his, which is good news.

Yet something about it bugged me so I over-layed the GF and SDS backs in Photoshop and they seemed like a pretty good match.

Not 100%, sure, but pretty close, especially considering it's a single picture so scale and camera angle differences should really be a factor.

I didn't know how to illustrate the results without doing one of those seizure-inducing GIFs I hate, so I drew the shapes on one and copied them directly over the other. Hopefully that'll do the trick.

(Hopefully this isn't too crude and pathetic.)

Another thing I noticed about the back plate is that, on both of the GF and SDS the cog and the two rectangles seem to line up an a horizontal plane (as indicated by the red lines above).

On the real armor it seems more like the two rectangle are higher than the cog on the horizontal plane.

If anyone has a better resolution of this they could send me, I'd be very grateful. But even at this size I think this illustrates what I mean pretty well.

Edit: Added pic. Thanks GH.

And a few more to discourage people from putting it down to camera angles.

If I had better reference material or the ability to do screen caps myself I could probably illustrate this better, but it seems doubtful to me that the SDS back armour came from the same mould as the original. That's all I'm saying.

Cheers.
TJ

 

[RKW]

Last one for the day



Sorry it has Vader

 

[exoray]

In addition to the lines you have drawn, look at the reflections in the pictures above, the overall shape of the main back is almost identical according to the reflections and shadows as well... IMO it has shared lineage...

Yes the "gear" and "boxes" are different but againg just like several of the other SDS parts the back side of the part shows signs of a sloppy mold in those areas, not seen in the rest of the mold... So I'm going to place my bet that the back is again a recast with tweaks to the detail areas in an attempt to try and hide it's true origin...

 

[CWR]

The reason the GF cog is not accurate to the on screen suits is due to the casting being messed up in this area when TE made the original moulds. TE told me that the cog was a total re-sculpt so this area on the backplate will be inaccurate on his suits and any subsequent derivatives. At least TE re-sculpted it more accurately than AA did.

-CWR

 

[jeezycreezy]

Another shot of the backs from the inside. Thanks GH.

 

[jeezycreezy]

Quick comp of the back...

 

[SithLord]

interesting how the ring looks better on GF but the II looks better on SDS...

:cheers,

T