Gino/CRPROPS "appraisal" Helmet #8
- Thread starter FalconV8
- Start date
- Status
vaderdarth
Master Member
You can't be untruthful about your "deals" with people with such careless abandon without getting your a$$ bitten eventually. I told this forum that people would eventually talk and start comparing notes about what a certain vendor will "say on the phone to close a deal" versus what he will "actually deliver". If you lie long enough, you forget the details of the lies and the details are what come back to haunt you.
Do you think you've learned a lesson here??? Besides perhaps lying more carefully in the future????
Anyone that refuses to deal with me thru emails and wants to talk on the phone only is just plain shady. If they won't put it in writing.........they are full of crap. If you are dumb enough to deal with them after getting these sincere warnings.........you deserve what you get (or don't get........whichever the case may be).
How many people have to hear: "no I never said that........you misunderstood the terms of our deal" ????
Wanna fathom a guess as to how many people have misunderstood the terms of their deal with this guy??? I personally know more than will fit on one of my hands..........but who's counting right???
Dave
Do you think you've learned a lesson here??? Besides perhaps lying more carefully in the future????
Anyone that refuses to deal with me thru emails and wants to talk on the phone only is just plain shady. If they won't put it in writing.........they are full of crap. If you are dumb enough to deal with them after getting these sincere warnings.........you deserve what you get (or don't get........whichever the case may be).
How many people have to hear: "no I never said that........you misunderstood the terms of our deal" ????
Wanna fathom a guess as to how many people have misunderstood the terms of their deal with this guy??? I personally know more than will fit on one of my hands..........but who's counting right???
Dave
Look.....all that can ever be claimed is that someone matched a particular helmet from a particular scene.
To strut around acting like 'my helmets are the best', is just ego. But to also bag on other makers for what they do is just stupid. Add to that the $$$ in danger if someone else makes helmets, we get a big case of sour grapes.
So if I find another original helmet make perfect copies of that helmet, yet it is different from Gino's am I the new king or just another king.
The point is, Gino only knows what the helmet looks like NOW. It could have gone through many squishing and squashing in the time it took to get to him. They certainly don't look like they have been preserved in any way. (Yes, I have seen many of the same helmets that are bragged upon here).
I have also spent many hours (way to many) vacuforming. Despite what other have said, it is not an exact science without serious measure in place. I was professional model maker for 12 years and custom manufacturing manager for another ten.
Is the point of the RPF to trade information about props certainly. Somethings perhap warrant tracking down the most minute details. Some props CAN be identified to the Nth degree. Because they ARE detailed and precise. ST helmets just don't fall into that catagory for me and it's that insane striving for every little bump that feeds these threads.
People need to stop trying to be the expert and just put out the info they can to SHOW what is up. If that knowledge is secret, then just keep your trap shut and don't be a braggart.
To strut around acting like 'my helmets are the best', is just ego. But to also bag on other makers for what they do is just stupid. Add to that the $$$ in danger if someone else makes helmets, we get a big case of sour grapes.
So if I find another original helmet make perfect copies of that helmet, yet it is different from Gino's am I the new king or just another king.
The point is, Gino only knows what the helmet looks like NOW. It could have gone through many squishing and squashing in the time it took to get to him. They certainly don't look like they have been preserved in any way. (Yes, I have seen many of the same helmets that are bragged upon here).
I have also spent many hours (way to many) vacuforming. Despite what other have said, it is not an exact science without serious measure in place. I was professional model maker for 12 years and custom manufacturing manager for another ten.
Is the point of the RPF to trade information about props certainly. Somethings perhap warrant tracking down the most minute details. Some props CAN be identified to the Nth degree. Because they ARE detailed and precise. ST helmets just don't fall into that catagory for me and it's that insane striving for every little bump that feeds these threads.
People need to stop trying to be the expert and just put out the info they can to SHOW what is up. If that knowledge is secret, then just keep your trap shut and don't be a braggart.
Star Wars Helmets
Sr Member
Guys, my issue is not over the helmet as I agree theyÂ’re very nice. However my problem is that it now appears that Gino and Dave G made a number of statements about them which now appear to have been untrue.
So Gino, rather than taking an aggressive stance and sidestepping the questions – why not give everyone an answer so we can all move on?
I can only presume that your unwillingness to do so is because you have something to hide. If your helmets are actually from 2nd generation moulds then you should admit it. After all IÂ’m sure people will say you did a great job if they believe you were able to produce a better helmet from a 2nd gen mould than TE did from his 1st.
Same with the numbering. How many helmets you made is up to you but dont go telling owners that the low numbers they paid a LOT of cash for mean nothing. You might consider it a joke but others could see it as fraud.
I believe you have misled people over your helmets and as one of the original purchasers IÂ’m justified in asking you to clarify a couple of questions. In the past you have sought transparency from others so IÂ’m only asking the same from you.
Cheers
Jez
So Gino, rather than taking an aggressive stance and sidestepping the questions – why not give everyone an answer so we can all move on?
I can only presume that your unwillingness to do so is because you have something to hide. If your helmets are actually from 2nd generation moulds then you should admit it. After all IÂ’m sure people will say you did a great job if they believe you were able to produce a better helmet from a 2nd gen mould than TE did from his 1st.
Same with the numbering. How many helmets you made is up to you but dont go telling owners that the low numbers they paid a LOT of cash for mean nothing. You might consider it a joke but others could see it as fraud.
I believe you have misled people over your helmets and as one of the original purchasers IÂ’m justified in asking you to clarify a couple of questions. In the past you have sought transparency from others so IÂ’m only asking the same from you.
Cheers
Jez
rebel scum
New Member
When I've PM'd GINO in the past with questions, he's always answered them. If you want to know something, just ask in a civilized manner.
Chris
Chris
GINO
Sr Member
FYI, I'm answering this because I want to show I have nothing to hide, NOT because it was asked of Jez. I don't feel I owe him ANYTHING regardless of if he owns something from me or not. Once I think you're a jerk, everything goes out the window according to me.
First run of helmets.
Faceplates: Mix of original faceplate mold pulls and duplicate faceplate mold pulls. I say duplicate and not 2nd gen because of the way the duplicate mold was created (the trade secret part that I don't wish to give away), there was no measureable difference between the original and the duplicate. They were identical in every way and no way to tell them apart. Also, once pieces were pulled on both molds, we couldn't tell which ones came off of which no matter how hard we tried.
Cap/back: Duplicate cap/back was made in the same way as the faceplate and the bumps/texture was removed.
Earcaps: The earcaps we received were big lumps of oversized crap that had their details reworked as best as possible. All makers earcaps were made oversized and no one realized it until we had molds taken from the inside of the TE2/DaveM helmet.
Second run of helmets.
Faceplate: Same faceplate mold as before.
Earcaps: Duplicate earcap molds were made by taking silicone negative molds off of the masters made by TE off the TE2/DaveM helmet. New exact duplicates were made out of those negative silicone molds and suffered no generational degredation.
Cap/back: The original mold borrowed from TE in trade for a large # of my old faceplate pulls that he desperately needed to fill his orders with. What ended the run was that on one occasion, the original cap/back mold was rendered useless because large chunks in several different areas had broken out. After that, this mold was in such bad shape that even if repaired (because the areas were so large), would no longer be able to generate a pull that could be considered authentic by my definition.
TE and I had discussed the risk involved in putting such a fragile mold back into use before we made the trade and he was cool with it. I immediately made him aware of the situation after it happened and he wasn't upset at all as we knew very well the risks going into it. At that point, he cared very little for the mold and I sent it back to him along with the faceplates that I had promised. We were on great and friendly terms for about 8 months....then...
At that time, no one except me cared about having a helmet with the bumpy cap/back. Believe me. I knew no one but me who wanted one. Even the guy I was working with could care less. It wasn't until about 8 months later when I finally made a showoff thread on the rpf and there began a desire for these bumpy/textured cap/backs that TE's interest in being able to provide them to people was renewed. That is when Matt realized that he was upset about his mold being destroyed. Like I said, we both knew and discussed the risks going in and until there was a demand for them, he could have cared less.
There you have it.
Probably not satisfactory for some but tough @#$%.. If I think you're a dick, (and you all know who you are) don't bother asking me a question as you already know it won't get answered. If someone that I don't think is a dick has further questions, shoot me an email, not a pm and I'll gladly oblige you.
First run of helmets.
Faceplates: Mix of original faceplate mold pulls and duplicate faceplate mold pulls. I say duplicate and not 2nd gen because of the way the duplicate mold was created (the trade secret part that I don't wish to give away), there was no measureable difference between the original and the duplicate. They were identical in every way and no way to tell them apart. Also, once pieces were pulled on both molds, we couldn't tell which ones came off of which no matter how hard we tried.
Cap/back: Duplicate cap/back was made in the same way as the faceplate and the bumps/texture was removed.
Earcaps: The earcaps we received were big lumps of oversized crap that had their details reworked as best as possible. All makers earcaps were made oversized and no one realized it until we had molds taken from the inside of the TE2/DaveM helmet.
Second run of helmets.
Faceplate: Same faceplate mold as before.
Earcaps: Duplicate earcap molds were made by taking silicone negative molds off of the masters made by TE off the TE2/DaveM helmet. New exact duplicates were made out of those negative silicone molds and suffered no generational degredation.
Cap/back: The original mold borrowed from TE in trade for a large # of my old faceplate pulls that he desperately needed to fill his orders with. What ended the run was that on one occasion, the original cap/back mold was rendered useless because large chunks in several different areas had broken out. After that, this mold was in such bad shape that even if repaired (because the areas were so large), would no longer be able to generate a pull that could be considered authentic by my definition.
TE and I had discussed the risk involved in putting such a fragile mold back into use before we made the trade and he was cool with it. I immediately made him aware of the situation after it happened and he wasn't upset at all as we knew very well the risks going into it. At that point, he cared very little for the mold and I sent it back to him along with the faceplates that I had promised. We were on great and friendly terms for about 8 months....then...
At that time, no one except me cared about having a helmet with the bumpy cap/back. Believe me. I knew no one but me who wanted one. Even the guy I was working with could care less. It wasn't until about 8 months later when I finally made a showoff thread on the rpf and there began a desire for these bumpy/textured cap/backs that TE's interest in being able to provide them to people was renewed. That is when Matt realized that he was upset about his mold being destroyed. Like I said, we both knew and discussed the risks going in and until there was a demand for them, he could have cared less.
There you have it.
Probably not satisfactory for some but tough @#$%.. If I think you're a dick, (and you all know who you are) don't bother asking me a question as you already know it won't get answered. If someone that I don't think is a dick has further questions, shoot me an email, not a pm and I'll gladly oblige you.
vaderdarth
Master Member
Gino, let me get this straight..........your "highly sensitive trade secret" process for making these parts......not using original parts by your own admission......you still consider first generation castings???? Wow, you really are a magical critter....
That's complete horsecrap and I'm glad you have finally proven yourself a liar right here on the RPF. It's either first generation castings or it ain't. It's obvious it is NOT.... Yet you told many buyers of your armor that it certainly was... I'm personally glad I passed on your armor at the time not because your armor isn't pretty, but based on what I know this very morning...
Be a man for once and tell all the customers you mislead way back when, the truth. I'm sure you have the truth in you somewhere. Stop trying to paint Jez and others in a negative light for once and just answer for your own lies for a change. Act all grown up so we can move forward.
That's complete horsecrap and I'm glad you have finally proven yourself a liar right here on the RPF. It's either first generation castings or it ain't. It's obvious it is NOT.... Yet you told many buyers of your armor that it certainly was... I'm personally glad I passed on your armor at the time not because your armor isn't pretty, but based on what I know this very morning...
Be a man for once and tell all the customers you mislead way back when, the truth. I'm sure you have the truth in you somewhere. Stop trying to paint Jez and others in a negative light for once and just answer for your own lies for a change. Act all grown up so we can move forward.
Keith
Sr Member
For a vac formed helmet to be a "second generation" cast, i think it would have to have been made from molds taken from a replica helmet, like a TE.
We all know duplicate molds have to be made to replace a mold when its burnt out.
As long as the molds that made Gino's new helmet were not taken from a replica TE helmet, then i would call them first generation.
Either way, just look how the bumps match the screen used helmets, its spot on.
Even if Gino's helmet was 10th generation, i would rather have ONE of Gino's helmets than TEN SDS helmets. And you know what, i bet EVERY SDS supporter would too. I mean at least a 10th generation Gino helmet would have some connection to a screen used helmet
Keith.
We all know duplicate molds have to be made to replace a mold when its burnt out.
As long as the molds that made Gino's new helmet were not taken from a replica TE helmet, then i would call them first generation.
Either way, just look how the bumps match the screen used helmets, its spot on.
Even if Gino's helmet was 10th generation, i would rather have ONE of Gino's helmets than TEN SDS helmets. And you know what, i bet EVERY SDS supporter would too. I mean at least a 10th generation Gino helmet would have some connection to a screen used helmet
Keith.
vaderdarth
Master Member
Originally posted by Keith@Jan 30 2006, 10:23 AM
For a vac formed helmet to be a "second generation" cast, i think it would have to have been made from molds taken from a replica helmet, like a TE.
We all know duplicate molds have to be made to replace a mold when its burnt out.
As long as the molds that made Gino's new helmet were not taken from a replica TE helmet, then i would call them first generation.
Either way, just look how the bumps match the screen used helmets, its spot on.
Even if Gino's helmet was 10th generation, i would rather have ONE of Gino's helmets than TEN SDS helmets. And you know what, i bet EVERY SDS supporter would too. I mean at least a 10th generation Gino helmet would have some connection to a screen used helmet
Keith.
[snapback]1171714[/snapback]
The attractiveness of the helmet isn't the point here Keith,
unless your mould comes off the original armor pieces........no matter how you create the moulds.......they are still second Generation moulds. That topic has long been critical with collectors of replica props. You cannot EVER claim first generation or sibling castings unless your "replacement moulds" also came from the first gen castings.......PERIOD. Embellishing the facts to make the sale makes me a bit sick when it's that much $$ we're talking about.
How would you like to be one of the many customers told the armor you bought is First Generations......right off the screen trooper suit...........and then years later find out that was not the case???
That is the Only issue here...........and it is quite disturbing when this particular vendor attacks other vendors when he suspects similar "misguidings" going on.
Do we just let this one slide???? I don't think so. If he weren't the biggest voice of criticism for other vendors of the same pieces, it might not matter so much.
Many people have cried foul about this guy's hidden motives and this is just one more example of how he likes to twist the facts to hide his lies, and then go on search and destroy missions for anyone who happens to be his competition at the time. Screw that mentality. Enough is enough.
Ghost Host
Sr Member
Sure you do, you owe him the truth as a previous customer. You also owe the RPF in general, decency and respectful replies.
Yes we know, especially those you decided to burn in deals... traders beware.
Where's the common courtesy here to the average reader? Such language. :rolleyes
The first thing, any half-way-professional/prudent producer/mold-maker/caster would do w/ a valuable and possibly rather fragile master taken from the inside of a screen used ST helmet, would be to make a mold of the piece and create a new, more stable and replaceable 2nd master for production-purposes. To me that practise is perfectly acceptable and to be expected.
I would almost go as far as to say, it is somewhat naive to expect that anybody would actually risk damage to a master/buck that was created 1st generation by casting into a screen-used vac-form skin = screen-used helmet. Too risky, too short-sighted und in my humble opinion: completely unprofessional - espcially if you're planning to vac-form over your bucks more than once or twice.
So - would a helmet formed over a 2nd generation buck be considered to be 2 generations removed from the original or could you still consider it: 1st generation? [maybe generation 1.B?] To me, that question is a little interest, AS LONG as the manner in which the duplicate masters were produced, was such that there is no generational loss of detail, shape and overall size. Which w/ the right materials and done by the right person, is actually not all that hard to accomplish.
Lastly the proof is in the final product - the replica helmet pulled from the bucks [whichever generation]. If the end-product measures up [which in Gino's case it does], the question w/ generation mold/buck/etc. was used to create the piece, becomes somewhat irrelevant to me [personally] and basically drifts off into the area of semantics, speculation and obsession w/ somewhat meaningless numbers.
It basically boils down to whether the craftsman/producer is skilled enough and cares enough about making sure that the replica will end up looking like the screen-used piece. Give the 'fact' that Gino keeps a good number of the helmets he produced for himself - and given the fact that he's a picky SOB - I don't think, he would go and produce something that is not up to the highest standards that he could possibly achieve... using molds/bucks that are as close to the bucks used for the screen-used helmets as possible?
I'll say it again - the proof is in the end-result: have a look at the new Gino helmet - it's the closest thing I have ever seen to a real-deal helmet... if the molds/bucks were anything less that what they are presented as, we would be able to tell just by looking at the resulting helmet. [see AA/SDS - where the molds were presented as something that they were/are NOT - which can clearly be seen, when the resulting helmet was compared to screen-shots/screen-used helmet reference... tralking back and cap here mostly].
I would almost go as far as to say, it is somewhat naive to expect that anybody would actually risk damage to a master/buck that was created 1st generation by casting into a screen-used vac-form skin = screen-used helmet. Too risky, too short-sighted und in my humble opinion: completely unprofessional - espcially if you're planning to vac-form over your bucks more than once or twice.
So - would a helmet formed over a 2nd generation buck be considered to be 2 generations removed from the original or could you still consider it: 1st generation? [maybe generation 1.B?] To me, that question is a little interest, AS LONG as the manner in which the duplicate masters were produced, was such that there is no generational loss of detail, shape and overall size. Which w/ the right materials and done by the right person, is actually not all that hard to accomplish.
Lastly the proof is in the final product - the replica helmet pulled from the bucks [whichever generation]. If the end-product measures up [which in Gino's case it does], the question w/ generation mold/buck/etc. was used to create the piece, becomes somewhat irrelevant to me [personally] and basically drifts off into the area of semantics, speculation and obsession w/ somewhat meaningless numbers.
It basically boils down to whether the craftsman/producer is skilled enough and cares enough about making sure that the replica will end up looking like the screen-used piece. Give the 'fact' that Gino keeps a good number of the helmets he produced for himself - and given the fact that he's a picky SOB - I don't think, he would go and produce something that is not up to the highest standards that he could possibly achieve... using molds/bucks that are as close to the bucks used for the screen-used helmets as possible?
I'll say it again - the proof is in the end-result: have a look at the new Gino helmet - it's the closest thing I have ever seen to a real-deal helmet... if the molds/bucks were anything less that what they are presented as, we would be able to tell just by looking at the resulting helmet. [see AA/SDS - where the molds were presented as something that they were/are NOT - which can clearly be seen, when the resulting helmet was compared to screen-shots/screen-used helmet reference... tralking back and cap here mostly].
vaderdarth
Master Member
You know the old saying...........what's good for the goose and all that. Playing with matches also comes to mind.
In any case. At least expect the same criticism if you mislead your customers.
If it's not exactly first generation same as the TE...........then don't claim it to be.
It's pretty simple. Of course I fully expect the Gino fan club to try to fight his battle for him. What's new in that???
Nobody is saying his stuff isn't pretty, right??? That doesn't excuse false claims for him anymore than it does for AA.
The big difference here on the RPF, is that AA isn't one of US. Gino, on the other hand IS...........and must be held accountable. Especially if he's gotta bitch louder about his competition than anyone else around.
Let's keep it fair shall we???
In any case. At least expect the same criticism if you mislead your customers.
If it's not exactly first generation same as the TE...........then don't claim it to be.
It's pretty simple. Of course I fully expect the Gino fan club to try to fight his battle for him. What's new in that???
Nobody is saying his stuff isn't pretty, right??? That doesn't excuse false claims for him anymore than it does for AA.
The big difference here on the RPF, is that AA isn't one of US. Gino, on the other hand IS...........and must be held accountable. Especially if he's gotta bitch louder about his competition than anyone else around.
Let's keep it fair shall we???
Qui-Gonzalez
Master Member
I guess fair is an entirely subjective term, right? The only owner of a GINO helmet who has had a bone to pick was Jez. His bone of contention was the numbering thing, not the bonafides of his molds. He seemed to behappy with his helmet otherwise.
I guess I will be branded as a GINO defender now, but frankly, you and a few others have ganged up on this guy for most of this thread. I am a fan of GINO's stuff as much as I am a fan of Ghost Host's stuff. I can freely walk both sides of the equation. It's called being impartial. You guys are like a shark who smells blood in the water. Someone asked about the worth of a GINO helmet and it erupted into this. Out comes the mob to gang up on him and you wonder why he got angry with his language? Hell, I would have for sure.
VaderDarth, you don't even own one of the mentioned helmets that people are happy with, so how is this not trolling? I don't see one complaint about the product here, just a poster asking what his item would be worth which called out the dogs.
I hate seeing the crafters here on the RPF - ALL of the crafters - slammed in any way here when we ALL benefit from each and every one of them. We benefit from their research, their craftsmanship and even their personalities, yet this crap goes on with everyone here. Grow the hell up, people.
vaderdarth
Master Member
Qui.........I'll note your comments and just say that I just simply disagree with them. No I don't have his helmet. But the issue seems to be lying to your customers and getting away with it. He did tell me the same crap when he offered them and just because I didn't close the deal doesn't mean I can't voice my own opinion.
You say sharks smelling blood.........every single AA thread in the past has been the same way only Gino and his fan club were the sharks.
Turn about is fair play, eh???
You say sharks smelling blood.........every single AA thread in the past has been the same way only Gino and his fan club were the sharks.
Turn about is fair play, eh???
Star Wars Helmets
Sr Member
Gino,
Thank you for answering my question concerning your moulds. IÂ’m glad you clarified the matter, IÂ’ll leave it to others to decide what generation they are.
From your (lack of) response we can presume the numbering was in fact random, and there could be several helmets out there with the same number. Not the most professional approach and I would suggest in future go either sequentially or none at all.
I see no reason for this antagonism to continue. This isn’t about people taking “sides” but ensuring that everyone abides by the same rules – rules that you Gino have in the past called others to account for on this very board. It was always unwise of you to set yourself up as if you were on another moral plane to other producers, since it invariably prompts others to question your own business ethics which in this instance were found wanting.
I’m happy you’ve answered my questions– maybe next time you can do so without all the expletives and drama.
Cheers
Jez
Thank you for answering my question concerning your moulds. IÂ’m glad you clarified the matter, IÂ’ll leave it to others to decide what generation they are.
From your (lack of) response we can presume the numbering was in fact random, and there could be several helmets out there with the same number. Not the most professional approach and I would suggest in future go either sequentially or none at all.
I see no reason for this antagonism to continue. This isn’t about people taking “sides” but ensuring that everyone abides by the same rules – rules that you Gino have in the past called others to account for on this very board. It was always unwise of you to set yourself up as if you were on another moral plane to other producers, since it invariably prompts others to question your own business ethics which in this instance were found wanting.
I’m happy you’ve answered my questions– maybe next time you can do so without all the expletives and drama.
Cheers
Jez
FalconV8
Well-Known Member
At the time that I purchased my GINO/CRPROPS helmet I knew of no such claims at all of it being from an actual helmet. I had seen pictures and I knew that it had "the look" I was after. Hell, Jez even helped me get in touch with Gino/Crprpos to purchase one and I thank him tremendously for that.
The fact that after I owned the helmet, I learned of the relationship to the TE helmet and I became even more satisfied that my helmet has had a close lineage to a real helmet. I can see that lineage when I look at it.
Customer 100% satisfied.
When I saw the AA helmet, I knew it was supposed to be from original molds and maker, a hell of a pedigree, but it still didn't have the look I was after , so I stayed with my Gino/CRPROPS.
I even bought a Meatsock before I knew it was a recast of a TE, no wonder it has the same look I have been after.
I think the bottom line should be customers who are satisfied, I haven't heard too many people complaning about Gino's product or it's history, seems like there are more complaints about how to aquire one.
CM
The fact that after I owned the helmet, I learned of the relationship to the TE helmet and I became even more satisfied that my helmet has had a close lineage to a real helmet. I can see that lineage when I look at it.
Customer 100% satisfied.
When I saw the AA helmet, I knew it was supposed to be from original molds and maker, a hell of a pedigree, but it still didn't have the look I was after , so I stayed with my Gino/CRPROPS.
I even bought a Meatsock before I knew it was a recast of a TE, no wonder it has the same look I have been after.
I think the bottom line should be customers who are satisfied, I haven't heard too many people complaning about Gino's product or it's history, seems like there are more complaints about how to aquire one.
CM
vaderdarth
Master Member
Extremely well said Jez and I whole heartedly agree. I've learned all I need to learn directly from the horse's mouth. At least people are more aware of who they are dealing with. Things are never what they seem with that sort of dealing. Just get it in writing and you can't go wrong. If they refuse to put it in writing.......my advise is to keep moving. Reputable vendors on the RPF won't have a problem keeping "all details" above board.
Dave
Dave
- Status
