Node Nine
Active Member
You mean this?
Is this Stormtrooper mold story just Propaganda?
- Thread starter JoeR
- Start date
You mean this?
sskunky
Sr Member
GINO
Sr Member
Chris, if you look at the Brian R and the Dave M, you will clearly see the bulge it showing up in two different locations. As I said before, this is due to the pieces being under tension.
Absolutely. And I'm sure I could reproduce what you see in both the Brian R as well as the Dave M.
I won't be assembling a new one for awhile but I'll be sure to pay attention to that area when doing so.
I'm sure that when I've put helmets together in the past, this is one of those things that I tried to make fit well vs. how they originally fit.
But it's been a long time since I assembled a helmet so it will be one of several new things I make sure get factored in.
Absolutely. And I'm sure I could reproduce what you see in both the Brian R as well as the Dave M.
I won't be assembling a new one for awhile but I'll be sure to pay attention to that area when doing so.
I'm sure that when I've put helmets together in the past, this is one of those things that I tried to make fit well vs. how they originally fit.
But it's been a long time since I assembled a helmet so it will be one of several new things I make sure get factored in.
JoMamma_Smurf
Master Member
This quote answers the original issue that this thread was based on. The helmets sold that were claimed to have "touched the original molds" were made on DUPLICATE ANH MOLDS! Gino said it himself. Thats what I get out of it. That and the question has been dodged about 4 times.
CSMacLaren
Sr Member
How much of is particular area is pulled out versus how much is tucked in due to earpiece placement and angle can be determined if we had photos of these helmets photographed with more consistency (in angle and distance) with the ear and faceplate not cropped so we can get a better comparison.
Node Nine
Active Member
NO...
he means this
In that case, I would say you have a definite point. "The molds for this helmet were taken from two authentic standard style stromtrooper [sic] helmets . . ." is fairly unequivocal . . .
"Confusing" does not quite cover it.
Keith
Sr Member
I don't think there is anything bad about using duplicate molds as long as its done perfectly.
I'm in the process of duplicating the Jedi molds at the moment. As long as its done by someone who knows how important it is that NOTHING must change or shift position, done without trying to cut corners to save money and ZERO shrink silicone is used and the best minimal shrink resin is used, its fine. I'm confident that the way i cast things though, that even the minimal resin shrinkage can be avoided.
I personally wouldnt form one helmet on the actual molds that touched the inside of the helmet, unless at least two sets were made that is. It would be a stupid thing to do IMO.
I'm not 100% sure on what claims Gino has made. For a long time now, when i'm reading a thread about trooper stuff, or anyhthing really and that thread turns into the usual bickering or egos start coming out, i've stopped reading it. I just don't want to waste time reading online wars or being part of them.
Its only more recently i've started reading through some of them again, as i want to know what to expect when i have finished some Jedi helmets and people see them.
As for the sag/lump/kink on the right tube, i've wanted to see that on a replica for years. Some people may remember i even added it to that first "vintage" replica i made years ago by heating the plastic up in that area and pushing it out. I almost set fire to the damn face plate lol..
Why its not there on the casting taken from the BR helmet, who knows. I know it would still be there when the helmet was taken apart, but only the people who made the molds will know what happened there, so there is no point asking anyone here.
I've wondered for years if the face mold was altered or not, especially since seeing two original ANH helmets in person and seeing details inside the face that i didn't know about before. But to avoid arguments or ill feelings, i just didn't ask. Again, who here would know for sure anyway?
Why doesn't everyone who is arguing on here all the time just try and change a bit, to at least try and rudeuce the arguing?
When the SDS replicas turned out to be not what i was hoping for, i was very angry and got into lots of arguments over them. It was not long after that i thought how stupid i was for arguing like that. I got into a little bit of an argument a week or so ago with Gino and again, after that, i was disappointed in myself.
There are far more important things in life, so don't waste your time arguing on the internet. Go and take your kids to the park, or take your wife somewhere nice or something.
Keith.
I'm in the process of duplicating the Jedi molds at the moment. As long as its done by someone who knows how important it is that NOTHING must change or shift position, done without trying to cut corners to save money and ZERO shrink silicone is used and the best minimal shrink resin is used, its fine. I'm confident that the way i cast things though, that even the minimal resin shrinkage can be avoided.
I personally wouldnt form one helmet on the actual molds that touched the inside of the helmet, unless at least two sets were made that is. It would be a stupid thing to do IMO.
I'm not 100% sure on what claims Gino has made. For a long time now, when i'm reading a thread about trooper stuff, or anyhthing really and that thread turns into the usual bickering or egos start coming out, i've stopped reading it. I just don't want to waste time reading online wars or being part of them.
Its only more recently i've started reading through some of them again, as i want to know what to expect when i have finished some Jedi helmets and people see them.
As for the sag/lump/kink on the right tube, i've wanted to see that on a replica for years. Some people may remember i even added it to that first "vintage" replica i made years ago by heating the plastic up in that area and pushing it out. I almost set fire to the damn face plate lol..
Why its not there on the casting taken from the BR helmet, who knows. I know it would still be there when the helmet was taken apart, but only the people who made the molds will know what happened there, so there is no point asking anyone here.
I've wondered for years if the face mold was altered or not, especially since seeing two original ANH helmets in person and seeing details inside the face that i didn't know about before. But to avoid arguments or ill feelings, i just didn't ask. Again, who here would know for sure anyway?
Why doesn't everyone who is arguing on here all the time just try and change a bit, to at least try and rudeuce the arguing?
When the SDS replicas turned out to be not what i was hoping for, i was very angry and got into lots of arguments over them. It was not long after that i thought how stupid i was for arguing like that. I got into a little bit of an argument a week or so ago with Gino and again, after that, i was disappointed in myself.
There are far more important things in life, so don't waste your time arguing on the internet. Go and take your kids to the park, or take your wife somewhere nice or something.
Keith.
mrsmartypants
Well-Known Member
NO...
he means this
You know, I really don't give two ****s about whether something was cast from an original or is a painstakingly created from scratch copy. As long as I like it and it looks as accurate as possible, it's good enough for me. That's just me though.
In addition, I'm a newbie here and do not know Gino and have had little to no interaction with him on any topic. Though a SW fan, I have no vested interest in Gino, his accusers, or these (or any other) SW lids or other SW memorabilia - it's just not my thing.
That being said, I have to throw my .02 into this whole thing, because if what I'm reading is correct, it seems a lot of the argument that "Gino is a liar" is based on varying levels of basic reading comprehension skills.
This is what is being used as a key piece of evidence against Gino, which was apparently taken from his website:
"Out of all the other replica helmets out there, the largest thing that sets mine apart from the others is that they are the ONLY helmets formed from non-cleaned up, undamaged, and non-restored molds of the back/cap, faceplate, and ears (all of which touched the insides of two real screen used helmets)."
Now, I suppose this is open to interpretation, but the way I read this is:
1. The two real screen used helmets had molds made of the faceplate, back/cap and ears.
2. Gino, in turn, made molds of these molds to create his stormtrooper lids. In fact, Gino supports this interpretation when he said he made duplicates of the molds.
Now maybe, it's just me, but in no way does the text from his website say his molds came from the inside of a real, screen-used helmets. It says his molds came from molds from the inside of real, screen-used helmets.
So, IMHO, Gino has appeared to make one claim (the same claim all along) and stood by it while his detractors have misread his claims and have then subsequently accused him of something entirely different.
exoray
Master Member
That is the way I interpret it as well, meaning that they are not derived from fan altered molds, recast helmets or what not but in fact are direct lineage to ones that originated from real helmet castings...
As Keith said above, and I have said multiple times in the SDS threads anyone STUPID enough to use the defacto one of a kind master molds for any significant number of helmets is just plain stupid... The first step any smart person would do is create a second set of production molds rather then risk destroying a one of a kind casting...
What I see here is nothing more then the same old arguments I have seen over the years but this time with a new 'sock puppets' being used... And BTW that is 'sock puppet' used in the correct context as a voice of another vs the overly abused incorrect 'nymshift' applied context used on this forum...
vaderdarth
Master Member
That quote above doesn't just imply Gino's moulds touched the inside of the original helmets, it point blank states it. It doesn't say moulds from other moulds, it says his only moulds touched the inside of the original screen used helmets. It's right there in black and white.
if every helmet part he mentions........is followed by the statement "all of which touched the inside of screen used helmets" in parentheses............it can mean nothing else.
stating later that you only ever stated your moulds were made from other moulds that only ever touched the inside of screen used helmets is a complete 180 degree turn in my book.
However you look at it, folks, one of the two statements has to be an un-truth.
I don't think the mods can see this any other way, personally.
Dave
if every helmet part he mentions........is followed by the statement "all of which touched the inside of screen used helmets" in parentheses............it can mean nothing else.
stating later that you only ever stated your moulds were made from other moulds that only ever touched the inside of screen used helmets is a complete 180 degree turn in my book.
However you look at it, folks, one of the two statements has to be an un-truth.
I don't think the mods can see this any other way, personally.
Dave
exoray
Master Member
Actually it's not as black and white as you claim if you follow proper English structure and don't inject assumptions and presumptions into your conclusion... Don' read between the words, read the words and study technical semantics...
With that statement he simply states his helmets are formed from "non-cleaned up, undamaged, and not restored molds" contrary to other offerings... No where does it state the defacto original, the one and only mold master molds are used, that is reading between the lines and injecting something that simply isn't there...
He then continues but note it's in parentheses...
Parentheses are used to clarify, place an afterthought, or to add a personal comment...
This is simply clarification that the molds are not newly created recreations or have origins somewhere else but instead originate directly from two distinct original helmets... Again it does not state that the helmets are pulled from these same defacto set of molds, but rather simply clarifies the originating source as two molds...
Assuming or injecting anything more is simply an assumption you create, not a statement of fact made...
But then again there are people that will argue to no end over semantics.
vaderdarth
Master Member
come on Exoray, that's pretty weak. That claim makes zero mention of a second set of moulds. go sell crazy someplace else. Kinda funny that someone could put that in writing and still try to deny they wrote it. False advertisement is false advertisement. I for one think it's a pretty serious issue. I'm a little disturbed that the proof is right in front of us, yet anyone might think something this cut and dry is "just misunderstood". I think we've all heard that pathetic argument a few too many times. That whole "you must have misunderstood argument" is simply tired. If it's the same guy telling everyone else that they must have misunderstood.............the only common denominator is the guy telling everyone that. You have to lay the blame at the feet of the guy who seems to find his way into every single crap storm all by his lonesome!!! Blatant lies always have a knack for catching up to ya.
Last edited:
exoray
Master Member
I'm not making 'claims' or selling 'crazy' I'm interpreting the English language as written on a technical level... As rollerboi stated it's reading comprehension and logic not ill placed assumptions...
Although I do find it funny that you claim 'crazy' when professional type evaluations and interpretations are given on the technical aspect of the English language over common street talk interpretations...
Last edited:
vaderdarth
Master Member
I can remove my "crazy sales" phrase, but you still can't point out anywhere in that Ad where a second set of moulds are mentioned. That Ad mentions one set of moulds which were claimed by the advertiser, to have touched the inside of a screen used helmet. Am I wrong???
vaderdarth
Master Member
show me anywhere in that ad above, where he states the moulds are duplicates. He states the helmets are duplicates.........not the moulds. HUGE difference!
exoray
Master Member
You are correct, I am not going to attempt to interject anything in there that is not written as that is not my point...
But once again you seem to want to interject things into there that are not written, I still fail to see anywhere that it says the 'original' of anything was used to form the helmets, this is an assumption... If you keep reading between the lines rather then the actual written lines you can conclude anything...
Last edited:
vaderdarth
Master Member
Dude, when you claim your helmet...that you are selling...came directly off an "untampered with" mould that touched the inside of screen helmets.................you cannot claim at a later date that your moulds were duplicates of the moulds that touched the insides of the screen used helmets. You just got done saying they were "THE moulds" that touched the inside of the screen used helmets. You cannot have it both ways. It's either or.................that is what is black and white here. There is no play on the wording...........it is written by the seller. Period! He cannot claim it one way one day, then claim it the other way the next day. One is a copy of the other for crying out loud.
Similar threads
