Is this Stormtrooper mold story just Propaganda?

[exoray]

The whole point is his molds are altered and he lied about it, and lied about the fact that they touched the inside of an original. I can't make it any clearer for anyone.

One, I have no proof EITHER way if the molds are perfect unaltered or not... But, all I have from you is simply a small inconsistency that you keep trying to leverage as some defacto proof, sorry you are falling short, your claimed 'proof' is a small part in a big picture where almost all the other pieces contradict it... 99% of Ginos helmet matches the screen used ones, while you notice one small inconstancy (that I can explain away due a molding process) and all the sudden I'm supposed to dismiss the other 99% that matches and supports his claims that it came from a real helmet? As i said sorry isn't going to happen...

To my knowledge Gino has never lied about the origins of his molds, like the other 'bashers' here you are failing to educate yourself on the whole history of his helmets and a history he has made blatantly public... Instead you focus your attention on 'assumptions' you create from a single later paragraph on his website... You do realize you are basing your whole argument on the wording of a single 'new' paragraph and ignoring the long and detailed history Gino has been stating for years now, right?

Website basis of you argument = 2008, Gino stating they are duplicate molds on the FISD 2007... <~~~ READ and READ again...

He stated in advance of his website that they were duplicates, the wording on his website might lean and tend to create assumptions of the contrary (as it obviously does) but it doesn't directly contradict his earlier statements if you evaluate the language and remove your in between the lines assumptions of the words, instead focusing on what is says at the fundamental level...

 

[JoeR]

it does serve to further illustrate what jealousy and pettiness will drive these people to do.

Like lie about all their props to serve some bizarre prop ego. I'll apologise for making people aware of the truth, yeah sorry for that.

Let's lock this and move on, GINO will never admit the truth, I have shown solid evidence that his molds are altered, it is up to people to make up their own minds.

Joe

 

[GINO]

Sure now you say that after the way things have gone and how horribly it has portrayed you and your ilk. I don't blame you.


.

 

[Nairod]

I have always been curious about the fact of how a mold can be smooth when the inside of a screen used helmet is textured??

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

Man, let it go. His claims have done you no harm. Part of the condition of buying his helmet(If I recall) was that you were not allowed to part with it without his permission. Is that kooky? Yup, but the buyers wanted it and agreed with it. The one sale I have seen of his trooper bucket was done in this manner. I haven't seen anyone else part with theirs.

Let it go.

 

[Qui-Gonzalez]

I have always been curious about the fact of how a mold can be smooth when the inside of a screen used helmet is textured??

From what little I know about vac forming, this is because you are stretching hot plastic over details sculpted into the piece. You are going to lose more detail with the thickness of the plastic, and as the plastic gets thicker, the details get smoother.

Correct me if I am wrong, fabricators.

 

[GINO]

For the millionth time, the originals did not use haircell HDPE.
The texture you see there is not haircell.

 

[sskunky]

No, it was calendered HDPE not haircell and calendered is textured with one side being rough kinda like a 240 grit wet and dry paper. That is where the texture comes from. Calandered was the manufacturing process used befor extrusion which was only just starting to be done back in the seventies.

 

[GINO]

No, it was calendered HDPE not haircell and calendered is textured with one side being rough kinda like a 240 grit wet and dry paper. That is where the texture comes from. Calandered was the manufacturing process used befor extrusion which was only just starting to be done back in the seventies.

You got this BS info from AA.
The HDPE was not textured on any side, nor was the black or white ABS.
While you are at it, why don't you tell him we're still looking for the other 50 ABS stunt helmets. :rolleyes

.

 

[JoeR]

Quote:

Thread: Stormtrooper Armor Lineage Chart

Not enough energy to compose an entire family tree, so I'll give you the short version.

- Film used pieces
- Me
- Everyone else (you guys sort out the mess)

No one has molds (ANH/ROTJhelmet & ROTJ armor) that are closer in lineage to the film used items they were taken from than I do. The molds I have touched the insides of the real items. NO ONE ELSE can say that. Just wanted to clarify.

These are your own words buddy!

I am only posting this as a kind fellow member jsut pm'd me with the info. Is this not a blatent lie to the rest of this forum and all of us collectors? Oh sorry he implied copies somehow, or meant to say copies somehow!

Joe

 

[GINO]

My ROTJ helmet and armor molds DID touch the insides of the screen used helmet and armor they were taken from.
And no one else can say that.
Perhaps since that was said, I can add you to that list in regard to a ROTJ helmet since you recast that one you promised Propstore you wouldn't.
You want to call me out for something, but what you did was just sketchy and low.

.

 

[JoeR]

And more of your own words from 2006 at a time that you were offering ANH helmets AND you included ANH helmets in the post. You were selling those helmets at a high price lying about their pedigree. Anybody see a pattern here? Story changing...

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.

 

[GINO]

And more of your own words from 2006 at a time that you were offering ANH helmets AND you included ANH helmets in the post. You were selling those helmets at a high price lying about their pedigree. Anybody see a pattern here? Story changing...

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.

I don't see the discrepancy.
How is that any different that what I've been saying all along?
It even says right there to serve as yet ANOTHER example of how I've been blatanly open about using mold duplicates for the ANH helmet.

Sharp work Mr. Holmes.


.

 

[JoeR]

The molds I have touched the insides of the real items.

VS

The helmet molds that were sent back to you, were paid for and owned by Dave, but since we had duplicates, Dave thought it the lesser of two evils to send back the originals just to get your crazy an impolite person off his back because at the time, you were interfering with his real life business.

:confused

 

[JoeR]

So you say the mold was "borrowed" then a year later you state the mold was "bought" You state that mold was damaged during the pulling process and later then admit to deliberately altering the mold.

I'm confused, anyone else?

He who is not sure of his memory should not undertake the trade of lying.

Dr Joe Watson

 

[vaderdarth]

Want some damning evidence.......something you can't misconstrue try this out: Gino posted this in another thread:


"Not enough energy to compose an entire family tree, so I'll give you the short version.

- Film used pieces
- Me
- Everyone else (you guys sort out the mess)

No one has molds (ANH/ROTJhelmet & ROTJ armor) that are closer in lineage to the film used items they were taken from than I do. The molds I have touched the insides of the real items. NO ONE ELSE can say that. Just wanted to clarify."




Does that do it for everyone??? It's a lie, period!

Here is the thread link if you wanna read it for yourself:

http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?t=8694&highlight=touched+inside+original

Dave

 

[exoray]

I'm confused, anyone else?

Yeah what are you talking about, ANH helmets, ROTJ helmets or ROTJ armor? You are jumping all over the place, from multiple movies to multiple items, trying to apply what was said about one to another...

As you admitted you are confused...

 

[GINO]

Show me where in the Member Guidelines where we cannot discuss banned members? Especially when it relates to their props.

.

 

[Nairod]

No, it was calendered HDPE not haircell and calendered is textured with one side being rough kinda like a 240 grit wet and dry paper. That is where the texture comes from. Calandered was the manufacturing process used befor extrusion which was only just starting to be done back in the seventies.

Ow, ok, thanks for this precision. I didn't know this kind of finish! Thus "haircell" is different from "pinseal" and "calenered"?

Nevertheless, the inside of a screen used helmet is textured. Thus a copy of the inside of a screen used helmet should catch this textured finish, no? Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[GINO]

Ow, ok, thanks for this precision. I didn't know this kind of finish! Thus "haircell" is different from "pinseal" and "calenered"?

Nevertheless, the inside of a screen used helmet is textured. Thus a copy of the inside of a screen used helmet should catch this textured finish, no? Correct me if I'm wrong.

This is me correcting you for being wrong.
The inside is textured, but it has nothing to do with the sheet material being textured before being formed.


.