aramis

So here's a silly question...let say that someone (Ok, it's me) has an RS Props kit still in the box waiting to be built and an CWFBSORNTACP kit on the way as well, and you'd like to end up with a TK and a TD when they're both done. So, not worrying about the parts that are inherently different between TK and TD (sniper knee plate, etc.), and not worrying about the belt or thermal detonator issues right now, and just focusing on what we can see of the sculpts / molds / general look and feel of the white plastic... is there one that would be an obvious best choice as the TK (or TD)? Thanks!

I wasn't complaining about Chinese production methods...just making the point that things are done differently there, and for a different cost. That's why people have things made in China, after all.

There is no escape.

I'm guessing that the webbing and man-handling to get it off is just a sign of "good enough" manufacturing instead of "do it the right way" manufacturing. If you notice, the dome part of the mold stayed stuck in the plastic as they removed it...so it's a multiple piece metal mold that someone has to man-handle the dome for each and every part. But, this is what you get in Asia. I'm guessing this is somewhere in Dongguan or Shenzhen, China. Trust me, the culture there is "don't spend a penny unless you have to, just throw more people at it" when it comes to low cost production. Six Sigma methodologies and other Quality Systems type of stuff for how to design in quality (instead of sorting out defects or even just passing them on to the customer) is not typical. I've spent several years of my life in China setting up microelectronics manufacturing facilities...it doesn't matter if you are making vacuum formed parts or high-precision electronics, the culture is just different there.

Don't forget either that the origin of ANOVOS' design is only part of the story...bringing that design, as intended, through manufacturing is a challenge in and of itself. They could have the world's most accurate design, but if they don't translate that properly through the manufacturing process, they can be adding or deleting details inadvertently. As in, through their choice of materials, how much detail to include in the bucks, etc. It's like trying to bend a flat piece of metal into a 90* shape. You can have a flat piece of metal, you can have a press buck formed at 90* to bend it over...and guess what, your piece that comes out won't be 90*. It's not the way materials behave. Accounting for material rheologies, the manufacturing process, etc. to get a part that actually matches your design is a lot harder than you think it is. Another anology is having to account for part shrinkage in injection molding, and sizing your molds "wrong" so that the parts come out the right size. I'm not defending ANOVOS at all...just pointing out that the design is only part of the story and that the manufacturing processes can make or break that design intent. Maybe this latest photo shows their shipping intent, or maybe they made the part only to realize they need to soften the bucks or use thicker material, etc....I have no idea.

I'd bet $5 that it would be Shenzhen, Guangdong Province. Maybe I'm the only one, but the news about the aluminum molds actually has me worried...a mold made from a direct cast, for example, will retain all of the original screen-accurate wonkiness. But, when translated to CAD and then machined, no matter how they do it, might tend to "sterilize" the design a bit and make it a bit too uniform, symmetrical, etc. It just seems that using a 3D scan, tool paths, etc. to get to an aluminum mold would be analogous to making a recording of a recording and losing some of the original character along the way...

I'm completely making this up in regards to this armor, but am speaking in general about manufacturing. If they don't have their production ramped up, and they provided the first 'few' armor sets from prototype or pilot processes, then it's entirely possible that they lost money. Only when you get to certain economies of scale does their internal price come down...and hopefully they can pass that on to us. My work right now is in some inline electrical test process development for a new microelectronics device...and what will sell for $25 a few months from now is actually costing us well over $5k each today...all because we are refining the process and putting tons of extra labor, R&D and redundant tests into each one to make sure we've got it right. Or, as a relevant example, take a vacuum forming machine that cranks out 10 sets of prototype parts a week vs 10 production parts an hour. Given the cost of the machine, each part made has to carry more of the fixed equipment depreciation costs at the slower rate. That makes each proto part much more expensive. I'm hoping that's the case, anyway, and that the price will eventually come down.

I think he may be quoting fully pre-built prices in that video, because in this other live interview he gives a seemingly very different range of numbers. Go to the 6:55:00 mark of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brNTpnUR61g he says the words "$400 kit" at one point followed by "...to a $2500 premium version".

Not sure whether to trust that, or the 'prototype' pictures on ANOVOS' site. On the site, if you look at the helmet pictures that show the left ear, it is very clearly 2 helmet pieces + 2 ears (look above the left ear near the brow trim). Maybe the booth person didn't have a clue or maybe the prototype pictures are wrong...I have no idea.

I can't see any published prices anywhere, so I guess they can adjust it however they see fit. All I can say is those are the numbers they said live, when pushed for the price range. They seemed hesitant to toss out numbers, but they did. Go to the 6:55:00 mark in this video and see it for yourself... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brNTpnUR61g

ANOVOS did say that there will be multiple helmets offered...a standard (injection molded) and a premier (fiberglass). I'm curious to see how the details differ, if at all, between those two offerings and also compared to the film-used helmets.

In a live interview session at the Cantina stage, the owners of ANOVOS said, while the 2nd host was standing with them dressed in ANOVOS EP7 armor, that the price range would be $200-$700 for a helmet (with the premier version being fiberglass) and armor being $400-$2500 (options of standard or premier, kit or built). Assuming that's true, then it sounds like really similar pricing to their current TK preorder. IIRC, they didn't say if any of the 'armor' $400-$2500 spread included the helmet or not.

Wow, thanks for the info. I never would have imagined that the military would have both scopes marked as M38 when they are technically different. That seems too easy to screw up. Do "we" know for sure that the movie-used scopes could be seen through with the big end up to your eye? Just curious...I think the history of props is fascinating stuff. It would make sense the way they are mounted on tyhe E-11, but nobody in the movies actually looked through a scope IIRC. Perhaps the prop dept. just grabbed ones out of the pile, not even knowing some had reversed optics? I'm going to plan on stripping the coating off, paint it properly and still use it...

Hi everyone, I picked this up and just wanted to double check that I've got the right thing before starting my E-11 build. I think it's right, but am hoping the experts will chime in...it does seem to be a bit different than most of the M38's I see pictures of: - the whole body is a subtle wrinkle finish, which appears to be original. Most that I've seen in pics have the large diameter ring at the end as a glossy, smoother finish. Mine is wrinkled everywhere...even on the adjuster screws at the other end. - The text on the large diameter ring end seems correct, but it is not filled in with white. The text says: TELESCOPE M38 M.H.R. CO. 1942 D.A. NO. 30500 (I think most serial #'s I've seen were 6 digits instead of 5???) - Most I've seen have the small diameter end open. Mine has an knurled eyepiece. However, this eyepiece is very easily removeable and the body is not threaded...so my assumption is that this is how every M38 started out, until someone lost the eyepiece somewhere along the way. Perhaps all of the eyepieces were intentionally removed when the original prop builders were making E-11's? See pics below with it intact and with the eyepiece, spring bar and ball removed. The ball is held in the body by the spring bar. The threads of the eyepiece spin on the ball, that acts a the body's threads. Or, you can just yank the eyepiece straight out since the spring bar is so weak. So, all in all, I think I've got a low serial number original M38, that was lucky enough to have the eyepiece still with it...and perhaps the "early" ones came with an all-over wrinkle finish. Does that sound right? If not, please burst my bubble.

Thanks for posting all of the options, guys...as a newbie here its nice to have the options narrowed down a bit when thinking about necessary evils like storage cases, etc. It's one less thing I can mess up.