GINO

Sorry if I come off as arrogant when I get pissed when people MUCH less knowledgeable than me call my expertise into question. Yes, I get pissed, I'm human. GH did recast, BTW. I'm not looking for Paul to be banned. Just tired of always seeing people refer to his stuff as sculpted from scratch when it's total BS. If you are going to cross that line of recasting (which he did) then be labeled accordingly. Is it going to lessen his sales. No Is it going to stop him from making helemts. No. Are people going to not be happy with their TM helmets because they now know they are recast. Probably not. I don't care about any of that. Just that we see this for what it is and stop this whole charade. .

With some of the comments you've made, I'd say you have a long way to go. It is interesting that you would think that people would want to know the truth of things, but when you present it to them, when it is shocking enough, their first reaction is to reject it. Only after some time mulling it over in their head to they come to acceptance. I find this ESPECIALLY true to those who have emotional or financial attachments to the item(s) in discussion. I mean, just look at the people posting in defense of TM. It was like this with SDS back in the day. I sure hope it doesn't take some of you that long to get up to speed on this current issue. .

To say the TE/TE2 is 99.9% the same as mine tells me that you don't own one of my helmets. As far as TM's helmet goes, it is a recast that has been modified. He says he sculpted it from a lump of clay. Are there going to be some physical differences, sure, but the basis of what was used was a recast. To the naysayers, or people on the fence: Ask yourself. Why would I lie? I'm not in competition with him. I don't sell helmets. I don't have any vendetta with him (outside of this very issue). My helmets are not in danger of being outdone by anyone least of all by a scratch build as he claims, (unless someone else is able to mold another screen used anh helmet, even then best they could do is match mine). Ask yourself. Why would the other people I mentioned in the RPF thread lie? You calling them liars as well? You don't respect their claims either? Have you bothered to approach them off board and get their opinion straight up? Would you post what they said if you did? What about the people who are friendly with TM who are now saying to themselves, "I'll be damned he's right!" Would you listen to those people if they had the courage to speak up publicly, or would you call them full of crap too? . .

You know though, the little bump is the sprinkle on the sundae. One look at that bird's eye view says it all. .

FYI, I'm not the only one who believes this. Other well respected experts can re-affirm what I am saying. See the RPF thread for names. I encourage you to ask them privately. .

Bias.

Check out the link. It's all there. If what you see isn't enough for you, then you are fooling yourself.

I was asked to start a new thread about this. I and others have been saying it since day one, but it's quite obvious to well studied trooper experts that TM's helmet is a recast and not a total scratch built sculpt. Rather than have the discussion rage on two different forums, here is a link to a thread on the RPF where it is going on. http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?t=56551 .

Trolling? Oh please, that link is directly related to this topic. In fact, I only posted a link so that people can CHOOSE if they want to partake in those discussions. Trying to get my post/link deleted is like trying to cover it up. .

Interesting discussion regarding the TM helmet here: http://www.therpf.com/showthread.php?t=56551 .

What most people don't seem to know is that back/cap mold was damaged in a lot more places than just the forehead area. Huge areas were damaged and had to be 'restored' (either by Matt or Tony) just for them to be able to make new pulls. The problem is even in trying to fill in the damaged areas (which are significant), is is impossible to replicate the surface texture that was once there. Any attempt to match those areas up to a real helmet will highlight those differences. For me, that hugely ruins the authenticity of the piece. Had I not created and kept a mold duplicate of it BEFORE the damage occurred, a piece of history would have been lost to fandom because there is no other unaltered/unmodified version of this mold anywhere. .

The SFS helmet faceplate or the cap/back was NEVER cast, either from the outside OR the inside. Only the ears of that particular helmet were cast. Mverta paid for a 3d-scan of this helmet to be made which was never supposed to be used by Matt to create helmets, yet years later against Mverta's wishes, Matt went ahead and did it anyway. Although 3d scan technology is pretty good at capturing data during the initial scan, it is horribly limited in what can actually be cut out in 3d. Specific shapes are limited by the tooling and any surface nuances are completely unable to be replicated. Here is what the foam SFS helmet looked like before Matt had it 'cleaned up' for molding. You can even see the pencil lines to indicate where the groove should be added in like on the original. In other words, this chunk of foam was HEAVILY modified and cleaned up in order to produce the fiberglass castings that so many now have. To call it an exact accurate reproduction is a super stretch. -------------- -----------

Yes, most people who aren't hardcore prop people don't realize just how thin and flimsy the original helmet and armor was. So much different than what is commonly available for fan consumption. The real helmets would flex and contort, basically 'bend to the will' of however they were fastened together. The factors that cause the helmets to look different are: - Sharpness of the vac pull of each of the helmets 4 pieces (there can be soft mixed with sharp within the same helmet). - Trimming of the eye sockets, teeth, earcaps, and neckline. - Assembly of the faceplate & cap/back as well as orientation of the earcaps. - Detailing of the painted areas, or placement of the additional accessories. .

A solid explanation can be found on my site www.starwarspropaganda.com Click on proparchive, select either hero or standard stormtrooper, then click on ther propstory thumbnails. A ton of info there. Also, they are not 'stunt' helmets because a stunt piece is something rigged specifically for a stunt. What everyone commonly calls 'stunt' is actually a 'standard' helmet. The more you know... .

Compared to the back/cap, it is relatively smooth, but not perfectly smooth. The surface is definitely not uniform. The original faceplates do not have matching surface texture compared to the cap/back. .

This is how misinformation is spread. Unfortunate. .

And I can't convince someone who doesn't want to be in the first place. .

Any deformation in that area (ie dent), it is caused by one of or combination of the following factors. The earcap pinching the thin bottom edge. The rivet forcing the back/cap & face to align. The neck trim forcing the back/cap & face thin bottom edges to align. It all comes down to the two pieces not wanting to align correctly in that spot and something forcing them to. When a faceplate is completely dis-assembled, that area goes back to normal. .

What you are seeing in those photos is the thin plastic flexing under the stress of the earcap. That 'dent' is not part of the mold but rather an effect caused by the assembly. Also, the molds I have are exact duplicates (that I made) directly off the molds that touched the insides of a screen used helmet. They are the only molds outside of the archives that are undisturbed, unmodified, or uncleaned up. .

I don't know what you are trying to point out here. I said it before and I'll say it again, there was no modification made to my faceplate. .

If you want an in-depth description, all you have to do is go to my gallery on my website and read the propstory for standard trooper or hero trooper. .

Well if that is what he is talking about then it IS on my molds, just covered up intentionally so it didn't appear on the vac form pieces. Also, it's not really a bump, but I know what you meant. .

I'll say it again, you are mistaken. There was no clean up or modification to the mold when I received it. At the time I received the original mold, there were no other molds in existence, period. If anyone says different they are outright lying. Only GF had molds but they were taken from soft vac form pulls made from my molds to begin with. If you want to point out this BS mysterious area, I'll be better to prove it. .

What did you expect, that I'd be okay with you insulting me? .