carbonitekid

Rom/fx. Why try the rest when you can buy the best?

Not to mention was it a "genuine" nail or a recast. And did AA have a hand in its construction.

i take it you mean my comment if so your wrong Although going on the majority of their reponses made on his page, the argument could be made.

We have, he deletes them anyway. He keeps asking how "we" would make molds , so thosre with the knowledge have detailed the process step by step. He deletes the posts and then belittles us for not answering his question. Then were better than on his sales tool FB page to educate them.

My bad . Read this as ANH Discussion, completley missed the "hero" part. Must stop posting at gone 1 in the am.

Thats fine by me mate. Ta for the clarification. Just need to change my boots and trim out the excess on the forearms now.

Yes. I would respectfully ask to see the results of the posted poll as last time I checked brads /dressed rivets for the sniper plates were receiving the thumbs up in the vote yet the current updated CRL reads: 18. Lower legs: Greaves close in the back. The trapezoid knee plate is affixed to the left greave and may have two visible brads or rivets securing it to the greave. Red to indicate centurion standard.Ideally there should be no visible rivets or brads used to secure the sniper plate to the left greave. So which is it?

Why not contact your armour supplier and see what he/they can provide. Guaranteed colour match then.

He's always posting. Its just that its invariably BS and lies, or at the very least evasive of self contradictory.

Not for me to say. Not me tho'.

He posted earlier that he was going to ban me but..... there is another. @ Brian: My cousin Jim says "Hi".

Reposted it for you. Will let you know when its deleted. Again.

Nice lid mate.

Join the club guys. Had to step away from his page for a few days as he is frakking me off so much with his BS.

No, he took the pic in a mirror. Look at the ab detail.

http://www.starwarshelmets.com/

Quoted in the abscence of a " Like" button.

OFFS.

Many congratulations. You have just taken your first step in to a brighter world.

Another well rounded , thoughtfull and educated argument there then Vern.

Try spell checker.

Ive just spent 12 months working on carbon panels for Aston Martin DBS, Rolls Royce and Porsche GT3 RS cars. For a front fender for an Aston comprising a carbon inner and outer skin with glass fiber central layer you were looking at approx £1200. There is no way you could use a Vacuum forming process on it, you would need the likes of a Nickel mold of the outer surface to get a good surface/display finish. This mold would need to be heated to high, controlled temps for several hours. Complicated structures such as the face plate would need to be made from several seperate pieces of cloth at the laying up stage and where these pieces meet you would often get distortions requiring dressing out, therefore removing the high finish. Don't get me wrong, it "could" be done but to do it right with proper carbon and not the cheap imitation muck would cost major dinero. http://www.gurit.com/moulding.aspx

Its not one of his.

Vern. I have been privvy to some of your conversations with Matt G and to say you have a blinkered view would be an understatement. You have repeatedly spouted views that fly directly in the face of the well resaerched and informed views and opinions of respected members on a multitude of boards many of whom have FAR more experience with regard to handling original pieces than you or I will ever have. Don't get me wrong, I'm not Matt G's no1 fan. Hell, his business methods have been appauling. But, he does know a thing or 2 about the armour. He should , coz AA's stuff is clearly cast from T#E's lineage. Pics of the similarities can be seen on the FB page for all to see, as can comparison pics showing the differences between AA's crud and original ANH suits. If AA has not deleted them again. No. He is claiming He sculpted the molds and is still using them. He dropped the "using the covers to make new molds/bucks" from his site a while ago when so many pointed out how rediculous it sounded. Unless he has changed his story yet again. He also claims Liz sculpted the rejected by LFL helmet and that his friend Nick Pemberton sculpted the one used for the films. Quote : Original Stormtrooper LIZ MOORE HAD NO PART IN SCULPTING THE CLAY HELMET Quote:Original Stormtrooper THE COURT RULED...Liz Moore had NO PART in sculpting the helmet. Lucas admitted defeat and withdrew the claim.. ( fails to mention it was no longer relevant as they were persuing it via the copyright angle ) This is plastered all over his wall, so if you cannot even read that correctly how can you comment on anything else there with an implied knowledge? A not so breif extract from the court case Lucasfilm Ltd & Ors v Ainsworth & Anor [2008] EWHC 1878 (Ch) (31 July 2008)This extract is Mr Justice Mann ( the cases Judge ) describing Ainsworths evidence and credebility. Another example concerns his evidence about a space helmet that he helped to design and which he fabricated for a later film called Outland. He discussed this with Mr Mollo before producing it. Until a short time into his cross-examination, he stoutly maintained that Mr Mollo never showed him any drawings in relation to his (Mr Mollo's) requirements. In cross-examination he was forced to admit that he did get drawings from Mr Mollo. His attempts to play up his part, and to play down Mr Mollo's part, in the creation of this helmet is a good example of his viewing events through his own Ainsworth-tinted spectacles. He also demonstrated a tendency to take credit for things that he was not entitled to in other ways. In his first witness statement (and not corrected by any subsequent witness statement) he said that he created a costume and a particular artefact for a later film called "Alien". His witness statement clearly stated that they were used in the film, and the purpose of the evidence was to establish his credentials as an important prop maker. In fact the position was that the costume was not used at all (and he was aware at the time of the making of the film that it would not be) and the artefact was not used in the final cut of the film (which he realised when he saw the film at the time). His statement was therefore untrue, and plainly so. Furthermore, he did not acknowledge that there was anything wrong with his witness statement in this respect. He was either being dishonest about that, or he has a strange subjective view of the truth which calls into question his reliability as a witness in relation to such matters. Again, he claimed to have "designed" in 1977 certain Martian characters used in a well-known advertisement for Cadbury's mashed potato. While he was able to produce an invoice for the fabrication of some characters in 1977, which might have been similar characters, the original advertisements went out 2 or 3 years before that. He said that he did not know that there were prior adverts or prior characters, and no-one had shown him any designs at the time he was instructed in 1977. Nevertheless, he said that his designs were the same or virtually the same as those in the prior advertisements. In my view that can only have happened if he saw those prior designs, which would in fact make sense – if (as I find) in 1977 the producers (or their agency) wanted more of the same characters, why would they not demonstrate what they wanted reproductions of? These particular points are not just general credibility points. They are credibility points going to a central issue in this case, namely the reliability of Mr Ainsworth's evidence as to his alleged design of some of the relevant material in this case. He has clearly demonstrated that he is prepared to claim more than he is entitled to in other contexts. I have to bear that firmly in mind in considering his claims in relation to the designs in issue in this case. Going back to your conversations with T#E , other than via AA's page, perhaps his honest critique of you, your knowledge and abilities may have coloured your post here?