Sonnenschein Posted March 27, 2011 Report Share Posted March 27, 2011 I forgot: there sure is a "missing link" between the clay sculpt (by Liz) and the forming bucks... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gh05ty Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 I forgot: there sure is a "missing link" between the clay sculpt (by Liz) and the forming bucks... this got me thinking ... and let me just first say, i think its real sh*tty if hes actually claiming sculpting the original (i havent heard or read that directly- all i have seen is whats online here and on FB, so untill i see it for myself i must give the man the benefit the same as i would anyone else) and i dont know enough about the armour to say either way about it being re-cast - but, how did it get from the clay sculpt to vac forming bucks? he must have scuplted something along the way even if its as has been said just to make it easier to "pull" surely you couldnt just pour material into a plaster casting to create something to vac form over? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordietrooper Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 i see AA is still using his mind tricks on the weak @ verne why do you think AA deletes parts of the court judgement that show him in a bad light ? ( yes i read his Propaganda page ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john danter Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Lads we can't gang up on Vern. As it's not cricket. Regardless of what he believes, AA has just posted a rather tasking question on FB for all us arm chair vac formers and mould makers He shows his lid buck. That wouldn't have come from a clay sculpt at all........ No it didn't. Not in a million years. However if you read the court case it is clear AA was sent plaster tools taken from the clay sculpts Were these tools 'suckable'....? AA says no LFL says yes. Elstree did pull a suit. But their machine was later broken and unable to produce another 49 suits AA was asked to help...... However...... I have read that even Elstree struggled to get the desired undercuts and I've never seen pictures of this prototype suit Is it the same one as the broomstick trooper? AA claims yes he was sent stuff but you couldn't make a suit from it. Especially a helmet. AA is a vac forming genius in my eyes. Very clever ways of getting around things that Elstree may not have had the experience to do. I do believe he tinkered with them yes But his suits today lack vital detail on his original pulls So Vern, where has that detail gone? I'm agreeing with you, he may very well have made useable TK moulds back in 76 based on those from Elstree But they are NOT the moulds/tools he's using today His argument is highly flawed On FB he asks how can I get a vac forming buck from a clay mould In most cases it's simple. Especially the way I do it. His lid tool was not derived from a clay mould directly no. But tilt it, cast it, add the undercut barriers and it's simple Elstree did it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthVeach Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Why is Matt telling people he is NOT TE??? I read a post where he said this. Also, the word is BOLLOX or BOLLOCKS! Carry on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonnenschein Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davej[TK] Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) Also, the word is BOLLOX or BOLLOCKS! Thank you Karin, the Sex Pistols should always be our ambassadors of the English language Bollocks it is!! Edited March 28, 2011 by davej Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthVeach Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Thank you Karin, the Sex Pistols should always be our ambassadors of the English language Bollocks it is!! LOL! I saw that an also accepted spelling is Bollox, but the Sex Pistols get the win! Back on topic: So why is Matt saying he is not TE?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctankep Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Who would actually want to be TE? i understand why he wishes he wasn't a thief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davej[TK] Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 LOL! I saw that an also accepted spelling is Bollox, but the Sex Pistols get the win! Indeed. Back on topic: So why is Matt saying he is not TE?! I think he said he is not going by that name any more. Not denying that it was him. Lets face it, the guy couldn't lie straight in bed. Don't expect consistency from him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarthVeach Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Indeed. I think he said he is not going by that name any more. Not denying that it was him. Lets face it, the guy couldn't lie straight in bed. Don't expect consistency from him. Very true! I have only been back at this hobby for a couple months and it didn't take me long to learn who he was and the crap he has pulled. And as far as an AA vs GINO vs TE match, I vote for no time limit, steel cage! Gino was one of the first people I ever met in this costuming hobby and he rubbed me the wrong way even back then! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john danter Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 Bollocks is correct But I type bollox to stop anti swear filters getting it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormtrooperguy[501st] Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 ok everyone... it's time for the truth to come out! i sculpted the originals. there, i've said it. at just 6 months old i was already a sculpting genius. but, since i was too young to get paid, i also invented the "united kingdom armorers' scam" which later evolved into those nigerian scam emails you see now. i offered to give aa 100 us dollars if he would pretend to make the armor on my behalf. anyway, back on topic. i sculpted the originals and had my mom send them to AA (i was too young to drive them to the post). AA took my original sculpts and tuned them to work on his UK vac machine (my angles were in american, and had to be adjusted to speak british). when lfl found out that a 6 month old did the sculpt, they hired a stunt double hired to play liz moore in to avoid child labor law violations. Lucas set the date stamp on the camera back to make it more believable. you know how he loves to go back and edit things! there, it's out. now can we all stop arguing about him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK bondservnt[501st] Posted March 28, 2011 Report Share Posted March 28, 2011 I just read what AA says, I read the court briefs... he won the case... the main reason why the armor does not look the same is explained by AA himself. the fire destroyed the moulds, but not the saved aside skins. the original helmet mould and the eye mould are all that is left of the original moulds. it has also been said that AA did work to try to clean up his work to make it more cleaned up for people to purchase. I'm sure that everyone agrees that brian and liz were the originators of the design that ralph started. AA is just the guy who modified those parts for forming, which is why he won the case... I personally believe that a derived work was created for the industrial purpose. and I don't really think that the full armor history is completely accurate... I don't believe a single word in the history that comes out of MATT G's part of the story. so in fact AA had to re-create his moulds. while I know for a fact that AA's armor and helmets look nice enough... I'd still rather have a set of the TM armor. it has the details that we all look for... and that's what I have learned. this is just my opinion.. and I don't really believe any of the early armor history. especially when I look at the cameron oakley stuff... there are armors out there that claim to be original but that fibreglass CO armor just looked so wrong 5 years ago... now the new stuff from mark and joe looks fine enough, but the whole thigh problem takes me back to 2009. to summerize my opinion. AA did the armor for the film, it was partially lost to fire and re-created from the skins he had. that's his story... and I believe that. thanks fireblade... you know I have read the history, I just don't believe some of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carbonitekid Posted March 29, 2011 Report Share Posted March 29, 2011 I just read what AA says, I read the court briefs... he won the case... the main reason why the armor does not look the same is explained by AA himself. the fire destroyed the moulds, but not the saved aside skins. the original helmet mould and the eye mould are all that is left of the original moulds. it has also been said that AA did work to try to clean up his work to make it more cleaned up for people to purchase. I'm sure that everyone agrees that brian and liz were the originators of the design that ralph started. AA is just the guy who modified those parts for forming, which is why he won the case... I personally believe that a derived work was created for the industrial purpose. and I don't really think that the full armor history is completely accurate... I don't believe a single word in the history that comes out of MATT G's part of the story. so in fact AA had to re-create his moulds. while I know for a fact that AA's armor and helmets look nice enough... I'd still rather have a set of the TM armor. it has the details that we all look for... and that's what I have learned. this is just my opinion.. and I don't really believe any of the early armor history. especially when I look at the cameron oakley stuff... there are armors out there that claim to be original but that fibreglass CO armor just looked so wrong 5 years ago... now the new stuff from mark and joe looks fine enough, but the whole thigh problem takes me back to 2009. to summerize my opinion. AA did the armor for the film, it was partially lost to fire and re-created from the skins he had. that's his story... and I believe that. thanks fireblade... you know I have read the history, I just don't believe some of it. OFFS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geordietrooper Posted March 29, 2011 Report Share Posted March 29, 2011 (edited) vern you sound just like AA Edited March 29, 2011 by geordietrooper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueGrot Posted March 29, 2011 Report Share Posted March 29, 2011 DId you really read the case? The case won was not about whether or not he sculpted the originals, but if he was allowed to sell them. Numerous times it is stated that he couldn't possibly have sculpted the molds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctankep Posted March 30, 2011 Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 (edited) AA's "original" armour or not, I mean, this guy stole hard earned money from a lot of people. To sit behind a computer screen and slave Leia about someone who may or may not tell people lies about the product he's selling when he himself actually does something far worse. I wonder how a person like TE can live with himself... This is far worse than any mythomaniac in my book. "Matt Gauthier: Oh yeah I screwed them over. That means i had no intentions of doing anything.. Yeah.. thanks Julien for telling me what I am and what I am doing.. You fracking loser weenie sucking tool! LOL! PATHETIC!" Maybe he should use his time to get some of that stuff hi owe people done instead? Edited March 30, 2011 by ctankep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulWrightythen Posted March 30, 2011 Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 Can Matt not get done for harrasment? He is now threatening everyone who has a difference of opinion from himself. Its all a bit boring now. I've only been on the scene five minutes and I'm rolling my eyes so much I'm in danger of falling backwards. I got sucked in by AA's claims of original this, original that, but, the product I got I'm very pleased with. It got sent promptly and I have no complaints. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john danter Posted March 30, 2011 Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 the fire destroyed the moulds, but not the saved aside skins. Balls Vern. sorry mate, but thats wrong. The fire you mention was during production. AA then had to work his nuts off to complete the order. If the moulds were damaged, how could he then go on to complete the order for the film? Seriously, think a little more logically about the facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonwalker[501st] Posted March 30, 2011 Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 the main reason why the armor does not look the same is explained by AA himself. the fire destroyed the moulds, but not the saved aside skins. the original helmet mould and the eye mould are all that is left of the original moulds. it has also been said that AA did work to try to clean up his work to make it more cleaned up for people to purchase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctankep Posted March 30, 2011 Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 Yeah, i was fooled as well at first. Went with TM instead, even if AA is lying he isn't stealing. you get the stuff you order. Meanwhile the thief TE sit on facebook and moan about accuracy and recasting instead of using all his time to make stuff or pay back money that he owe alot of people... Speaking of which, why haven't he been brought to justice? :/ it's illegal to steal money... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeR Posted March 30, 2011 Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 Vern Can you write in paragraphs? It would make it much easier to read. Are you now on the AA payroll as well as AP! Joe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeR Posted March 30, 2011 Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 What he said! Vern have you been smoking the wacky backy again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrooperVenger Posted March 30, 2011 Report Share Posted March 30, 2011 (edited) This is a very controversial topic and one I'm not 100% clued up on, so reading these posts are intriguing. I don't know 100% which story is correct. I really don't care if AA is embellishing the truth or not, he wouldn't be the first and he certainly won't be the last. I've 'met' some honest prop makers and some dis-honest S.O.B's. It's part and parcel of 'the business'. If you don't like or agree with AA practices, then just leave well alone and never deal with the guy. To be honest there's FAR more important things to get worked up about that a f'ing prop maker. Matt G, from what I've read, has some good points and some very bad points. I've never delt with the bloke and I never will. He sounds like a real a very impolite person from the posts he's made. I understand being upset about something you're passionate about, but he just took the piss and came across as a whiney slave Leia. I've not even mentioned his dodgy business practices. Sadly, this is a debate that'll continue forever and a day. You believe what you want to believe, only the people directly involved know the truth and as nobody here (as far as I;m aware) was privvy to the actual events, we can't really say with conviction what's 100% fact. It is sad when someone takes credit for someone elses work, but what can you realistically do? Edited March 30, 2011 by TrooperVenger Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.