That's actually a very good point. So this is the page that leads the public to think that GINO's helmet is supposed to have been made off two originals:

http://www.looksirdroids.com/davin_replica2.html

GINO has shared photos of this on the Den, so he's well aware of its existence. If the information is incorrect, it would have been corrected by now, so let's assume that the information is believed to be true.



So on that particular page, you have two helmets that are stated as being original. Elsewhere in this thread, if memory serves, GINO stated that his helmet was made off a mold taken from the interior of the mask, which makes sense because when you vacuum form, you pull the heated styrene or ABS over a hard silicone buck. (As you may know, if you instead did a fiberglass recast of a mask and turn it into a buck and to a vac form pull on top of that, you'll get even less detail. Each successive pull in this case would theoretically get very slightly bigger and blurrier in detail. That is why you want to mold off the interior.)

As mentioned in my earlier post, I'd like better understand how GINO quantifies or qualifies his helmets as being the most accurate replicas ever made.

Usually when someone says a certain mask is screen accurate or cast off an original, it's a singular helmet they're comparing against. But even on that LookSirDroids.com page, GINO's helmet is not a pure match to the original it is compared against. Rather, it's a pure match to the individual pieces that comprise the V2, and appears to be a faithful reproduction of the faceplate of one, the backplate of a second, etc.

So if that is not what GINO meant by that, perhaps he meant that while many stormtroopers helmets in the fan community have smooth caps, GINO had said his has bumpy caps which makes his more accurate.

If this is what you were referring to, GINO, were you referring to paint bumps or were there other deformations that are not explained by paint? Then along these lines, when the original clay pieces were sculpted, were those bumps part of the original sculpture? If they are bumps produced by paint, I'd surmise that the original clay sculpture had a smooth cap, and that the bumps were an aspect of the white paint added by painters.

If it is believed that bumpy caps make a helmet more accurate than a smooth cap, then according to T*E, he has seen at least one original with a smooth cap. If this is true, then any notion that in order to be uber-accurate you had to have a bumpy cap then hasn't taken into account the helmets that had smooth caps.

Back to the question: did GINO ever say he owned an original helmet? Is the question, rather, is his helmet truly the most accurate ever made based on what he believed to be two originals, or were those actually two replicas in of themselves, and that LookSirDroids.com was wrong all this time, and that GINO's belief was wrong all this time? If they're in fact replicas and T*E claims he factored in or removed certain details and that those details or lack thereof are in GINO's own V2, that's quite a statement by T*E and I'd like to hear GINO's side of the story.

It has been shown that the bumps are part of the casts in more or less degree. If it was just paint blobs, it wouldn't be consistent from helmet to helmet. Since the original helmets were crappily made, no one was alike... and not all the sharpness and "bumps" are present on all casts. The fact that one original helmet is shown not to have to bumps doesn't make the claim that the bumps make a replica more original as the majority of original helmets has been shown to have those bumps in more or less degree, any less valid. Smooth cap is just as accurate as bumpy cap, from what I have gathered.

It has iirc never been a secret that GINO's helmets is made from molds from the two helmets that TE has made molds from. That is not the issue and never has been. The feud I keep hearing is regarding what the deal between the two consisted of.

My point was fellas, if Gino got his moulds from TE, because he is the only one to have cast from an original, then how can Gino's moulds be more accurate than TE's? Which is what Gino appeared to be saying if I read his post correctly.

At the risk of getting my teeth kicked in it could be a question of trimming and assembly and finishing... but seriously... I have no clue.

So what do you feel are the nature of those bumps? Ive seen one backplate where it looked like there were streaks of horizontal paint bumps. Is this possible? Hmm. Well, if the backplate were laid flat on a table and painted side to side, and the paint somehow bundled into drops, then yes perhaps.

If the bumps are purely paint, then they'll vary from helmet to helmet.

If the bumps are structural, then what is a plausible explanation for them?

Another thought is this. The bucks used in the vacuum forming process are positives. Since LFL sculpted these in clay and that you don't vac form over clay, logic dictates (thanks, Mr. Spock) that they made a silicone mold of the clay, then cast one or more bucks from that. However, even in the making of a soft silicone negative mold, I can't explain bumps. The question is: are all these bumps paint-like or otherwise?

There are both bumps - created by dirt (build-up?) on the molds - and paint runs, depending on how the helmet was spray painted - mostly sloppy.

TE has only directly moulded one helmet. That which is sometimes known as the "Brain R." helmet.
The SFS helmet was not moulded at all with the exception of the ears, but was scanned and without all the bumps included

Gino has never been in contact with a real helmet and has never indicated otherwise. His moulds did come from TE and from the ONLY helmet directly moulded. His claim of the best helmet out there is not as farfetched as one may think. Using much thinner material when he vacuforms them gives them a "false" sense of being sharper than the original helmet which was somewhat soft. On the other hand, the cap and back are a bit too sharp in my opinion and show more pronounced bumps than any real helmet would.

TE's new SFS moulds are created through some kind of method which has not been explained. The overall shape looks pretty good but there appears to be some things that just dont look right, problably because we are all used to the shape of the original TE.

I would like to hear from TE on where or how his new moulds originated from.

And I would like to add that at the end of the day, whatever else he may be, TE is the king of stormtroopers. The trooper expert as it were.

Just a couple of things as I'm not going to address certain people in this thread because I have realized a long time ago this it is pointless to do so.

The thickness of my v2 helmets is accurate to the film helmets. They are not nearly as flimsy as people think.

Anyone who would say that my v2 helmet is not the most accurate has never held one in their hands or seen one in person.
Anything can look good in pics, but only an unmodified replica holds up to close scrutiny, and no one else has it but me.

We were sold the original molds that touched the insides of real trooper helmets and armor. NO ONE ELSE HAS THIS PERIOD.

The molds I have for the helmet are mold duplicates (not 2nd gen) taken from the Brian R. helmet. In 2000, Matt was only sent back the original anh helmet face and back/cap, but alterations were made to the face before it was sent back so it would no longer be considered authentic if he ever decided to go back on his word to never make helmets again (long story). The original back/cap mold that Matt sold to T. Guns was damaged beyond what you could call original about 3 years ago.
The ear molds are taken directly from the inside of the Dave M. helmet as the original ear molds from the Brian R. helmet were very poorly molded and not nearly as authentic as the Dave M. ears.

Until another ANH helmet is cast, I am the only one with the molds capable of producing a helmet authentic to the pieces they were taken from. Anything else that anyone has, has been heavily cleaned up and modified.
That is why I claim to have the most accurate replica.

I sent a v2 to Braks for him to study and take photo comparisons and what you see on looksirdroids.com is his assessment. You all know Braks to be a stand up guy and he is known for shooting things straight and telling it like it is. Anyone looking for another opinion can simply contact him.

Mac you can vacuum form over many materials wood,plaster,metal etc but there is no chance the original bucks would be silicone.
Your post also mentions LFL sculpted a clay master we simply do not know this is the case,seeing as this discussion is about not missleading members it would be prudent to stick to known facts.
The bumps on the cap were originally part of the material if they were paint then the negative of the bumps would not be present on the inside of the helmet and subsequently on the positive taken from the inside of the helmet

I'll admit I do not know for a fact that the original tk was made out of clay, but the intent is not to mislead and, further, what do you feel the original could have been made out of? You see, in the Making of Empire Strikes Back, many props started off as clay. I recall them sculpting miniature Millenium Falcons, various creatures, etc. out of clay.

Though not in that particular documentary, Brian Muir sculpted Vader out of clay.

In many situations in the special effects industry, clay is still used for the intiial sculpting of creatures.

How you feel that a belief -- based on the above -- that the original was sculpted out of clay is "misleading" is beyond me. Even something like C3PO was sculpted. Almost all the creatures in Star Wars were sculpted.

But let me ask you if you feel there more than one kind of bumps when people discuss bumps? And if you feel there are, then which bumps were you referring to, and further if you believe the bumps were originally part of the material, were you referring to the material of the bucks or the material sheets used in the vacforming process?

Were you referring to these following bumps (because I was):

http://www.biovitasteak.com/gino/backcap.JPG

If so, then are you saying that the raw sheets used in the vacuum forming process was bumpy or that the original positive buck was bumpy? Were the raw sheets bumpy to begin with or not, do you think? As the bumps varied from one helmet to another, and that some apparently had bumps and others didn't, one does wonder if either the material reacted in a bumpy way, or if there was dirt, or if this was some other previously not-discussed phenomenon.

Ainsworth's buck seems smooth if you look at photos. You might be right with respect to suspecting the material.

The misleading part is that LFL sculpted the original we do not know this as a fact as you know AA says he sculpted it and was not under contract at the time,untill that is cleared up we simply do not know.
I am unsure where the bumps come from but they are not paint lumps for sure if they were merely paint the they would only be on the outside of the helmet but we know that the negatives/indents are on the inside.
Wether this was caused by the material used or foriegn objects on the buck when formed or something else i don't know but i know they cannot all be paint.
There are of course paint drips aswell on the outside because they were painted fairly sloppily but definite bumps in the material also.

Oh wow... I totally forgot about that. Okay, so let's mark that as an inaccuracy and a "we don't know / we may never know". But if we ask him what he sculpted it in, he might still say clay, which is more the point.

So in your paragraph relating the uncertainty of the origins of those bumps, you nailed my question precisely. First, if the material is ABS, then do ABS sheets have any chance of forming bumps due to adverse circumstances if the buck was smooth to begin with? If the answer is yes, then if someone knowledgeable can contribute, then please do. Same goes for the HPDE material. Can this be the result of dirt or what not?

If the answer is no, and that neither ABS or HPDE will form bumps like that over a smooth surface, and if the buck was smooth, then the bumps were likely to be foreign material (be it paint or dirt). But that's a LOT of rolly-polly dirt. I don't feel that's likely. So, some had smooth caps and some had bumpy caps. If the bucks were very clean and were smooth to begin with, then the only logical thing I can think of is that they are the result of just a lot of paint drops, and that someone vacformed over a screen-used bumpy-cap helmet such that if you take a mold from under it, you have a bumpy mold.

If the ansswer is yes, then we will learn something very interesting. Again, some had smooth caps and some had bumpy caps. If the bucks were very clean and the material bumps and warps under certain temperature conditions (or what not) then you get some smooth and some bumpy. So whatever this mysterious "X" factor is, it would be an interesting topic!

I don't think you can put much faith in the pictures of AA's moulds that were on the net recently most people seem to agree there is no way they are the original moulds and if they do derive from the originals they have been reworked and cleaned up etc.
I honestly do not know for sure where the bumps come from other than they are evident on the inside in the form of dents and corresponding bumps on the outside so whatever caused the bump was under the plastic when it was formed,what that was i am unsure of could be debris on the buck could be damage on the buck maybe something else i really do not know.
I don't believe anyone would form a helmet over the outside of an original or take a mould of the outside to form over as that would be the completely wrong process and the resulting replica would be extremely soft in detail.
The only way to copy a vacuum formed piece properly is to take a positive of the inside.

Wow you just cant stop lying can you gino? You didnt buy a thing.. you and dave were served with a lAWSUIT when dave emailed and said he knew the molds were mine and would be sent back.

Lie #1..

You also told me the that the eye bump was NOT removed by dave or you, but my partner. Now you admit you did.. hmmm... first count of willful destruction of someones property...

Lie #2..

You purposefully ruined the cap and back mold saying 'I knew the risks". what risks? your piss poor molding skills? It shows in the products you offer there. Second count of willful destruction.

Lie #3..

See where this is always going folks? He lies, then lies to cover his lies. ginos helmets are missing something.. all TE1 helmets are. I REMOVED THE DETAIL to thwart recasters and I did it so well that NO ONE knows what I removed. It isnt on ginos stolen crap helmets and it isnt ont he AA stuff either.

So good luck with it being the most accurate gino. It is the most crappy, but not even close to being accurate. You got a 14 day suspension? poor thing..

Nice way you side step all the truth and try to point the finger elsewhere. Point it at yourself and say LIAR.. because that is what you are.

gino never molded JACK CRAP. Stole, yes.. molded an original. No. He did not. Bottom line. Who cares about your wife braks.. stand up guy? hardly.

Folks, dont let little gino fool you. His helmets are second gen altered (yes I can prove this and he cannot tell you one iota as to WHAT the alteration is) pieces of overpriced crap.

Ban me if you want, but the truth is out gino. YOU HAVE ALTERED MOLDS that were NOT yours and you did not pay for ANYTHING. Dave bought the ROTJ molds, lord knows WHAT you did for dave to get them from him. : But since you cant tell anyone here what was removed, your little scheme to try to be #1 is over. It was a good attempt, but hey.. people should be aware of the most back stabbing, personal property ruining, loathsome little toads that has EVER made their way into this hobby.

Best to ban someone that admits to ruining someones personal property and move on than to allow them to stay here. He will do anything to try to convince you all he knows something when he really knows jack shit.

and THATS the truth folks. He wont admit anything at all so take it for what it is worth, even with his death threats and then failure to show to C4 to face me when he found out I was coming.

My old account was deleted to reflect the T*E name. It was a request and I wont elaborate at all on it anymore.

T*E

Well, that would be offense #2, and in the same thread after warnings. So what's it going to be admin? Do you guys stand by your words or do they just apply to certain people?