Gino has long argued that the 'kink' on the Stormtrooper tube is caused by the assembly. This is nonsense and he would know this if he had touched even one original helmet .

I quote Troopermaster:





SIMPLY NOT TRUE AT ALL!

Here is a picture of my first Jedi helmet, the faceplate had been removed from the cap for over 6 months at this point. You can clearly see the 'kink' or 'bulge' in the tube. It has nothing at all to do with assembly.




The 'kink' on my new Jedi helmet:




Screencap:




Joe

Thanks for showing the seperate face plate Joe. It clearly shows that the tube has the kink as part of it's original shape, just as I suspected. This kink is a feature of all original helmets, however prominent it may look. Gino's tubes do not fetaure this kink and proves without a doubt that his 'untainted original moulds' are infact far from his claims

Paul

You are right, whilst Gino is excellent at making replicas and his attention to detail is impressive, he asserts a great deal of claims as 'fact' based on nothing but pictures. His moulds are certainly not 'untouched'.

The moral of the story guys is - don't buy into the Gino BS propaganda machine without thorough investigation!

Joe

Here is Paul's excellent post from the FISD,Paul hope you don't mind.

[quote name='troopermaster' date='Oct 5 2008, 07:41 PM' post='62552']
This area is what differs from your helmet compared to any original.

I believe you when you say no modifications were made to your face plate, but your moulds did not come directly from the inside of a screen used helmet. You took a copy of the mould from a screen used helmet and who's to say for sure what was done to that mould before you got your hands on it or, if that was the actual mould that was taken or a modified version that you recieved?


[/quote]

The tube bulge appears on original ANH, ESB and ROTJ helmets, but not on Gino's helmets, this is clear, factual evidence that his moulds have been altered at some point.

Joe

Learn something new every day. I did not know that. Great comp shots.

Awesome.

So I grab my TM helmet to look.. Yep... Its there.

Damn I love this helmet and armor.

I see it on my SDS stunt as well, not as pronounced but looking like the hero in the picture above.

There is certainly an indentation in the trooper face plate. Though it is most noticible on the HDPE Stunts, you can also see it, though less pronounced, on the ABS Hero and TIE's (and therefore the AT-AT)

The latter is important since the connection is different than the Stormtrooper helmet (different back and thus bolt connection) and therefore it shows that this is not an assembly issue. I've never taken one apart but am sure that if I did you would still see it there.

Cheers

Jez

TrooperMaster Paul,

Excellent post there!

For a long time, GINO had a signature banner that said, "The most accurate stormtrooper helmet ever produced".



If so, why is the rear of the head so flared? Perhaps it's one thing to believe that simply by using thinner material in the vacforming process so as to pick up a few more details more clearly, but isn't helmet assembly also what determines accuracy?

Also note this:



Isn't the skullcap longer and deeper - from front to back - on the GINO V2, than the screen-used?

The head itself is also much longer and deeper - again, from front to back - than the screen-used.

What's up with that?

It looks like when the backplate was pulled, it was flared. I don't know if that's because of GINO's molds or whatnot. But if he's trying to pass these off as being an accurate representation of the Brian R. back and front caps then hopefully whoever shelled out over $1,000 for something that was being trumped as superior to a TE, I hope he got his money's worth.

The helmet he's comparing his with is not the same that his molds are from - only the ears, iirc - so that could explain difference in look of certain parts.

Though... one thing I've wondered... was the original molded while the helmet was still assembled or was it taken apart for molding?

Where these are originally posted on LookSirDroids.com, the foremost picture shows "Brian R." on the left and "Dave M" on teh right. The photo is labeled as such.



In ALL the ensuing 8 comparison shots, however, the labeling is subtly different. It merely says "Original screen used helmet" on the left, versus the "Gino replica helmet v2" on the right. Unless you're looking extremely carefully at the paint scuffs, you wouldn't know that he switched the left side's helmet for the Dave M.

Because the foremost picture establishes a positional precedence, Gino can say it was the reader's own fault for assuming that the helmet on the left was going to be the Brian R.

Then what's the point of boasting, "I openly challenge anyone to show a more accurate replica to the screen used helmet." and then spend 16 images comparing against a DIFFERENT helmet? The images therefore are hardly proof that he accurately reproduced the front and back caps of the Brian R. So where is the proof behind the claim, and why are we not seeing the GINO V2 being compared properly against the Brian R.?

Edit: BTW, the above two images will appear side by side if you stretch out your web browser window.

I agree.
With all the hate and discontent he has spewed, just in the little time I have been reading on the hobby and passion, a little study of his own claims falls flat.

Proofs in the pudding so to speak. To claim something in a detailed, passion fueled and collector driven community you better have all the ducks in a row. I am not bashing, that's not needed. Gino brought this upon himself. He is not here to defend it, so flaming him really isn't the key here. But I totally agree with the title of the thread.

Debunk the advertising and the claims.

Debunking false claims is not bashing. But some cry "bashing" to deter you from debunking untruths. The real evil here is people wanting a deceptive or incorrect belief to hold prominence or providence over other people - and that should indeed be bashed because it's morally wrong. Given how hard it is to come by good prop information, we regular folk have to study hard and fight, as it were, an uphill battle simply to become able to stand up to cyberbullying in this community.

I'm not sure why Gino compared his helmet against the Dave M. helmet as the moulds were taken from the Brian R. which has a softer pull on the scull cap. If Gino were to build a Brian R. replica then I am sure it would match a lot better in the comparisons, but still, the tubes are altered and will never match the original face mask it was cast from.

The fact is that the tubes (at least) on Gino's moulds have been tampered with as some stage. I think that they were like that when he cast the moulds and he (Gino) believes that they are untouched, which they clearly have been. One thing to point out though is that I have never seen any vacuum formed TE helmets with the kink in the tubes either. I don't know who made the original moulds (MS?) of the Brian R. helmet but I am sure they had something to do with the filling in of certain areas.

Whoa whoa guys hold up! If I may I just wanted to say something about the topic at hand. With regard to Joe's ROTJ helmet. You say that the kink in your Jedi helmet is still there even though it has been disassembled for several months. I was just wondering, weren't the Jedi helmets moulded off of original ANH helmets? If they were and say this kink/ bulge was inherent in the ANH helmets then the kink/ bulge in the Jedi helmet would be inherently 'moulded' into the new design of the newer Jedi helmet? Therefore, theoretically the kink/ bulge in the ANH could still be an assembly issue if the kink/ bulge of the Jedi helmet was moulded off that helmet. As the kink/ bulge in the Jedi helmet would be inherently formed into the plastic of the helmet cast. And therefore if disassembled would still remain as kink/ bulge regardless if it is an assembly issue in the Jedi helmet or not.
Anyway, just an observation and not intended as a personal attack on anyone. It is only for the purpose of discovering the truth behind 'the bulge'.