It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 1:20 pm

All times are UTC


THE PROP DEN is primarily a Darth Vader Prop Discussion Board, but we also deal with other Star Wars Props as well as Prop Replicas from other movies. If you do not yet have an account, set one up, sign in and jump into the Vader Prop Discussions!


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 416 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 28  Next
Author Enter your Message here
 Post subject: TD ANH comparison and discussion thread
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 5:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:12 am
Posts: 3115
Ok maybe to get off on a better foot, I thought I'd start a thread to discuss the TD ANH mask since it remains at least for me an enigma. Maybe in the process we can learn more about the creation of the mask(s) in general since we are certainly very fortunate to have Mr. Muir here with us. It's a thread about sharing ideas, theories, and observations. It's ok to disagree, because that's how we learn and hopefully arrive at common ground. I'm bringing up this thread even though I presented the mask already in the privileged section. There it drew some debate (intentionally or unintentionally), perhaps some misunderstanding, and perhaps it will here as well...hopefully much more discussion than debate.

For all of my collecting "career" I've studied castings in great detail because that's what I enjoy doing...to me that's the reward of obtaining a piece. The saying goes the devil is in the details, :wink: I think the truth is there as well. Observing the details can be an exact science, but interpreting the details not always so exact and I'll be the first to admit that. That's why I enjoy discussing them, to learn more about them. If others find that kind of analysis interesting, enjoy the thread. If others like to debate or make personal remarks rather than constructively argue about details, maybe this thread is not for them.

Of course like any other thread this one had suitable inspiration. I hope Brian if you don't mind me quoting you from the facts thread...just let me know. Brian always had his impression of my mask and I always thought it intriguing. Part of the reason I've held my own impression of the mask is manyfold, because there are many strange things about it that I can't fit together in my mind (as cluttered as that mind may occasionally be :dope ). If people think I am just trying to portray it as original, take what you will, but I'm just interested in finding out more about it simply because I think it's worthy of study. It's just another mask casting, sure. But I think in some ways it's unique, different in some ways than anything else I've seen...but I don't know how it got to be that way. Maybe here I can find out with Brian's help and with your feedback and input and yes, even your constructive criticism or scepticism, hopefully constructive. I approach things carefully and methodically when I study these castings. I like to share my thoughts and maybe a few details as well if the discussion is fruitful.

Image


Last edited by SithLord on Sun Jun 22, 2008 7:17 am, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: TD ANH friendly discussion thread
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 7:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 4:24 pm
Posts: 370
Location: Berlin
This is a quote from Brian from the "just facts" thread:

vaderman wrote:

The TD mask is linked back to the ANH mask but through the 3rd helmet and could not possibly be a screen used mask or moulded from one due to the short tusks. It can't be the 3rd helmet itself because the tabs have been cast in fibreglass which means that the 3rd helmet had to have been moulded and the TD must have come from that mould.

Brian


What I do not understand is that if the TD is linked to the 3rd (non-screen-used "stunt" or "test") helmet, why does it share significant sililarities with the TM and the VP (master) faceplate, such as the pattern of the filled-in lower chin vent and the cast tabs? Even if the TD, TM and VP (master) do not come from the very same mold, they must have had the same anchestor at one point.

Does that probably mean that both the VP master and the TM faceplate are also linked to the 3rd helmet, and that the tusk tube ends for the VP and the TM "master" have been "repaired" or "extended" at a later stage to match the screen-used faceplate? I doubt that.

My THEORY is that either the tusk tube ends on Thomas TD faceplate were broken off at one point (same like the ones on the TM faceplate), and then cut smooth and bondoed/painted over, OR the tusk tube ends on the anchestor of Thomas' TD faceplate were cut short for whatever reason BEFORE a mold was taken from that faceplate to produce the TD faceplate cast.

Interestingly enough, the "source" of the TD and the VP (and probably the TM, too) was already outfitted with tabs (the VP with proper lenses) and grills AND I think that this "source" faceplate was already painted in a two-tone scheme. Do we know if the 3rd "test" faceplate was ever outfitted with tabs, lenses and grills at the production stage?

Regarding the cast tabs: do we know of another sample of "original" cast tabs other than the ones seen on the TD and TM (and probably the 20th Century)? All the cast tabs I have seen on faceplates with a "lineage" are identical in size, position and screw position, which tells me that they originate from ONE ancestor, whether this was THE Tantive faceplate or the OTHER/SECOND hero ANH faceplate used for shooting, that I do not know.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 10:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:53 am
Posts: 251
I've seen a VP with the tabs intact - they're in the same position as all the other fanmades.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 20, 2008 2:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:46 pm
Posts: 5241
Location: San Jose, CA
Also, if size is the issue as to whether something is of greater lineage or not, I must point out this can be misleading. Anything pulled without being in a fully cured state will result in a difference in size. If such a mask were placed with the rear opening flat down, the continued sag can cause the mask to appear wider. The best thing to do is to study the rear opening and observe not only its surface area but also how the sides are wrapping around from front to rear. Even the neck flare. Sitting something not completely cured might cause that, but I won't rule out physical manipulation either at the time it was pulled.

Given what Vadermania just said, I can agree that some variances in shape and surface vectors among the more accurate helmets can be explained by the above (that is, of course, assuming there are no alterations done by, say, sanding, etc.) or purposeful compression of the structure.

_________________
Cordially,

- Mac
( Follow me on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sculptingvader/ )


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 2:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:12 am
Posts: 3115
vadermania wrote:
What I do not understand is that if the TD is linked to the 3rd (non-screen-used "stunt" or "test") helmet, why does it share significant sililarities with the TM and the VP (master) faceplate, such as the pattern of the filled-in lower chin vent and the cast tabs? Even if the TD, TM and VP (master) do not come from the very same mold, they must have had the same anchestor at one point.


Thanks for your post and I have this same question, Tom. And I agree, they share the same ancestor. Everything to me points to the screen mask, but there are some important differences which I'll get into later. And based on those differences, maybe Brian is right?

vadermania wrote:
Does that probably mean that both the VP master and the TM faceplate are also linked to the 3rd helmet, and that the tusk tube ends for the VP and the TM "master" have been "repaired" or "extended" at a later stage to match the screen-used faceplate? I doubt that.


Well, it seems...seems....seems to me...just as a possibility...that the VP and possibly....possibly....possibly the TM originated from the TD. But I do have some evidence of that. The TD ANH has been painted with it's rear side sitting down. The black paint collects in areas and forms drips on the rear section. If one were to sand down those drips, you would see a pattern matching where the drips "dripped". It's really difficult to examine that pattern because the lighting has to be oblique and the features are really shallow.

This comparison I did a long time ago when I had the VP ANH first pull...the black one. This is the right rear side rear of the upper tusk tube.
By looking at the original paint drips on the TD I was able to match the pattern in places with the VP. How is this possible? And that's not all I found that was in common that was unique to my casting. The question is, what is it on the TM and VP that are unique and intrinsic to the TD ANH but NOT part of the casting meaning not in the fiberglass. On the left the TD ANH and on the right the VP first pull...back then I called it the UK ANH.

Image

It was much more difficult to find something like this on the TM. Here is a similar camparison...(I hope you don't mind Tom)

Image

Now keep in mind, the detail I'm showing on the TD is in the paint, whereas it's in the casting of the TM. The same is true for the TD vs VP comparison.

Remember the drip going down the neck on the left side (Vader's left)? I cut through the drip on the TD and it's not in the casting, it's in the paint. How can this be???

Here's an example of when I put the mask under a microscope...

Image

Here's what the chin paint line looks like in cross section at high magnification after cutting through it with a razor blade (ack!).

Image

And at high magnification...

Image


And that's not all, there are two cracks in the paint, one on each side of the TD ANH...that are seen on the TM and VP. These are surface cracks and are not part of the TD casting, yet they appear identically on the VP And TM.

Here's an example of one of those cracks on the VP...the left side one...

Image

The current owner of the VP ANH first pull can confirm this is their mask. This crack is on the TM as well. TM owners can confirm this. It's a real crack...surface stress crack...on the TD mask and not part of the casting. How can this be? Maybe this will give you guys some idea of the level of detail I work at.

So hoow can this be? One conclusion, and I don't necessarily believe it myself but it's something I'm still trying to substantiate, is that the TD is the ancestor of the TM and VP. But how is that possible? The TM and VP come from two different sources at two different time periods...they differ in many ways from each other based on that...not in terms of their accurate details but in terms of size and the fact the TM is from the ESB production (I believe this strongly, I have no proof of that).

These are only my observations. But to me at least they are compelling. I could be wrong and I also try to find indications on the castings that I am wrong, like that they are not related. These are just a couple of examples of what I like to examine on these castings, and what I have examined and try to make heads or tails of.

vadermania wrote:
My THEORY is that either the tusk tube ends on Thomas TD faceplate were broken off at one point (same like the ones on the TM faceplate), and then cut smooth and bondoed/painted over, OR the tusk tube ends on the anchestor of Thomas' TD faceplate were cut short for whatever reason BEFORE a mold was taken from that faceplate to produce the TD faceplate cast.


I agree, essentially, with these two possibilities. I've had a materials expert examine the cut marks on the tubes. Maybe Brian can be of help here since he has all his original tools. I'm not saying he did this but just knowing about sculpting tools might help answer the question. The cut of the TD tube ends was made by a tool that dug into the side of the mouth triangle...on both the right and moreso on the left side. When you cut into fiberglass, wax, or plaster, it's a clean cut. But if you cut into clay, the clay itself will "swell" a little bit with that kind of sharp cut, in other words there's some give to the clay as it reacts the cut, a bit like cutting skin. The cuts on the sides of the TD mouth reflect this. Now, I am not saying the TD is cast from the original sculpture, I am just saying this is what the cuts look like. So from that point of view, it really doesn't seem like the tubes were cut on the TD ANH itself, ie: it's not in the casting. But rather as you say, Tom, the ancestor of the TD had it's tubes cut short, for whatever reason. And the tubes ends as they appear on the screen mask are different somewhat (thinner on the horizontal axis, exact on the vertical axis).

And please understand that am not making any claims here. I'm just talking about what I'm observing on this mask and asking myself what it could mean...or not mean.

vadermania wrote:
Interestingly enough, the "source" of the TD and the VP (and probably the TM, too) was already outfitted with tabs (the VP with proper lenses) and grills AND I think that this "source" faceplate was already painted in a two-tone scheme. Do we know if the 3rd "test" faceplate was ever outfitted with tabs, lenses and grills at the production stage?


Well keep in mind the paint lines or masking lines on the TM and TD match on the nose and left rear side and chin (a mold seam line?) but keep in mind the left rear side, as I mentioned...that line doesn't match the black to gunmetal paint boundary on the screen mask...why is that...I don't know. I agree it had those things but good question...was the third mask fitted with tabs, lenses and grills and for that matter....was it painted? All black? How about foam? The TD ANH has very old foam on the inside.

The VP lenses are sitting in a groove that matches the OPEN groove of the TD, which had the lenses removed. Keep in mind the lenses would sit in a grove that was already there....Brian did you put groves inside the eyes to fit lenses or was that the costume department that did that?

vadermania wrote:
Regarding the cast tabs: do we know of another sample of "original" cast tabs other than the ones seen on the TD and TM (and probably the 20th Century)? All the cast tabs I have seen on faceplates with a "lineage" are identical in size, position and screw position, which tells me that they originate from ONE ancestor, whether this was THE Tantive faceplate or the OTHER/SECOND hero ANH faceplate used for shooting, that I do not know.


The 20th Century tabs are the same as the TD and TM tabs (from the same source, not identical in details). Apparently the Paul Allen tabs are also the same. I agree, one ancestor...but I believe it was molded at least twice, but at least once for the TD and once for the TM. The VP to me has the sharpness but its size indicates it could be from something like the ancestor of the TD and TM but generationally later?

I don't have the answers, all I try to do is look at the details and what they might suggest.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 2:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:12 am
Posts: 3115
AnsonJames wrote:
I've seen a VP with the tabs intact - they're in the same position as all the other fanmades.


And the three tabs are intact, right?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 3:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:12 am
Posts: 3115
CSMacLaren wrote:
Also, if size is the issue as to whether something is of greater lineage or not, I must point out this can be misleading.


I would say later in the lineage, generationally. It could be misleading, sure, but based on measurements of fanmade helmets I've made and finding that helmets of similar sources are similar in size and those closer to the original are larger, it appears to be a consistent relationship, a correlation.

CSMacLaren wrote:
Anything pulled without being in a fully cured state will result in a difference in size.


I'm not sure what you mean....the resin? The resin is cured and then you lay the fiberglass and back that with more resin.
The size difference is there. The VP IS bigger than any 20th Century or 20th C derivative, showing it itself is closer to the original ANH generationally. A ROTJ mask is smaller still...

CSMacLaren wrote:
If such a mask were placed with the rear opening flat down, the continued sag can cause the mask to appear wider.


The VP actually has the same curvature in the rear as the TM and TD, just cut back shorter (less undercut).

CSMacLaren wrote:
The best thing to do is to study the rear opening and observe not only its surface area but also how the sides are wrapping around from front to rear. Even the neck flare. Sitting something not completely cured might cause that, but I won't rule out physical manipulation either at the time it was pulled.


Yes good suggestion, I did, it's the same....same as the Paul Allen ESB for that matter....

CSMacLaren wrote:
Given what Vadermania just said, I can agree that some variances in shape and surface vectors among the more accurate helmets can be explained by the above (that is, of course, assuming there are no alterations done by, say, sanding, etc.) or purposeful compression of the structure.


I suppose since I've not seen curvature differences I can't say if rear curvature would affect the width of the face, for example...it could I guess if it really splayed out, but then I'd see more variation among fanmade helmets in size...those that come from the 20th C for example, but I don't...and their curvature in the rear is good too. And the face size reflects an overall difference in size, not a difference in proportions over the entire helmet, at least from what I've seen of good castings. The VP, TD, TM are all proportionally very similar....nearly identical...just different in size.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 11:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:53 am
Posts: 251
SithLord wrote:

I agree, essentially, with these two possibilities. I've had a materials expert examine the cut marks on the tubes. Maybe Brian can be of help here since he has all his original tools. I'm not saying he did this but just knowing about sculpting tools might help answer the question. The cut of the TD tube ends was made by a tool that dug into the side of the mouth triangle...on both the right and moreso on the left side. When you cut into fiberglass, wax, or plaster, it's a clean cut. But if you cut into clay, the clay itself will "swell" a little bit with that kind of sharp cut, in other words there's some give to the clay as it reacts the cut, a bit like cutting skin. The cuts on the sides of the TD mouth reflect this. Now, I am not saying the TD is cast from the original sculpture, I am just saying this is what the cuts look like. So from that point of view, it really doesn't seem like the tubes were cut on the TD ANH itself, ie: it's not in the casting. But rather as you say, Tom, the ancestor of the TD had it's tubes cut short, for whatever reason. And the tubes ends as they appear on the screen mask are different somewhat (thinner on the horizontal axis, exact on the vertical axis).


So you're saying the TD is the father of the VP and the TM?

If that's the case then the cheek tubes on the TD would have to have been altered before the mould was made for the TM/VP.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 21, 2008 11:45 am 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 10908
Location: Denmark
Paint is an ugly little bastard when it comes to determining whether the detail is caused by the paint or by surface details. Everyone knows that paint builds up at uneven areas and eventually form a drip, so from what has been shown here it is plausible the detail is in the TD paint, but could just as well be in the cast, with paint drips developing there - only some parts match and others don't, which makes it difficult to really determine what is what.

We will never get these things answered unless you strip the paint, but I can absolutely understand your reasons not to. If I got a piece like that I wouldn't remove the paint as well. There's lots to be learned by removing it, but you'll also be losing a great deal, and since you are not 100% sure what you'd be losing I definitely wouldn't strip the paint.

Personally... I still can't quite see what that microscoped picture is showing... I think it's suffering from the up close aspect... or maybe I'm just daft. Could be both, who knows. Though... cutting into the paint and lifting it will weaken it and it may chip or break off... so be careful with these "tests".

_________________
Check us out at Facebook!
http://www.facebook.com/ThePropDen


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 3:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 06, 2006 2:28 am
Posts: 235
Location: Houston TX
Nice start Thomas. Its good to see the careful wording of theory vs fact.
I have to agree with NHM that stripping the paint would be revealing but at a high risk, so I know it will not likely ever happen.

When do you take the painted copy out and put the SL ANH into the photo? You know I have no patience to wait for things like that....

Still it would be cool to have all the great masks together so they could be reviewed in person, I am just not a photo guy.

Looking forward to seeing this progress but these seem to become heated all too fast. :angry4


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 9:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:12 am
Posts: 3115
AnsonJames wrote:

So you're saying the TD is the father of the VP and the TM?

If that's the case then the cheek tubes on the TD would have to have been altered before the mould was made for the TM/VP.


I don't know frankly what the TD is....I'm just trying to relate the details. It could be the father but there are other things that suggest it might not be. But you are right about the cut tub ends...if you molded the TD you would have to remake the tube ends at some point. Those ends would not necessarily match the ends of the screen mask...so it's good to look for a difference in the tube ends of the TM and VP. But, the TM tube ends were damaged. The VP tube ends are narrower than the original...sanded down a bit....I don't know if that was done by the owner. So I can't really address that particular question.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 9:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:12 am
Posts: 3115
NoHumorMan wrote:
You know there are extreme detail in the cast... but with the paint... how can you tell which details is caused by which?

Please don't get me wrong... it's just... comparing a painted cast with unpainted ones... and not having the original to very details on... just makes any kind of conclusion about whether something is accurate to the original or whether one fan helmet is ancestor to other fan helmets to be highly questionable.


I understand....but keep in mind I have excellent reference of the original screen mask both in photos and now in another casting...more to come about that.

Remember the tab comparison I showed in the first TD ANH thread? People were saying you can't compare it with the TM because the TM wasn't painted and the TD is, until I showed part of the tabs on the TD. I think I made my point effectively there that you can compare them.


Last edited by SithLord on Thu May 22, 2008 11:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 9:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2006 12:12 am
Posts: 3115
Vader71 wrote:
When do you take the painted copy out and put the SL ANH into the photo? You know I have no patience to wait for things like that....

Still it would be cool to have all the great masks together so they could be reviewed in person, I am just not a photo guy.


I hope to have a comparison thread at some point in the near future when I've got things sorted out in terms of how the SL/TD/TM are related... needless to say I have to be careful what conclusions I might like to draw since if I show something then it's like a conclusion by itself...which I know from experience can get me into trouble. :wink:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 10:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 11:53 am
Posts: 251
SithLord wrote:

I agree, essentially, with these two possibilities. I've had a materials expert examine the cut marks on the tubes. Maybe Brian can be of help here since he has all his original tools. I'm not saying he did this but just knowing about sculpting tools might help answer the question. The cut of the TD tube ends was made by a tool that dug into the side of the mouth triangle...on both the right and moreso on the left side. When you cut into fiberglass, wax, or plaster, it's a clean cut. But if you cut into clay, the clay itself will "swell" a little bit with that kind of sharp cut, in other words there's some give to the clay as it reacts the cut, a bit like cutting skin. The cuts on the sides of the TD mouth reflect this. Now, I am not saying the TD is cast from the original sculpture, I am just saying this is what the cuts look like. So from that point of view, it really doesn't seem like the tubes were cut on the TD ANH itself, ie: it's not in the casting. But rather as you say, Tom, the ancestor of the TD had it's tubes cut short, for whatever reason. And the tubes ends as they appear on the screen mask are different somewhat (thinner on the horizontal axis, exact on the vertical axis).




vaderman wrote:
Well Thomas I wondered how long it would take you to come out with the fact that you have the original screen helmet.

When you came to my house 3 years ago armed with a certificate of authentication for me to sign that your helmet was an original screen helmet I told you then that I would not sign because it is not an original screen helmet.

I told you the best that you could hope for is that it was a cast from a remould of the third mask used by special effects and gave you the reasons why.

1. The tabs are part of the cast (in resin). This alone means it cannot be an original as the tabs were applied.

2. The tusks are cut short on yours which again suggests it was the third helmet which had been messed about with.

For the last 3 years you have been emailing me with crackpot theories and hundreds of meaningless comparisons desperately trying to prove yours is an original screen mask.

Well for the last time - it isn't.

Brian


vaderman wrote:
Darth Karo

As you state I did not sculpt the tusk short - I sculpted them as they appear on screen.

Brian


What more is there to say?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 22, 2008 10:30 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 8:58 am
Posts: 10908
Location: Denmark
SithLord wrote:
NoHumorMan wrote:
Paint is an ugly little bastard when it comes to determining whether the detail is caused by the paint or by surface details. Everyone knows that paint builds up at uneven areas and eventually form a drip, so from what has been shown here it is plausible the detail is in the TD paint, but could just as well be in the cast, with paint drips developing there - only some parts match and others don't, which makes it difficult to really determine what is what.


I'm 100% certain they are real paint drips back there. I wasn't sure about the drips on the front of the mask which is why I cut into the chin one. But you are right...just because one drip is real doesn't mean another is. But the ones in the back it's really clear they came from the painting process.

Oh... I'm not questioning the paint drips. They are clearly real. However, just because they are not on the other helmets, but some of the chipping is, where the paint drips formed, cannot really lead to any conclusions, because the paint drips obscure the natural shapes of the cast, if you know what I mean.

It's like wall paper with those pesky little grains in them... and when you paint, then the paint will be thicker at the top of the raised areas than below and if the paint reaches its breaking point, then it will form a drip.

You know there are extreme detail in the cast... but with the paint... how can you tell which details is caused by which?


Please don't get me wrong... it's just... comparing a painted cast with unpainted ones... and not having the original to very details on... just makes any kind of conclusion about whether something is accurate to the original or whether one fan helmet is ancestor to other fan helmets to be highly questionable.

They say the devil is in the details. I think we should all be careful not to get suckered by said devil, as it will work against us in the end.



To get back to the paint drip on the neck. I finally think I can see what I'm looking at. Interesting about the build-up of paint in that area, but as I said about the wallpaper - and as you said it was possibly painted when lying with its back on a surface, it sorta follows that logic - paint can build up on raised surfaces until it breaks and runs.

_________________
Check us out at Facebook!
http://www.facebook.com/ThePropDen


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 416 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 28  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Blue Moon by Trent © 2007
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Hosted by Freeforum.ca, get your free forum now! TOS | Support Forums | Report a violation
MultiForums powered by echoPHP phpBB MultiForums