CSMacLaren wrote:
Wow, this is good information. If what TE says is in fact accurate, that means that the initial helmets were smooth capped, and the latter ones were bumpy due to overheating of the mold.
Then, in light of this information, all this propaganda we've been told that someone's helmet is more accurate than everyone else's because of bumpy caps accurately reproduced is just loony.
If one choses to reproduce bumps, that is fine. But it makes it no more superior or accurate than a smooth cap since both were screen-used.
This is what I've been saying for a long time. I rmember countless arguments in the past over bumps and having handled many original helmets my position has always been the same
Some have bumps and some don't. AA admitted that in order to get the last of the helmets done in 1976 he had to rush them. This has nothing to do with fires but of pushing the mould too far and not letting it cool down between pulls.
Thats why some helmets have bumps (the latter ones) and others dont. In addition some other things came into play
1) The Stunt helmets were the first AA made (of any helmets) so he was less concerned with finish. Hence when he made the "quality/close up hemets" (i.e. the Hero's) he went back to the moulds and cleaned them up
2) Because the HDPE helmets were made using his 2nd vac forming machine (the ones used to make the ponds) there was a lot of crap around from the bits of ruck used to make the organic pond designs, hence the chance of contamination was increased
So IMO it was overuse of a mould that was made for a few crappy sci-fi helmets combined with some contamination. Since there was no payment up front, AA sent everything out - warts and all.
Regarding Gino's helmets, my personal preference would always be to have a clean version over a bumpy. Irrespective of his position on this forum (or lack thereof) I'd still have to say that they are probably the most accurate replica (to the eye) I've ever seen.
Cheers
Jez