SDS Stormtrooper helmet IS from the original moulds

[BingoBongo_275]

Okay guys grab your popcorn!

No really – can we try and have a discussion about this without it falling into the usual “helmet wars”?

As most of you know I’ve ALWAYS thought the SDS Stormtrooper helmet is from the “original moulds” and many have disagreed – that’s cool

However this pic posted by Rocko reignited my interest since it seem to show a number of the characteristics on the current SDS, namely the webbing under the tube and the dodgy ear.

My belief is:

a) AA created some moulds (or more specifically tools) in order to make a short run of helmets for a certain project. The chosen material was HDPE as it was cheap, available and flexible (making it easier to remove of thee moulds/tools)

AA used the moulds for the Stunts and they became progressively worse due to:

1) The moulds were not intended for volume production, and they were being pushed in order to have the helmets ready on time

2) The undercut forced AA to remove the helmets fro the moulds while still hot, often having to cut them away-further damaging the moulds

c) After the Stunts, AA switched to ABS for the TIE and Hero’s. This could have been up to a month later. By now (following the production of 60 helmets), the moulds were in a significantly worse state

d) AA made the ABS Hero’s and ABS TIES using the reworked moulds/tools. The difference in material (and it significantly reduced flexibility compared to HDPE) made removal of the undercut areas extremely difficult causing more and greater damage to the moulds. Even though only 6 Hero’s were made, these were charged to the studio at a higher rate as “close-up helmets” so I believe more were thrown away than made. Ear moulds remade/significantly rebuilt.

e) Moulds go away for 30 years in a shed somewhere. Brought out in 2002/03. Damage either left from 1976 or accrued since then is repaired (in some cases not very well)

f) Moulds/tools used for production of new helmets

Now CLEARLY there are significant differences between the back cap of the new SDS with the originals, however IMO the cap itself has an exact match of the curvature which suggests to me its original. I can only deduce that the rear section was so far damaged that had to be rebuilt hence it now looks different.

IMO the face is original and having spent a lot of time analysing the inside of the SDS TIE face with an original I once had access to, I am sure of this as the tells are all there. To be honest I don’t think AA is as good or conscientious worker to have replicated all the inside unseen details in a reproduction.

So there we go. That’s how I see it. I welcome open debate. Anyone posting sly remarks or point-scoring quips is welcome to do so but will only reveal themselves as an ***!

Over to you…

Cheers

Jez

[Defstartrooper]

I'm not an expert on the various helmets or know anything really about vac-forming so this is more of a question rather than a statement.

On the SDS site AA says in a statement that the original moulds have suffered no degradation or damage while in storage and the proccess of forming causes very little damage.

Now Jez you're saying that during the original production of the stunt helmets in HDPE the moulds would have suffered significant damage and this damage would have been further increased by the production of the hero helmets.

So my question is given that you think the faces are original would the damage only be limited to the cap/back moulds ?

Like i say i know squat about vac-forming so wonder if someone can chime in and clear that up please ?

[BingoBongo_275]

I think any statement that AA made about damage is just wrong, and is a clear example of how inconsitancies liike this really havent helped his cause.

The back/cap has the most severe undercut and is imo the most prone to damage during production in 76. In making the "prototype" helmets after star wars he used a different back section, although the same cap. I'm presuming he did this partly as the original back was so damaged (or just prone to damage) due to the undercut.

However the undercut to the face has a complex undercut as well, so perhaps that was modified (maybe after damage) hence the undercuts not so pronounced now?

Just an idea

Cheers

jez

[Defstartrooper]

Cheers Jez so it would be correct to assume that with his current production the tools would be suffering from similar damage as they did in 76 ?

[BingoBongo_275]

No - I think he's using new production bucks off the original moulds - otherwise I dont think they would have survived this long.I dont know how many TK helmets he's made but its got to be > 400

Cheers

Jez

[Defstartrooper]

So they are copies of the original tools then ? i hope im not coming accross as antagonistic here i just am genuinely interested.

if they are new tools then regardless of if they are copied from the original or not they are still copies so should they really be described as original ?

[eifion]

When I saw the title of this thread I was hoping to see some concrete evidence proving that the SDS Stunt derives from the original moulds.

I suppose I was expecting too much though.

All I can say is if I had bought my helmet from SDS directly at his full asking price, (I bought it from a private seller for a little less) I would have demanded a refund.

For his prices I'd almost expected the helmet to be fully functional with high resolution HUD, intercom system and plastisteel outer shell . . but I certainly expected it to at least look correct.

The very poor back cap is inexcusable and I dont care much for the rest of the helmet either. The details on the face plate arent sharp enough (and mine is fairly low numbered at 102!), it looks too wide and dont even get me started on those ears!

The guy is a hack and he is deliberatly making falsified statements in his website to help promote sales.

[BingoBongo_275]

Defstartrooper - I dont know that for sure. However if the moulds/tools he's using are taken direct from the original then I suppose its open to interpretation. Were the MR RotS Vader helmets "from the original moulds" as they clearly werent DIRECT from them, same with the DOn Posts. IMO its a grey area.

eifion, with respect your post contributes very little to the debate and is precisely what I was trying to avoid. Of all the SDS Stunt helmets Ive seen, sharpness was NOT the issue. I presume you have a stunt? Whether you think it value for money is another debate. I'm trying to understand what peoples views are regarding the moulds given the new pic above which shows the Hero helmets (and therefore the last to be made from the moulds in '76) to look a **** of a lot like an SDS

Cheers

Jez

[gino]

Jez,

I swear, I am not trying to fight so please, if my post comes across harsh or whatever, apologies in advance as its not my intent.

Here are my thoughts on this matter.

Firstly, when someone says "original molds", the impression people get is that it is the EXACT piece of material that the originals touched when they were formed back in 76.

I feel like it is more of a situation of "original molds...from a certain point of view". Now from that standpoint, AA might feel as if he is being forthright. That in and of itself causes people to feel misled because they don't see that "certain point of view" and makes them feel as if they are being lied to.

Also, the way I understood it was that he felt he HAD to maintain the standpoint of "mold originality" if he was to stand a chance with the whole rights to produce thing.

Could they be original molds? Possibly. But what does it matter if they don't produce accurate looking parts?

If you follow this thinking through, you could take the ACTUAL original trooper helmet molds, add enough bondo and grind away enough material and transform it into a scout trooper mold. Is it still the original trooper helmet mold? Sure, "from a certain point of view", but now the parts it produces now look like a scout trooper.

I think the biggest problem AA made for himself is that he shouldn't have marketed his product the way he did. If he would have been forthcoming about all the changes and true mold lineage, people still would have wanted his stuff because it came from HIM, regardless of whether his helmets matched the screen originals exactly. Instead, what he got was a lot of people who felt like he promised one thing and delivered another.

And also, we ALL suffered from a huge split and war over the issue.

Back then we fought viciously over whether or not his new helmets matched the originals. This issue caused a lot of relationships to dissolve and factions to be created on either side of the line.

Now, it has become common belief that they don't exactly match the originals even from yourself. It sucks that this issue has UNNECESSARILY affected so many people, threads, relationships, etc... as I think that now after all the smoke has cleared, there is more common ground to be shared than before thought.

Back to the SDS helmet pieces themselves.

The true story of the cap/back and earcaps is an enigma that only AA knows the answers to. We know that they don't match the originals but why do they look the way they do now? As a maker of molds and helmets myself, I'm sure that if I spoke to him and he was totally forthcoming about the issues he encountered in re-establishing them, I could at least see what his thought process was that led him to where the stuff is now. That doesn't mean I'd agree with it, but at least gain some understanding. Were they originals that were cut apart and put back together wrong? Were they casts of casts of casts modified in places over time to streamline production? Rebuilt from scratch using other parts as reference? Who knows.

The faceplate is still the one piece that I think there is still controversy over.

We know the original faceplate mold started out as stunt/background mold and then later went through changes to become the hero/closeup mold. If AA was using the original mold (now in hero configuration), he would have had to re-work it back into stunt specs. By now this mold would have been so re-worked, that most of its 76 originality would have been lost.

Again, I say what does it matter if it is the original mold, if it doesn't produce exacting 76 looking parts.

The teeth area on the SDS stunt has been re-vamped, cleaned up and over sharpened. There are details on the teeth on the originals that do not appear on the SDS teeth. I used to think that the helmet that my molds came from were just damaged, but seeing close up evidence in these new screencaps proved these details should be there without a doubt. These details are little dents along the edgeline of the frown where they meet the teeth. Hard to explain without a pic.

Jez, speaking specifically to you. I remember you saying that the reason you belived that AA was using the original molds for the helmet was because he gave you his word and you didn't believe he would lie to you.

On other occasions such as the armor for example, you see him outright lying about their origins. Doesn't that make you at least re-consider his word on the helmets as well? I ask because red flags would be going off in most other peoples' heads. With all you have seen and experienced in the whole mess that is the SDS controversy, can you really not see it?

Look at all the things we've fought over, # of hdpe vs. abs used on screen, consistency in the location of bumps-texture on the cap/back, whether or not the SDS cap/back & ears matched the on screen ones, etc... I'm hoping that at some point you'll see a track record of good judgement on my part and at least give me the benefit of the doubt.

Do we all really still need to be divided over this issue of SDS??!

I suppose it all starts with a willingness to accept the possibility that the other side could be right. Without that, forget it. There is common ground to be found if both sides are willing to look for it.

I feel like you have never once even considered the possibility that AA could have been dishonest with you about these helmet molds. I feel like it is mostly because you don't want to believe that could be the case. I could be wrong, but that is the impression I've gotten from you over the years.

Longest post ever.

[TD-4510]

Well. I do know this much about Andrew Ainsworth. The guy is very personable. I have written him several times with various questions, and he ALWAYS replies. I am not totally sure that it is him, but I am always written back and treated with mutual respect, despite how rude some my questions may have seemed to have been.

He did tell me once that the HDPE was very easy to work with and very forgiving as far as removal from the molds. This leads me to believe that the HDPE helmets did not damage the molds as much as the ABS one's could have later due to the big undercuts.

The question that always comes up in my mind, (and I havent asked him this yet) is why did Lucasfilm recast armor and helmets for ROTJ instead of having AA's shop make them again? If AA still had the molds he could have made quite a bit of cash making ROTJ armor for the film.

I am led to believe that the original molds were gone for the back cap (and recreated) and that the faceplate was recasted from one of the helmets he later sold at Christies. (the prototype with the weird back cap) That would explain the newer helmets initially different shaped back cap. Once he got ahold of the AP armor and started creating armor for production, it seemed like the back cap changed. I think he may have recast that and started using it for his current helmets.

All this being said. I also wonder what AA's role was in the making of the originals. I thought he owned the boat/pond making shop. Then someone said that he merely worked there as a drone. Anyone know for sure.

Was the fire that destroyed the shop after production of the armors and helmets? were the molds destroyed in the fire? hmm.

[TD-4510]

I also wanna say that.... I love this !#@$. I have a blast talking about all this stuff.

[BingoBongo_275]

Gino, Good post - thanks for the comments which I take in the spirit in which they were given.

I agree with much of what you have said, with the following sticking out

Jez,

I suppose it all starts with a willingness to accept the possibility that the other side could be right. Without that, forget it. There is common ground to be found if both sides are willing to look for it.

…and my response to that is “I will if you will!!”

So when you say "original molds...from a certain point of view", I think this is the crux of the matter and something I’ve discussed for a long time with mutual friends. The reality is in my mind that what Ainsworth considers to be “original” may not be the same as others.

I think the key thing is that the moulds are original, its just there in a significantly different state than they were in 1976, and you rightly point out that the error in the marketing of SDS is that this was never made clear – irrespective of the motivation behind that.

Regarding the moulds themselves, there are a few things I disagree with you on – but that’s fine! I question there are any major differences between the “Stunt” and Hero” face plates other than AA cleaned them up in ’76 after the stunt (removing the bump in the eye for example), in order to make the TIE and Hero faceplates. Therefore in my view to “undo” that was a minor operation – however I understand if people don’t see it as minor as perhaps I do.

Teeth – a long time ago I did quite a lot of work looking at the insides of AA’s new TIE helmet with an original I had access to. Unfortunately I never had them both at the same time as TIE was sold to Screenused.com a good 6 months before AA had started production on any helmets (and while on the subject can guarantee unequivocally that AA did NOT recast any part of that TIE – if he did then his mohawk would have been better). Anyway, when I spent a lot of time investigating I found that the internal characteristics of both the new and original TIE mouths were almost exactly the same. I’d certainly be interested in any evidence that might suggest that the face is difference and yes you are right that the thought that AA lied to me would hit me like a sledge hammer. However I would need to see something pretty clear to take that step. I don’t want to pre-empty what your info is but I am conscious that the difference in the materials used 1976-2005 makes a lot of difference to the finished product - a case in point being the “pinching” on the HDPE helmets most noticeable in the tears, that isn’t present in the ABS.

So my view over the helmets was not based on his word alone, there was other information that backed up what he had said. One of the key things that ignited my interest was “if they’re not the original moulds – then what are they?”, and a failure to find a plausible answer to this also adds to my belief.

With regard to the Armour, I have no idea what he told anyone else but he never lied to me over that – hence there was no sight of armour until after I ceased any involvement with him. In my view it was something that shouldn’t have been on his radar and I was surprised as anyone that he decided to make it. However I take the point that from other point of view, as soon as he was reported as making an untruthful claim about the armour – it totally undermined anything he had said prior to that. Dumb. Stupid. Crass.

So in parting I appreciate your post and to go back to your earlier quote, I’m prepared to look outside the box if others are also.

Anyway, times matching on and I’m off to see Ghost Rider with my son

Cheers

Jez

Ps this is the longest post ever

pps - TK 4510 - there's no doubt that AA made the original helmets for ANH, even LFL now seems to agree to that although they believe the original work was theirs (either based on the McQuarrie paintings or a clay sculpt). As far as the fire, we've all looked at that and chronologically it couldnt have destroyed the trooper moulds as the Hero's were done after March 26th - the date of the fire.

[SethB6025]

I think Gino's statement "original moulds...from a certain point of view" sums up the problem that has been there all along. If AA had simply released his helmet as a "replica", or "from restored moulds" the controversy related to the helmet would be virtually non-existent. The armor of course...nevermind.

I am perfectly willing to believe that the helmets he is making are decent from the screen-used moulds. However, in between screen-used and a few years ago quite a few things changed somehow. His marketing mistake blew this into a disaster. It is nice to see that time has begun to heal some wounded relationships though. Also, I commend everyone on staying polite; even in an SDS thread!

[Defstartrooper]

I agree with Seth AA should have and be marketing these differently there are many people out there that have spent a large amount of money on his helmets believing that they are accurate copies of the original 76 ones.

If the moulds are refurbished/reworked in my mind that makes them no more original than other fan made helmets which are recasted from original helmets.

How many faceplate moulds were produced in 76 ? if only one originaly a stunt then reworked for the heros then it stands to reason that at least one of his current moulds is a copy as he is producing both styles now.

[SethB6025]

Well, if you have a master sculpt that you create a negative from that you then produce a positive buck from, you could have as many forming-mould sets as you want. Unless he had aluminum masters made from his "originals" then degradation would be an issue after so many pulls.

At any rate I think its probable that he did in fact have something from ANH, however I think its fairly obvious that he did some additional "original" work to his "originals".

Very interesting ideas Jez, I hope that in the coming proceedings in the UK that maybe more information will come to light.

[Defstartrooper]

I see what you mean Seth and by no means do i think that AA shouldn't produce helmets and market them whatever his methods of reproduction are.

What i do think is though that he shouldn't use words like original and accurate in his marketing of them i just don't see how you can rework/refurbish moulds to the exact specification that they were originally close yes but not exact.

For the average Joe Shmoe like me that hasn't spent years studying every little nuance of the original helmets his site is very misleading people are parting with sizable amounts of hard earned dollar for something they believe to be true to the originals which they aren't.

As far as i can gather from this thread and others the only part which might be "original" is the hero faceplate everyone seems in agreement that the cap/back is new on both the hero and stunt he is producing,the stunt face from what i gather has to be a reworked hero face reworked back to stunt specs so could not be classed as original.

Of course we still have no proof either way wether the hero face is original or not (will we ever?)

[butcherbird]

"From a certain point of view" is a totally apt description for this (not to mention the movie quote tie-in).

I'm just a Joe Schmoe-type myself, but my thoughts have always been that there were certainly alterations made to the original 1976 Stunt helmet molds, either to make new versions (e.g. Hero, serrated tube-prototype, etc.) or to refurb any damage from continued usage. The real mystery to me is what the status of the molds was from 1976 through 2005, as far as condition, deterioration, damage, etc. As has been stated many times, AA's marketing statements were misleading in that regard.

All marketing arguments aside, the real assessment of the lasting "value" of AA's helmets comes from two main criteria IMO:

1) That they were made by the same guy who originally made them for the film.

2) That they may have come from an original mold, even if that mold was drastically altered from its virgin 1976 Stunt condition.

How much those considerations are ultimately worth to you will vary from person to person.

-Todd