SpaceWelder

Thanks @Raider! You know, I hadn't even considered that we could readjust the belt requirements to make them correct instead of holding them sacrosanct just because they have been written. Must be a product of witnessing how our own legal system works here in the U.S. I'm all for it. What's interesting to me is that in this case where there are negative requirements (no grommets present, no pleating present, etc.) for the Level 2, the Level 1 cert then allows for a more detailed or embellished costume (without coloring too far outside the lines of course.) I imagine the opposite is the case where we have clear screen references (must contain a tiny do-dad here, must have XYZ stitching there, etc.) I look forward to seeing how this CRL evolves!

If it pleases the Court; First and foremost, this is a long read worth little more than .02. I enjoy getting into the weeds of detailed semantics like this but if Level 1 certification is where I stay, I really have no problem with that. I only want to help elevate the amazing work that this group has already accomplished in costuming. Absolutely no disrespect is meant to anyone by any of the following. That being said, let’s begin. Assumptions: 1- that the visual references from the Dark Horse Comics posted on the SpecOps page are all we have to adjudicate the details of this costume. 2- that we are a self-governing body free to determine whatever criteria we choose for each costume Definitions: 1- Patch Pocket- a pocket whose front panel is flat and sewn directly to the garment. 2- Gusseted Pocket- a pocket whose front panel is sewn to thin strips of fabric (“Gussets”) around its perimeter which are then sewn to the garment. 3- Bellowed Pocket- a pocket whose main panel contains pleating of any kind. References: 1- https://soldiersystems.net/2016/12/05/the-baldwin-articles-cargo-pockets/ The discussion at hand revolves around whether or not Gusseted or Bellowed pockets would preclude a costume from gaining Level 2 certification within the Detachment. It is my argument that such details should NOT preclude a costume from gaining such status. A gusset detail is the easier of the two options to defend as they seem clear in the visual reference here: The artist has made it clear that the pocket is more than a simple patch pocket and that it extends out from the body of the garment. The parallel line denotes that the pocket is not simply full, but that it contains a structured seam which allows such extension. The bottom of the pocket does seem connected to the garment which suggests that gussets are only present on the sides of the pocket. Whether or not this detail become a requirement for any level of certification or approval is up to the Detachment but clearly it should not be grounds for any denial. A bellowed detail is more difficult to defend as the only visual evidence of such a suggestion is here: The two swooping lines connote enough fabric to allow for such folds, whether from intentional stitching or simply overfilling of the pocket. It is not a difficult leap to argue that these lines denote a double-knife pleat as discussed in the reference article. As such, I submit that such a detail should not preclude a costume from any level of certification or approval. Extending said reference of American military uniforms, one could argue that the inverted box pleat detail could also fall into the same category of inclusion. [I, personally, have gone with the inverted box pleat for two reasons, 1- I’ve always thought the double-knife pleat is less aesthetically pleasing, and 2- that’s what came with the pockets of my salvage garment.] My second line of argument is that due to the reference material being solely in comic form we are stewards of the details of these costumes and their alignment with the intention of the artist. Time, composition, and resolution of the medium restrict the artist to a certain level of detail. They must edit what lines and colors make it onto the page in order to create an image that projects the story they want to tell. Does the omission of fold lines in the pockets mean the artist intended for them to be unpleated pockets? Possibly, but as stewards of the details I believe we owe it to the costume to allow for the best iteration of the intention as possible. Again, making these details parameters for any level of certification are up for more debate within the group, but if a detail is 1- within the intention of the art, and 2- elevates the production value of the costume it should not be denied on lack of referential evidence alone. Lastly, I would bring forth the argument that there is precedence for not only allowing but requiring details without any visual support in the reference images. This detail lies in the hollow grommets of the belt. There are very clear opportunities for these fixtures to be drawn yet they are absent. I support the use of the Condor belt in the costume. It’s an easy purchase that needs no modification out of the package. It is relevant to the intention as it is actually marketed as a duty rig. It elevates the costume with a little embellishment. But what it does not do is defend itself with the visual references we have at our disposal. I thank you for your consideration. The defense rests. TL/DR – I think pocket details should not be precluded from Level 2 (or higher?) certification.

I think he's inclined to agree with the Detachment. Actually, I woke up yesterday to a shipping notification so I should see them soon!

Boots- Posted here:

I know there has been a lot of discussion on this and the "Commuter" boots are all but locked in to the new CRL, but I wanted to give my unsolicited opinion. I got a pair of Totes commuters here - https://www.kohls.com/product/prd-3653220/totes-dalton-mens-waterproof-winter-boots.jsp?skuid=76138120&ci_mcc=ci&utm_campaign=MENS DRESS/CAS SHOES&utm_medium=CSE&utm_source=google&utm_product=76138120&CID=shopping15&utm_campaignid=9733267153&pid=googleadwords_int&af_channel=CSE&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIl6mEw4yq6gIVEvDACh0P8gHIEAQYCSABEgIzr_D_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds 30 Bucks, can't go wrong. Right? I dunno. I don't want to derail all the work that's gone in so far, but FWIW, I'm not convinced these are right. Let's go to the videotape: The heel looks great, the toe looks right, there's no laces, but the ankles. That is not the ankle support of a soldier. I threw on my Timbs for comparison: That looks like the proper blousing to me minus the padded ankle. (FWIW Timberland does (did?) make a version without the padding: https://www.shoebacca.com/timberland-6in-basic-waterproof-10069.html?CAWELAID=120280160000015159&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIjLvC_s2p6gIVEL7ACh1_SwWxEAQYFiABEgJ22fD_BwE ) Are we hamstringing ourselves with the no laces thing? Is a lace cover an option? Like foundry boots?: https://www.gearcor.com/82024cu0/Cofra-Asphalt-Heat-Shield-Heat-Resistant-EH-6-inch-Boot.htm?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI_ef8q5Cq6gIVVJJbCh3EVQt9EAQYESABEgJnXvD_BwE I dunno, what do people think? That snow boot just feels like Napoleon Dynamite to me.

Coveralls #2 - Save for a couple minuscule details I think this piece is pretty much done. As I mentioned in my previous post, I used the gusseted and bellowed pockets from the cargo shorts (though I sewed down the bottom of the pocket as the reference images suggest) and made new chest pockets to match. @Blackwatch, I understand your concern for Level 2 cert. If you would like my defense of the pleating (publicly or privately) I'm happy to share. I just don't want to come across as defensive or disrespectful. As I said, I'm the new guy here The collar is the most technical part of this build in my opinion. By first flipping up the collar I saw that the front placard just covers until where the collar takes over. So I removed the collar and began to assess how it would need to be manipulated when I noticed something else that looks amazingly like a pre-made Mandarin collar, the waist band of the cargo shorts. Perfect width and already has reinforcement for stiffness. I was surprised to find out that sewing the waist band along the exact same stitch line as the original collar worked very very well. I thought the geometry would be a little more nuanced than that. I then added a small modesty panel to cover any gaps between the placard and the collar. Waiting on pre-ordered patches now.

Hey David, thanks for your input. Yeah it does have a legitimate STAR WARS/Disney/starwars.com/(C) & tm Lucasfilm Ltd. tag! But as my GML says, I "could have the actual screen used hat, but if it's too big on [me] it won't get [me] approved." Hence running it by you all.

Belt - I was all prepared to buy a grommet punch and all the buckles, etc from strapworks.com until I got to Blackwatch's buy list to find that it's just a purchase. So that was easy. I do have a question for when I get to the Harness though. The CRL mentions that the back of the harness can be permanently attached to the belt and that for Level Two Certification the hooks should be discreetly hidden behind the belt, which begs two questions , actually: 1-should the hooks be SO hidden that they are unseen?, and 2- in that case, can the harness be sewn to the belt on front and back and remove the hooks altogether? Thanks!

Hat - This was actually the first thing I purchased, thinking "man I'm glad I won't have to build a hat." Having read through discussions of it I now know that might not be the case. My GML let me know it all came down to fit and finish so I wanted to get opinions here before wasting his time about it. This is one of the cheap ones from here: https://www.tvstoreonline.com/star-wars-imperial-officer-twill-cap/ . I'm prepared to get slammed now that I know better, but it can't hurt to show it on my head and see what you all think. Thanks!

Hi Everyone, Build has begun in earnest and I wanted to get some things down for group consensus of anyone interested. Coveralls- I went with Dickies FLEX Longsleeve Coveralls #48274 and also picked up a pair of 13" Loose Fit Cargo Shorts #WR888 to poach the cargo pockets off of. I wanted these specifically because they are gusseted which I think is more accurate to the reference images. There is a bellow pleat down the center of the panel which isn't mentioned one way or the other but I think it's a great detail that I hope passes. The bottom two corners of the top flaps are chamfered and therefore not purely "rectangular" so I wanted to get feedback from the group on that and the pleat. Additionally, if these pass muster I would rebuild the chest pockets to match. Thoughts? Thanks!

FWIW, I bought two pair of slightly different sizes. That way you can decide if you like one fit/length better than another, and have material for alterations.

Indeed! I'll post my WIP once I get started in earnest.

Aaaand I'd be wrong. As I just learned, a "bellowed pocket" has the pleat on the front panel. A "gusseted pocket" has the thin side panel like I see here. FWIW. Thanks!

While we're talking about updates, has anyone talked about the cargo pockets? The CRL mentions a full appearance for Level 2 certification. I'm new here, but if the attached image is the reference for this parameter, I'd call it a bellowed pocket. My .02. Thanks!