SpaceWelder Engineer WIP

[SpaceWelder[TX]]

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!

 

 

[SpaceWelder[TX]]

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!

 

[SpaceWelder[TX]]

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!

[IcyTrooper[CMD-DL]]

12 hours ago, SpaceWelder said:

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!

 

 

@Blackwatch do you have any input on this?

12 hours ago, SpaceWelder said:

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!

I'd need more pics from each angle and up close to see, but your GML will ultimately be the one approving it so go by his/her guidance on that. As long as it meets both the image and text of the CRL I wouldn't see why it wouldn't pass. Now if you want my opinion, from quick glance it does have proper appearance.

11 hours ago, SpaceWelder said:

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!

You hit the nail on the head precisely with #1, they are hidden. I used an Imperial Army Trooper Specialist ( @Blackwatch's application) so that you can see how they are hidden:  

As long as it appears hidden I wouldn't see why you couldn't do that and get rid of the clips.

[RAIDER[COTG]]

@SpaceWelder Regarding the flightsuit pouches...the angled flaps in my opinion should be ok.  In the original reference artwork, the flaps themselves are very hard to makeout.  There are some instances where they are unseen:

 and in others where you can see the rectangular flap:

The CRL itself however does not mention the shape of the flap.  @Blackwatch?

As far as the clips...they need to be hidden.  That line is there as clips are a method of "construction" that shouldn't be seen...notice the CRL line says:

"Visible snap-hook style fasteners that attach to belt eyelets are acceptable."

Not necessarily required.  If you are going for Specialist Level 2 (blue text) standards, that's where the "main body" of the fastener needs to be hidden.  Notice here, not entirely...just main body.  This allows for troopers to have the hooks as a means of securing/unsecuring the harness from the belt at the front while suiting up.  The references do not show hooks...but for real life practical use, they are allowed so long as they are for the most part hidden.

So if you are able to hide them, or find a way to practically put on/take off the harness/belt without them, it seems like a viable option to me.

[Blackwatch[CMD-DCA]]

Ok guys, Im back on the forum.  I was on the road travelling to the new job site for two days and Im finally getting back online.  

Chris, thanks for going Engineer. I love wearing mine. Its light, easy breezy and eventually hopefully gets converted to a Sapper! 

Lets start at the top.  My hat is a VERY OLD RunyaJade.  Its old. Maybe  10 years?  Ive washed the crap out of it, so its not anything like one of those super crisp ImperialMadSeamstress hats Niki Powers makes (mine is the prototype hat she made me years ago).  So, to ME, the hat fits the bill.  I wear mine under my helmet, but thats how we wore them in the Army, it was pretty much the only padding for the helmet then.  The disk is not necessary but if you want to go Specialist it has the required notch. 

From the CRL:

Hat, Black

Fabric is a medium weight black suiting material.

I went to the link *thanks for posting that* and looked the hat over as best I could.  Ive seen this hat before, I think I bought one a couple of years ago when I was evaluating hats.  I like the statement that it is officially licensed. Does it actually have the SW tag inside?   The hat is twill, and the CRL says suiting.  The CRL is a wiki and its shared among the entire club for all components. If you go look at other CRLs with identical parts, youll see it all matches.  We cut copy and paste the same verbiage for consistency among all members.  Its up to the GML, but I would say it fits the bill, especially since Army Engineers are NOT Imperial Officers. Besides, half the time youre going to have the hat on backwards wiearing the goggles. 

On your coveralls, my Army Green Elcos have BSG cut corners. Iits they way they are made, and it should not be a problem, but if your GML wants you to make flat pockets, cut some fabric off the bottom of the leg cuff (*Not too much!) and make a flap. Mine are sewed down.  I made my thigh pockets out of the back pockets which come off the coveralls and used scrap ( I have a lot of scrap coveralls) to make the thigh pockets.  On the gusset, thats a GML call, but if you go for L2 Specialist, we may ask you to change it. I see no evidence of a split or gusset in the pocket, and Ive stared at these images for well over a year. 

You can order a harness, or spend a few bucks and some quality time at the sewing machine.  Make sure your harness lays as flat on your shoulders as you ca make it.  While we CALL it an H harness, its more of a somwhat modified M that kind of turns into a Y.  fix your strap lenght, hide your snaphooks on the backside of the belt, set your length with the triglides, and then have someone pin and tape (and photograph) the horizontal strap on the back so it lays flat and horizontal.  That was THE most aggravating part of the entire build. 

Good luck with your build. If you shoot for L2 specs, you will be a Specialist in no time!

*this was an early suit up, with my original gloves, and when my belt was a bit lower than I wear it now so this looks different than the CRL photos I did later*

[SpaceWelder[TX]]

On 6/23/2020 at 11:12 PM, Blackwatch said:

  I like the statement that it is officially licensed. Does it actually have the SW tag inside?   

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.

[SpaceWelder[TX]]

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.

 

[SpaceWelder[TX]]

Boots-

Posted here: 

 

[Blackwatch[CMD-DCA]]

You're doing good work, and I'd like to see your point on the pleated pocket. We had dozens of eyes looking at it creating the CRL using all known sources, which arent many, but my own Elco green have a bellows, so a GML should not disapprove based on it.  Its just that we do not see it in the source images.  To me, as a former GML the hat fits. This is an Imperial Army hat, it will not have the "stand up and salute" aspect of the Imperial Officer hat.  Lt Sunber should be created with a super crisp, but somewhat stained, Officer Hat.  

Is your GML inclined to approve it? if so, and he does approve(or will approve) I would like to add this resource to the hat source links. When I get paid , depending on how much I make on my first paycheck in months, I may order a green hat to check it out.  

Overall, this suit is VERY simple.  Honestly this whole rig is entry level and can be as cheap, or cheaper, than a Reserve Pilot, and we hope to catch up to the RP/ IC in popularity.

I posted new boot links in the Imperial Army parts list topic, so there's new resources thanks to Kessel. 

What feedback are you getting on the patches? I updated the topic from EndorFinders, I'm going to go check out their site immediately. 

[SpaceWelder[TX]]

On 6/30/2020 at 9:17 PM, Blackwatch said:

Is your GML inclined to approve it? if so, and he does approve(or will approve) I would like to add this resource to the hat source links. When I get paid , depending on how much I make on my first paycheck in months, I may order a green hat to check it out.  

I think he's inclined to agree with the Detachment.

On 6/30/2020 at 9:17 PM, Blackwatch said:

What feedback are you getting on the patches? I updated the topic from EndorFinders, I'm going to go check out their site immediately. 

Actually, I woke up yesterday to a shipping notification so I should see them soon!

[SpaceWelder[TX]]

On 6/30/2020 at 9:17 PM, Blackwatch said:

You're doing good work, and I'd like to see your point on the pleated pocket. 

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.

[RAIDER[COTG]]

13 hours ago, SpaceWelder said:

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.

Thanks for ur post and great intro lol!

Assumption 1 is indeed true.  These are our only references.

Assumption 2...”self governing” but I would add “to a degree.”  The overall Legion approach is to build from references and that is something our detachment (and most others) are working to improve...interpreting less and less.  It would not be prudent to ignore references where convenient but rather look to build an accurate CRL to the references if details are missed...using the level system when possible to account for things such as trooper size/build, regional or general availability of items/parts/armor, etc...and in the case of art/video games, what is actually realistic to achieve because sometimes we see things in reference where only “magic” could hold certain things together lol.

So with that said, we can always tighten up the details (which is common among CRLs as details are discovered in the references).

This CRLs development was before my time as DL so I cannot speak to the full authoring of it, BUT you raise a good point regarding the belt.  What I would say to that though is I dont think we should view it as a precedent which in turn allows us to loosen details (elsewhere such as the flightsuit) but rather an opportunity for us to further develop the L1/L2 standards true to reference.  The grommets from what I can see are not there and perhaps that should be addressed as an L2 detail (requiring them as being absent) and a belt without grommets added as an option (of higher accuracy) for Level 1.

Which brings us to the pockets...currently what you are discussing isn’t actually even addressed in the CRL but as a general rule the references should be the parameters when possible (emphasis to this).  This is what leads to L1/L2 splits.  L2 is what references show us.  Period (taking into account the factors I mentioned above).  L1 is what can still achieve the overall accurate look while still providing some lower level of accessibility to the costume.  

The pockets you mention arent specifically addressed in the CRL. No mention of pleating is made for or against.  If I was to rewrite though I would say an L2 detail could be written restricting that (the best reference has none and the next best appears to be folds (as the lines end whereas a pleat would continue...and taking that alongside the first reference without the pleat showing at all, the safer assumption is that those are folds).  Regarding the billowing...that word is referencing the pockets appearing full...not necessarily a bellows pocket   Using the definitions you presented, it would be a gusseted pocket. When in doubt, go with the clearest reference.

TL/DR (lol) Pocket details currently arent precluded from L2 in writing (but maybe they should...and maybe the belt should be adjusted as well). References should always set the parameters for CRLs before any of our own assumptions.  If anything, we can/should examine the references as a whole to tighten details (ie the belt), not point to areas missed as reasons to overlook other things.

Hope all of what I said makes sense. I know it’s probably the opposite of what you were aiming for, but the points you raise are accurate...but if anything they call for a raising/refining of those standards which may need addressing before the Engineer update publishes.  Thanks for your feedback and it is always welcome...no one should get offended when things are noticed.  We are human...things always get missed...and for me at least detachment activity and people studying the costumes and the CRLs is an absolute plus.

[SpaceWelder[TX]]

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!

[SpaceWelder[TX]]

Goggles-

Got mine here: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B082J4Z2PH/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o00_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1

They look good.  Probably ok for torch work but PLEASE don't actually try to arc weld with these.  Breakage safety aside, you'd fry your retinas

I didn't like the blue thread in the band and wanted it to be a touch thicker so I swapped it out for some all black 3/4" elastic and sewed the ends around the tri-glide to prevent fraying.

Check another piece off the list  

[RAIDER[COTG]]

1 hour ago, SpaceWelder said:

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 you want to see an extremely detailed CRL check out the Sith Trooper proposal...or the Death Trooper or Mud Trooper proposal.

[Blackwatch[CMD-DCA]]

HI guys, we are not working today ( no pay for me) so Im at the hotel catching up on forums. 

Ive read both posts, and It takes me back to when we were writing, rewriting, and then completely restructuring the Rebel Fleet Trooper. Twenty years ago we allowed applicants to the RL to apply with a modified BDU jacket, grey BDU pants (which became all but impossible to source as they were no longer made in light grey) and blue shirt.  Over time, when I ran RAID (The Rebel Trooper Detachment) we re wrote the Standard to include any upgrade the trooper wanted to make to the vest to make it more accurate, and the pants were required to be light grey, not charcoal, smoke or any other grey.  That mean that the pants had to be made.  The shirts were becoming more difficult as well because the USN shirt had changed from the way the Nayy had them manufactured, and it was difficult to get two shirts that actually matched, was the right shade, and both shirts mathed so when the bib was constructed, it matched the rest of the modified shirt.  So, we saw fewer entries. In the final days of my running the Det, we completely restructured the entire Standard using new data from the new Costume book that had just been released, and the blue rays which showed us previously unseen details. Now we know the pants were not BDU style, they were custom made for the movie, the vest was a found item that had to be replicated exactly, and the shirt was a Royal Air Force shirt that had not been made in years, and the color and cut was once again changed.  

The effect was that we did not see an increase in submissions, because what had once been an "entry level" lower cost costume had risen to a mid-cost, low interest, difficult to approve costume.  Each peice was custom made.  Either you made your own from scratch, or paid someone to do it, since it could not be procured.  Cost went from about $150 for pants shirt and vest (*BDU jacket modified for use) to paying almost that for just the vest to be constructed unless you took it on for yourself. 

My point is this.  The art is inconsistent, which is what we always find in comic art relying on just a few panels.  We left how the pockets are constructed off on purpose. I can save up a few days of overtime and order what I need, but I cannot say the same for someone in another part of the world (regional accessibility to materials). I also cannot say what a GML will say about an additional seam on a component. Ive seen GMLs refuse gloves for a "decorative seam" on RP gloves, when the glove was added to the body of the glove for increased flexibilty, but the CRL image did not show the seam on the glove.  GMLs can be funny that way. 

Do we strive for excellence? yes we do.  Do we strive for completeness? Absolutely.  But we also have to balance what this costume IS, against what others on the planet can achieve.   For my money, I would say apply these proposals to the Sapper, which is a full upgrade to the Engineer to begin with. A Sapper should be more difficult to approve, simply because of how it is constructed.   I built the Engineer and the Sapper at the same time, knowing Sapper was the final goal.    

Hope this makes sense.    

Also I did the same with my goggles, the typical welder goggles have reinforced elastic.  My dads goggle had a red stripe in the 70s, now they mostly have blue stripes.  I just replaced with elastic. 

[SpaceWelder[TX]]

Boots-

Ok, so continuing the discussion here.  @Raider , @IcyTrooper , and @Blackwatch thanks for your patience with me.

Replying to @Raider about making a discreet lace cover with the right base boot, I have to push back a little bit in defense of the Rothco 5975.  If the tread is the sticking point I'm gonna need some clarification because it seems to me like it's the same toothed-though-excusable tread as the majority of the commuters.  And, again, I'm not saying the commuters shouldn't be admissible, I'm just confused why the tread on the combat boot would be subject to different scrutiny.  I agree that (at least for Level 1 approval, which is what I'm resigning myself to) sometimes the lesser noticeable details need to be relaxed and (as far as the commuter and hopefully the 5975) the tread is a decent place to do that.  That being said, if the tread on the 5975 can be excused (again, just for Level 1 approval) then I am confident I can meet the other parameters to make it match the art.

Lemme know what you think.

[RAIDER[COTG]]

2 minutes ago, SpaceWelder said:

Boots-

Ok, so continuing the discussion here.  @Raider , @IcyTrooper , and @Blackwatch thanks for your patience with me.

Replying to @Raider about making a discreet lace cover with the right base boot, I have to push back a little bit in defense of the Rothco 5975.  If the tread is the sticking point I'm gonna need some clarification because it seems to me like it's the same toothed-though-excusable tread as the majority of the commuters.  And, again, I'm not saying the commuters shouldn't be admissible, I'm just confused why the tread on the combat boot would be subject to different scrutiny.  I agree that (at least for Level 1 approval, which is what I'm resigning myself to) sometimes the lesser noticeable details need to be relaxed and (as far as the commuter and hopefully the 5975) the tread is a decent place to do that.  That being said, if the tread on the 5975 can be excused (again, just for Level 1 approval) then I am confident I can meet the other parameters to make it match the art.

Lemme know what you think.

You will need to post a pic here of the exact model you are eyeing.

[SpaceWelder[TX]]

Here's the link:

https://www.rothco.com/product/rothco-gi-type-sierra-sole-combat-boots

 

[RAIDER[COTG]]

4 minutes ago, SpaceWelder said:

Here's the link:

https://www.rothco.com/product/rothco-gi-type-sierra-sole-combat-boots

 

I had a feeling what I saw on my own search was different.  This sole is fine...but the canvas becomes an issue.  We discussed this regarding the TK Chelsea elastic.  And Im sorry that wont be negotiable.  It will need to be leather or leather like all the way around.  It is too noticeable.

I was going to add this to my previous post to the sole question...currently  commuters arent listed in the CRL. When a GML does a review they will see “commuter” in the text (when added) and then look at the CRL pics.  So not all commuters will pass simply by name.  Not all commuters will clear based on a variety of factors.  A GML will examine text and model pics and decide...or if still unsure reach out to the detachment advisors.

And I would disagree that the sole is negotiable as well though this one you posted seems fine.  Apply this line of thought to a TK, DT, etc...it wont work.  Again, noticeability is the key and large sole cuts are too noticeable.  But again...the sole cuts on the boot above are minor and should be fine...what I saw was much larger.

[SpaceWelder[TX]]

5 minutes ago, Raider said:

I had a feeling what I saw on my own search was different.  This sole is fine...but the canvas becomes an issue.  We discussed this regarding the TK Chelsea elastic.  And Im sorry that wont be negotiable.  It will need to be leather or leather like all the way around.  It is too noticeable.

Completely agree.  In fact, I'd think the two thin bands of webbing that reinforce the heel to the tongue are, as well, too decorative.  I'll be covering the webbing section in the same upholstery vinyl that I make the lace cover out of.

6 minutes ago, Raider said:

I was going to add this to my previous post to the sole question...currently  commuters arent listed in the CRL. When a GML does a review they will see “commuter” in the text (when added) and then look at the CRL pics.  So not all commuters will pass simply by name.  Not all commuters will clear based on a variety of factors.  A GML will examine text and model pics and decide...or if still unsure reach out to the detachment advisors.

Yeah, understood.  @Kessel has done a great job hunting boots down, they just don't fit what I believe the boot to be (not to take anything away from anyone else that wants to use them).  It's just that that thread seems to be the current weather vane of the Det's opinion of what these boots should be.

9 minutes ago, Raider said:

And I would disagree that the sole is negotiable as well though this one you posted seems fine.  Apply this line of thought to a TK, DT, etc...it wont work.  Again, noticeability is the key and large sole cuts are too noticeable.  But again...the sole cuts on the boot above are minor and should be fine...what I saw was much larger.

I also agree with you.  Frankly, I don't think the sole is negotiable being that it is drawn flat many times, but you guys make the rules.  I just want to make a costume that I am happy with that fits within those rules.  Yeah, if you look at most "jungle boots" they've got monster truck treads on them.

Thanks again.  I'll keep you posted!

[IcyTrooper[CMD-DL]]

Honestly, the flat outside of the soles would be a L2 thing to me. L1 is feasibility with a uniform and decent look that meets what @Raider said on the other thread. L2 is hyper-realism and would be under more scrutiny.

[Blackwatch[CMD-DCA]]

On 7/12/2020 at 5:40 PM, IcyTrooper said:

Honestly, the flat outside of the soles would be a L2 thing to me. L1 is feasibility with a uniform and decent look that meets what @Raider said on the other thread. L2 is hyper-realism and would be under more scrutiny.

agreed. L1 always has to come down to availability, even at the expense of making them from scratch through someone like ImperialBoots, which at that expense would lean towards L2. Many of us in the Legion have custom made boots for a specific costume especially when like me you have monster size feet that don't always fit off the shelf boots. 

I would be remiss not to mention as a reminder for those following this topic that the overall uniform and its components will be approved by the Garrison GML using the CRL as a guide. 

[SpaceWelder[TX]]

Harness and Pouches-

Being a glutton for a challenge and a slave to accuracy, I decided to build my own pouches off the artwork.  I used additional widths of webbing to maintain the same material look.  Wider widths were available in polypropylene as opposed to the nylon used for the main harness.  FWIW, the polypro melts much better than the nylon for any sewing gaps/finishing.

Currently just filled with foam blocks for mass.