01-19-2010, 02:45 PM
<!--quoteo(post=346984:date=Jan 19 2010, 12:19 AM:name=john p)<div class=\'quotetop\'>QUOTE (john p @ Jan 19 2010, 12:19 AM) <a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=346984\"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class=\'quotemain\'><!--quotecThe glove has really improved over time. I still feel there are details that are missing or incorrect (mainly related to sizing, shaping, metal treatment, and detail work), but it is a good basic build. I think the primary issue that keeps me from buying one is the metal treatment -- it just isn't the right process yet. But I suspect Mark will work it out eventually.I think the glove does deserve credit on <b>proportions</b> in some areas, especially as it relates to the blades. The comparison shot above illustrates this well. Also, while not the first person I know to have discovered (parts of) the true nature of the beveling of the screen used blades, he is the first I know to be releasing these details publicly.Anyway, always enjoyable to watch it evolve.<!--QuoteEnd</div><!--QuoteEEndCould you please IM me with your thoughts? You say there are things missing/incorrect relating to sizing, shaping, metal treatment, and detail work. That can be summed up as "the entire thing". What do you feel is inaccurate? I do know that my weathering process isn't as authentic as natural aging. I have yet to see a glove that is. But hit me up with your thoughts because Mike (the actual owner of the glove) said that my sizing and template shapes are practically spot on.