2Hill

I knew I couldn't be the only one thinking of doing this! If you are going to call it a holster it has got to look like a holster. Good job Frodo looks great.

Thanks for that YinTx . It looks like I will be pretty right. I do have one "Z" stamp. But it looks like it might be one of the specials you mentioned. What I have got is: A-101 For some reason there are two of this one. There is only one of everything else. B-203, B702, C-429, C-709, J-615, L-949, P206, P210, S-343, S705, U-710, U-855, V-708, V-748, W-553, W-561, X-534 and Z-460 ( I think this one was bought at a later date but am not sure). Plus a swivel knife. Does this look like the basic starter kit or is something missing?

OK I'll bite. When I try to download any of the patterns, "Pattern making theory", "About leather holsters" or "Pancake holster pattern instructions" from this page https://www.jlsleather.com/diy/pattern-making/gun-holster-design/ I get a pdf file. But! When I try to download "Avenger holster pattern instructions" which is the one I am really after. I get this. If I do a search for Avenger Instructions I get this Even with all javascript, including farcebook bandwidth and memory waster turned on. I get the same results after the ten minutes the pages take to load. Am I missing a link somewhere? Or has this pdf been removed from the site. I realise that the pancake instructions will be similar but am sure there will be some differences.

Just tried to access it myself; Got redirected to TandyLeather.com

Thanks guys. I've got a couple of pieces of scrap left from the side so will give it a test on them. I was surprised how good a condition the leather was in when I started using it. It has been in my shed for about twenty years but; I think my brother bought it sometime in the 80s. So it's age is probably nearer to forty than twenty.

It's a very nice looking holster for sure. Now I have some more homework to do. Research Avengers style holsters. While I have heard of them I have never actually seen a Redhawk in the flesh (steel?). But the grips reminded me of the 686's I have seen or used at the local range. In 357 only though, can't use a handgun with a calibre starting with a 4 for anything other than Western Action or Metallic silhouette out here and my range doesn't do Metallic silhouette.

Thanks for the tip Hildebrand. That is an interesting looking holster in your avatar. Is it a pancake type around a 686 S and W?

There have been 97 views of this thread so far without a single reply. Have I used the wrong title. Or is it just that no one can answer my question? Or am I just not being clear what my question is?

I am still going to be using the basket stamp I am just going to put in a bit more practice than I had originally planned on to get to know it's quirks first.

Thanks bliiybopp and Rhale.It looks like I didn't luck out then. I just went through them. And except for the Snap fastener I got shortly before Tandy closed their Australian store. They are all marked Craftool Co. USA. Oh well at least now I know before hand I may have a struggle ahead of me till I can upgrade. Especially since it was the Basket Weave I was eyeing off. Looks like there is going to be Lots and Lots of practice in my future before I even think about stamping the project itself.

On several threads about tools I have been reading. It has been mentioned that the old Tandy Tools were a good starting set for a beginner. But the newer ones were junk and should be avoided. I have a set from the late 1970s early 1980s that I have not used yet. Since I am considering doing some stamping on one of my next projects I am now wondering I my set falls into the "Old" or the "Junk " group. Can someone help me out here please.

I recently completed my first every Rough-out project. Since the hide used has been in my shed for more than twenty years. But still in pretty good condition, sun darkened in places but not dried out. I thought it would be a good idea to apply some conditioner. Since I did not want the leather to darken up any more than it already has. I obtained some Bick 4 which is advertised as NOT darkening finished leather. When reading the directions I found the warning "Do not use on suede, roughout, distressed, napped or any pre-treated leather" Due to my job as a Diesel Mechanic. I have found that no matter how thoroughly or often I was my hands. I will leave dark fingerprints all over my work if I do not clean and seal the leather before I start stitching. I used a 50/50 mix of "Leathercraft Clear Sealer" to apply a light coat. I have read that Neatsfoot oil can be used sparingly on roughout but have also read that NFO will darken Leather. So now my question is; can I safely use the Bick 4 or not. And how do I clean it when that becomes necessary. The project was a pair of lined holsters and a money belt so "oiling" the grain side is not possible.

Losing on copyright grounds I would be able to understand. On 'misrepresentation' of an 'endorsed product' just proves the"Law" is an arse. They didn't happen to be owners and/or fans of that particular "one certain car" did they?

OK looks like I got that one wrong. But my memory of the news reports at the time are that it had been patented not trademarked. Faulty memory I guess. No I am understanding this. What I am not getting across is that it is being used for it's intended purpose; decoration. I am either making the item for myself (most likely) or a customer has asked me to make the item. Then I buy the logo "whatever" (if it is for me) and attach it; or the customer (if it is for them) buys the logo "whatever" and says your sewing is better than mine please attach this to my " " that you just made for me when you finish it. After attaching the logo "whatever" I realise "Oh poo these guy like suing people for putting their stuff on things. I better make sure every one knows this is not their stuff. It only has their logo "whatever" on it as decoration as intended when they sold it". And add"THIS IS NOT A " " PRODUCT" around their logo "whatever". At the time there were several different spellings being used. These two were the most commonly used. My understanding was wrong then. It still stinks when you can trademark a generic term though.

And here we see the main problem with American big business. They sell you something that is designed to be attached to a piece of clothing, then cry foul and sue you when you attach it to a piece of clothing. Claiming that you are representing that item of clothing is endorsed by them. When you are telling every man and his dog they Do Not endorse the item . I am going to take a wild guess here and say the TShirt suit was filed in America. Because; as you said, "in the UK there is no law to protect a persons image". Which means it would most likely be thrown out of the UK system or they would have a harder time proving their case. Now if the shop had advertised the TShirts as Official Rhianna merc or endorsed by Rhianna then they are screwed no matter which Court system the case goes before, as they should be. For twenty years or more the term "ugh boot" was a generic term in Australia for a hair-on rough-out item of sheepskin footwear. Then some Seppo company decides hey that's a cool name let's patent it. Now despite my understanding that prior use invalidates a patent application; I had better be talking about a deep pocketed Seppo companies product and not the worn out boots I have owned for thirty years, made by one of their competitors, who had been making said boot for years before they started production. Or I will be sued. That is Merican business for you.