Roark Posted March 6, 2002 Share Posted March 6, 2002 Today, Kim Wood received a couple of Inch dumbells that were supposed to weigh about 153 lbs each. The Staver foundry, when trying to calculate the mold size for the 172 lb replica had first made a mold that resulted in a bell about 153 lbs. And Kim's new bells had been made from this mold, and the transaction was thru Richard Sorin. So the bells arrive and Kim's initial thought was that thru some mix-up he had received two more of the 172 lb bells instead. Deadlifting the bell with two hands, placing it beside a 172 lb bell, and just looking at it carefully- all indicators pointed to the supposition that the new arrivals were two more 172's. Then he weighed them: 152.5 lbs apiece. I am loving this! Aston could not tell Inch's 153 from Inch's 172. Now Kim cannot tell his apart! Adds fodder to my belief that, as Aston said, Inch would ALWAYS switch to a lighter bell when people wanted him to lift the 172. And the beat goes on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sybersnott Posted March 6, 2002 Share Posted March 6, 2002 That's amazing!! Hey Roark.... try and have him get some pics of that! I'd like to see a comparison, too!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Lipinski Posted March 6, 2002 Share Posted March 6, 2002 You know, the more I read about old time lifters and fake crap (ala this Inch stuff and Muscletown USA) the less I believe the stuff I read about them. Not that they were dishonest per se, but maybe the hype just got out of hand (ala Muscletech and Kovac's strength). Then again, maybe they were full of it. Roark, didn't you (and maybe still do) write stuff for FLEX? If so, I was a fan quite a few years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roark Posted March 6, 2002 Author Share Posted March 6, 2002 I have a photo here (somewhere in this mess of an office) of the Inch original sitting beside a replica. I'll check with Kim to see if he will offer a photo of the 152.5 sitting beside the others, perhaps a very tight shot to show how similar they in fact are. Can't speak for Kim, but I will ask. Kim's other replicas weigh 167, and 169, not 172, by the way. He said he'd take a close look at that 'gas escape' hole in the original 172, although I cannot be sure he will. There is a little lingering of anger toward me because when I visited and had a bell overhead in each hand, I slipped and destroyed a piece of his furniture...sorry- that belongs in the Liar's Club. There was much fakery on stage in the old days; there is much fakery behind the stage these days. That's why we need to examine matters as closely as we can and not lump all accomplishments together. There were a few individuals in the old days who were the real thing, and they deserve history's spotlight. Yes, Bob, I have been with Flex for 10 years, and for the past few years have been working for Peter McGough, which is an absolute joy. By the way, Ironman is again presenting the research of David Chapman regarding the oldtimers, and though the space given David is less than one page, his work is always worth studying. Now, we need for someone to make a 140 lb Inch replica and then the hollow 75 replica, and get a photo of those four together, and at that point we will see what Inch saw when he had his huddled together. I suspect the 140 would be so close to the 153 as to be indistinguishable- especially if the observer were sitting in the audience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1stCoC Posted March 6, 2002 Share Posted March 6, 2002 Joe, If you look on the grip gallery in the Sorin group of pictures you will see a 172.5 and the lighter one almost side by side. I had to paint the actual weight on them so they can be told apart when aspiring gripsters try to lift them. RS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roark Posted March 6, 2002 Author Share Posted March 6, 2002 The photo is the one of your grip gauntlet items, right? The 172 is identified by paint and the other is the 153? What is the diameter of the 153 spheres? And is the handle diameter the same as the 172? And length? Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1stCoC Posted March 6, 2002 Share Posted March 6, 2002 Joe, The handle size and length is identical. The width(diameter) of the globes is 3/8 to 1/2 inch less on the smaller bell than the big un'. I did ask my foundary guy about the bell needing a "gas vent" he laughed and said....no way! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roark Posted March 6, 2002 Author Share Posted March 6, 2002 Well obviously the foundry man was wrong because Inch said such a vent was needed...and I don't want to be, uh, doubting Thomas... So if you put a carpenters level from the sphere of the 172 to the sphere of the 153, there would not be much of a slant. Phil Pfister tells me his hand when he flares it open, measures 11" from tip of pinky to tip of thumb, and his hand length is 9"- which is the same as Saxon and Apollon. Phil will be a force to be reckoned with regarding the Inch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Browne Posted March 6, 2002 Share Posted March 6, 2002 RS, Were your replicas possibly cast by a 2 part process? Do the spheres have a visible seam in the middle of them? Just curious............ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1stCoC Posted March 7, 2002 Share Posted March 7, 2002 I think molds for things like the Inch are usually two piece. I never looked for a seam but our foundary man mentioned as I recall the bell is a two piece deal. RS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.