To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.admin.databaseOpen lugnet.admin.database in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Administrative / Database / 1368
Subject: 
Once again the suspicious set 371....
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.database
Date: 
Sun, 27 Jan 2002 04:59:43 GMT
Highlighted: 
! (details)
Viewed: 
123 times
  
Dear Lego Fans!

by chance I came along at the entry for set 371 at lugnet database once again.

It is now early morning after a night with some glasses of whine and lots of
none-Lego distraction in a saturday night in Brunswick, so please be patient
with my request...

But I really do doubt set 371 can be from 1976 as given here:
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/371_2
That is definitely wrong. That Set 371 (if there ever has been a third 371)
should have been from 1967. This truck comes with the 100 motorset from 1966,
which has been discontinued in 1968. Surely no chance for this set to be from
1976.

So maybe 371 is a set from 1967 (instead of 1976), if it is a set at all. I
still do doubt its existance, since noone ever found another copy of its
building instruction till today. That one 371, that came up over a year ago has
been the only hint for a 3rd 371 set, but no other hint has ever occured.

The 371 instruction at brickshelf is so full of mistakes, that one easily could
assume it is only a draft for a set (or a very bad fake?) and has never been
sold as regular set at all.... (I do not dare to judge if it is only a fake in
the end.)

I really would like to see a discussion started again now, if set 371 is in
fact a set which is worth to be published at Lugnet in the database. If it is,
it should at least put into the year 1967 instead of 1976. (But why 1967 and
not 1966 or 1968?) What has been the reason for taking 371 into the year it
appears in?

Kind Regards,

Ben

BTW: There are still a few old train part sets missing in the database and
others are without picture. To fix this, I uploaded pictures of some sets at
brickshelf
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=8540
Is it Dan Boger to do this work for the lugnet database? If so, please Dan feel
free to contact me for further info if needed.


Subject: 
Re: Once again the suspicious set 371....
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.database
Date: 
Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:29:27 GMT
Viewed: 
103 times
  
On Saturday, January 26, 2002, at 11:59  PM, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:

[snip]

I really would like to see a discussion started again now, if set 371
is in
fact a set which is worth to be published at Lugnet in the database. If
it is,
it should at least put into the year 1967 instead of 1976. (But why
1967 and
not 1966 or 1968?) What has been the reason for taking 371 into the
year it
appears in?

I agree that this set:
     http://guide.lugnet.com/set/371_2
appears to belong with these sets:
   http://guide.lugnet.com/set/?qy=1967

From year 1967. I imagine someone entering the data simply transposed
the year numbers.. It has been pointed out that the paperwork resembles
that seen here:
   http://guide.lugnet.com/set/343_1
but I don't see identification of the year's source data in the admin
notes. I'll look it up in my catalogs when I get a chance.

thanks.

-Suz


Subject: 
Re: Once again the suspicious set 371....
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.database
Date: 
Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:45:15 GMT
Viewed: 
130 times
  
In lugnet.admin.database, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
On Saturday, January 26, 2002, at 11:59  PM, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:

[snip]

I really would like to see a discussion started again now, if set 371
is in
fact a set which is worth to be published at Lugnet in the database. If
it is,
it should at least put into the year 1967 instead of 1976. (But why
1967 and
not 1966 or 1968?) What has been the reason for taking 371 into the
year it
appears in?

I agree that this set:
    http://guide.lugnet.com/set/371_2
appears to belong with these sets:
  http://guide.lugnet.com/set/?qy=1967

From year 1967. I imagine someone entering the data simply transposed
the year numbers.. It has been pointed out that the paperwork resembles
that seen here:
  http://guide.lugnet.com/set/343_1
but I don't see identification of the year's source data in the admin
notes. I'll look it up in my catalogs when I get a chance.

thanks.

-Suz

While tweaking it, you (or whoever) may want to also tweak the
Brickshelf(tm) instructions link as it links to a (very cool!!! but
apparently different) seaplane set. Or it did for me anyway.

The link you might want to consider linking to is this one:

http://www.brickshelf.com/scans/0000/0371/index.html which looks like this set.

Now, Ben is saying, if I understand him correctly, that he thinks there's a
chance this set is a fake. I have no idea about that.

But I did want to say that I think it's neat how the instructions for this
set (fake or no) assume the builder knows a lot more about the building
process.. the steps are not at the "place every brick separately" level,
they make big jumps, assuming the builder can figure stuff out. That's cool!


Subject: 
Re: Once again the suspicious set 371....
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.database
Date: 
Wed, 30 Jan 2002 13:35:24 GMT
Viewed: 
167 times
  
In lugnet.admin.database, Larry Pieniazek writes:
In lugnet.admin.database, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
On Saturday, January 26, 2002, at 11:59  PM, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:

[snip]


I agree that this set:
    http://guide.lugnet.com/set/371_2
appears to belong with these sets:
  http://guide.lugnet.com/set/?qy=1967

From year 1967. I imagine someone entering the data simply transposed
the year numbers.. It has been pointed out that the paperwork resembles
that seen here:
  http://guide.lugnet.com/set/343_1
but I don't see identification of the year's source data in the admin
notes. I'll look it up in my catalogs when I get a chance.

thanks.

-Suz

While tweaking it, you (or whoever) may want to also tweak the
Brickshelf(tm) instructions link as it links to a (very cool!!! but
apparently different) seaplane set. Or it did for me anyway.

The link you might want to consider linking to is this one:

http://www.brickshelf.com/scans/0000/0371/index.html which looks like this
set.


Now, Ben is saying, if I understand him correctly, that he thinks there's a
chance this set is a fake. I have no idea about that.

Thanks Suz an Larry for taking your time!

I had contact with the former owner of the sets instruction a few month ago
(long time after the 371 had appeared). He really made me believe the building
instruction does exist and seems to be authentic old. The chance of 371 being a
fake is not very high in my eyes.

Possibly it is a fake but it is not probable, if you want to hear my opinion.

But I totally doubt that this bad designed(1) set has ever been sold. The
instruction is full of mistakes and it is bad drawn also. If it is a fake, then
a obviously not CAD made but a handdrawn one.

But I did want to say that I think it's neat how the instructions for this
set (fake or no) assume the builder knows a lot more about the building
process.. the steps are not at the "place every brick separately" level,
they make big jumps, assuming the builder can figure stuff out. That's cool!

And that has been the style it worked in 1967 for lots of sets. Building some
60ies and 70ies sets without being an "expert builder" has been a great
challange for kids (our generation - the none town juniors were able to work
it out)

I suppose this 371 "set" with the truck has only been a prototype or something
like that. I cannot imagine it has been sold (noone ever said- "Yes I had that
in my childhood"). There appeared never anything except from the instruction.

At least I would like to see any kind of small comment in the lugnet database,
that this might not be a set, but a prototype.
But in the end I am not too familiar with samsonite sets. All "experts" I know,
have big doubts on this truck. Maybe someone like Gary Istok could know more
about this topic or someone from TLC could do a look into their archive?

Kind Regards,

Ben


1) bad design means: it is not playable at all / still it looks really cool for
that time. If you try to build it and ignore the mistakes, then you realize
a lot of parts always fall off. You cannot hang the trailer to the truck in any
way that makes sence too.


Subject: 
Re: Once again the suspicious set 371....
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.database
Date: 
Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:32:45 GMT
Viewed: 
235 times
  
Hello, all.

This is my virgin Lugnet post; I have only just returned to interest in Lego
after many years of hiatus.

I was actually searching to see if I could find information on this great
old set from my childhood when I discovered these posts doubting its very
existence! I can assure you, the big blue motorized moving van set did exist.

A number of the observations make sense, as follows, and I will clarify or
confirm as possible.

In lugnet.admin.database, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
In lugnet.admin.database, Larry Pieniazek writes:
In lugnet.admin.database, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
On Saturday, January 26, 2002, at 11:59  PM, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke wrote:

[snip]


I agree that this set:
    http://guide.lugnet.com/set/371_2
appears to belong with these sets:
  http://guide.lugnet.com/set/?qy=1967

From year 1967. I imagine someone entering the data simply transposed
the year numbers.. It has been pointed out that the paperwork resembles
that seen here:
  http://guide.lugnet.com/set/343_1
but I don't see identification of the year's source data in the admin
notes. I'll look it up in my catalogs when I get a chance.

thanks.

-Suz

1967 is in the right ballpark, although I cannot confirm precisely. I got
the set as a child in the period 1966-1969. I know that all of the pieces
still exist in my Dad's basement (and I am going looking for them next time
I go home to visit), and I will bet that the instructions were saved as
well, but those will be much harder to find.

Now, Ben is saying, if I understand him correctly, that he thinks there's a
chance this set is a fake. I have no idea about that.

Thanks Suz an Larry for taking your time!

I had contact with the former owner of the sets instruction a few month ago
(long time after the 371 had appeared). He really made me believe the building
instruction does exist and seems to be authentic old. The chance of 371 being a fake is not very high in my eyes.

Possibly it is a fake but it is not probable, if you want to hear my opinion.

But I totally doubt that this bad designed(1) set has ever been sold. The
instruction is full of mistakes and it is bad drawn also. If it is a fake, then a obviously not CAD made but a handdrawn one.

But I did want to say that I think it's neat how the instructions for this
set (fake or no) assume the builder knows a lot more about the building
process.. the steps are not at the "place every brick separately" level,
they make big jumps, assuming the builder can figure stuff out. That's cool!

And that has been the style it worked in 1967 for lots of sets. Building some
60ies and 70ies sets without being an "expert builder" has been a great
challange for kids (our generation - the none town juniors were able to work
it out)

I suppose this 371 "set" with the truck has only been a prototype or something
like that. I cannot imagine it has been sold (noone ever said- "Yes I had that
in my childhood"). There appeared never anything except from the instruction.

Until now!!

The kit contained both the big blue moving van tractor trailer truck built
around the old train power pack, plus the red tow truck with the steering
assembly. I remember as a kid being confused that there were two kits in the
one set, and not being sure if there were sufficient parts to build both of
them, especially when one of the pages showed the picture (seen in the scan
on the Brickshelf site) of the tow truck rebuilt with the train power pack.
There definitely were not the right pieces for that, but in my mind I
thought the instructions implied that.

The observations above about the instructions being kind of lame and
rudimentary fits my recollection of confusion, but I know I got both kits
assembled on a couple of occasions.

My recollections of the resulting models are as follows: The self-steering
in the tow truck was cool until the shaft broke off. The moving truck's
motorization was kind of lame because unlike the steerable tow truck, it
only went straight forward and straight back. Also, the stupid fenders built
entirely out of 1x2 plates fell off all the time (they were flimsy and only
attached at one end I think).

However, this set was a GREAT source of parts. All through my Lego childhood
this kit was the primary source of white, blue, red and black 1x2 plates,
clear bricks, long blue 1xN beams, wheel assemblies, 1-stud cylinders, and
big gray plates, and last but not least, all of the great doors. I built a
lot of RO-RO cargo ships with those big blue doors.

As for the remark about the instructions looking hand-drawn, I can only say,
"well, duh!" (no insult intended) There was no CAD back then. I never even
saw my first hand calculator until sometime in the 1970s. Given that all
those pictures had to be made by hand, it is no surprise that Lego did not
put out those brick-by-brick instructions back then. It would have been
prohibitively expensive to do otherwise.

At least I would like to see any kind of small comment in the lugnet database,
that this might not be a set, but a prototype.
But in the end I am not too familiar with samsonite sets. All "experts" I know, have big doubts on this truck.

It wasn't a prototype, because my parents had to buy it someplace for me (I
lived in New Jersey, USA). But it does have the look of one of those
products that is created by throwing together some other kits, which Lego
still does. I see for example that the tow truck was available separately as
332, and I just bought "Base Polar" last week which is apparently a
repackage of a bunch of previously separate Artic-series sets.


1) bad design means: it is not playable at all / still it looks really cool for
that time. If you try to build it and ignore the mistakes, then you realize
a lot of parts always fall off. You cannot hang the trailer to the truck in any
way that makes sence too.

It looked way cool, the moving truck anyway, but as I already said, the
stupid fenders never stayed on. I disagree with the trailer remark. The
tire-less wheel served as a fifth-wheel articulated attachment, and the axle
did fit down into some recessed area and held just fine. Looking at the
instructions, I can't tell you exactly how that worked, but with some
parental help, I was somehow able to work it out. I remember thinking how
impressed I was with that clever aspect of the kit to use the wheel in that way.

Well anyway, that was a pretty long post, but I wanted to stick up for one
of my favorite childhood Lego memories, as odd as old 371 maybe was.

Long Live 371!!

Dave


Subject: 
Re: box photos for set 371 Motorized Truck....
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.database
Date: 
Sat, 15 Nov 2003 15:59:31 GMT
Viewed: 
265 times
  
Appologies for tagging onto an olde post, but I wanted to add some information
for anyone searching about this set. I saw an auction for this set that included
the set box and shipping box. Unfortunately, I didn't save the auction, but I
did save pictures of the box:
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ClarkCorner/LuggieScans/set371shippingbox.jpg
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ClarkCorner/LuggieScans/set371boxside.jpg
The pictures are directly from the auction. I didn't save a picture of the box
front, it may have not been included in the auction. That's all I know about it.
HTH,
Clark


Subject: 
Re: box photos for set 371 Motorized Truck....
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.admin.database
Date: 
Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:31:55 GMT
Viewed: 
881 times
  
In lugnet.admin.database, Clark Stephens wrote:
   Appologies for tagging onto an olde post, but I wanted to add some information for anyone searching about this set. I saw an auction for this set that included the set box and shipping box. Unfortunately, I didn’t save the auction, but I did save pictures of the box: http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ClarkCorner/LuggieScans/set371shippingbox.jpg http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ClarkCorner/LuggieScans/set371boxside.jpg The pictures are directly from the auction. I didn’t save a picture of the box front, it may have not been included in the auction. That’s all I know about it. HTH, Clark

I’m also continuing the trend of adding to a very old post...

I found someone selling pages from a 1969 Sears catalog on ebay and saved the image:

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/estrand/Vintage-Ads/lego_ad_1969_sears_catalog.jpg

Set 371 is clearly on the right page and I can barely read “sears cuts prices” which hints that the set had been out previous to 1969.

Eric


©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR