Subject:
|
Re: Once again the suspicious set 371....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.database
|
Date:
|
Wed, 26 Jun 2002 20:32:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
237 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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: box photos for set 371 Motorized Truck....
|
| 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 (...) (21 years ago, 15-Nov-03, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Once again the suspicious set 371....
|
| (...) set. (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 30-Jan-02, to lugnet.admin.database)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
Active threads in Database
|
|
|
|
|
|
