 | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Bob Parker wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.microscale, John Patterson wrote:
| |
How about a mini of the Constellation
|
Not positive if this is what your thinking of, but in Issue 2 of Brickjournal
http://media.peeron.com/brickjournal/brickjournal2.pdf on page 48 of that
issue (which is page 50 of the pdf file) are building instructions for a mini
USS Constellation.
|
Thanks, yes that is the one, now I’ll have to build that one too. I really
didn’t like the minis except for star wars, but what a good idea to build the
1970 sets. I really believe that the 70s were the high point of lego when they
designed such complex sets with so fewer different elements.Now if they can’t
figure out how to make something with the elements they have, they just add new
elements. These minis brng back so many memories. John P
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.microscale, John Patterson wrote:
| |
I really believe that the 70s were the high point of lego when
they designed such complex sets with so fewer different elements.Now if they
can’t figure out how to make something with the elements they have, they just
add new elements. These minis brng back so many memories. John P
|
I can see your point - its interesting how it appears to me that many AFOL’s
perception of Lego “back in the good ol’ days” seems to change depending on what
the Lego was like in their respective childhoods. For instance, I have always
thought of the 80s and 90s as the Golden Age of Lego and also agree with you
that their willingness to just make a new piece instead of trying to get the
already produced pieces to work is disappointing.
With microscale, its interesting that a builder sort of has to work with a
majority of what could be considered the plainer bricks of the old days since
the scale is very unforgiving (well, at least to me it seems that way!). I
think that capturing the look of a full size Lego set in micro is really tough
to begin with and the 70s sets earlier in this thread are awesome examples of
what a gifted AFOL can do with that limitation of parts!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.microscale, John Patterson wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Bob Parker wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.microscale, John Patterson wrote:
| |
How about a mini of the Constellation
|
Not positive if this is what your thinking of, but in Issue 2 of
Brickjournal http://media.peeron.com/brickjournal/brickjournal2.pdf on
page 48 of that issue (which is page 50 of the pdf file) are building
instructions for a mini USS Constellation.
|
|
| |
Thanks, yes that is the one, now I’ll have to build that one too.
|
I initially was trying to build a *micro* Constellation, but by the time it was
finished I thought the model better deserved to be called a ‘mini’. Of course,
this brings up the entire debate about what scale is micro, what is mini and so
on. And it’s one of those debates that’s fun to have, but in the end I’m not
sure it makes much difference, so long as the models are fun to build. :)
I have a feeling that a good micro builder like Thomas or Janey Red Brick could
probably build an even more micro version of the Constellation... if they wanted
to.
| |
I really
didn’t like the minis except for star wars,
|
To me the Star Wars minis were really micro sets, but again it’s all semantics.
Because I kept wondering to myself, “if these are mini, then how small would the
micro versions be?” LOL
| |
but what a good idea to build the
1970 sets. I really believe that the 70s were the high point of lego when
they designed such complex sets with so fewer different elements.Now if they
can’t figure out how to make something with the elements they have, they just
add new elements.
|
I agree with the idea that some of these sets were among the best the company
has produced. Of course, I’m a LEGO kid from the 70s, so I’m biased. :) But
if you look at the hospital and brick yard that Thomas duplicated you find that
they were full four-walled buildings made with mostly basic bricks, plates and
the occasional arch. I would argue that they’re actually not that complex,
rather showcase simple but solid design theory. In other words, they’re not
fancy, but they’re still really good models to build.
Allan B.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Allan Bedford wrote:
| |
To me the Star Wars minis were really micro sets, but again it’s all
semantics. Because I kept wondering to myself, “if these are mini, then how
small would the micro versions be?” LOL
|
IIRC, wasn’t there some pics of somebody’s micro SW MOCs on Brickshelf a long
time ago - they used a 1x1 brick for a Tie Fighter (or something like that)? It
was pretty funny seeing one part MOCs like that!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Allan Bedford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.microscale, John Patterson wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.microscale, Bob Parker wrote:
| |
In lugnet.build.microscale, John Patterson wrote:
| |
How about a mini of the Constellation
|
Not positive if this is what your thinking of, but in Issue 2 of
Brickjournal http://media.peeron.com/brickjournal/brickjournal2.pdf on
page 48 of that issue (which is page 50 of the pdf file) are building
instructions for a mini USS Constellation.
|
|
| |
Thanks, yes that is the one, now I’ll have to build that one too.
|
I initially was trying to build a *micro* Constellation, but by the time it
was finished I thought the model better deserved to be called a ‘mini’. Of
course, this brings up the entire debate about what scale is micro, what is
mini and so on. And it’s one of those debates that’s fun to have, but in the
end I’m not sure it makes much difference, so long as the models are fun to
build. :)
I have a feeling that a good micro builder like Thomas or Janey Red Brick
could probably build an even more micro version of the Constellation... if
they wanted to.
| |
I really
didn’t like the minis except for star wars,
|
To me the Star Wars minis were really micro sets, but again it’s all
semantics. Because I kept wondering to myself, “if these are mini, then how
small would the micro versions be?” LOL
| |
but what a good idea to build the
1970 sets. I really believe that the 70s were the high point of lego when
they designed such complex sets with so fewer different elements.Now if they
can’t figure out how to make something with the elements they have, they
just add new elements.
|
I agree with the idea that some of these sets were among the best the company
has produced. Of course, I’m a LEGO kid from the 70s, so I’m biased. :)
But if you look at the hospital and brick yard that Thomas duplicated you
find that they were full four-walled buildings made with mostly basic bricks,
plates and the occasional arch. I would argue that they’re actually not that
complex, rather showcase simple but solid design theory. In other words,
they’re not fancy, but they’re still really good models to build.
Allan B.
|
I got my start in 1974 with the London Bus. A last minute Christmas present for
my son. I was so amazed at the bus I went out on Christmas day to all the
stores that were opened, like drug stores and grocery stores looking for Legos.
There is just something missing today in the grand scale of Legos sets. They
are fancy and they are colorfull and have a great variety of parts, but the
simple 4 sided buildings built with a pallet of a few hundred elements is still
what I prefer. If I show a non lego someone the Death Star or Imperial Cruiser
or Blockade runner they are amazed. If I build a set like a 1970’s hospital or
police station or brick yard I am amazed. They really had great designers in
the 1970’s and I think that the company was less concerned with profit and more
concerned with a quality product that would guide a child’s (or adult)
imagination. My 11 year old grandaugher built the Death Star and has inherited
my love of Legos. She will have one big mess to deal with when I go. John P
| | | | | | |
