 | | | | | |
I hit the jackpot at a local Target today. (I tell you what I got a little
later!) One thing I did notice were a LOT of sets that were bought, VERY
carefully opened, looted, and returned. I noticed it on 2 different Amazon
Ruins. The tape on the bottom edge of the taped down tray just wasn't
sticking like it usually does. Then looking at it longer, I noticed someone
swiped the base plate!!! I was quite upset. I could have used a few of those
sets at $19. But w/o the plate, I couldn't do it. Several other boxes were
opened as well. The ones that are taped on the sides; when you pull the tape
up, it gets a little cloudy. Someone had used another adhesive to get the
tape to stick back down. Some of the boxes that actually tear, you could see
where the box was sliced, and retaped. I have noticed this more and more
lately. Any one else?
Eric
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
leggomylego wrote:
>
> I hit the jackpot at a local Target today. (I tell you what I got a little
> later!) One thing I did notice were a LOT of sets that were bought, VERY
> carefully opened, looted, and returned. I noticed it on 2 different Amazon
> Ruins. The tape on the bottom edge of the taped down tray just wasn't
> sticking like it usually does. Then looking at it longer, I noticed someone
> swiped the base plate!!! I was quite upset. I could have used a few of those
> sets at $19. But w/o the plate, I couldn't do it. Several other boxes were
> opened as well. The ones that are taped on the sides; when you pull the tape
> up, it gets a little cloudy. Someone had used another adhesive to get the
> tape to stick back down. Some of the boxes that actually tear, you could see
> where the box was sliced, and retaped. I have noticed this more and more
> lately. Any one else?
I've seen it too. Probably the same sort of thinking that says it's OK
to remove price tags if you can thereby screw up the store pricing
system and get a better deal.
I have taken to checking very closely and taking stuff with flaws up,
along with a anotoher known good copy to carry out a side by side
comparision. Sometimes I can get a further price break, sometimes not.
Now, arguably, you can call Consumer Affairs and get the parts replaced
but to my way of thinking it's the store that should be suffering the
loss there, not TLC. I wonder if CA goes back to the store if they have
a lot of incidents? Probably not
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I've noticed this too.. more because I got a box without looking that
someone apparently had opened, taken out what they wanted, and the GLUED
it shut again and returned it. I'm not sure if they'll believe me if I
take it back though... so I pondered calling CA though should they
really pay for someone elses greed and rudeness?? I don't think so..
though you can be sure I'll be looking at my boxes much more closely
from now on.
I just can't believe people have the b*lls to do this kind of stuff..
what's worse is they get away with it :(
Tamy
leggomylego wrote:
>
> I hit the jackpot at a local Target today. (I tell you what I got a little
> later!) One thing I did notice were a LOT of sets that were bought, VERY
> carefully opened, looted, and returned. I noticed it on 2 different Amazon
> Ruins. The tape on the bottom edge of the taped down tray just wasn't
> sticking like it usually does. Then looking at it longer, I noticed someone
> swiped the base plate!!! I was quite upset. I could have used a few of those
> sets at $19. But w/o the plate, I couldn't do it. Several other boxes were
> opened as well. The ones that are taped on the sides; when you pull the tape
> up, it gets a little cloudy. Someone had used another adhesive to get the
> tape to stick back down. Some of the boxes that actually tear, you could see
> where the box was sliced, and retaped. I have noticed this more and more
> lately. Any one else?
>
> Eric
--
Keep on Bricken'
-Tamy
Follow the bouncing boxes!
http://home.att.net/~mookie1/jambalaya.html
http://home.att.net/~mookie1/
http://mookie.iwarp.com/ (mirror site)
Lego isn't a toy, it's a way of life!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
The issue of poor packaging for retail Lego sets has bothered me for some time.
I remember the days gone by ('cause I still have all the boxes) when TLC
packaged the larger sets in styrofoam-lined boxes with plasic insert trays.
These were the good old days of Lego boxes--boxes that would last a long time
when used to store the pieces. I haven't seen a styrofoam-lined box by Lego
since about 1980. Since then the strutural quality and integrity of Lego set
boxes has declined.
When my copy of 4554 Metrostation arrived from S@H, it was in a full-sized
flip-top box with divider in the inner box. Not too bad. A few years later
when I ordered 2150 Retrostation I was very dissappointed that the box of
identical dimensions was not a flip-top box but just the thin paperboard TLC
used for its outer packaging. As well, among the larger Star Wars sets, none
have the flip-top box feature. Today sets are packed with only the thin
paperboard as protection from all sorts of mishandling, etc.
Then sets like 3052 and 3053 appeared on the shelves with a much stronger
paperboard that was 100 sealed, not just held closed by two little adhesive
stickers on the ends. Well, I was happy with this and figured that all
retailers would be, too. Unfortunately, this packaging does not seem to be a
standard for TLC.
Buyers of Lego and the retail outlets who sell Lego all have to deal with
opened packages since Lego boxes are not sealed well. The seals provided are
much too easy for ill-intentioned childeren and adults to breach. Some of this
activity occurs in stores and after purchasing with the intent of returning
sets that have been pilfered to some degree.
Poor package design is at fault here (as well as unscrupulous consumers) and
could easily be improved without substantial packaging costs [speculation]. I
favor packaging similar to that used on Lego Ninja Sets 3052 and 3053, 6088,
etc. Something should be done since opened/damaged sets in stores are subject
to full wholesale credit for retailers which, of course, costs TLC money.
TLC, as an enterprising venture, should see this as avoidable and unacceptable
expense; a problem with a viable solution easily at hand. I hope that they do
see things this way and act accordingly--the sooner the better.
In lugnet.general, Tamyra Teed writes:
> I've noticed this too.. more because I got a box without looking that
> someone apparently had opened, taken out what they wanted, and the GLUED
> it shut again and returned it. I'm not sure if they'll believe me if I
> take it back though... so I pondered calling CA though should they
> really pay for someone elses greed and rudeness?? I don't think so..
> though you can be sure I'll be looking at my boxes much more closely
> from now on.
>
> I just can't believe people have the b*lls to do this kind of stuff..
> what's worse is they get away with it :(
>
> Tamy
>
>
> leggomylego wrote:
> >
> > I hit the jackpot at a local Target today. (I tell you what I got a little
> > later!) One thing I did notice were a LOT of sets that were bought, VERY
> > carefully opened, looted, and returned. I noticed it on 2 different Amazon
> > Ruins. The tape on the bottom edge of the taped down tray just wasn't
> > sticking like it usually does. Then looking at it longer, I noticed someone
> > swiped the base plate!!! I was quite upset. I could have used a few of • those
> > sets at $19. But w/o the plate, I couldn't do it. Several other boxes were
> > opened as well. The ones that are taped on the sides; when you pull the • tape
> > up, it gets a little cloudy. Someone had used another adhesive to get the
> > tape to stick back down. Some of the boxes that actually tear, you could • see
> > where the box was sliced, and retaped. I have noticed this more and more
> > lately. Any one else?
> >
> > Eric
>
> --
> Keep on Bricken'
> -Tamy
>
> Follow the bouncing boxes!
> http://home.att.net/~mookie1/jambalaya.html
>
> http://home.att.net/~mookie1/
> http://mookie.iwarp.com/ (mirror site)
> Lego isn't a toy, it's a way of life!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> TLC, as an enterprising venture, should see this as avoidable and unacceptable
> expense; a problem with a viable solution easily at hand. I hope that they do
> see things this way and act accordingly--the sooner the better.
As far as i have seen TLC has been slow to respont to many of thier "problems"
as of late.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Kevin Salm wrote:
>
> The issue of poor packaging for retail Lego sets has bothered me for some time.
agreed.
>
> used for its outer packaging. As well, among the larger Star Wars sets, none
> have the flip-top box feature. Today sets are packed with only the thin
> paperboard as protection from all sorts of mishandling, etc.
I picked up 4 Mos Espa sets this week on clearance at Target. Every set
had been torn in at least one or two places, mostly at the lid corners,
as if someone was trying to get the box open. Some tears were 6-8 inches
long. I only bought the sets because I knew the podracers were in
smaller boxes (well, ok they _were_ only 22.00), so the chances of
having pilfered pieces was greatly reduced. I am glad they double boxed
the 7171 sets. Were these the first sets to be so packaged?
> Then sets like 3052 and 3053 appeared on the shelves with a much stronger
> paperboard that was 100 sealed, not just held closed by two little adhesive
> stickers on the ends. Well, I was happy with this and figured that all
> retailers would be, too. Unfortunately, this packaging does not seem to be a
> standard for TLC.
I also saw a first for me. I recently picked up some Sith Infiltrators
at a Target, dont remember if it was the same one or not. Each set had
been sealed with clear packing tape at each end, from corner to corner,
and up the short sides. I didnt notice this until I was home, and
initially though the worst, that these were opened, resealed and
returned. They were all complete and intact,though, so maybe an employee
with a clue or previous experience with returned sets/pilferage took
some preemptive action. Of the sets I bought, only the Star Wars sets
had this tape. I'm wondering if it was due to the collecting mania
associated with all things Star Wars, and maybe Darth Maul was the
target....
> Buyers of Lego and the retail outlets who sell Lego all have to deal with
> opened packages since Lego boxes are not sealed well. The seals provided are
> much too easy for ill-intentioned childeren and adults to breach. Some of this
> activity occurs in stores and after purchasing with the intent of returning
> sets that have been pilfered to some degree.
> Poor package design is at fault here (as well as unscrupulous consumers) and
> could easily be improved without substantial packaging costs [speculation]. I
> favor packaging similar to that used on Lego Ninja Sets 3052 and 3053, 6088,
> etc.
-much snippage-
Having clear bags inside doesnt help with the pilfering, as it is real
easy to spot the bag with the "pilferees". I'd prefer opaque bags, with
no external clue as to what was in each. Make 'em work for their
thievery. Reference the stolen silver bricks that someone posted about
awhile back.
Just my .02 Lupins....
Steve
skw@io.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> I picked up 4 Mos Espa sets this week on clearance at Target. Every set
> had been torn in at least one or two places, mostly at the lid corners,
> as if someone was trying to get the box open. Some tears were 6-8 inches
> long. I only bought the sets because I knew the podracers were in
> smaller boxes (well, ok they _were_ only 22.00), so the chances of
> having pilfered pieces was greatly reduced. I am glad they double boxed
> the 7171 sets. Were these the first sets to be so packaged?
As I recollect, the 8247 came in concentric boxes.
-Rob
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Kevin Salm <kdsalm@dreamscape.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
FnxyvD.DuF@lugnet.com...
[snip]
> Then sets like 3052 and 3053 appeared on the shelves with a much stronger
> paperboard that was 100 sealed, not just held closed by two little • adhesive
> stickers on the ends. Well, I was happy with this and figured that all
> retailers would be, too. Unfortunately, this packaging does not seem to • be a
> standard for TLC.
[snip]
Are you sure only those two sets were available with strong paperboard in
the US? I have boxes with strong paperboard for all the following sets:
3052, 3551, 3554, 4162, 4930, 5919, 6083, 6454, 6477, 6907, 7130, 7140,
8001, 8238, 8520, just to name a few I know for sure. I bought all of them
in Germany though, but I don't see any reason why TLC should use a different
system here. Also, 7171 included three boxes which were all made of strong
paperboard. I think this new method is a standard for medium sets only, I
haven't seen any small and no large sets with this strong paperboard yet,
but I am already used to it.
Bye, Christian.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
The two numbers I listed were not meant to be all inclusive. Those just happen
to be the first two set numbers that popped into my head while writing the
post. Yes, there have now been several sets packaged with the heavier layered
paperboard, but I suggest that ALL sets be packaged this way.
> In lugnet.general, Christian Gemuenden writes:
>
> Kevin Salm <kdsalm@dreamscape.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> FnxyvD.DuF@lugnet.com...
> [snip]
> > Then sets like 3052 and 3053 appeared on the shelves with a much stronger
> > paperboard that was 100 sealed, not just held closed by two little • adhesive
> > stickers on the ends. Well, I was happy with this and figured that all
> > retailers would be, too. Unfortunately, this packaging does not seem to • be a
> > standard for TLC.
> [snip]
>
> Are you sure only those two sets were available with strong paperboard in
> the US? I have boxes with strong paperboard for all the following sets:
> 3052, 3551, 3554, 4162, 4930, 5919, 6083, 6454, 6477, 6907, 7130, 7140,
> 8001, 8238, 8520, just to name a few I know for sure. I bought all of them
> in Germany though, but I don't see any reason why TLC should use a different
> system here. Also, 7171 included three boxes which were all made of strong
> paperboard. I think this new method is a standard for medium sets only, I
> haven't seen any small and no large sets with this strong paperboard yet,
> but I am already used to it.
>
> Bye, Christian.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Kevin Salm writes:
> The issue of poor packaging for retail Lego sets has bothered me for some time.
>
> I remember the days gone by ('cause I still have all the boxes) when TLC
> packaged the larger sets in styrofoam-lined boxes with plasic insert trays.
> These were the good old days of Lego boxes--boxes that would last a long time
> when used to store the pieces. I haven't seen a styrofoam-lined box by Lego
> since about 1980. Since then the strutural quality and integrity of Lego set
> boxes has declined.
>
> When my copy of 4554 Metrostation arrived from S@H, it was in a full-sized
> flip-top box with divider in the inner box. Not too bad. A few years later
> when I ordered 2150 Retrostation I was very dissappointed that the box of
> identical dimensions was not a flip-top box but just the thin paperboard TLC
> used for its outer packaging. As well, among the larger Star Wars sets, none
> have the flip-top box feature. Today sets are packed with only the thin
> paperboard as protection from all sorts of mishandling, etc.
>
> Then sets like 3052 and 3053 appeared on the shelves with a much stronger
> paperboard that was 100 sealed, not just held closed by two little adhesive
> stickers on the ends. Well, I was happy with this and figured that all
> retailers would be, too. Unfortunately, this packaging does not seem to be a
> standard for TLC.
>
> Buyers of Lego and the retail outlets who sell Lego all have to deal with
> opened packages since Lego boxes are not sealed well. The seals provided are
> much too easy for ill-intentioned childeren and adults to breach. Some of this
> activity occurs in stores and after purchasing with the intent of returning
> sets that have been pilfered to some degree.
>
> Poor package design is at fault here (as well as unscrupulous consumers) and
> could easily be improved without substantial packaging costs [speculation]. I
> favor packaging similar to that used on Lego Ninja Sets 3052 and 3053, 6088,
> etc. Something should be done since opened/damaged sets in stores are subject
> to full wholesale credit for retailers which, of course, costs TLC money.
>
> TLC, as an enterprising venture, should see this as avoidable and unacceptable
> expense; a problem with a viable solution easily at hand. I hope that they do
> see things this way and act accordingly--the sooner the better.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In lugnet.general, Tamyra Teed writes:
> > I've noticed this too.. more because I got a box without looking that
> > someone apparently had opened, taken out what they wanted, and the GLUED
> > it shut again and returned it. I'm not sure if they'll believe me if I
> > take it back though... so I pondered calling CA though should they
> > really pay for someone elses greed and rudeness?? I don't think so..
> > though you can be sure I'll be looking at my boxes much more closely
> > from now on.
> >
> > I just can't believe people have the b*lls to do this kind of stuff..
> > what's worse is they get away with it :(
> >
> > Tamy
> >
> >
> > leggomylego wrote:
> > >
> > > I hit the jackpot at a local Target today. (I tell you what I got a little
> > > later!) One thing I did notice were a LOT of sets that were bought, VERY
> > > carefully opened, looted, and returned. I noticed it on 2 different Amazon
> > > Ruins. The tape on the bottom edge of the taped down tray just wasn't
> > > sticking like it usually does. Then looking at it longer, I noticed someone
> > > swiped the base plate!!! I was quite upset. I could have used a few of • those
> > > sets at $19. But w/o the plate, I couldn't do it. Several other boxes were
> > > opened as well. The ones that are taped on the sides; when you pull the • tape
> > > up, it gets a little cloudy. Someone had used another adhesive to get the
> > > tape to stick back down. Some of the boxes that actually tear, you could • see
> > > where the box was sliced, and retaped. I have noticed this more and more
> > > lately. Any one else?
> > >
> > > Eric
An important part of my Pre-Dark Ages Lego experience was enjoying the box. I
remember fondly those substantial boxes from the 70's with the deep trays and
wonderful Alternate designs on the back and inside lid. I loved the way classic
space was packaged - the 2 or 3 crater holes packed with pieces. Things were
still good even until the early 90's. The Whirl N' Wheel Super Truck, my long-
lost beloved, had the flip lid and nice plastic "window" to see the pieces
(though the cardboard box was a bit flimsy.) When I emerged from my dark-ages
in March of 99, and purchased the Tie-Fighter/Y-Wing over the Internet, I
naively expected the box to be part of the experience again. (I know, it was my
bad...I didn't pay attention to Lego boxes on the shelves. I was in my Dark
Ages.) I cannot stress how gravely disappointed I was when I saw/opened the
box. I felt cheated; it was like they just stuck the pieces in there and said
"Here your Legos, kid. That'll be fifty-four dollars (accompanied by hearty,
condescending, Boy-We-Put-One-Over-On-You laugher.) For all of us who grew up
on Lego, I'd wager that the wonderful boxes were an important part of the whole
experience. A wish come true would be if Lego would bring back the flip-top and
clear window for the large SW sets.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
James Simpson <jsimpson@rice.edu> wrote in message
news:Fp9xAJ.J47@lugnet.com...
[snip]
> An important part of my Pre-Dark Ages Lego experience was enjoying the • box. I
> remember fondly those substantial boxes from the 70's with the deep trays • and
> wonderful Alternate designs on the back and inside lid. I loved the way • classic
> space was packaged - the 2 or 3 crater holes packed with pieces. Things • were
> still good even until the early 90's. The Whirl N' Wheel Super Truck, my • long-
> lost beloved, had the flip lid and nice plastic "window" to see the pieces
> (though the cardboard box was a bit flimsy.) When I emerged from my • dark-ages
> in March of 99, and purchased the Tie-Fighter/Y-Wing over the Internet, I
> naively expected the box to be part of the experience again. (I know, it • was my
> bad...I didn't pay attention to Lego boxes on the shelves. I was in my • Dark
> Ages.) I cannot stress how gravely disappointed I was when I saw/opened • the
> box. I felt cheated; it was like they just stuck the pieces in there and • said
> "Here your Legos, kid. That'll be fifty-four dollars (accompanied by • hearty,
> condescending, Boy-We-Put-One-Over-On-You laugher.) For all of us who • grew up
> on Lego, I'd wager that the wonderful boxes were an important part of the • whole
> experience. A wish come true would be if Lego would bring back the • flip-top and
> clear window for the large SW sets.
I don't want to see a return of the older boxes. Older boxes are more
expensive and I would rather buy the Lego bricks as cheaply as possible.
The boxes I would rather see are the 6 and 9 compartment boxes with
baseplate lids. Those are very useful for both storing and sorting the Lego
bricks and are also much sturdier.
Mike
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Mike Poindexter wrote:
> James Simpson <jsimpson@rice.edu> wrote in message
> news:Fp9xAJ.J47@lugnet.com...
> [snip]
> > An important part of my Pre-Dark Ages Lego experience was enjoying the • box. I
> > remember fondly those substantial boxes from the 70's with the deep trays • and
> > wonderful Alternate designs on the back and inside lid. I loved the way • classic
> > space was packaged - the 2 or 3 crater holes packed with pieces. Things • were
> > still good even until the early 90's. The Whirl N' Wheel Super Truck, my • long-
> > lost beloved, had the flip lid and nice plastic "window" to see the pieces
> > (though the cardboard box was a bit flimsy.) When I emerged from my • dark-ages
> > in March of 99, and purchased the Tie-Fighter/Y-Wing over the Internet, I
> > naively expected the box to be part of the experience again. (I know, it • was my
> > bad...I didn't pay attention to Lego boxes on the shelves. I was in my • Dark
> > Ages.) I cannot stress how gravely disappointed I was when I saw/opened • the
> > box. I felt cheated; it was like they just stuck the pieces in there and • said
> > "Here your Legos, kid. That'll be fifty-four dollars (accompanied by • hearty,
> > condescending, Boy-We-Put-One-Over-On-You laugher.) For all of us who • grew up
> > on Lego, I'd wager that the wonderful boxes were an important part of the • whole
> > experience. A wish come true would be if Lego would bring back the • flip-top and
> > clear window for the large SW sets.
>
> I don't want to see a return of the older boxes. Older boxes are more
> expensive and I would rather buy the Lego bricks as cheaply as possible.
> The boxes I would rather see are the 6 and 9 compartment boxes with
> baseplate lids. Those are very useful for both storing and sorting the Lego
> bricks and are also much sturdier.
>
> Mike
I too liked the 70's boxes. But they were no match for some of the very heavy
early boxes from 1957-68. The European Town Plan sets (700, 810) were heavy
wooden boxes. The USA/Canada Samsonite Town Plan (725) and Junior Constructor
(717) were very large and very heavy thick cardboard boxes. The continental
European gift boxes (710, 711, 712, 713, 820, 821) were made of wood with metal
clasps and hinges. Also very heavy and large.
But I agree with Mike. The lower the cost of the packaging, the lower the cost
of the LEGO.
Gary Istok
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, James Simpson (<Fp9xAJ.J47@lugnet.com>) wrote at
23:01:31
> For all of us who grew up
> on Lego, I'd wager that the wonderful boxes were an important part of the whole
> experience.
Too true.
I really have to steel myself to open some of the old stuff that I've
got. But I bought it to build it, as well as enjoying the packaging :-)
Last year, I found a MISB Airport Shuttle. I was going to sell it, but
it's such a beautiful box, I had to keep it.
And the joy of holding a MISB 928 was something else :-)
It isn't ISB any more, though :-)
--
Tony Priestman
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Tony Priestman writes:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, James Simpson (<Fp9xAJ.J47@lugnet.com>) wrote at
> 23:01:31
>
> > For all of us who grew up
> > on Lego, I'd wager that the wonderful boxes were an important part of the whole
> > experience.
>
> Too true.
>
> I really have to steel myself to open some of the old stuff that I've
> got. But I bought it to build it, as well as enjoying the packaging :-)
>
> Last year, I found a MISB Airport Shuttle. I was going to sell it, but
> it's such a beautiful box, I had to keep it.
>
> And the joy of holding a MISB 928 was something else :-)
>
> It isn't ISB any more, though :-)
>
> --
> Tony Priestman
I am envious, I remember my excitement over an LL 924 on my Birthday (geez
was that the 70's-oh my = )
I always wanted the Galaxy Explorer (LL 928) .....One of the Holy Grails I
dream of.....more so than a BSB or Yellow castle.....
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
John Robert Blaze Kanehl wrote in message ...
>
> I always wanted the Galaxy Explorer (LL 928) .....One of the Holy Grails I
> dream of.....more so than a BSB or Yellow castle.....
Yeah, I felt like that, EXACTLY like that, for nigh on twenty years... then
late last year I bought a used one in an auction. It was complete and in
mint condition, just perfect. I built it, and held it in my hands and stared
at it and whooshed it around to see what it looked like, and..... I felt
vaguely disappointed.
It's kind of neat in a near-future-tech way, but it just looks..... boxy.
Clunky. Old-fashioned. Now, I see it more as a Grey 4x4 Cone and
Trans-Yellow Parts Pack. If I had a project that needed blue and trans
yellow I'd break it up immediately.... right now, though, it sits in my room
gathering dust.
Now, the BSB, _there_ is a work of beauty. Easily one of the best designs
TLC ever released, up there with the Black Cat Rig.
Paul
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Sun, 6 Feb 2000, Paul Baulch (<FpGL9E.GrL@lugnet.com>) wrote at
01:21:47
>
> John Robert Blaze Kanehl wrote in message ...
> >
> > I always wanted the Galaxy Explorer (LL 928) .....One of the Holy Grails I
> > dream of.....more so than a BSB or Yellow castle.....
>
> Yeah, I felt like that, EXACTLY like that, for nigh on twenty years... then
> late last year I bought a used one in an auction. It was complete and in
> mint condition, just perfect. I built it, and held it in my hands and stared
> at it and whooshed it around to see what it looked like, and..... I felt
> vaguely disappointed.
> It's kind of neat in a near-future-tech way, but it just looks..... boxy.
> Clunky. Old-fashioned.
Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. There isn't anything special about
it, it's just a bigger version of 924.
It's very nostalgic to build with just the original Space specialised
pieces, though.
--
Tony Priestman
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Tony Priestman wrote in message ...
> > It's kind of neat in a near-future-tech way, but it just looks..... boxy.
> > Clunky. Old-fashioned.
>
> Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. There isn't anything special about
> it, it's just a bigger version of 924.
Yes, that's right. In fact, looking at the picture of 924 (I don't own the
set), it looks like one might actually be able to construct the 924 only
using parts from 928.
Now, more than ever, I can see why people like 924 so much. It's more....
compact. Concise. Elegant. Who was it that said, "Perfection is achieved not
when there is nothing left to add, but rather when there is nothing left to
remove"?
> It's very nostalgic to build with just the original Space specialised
> pieces, though.
I think that nostalgia is a prime factor in the way that AFOLs' favour old
sets so much.... which is not to say that older sets weren't fantastic, a
great many of them were.
Hey - isn't it a bit naughty to refer to pre-1980 Lego elements as
"specialised"? ;-)
On another note, I'd love to see a newer version of 367 Lunar Module done
with Technic figure astronauts. With the newer specialised pieces made in
the last 25 years, it would be an awesome model.
Cheers,
Paul
LUGNET Member 164
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Mon, 7 Feb 2000, Paul Baulch (<FpIGtJ.FvA@lugnet.com>) wrote at
01:41:06
>
> Tony Priestman wrote in message ...
> >
> > Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. There isn't anything special about
> > it, it's just a bigger version of 924.
>
>
> Yes, that's right. In fact, looking at the picture of 924 (I don't own the
> set), it looks like one might actually be able to construct the 924 only
> using parts from 928.
I don't own 924 either. Wish I did, though.
> Now, more than ever, I can see why people like 924 so much. It's more....
> compact. Concise. Elegant. Who was it that said, "Perfection is achieved not
> when there is nothing left to add, but rather when there is nothing left to
> remove"?
Sounds a bit mathematical/philosophical to me. Not at all baroque :-)
>
> > It's very nostalgic to build with just the original Space specialised
> > pieces, though.
>
>
> I think that nostalgia is a prime factor in the way that AFOLs' favour old
> sets so much.... which is not to say that older sets weren't fantastic, a
> great many of them were.
Absolutely. But 928 just doesn't have any new ideas in it. I think we
AFOLs tend to appreciate the design of sets as much as the sets
themselves as pieces.
>
> Hey - isn't it a bit naughty to refer to pre-1980 Lego elements as
> "specialised"? ;-)
When the Space stuff first came out in the UK, it was 1979, and I had
never seen a radar dish, a 2x1 plate with prongs, various wing pieces &
rocket bits, amongst others. At that time, they were *definitely*
special :-)
>
> On another note, I'd love to see a newer version of 367 Lunar Module done
> with Technic figure astronauts. With the newer specialised pieces made in
> the last 25 years, it would be an awesome model.
What an absolutely brilliant idea! With the additional challenge, for
those with the bricks, of building the delivery system :-)
I've just had a vision of a Saturn V moving backwards into the ground,
as the plastic melts with the heat of the engines :-)
--
Tony Priestman
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Paul Baulch wrote:
> Who was it that said, "Perfection is achieved not
> when there is nothing left to add, but rather when there is nothing left to
> remove"?
Dunno, but it's a great saying. Paraphrasing a famous CS type: "Inside
every large, clunky program there is a small, elegant one struggling to
escape..."
> Paul
> LUGNET Member 164
Hmm, I thought this posting of member numbers was something Todd kinda
was trying not to have get started... but if you insist:
Larry
LUGNET Member 5
That's the only time I'll do it.
(Number 5 is alive! ...and I'm not even a robotics buff!)
--
Larry Pieniazek - larryp@novera.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On Sun, 6 Feb 2000, Larry Pieniazek (<389D9C09.F2F4CF16@voyager.net>)
wrote at 16:06:33
> Paul Baulch wrote:
> > Who was it that said, "Perfection is achieved not
> > when there is nothing left to add, but rather when there is nothing left to
> > remove"?
>
> Dunno, but it's a great saying. Paraphrasing a famous CS type: "Inside
> every large, clunky program there is a small, elegant one struggling to
> escape..."
Call me a tired old cynic, but no, sometimes there isn't :-)
(it's already five years old, and frolicking on a mountain pasture
somewhere)
Does anyone know the name of the Ancient Greek philosopher who said
'there is nothing new'?
--
Tony Priestman
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Tony Priestman wrote in message ...
> Does anyone know the name of the Ancient Greek philosopher who said
> 'there is nothing new'?
Wasn't it Solomon (Nihil novi sub sola)?
And wasn't he a bit not Ancient Greek ;-)
Then again, perhaps you shouldn't listen to me at all - let's not forget
that I'm the guy who spells river with an f from time to time, on top of
discussing the 'relspective meruts' of something or other recently.
Richard
Still baldly going...
Check out Port Block at http://www.hinet.net.au/~rparsons/port/
Note the change in URL - Port Block is moving (to new and larger
accommodations)
Do adjust your set.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Tony Priestman wrote:
> Does anyone know the name of the Ancient Greek philosopher who said
> 'there is nothing new'?
Hebrew. The author of the biblical book of Ecclesiastes. Generally attributed
to Solomon, but that's not for sure certain.
Of course, someone probably said it before him.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
x-post added to .space
Paul Baulch wrote:
> Tony Priestman wrote in message ...
> > > It's kind of neat in a near-future-tech way, but it just looks..... boxy.
> > > Clunky. Old-fashioned.
> >
> > Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. There isn't anything special about
> > it, it's just a bigger version of 924.
>
> Yes, that's right. In fact, looking at the picture of 924 (I don't own the
> set), it looks like one might actually be able to construct the 924 only
> using parts from 928.
> Now, more than ever, I can see why people like 924 so much. It's more....
> compact. Concise. Elegant. Who was it that said, "Perfection is achieved not
> when there is nothing left to add, but rather when there is nothing left to
> remove"?
Hey, what's wrong with 918? It's the only one I had of the original
trinity of spaceships, and it's great, although I've just noticed that
if you put too much in the storage space at the back and swoosh too much
it clobbers the pilot on the head...
I think that's what's great about the original 1978/9 space sets- a
cohesive colour scheme, all grey, blue and trans yellow, except for the
white and black rockets. Just look at some of the catalogues from 1979:
-> http://www.brickshelf.com/scans/catalogs/1979/c79us/c79us-12.html
-> http://www.brickshelf.com/scans/catalogs/1979/c79us/c79us-13.html
You can imagine that 918, 924 and 928 are easily part of a single,
cohesive fleet, along with their bases; I expect that's why I like
Futuron so much- it reclaimed the idea of fixed colour schemes after
years of multicoloured 'things' that worked fine on their own but didn't
really work together. Admittedly, the single-year themes got a bit
wearing after that.
The other thing I like about 918 is the fact that, despite only having
about 100 pieces, it's completely enclosed, with a proper cockpit-
something that was completely lacking in later small- to medium- sized spaceships.
:: paul
:: http://www.songtwo.demon.co.uk/lego/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Paul Mison" <lego@songtwo.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:389EC63C.ED98601D@songtwo.demon.co.uk...
> The other thing I like about 918 is the fact that, despite only having
> about 100 pieces, it's completely enclosed, with a proper cockpit-
> something that was completely lacking in later small- to medium- sized
spaceships.
Those "open air" space craft *really* bug me too.
--
---D M Garcia
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Alien/2199/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
How do you feel about the 928? I think it is kinda plain.
In lugnet.general, Damian Garcia writes:
>
> "Paul Mison" <lego@songtwo.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:389EC63C.ED98601D@songtwo.demon.co.uk...
> > The other thing I like about 918 is the fact that, despite only having
> > about 100 pieces, it's completely enclosed, with a proper cockpit-
> > something that was completely lacking in later small- to medium- sized
> spaceships.
>
> Those "open air" space craft *really* bug me too.
>
>
> --
> ---D M Garcia
> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Alien/2199/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
I love these 'type' space LEGO. they always seem to remind me of what sci fi
was like in the fifties...
:)
EC
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Jeffrey,
Jeffrey Baldwin wrote:
> How do you feel about the 928? I think it is kinda plain.
(Oh No! Scott is getting on his Space Soapbox!)
I can appreciate sentiments of this type. However, since Space is
probably my favorite theme, and have been collecting it since I was 4,
and I have most of the sets since 1984. I think this line (497, 487, and
918) are still really neat, even without the special parts we have
today. The reason? Realism! These sets look like something feasible, not
some neon nightrider nightmare from Batman Forever or something. I can
see mankind actually going into space with these sets. One of my most
prized sets is the 487:
http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=487-1
Because it is a classic, and it is great. Not only is is realistic, it
has great play value as well. It can hold two to three minifigs in it,
plus a cargo area. They maybe not flashy, but it they all are a
testament for when TLC (TLG, LG, LC, etc.) made some really great sets.
My version of this line is my ADF-800 ship, which is here:
http://www.geocities.com/~legoguy712/800-series.html
My 900 series is simply an upgrade from the 800, which is here as well:
http://www.geocities.com/~legoguy712/adf.html
Anyway, I love these ships and I would love to see a continuation of
some type to these sets, even though I am not holding my breath! :)
Scott S., climbing off his Space soapbox, and getting back to work!
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
<snip>
>
> My version of this line is my ADF-800 ship, which is here:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/~legoguy712/800-series.html
>
> My 900 series is simply an upgrade from the 800, which is here as well:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/~legoguy712/adf.html
</snip>
I like the clunky, non-aerodynamic "outer space" utilitarian look you have
going there. I think a lot of us have a tendency to make our spaceships look
like
airplanes. The smooth, sleek look is attractive, but not necessary.
~Mark
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Mark,
Mark Sandlin wrote:
>
> In lugnet.general, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> <snip>
> >
> > My version of this line is my ADF-800 ship, which is here:
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/~legoguy712/800-series.html
> >
> > My 900 series is simply an upgrade from the 800, which is here as well:
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/~legoguy712/adf.html
>
> </snip>
>
> I like the clunky, non-aerodynamic "outer space" utilitarian look you have
> going there. I think a lot of us have a tendency to make our spaceships look
> like
> airplanes. The smooth, sleek look is attractive, but not necessary.
>
> ~Mark
Thank you, Mark. When I built my ADF-800, I was trying to figure out how
to have some kind of wing, and I just built the sides on it. These ships
can go through atmospheres, but only because of the shields they run.
A lot of ships look really sleek, like you said, but in space, it really
does not matter. The Enterprise may look sleek, but the Borg cube does
not perform any worse.
Scott S.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Scott E. Sanburn wrote:
> Jeffrey,
>
> Jeffrey Baldwin wrote:
>
> > How do you feel about the 928? I think it is kinda plain.
I'm with Jeffrey. I think a lot of people get very nostalgic for Classic Space,
and rate it higher because of their history with the line.
Personally, I get nostalgic for the Explorien Starship, because it was the first
big set I bought completely for myself, without pretending I was just buying it
for the kids. Now, a lot of people don't care for this set, because of numerous
deficencies, but I think it is awesome. :)
Every LEGO set needs somebody to love it. (did I just write that? Blech!)
> (Oh No! Scott is getting on his Space Soapbox!)
>
> I can appreciate sentiments of this type. However, since Space is
> probably my favorite theme, and have been collecting it since I was 4,
> and I have most of the sets since 1984. I think this line (497, 487, and
> 918) are still really neat, even without the special parts we have
> today. The reason? Realism! These sets look like something feasible, not
> some neon nightrider nightmare from Batman Forever or something. I can
> see mankind actually going into space with these sets. One of my most
> prized sets is the 487:
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=487-1
Realistic? Take another look at that set. The engines are mounted on the cargo
doors! How realistic is that? ;)
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Hi there,
My two cents... followups set to lugnet.space only.
In lugnet.general, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> Jeffrey Baldwin wrote:
>
> > How do you feel about the 928? I think it is kinda plain.
I never thought of the 928 (in the U.S., 497) as plain. Actually, it's a rather
busy model, what with those big engines hanging out over the wings.
> (Oh No! Scott is getting on his Space Soapbox!)
>
> I can appreciate sentiments of this type. However, since Space is
> probably my favorite theme, and have been collecting it since I was 4,
> and I have most of the sets since 1984. I think this line (497, 487, and
> 918) are still really neat, even without the special parts we have
> today. The reason? Realism! These sets look like something feasible, not
> some neon nightrider nightmare from Batman Forever or something. I can
> see mankind actually going into space with these sets. One of my most
> prized sets is the 487:
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=487-1
>
> Because it is a classic, and it is great. Not only is is realistic, it
> has great play value as well. It can hold two to three minifigs in it,
> plus a cargo area. They maybe not flashy, but it they all are a
> testament for when TLC (TLG, LG, LC, etc.) made some really great sets.
I have to agree with Scott. If you look in my profile, you'll see that 487 is
one of my two all-time favorite sets. (The other is 375, the yellow castle...)
It's neither too little, nor too much. A friend of mine owned the 497/928, and
at first I was lusting to have one. It wore off. I'm not sure why. Somehow
the 487 is a more "balanced" model.
It's interesting that the Lego movie just posted by Marc Leidy also features the
487.
http://www.lugnet.com/space/?n=1134
Long ago, I also experimented with Lego stop-action filming, using the this same
model. Seeing the film made me nostalgic, so I reassembled mine. It was like
saying hello to an old friend. My three-year old, Spencer, has been playing
with it for a few days. A few nights ago he was leafing through my early 80's
Idea Book (Cat. No. 6000, if you're wondering), looking for something to build.
This, too, has a section that features the 487. When he saw this, he pointed
excitedly and said, "Hey, that's the spaceship you built!"
Another one hooked.
--
John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D.
Department of Structural Biology
Stanford University Medical Center
Stanford, CA 94305
Secretary, Californians for Renewable Energy <http://www.calfree.com>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Jeffrey Baldwin" <Heatwaaave@aol.com> wrote in message
news:FpLxK9.IDp@lugnet.com...
>
> How do you feel about the 928? I think it is kinda plain.
I think its pretty cool. I like the simple, utilitarian design of the whole
thing. As was mentioned in another post on this thread, it seems more
functional than the ships designed more for looks than anything else.
Another point made was one about engines being on doors. I also think this
is a bit far fetched, but I don't mind it much.
--
---D M Garcia
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Alien/2199/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, D M Garcia wrote:
>
> "Jeffrey Baldwin" <Heatwaaave@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:FpLxK9.IDp@lugnet.com...
> >
> > How do you feel about the 928? I think it is kinda plain.
>
> I think its pretty cool. I like the simple, utilitarian design of the whole
> thing. As was mentioned in another post on this thread, it seems more
> functional than the ships designed more for looks than anything else.
> Another point made was one about engines being on doors. I also think this
> is a bit far fetched, but I don't mind it much.
We all have our prefered pet peeves. I personally don't care that many LEGO
space ships are not (physically) fully enclosed. But I know that annoys many
spaceheads.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.general, D M Garcia wrote:
>
> >
> > "Jeffrey Baldwin" <Heatwaaave@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:FpLxK9.IDp@lugnet.com...
> > >
> > > How do you feel about the 928? I think it is kinda plain.
> >
> > I think its pretty cool. I like the simple, utilitarian design of the whole
> > thing. As was mentioned in another post on this thread, it seems more
> > functional than the ships designed more for looks than anything else.
> > Another point made was one about engines being on doors. I also think this
> > is a bit far fetched, but I don't mind it much.
>
> We all have our prefered pet peeves. I personally don't care that many LEGO
> space ships are not (physically) fully enclosed. But I know that annoys many
> spaceheads.
>
> Steve
It doesn't bother me too much either, but I imagine an open cockpit would make
atmospheric re-entry a little dicy :-)
-Duane
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Duane Hess wrote:
> In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> > We all have our prefered pet peeves. I personally don't care that many LEGO
> > space ships are not (physically) fully enclosed. But I know that annoys many
> > spaceheads.
> It doesn't bother me too much either, but I imagine an open cockpit would make
> atmospheric re-entry a little dicy :-)
:)
That's assuming re-entry is achieved using the historic method of falling until
the atmosphere is thick enough to support wings or parachutes. In fantastic
settings, ships could use some more-controlled method of descent.
Or have some protective energy shielding.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.space, Duane Hess wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
>
> > > We all have our prefered pet peeves. I personally don't care that many LEGO
> > > space ships are not (physically) fully enclosed. But I know that annoys many
> > > spaceheads.
>
> > It doesn't bother me too much either, but I imagine an open cockpit would make
> > atmospheric re-entry a little dicy :-)
>
> :)
>
> That's assuming re-entry is achieved using the historic method of falling until
> the atmosphere is thick enough to support wings or parachutes. In fantastic
> settings, ships could use some more-controlled method of descent.
>
> Or have some protective energy shielding.
>
> Steve
Actually, it's because LEGO people have really, really thick spacesuits.
They're actually normally proportioned people, it's just the thick suits
that make
them look that way. The thick helmet visor distorts their features into the
smileys you see now.
;^)
~Mark
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.space, Duane Hess writes:
> In lugnet.space, Steve Bliss writes:
> > We all have our prefered pet peeves. I personally don't care that many LEGO
> > space ships are not (physically) fully enclosed. But I know that annoys many
> > spaceheads.
> >
> > Steve
>
> It doesn't bother me too much either, but I imagine an open cockpit would make
> atmospheric re-entry a little dicy :-)
>
> -Duane
In the interest of providing a sense of realism, I always build fully-enclosed
spacecraft. Even in a spacecraft the never enters the atmosphere, the crew
needs to be protected from radiation. Our atmosphere, and Earth's
electromagnetic field, screen out alpha and gamma rays that are bad news for
DNA.
Now, for those spacecraft that DO enter the atmosphere, I have always wanted to
build the entire underside in a color that suggests a heat shield -- in other
words, black. Until recently, I haven't had enough pieces to do this for any
but the smallest models.
One might imagine a spacecraft that can slow down from orbital speeds (on the
order of 7.5 km/sec) BEFORE hitting the air. But a spacecraft that did that
would immediately be fighting the effects of gravity, or else drop like a stone.
So, we're talking fanciful high-tech here.
--
John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D.
Department of Structural Biology
Stanford University Medical Center
Stanford, CA 94305
Secretary, Californians for Renewable Energy <http://www.calfree.com>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Paul Mison wrote in message <389EC63C.ED98601D@songtwo.demon.co.uk>...
>
> Hey, what's wrong with 918? It's the only one I had of the original
> trinity of spaceships, and it's great, although I've just noticed that
> if you put too much in the storage space at the back and swoosh too much
> it clobbers the pilot on the head...
[...]
>
> The other thing I like about 918 is the fact that, despite only having
> about 100 pieces, it's completely enclosed, with a proper cockpit-
> something that was completely lacking in later small- to medium- sized • spaceships.
>
Hey Paul, I love 918!!! It and 462 Rocket Launcher were my very first ever
Space sets, way back when I was about seven. I can still remember whooshing
it around the backyard in joyous rapture. That is, until I lost the antenna
about five minutes later. *sob*
A few years later I managed to pick another one up when I bought a friend's
Lego collection. It was many, many years after that, just a few months ago,
when I rummaged through the old Lego bin and reconstructed both 918s from
memory. Holding them in my hands (as I am right now in between typing this),
the look of the spaceship from various angles brings all those childhood
memories flooding back. The things you've mentioned about this set are what
I love about this set too. 918 is my all-time favourite Classic Space set,
and why? Nostalgia. Ah, I'm feeling all warm and fuzzy. *sigh* :-)
Cheers,
Paul
LUGNET member 164
P.S. Todd, if you're reading this, is Larry right about you not really
wanting people to post their member numbers? Is it because they're temporary
or something? If you say so I'll refrain. "You da boss"...
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Paul Baulch writes:
>
> John Robert Blaze Kanehl wrote in message ...
> >
> > I always wanted the Galaxy Explorer (LL 928) .....One of the Holy Grails I
> > dream of.....more so than a BSB or Yellow castle.....
>
> Yeah, I felt like that, EXACTLY like that, for nigh on twenty years... then
> late last year I bought a used one in an auction. It was complete and in
> mint condition, just perfect. I built it, and held it in my hands and stared
> at it and whooshed it around to see what it looked like, and..... I felt
> vaguely disappointed.
> It's kind of neat in a near-future-tech way, but it just looks..... boxy.
> Clunky. Old-fashioned. Now, I see it more as a Grey 4x4 Cone and
> Trans-Yellow Parts Pack. If I had a project that needed blue and trans
> yellow I'd break it up immediately.... right now, though, it sits in my room
> gathering dust.
You know the phrase "You can never go home again" ? This is how I feel about
the idea that has been kicked around regarding Lego reissuing Classic sets. I'm
afraid that I would be disappointed. They might not be as exciting, as
interesting, as they were when I was 8 years old. I'm afraid that the luster
might be gone if I held a Galaxy Explorer now. I agree that it was (is) a
fantastic design, but it might seem simple...a bit uninteresting in light of the
parts selection that we have 20+ years later. I'm sure that plenty of people
who have actually held the Galaxy Explorer recently would disagree with me.
Sure, if I could get a spectacularly impossible deal on it, I probably would
purchase it, or some of my other holy-grails. In my case at least, I'm afraid
that I'd be wise to let them enjoy the almost mythical status that I have
allowed time and nostalgia to bestow upon them in my mind. And I can probably
only do this by not owning them.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, John Robert Blaze Kanehl writes:
>
> I am envious, I remember my excitement over an LL 924 on my Birthday (geez
> was that the 70's-oh my = )
>
> I always wanted the Galaxy Explorer (LL 928) .....One of the Holy Grails I
> dream of.....more so than a BSB or Yellow castle.....
I found about half of one in my grandma's attic(along with about half of a set
400)
Alan
This message's random set is: 6554, www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=6554
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Tony Priestman writes:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, James Simpson (<Fp9xAJ.J47@lugnet.com>) wrote at
> 23:01:31
>
> > For all of us who grew up
> > on Lego, I'd wager that the wonderful boxes were an important part of the whole
> > experience.
>
> Too true.
>
> I really have to steel myself to open some of the old stuff that I've
> got. But I bought it to build it, as well as enjoying the packaging :-)
>
> Last year, I found a MISB Airport Shuttle. I was going to sell it, but
> it's such a beautiful box, I had to keep it.
>
> And the joy of holding a MISB 928 was something else :-)
>
> It isn't ISB any more, though :-)
>
> --
> Tony Priestman
The new packaging is a far cry from my "compartmentalized geeK
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.dear-lego, Tony Priestman writes:
> On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, James Simpson (<Fp9xAJ.J47@lugnet.com>) wrote at
> 23:01:31
>
> > For all of us who grew up
> > on Lego, I'd wager that the wonderful boxes were an important part of the whole
> > experience.
>
> Too true.
>
> I really have to steel myself to open some of the old stuff that I've
> got. But I bought it to build it, as well as enjoying the packaging :-)
>
> Last year, I found a MISB Airport Shuttle. I was going to sell it, but
> it's such a beautiful box, I had to keep it.
>
> And the joy of holding a MISB 928 was something else :-)
>
> It isn't ISB any more, though :-)
>
> --
> Tony Priestman
I apoligize for the last post.....cat on keyboard.....
The new packaging is a far cry from the "compartmentalized geek" boxes I
loved as a kid.....To this day I still have the boxes to Universal Building
sets 745 (1976?) and 733 (1979?). They are beat up, but still great storage
and sorting mediums, w/ removable plastic trays and styrofoam frames.....an
environmentalist's nightmare.....
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"John Robert Blaze Kanehl" <johnNYblaze44@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:FpCLvJ.K12@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Tony Priestman writes:
> > On Tue, 1 Feb 2000, James Simpson (<Fp9xAJ.J47@lugnet.com>) wrote at
> > 23:01:31
> >
> > > For all of us who grew up
> > > on Lego, I'd wager that the wonderful boxes were an important part of • the whole
> > > experience.
> >
> > Too true.
> >
> > I really have to steel myself to open some of the old stuff that I've
> > got. But I bought it to build it, as well as enjoying the packaging :-)
> >
> > Last year, I found a MISB Airport Shuttle. I was going to sell it, but
> > it's such a beautiful box, I had to keep it.
> >
> > And the joy of holding a MISB 928 was something else :-)
> >
> > It isn't ISB any more, though :-)
> >
> > --
> > Tony Priestman
>
> I apoligize for the last post.....cat on keyboard.....
>
> The new packaging is a far cry from the "compartmentalized geek" boxes I
> loved as a kid.....To this day I still have the boxes to Universal • Building
> sets 745 (1976?) and 733 (1979?). They are beat up, but still great • storage
> and sorting mediums, w/ removable plastic trays and styrofoam • frames.....an
> environmentalist's nightmare.....
I think the styroofoam is OK as long as you don't throw it away! Who
could throw away *anything* Lego?!
I saw the mispelling, and liked the way it sounds so :-P
Drat that cat!
--
Have fun!
John
My Trade/Sale (and links) Page
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/lego
my weird Lego site:
http://www114.pair.com/ig88/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
John Robert Blaze Kanehl wrote:
> ...an environmentalist's nightmare.....
speaking of... My sister got me that new big ~800 piece basic set for
Christmas. It's the one with six or seven smaller boxes of lego held
together by a cardboard frame. It seems like a waste of packaging
to me, especially the raised baseplate that was packaged alone in
its own box.
-chris
ps. The glue that held the boxes into the frame was nightmarish also.
I almost had to use a crowbar to pry them out ;)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.dear-lego, Christopher Tracey writes:
> John Robert Blaze Kanehl wrote:
>
> > ...an environmentalist's nightmare.....
>
> speaking of... My sister got me that new big ~800 piece basic set for
> Christmas. It's the one with six or seven smaller boxes of lego held
> together by a cardboard frame. It seems like a waste of packaging
> to me, especially the raised baseplate that was packaged alone in
> its own box.
>
> -chris
>
> ps. The glue that held the boxes into the frame was nightmarish also.
> I almost had to use a crowbar to pry them out ;)
Was this the K-Mart exclusive? The one with the 32x32 light green baseplate
like 5978's? I didn't have any trouble getting the boxes out of the two copies
I got... :)
Jeff
http://members.xoom.com/aulddragon/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Jeff Stembel wrote:
>
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Christopher Tracey writes:
> > John Robert Blaze Kanehl wrote:
> >
> > > ...an environmentalist's nightmare.....
> >
> > speaking of... My sister got me that new big ~800 piece basic set for
> > Christmas. It's the one with six or seven smaller boxes of lego held
> > together by a cardboard frame. It seems like a waste of packaging
> > to me, especially the raised baseplate that was packaged alone in
> > its own box.
> >
> > -chris
> >
> > ps. The glue that held the boxes into the frame was nightmarish also.
> > I almost had to use a crowbar to pry them out ;)
>
> Was this the K-Mart exclusive? The one with the 32x32 light green baseplate
> like 5978's? I didn't have any trouble getting the boxes out of the two copies
> I got... :)
No, I got my first copy at Zany Brainy. I think I've seen it at
Wal-Mart, and perhaps TRU also.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Mookie wrote:
>
> I've noticed this too.. more because I got a box without looking that
> someone apparently had opened, taken out what they wanted, and the GLUED
> it shut again and returned it. I'm not sure if they'll believe me if I
> take it back though... so I pondered calling CA though should they
> really pay for someone elses greed and rudeness?? I don't think so..
> though you can be sure I'll be looking at my boxes much more closely
> from now on.
>
> I just can't believe people have the b*lls to do this kind of stuff..
> what's worse is they get away with it :(
>
> Tamy
I had been keeping an eye on a single remaining 6761 Bandit's Hideout at
a local TRU, waiting for it to go on clearance. Between the time that it
was normal retail price and I found it on the clearance aisle (about a
week) somebody had ripped open the box and stolen quite a few pieces out
of it. Since I still wanted some of the remaining pieces, I talked TRU
into taking another percentage off the price. I cataloged the losses and
wrote to Customer Service, explained the entire situation. Less than a
week later a package arrived at my home with all of the missing pieces.
The accompanying letter stated that they were sorry I had such difficulty.
Another Job-Well-Done by Susan Williams and LEGO Customer Service.
SteveC
LEGO Perilous Pirate Page
http://www.widomaker.com/~litehous/Pirate/index.html
They moved the Lighthouse! To find out how:
http://www.widomaker.com/~litehous/movie.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Steve Campbell wrote:
>
> Mookie wrote:
> >
> > I've noticed this too.. more because I got a box without looking that
> > someone apparently had opened, taken out what they wanted, and the GLUED
> > it shut again and returned it. I'm not sure if they'll believe me if I
> > take it back though... so I pondered calling CA though should they
> > really pay for someone elses greed and rudeness?? I don't think so..
> > though you can be sure I'll be looking at my boxes much more closely
> > from now on.
> >
> > I just can't believe people have the b*lls to do this kind of stuff..
> > what's worse is they get away with it :(
> >
> > Tamy
>
>
> I had been keeping an eye on a single remaining 6761 Bandit's Hideout at
> a local TRU, waiting for it to go on clearance. Between the time that it
> was normal retail price and I found it on the clearance aisle (about a
> week) somebody had ripped open the box and stolen quite a few pieces out
> of it. Since I still wanted some of the remaining pieces, I talked TRU
> into taking another percentage off the price. I cataloged the losses and
> wrote to Customer Service, explained the entire situation. Less than a
> week later a package arrived at my home with all of the missing pieces.
> The accompanying letter stated that they were sorry I had such difficulty.
>
> Another Job-Well-Done by Susan Williams and LEGO Customer Service.
Agreed, CA is swell. But my question to you is, you asked for a discount
and got it. Was that just to cover the hassle of getting the replacement
parts? Or did you argue that because there were parts missing, you
should get a discount for the value OF THOSE PARTS.
I ask not to be judgemental, but merely because I am curious.
I today bought 2 4561s which had been opened, at a particular Target. I
dealt with a supervisor, identified what parts were missing, and made a
case that I should get an additional discount, based on the value of the
missing parts. I got it. Therefore, I personally now would not feel
justified in going to CA to ask for the replacement, as to me,
personally, that smacks of double dipping. TARGET should take the hit,
it's THEIR security that allowed the shrinkage. Doesn't seem fair to ask
LEGO to eat it.
Am I alone in this rather radical stance?
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Agreed, CA is swell. But my question to you is, you asked for a discount
> and got it. Was that just to cover the hassle of getting the replacement
> parts? Or did you argue that because there were parts missing, you
> should get a discount for the value OF THOSE PARTS.
>
> I ask not to be judgemental, but merely because I am curious.
>
> I today bought 2 4561s which had been opened, at a particular Target. I
> dealt with a supervisor, identified what parts were missing, and made a
> case that I should get an additional discount, based on the value of the
> missing parts. I got it. Therefore, I personally now would not feel
> justified in going to CA to ask for the replacement, as to me,
> personally, that smacks of double dipping. TARGET should take the hit,
> it's THEIR security that allowed the shrinkage. Doesn't seem fair to ask
> LEGO to eat it.
>
> Am I alone in this rather radical stance?
Nope.(1) However, I would consider it fair to go to CA, and offer to pay them
for the missing parts. (assuming I thought the missing parts were worth it -
otherwise, I'd just drop it).
James
http://www.shades-of-night.com/lego/
1:But then, I'm the kind of freak that corrects a teller's math when I get too
much change, too.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
James Brown wrote in message ...
> In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Agreed, CA is swell. But my question to you is, you asked for a discount
> > and got it. Was that just to cover the hassle of getting the replacement
> > parts? Or did you argue that because there were parts missing, you
> > should get a discount for the value OF THOSE PARTS.
> >
> > I ask not to be judgemental, but merely because I am curious.
> >
> > I today bought 2 4561s which had been opened, at a particular Target. I
> > dealt with a supervisor, identified what parts were missing, and made a
> > case that I should get an additional discount, based on the value of the
> > missing parts. I got it. Therefore, I personally now would not feel
> > justified in going to CA to ask for the replacement, as to me,
> > personally, that smacks of double dipping. TARGET should take the hit,
> > it's THEIR security that allowed the shrinkage. Doesn't seem fair to ask
> > LEGO to eat it.
> >
> > Am I alone in this rather radical stance?
>
> Nope.(1) However, I would consider it fair to go to CA, and offer to pay • them
> for the missing parts. (assuming I thought the missing parts were worth • it -
> otherwise, I'd just drop it).
I'd agree with both of you. To be honest, I haven't even gone back to CA for
pieces missing or damaged from used sets. The only thing I've gone to them
for was stickers from a couple train sets which I had misplaced the
stickers. At this point, they might almost have to send a special delivery
truck with all the missing pieces from used sets.
I have bought opened boxes with the knowledge that if anything serious was
missing I could replace it. And I would not refuse a discount if the store
had chosen to apply one without my asking. I guess at that point, I'd have a
bit of a tough decision about going back to TLC for the missing pieces, but
at least in that case I'm not defrauding the store (and given that TLC
offers the replacement service, often for free, even for parts lost or
damaged by play).
Good ethical dilemma...
Frank
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Larry Pieniazek <lar@voyager.net> wrote:
> justified in going to CA to ask for the replacement, as to me,
> personally, that smacks of double dipping. TARGET should take the hit,
> it's THEIR security that allowed the shrinkage. Doesn't seem fair to ask
> LEGO to eat it.
> Am I alone in this rather radical stance?
I agree with you. If you get compensated for not having the pieces, there's
not much more to complain about. If you know in advance that you can call CA
and get replacement pieces for free (which wasn't necessarily the case
here), you shouldn't ask for very much of a discount.
But, you certainly should tell the retailer, so they know what's going on.
And maybe they'll offer a discount out of the goodness of their hearts. If
they do that, then I don't really see a problem with taking that and also
getting the pieces from Lego.
If Lego Direct turns out to be everyone's dream, and all parts are available
for order from them in quantities of one, then it'd be pretty reasonable to
ask for a discount equal to (or perhaps slightly more, for the trouble) the
price to order the missing pieces.
--
Matthew Miller ---> mattdm@mattdm.org
Quotes 'R' Us ---> http://quotes-r-us.org/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> > >
> I today bought 2 4561s which had been opened, at a particular Target. I
> dealt with a supervisor, identified what parts were missing, and made a
> case that I should get an additional discount, based on the value of the
> missing parts. I got it. Therefore, I personally now would not feel
> justified in going to CA to ask for the replacement, as to me,
> personally, that smacks of double dipping. TARGET should take the hit,
> it's THEIR security that allowed the shrinkage. Doesn't seem fair to ask
> LEGO to eat it.
While it is true that Target's security is pretty bad, it is also true that
Lego's packaging is substandard in terms of preventing theft.
| | | | | | |
