| |
Gary Istok wrote:
>
> Jason Proksch wrote:
>
> <major snippage>
>
> > I am now leaning more toward the first 2 options. Perhaps the poor quality
> > reflects Samsonites inability to match lego's quality. Come to think of it, my
> > #717? Samsonite has some errors (or inconsistencies) in its instructions as
> > well.
>
>
> Did someone say "Junior Constructor"? Set 717.....
Muwahahh..:-) I knew that Gary would jump on this..:-) You make a lugnet
search for "junior 717" everyday, don't you?..:-)
Selçuk
|
|
| |
Mark Koesel wrote:
>
> "Michael Huffman" <mhuffman@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
> > They are printed, with the same 'feel' as the 331/332/333
> > instructions. They don't feel like they were printed out on a
> > color printer on glossy paper -- say at Kinko's or something --
> > they're very much have an 'old' feel to them.
>
> Which suggests that maybe they were created by someone at TLG,
> perhaps. Or perhaps the person who created them simply had access
> to high end printing equipment at the time. It is a curious, I
> admit.
It's impossible. If we are talking about the 60's, only possible way to
make this thing printed is huge offset printing machinery, which for
sure owned by some other company that works for TLC, not the TLC itself.
That is still true, paper media printed outside of the TLC even today.
(look at the fine print on page:
http://www.brickshelf.com/scans/catalogs/1984/c84me/c84me-32.html )
Besides, if this had been done by a freak of that time as a unique
piece, it should also be the most expensive printed material, since
offset printing needs too much pre processing (such as color separation
and die preparation) which were really expensive and hard work before
the computer age.
In brief, if it is really an old piece (I mean before the mid 80's), it
MUST BE AUTHENTIC since it's almost impossible otherwise, since printing
only a copy of something in color was plain crazy at that times..
Selçuk
Selçuk
|
|
| |
Just went through a bunch of instuctions that I won on
e-Bay last year. I was going through them so I
could give them to a friend & started looking them up
on Lugnet so he could get an idea of what I had &
didn't find this one listed. Looks like there's a
third #371. ;) Here's the cover:
http://www.mindspring.com/~mhuffman/picts/0371-01.jpg
The rest have been uploaded to Brickshelf.
--Mike.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Michael Huffman writes:
> Just went through a bunch of instuctions that I won on
> e-Bay last year. I was going through them so I
> could give them to a friend & started looking them up
> on Lugnet so he could get an idea of what I had &
> didn't find this one listed. Looks like there's a
> third #371. ;) Here's the cover:
>
> http://www.mindspring.com/~mhuffman/picts/0371-01.jpg
>
> The rest have been uploaded to Brickshelf.
>
> --Mike.
Well done work, but it's not April the first today....
I think this could be a faked instruction:
- to much plates used
- not to find in any old catalogue
- where's the battery box?
- the exhaust falls off to easy
- to nice to be true
- take a clooser look at upper right edge of picture: looks like photo glued on
old instruction.
just my thought....
Ben
(fake expert)
http://www-public.tu-bs.de:8080/~rbeneke/lego/misc/misc.html#fun
|
|
| |
> > Just went through a bunch of instuctions that I won on
> > e-Bay last year. I was going through them so I
> > could give them to a friend & started looking them up
> > on Lugnet so he could get an idea of what I had &
> > didn't find this one listed. Looks like there's a
> > third #371. ;) Here's the cover:
> >
> > http://www.mindspring.com/~mhuffman/picts/0371-01.jpg
i don't think this is fake... looks fine to me... weird...
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.general, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
>
>
> > (fake expert)
> > http://www-public.tu-bs.de:8080/~rbeneke/lego/misc/misc.html#fun
>
> BTW: Ben means "a real expert on fakes" not "an imitation expert" :-)
>
> ++Lar
Hi ++Lar,
to be honest, the doubt on the 371 plan was first uttered by Arne Hackstein,
one of the most profund experts on all kind of old Lego® sets. Whenever I have
a really tricky problem, he's the one to solve it.
Regards,
Ben
|
|
| |
After I saw the rest of the building instruction, I'm totally doubting.
I never saw a so badly drawn building instruction! Compare the wheels in the
steps three and four.
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/4976/0371-03.jpg
Looks really like drawn by hand. But that's a fact which makes me believe in
that instruction even more.
Or the white 2x3x0.33 plates in step seven: even in the idea books there are no
such low quality drawings.
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/4976/0371-04.jpg
But where's the battery box? At least there's a way for the cables to the motor
contacts.
I'm really confused about that building instruction and have never seen
somthing similar before....
Regards,
Ben
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> In lugnet.general, Michael Huffman writes:
> > Just went through a bunch of instuctions that I won on
> > e-Bay last year. I was going through them so I
> > could give them to a friend & started looking them up
> > on Lugnet so he could get an idea of what I had &
> > didn't find this one listed. Looks like there's a
> > third #371. ;) Here's the cover:
> >
> > http://www.mindspring.com/~mhuffman/picts/0371-01.jpg
> >
> > The rest have been uploaded to Brickshelf.
> >
> > --Mike.
>
> Well done work, but it's not April the first today....
>
> I think this could be a faked instruction:
Doesn't look like a fake to me... but a MUCH better job of faking than I've
ever seen if it IS a fake... There are too many little details that'd need to
be faked to make this worthwhile...
> - to much plates used
Well, I have 332 (Tow Truck) which also had a good plates to brick ratio... I
don't think it's a terribly invalid design... plus, they weren't as concerned
about juniorization back then..
> - not to find in any old catalogue
That's true for a lot of sets... and not all catalogs have been found and
scanned by the fan population, mind you..
> - where's the battery box?
Well, the battery box isn't pictured. I seem to remember that being done in
some other sets... either that or you'd have a wire trailing off somewhere off
camera... and granted that the motor appears to be under the cab (and fits with
the old style design pretty well, I might add), it might look a little silly to
add it into the picture. I expect it would be left out.
> - the exhaust falls off to easy
True, but poor design never stopped TLC from making a set.
> - to nice to be true
Why's that? I think it looks like a very plausible old set, and if I remember
correctly, very on par with the other sets pictured in my old catalogs at home
(one of which HASN'T been posted anywhere, [but I did slip one copy to Kevin
Loch at one of our NELUG meetings... just never made it up, I suppose].. I'll
have to check tonight to see if this truck is mentioned in the catalog I have.)
> - take a clooser look at upper right edge of picture: looks like photo glued
> on old instruction.
Looks more to me like it's just the black border that runs around the picture
creating that effect, not actually a shadow from a raised picture. Besides, the
crinkle on the left hand side protrudes its way on both the border AND the
picture-- another tough thing to fake (and EXTREMELY well done if so) There's
also other scuff on the scan that make it look plausible, not to mention that
the other two existing 371's DON'T have the same cover design with the number
"371" on it, making it even more work to fake the number 371, especailly with
the discoloration...
> just my thought....
>
> Ben
>
> (fake expert)
> http://www-public.tu-bs.de:8080/~rbeneke/lego/misc/misc.html#fun
Well, my hat goes off to your April fools day fakes-- they had me going for the
first minute I looked at them... But this one has me completely fooled if it is
truely a fake. One main reason for that being: Why? Why on Earth would you
BOTHER faking this set? Your April Fools fakes actually got people excited
about something NEW, but this is something old... People will most likely not
really care so much about this set.. Why go through the hassle of faking it?
(and doing a PHENOMENALLY good job if so)
Anyway, looks real enough to me.
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
>
> After I saw the rest of the building instruction, I'm totally doubting.
>
> I never saw a so badly drawn building instruction! Compare the wheels in the
> steps three and four.
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/4976/0371-03.jpg
> Looks really like drawn by hand. But that's a fact which makes me believe in
> that instruction even more.
>
> Or the white 2x3x0.33 plates in step seven: even in the idea books there are • no
> such low quality drawings.
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/4976/0371-04.jpg
>
> But where's the battery box? At least there's a way for the cables to the • motor
> contacts.
>
> I'm really confused about that building instruction and have never seen
> somthing similar before....
>
> Regards,
>
> Ben
I would have to side on the belief that this is a fake for a couple of
reasons. After looking at 60's and early 70's instructions on brickshelf I
would say that the poor quality of these instructions is a dead giveaway.
I would also like to point out that a long nose tractor with tandem axles in
rear and a sleeper that is over the top of the cab is a clear product of the
80's and 90's. Trucks just did not look like this in the 60's and 70's.
Also note that these sets were only available in Europe, not the US where a
truck that looks like this would be most likely to be found.
On another note, the battery box could be held in the hand and it would hook
to the motor just in front of the windshield. Look at the instructions for
335 (I think?) for an example of this old style motor.
If I'm wrong about this I will gladly eat my words!
Daniel
|
|
| |
I'd have to agree that this is a fake. My reasons:
1) Instructions are too crude, even by 60's standards. Also, have a look
at the following URL...it's supposed to be another page from the same
booklet but the quality is many times greater!
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/4976/0371-06.jpg
2) Numbers on the cover are dead-ringers for the self-adhesive ones you can
but at office-supply stores...and they're NOT like the numbers used on other
instructions of the era
3) Just saw something else...the later pages of this instruction book have
vehicles with black tires while the main model has grey.
Is that enough to convince any fence sitters?
Will
Lego Beach Department of Emergency Services
www.crosswinds.net/~hokie
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Will Hess writes:
> I'd have to agree that this is a fake. My reasons:
> 1) Instructions are too crude, even by 60's standards. Also, have a look
> at the following URL...it's supposed to be another page from the same
> booklet but the quality is many times greater!
Yes, because that's a set sold in whole europe (probably made in Denmark),
while set 371 might be UK only... I know thats a weak argument.
> Is that enough to convince any fence sitters?
Have you notices the 3studs over edge plate in step one? In the next step thatt
might be a 2x2x0.33 and in the third a 1x1x0.33 plus a 2x1x0.33 combination....
Why is there a wheel used as bogie, although there heve been the 4x4x1
turntables (like used in 1966th set 113?
Why no 6x24 plates, but two 6x12 ones?
A lot of questions and no reaction from the one who "scanned" the set....
totally confused,
Ben
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> In lugnet.general, Michael Huffman writes:
> > Just went through a bunch of instuctions that I won on
> > e-Bay last year. I was going through them so I
> > could give them to a friend & started looking them up
> > on Lugnet so he could get an idea of what I had &
> > didn't find this one listed. Looks like there's a
> > third #371. ;) Here's the cover:
> >
> > http://www.mindspring.com/~mhuffman/picts/0371-01.jpg
> >
> > The rest have been uploaded to Brickshelf.
> >
> > --Mike.
>
> Well done work, but it's not April the first today....
>
> I think this could be a faked instruction:
>
> - to much plates used
> - not to find in any old catalogue
> - where's the battery box?
> - the exhaust falls off to easy
> - to nice to be true
>
> - take a clooser look at upper right edge of picture: looks like photo glued • on
> old instruction.
>
> just my thought....
>
> Ben
>
> (fake expert)
> http://www-public.tu-bs.de:8080/~rbeneke/lego/misc/misc.html#fun
I believe this is real, or at least I don't have any reason
yet to believe it is fake.
I just put it up at http://www.brickshelf.com/scans/0000/0371/
KL
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Will Hess writes:
> I'd have to agree that this is a fake. My reasons:
>
> 1) Instructions are too crude, even by 60's standards. Also, have a look
> at the following URL...it's supposed to be another page from the same
> booklet but the quality is many times greater!
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/4976/0371-06.jpg
I've been looking at instructions for other late 60's stuff, and I will agree,
the drawings there look a LOT better quality than this one, but as for this,
well, that exact image is from another catalog, just re-used in this one.
Actually, I think you can find nearly the same image elsewhere on brickshelf,
as was done with that line of trucks... Anyway, TLC could easily just slap on a
pre-made picture as opposed to drawing a new one...
> 2) Numbers on the cover are dead-ringers for the self-adhesive ones you can
> but at office-supply stores...and they're NOT like the numbers used on other
> instructions of the era
True, but also an oddity. Among the pictures I've been looking at, there were a
few different fonts for numbers. And covering up the old numbers AND sticking
on new ones would be tough... MUCH more believeable that the numbers would be
added digitally rather than stick ons.
> 3) Just saw something else...the later pages of this instruction book have
> vehicles with black tires while the main model has grey.
Where was that? I didn't see that... Unless you're referring to the wheels on
the photographed image on 'page' 7? I think those are just shadowed gray
anyway... Didn't see black elsewhere...
> Is that enough to convince any fence sitters?
Nah... I'm just too bothered by the question "why?" Why BOTHER? Who would care
about another unheard-of late 60's truck set? Frankly, I'm amazed that this
thread even started... The quality of the drawing is the only thing to me
suggesting that it's even possibly fake. But then again, for someone to fake it
SO well in one place, it seems like they'd take the extra effort to fake it
well in other places. But most of all, I don't think it unreasonable to be a
bona fide set of instructions. In short, there just isn't enough suggesting to
me that it IS a fake.
DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Michael Huffman writes:
>
> To be honest, it isn't a fake. Unless some one created fake
> instructions & sold them to me on eBay... but I got them along
> other instructions that _are_ up on Brickshelf, and a copy
> of Yellow Castle instructions (which I was really going after
> at the time).
>
> However, the non-instruction parts (or the live photos) of other
> sets 331/332/333 included this copy of #371 along with the other
> large vehicles.
A friend of mine is now really sure, this set has to be faked: he found a set,
which has exactely that name "motorized truck set" of yours and uses the same
last 4 pictures, but it has the number 310.
If you want to take a look at his set 310, please go here:
http://www.f5.parsimony.net/forum5725/messages/7209.htm
I still have no opinion on the fake none-fake thing...
Doubting Regards,
Ben
(Fan of all the trucks with steering and thus very interested....)
my site with these vehicles:
http://www-public.tu-bs.de:8080/~rbeneke/lego/steering/steering.html
|
|
| |
It is possible that two other things are happening here.
1) The images shown are from a prototype catalog that an old designer kept
in his or her collection. Some type of mock up.
2) This is an authentic forgery from another company. Similar to that eBay
castle from Saudi Arabia about 8 months or a year ago.
I think the discussion has centered around the fact that someone digitally
created a fake similar to what Ben did not too long. Just my two cents.
-Nick
David Eaton <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message
news:Fupzvq.n4@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.general, Will Hess writes:
> > I'd have to agree that this is a fake. My reasons:
> >
> > 1) Instructions are too crude, even by 60's standards. Also, have a • look
> > at the following URL...it's supposed to be another page from the same
> > booklet but the quality is many times greater!
> > http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/4976/0371-06.jpg
>
> I've been looking at instructions for other late 60's stuff, and I will • agree,
> the drawings there look a LOT better quality than this one, but as for • this,
> well, that exact image is from another catalog, just re-used in this one.
> Actually, I think you can find nearly the same image elsewhere on • brickshelf,
> as was done with that line of trucks... Anyway, TLC could easily just slap • on a
> pre-made picture as opposed to drawing a new one...
>
> > 2) Numbers on the cover are dead-ringers for the self-adhesive ones you • can
> > but at office-supply stores...and they're NOT like the numbers used on • other
> > instructions of the era
>
> True, but also an oddity. Among the pictures I've been looking at, there • were a
> few different fonts for numbers. And covering up the old numbers AND • sticking
> on new ones would be tough... MUCH more believeable that the numbers would • be
> added digitally rather than stick ons.
>
> > 3) Just saw something else...the later pages of this instruction book • have
> > vehicles with black tires while the main model has grey.
>
> Where was that? I didn't see that... Unless you're referring to the wheels • on
> the photographed image on 'page' 7? I think those are just shadowed gray
> anyway... Didn't see black elsewhere...
>
> > Is that enough to convince any fence sitters?
>
> Nah... I'm just too bothered by the question "why?" Why BOTHER? Who would • care
> about another unheard-of late 60's truck set? Frankly, I'm amazed that • this
> thread even started... The quality of the drawing is the only thing to me
> suggesting that it's even possibly fake. But then again, for someone to • fake it
> SO well in one place, it seems like they'd take the extra effort to fake • it
> well in other places. But most of all, I don't think it unreasonable to be • a
> bona fide set of instructions. In short, there just isn't enough • suggesting to
> me that it IS a fake.
>
> DaveE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> In lugnet.general, Michael Huffman writes:
> >
> > To be honest, it isn't a fake. Unless some one created fake
> > instructions & sold them to me on eBay... but I got them along
> > other instructions that _are_ up on Brickshelf, and a copy
> > of Yellow Castle instructions (which I was really going after
> > at the time).
> >
> > However, the non-instruction parts (or the live photos) of other
> > sets 331/332/333 included this copy of #371 along with the other
> > large vehicles.
>
> A friend of mine is now really sure, this set has to be faked: he found a set,
> which has exactely that name "motorized truck set" of yours and uses the same
> last 4 pictures, but it has the number 310.
>
> If you want to take a look at his set 310, please go here:
> http://www.f5.parsimony.net/forum5725/messages/7209.htm
>
> I still have no opinion on the fake none-fake thing...
>
> Doubting Regards,
>
> Ben
>
> (Fan of all the trucks with steering and thus very interested....)
> my site with these vehicles:
> http://www-public.tu-bs.de:8080/~rbeneke/lego/steering/steering.html
It looks like you could build the truck in question from the parts in that
picture. I still think it's real
KL
|
|
| |
For those of you in the general public, I posted all 8 pages of
the instructions on:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/4976/
Sorry for the hideous page colors... It was left over from an
early web design attempt.
> After I saw the rest of the building instruction, I'm totally
> doubting.
>
> I never saw a so badly drawn building instruction! Compare the
> wheels in the steps three and four.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/4976/0371-03.jpg
>
> Looks really like drawn by hand. But that's a fact which makes
> me believe in that instruction even more.
To be honest, it isn't a fake. Unless some one created fake
instructions & sold them to me on eBay... but I got them along
other instructions that _are_ up on Brickshelf, and a copy
of Yellow Castle instructions (which I was really going after
at the time).
However, the non-instruction parts (or the live photos) of other
sets 331/332/333 included this copy of #371 along with the other
large vehicles. They are slightly different from the ones posted
on Kevin's site -- I'll scan them in tonight after work and post
them on the same page (see above) tomorrow.
> Or the white 2x3x0.33 plates in step seven: even in the idea
> books there are no such low quality drawings.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/4976/0371-04.jpg
>
> But where's the battery box? At least there's a way for the
> cables to the motor contacts.
I thought the drawings were a little crude at first also. But
then again, I have fairly limited knowledge pre-80's sets.
Also, I'm not familiar with the battery box included
in the instructions -- I think I have something similar, but
in black... I need to check.
> I'm really confused about that building instruction and have
> never seen somthing similar before....
I'm wondering if the quality has something to do that it might
be a Samsonite set?
--Mike.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> In lugnet.general, Michael Huffman writes:
> > Just went through a bunch of instuctions that I won on
> > e-Bay last year. I was going through them so I
> > could give them to a friend & started looking them up
> > on Lugnet so he could get an idea of what I had &
> > didn't find this one listed. Looks like there's a
> > third #371. ;) Here's the cover:
> >
> > http://www.mindspring.com/~mhuffman/picts/0371-01.jpg
> >
> > The rest have been uploaded to Brickshelf.
> >
> > --Mike.
>
> Well done work, but it's not April the first today....
>
> I think this could be a faked instruction:
>
> - to much plates used
> - not to find in any old catalogue
> - where's the battery box?
> - the exhaust falls off to easy
> - to nice to be true
>
> - take a clooser look at upper right edge of picture: looks like photo glued • on
> old instruction.
>
> just my thought....
>
> Ben
>
> (fake expert)
> http://www-public.tu-bs.de:8080/~rbeneke/lego/misc/misc.html#fun
|
|
| |
Oops....new computer at work - clicked too soon...sorry about the blank
message...
Bricksmiths, do you accept outside nominations?
Get Ben in REALLY FAST.
I want that 4479 train car set and the 4460 engine....
PLEASE???
:-)
Paul Sinasohn
bearitone@my-deja.com
|
|
| |
Maybe I'm missing something really basic here, but I'm certain
that the 2x2 "L" shaped plates used in the fender assembly shown
in step one were not even available until the late 80's. The
1x3 plates were also not available in this era, and were introduced
in the late 70's
And, oddly, step two actually shows that the 2x2 "L's" spontaneously
change into 1x2 plates instead. This is most laughable since if it
were correct, would make the fender hopelessly weak and fragile once
the weight of the exhaust pipes in step four were added. Actually,
the fender is hopelessly weak in either case -- since it is still
relying only on 1x2s for support. IMHO, there is 100% liklihood
that no TLG model designer would make such an outrageously poorly
engineered construction.
Here is my take: Someone found a photo of this truck. It is either
an MOC, or perhaps from an old idea book or old store display. They
attempted to make instructions for the truck based on how they
thought it might be built. Unfortunately, their Lego history was
weak, and they inadvertently used parts that were not even available
in the era the truck is supposed to be from. Not only that, they
are both poor at making instructions, and poor at contrstructing
models from a picture. I'd say again (with high liklihood) that the
fender assembly in question uses a 2x2 plate to hold it onto the
truck in the front, and a 2x3 plate to hold it onto the underside of
the motor in the rear. I make this conclusion by looking at the
picture of the truck on the instruction book cover, and by using
common sense.
All, IMNSHO.
Mark K
"Michael Huffman" <mhuffman@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:392322B2.59C6C064@mindspring.com...
> For those of you in the general public, I posted all 8 pages of
> the instructions on:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/4976/
>
> Sorry for the hideous page colors... It was left over from an
> early web design attempt.
|
|
| |
I whole heartedly agree with Mark's take on this scam - I mean scan.
Neither of the pieces mentioned were availble at this time. And, based on a
previous comment, this is not even a sixties era real truck design. I can't say
I believe the original poster that this is a real instruction that he has. If it
is, just put some other scans up that show that this is not a digital
manipulation. Let's see the instructions carefully folded over to reveal both
sides at once as well as the natural error such a scan would produce. Or how
about a scan showing multiple images or even the entire page at once. How about
showing a hand lifting the scan off the glass a bit to see some distortion. I am
highly suspect and surprised so many legendary lego fans have been taken by
this. It is a cool trick, and well done, but common sense should reveal that
this is a forgery.
PS While I have the attention of classic experts. I have some Samsonite 60's era
legos with variations I would like confirmed. I have a 334 with a RED 1x6
transport piece. And, I have a 343 Ferry boat with RED windows. I almost 100%
sure these are complete and original, but I am looking for support. (Besides,
what other set had a 1x6 RED transport piece)
Thanks,
Jason
(aka. jasonpro1, jplego)
In lugnet.general, Mark Koesel writes:
> Maybe I'm missing something really basic here, but I'm certain
> that the 2x2 "L" shaped plates used in the fender assembly shown
> in step one were not even available until the late 80's. The
> 1x3 plates were also not available in this era, and were introduced
> in the late 70's
>
> And, oddly, step two actually shows that the 2x2 "L's" spontaneously
> change into 1x2 plates instead. This is most laughable since if it
> were correct, would make the fender hopelessly weak and fragile once
> the weight of the exhaust pipes in step four were added. Actually,
> the fender is hopelessly weak in either case -- since it is still
> relying only on 1x2s for support. IMHO, there is 100% liklihood
> that no TLG model designer would make such an outrageously poorly
> engineered construction.
>
> Here is my take: Someone found a photo of this truck. It is either
> an MOC, or perhaps from an old idea book or old store display. They
> attempted to make instructions for the truck based on how they
> thought it might be built. Unfortunately, their Lego history was
> weak, and they inadvertently used parts that were not even available
> in the era the truck is supposed to be from. Not only that, they
> are both poor at making instructions, and poor at contrstructing
> models from a picture. I'd say again (with high liklihood) that the
> fender assembly in question uses a 2x2 plate to hold it onto the
> truck in the front, and a 2x3 plate to hold it onto the underside of
> the motor in the rear. I make this conclusion by looking at the
> picture of the truck on the instruction book cover, and by using
> common sense.
>
> All, IMNSHO.
>
> Mark K
>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Daniel Wayne Poole writes:
> I would have to side on the belief that this is a fake for a couple of
> reasons. After looking at 60's and early 70's instructions on brickshelf I
> would say that the poor quality of these instructions is a dead giveaway.
> I would also like to point out that a long nose tractor with tandem axles in
> rear and a sleeper that is over the top of the cab is a clear product of the
> 80's and 90's. Trucks just did not look like this in the 60's and 70's.
> Also note that these sets were only available in Europe, not the US where a
> truck that looks like this would be most likely to be found.
> On another note, the battery box could be held in the hand and it would hook
> to the motor just in front of the windshield. Look at the instructions for
> 335 (I think?) for an example of this old style motor.
While I can't say much about real trucks, it seems that all the
early (grey-tire) trucks had a stack of black and clear 1x2 plates
for a grille, with a red 2x3-4knob-with-hole rounded plate for string
attachment sticking out. At some point (after the first few black-tire
trucks) they lose the red plate and get a black 1x2 for a grille.
Those instructions show a clear 2x2 (which I've not seen on any truck)
while the front picture has either a very clear pin-less 1x2 or
just a gap.
While I don't know whether the pin-less 1x2 bricks came out after
the year range this truck might fall into (though I'd guess they
were later - about '74?), the instructions show 2 1x2s of this
kind on the bottom layer of the windshield with 2 1x1s and a 1x2
as the second layer in step 2, which is reversed in step 4.
The picture shows probably the setup of step 2, though the upper
layer may be a 1x4 or two 1x2s. Either way, the pin-less 1x2s
never were used in plain clear (only trans-colors and maybe the
1x2 "LEGO" steering brick?) until some point in the 80s.
The instructions also show those 1x2s in the side windows, which
are made from 2xXs in the picture. The pillars in between
are 1x1s in the instructions, but the picture seems to have
1x4s there. Of note in the very sloppy instructions is that
the lines are nevertheless extremely straight, even though
they're often bizarrely angled - cheap paint program?
-gbr
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Jason Proksch writes:
>
> PS While I have the attention of classic experts. I have some Samsonite 60's • era
> legos with variations I would like confirmed. I have a 334 with a RED 1x6
> transport piece. And, I have a 343 Ferry boat with RED windows. I almost 100%
> sure these are complete and original, but I am looking for support. (Besides,
> what other set had a 1x6 RED transport piece)
>
> Thanks,
> Jason
> (aka. jasonpro1, jplego)
Hi Jason,
I'm just a half expert on old sets, since I'm too young for those really old
sets out of the 60ies, and I live in Europe, so I have kno knowledge on
Samsonite era.
But as far as I know I have never seen a red 6x1x1 brick with "TRANSPORT". But
I do remember seeing a 343 ferry boat with red windows some time ago on the
net. But I'm not sure if that was a oficcial set or just a fan made imitation.
Regards,
Ben
Who sold the 371 instruction? Has that guy a name and can he tell something
about the most rare building instruction on earth? After 36 hours nobody
who have has heared of that set: that makes me more sceptical again.
I was nearly accepting it as a regular TLG paper yesterday, but now the doubts
grow again.....
|
|
| |
Michael Huffman wrote in message <392322B2.59C6C064@mindspring.com>...
>
> > I'm really confused about that building instruction and have
> > never seen somthing similar before....
>
> I'm wondering if the quality has something to do that it might
> be a Samsonite set?
Yes, I agree, my feeling is that this is a Samsonite set, or at least a
US-only set. I'm no expert on old sets, but isn't putting a descriptive name
in _English_ on the picture A) a little odd for an
internationally-distributed set, and B) something that occurred frequently
in U.S. sets? I have a Galaxy Explorer box and instructions from the U.S.
which have the name "Galaxy Explorer" on the main box and instruction
picture. I don't think that I've _ever_ seen this on a set that came from
outside the U.S.
Cheers,
Paul
LUGNET member 164
http://www.geocities.com/doctorshnub/
|
|
| |
Jason Proksch <jasonpro@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Furq7M.157@lugnet.com...
> PS While I have the attention of classic experts. I have some Samsonite • 60's era
> legos with variations I would like confirmed. I have a 334 with a RED 1x6
> transport piece. And, I have a 343 Ferry boat with RED windows. I almost • 100%
> sure these are complete and original, but I am looking for support. • (Besides,
> what other set had a 1x6 RED transport piece)
You're _not_ the first person to mention this brick. It wasn't listed for
any sets. #335 used a red 1x4...
I'll trawl my old messages to see if I can find the name of the other
poster...
Just Jono .oO
|
|
| |
I never previously doubted, nor do I now doubt that you actually
have the instructions in your possession.
What I do doubt is that they are instructions from any actual
Lego set. These are either created (somewhat poorly) by a fan,
as an internal TLG prototype, or by some "knock-off" company.
Note that, I also contend that whoever did create the instructions
almost certainly did so by trying to copy the picture of the model;
the instructions are too error-laiden to have been created by the
same fan that created the original model.
I like the idea that suggested these were created in a paint
program. That would explain the lack of consistency throughout
the steps.
Michael, where did you say you got the instructions again -- an
Ebay auction was it? Why not encourage the seller to participate
in this discussion?
Mark K
"Michael Huffman" <mhuffman@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:39257EA1.66061F52@mindspring.com...
[major snippage]
> I hope to be the best example of proof.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/4976/0000/misc/room-008.jpg
|
|
| |
>
> Sorry, it's probably been 4-6 months since I won the instructions,
> not to mention I don't remember who I won them from without doing
> some major searching... That and it seemed like they didn't
> collect LEGO; maybe found them at a garage sell & sold them to
> me... But I'll look.
>
> --Mike.
Regardless of whether this set is fake or real, I would have to say that this
is the most valuable instructions you got on ebay, in that it's kept a good
controversy going here for several days. Hold on to that puppy. If it can
keep us scratching our heads, it's an awesome piece of work. I want a copy
just for that reason.
Markus
Who still wonders if the moon landing was real, and believes that World
Wrestling is for sure... :O)
|
|
| |
> 1) The images shown are from a prototype catalog that an old designer kept
> in his or her collection. Some type of mock up.
After looking at the pics and scans, this is my opinion as well. This looks
very much like a comp or a design that is still undergoing revision.
Chris Busse
http://www.bussetech.com
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Michael Huffman writes:
> Also, if this doesn't clear up any doubt, let me know. I'm willing
> to send the set of instructions to any classic LEGO expert to
> verify or deny it's authenticity... as long as they can guarantee
> that the instructions will not be harmed & returned promptly.
I am by no means an expert on classic sets, but I work with a team of graphic
designers who are experts when it comes to printing and the design process. I
could have them look at it and they would be able to determine what type of
process, equipment, and technology were used to create the instructions you
have. One of the guys is an expert on all types of printing processes and
fontography, even older stuff, and would most likely be able to tell if any
digital process was used, as well as what printing presses were used based on
how the colors are physicly applied to the page, etc.
If you wish to send them to me I will have them look at it and return them
promptly and with extreme care, along with their input.
I love a good mystery!
Chris Busse
cbusse@infi.net
http://www.bussetech.com
|
|
| |
"Michael Huffman" <mhuffman@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:392592E1.D493EEC6@mindspring.com...
> Mark Koesel wrote:
>
> > I never previously doubted, nor do I now doubt that you actually
> > have the instructions in your possession.
>
> Sorry. No offence/hostility intended.
No need for an apology, I too meant no offense nor hostility. I was
just making my stance clear, that's all :)
> They are printed, with the same 'feel' as the 331/332/333
> instructions. They don't feel like they were printed out on a
> color printer on glossy paper -- say at Kinko's or something --
> they're very much have an 'old' feel to them.
Which suggests that maybe they were created by someone at TLG,
perhaps. Or perhaps the person who created them simply had access
to high end printing equipment at the time. It is a curious, I
admit.
> I agree, looking at it now, there are several errors, missing
> steps & very difficult reading what parts should be used (ie.
> could it had be intended that it was a 2x2 plate instead of a
> 2x2 L plate? but because of the bad drawing, it looks to us
> like a 2x2 L plate?)
I'd say that the errors were most likely introduced because the
instructions were created by someone trying to copy the model
from the picture, and not because of mistakes made in printing
or drawing the instructions.
> Now as the to TLG prototype, is there any wat to give the Form
> number at the bottom of the last page to TLG and have them
> verify it?
Not likley, unless you knew someone who worked at TLG, and could
do the research.
> Sorry, it's probably been 4-6 months since I won the instructions,
> not to mention I don't remember who I won them from without doing
> some major searching... That and it seemed like they didn't
> collect LEGO; maybe found them at a garage sell & sold them to
> me... But I'll look.
Yes, please try and track them down. Without their cooperation, it
may be impossible to determine the source of this strange piece of
literature.
Mark K
|
|
| |
Jason Proksch wrote:
> I whole heartedly agree with Mark's take on this scam - I
> mean scan. Neither of the pieces mentioned were availble at
> this time. And, based on a previous comment, this is not even
> a sixties era real truck design. I can't say I believe the
> original poster that this is a real instruction that he has. If
> it is, just put some other scans up that show that this is not
> a digital manipulation. Let's see the instructions carefully
> folded over to reveal both sides at once as well as the natural
> error such a scan would produce. Or how about a scan showing
> multiple images or even the entire page at once. How about
> showing a hand lifting the scan off the glass a bit to see
> some distortion. I am highly suspect and surprised so many
> legendary lego fans have been taken by this. It is a cool trick,
> and well done, but common sense should reveal that
> this is a forgery.
Reinhard \"Ben\" Beneke wrote:
> Who sold the 371 instruction? Has that guy a name and can
> he tell something about the most rare building instruction on
> earth? After 36 hours nobody who have has heared of that set:
> that makes me more sceptical again. I was nearly accepting it
> as a regular TLG paper yesterday, but now the doubts grow
> again.....
I was going to post something yesterday, but got very busy with
work... That and I read Jason's posting about wanting more
scans. Well here they are:
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/4976/
Picts 1-4 show the instructions on my sorting table. Picts 5-6
are just test picts of my LEGO room (I moved into my house a
few months back & hadn't had time to move all my LEGO upstairs
yet). Picts 7-10 are more 'action' shots -- hopefully proving
that it's not a digital forgery. I offer pict 8 as to what
I hope to be the best example of proof.
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/4976/0000/misc/room-008.jpg
I had rescanned in page 7 & 8 of the #371 instructions to show
the "printed in USA" line, and had planned on posted them
yesterday, but the more I thought about it, it would seemed like
a slide-of-hand trick; so I waited until I was able to post
the 'action' shots. As you can see in 7a & 8a, they're weren't
digital manipulations of the 332 instruction or a MOC print pasted
to another instruction page.
I also posted picts for 331/332/333. They were printed in the US,
and are slightly different from the Euro version.
Now, I do apologize. I did state in a previous post:
"However, the non-instruction parts (or the live photos)
of other sets 331/332/333 included this copy of #371
along with the other large vehicles."
I mistook the #334 in the pictures for the #371. All classic blue
semi's look the same to me at 4am when I scanned them. ;)
Also, if this doesn't clear up any doubt, let me know. I'm willing
to send the set of instructions to any classic LEGO expert to
verify or deny it's authenticity... as long as they can guarantee
that the instructions will not be harmed & returned promptly.
--Mike.
|
|
| |
I just wanted to thank Michael Huffman for this scan. I mean that sincerely too.
This has been very exciting. I never posted to this web site before, but this
was the catalyst for my participation. I am still a bit confused, but must admit
those latest pictures are quite convincing. I apologize for my harsh critique
earlier in this thread. Even if it is not real and you did some how manage to
create such a fine instruction sheet, I compliment you on your craftsmanship.
The current evidence suggests that this clearly is not just a digital
manipulation. Furthermore, the sheet itself appears to at least be printed on a
material very similar (if not the exact same) as other sheets of the era. I am
not convinced this is from a real set, however. I plan to do some research into
60's era real semi's (as I know very little) to see when models of this style
were produced. What a great mystery!
I think we can narrow the possibilities down to 4:
1. This is a real set that we somehow never knew about. (It is possible. It
seems that US 60's lego (Samsonite) are not well known. We do know they used
different materials and I believe diffrerent colors. Hey, that reminds me I have
a genuine Samsonite early 60's set for a giant two story house in a huge box. I
have never seen that listed anywhere - I am at work but I think it is #717 or
possibly #712. Anyone heard of this one? - I know not as interesting...)
2. This is some sort of prototype that never got past the instruction stage (why
would they make such a formal instruction sheet for a non existent set? Perhaps
that would explain the errors and problems with the drawings)
3. This was a highly crafted forgery that was given to Michael with the other
scans without him knowing it was a fake. (What would be the reason for creating
something so detailed only to forget about it and eventually sell it?)
4. Michael created this as a joke. (He would have to be very good? And based on
his messages, be pretty mischievous. He sure comes across sincere.)
I am now leaning more toward the first 2 options. Perhaps the poor quality
reflects Samsonites inability to match lego's quality. Come to think of it, my
#717? Samsonite has some errors (or inconsistencies) in its instructions as
well.
But, the big question is, should this scan be verified - would it be up for
sale? What would it be worth?
Thanks for a great thread!
Jason Proksch
In lugnet.general, Michael Huffman writes:
> Mark Koesel wrote:
>
> > I never previously doubted, nor do I now doubt that you actually
> > have the instructions in your possession.
>
> Sorry. No offence/hostility intended.
>
> > What I do doubt is that they are instructions from any actual
> > Lego set. These are either created (somewhat poorly) by a fan,
> > as an internal TLG prototype, or by some "knock-off" company.
> >
> > Note that, I also contend that whoever did create the instructions
> > almost certainly did so by trying to copy the picture of the model;
> > the instructions are too error-laiden to have been created by the
> > same fan that created the original model.
> >
> > I like the idea that suggested these were created in a paint
> > program. That would explain the lack of consistency throughout
> > the steps.
>
> They are printed, with the same 'feel' as the 331/332/333
> instructions. They don't feel like they were printed out on a
> color printer on glossy paper -- say at Kinko's or something --
> they're very much have an 'old' feel to them.
>
> I agree, looking at it now, there are several errors, missing
> steps & very difficult reading what parts should be used (ie.
> could it had be intended that it was a 2x2 plate instead of a
> 2x2 L plate? but because of the bad drawing, it looks to us
> like a 2x2 L plate?)
>
> Now as the to TLG prototype, is there any wat to give the Form
> number at the bottom of the last page to TLG and have them
> verify it?
>
> > Michael, where did you say you got the instructions again -- an
> > Ebay auction was it? Why not encourage the seller to participate
> > in this discussion?
>
> Sorry, it's probably been 4-6 months since I won the instructions,
> not to mention I don't remember who I won them from without doing
> some major searching... That and it seemed like they didn't
> collect LEGO; maybe found them at a garage sell & sold them to
> me... But I'll look.
>
> --Mike.
|
|
| |
> I would have to side on the belief that this is a fake for a couple of
> reasons. After looking at 60's and early 70's instructions on brickshelf I
> would say that the poor quality of these instructions is a dead giveaway.
> I would also like to point out that a long nose tractor with tandem axles in
> rear and a sleeper that is over the top of the cab is a clear product of the
> 80's and 90's. Trucks just did not look like this in the 60's and 70's.
I tried to find some pictures on the web of trucks from the era. I didn't have
a ton of luck, but the following page has a few:
http://www.aths.org/OTStuff/gather.htm
The 1953 Mack most of the way down the page drew my eye--except for the shorter
nose, it bears a decent resemblance to the supposed 371 IMHO.
Alan
|
|
| |
Mark Koesel wrote:
> I never previously doubted, nor do I now doubt that you actually
> have the instructions in your possession.
Sorry. No offence/hostility intended.
> What I do doubt is that they are instructions from any actual
> Lego set. These are either created (somewhat poorly) by a fan,
> as an internal TLG prototype, or by some "knock-off" company.
>
> Note that, I also contend that whoever did create the instructions
> almost certainly did so by trying to copy the picture of the model;
> the instructions are too error-laiden to have been created by the
> same fan that created the original model.
>
> I like the idea that suggested these were created in a paint
> program. That would explain the lack of consistency throughout
> the steps.
They are printed, with the same 'feel' as the 331/332/333
instructions. They don't feel like they were printed out on a
color printer on glossy paper -- say at Kinko's or something --
they're very much have an 'old' feel to them.
I agree, looking at it now, there are several errors, missing
steps & very difficult reading what parts should be used (ie.
could it had be intended that it was a 2x2 plate instead of a
2x2 L plate? but because of the bad drawing, it looks to us
like a 2x2 L plate?)
Now as the to TLG prototype, is there any wat to give the Form
number at the bottom of the last page to TLG and have them
verify it?
> Michael, where did you say you got the instructions again -- an
> Ebay auction was it? Why not encourage the seller to participate
> in this discussion?
Sorry, it's probably been 4-6 months since I won the instructions,
not to mention I don't remember who I won them from without doing
some major searching... That and it seemed like they didn't
collect LEGO; maybe found them at a garage sell & sold them to
me... But I'll look.
--Mike.
|
|
| |
Jason Proksch wrote:
<major snippage>
> I am now leaning more toward the first 2 options. Perhaps the poor quality
> reflects Samsonites inability to match lego's quality. Come to think of it, my
> #717? Samsonite has some errors (or inconsistencies) in its instructions as
> well.
Did someone say "Junior Constructor"? Set 717..... from 1961-64. Is that the one
you are talking about Jason (by the way, glad you decided to "de-lurk"). If so, are
you talking about the earlier gabled house (1961-62) or the later flat roofed house
(1963-64) version of the Junior Constructor? I always thought the building
instructions were only on the inside lid of the box. Do you have other instructions
to this set? (Note: I first got the later version of thiis set as a kid in 1963, my
mother threw away the box, and I obtained another complete set on EBAY in 1998.)
Also, the (Samsonite only) Junior Constructor was the first model kit LEGO ever sold
(it was not part of the Town Plan).
Gary Istok
|
|
| |
Selçuk Göre wrote:
> Gary Istok wrote:
> >
> > Jason Proksch wrote:
> >
> > <major snippage>
> >
> > > I am now leaning more toward the first 2 options. Perhaps the poor quality
> > > reflects Samsonites inability to match lego's quality. Come to think of it, my
> > > #717? Samsonite has some errors (or inconsistencies) in its instructions as
> > > well.
> >
> >
> > Did someone say "Junior Constructor"? Set 717.....
>
> Muwahahh..:-) I knew that Gary would jump on this..:-) You make a lugnet
> search for "junior 717" everyday, don't you?..:-)
>
> Selçuk
Heck no, I just go home and get out the box, open it up, and smell the Cellulose
Acetate bricks.... a much nicer aroma than ABS ever had. Actually I have the model
house built. I have the 1963-64 version, which is of a flat roofed modern house (this
is the one shown in the LUGNET database for #717). My "holy grail" is to one day find
the 1961-62 version, which is of a European "manor house" gable roofed style (finders
fee). That earlier version, shown in the Joe Lauher/Bill Katz website (what ever
happened to Bill anyway???) in the top middle of the 1961-62 Samsonite Catalog:
http://www.chem.sunysb.edu/msl/LEGO/60s_d2.jpg
This has got to be one of the most beautiful box designs I have ever seen (my
prejudice showing thru), and the model, IMHO is the largest LEGO house model ever sold
by TLC.
This earlier version is also shown in Building Idea Book #1 (LEGO #238). Anders
Isaksson of Sweden has some nice scans of this book, and here are the two pictures
that give a detailed picture of this house, the very first model set LEGO ever made
(although for some strange reason they were only produced for Samsonite (1961-62 in
USA, 1962 only in Canada), and never in Europe (except in the idea book). Here are
Anders website pictures (notice that in the Samsonite version there is an extra window
in the roof (dormer) on the left side of the house):
http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/ideabook/12a.jpg
http://user.tninet.se/~hbh828t/ideabook/12b.jpg
The interesting thing about these Junior Constructor houses is that there are no
specialty pieces. They are all regular bricks, and a lot of classic windows and doors
in white (the later flat roofed version has 2 white classic doors and 14 white classic
windows - three 1x6x2 shuttered windows, and eleven 1x2x2 windows). Also they have
the old 10x20 thick gray baseplates.
Enough rambling,
Gary Istok
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Gary R. Istok writes:
>
>
> Jason Proksch wrote:
>
> <major snippage>
>
> > I am now leaning more toward the first 2 options. Perhaps the poor quality
> > reflects Samsonites inability to match lego's quality. Come to think of it, my
> > #717? Samsonite has some errors (or inconsistencies) in its instructions as
> > well.
>
>
> Did someone say "Junior Constructor"? Set 717..... from 1961-64. Is that the one
> you are talking about Jason (by the way, glad you decided to "de-lurk"). If so, are
> you talking about the earlier gabled house (1961-62) or the later flat roofed house
> (1963-64) version of the Junior Constructor? I always thought the building
> instructions were only on the inside lid of the box. Do you have other instructions
> to this set? (Note: I first got the later version of thiis set as a kid in 1963, my
> mother threw away the box, and I obtained another complete set on EBAY in 1998.)
> Also, the (Samsonite only) Junior Constructor was the first model kit LEGO ever sold
> (it was not part of the Town Plan).
>
> Gary Istok
My set is the flat roofed one. I know very little about it but got it on ebay
last year pretty cheap $20-30. I only have the instructions on the box (I would
assume that is the only instructions included) Do you mean to say this is the
very first model kit of legos? Or do you mean the first in the US?
What do you think it is worth?
I built the house, but it is pretty difficult from the 4 or 5 pictures provided
(along with a few mistakes).
Jason Proksch
PS I have to get back to all the 371 messages I missed over the last few days...
|
|
| |
Jason Proksch wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Gary R. Istok writes:
> >
> >
> > Jason Proksch wrote:
> >
> > <major snippage>
> >
> > > I am now leaning more toward the first 2 options. Perhaps the poor quality
> > > reflects Samsonites inability to match lego's quality. Come to think of it, my
> > > #717? Samsonite has some errors (or inconsistencies) in its instructions as
> > > well.
> >
> >
> > Did someone say "Junior Constructor"? Set 717..... from 1961-64. Is that the one
> > you are talking about Jason (by the way, glad you decided to "de-lurk"). If so, are
> > you talking about the earlier gabled house (1961-62) or the later flat roofed house
> > (1963-64) version of the Junior Constructor? I always thought the building
> > instructions were only on the inside lid of the box. Do you have other instructions
> > to this set? (Note: I first got the later version of thiis set as a kid in 1963, my
> > mother threw away the box, and I obtained another complete set on EBAY in 1998.)
> > Also, the (Samsonite only) Junior Constructor was the first model kit LEGO ever sold
> > (it was not part of the Town Plan).
> >
> > Gary Istok
>
> My set is the flat roofed one. I know very little about it but got it on ebay
> last year pretty cheap $20-30. I only have the instructions on the box (I would
> assume that is the only instructions included) Do you mean to say this is the
> very first model kit of legos? Or do you mean the first in the US?
> What do you think it is worth?
> I built the house, but it is pretty difficult from the 4 or 5 pictures provided
> (along with a few mistakes).
>
> Jason Proksch
> PS I have to get back to all the 371 messages I missed over the last few days...
Jason,
OK, yes the 4 pictures on the inside lid of the box are the only building instructions
that were included in this set. I first got it as a kid, and within 6 months my mother
threw away the box (I still have the original contents mixed in with other old LEGO).
Recently I got a 2nd copy of this set (I paid $63), but the set might only have been
played with once. The pieces were absolutely mint.
LEGO started with the Town Plan theme in the mid 1950's. Up until 1961, all LEGO sets
were either part of the Town Plan, a basic building set (only white and red bricks with
red windows), or a parts pack. In 1961 Samsonite was licensed to produce/sell LEGO in
the USA (starting in 1962 in Canada with the same sets). Their 2nd largest set (after
725 Town Plan) was the Junior Constructor #717. Both these large sets came in 2 versions
- the earlier 1961-62 version, and the 1963-64 version. What you and I both have is the
1963-64 version. The earlier 1961-62 version (gable roofed house), was the first model
kit not associated with the Town Plan. This was followed in 1963 with the Architectural
Sets (#750, #751, #752) consisting mostly of plates and clear bricks, and in 1965 came
the Train Sets. Other subsystems came later in the 70's.
The early LEGO sets from the 50's and 60's did not have the detailed instructions that
they have today. You had to use your own imagination to figure out how the back of
buildings are supposed to look. It was just a different philosophy back then. LEGO
expected you to use your own creativity to solve the puzzle of how to finish a building
when the instructions were not detailed enough. That was not, however, an example of
poor instructions like with the 371 set. Back when I was a kid TLC did not "spoon feed"
us instructions as to how to build LEGO buildings. You had to figure it out yourself.
That was actually part of the fun for building for me. Today TLC gives you instructions
for every piece in a set.
As to how much they are worth is one of those subjective questions. You paid $30 for
yours, I paid $63 for mine (includes shipping). I would have paid over $100 if I had to,
to get an example. If I found the earlier version in good condition, I probably would
have paid as much as $200. About 6 months ago I found a 1966 set on EBAY that I really
wanted (for the specialty parts), and I ended up getting it for only $18. A month ago I
found a 2nd copy, and I had to pay $115 to get it. It all depends on how many people
really want something at the same time.
Gary Istok
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Michael Huffman wrote:
| |
Just went through a bunch of instuctions that I won on
e-Bay last year. I was going through them so I
could give them to a friend & started looking them up
on Lugnet so he could get an idea of what I had &
didn’t find this one listed. Looks like there’s a
third #371. ;) Here’s the cover:
http://www.mindspring.com/~mhuffman/picts/0371-01.jpg
The rest have been uploaded to Brickshelf.
--Mike.
|
I know this is a bad form, but I posted this over a decade ago...
I just wanted to share that I recently picked up this set through a clandestine
source of mine. Here’s pictures:
The battery box is completely corroded... I’m hoping it will clean up. I’m
curious if it will still run. There were two parts that aren’t marked ‘LEGO’,
so I question how much of it is original vs. mixed with parts from another set.
There’s one blue macaroni brick and no headlight bricks.
--Mike.
|
|
|
