| |
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
|
|
| |
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)
|
|
| |
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.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
