Subject:
|
Re: Help with part ? from 540, also FOTW
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 1 Nov 2000 17:21:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
922 times
|
| |
|
|
Steve Demlow wrote:
> Gary Istok <gistok@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> > The Tiles you described are not thicker than the ones today, they just don't
> > have that missing ridge of plastic that give the sides an "overhang"
> > appearance...
> > But for some unknown reason the 1x2 (with
> > central stud) never made the transformation.
>
> And thank goodness it didn't. It's very useful to be able to embed them
> in buildings, etc., but they would no longer be "invisible" if they had the
> bottom edge filleted like modern tiles. I wonder if the corporate model
> builders have any say in such things? The more likely/mundane reason that
> the 1x2s with center stud don't have the fillet is that they do, after all,
> have a stud on top that makes them easier to remove than pure tiles.
>
> Steve
> --
> Barb & Steve Demlow | demlow@visi.com | www.visi.com/~demlow/
I have about 200 of the old style tiles (with no lip on the bottom) from a German
collector (all white). And I am setting them aside for that "invisible" look
(that Steve just described) in one of my new buildings.
Gary Istok
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Help with part ? from 540, also FOTW
|
| (...) And thank goodness it didn't. It's very useful to be able to embed them in buildings, etc., but they would no longer be "invisible" if they had the bottom edge filleted like modern tiles. I wonder if the corporate model builders have any say (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.general)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
