| |
In lugnet.general, Samarth Moray wrote:
> Its one of the most trivial things, but its always bothered me. Why have that
> texture on the slope end? What purpose does it serve? From the small selection
> of un-textured slopes we have, one can only infer that these would be less
> trouble to make... amongst a lot of other advantages. So why? I'm hoping our
> freindly neighbourhood LEGO historian Gary Istok can answer.....
>
> Legoswami
OK, I would love to give some special reason, but I know of none. Ever since
the sloped bricks first came out in red (1958) and blue (1960), they have had
the textured finish. The simplest explanation I can think of is because most
roofs are not smooth, but either ridged (roof tiles) or staggered (roofing paper
or roofing slate). Perhaps when the sloped bricks were being designed by TLG in
1958, they tried using smooth sloped bricks. And maybe they didn't look all
that realistic that way. Can't give any insight beyond that, except that the
coarseness of the sloped surface changed over the years. In the 70's the
texture was more pronounced than earlier or later sloped bricks.
Gary Istok
|
|
| |
> Can't give any insight beyond that, except that the
> coarseness of the sloped surface changed over the years. In the 70's the
> texture was more pronounced than earlier or later sloped bricks.
>
> Gary Istok
Definitely so! The earlier slopes had a texture that resembled overlapping
circles, while the later texture is more evenly distributed teeny-weeny
bumps. I can always tell if it's an old slope piece because of the funky
circle pattern.
Dave
|
|
| |
> OK, I would love to give some special reason, but I know of none. Ever since
> the sloped bricks first came out in red (1958) and blue (1960), they have had
> the textured finish. The simplest explanation I can think of is because most
> roofs are not smooth, but either ridged (roof tiles) or staggered (roofing paper
> or roofing slate). Perhaps when the sloped bricks were being designed by TLG in
> 1958, they tried using smooth sloped bricks. And maybe they didn't look all
> that realistic that way. Can't give any insight beyond that, except that the
> coarseness of the sloped surface changed over the years. In the 70's the
> texture was more pronounced than earlier or later sloped bricks.
>
> Gary Istok
What about the 3x6 slopes? Okay, I know they are a little different but they
don't have that "texture" you are speaking of.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Aaron Gershon wrote:
| |
What about the 3x6 slopes? Okay, I know they are a little different but they
don’t have that “texture” you are speaking of.
|
Do you mean part 3939?
Going by the data collected on Peeron, this part first appeared in 1978. For
the next ~13 years, the part only appeared in transparent colors. So I’d guess
it was intended as a windshield/canopy, instead of a roof. Windshields are
usually pretty smooth.
See http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/3939, and click the link for the complete
color table (underneath the partial color table shown on the page).
Steve
|
|
| |
Also, keep in mind that the slopes that came with the McDonald's Happy
Meal sets a few years back were NOT textured. They had printed images on
the sloped part, but if I remember correctly, that slope was smooth.
eric harshbarger
Gary Istok wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Samarth Moray wrote:
>
> > Its one of the most trivial things, but its always bothered me. Why have that
> > texture on the slope end? What purpose does it serve? From the small selection
> > of un-textured slopes we have, one can only infer that these would be less
> > trouble to make... amongst a lot of other advantages. So why? I'm hoping our
> > freindly neighbourhood LEGO historian Gary Istok can answer.....
> >
> > Legoswami
>
>
> OK, I would love to give some special reason, but I know of none. Ever since
> the sloped bricks first came out in red (1958) and blue (1960), they have had
> the textured finish. The simplest explanation I can think of is because most
> roofs are not smooth, but either ridged (roof tiles) or staggered (roofing paper
> or roofing slate). Perhaps when the sloped bricks were being designed by TLG in
> 1958, they tried using smooth sloped bricks. And maybe they didn't look all
> that realistic that way. Can't give any insight beyond that, except that the
> coarseness of the sloped surface changed over the years. In the 70's the
> texture was more pronounced than earlier or later sloped bricks.
>
> Gary Istok
|
|
| |
Something I have noted with recent roof bricks is that the texture on
certain elements has become less and less.
The 2x2 external and internal corner bricks I have had in recent sets and
via pick a brick have been almost completely smooth.
Pushing moulds beyond their usual lifespan prehaps ?
--
James Stacey
------
www.minifig.co.uk
Lugnet Member #925
I'm a citizen of Legoland travellin' Incommunicado
"Gary Istok" <istokg@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:IDBtC7.Csn@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.general, Samarth Moray wrote:
> > Its one of the most trivial things, but its always bothered me. Why have • that
> > texture on the slope end? What purpose does it serve? From the small • selection
> > of un-textured slopes we have, one can only infer that these would be • less
> > trouble to make... amongst a lot of other advantages. So why? I'm hoping • our
> > freindly neighbourhood LEGO historian Gary Istok can answer.....
> >
> > Legoswami
>
> OK, I would love to give some special reason, but I know of none. Ever • since
> the sloped bricks first came out in red (1958) and blue (1960), they have • had
> the textured finish. The simplest explanation I can think of is because • most
> roofs are not smooth, but either ridged (roof tiles) or staggered (roofing • paper
> or roofing slate). Perhaps when the sloped bricks were being designed by • TLG in
> 1958, they tried using smooth sloped bricks. And maybe they didn't look • all
> that realistic that way. Can't give any insight beyond that, except that • the
> coarseness of the sloped surface changed over the years. In the 70's the
> texture was more pronounced than earlier or later sloped bricks.
>
> Gary Istok
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Eric Harshbarger wrote:
>
> Also, keep in mind that the slopes that came with the McDonald's Happy
> Meal sets a few years back were NOT textured. They had printed images on
> the sloped part, but if I remember correctly, that slope was smooth.
Strange. I never noticed that before. I just checked the one 2x3 slope that I
have from McDonald's, and it's not textured. Every other printed slope that I
have is textured, though.
-Elroy
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Steve Bliss wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Aaron Gershon wrote:
| |
What about the 3x6 slopes? Okay, I know they are a little different but they
don’t have that “texture” you are speaking of.
|
Do you mean part 3939?
Going by the data collected on Peeron, this part first appeared in 1978. For
the next ~13 years, the part only appeared in transparent colors.
|
At the risk of picking nits, I seem to recall that
this piece in my old
Space Cruiser from 1978 was opaque blue.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Steve Bliss wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Aaron Gershon wrote:
| |
What about the 3x6 slopes? Okay, I know they are a little different but
they don’t have that “texture” you are speaking of.
|
Do you mean part 3939?
Going by the data collected on Peeron, this part first appeared in 1978.
For the next ~13 years, the part only appeared in transparent colors.
|
At the risk of picking nits, I seem to recall that
this piece in my old
Space Cruiser from 1978 was opaque blue.
|
Too right -- sorry, I neglected to look at the history of decorated elements.
Sorry. But I think my point is still valid -- part 3939 was designed/intended
to be used as a windshield, not a roof.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Steve Bliss wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Steve Bliss wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Aaron Gershon wrote:
| |
What about the 3x6 slopes? Okay, I know they are a little different but
they don’t have that “texture” you are speaking of.
|
Do you mean part 3939?
Going by the data collected on Peeron, this part first appeared in 1978.
For the next ~13 years, the part only appeared in transparent colors.
|
At the risk of picking nits, I seem to recall that
this piece in my old
Space Cruiser from 1978 was opaque blue.
|
Too right -- sorry, I neglected to look at the history of decorated elements.
Sorry. But I think my point is still valid -- part 3939 was
designed/intended to be used as a windshield, not a roof.
|
Sure, but it’s a rare day that I get to call someone on a parts-related
question, given my usual specialization. Let me enjoy a few minutes of neener
neener, if you please!
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Steve Bliss wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Steve Bliss wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Aaron Gershon wrote:
| |
What about the 3x6 slopes? Okay, I know they are a little different but
they don’t have that “texture” you are speaking of.
|
Do you mean part 3939?
Going by the data collected on Peeron, this part first appeared in 1978.
For the next ~13 years, the part only appeared in transparent colors.
|
At the risk of picking nits, I seem to recall that
this piece in my old
Space Cruiser from 1978 was opaque
blue.
|
Too right -- sorry, I neglected to look at the history of decorated
elements. Sorry. But I think my point is still valid -- part 3939 was
designed/intended to be used as a windshield, not a roof.
|
Sure, but it’s a rare day that I get to call someone on a parts-related
question, given my usual specialization. Let me enjoy a few minutes of
neener neener, if you please!
|
:)
Steve
|
|
|
