 | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Mark Bellis wrote:
| |
I believe that over the years the tolerance has been widened, with the aim
of reducing production cost.
|
- Several of the bricks had significantly less “clutch power”, though obviously this could also be from deterioration;
- The stacks ranged from 95.9 to 96.6 mm. It would be interesting to know if the brick tolerance is +/- 0.1 or 0.3 mm, either way they were all inside it. But there was still significant difference even with these old bricks.
So I would invite others who think the tolerance has widened to do similar
tests on older bricks to back up their claim.
ROSCO
|
I was making up some 1/2 scale blocks (2x2 tile on 2x2 brick on 2x2 plate) the
other night and randomly pulled out some of my old “childhood-era” (mid 70’s)
2x2 bricks, and noticed the absolutely horrible quality control it shows...
Ignore the teeth marks, and note the bad molding on bricks 1 & 2. Yes they are
Lego. Other pics show the studs.
Reminded me of this old thread :)
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=907404 shows how much thinner
one wall is from the rest.
The rest of the folder http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=97977
(modded already!?!) shows the same four bricks from different views. Note the
different LEGO logos, and the underside molding differences (Pat Pend notice).
So much for the “Golden Days of Quality Control” that some were pining for...
-Rob A>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, Rob Antonishen wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.lego, Mark Bellis wrote: • snip
|
Ignore the teeth marks, and note the bad molding on bricks 1 & 2. Yes they
are Lego. Other pics show the studs.
|
snip
| |
So much for the “Golden Days of Quality Control” that some were pining for...
-Rob A>
|
Hi all!
I know this thread is really old, but eventually I came across this discussion
while uploading a few more new quality issue pictures ast brickshelf:
new pictures of 2007
building session
So I just wanted to point out, that the picture which Rob has posted to
underline, that quality wasn’t automatically good in the “golden” past, shows
definitely CA bricks older than year 1963 (or out of samsonite production?).
The “golden years of LEGO quality” have been 1965 ... 1995(?). So this picture
tells nothing new, but only repeats that LEGO made a huge step towards
perfectionism when they changed from CA (bad!) to ABS (good!).
Leg Godt!
See more pictures of my models at www.brickshelf.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On 1/3/07, Reinhard Ben Beneke wrote:
> > <<http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ffaat/old-bricks/all.jpg>>
> >
> > Ignore the teeth marks, and note the bad molding on bricks 1 & 2. Yes they
> > are Lego. Other pics show the studs.
>
> [snip]
>
> > So much for the "Golden Days of Quality Control" that some were pining for...
> >
> > -Rob A>
>
> Hi all!
> So I just wanted to point out, that the picture which Rob has posted to
> underline, that quality wasn't automatically good in the "golden" past, shows
> definitely CA bricks older than year 1963 (or out of samsonite production?).
>
> The "golden years of LEGO quality" have been 1965 ... 1995(?). So this picture
> tells nothing new, but only repeats that LEGO made a huge step towards
> perfectionism when they changed from CA (bad!) to ABS (good!).
Not suer how you come up wit that conclusion. These bricks are from
my old sets, purchased in Canada between 1973-1978. I am suspecting
these specific bricks came from set 256-1 released in 1976. I would
doubt that these were 10 year old bricks.
-Rob A>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego, Rob Antonishen wrote:
> On 1/3/07, Reinhard Ben Beneke wrote:
> > > <<http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ffaat/old-bricks/all.jpg>>
> > >
> > > Ignore the teeth marks, and note the bad molding on bricks 1 & 2. Yes they
> > > are Lego. Other pics show the studs.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > So much for the "Golden Days of Quality Control" that some were pining for...
> > >
> > > -Rob A>
> >
> > Hi all!
>
> > So I just wanted to point out, that the picture which Rob has posted to
> > underline, that quality wasn't automatically good in the "golden" past, shows
> > definitely CA bricks older than year 1963 (or out of samsonite production?).
> >
> > The "golden years of LEGO quality" have been 1965 ... 1995(?). So this picture
> > tells nothing new, but only repeats that LEGO made a huge step towards
> > perfectionism when they changed from CA (bad!) to ABS (good!).
>
>
> Not suer how you come up wit that conclusion. These bricks are from
> my old sets, purchased in Canada between 1973-1978. I am suspecting
> these specific bricks came from set 256-1 released in 1976. I would
> doubt that these were 10 year old bricks.
>
> -Rob A>
Hi Rob,
thanks for your feedback! In that case I would think these are US-made bricks,
since the LEGO-logo on top of the bricks is of the old design. This has been
used within Europe (= Billund made bricks) only in combination with CA-bricks
(before 1964 and possibly for a short time later?).
From Gary Istok I have learned that Samsonite was using old moulds and partly
even CA-material in the 70ies.
So I would guess that the "mismoulded" bricks, which you have shown, are from
that era. Can you tell, if those bricks are ABS or CA? You will hear the
difference when you drop them on a hard table surface or on floor tiles.
But I have to admit, that I have no knowledge about the Canadian market.
I only can assure you: in Germany we had no such bricks (with this kind of logo
on the studs) in the 70ies and later.
Leg Godt!
Ben
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
On 1/3/07, Reinhard Ben Beneke wrote:
> So I would guess that the "mismoulded" bricks, which you have shown, are from
> that era. Can you tell, if those bricks are ABS or CA? You will hear the
> difference when you drop them on a hard table surface or on floor tiles.
That's an experiment that I will have to try when my collection is
closer at hand :)
-Rob A>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego, Rob Antonishen wrote:
> On 1/3/07, Reinhard Ben Beneke wrote:
> > So I would guess that the "mismoulded" bricks, which you have shown, are from
> > that era. Can you tell, if those bricks are ABS or CA? You will hear the
> > difference when you drop them on a hard table surface or on floor tiles.
>
>
> That's an experiment that I will have to try when my collection is
> closer at hand :)
>
> -Rob A>
I would be interested in the result, Rob.
Just for your information:
CA has a much higher material damping coefficient in comparison to ABS. So CA
will make less noise and sound very dump when it hits the ground.
Especially for the classical 2x2-windows this is the easiest way to tell. For
other bricks it often depends how they hit the ground (with corner, top or
sidewall). And I found it is helpful for black bricks as well. While red and
yellow CA looks somewhat shiny and transparent, black CA looks nearly identical
to black ABS.
So the dropping sound test is the easiest way to tell the difference. (Of course
the modified wall thicknesses etc. have an influence on the sound as well).
Happy testing!
Ben
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On 1/3/07, Reinhard Ben Beneke wrote:
> > <<http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/ffaat/old-bricks/all.jpg>>
> >
> > Ignore the teeth marks, and note the bad molding on bricks 1 & 2. Yes they
> > are Lego. Other pics show the studs.
>
> [snip]
>
> > So much for the "Golden Days of Quality Control" that some were pining for...
> >
> > -Rob A>
>
> Hi all!
> So I just wanted to point out, that the picture which Rob has posted to
> underline, that quality wasn't automatically good in the "golden" past, shows
> definitely CA bricks older than year 1963 (or out of samsonite production?).
>
> The "golden years of LEGO quality" have been 1965 ... 1995(?). So this picture
> tells nothing new, but only repeats that LEGO made a huge step towards
> perfectionism when they changed from CA (bad!) to ABS (good!).
Not sure how you come up with that conclusion. These bricks are from
my old sets, purchased in Canada between 1973-1978. I am suspecting
these specific bricks came from set 256-1 released in 1976. I would
doubt that ir contained 10 year old bricks...but I have been known to
be wrong (often :)
-Rob A>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego, Reinhard “Ben” Beneke wrote:
| |
So I just wanted to point out, that the picture which Rob has posted to
underline, that quality wasn’t automatically good in the “golden” past, shows
definitely CA bricks older than year 1963 (or out of samsonite production?).
The “golden years of LEGO quality” have been 1965 ... 1995(?). So this
picture tells nothing new, but only repeats that LEGO made a huge step
towards perfectionism when they changed from CA (bad!) to ABS (good!).
|
I wouldn’t assume that 1965 was necessarily as good as, say, 1990. But you’re
right insofar as quality from the 60’s and 70’s is not necessarily the same
quality as the 80’s and 90’s. If someone’s really looking for proof or disproof
of quality degradation, it’s gonna take a lot more evidence. Say, 10 stacks of
15 plates from each of 1965, 1970, 1975, 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and
2007. The plates don’t even need to be consistant sizes.
It’s a rather over-the-top data collecting effort (especially since verifying
the year of a plate possibly means opening (GASP!) an MISB set). But it’s a
decent enough sample set such that I doubt anyone would argue with the
conclusion if such an effort were made. And hopefully, if someone’s crazy enough
to try it, they’ll somehow avoid cracking open their MISB sets :)
DaveE
| | | | | | |
