 | | Re: Leo's castle-- number mix up? —John DiRienzo
|
| | | Thanks for pointing it out. I kept thinking it was 6098, because thats what the instructions said. I didn't really pay attention to the box. Mismatched numbers. Wonder how long it will take them to figure that out?! If they read Lugnet, like they (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.castle)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Leo's castle-- number mix up? —David Eaton
|
| | | | | (...) I think I'd "prefer" 6098... The catalog lists it as 6091, as does the box... and I THINK when the 2000 sets were listed on TLC's site it was listed as 6091... but who knows... Maybe they got some sense when they were printing up the (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.castle)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Leo's castle-- number mix up? —Jeff Johnston
|
| | | | (...) Wow. That's *two* errors in the new Castle sets box printing. The other one is on the 6095 Royal Joust, which has the Portuguese name for 'Guarded Treasury' instead of the correct one. Bizarre. I wonder what happened? I wonder if LEGO changed (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.castle)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Leo's castle-- number mix up? —Jeff Thompson
|
| | | | | (...) I hadn't even noticed the set numbers. That's really messed up (in terms of LEGO's old habit of numbering similarly sized sets together in the same xxxy range. For example, you could expact that the entire 608x range would be somewhat similar (...) (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.castle)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Leo's castle-- number mix up? —John DiRienzo
|
| | | | Jeff Johnston wrote in message <385EB4D4.3F594E48@m...ne.net>... (...) thats (...) out?! (...) one (...) flip-up (...) done (...) I, too, am beginning to wonder a lot of things. I have a pic of King Leo's Castle that I guess I'm not supposed to (...) (25 years ago, 21-Dec-99, to lugnet.castle)
|
| | | | |
