 | | newly scanned/dig-photographed: c83usts
|
|
I have just located an old 1983 catalog at a friends house (c83usts, in VERY GOOD SHAPE, a few barely noticible creases) I took hi-quality pictures of all the pages, including both covers with a digital camera, with 1280x1024 fine jpg compression (...) (26 years ago, 22-Mar-00, to lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not update BrickShelf to the present?
|
|
Kevin Loch wrote: [...] (...) For the record Kevin, I strongly respect your position on this. -Suz. (26 years ago, 5-Mar-00, to lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not update BrickShelf to the present?
|
|
(...) You should trade the work back to them for $500K in bulk ordered specialty parts -- and then share it with all of us member lugnuts. In all honesty, it would be fair... -- Richard (26 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not update BrickShelf to the present?
|
|
(...) Forgive me if my memory is faulty -- but I thought it was you, Kevin, who interpreted a statement of Brad Justus' to mean that up to the present/current scans were okay. I think it was stated in one of those tedious threads about the Huw (...) (26 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.db.scans)
|
| |
| | Re: Why not update BrickShelf to the present?
|
|
(...) The original purpose of the scans archive was as an historical archive. (...) It would cost them well over $500K, perhaps $1.5M do do it themselves. (...) I'm not opposed to having current sets but the current policy stands unless TLC offers (...) (26 years ago, 4-Mar-00, to lugnet.db.scans)
|
