Subject:
|
Re: Less-Common Colors
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.faq
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 Sep 1999 20:28:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1969 times
|
| |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Sep 1999 14:37:31 GMT, "James Simpson" <jsimpson@rice.edu>
wrote:
> I've always been curious as to why green and brown pieces have always been
> relatively uncommon; I realize that it now probably has to do with the higher
> production costs associated with adding a color scheme to existing parts;
> however, what I am really interested in is why green and brown bricks have not,
> historically, been more extensively used; was it an issue with dyes? Were the
> ingredients in the dyes too expensive to make it cost effective?
>
> Any info. would be appreciated.
The historical answer "green and brown (and a few other colors) can be
easily used for military models, and LEGO is non-violent, so green and
brown aren't allowed, except in limited situations".
I don't think the cost of production was a real issue. TLG's costs come
from buying the molds and the labor cost of high-quality manufacturing and
packaging.
Steve
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Less-Common Colors
|
| (...) How is LEGO non-violent if it produces cannons, rifles, pistols, swords, lances, etc, etc. Scott Smallbeck scotts@contactics.com (25 years ago, 20-Sep-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Less-Common Colors
|
| I've always been curious as to why green and brown pieces have always been relatively uncommon; I realize that it now probably has to do with the higher production costs associated with adding a color scheme to existing parts; however, what I am (...) (25 years ago, 20-Sep-99, to lugnet.faq)
|
7 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
