To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.generalOpen lugnet.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 General / 18130
     
   
Subject: 
Set #148: Scales in Transition
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.general
Date: 
Tue, 9 May 2000 21:30:39 GMT
Highlighted: 
(details)
Viewed: 
691 times
  

Set #148:  Scales in Transition

This message is about Lego set #148,
http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=148

This set from 1975 is interesting because it has
a mix of scales.  It was made during a time when
the regular sets represented many different
scales, as if the Lego company were trying to
decide what scale to settle on for the standard
play system.  This confusion seems to be captured
by the 148.

The regular sets of the mid-seventies had many
different scales.  There were sets with bendyarm
figures (aka maxifigs), some of which later used
minifigs as babies after minifigs became available
in 1975.  There were minifigs used as adults,
which were then still faceless, armless, and
legless.  And smallest, there were HO-scale
buildings with classic windows and classic 1x2x3
doors.  These different scales were not always
split out into separate themes, although there
were some themes that had consistent scales such
as the Homemaker sets.

The doors in particular were evidence of this
confusing period.  The classic 1x2x3 doors did not
open.  Then the Lego company introduced 1x3x4
doors that opened.  For example, set 361, another
interesting transitional set, has this door but
has no minifigs.  Then when minifigs were created
they did not fit conveniently through the 1x3x4
doors!  The 1x4x5 doors that minifigs fit nicely
through were not available until 1979, I believe.

The 148 combines three scales: HO-scale, pre-minifig
door scale, and minifig scale.  A classic door in
HO-scale is used for the entrance to the overpass,
and classic windows are used along the length of
the overpass.  The train station itself is sort of
in minifig-scale, but it uses the too-small
pre-minifig 1x3x4 doors so it isn't easy to move
minifigs around in it.  It comes with faceless
minifigs and the train tracks themselves are
roughly minifig scale.

Of course there have been other play systems made
by Lego that were in other scales.  Examples
include Duplo, Fabuland, Technic, Belville, and
Scala.  However, those themes were not designed to
be combined within a play system, and multiple
themes were definitely not combined within a
single set!

Another set that combines classic doors with
minifigs is set 362, also from 1975.  However, it does
not have any 1x3x4 doors.  I would be interested to
hear of any other Lego sets you know of that combine
multiple scales.  (Though if you reply to this
message, please don't quote the whole thing.)

/Eric McC/

   
         
     
Subject: 
Re: Set #148: Scales in Transition
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.general
Date: 
Tue, 9 May 2000 21:34:56 GMT
Viewed: 
462 times
  

In lugnet.general, Charles Eric McCarthy writes:
and multiple themes were definitely not combined within a
single set!

hehe... except for the time cruisers! ;-)

Personally, back in the ole' times when I played with Barbies as frequently as
bricks, I used to make the minifigs as the Barbies' babies... :-)

-Shiri

    
          
     
Subject: 
Re: Set #148: Scales in Transition
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.general
Date: 
Tue, 9 May 2000 22:43:44 GMT
Viewed: 
473 times
  

Shiri Dori wrote:

In lugnet.general, Charles Eric McCarthy writes:
and multiple themes were definitely not combined within a
single set!

hehe... except for the time cruisers! ;-)

Sort of.  The themes combined in Time Cruisers are all
minifig-scale, not different scales.  Also, one could argue
that Time Cruisers are a theme in their own right.

Personally, back in the ole' times when I played with Barbies as frequently as
bricks, I used to make the minifigs as the Barbies' babies... :-)

This is similar in concept to the bendyarm figures with
minifig babies.  My opinion is that is not a mixture of scales.
Now if the Barbies were large adults and the minifigs were also
adults but very small, that would be a mixture of scales.

/Eric McC/

   
         
     
Subject: 
Re: Set #148: Scales in Transition
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.general
Date: 
Wed, 10 May 2000 14:53:30 GMT
Viewed: 
529 times
  

Eric McCarthy wrote:

Set #148:  Scales in Transition

This message is about Lego set #148,
http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=148

This set from 1975 is interesting because it has
a mix of scales.  It was made during a time when
the regular sets represented many different
scales, as if the Lego company were trying to
decide what scale to settle on for the standard
play system.  This confusion seems to be captured
by the 148.

The regular sets of the mid-seventies had many
different scales.  There were sets with bendyarm
figures (aka maxifigs), some of which later used
minifigs as babies after minifigs became available
in 1975.  There were minifigs used as adults,
which were then still faceless, armless, and
legless.  And smallest, there were HO-scale
buildings with classic windows and classic 1x2x3
doors.  These different scales were not always
split out into separate themes, although there
were some themes that had consistent scales such
as the Homemaker sets.

The doors in particular were evidence of this
confusing period.  The classic 1x2x3 doors did not
open.  Then the Lego company introduced 1x3x4
doors that opened.  For example, set 361, another
interesting transitional set, has this door but
has no minifigs.  Then when minifigs were created
they did not fit conveniently through the 1x3x4
doors!  The 1x4x5 doors that minifigs fit nicely
through were not available until 1979, I believe.

The 148 combines three scales: HO-scale, pre-minifig
door scale, and minifig scale.  A classic door in
HO-scale is used for the entrance to the overpass,
and classic windows are used along the length of
the overpass.  The train station itself is sort of
in minifig-scale, but it uses the too-small
pre-minifig 1x3x4 doors so it isn't easy to move
minifigs around in it.  It comes with faceless
minifigs and the train tracks themselves are
roughly minifig scale.

Of course there have been other play systems made
by Lego that were in other scales.  Examples
include Duplo, Fabuland, Technic, Belville, and
Scala.  However, those themes were not designed to
be combined within a play system, and multiple
themes were definitely not combined within a
single set!

Another set that combines classic doors with
minifigs is set 362, also from 1975.  However, it does
not have any 1x3x4 doors.  I would be interested to
hear of any other Lego sets you know of that combine
multiple scales.  (Though if you reply to this
message, please don't quote the whole thing.)

/Eric McC/

Great Job Eric!!

Yes 148 (Central Station) is one of my all time favorite sets.  I was
lucky to find several of these sets in Germany in the 1980's.  It has a
wealth of white windows, and both types of older doors.  Universal
Building Set #400 - also from the 1970's - has this same classic
door/'70s door combination, but in yellow.  Another interesting footnote
is that I believe this set had the last (known) occurrance of the
classic 1x6x2 three pane windows (in white), one of my all time
favorites.  This 1x6x2 was a rare example of a "no window sill" three
pane window in white.  This "no sill" window type is much much more
common in red, and doesn't exist in any other color (I should say this
window with or without sill was not sold by LEGO in any other color).
These windows, and their fraternal twins - the classic 1x6x3 shuttered
windows - would soon be retired (as would the classic 1x6x3 picture
window, and the classic 1x2x3 doors).

The minifig "stiffs" as the armless little figs from 148 are called,
were produced from 1973-1977.  They were basically the forerunner to the
minifig.  During this period the 1x3x4 door was produced.  The two were
probably retired at the same time.

A sister set to #148 was #149 Shell Refinery.  This was another one that
I was always on the lookout for in Germany.   It is interesting to
compare these two sets.  They were both related to trains (they both had
the blue (non-electric) train tracks).  The 148 set had stickers only
(CENTRAL STATION, clock face, RESTAURANT, train station directions,
etc), while 149 had embossed bricks only (white 1x6 "Shell", white 1x2
Shell logo).  So in many ways, this was an era of transition.

I am also planning on using one of my set 148 "CENTRAL STATION" stickers
for the fascade of my new train station of the same name (an 18 story
Mediterranean Deco style building).

Gary Istok

    
          
     
Subject: 
stiffs (was: Re: Set #148: Scales in Transition)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.general
Date: 
Wed, 10 May 2000 17:05:45 GMT
Reply-To: 
bendyarm@aol^AvoidSpam^.com
Viewed: 
553 times
  

Gary Istok wrote:
[snip]
The minifig "stiffs" as the armless little figs from 148 are called,
were produced from 1973-1977.  They were basically the forerunner to the
minifig.  During this period the 1x3x4 door was produced.  The two were
probably retired at the same time.
...

"stiffs" is a good name.  <smirk>

Are you sure stiffs and 1x3x4 doors were produced at the same time?
If they were, then one would think set 361 would have a stiff, since
it has a 1x3x4 door.  But it doesn't have a stiff.

What 1973-74 sets had stiffs?  The sets shown on Pause with
http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?year=1973 or
http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?year=1974
don't show any stiffs that I can see.

/Eric McC/

    
          
     
Subject: 
Re: stiffs (was: Re: Set #148: Scales in Transition)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.general
Date: 
Wed, 10 May 2000 17:31:36 GMT
Viewed: 
616 times
  

I think Gary may have been mistaken.  I think that the "stiffs" did not
actually debut until 1975.


"Eric McCarthy" <bendyarm@aol.com> wrote in message
news:391996E9.B4B7ED48@aol.com...
Gary Istok wrote:
[snip]
The minifig "stiffs" as the armless little figs from 148 are called,
were produced from 1973-1977.  They were basically the forerunner to the
minifig.  During this period the 1x3x4 door was produced.  The two were
probably retired at the same time.
...

"stiffs" is a good name.  <smirk>

Are you sure stiffs and 1x3x4 doors were produced at the same time?
If they were, then one would think set 361 would have a stiff, since
it has a 1x3x4 door.  But it doesn't have a stiff.

What 1973-74 sets had stiffs?  The sets shown on Pause with
http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?year=1973 or
http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?year=1974
don't show any stiffs that I can see.

/Eric McC/

    
          
     
Subject: 
Re: stiffs (was: Re: Set #148: Scales in Transition)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.general
Date: 
Wed, 10 May 2000 19:14:17 GMT
Viewed: 
672 times
  

Well you guys caught me.  Yeppers, 1975 was the year.  Here is the 1974 catalog
(German) shows lots of sets with the new doors, but not a stiff in sight (from
Horst Lehner's wonderful catalog website):

http://horst-lehner.mausnet.de/lego/katalog/gk74/GK74-08.JPG

It is strange though, that they would produce doors (albeit 4 bricks high), but
no minifig stiffs to bump their heads on when going thru those too small doors.
The big head people didn't have any doors for their scale (not until the
Hospital or Schoolroom set had 1x6x10 doors a few years later).

Gary Istok

Mark Koesel wrote:

I think Gary may have been mistaken.  I think that the "stiffs" did not
actually debut until 1975.

"Eric McCarthy" <bendyarm@aol.com> wrote in message
news:391996E9.B4B7ED48@aol.com...
Gary Istok wrote:
[snip]
The minifig "stiffs" as the armless little figs from 148 are called,
were produced from 1973-1977.  They were basically the forerunner to the
minifig.  During this period the 1x3x4 door was produced.  The two were
probably retired at the same time.
...

"stiffs" is a good name.  <smirk>

Are you sure stiffs and 1x3x4 doors were produced at the same time?
If they were, then one would think set 361 would have a stiff, since
it has a 1x3x4 door.  But it doesn't have a stiff.

What 1973-74 sets had stiffs?  The sets shown on Pause with
http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?year=1973 or
http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?year=1974
don't show any stiffs that I can see.

/Eric McC/

    
          
     
Subject: 
Re: stiffs (was: Re: Set #148: Scales in Transition)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.general
Date: 
Wed, 10 May 2000 20:26:22 GMT
Viewed: 
668 times
  

In fact, this page even features the 1x3x4 door as a new element (in 1973).

http://horst-lehner.mausnet.de/lego/katalog/gk73/GK73H05.JPG

Looks like they originally had the Universal sets in mind for that door.
Apparently, the buildings in those sets were intended to be more play
oriented, and they thought that a swinging door made sense there.
Whereas all the town sets introduced in 1973 still used the classic 1x2x3
door.  And even in 1975, when the "stiff" fig arrived, they were still
introducing new town sets with the older door.

http://horst-lehner.mausnet.de/lego/katalog/gk75/GK75-09.JPG

That's probably why the door and the fig don't work so well together --
they were never really planned to.


"Gary Istok" <gistok@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:3919B508.E1FD22E3@umich.edu...
Well you guys caught me.  Yeppers, 1975 was the year.  Here is the 1974 • catalog
(German) shows lots of sets with the new doors, but not a stiff in sight • (from
Horst Lehner's wonderful catalog website):

http://horst-lehner.mausnet.de/lego/katalog/gk74/GK74-08.JPG

It is strange though, that they would produce doors (albeit 4 bricks • high), but
no minifig stiffs to bump their heads on when going thru those too small • doors.
The big head people didn't have any doors for their scale (not until the
Hospital or Schoolroom set had 1x6x10 doors a few years later).

Gary Istok

Mark Koesel wrote:

I think Gary may have been mistaken.  I think that the "stiffs" did not
actually debut until 1975.

"Eric McCarthy" <bendyarm@aol.com> wrote in message
news:391996E9.B4B7ED48@aol.com...
Gary Istok wrote:
[snip]
The minifig "stiffs" as the armless little figs from 148 are called,
were produced from 1973-1977.  They were basically the forerunner to • the
minifig.  During this period the 1x3x4 door was produced.  The two • were
probably retired at the same time.
...

"stiffs" is a good name.  <smirk>

Are you sure stiffs and 1x3x4 doors were produced at the same time?
If they were, then one would think set 361 would have a stiff, since
it has a 1x3x4 door.  But it doesn't have a stiff.

What 1973-74 sets had stiffs?  The sets shown on Pause with
http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?year=1973 or
http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?year=1974
don't show any stiffs that I can see.

/Eric McC/


   
         
   
Subject: 
Re: Set #148: Scales in Transition
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.general
Date: 
Wed, 10 May 2000 15:48:52 GMT
Viewed: 
497 times
  

Set 365 Wild West Scene combines those two types of doors
also.

But, I'm sort of confused by the way you are classifying
scales.  Forgetting about door size for a moment -- neither
the tower nor the over pass are even big enough to hold a
minifig.  So, even if you replace the door in the tower
with a 1x3x4 door (which would look bad because the tower
is only 4 studs wide), you still have ambiguity in scale.

Note that the 1x2x3 door in set 365 is used on a carriage.
In that case it can easily be justified; a carriage would
naturally have a smaller door than a building.

I think the real problem is that, in general, mini-figs are
not truly in scale with much of anything in "Legoland", even
today.  Part of this is due to the fact that they are not
proportioned in a "true to life" way, whereas most other
things in Legoland are.  Since the 70's they have at least
made the doors larger (probably because it was a glaring
detriment to play-value) and the cars are at least large
enough to hold figures (probably for the same reason), but
they haven't made the rooms any bigger or the cars any wider
(although some vehicles are wider), and they've made the
wheels even larger!  And tools and utensils are still too
big. :)

Such is life :)

"Eric McCarthy" <bendyarm@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3918837F.697B@aol.com...
Set #148:  Scales in Transition

This message is about Lego set #148,
http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=148

This set from 1975 is interesting because it has
a mix of scales.  It was made during a time when
the regular sets represented many different
scales, as if the Lego company were trying to
decide what scale to settle on for the standard
play system.  This confusion seems to be captured
by the 148.

   
         
   
Subject: 
Re: Set #148: Scales in Transition
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.general
Date: 
Wed, 10 May 2000 16:01:56 GMT
Viewed: 
542 times
  

Mark, I think that LEGO was undergoing a philosophical change in
building designs.  Prior to the 70's, all LEGO Town buildings had 4
walls and no interior access.  After the 70's all LEGO buildings had 3
walls with the 4th being open for access for interior minifig action
(sort of like a dollhouse).  Like you said, in 148 - the tower was too
small for any stairs or minifig room.  This was the evolution that TLC
was going thru.  The 400 set had an opening door on the main floor, but
a smaller classic door on the balcony level.   And 365 had all building
doors as the swinging type, with the stagecoach doors of the classic
type (the stagecoach was too small for any minifig anyway).  TLC was
getting away from purely exterior architecture and heading towards the
"dollhouse" type of play action for LEGO.

Gary Istok

Mark Koesel wrote:

Set 365 Wild West Scene combines those two types of doors
also.

But, I'm sort of confused by the way you are classifying
scales.  Forgetting about door size for a moment -- neither
the tower nor the over pass are even big enough to hold a
minifig.  So, even if you replace the door in the tower
with a 1x3x4 door (which would look bad because the tower
is only 4 studs wide), you still have ambiguity in scale.

Note that the 1x2x3 door in set 365 is used on a carriage.
In that case it can easily be justified; a carriage would
naturally have a smaller door than a building.

I think the real problem is that, in general, mini-figs are
not truly in scale with much of anything in "Legoland", even
today.  Part of this is due to the fact that they are not
proportioned in a "true to life" way, whereas most other
things in Legoland are.  Since the 70's they have at least
made the doors larger (probably because it was a glaring
detriment to play-value) and the cars are at least large
enough to hold figures (probably for the same reason), but
they haven't made the rooms any bigger or the cars any wider
(although some vehicles are wider), and they've made the
wheels even larger!  And tools and utensils are still too
big. :)

Such is life :)

"Eric McCarthy" <bendyarm@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3918837F.697B@aol.com...
Set #148:  Scales in Transition

This message is about Lego set #148,
http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=148

This set from 1975 is interesting because it has
a mix of scales.  It was made during a time when
the regular sets represented many different
scales, as if the Lego company were trying to
decide what scale to settle on for the standard
play system.  This confusion seems to be captured
by the 148.

   
         
   
Subject: 
Re: Set #148: Scales in Transition
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.general
Date: 
Wed, 10 May 2000 16:53:14 GMT
Viewed: 
593 times
  

Excellent point, Gary.

So, really, scale is not the issue here.  I think that is what
I was trying to get at, but I could not put my finger on it,
like you did. :)

TLC, does not seem to be concerned with scale, and I don't
think that is the crux of the issue.  They introduced larger
doors to increase play value, not to bring buildings into
better scale.  Same thing could be said about making the cars
hold minifigs.  Heck, minifigs themselves favor playability over
realism.  And the tools and utensils.  And open-backed buildings.
And the list goes on.  If they were truly interested in scale,
they would not have stopped at introducing larger doors -- they
would have made more proportional figures, and buildings with
larger rooms, etc.

TLG is all about playability (more now than ever).  I think that
today's Juniorization is just the latest step in that direction.
I'll bet that the change in focus from "architectural" to "doll-
house like playability" would have been just as shunned today's
Juniorization by AFOLs back in the 70's, if there would have
been a lot of us back then.  In a sense, it was an early form of
Juniorization.  By the end of the 70's most of those classic
doors and windows were probably gone, in favor of the newer
1x4x5 doors and 1x3x4 windows, which lent themselves better
to play.

So, anyway, I'd still say set 148 is interesting.  But not
because it has a mix of scales, but because it contains a mix
of design philosophies.


"Gary Istok" <gistok@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:391987F4.5E7635CA@umich.edu...
Mark, I think that LEGO was undergoing a philosophical change in
building designs.  Prior to the 70's, all LEGO Town buildings had 4
walls and no interior access.  After the 70's all LEGO buildings had 3
walls with the 4th being open for access for interior minifig action
(sort of like a dollhouse).  Like you said, in 148 - the tower was too
small for any stairs or minifig room.  This was the evolution that TLC
was going thru.  The 400 set had an opening door on the main floor, but
a smaller classic door on the balcony level.   And 365 had all building
doors as the swinging type, with the stagecoach doors of the classic
type (the stagecoach was too small for any minifig anyway).  TLC was
getting away from purely exterior architecture and heading towards the
"dollhouse" type of play action for LEGO.

Gary Istok

Mark Koesel wrote:

Set 365 Wild West Scene combines those two types of doors
also.

But, I'm sort of confused by the way you are classifying
scales.  Forgetting about door size for a moment -- neither
the tower nor the over pass are even big enough to hold a
minifig.  So, even if you replace the door in the tower
with a 1x3x4 door (which would look bad because the tower
is only 4 studs wide), you still have ambiguity in scale.

Note that the 1x2x3 door in set 365 is used on a carriage.
In that case it can easily be justified; a carriage would
naturally have a smaller door than a building.

I think the real problem is that, in general, mini-figs are
not truly in scale with much of anything in "Legoland", even
today.  Part of this is due to the fact that they are not
proportioned in a "true to life" way, whereas most other
things in Legoland are.  Since the 70's they have at least
made the doors larger (probably because it was a glaring
detriment to play-value) and the cars are at least large
enough to hold figures (probably for the same reason), but
they haven't made the rooms any bigger or the cars any wider
(although some vehicles are wider), and they've made the
wheels even larger!  And tools and utensils are still too
big. :)

Such is life :)

"Eric McCarthy" <bendyarm@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3918837F.697B@aol.com...
Set #148:  Scales in Transition

This message is about Lego set #148,
http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=148

This set from 1975 is interesting because it has
a mix of scales.  It was made during a time when
the regular sets represented many different
scales, as if the Lego company were trying to
decide what scale to settle on for the standard
play system.  This confusion seems to be captured
by the 148.


   
         
   
Subject: 
Re: Set #148: Scales in Transition
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.general
Date: 
Wed, 10 May 2000 21:33:22 GMT
Viewed: 
595 times
  

Mark Koesel wrote:
So, anyway, I'd still say set 148 is interesting.  But not
because it has a mix of scales, but because it contains a mix
of design philosophies.

I agree, the changing philosophy was the driving force,
and the mix of scales is a consequence of that.

It is interesting that the changing philosophy was not
carried through consistently (e.g., with redesigned doors
that the figs fit through) when the stiffs came out.
It is as if the set designers themselves had not articulated
the philosophy, but rather were evolving towards it!

Later, all the sets with minifigs had 1x4x5 doors.
But set 148, with figs, had two different sizes of doors,
neither of which the figs could fit through.  Even that fact
alone, even ignoring the philosophy, makes 148 interesting.

So we can see 148 is interesting on many levels!


... TLC, does not seem to be concerned with scale, ...

Well, you can point to many examples of selective compression
and miscellaneous unrealistic things, but I think this assertion
is far off-base.  Most sets do try to keep the scales conceptually
similar within the same play system.  We don't see minifigs
on Belville-sized horses or Scala figs on System-sized horses.
And since 1979 we have not seen sets with minifigs that had
doors too small for the minifigs.  It makes them more playable
and it also makes them more appropriately scaled.  TLC *is*
concerned with scale since scale is an important aspect of
playability.

/Eric McC/

   
         
   
Subject: 
Re: Set #148: Scales in Transition
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.general
Date: 
Wed, 10 May 2000 23:40:11 GMT
Viewed: 
960 times
  

Eric McCarthy wrote:

Mark Koesel wrote:
So, anyway, I'd still say set 148 is interesting.  But not
because it has a mix of scales, but because it contains a mix
of design philosophies.

I agree, the changing philosophy was the driving force,
and the mix of scales is a consequence of that.

It is interesting that the changing philosophy was not
carried through consistently (e.g., with redesigned doors
that the figs fit through) when the stiffs came out.
It is as if the set designers themselves had not articulated
the philosophy, but rather were evolving towards it!

Later, all the sets with minifigs had 1x4x5 doors.
But set 148, with figs, had two different sizes of doors,
neither of which the figs could fit through.  Even that fact
alone, even ignoring the philosophy, makes 148 interesting.

So we can see 148 is interesting on many levels!

... TLC, does not seem to be concerned with scale, ...

Well, you can point to many examples of selective compression
and miscellaneous unrealistic things, but I think this assertion
is far off-base.  Most sets do try to keep the scales conceptually
similar within the same play system.  We don't see minifigs
on Belville-sized horses or Scala figs on System-sized horses.
And since 1979 we have not seen sets with minifigs that had
doors too small for the minifigs.  It makes them more playable
and it also makes them more appropriately scaled.  TLC *is*
concerned with scale since scale is an important aspect of
playability.

/Eric McC/
I think that the bigeret fault by TLG ever is that the minifigs are
selectivly compressed.

 

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR