Subject:
|
Re: A new scan for 371 (fake?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 May 2000 20:07:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1695 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Will Hess writes:
> I'd have to agree that this is a fake. My reasons:
>
> 1) Instructions are too crude, even by 60's standards. Also, have a look
> at the following URL...it's supposed to be another page from the same
> booklet but the quality is many times greater!
> http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/4976/0371-06.jpg
I've been looking at instructions for other late 60's stuff, and I will agree,
the drawings there look a LOT better quality than this one, but as for this,
well, that exact image is from another catalog, just re-used in this one.
Actually, I think you can find nearly the same image elsewhere on brickshelf,
as was done with that line of trucks... Anyway, TLC could easily just slap on a
pre-made picture as opposed to drawing a new one...
> 2) Numbers on the cover are dead-ringers for the self-adhesive ones you can
> but at office-supply stores...and they're NOT like the numbers used on other
> instructions of the era
True, but also an oddity. Among the pictures I've been looking at, there were a
few different fonts for numbers. And covering up the old numbers AND sticking
on new ones would be tough... MUCH more believeable that the numbers would be
added digitally rather than stick ons.
> 3) Just saw something else...the later pages of this instruction book have
> vehicles with black tires while the main model has grey.
Where was that? I didn't see that... Unless you're referring to the wheels on
the photographed image on 'page' 7? I think those are just shadowed gray
anyway... Didn't see black elsewhere...
> Is that enough to convince any fence sitters?
Nah... I'm just too bothered by the question "why?" Why BOTHER? Who would care
about another unheard-of late 60's truck set? Frankly, I'm amazed that this
thread even started... The quality of the drawing is the only thing to me
suggesting that it's even possibly fake. But then again, for someone to fake it
SO well in one place, it seems like they'd take the extra effort to fake it
well in other places. But most of all, I don't think it unreasonable to be a
bona fide set of instructions. In short, there just isn't enough suggesting to
me that it IS a fake.
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A new scan for 371 (fake?)
|
| It is possible that two other things are happening here. 1) The images shown are from a prototype catalog that an old designer kept in his or her collection. Some type of mock up. 2) This is an authentic forgery from another company. Similar to that (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-00, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A new scan for 371 (fake?)
|
| I'd have to agree that this is a fake. My reasons: 1) Instructions are too crude, even by 60's standards. Also, have a look at the following URL...it's supposed to be another page from the same booklet but the quality is many times greater! (URL) (...) (25 years ago, 17-May-00, to lugnet.general)
|
40 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
|
|
|
|
