Subject:
|
Re: A new scan for 371 (fake?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 May 2000 20:37:37 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1856 times
|
| |
|
|
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 eBay
castle from Saudi Arabia about 8 months or a year ago.
I think the discussion has centered around the fact that someone digitally
created a fake similar to what Ben did not too long. Just my two cents.
-Nick
David Eaton <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message
news:Fupzvq.n4@lugnet.com...
> 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?)
|
| (...) After looking at the pics and scans, this is my opinion as well. This looks very much like a comp or a design that is still undergoing revision. Chris Busse (URL) (25 years ago, 19-May-00, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A new scan for 371 (fake?)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
