Subject:
|
Re: A new scan for 371 (some proof?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 May 2000 17:55:38 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3253 times
|
| |
|
|
I just wanted to thank Michael Huffman for this scan. I mean that sincerely too.
This has been very exciting. I never posted to this web site before, but this
was the catalyst for my participation. I am still a bit confused, but must admit
those latest pictures are quite convincing. I apologize for my harsh critique
earlier in this thread. Even if it is not real and you did some how manage to
create such a fine instruction sheet, I compliment you on your craftsmanship.
The current evidence suggests that this clearly is not just a digital
manipulation. Furthermore, the sheet itself appears to at least be printed on a
material very similar (if not the exact same) as other sheets of the era. I am
not convinced this is from a real set, however. I plan to do some research into
60's era real semi's (as I know very little) to see when models of this style
were produced. What a great mystery!
I think we can narrow the possibilities down to 4:
1. This is a real set that we somehow never knew about. (It is possible. It
seems that US 60's lego (Samsonite) are not well known. We do know they used
different materials and I believe diffrerent colors. Hey, that reminds me I have
a genuine Samsonite early 60's set for a giant two story house in a huge box. I
have never seen that listed anywhere - I am at work but I think it is #717 or
possibly #712. Anyone heard of this one? - I know not as interesting...)
2. This is some sort of prototype that never got past the instruction stage (why
would they make such a formal instruction sheet for a non existent set? Perhaps
that would explain the errors and problems with the drawings)
3. This was a highly crafted forgery that was given to Michael with the other
scans without him knowing it was a fake. (What would be the reason for creating
something so detailed only to forget about it and eventually sell it?)
4. Michael created this as a joke. (He would have to be very good? And based on
his messages, be pretty mischievous. He sure comes across sincere.)
I am now leaning more toward the first 2 options. Perhaps the poor quality
reflects Samsonites inability to match lego's quality. Come to think of it, my
#717? Samsonite has some errors (or inconsistencies) in its instructions as
well.
But, the big question is, should this scan be verified - would it be up for
sale? What would it be worth?
Thanks for a great thread!
Jason Proksch
In lugnet.general, Michael Huffman writes:
> Mark Koesel wrote:
>
> > I never previously doubted, nor do I now doubt that you actually
> > have the instructions in your possession.
>
> Sorry. No offence/hostility intended.
>
> > What I do doubt is that they are instructions from any actual
> > Lego set. These are either created (somewhat poorly) by a fan,
> > as an internal TLG prototype, or by some "knock-off" company.
> >
> > Note that, I also contend that whoever did create the instructions
> > almost certainly did so by trying to copy the picture of the model;
> > the instructions are too error-laiden to have been created by the
> > same fan that created the original model.
> >
> > I like the idea that suggested these were created in a paint
> > program. That would explain the lack of consistency throughout
> > the steps.
>
> They are printed, with the same 'feel' as the 331/332/333
> instructions. They don't feel like they were printed out on a
> color printer on glossy paper -- say at Kinko's or something --
> they're very much have an 'old' feel to them.
>
> I agree, looking at it now, there are several errors, missing
> steps & very difficult reading what parts should be used (ie.
> could it had be intended that it was a 2x2 plate instead of a
> 2x2 L plate? but because of the bad drawing, it looks to us
> like a 2x2 L plate?)
>
> Now as the to TLG prototype, is there any wat to give the Form
> number at the bottom of the last page to TLG and have them
> verify it?
>
> > Michael, where did you say you got the instructions again -- an
> > Ebay auction was it? Why not encourage the seller to participate
> > in this discussion?
>
> Sorry, it's probably been 4-6 months since I won the instructions,
> not to mention I don't remember who I won them from without doing
> some major searching... That and it seemed like they didn't
> collect LEGO; maybe found them at a garage sell & sold them to
> me... But I'll look.
>
> --Mike.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A new scan for 371 (some proof?)
|
| Jason Proksch wrote: <major snippage> (...) Did someone say "Junior Constructor"? Set 717..... from 1961-64. Is that the one you are talking about Jason (by the way, glad you decided to "de-lurk"). If so, are you talking about the earlier gabled (...) (25 years ago, 22-May-00, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: A new scan for 371 (some proof?)
|
| (...) Sorry. No offence/hostility intended. (...) They are printed, with the same 'feel' as the 331/332/333 instructions. They don't feel like they were printed out on a color printer on glossy paper -- say at Kinko's or something -- they're very (...) (25 years ago, 19-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
|
|
|
|
