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 / 18431
18430  |  18432
Subject: 
Re: A new scan for 371 (some proof?)
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.general
Date: 
Sat, 8 Apr 2000 10:30:50 GMT
Reply-To: 
ssgore@!saynotospam!superonline.com
Viewed: 
3292 times
  
Mark Koesel wrote:

"Michael Huffman" <mhuffman@mindspring.com> wrote in message

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.

Which suggests that maybe they were created by someone at TLG,
perhaps.  Or perhaps the person who created them simply had access
to high end printing equipment at the time.  It is a curious, I
admit.


It's impossible. If we are talking about the 60's, only possible way to
make this thing printed is huge offset printing machinery, which for
sure owned by some other company that works for TLC, not the TLC itself.
That is still true, paper media printed outside of the TLC even today.

(look at the fine print on page:
http://www.brickshelf.com/scans/catalogs/1984/c84me/c84me-32.html )

Besides, if this had been done by a freak of that time as a unique
piece, it should also be the most expensive printed material, since
offset printing needs too much pre processing (such as color separation
and die preparation) which were really expensive and hard work before
the computer age.

In brief, if it is really an old piece (I mean before the mid 80's), it
MUST BE AUTHENTIC since it's almost impossible otherwise, since printing
only a copy of something in color was plain crazy at that times..

Selçuk

Selçuk



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: A new scan for 371 (some proof?)
 
"Michael Huffman" <mhuffman@mindspring.com> wrote in message news:392592E1.D493EE...ing.com... (...) No need for an apology, I too meant no offense nor hostility. I was just making my stance clear, that's all :) (...) Which suggests that maybe they (...) (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
    

Custom Search

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