Subject:
|
Re: When is Lego actually considered old?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Sep 2000 15:43:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5251 times
|
| |
|
|
David Eaton wrote:
> In lugnet.loc.au, Chris Phillips writes:
> > In lugnet.loc.au, Kerry Raymond writes:
> > > While it's true that we can put a date on sets, it's presumably a lot harder
> > > to put a date on pieces.
> > > Would it be possible to distinguish between a box of assorted bricks from
> > > the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, or 00s?
> >
> > When I look at a bunch of older pieces, I can see subtle differences. The
> > older pieces don't hold together as strongly, although I'm not sure if that's
> > an effect of age or just better design and tighter manufacturing tolerances of
> > the newer pieces. The composition of the plastic has also changed a few times
> > over the years. Sometimes the shape of a piece has been improved over time.
> >
> > I'm sure that somebody who studied the history of LEGO could easily tell you
> > the rough age of a piece plucked out of a bin to within a decade. And I'm
> > certain that there are a few LUGNET readers who could do a lot better if you
> > tested them...
>
> The best person to ask, of course, would be Gary Istok, but some things I've
> noticed as differences:
> - older bricks are made from Cellulose Acetate (sp?), newer ones are ABS
> - the injection point for a lego brick used to be on the side somewhere, now
> it's more commonly on the studs
> - inner walls between the brick wall and the tubing on bricks have appeared in
> more recent bricks
> - some older bricks have a notch in the underside tubing
> - supports along the inner side of the brick wall appear in newer bricks
>
> I'll deferr the rest (and the dates) to Gary :)
>
> > > My second question is "is age relevant to the value or appeal of Lego"?
> > > Would you pay more for Lego just because it was old (as distinct from being
> > > rare)?
> > > Would you pay less for Lego just because it was old (as distinct from being
> > > damaged or in poor condition)?
>
> I'm going to totally agree with Chris on this one-- the only real appeal of old
> Lego (for me) is getting pieces you can't get anymore or are rare. If someone
> had a box full of red 2x4's from 1960 and one from 2000, I'd easily pay more
> for the newer bricks. However, if someone had a box full of 1980's space and
> castle pieces, I'd jump at the chance to get them, simply because many of the
> pieces are really tough to find :)
>
> DaveE
Ahhhhhh yessssss...... old LEGO.
Cellulose Acetate was the material used in LEGO from the mid 50's thru 1963,
although I have seen a few pieces it in sets as recent as 1966. Here's a rule of
thumb, if it doesn't fit well, it's probably CA. If it is warped, it is CA. Is
old CA Lego a collectors item? For common bricks, only if it is in mint
condition. Some of the stuff from the 1950's is so warped, that it is almost
useless for building.
That leads to another problem. Some of the rare old sets from the 50's and early
60's have pieces that are so warped that when you build the set model, it looks
very very disappointing. I saw a #309 (European Esso Service Station) that was
assembled. It looked like an earthquake hit it. Unlike ABS sets, which even from
old sets, can be put together and look good. But if you build 50's sets, the end
result can be quite disappointing, even with mint pieces. This isn't always the
case though. I have a 1963 #717 Samsonite Junior Constructor set (Cellulose
Acetate). The pieces were virtually mint when I bought the set. However, they
showed very little signs of warpage, and the finished assembled house looked really
great. So one really has to avoid making any kind of generalization with CA.
Now with ABS it is different. ABS from 1964 still holds together as well as ABS
from 2000. It just doesn't warp. It is a very stable plastic. Is there any
difference between ABS from 1964 and ABS today? Well yes there is. Usually it
involves fading or yellowing of old pieces. For some reason ABS, while more stable
than CA, also seems to yellow much more rapidly. And some of the early red bricks
are a much darker color, almost a maroon. This might be due to age, but I think
that there might have been a color change. Other colors are less apparent.
LEGO bricks have changed over the years. Early pieces have "pat. pend." on the
underside. They also have different fonts. Recently I checked a mixed lot of
about 100 2x4 black bricks. I knew that some old CA ones were mixed into the lot.
I checked them all thoroughly, and I found 11 different variations (3 CA, 8 ABS) -
some different fonts, some different undersides to the bricks (such as the "pat
pend"). And some had the "pat pend" erased, making it look like the words were
removed from the underside of the die.
I usually have some idea of how old a 2x4 brick is. But it involves some studying
of the brick, and comparing them to other old bricks from old sets. This is still
not an exact science.
Another interesting thing, is that with the CA bricks, I can tell if it is from
Samsonite LEGO (USA/Canada) or LEGO Europe. The Samsonite pieces have a slightly
smaller font, but the lettering is thicker, and it is more italicized. But even
here one has to be careful. In the 1961-72 USA Samsonite days (remember Samsonite
produced LEGO in Canada until 1986), only the basic pieces were produced by
Samsonite. All specialty pieces were still produced in Denmark. So you could
easily find pieces from both countries in the same set. My 1963 Junior Constructor
(717) has all CA bricks, but ABS windows, which I assume were produced in Denmark.
I believe that CA was used in sets longer in the USA (Samsonite) than in Europe
(TLC). This might be nothing more than the fact that perhaps Samsonite had a
bigger warehouse, and more CA stored there.
I find it interesting that even the old 1950's-60's metal wheeled (Matchbox sized)
cars (scale 1:87) were made of CA until about 1963, and then switched over to ABS
as well. I have the Fire Engine and Esso Tanker in both types. Many of the
earlier CA ones also show warpage. They have a curve in the undercarriage.
But to get to the original question, I too would rather have new(er) pieces than
older pieces, unless you were completing an old set, or unless they are rare
pieces.
Gary Istok
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
3 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
