 | | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000 —Suzanne D. Rich
|
| | | (...) Assuming TLC wants to cover all targets in the young, what would you like to see in between DUPLO and those late 80's sets? Like if a boy wants his Mom to buy the Silver Champion for him, but he's 3. Kind of an exageration there, but while I'm (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000 —Thomas Garrison
|
| | | | (...) Didn't LEGO address this in the 1980s? That is, I recall that at least one or two of the US medium catalogs from c.1985 [1] pitched "Basic" sets as a series of graduated steps: there were sets with the "finger puppets" and mostly blocks that (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000 —Benjamin Medinets
|
| | | | (...) I see your point but I have read that line over a few times, and it makes me laugh...."little Billie" wants something his older brother "Jeffy" has.... I guess that's the jealousy factor.... (...) Mmmmm...I think you are right about this...I (...) (24 years ago, 4-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000 —Suzanne D. Rich
|
| | | | In lugnet.general, Benjamin Medinets writes: ... (...) ... Wow, that's cool to hear someone mention those LEGO Basic sets. I miss those. The 3 you mention were the age 7+ sets in green boxes. see (URL) were also 5+ (blue) see (URL) 3+ (orange). see (...) (24 years ago, 5-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
