Subject:
|
Re: Rock Raiders --Wider is not better.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 14 May 1999 13:51:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
680 times
|
| |
|
|
I actually did pick up the smallest sets as well and I'd agree.
The 4910 is a standard little set. I think it is because they
couldn't fit any Jr. into a set that small. But with the
strange shaped base and the roof pieces, it is the most non-blocky
small set I've seen in a while. Plus, for once a section of
my lego population will end up with more women than men.
Ranking: 9 out of 10 (for a set that small)
Just to match this back with the subject. Unlike the larger set,
this set is not wider than similarly sized sets.
Robert Brunskill wrote:
>
> ----------
> In article <373B996A.DC39C5E4@ix.netcom.com>, Allen Carley
> <acarley@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hello again,
<snip my own stuff...it was boring anyway.>
>
> While you might want to pass on 4970, check out the two smallest sets, they
> are pretty decent.
>
> Rob
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Rock Raiders --Wider is not better.
|
| ---...--- (...) You forgot about 'speaking in a hokey Australian accent' (as in the movie 'Alien From LA'). While you might want to pass on 4970, check out the two smallest sets, they are pretty decent. Rob (26 years ago, 14-May-99, to lugnet.general)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
