Subject:
|
Re: Plate 2x6 in year 1966?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.inv, lugnet.parts
|
Date:
|
Fri, 31 Aug 2007 02:21:53 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
10025 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.inv, Martin Srb wrote:
> In lugnet.inv, John Patterson wrote:
> > Aug 17
> >
> > 112-2 Locomotive with motor
> > 3022 Old gray plate 2x2 should be 1 not two.
> >
> > Missing from the inventory follows:
> > 3795 plate 2x6 one old gray
> <snip>
>
> The plate 2x6 sounds very surprising to me. Maybe some brick historians can
> answer this question.
>
> 1. Peeron says about the plate 2x6: 1966 gray in 112-2, 1967 white in 371-2,
> then nine years nothing, 1977 in five colours. The database is not 100%
> complete, but the 9-year gap is strange.
>
> 2. In the 112-2 and 371-2 instructions, the 2x6 is not clearly visible.
> Combinations of 2x3 + 2x3 or 2x2 + 2x4 could be used instead. (In the 1977 sets
> instructions the 2x6 is evident.)
>
> 3. Between 1966 and 1977 many sets use plates 2x2, 2x3, 2x4, although 2x6 would
> be more suitable. For example: 113-2, 116-1, 119-1, 123-1, 131-1, 137-2,
> 182-1... see the roofs of the passenger cars and box cars. (I'm a rail fan.)
>
> Were there really plates 2x6 in 1966/67, or maybe only protoypes?
>
> Martin
This was a strange one in that the instructions did not show the detail of the
roof. Mine is in very good condition with what looks like all original parts.
I got it off ebay from somewhere in Europe. It is possible that it was a
substitute, but it was from the same era. I looked at the underside and the
studs and the 2x6 matched with the other parts in the set. I only have one of
these so it is possible that it was thrown in, but I would wonder why it would
match the details of the other parts. Most prototypes were done in red. I have
a Darth Vader helmet in red rather than the black. Why there would be a gap like
that is a bit confusing. However, like you said, that piece helps stabalize the
roof.
This harkens back to the problem with doing inventories from the directions. As
Peeron has done, the errors could have been passed down with dealers on ebay and
Bricklink building the sets to match Peeron. Then the wrong piece becomes the
standard by way of the authority of the web site. I usually do not send in a
change to them without being very sure of the correction. I went crazy with all
the Samsonite sets. This one just looked right and that was the piece that was
in the rather pristine set and from the same era. I hope that I am not adding
to the "Lego mayhem." If only the Lego Company had kept better records or were
willing to research these things.
If anyone know for sure, please let us know.
John P
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Plate 2x6 in year 1966?
|
| Wow, What's funny is that John is purchasing some old plates from me right now, so this discussion is rather Deja Vu! John, does that gray plate have Pat. Pend. on the underside? Of the mint plates you're getting from me 6 are of the 2x6 size WITH (...) (17 years ago, 31-Aug-07, to lugnet.inv, lugnet.parts)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Plate 2x6 in year 1966?
|
| (...) <snip> The plate 2x6 sounds very surprising to me. Maybe some brick historians can answer this question. 1. Peeron says about the plate 2x6: 1966 gray in 112-2, 1967 white in 371-2, then nine years nothing, 1977 in five colours. The database (...) (17 years ago, 30-Aug-07, to lugnet.inv, lugnet.parts)
|
8 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
|
|
|
|
