 | | Re: New Products on Shop@Home
|
|
(...) The oldest 'new' set I could find listed, was 9274 from 1998! Mark (22 years ago, 8-Aug-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting retail pack
|
|
(...) Hey everyone. I am the culprit as Steve Bliss has mentioned. Here are the details. The package was from some kind of folding screwdriver. The plastic cover slips right off easily, there was only a staple holding it in position. I kept the (...) (22 years ago, 7-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting retail pack
|
|
(...) I'm not seeing it. Maybe it's a defect of the price tag that happens to correspond to the reflection? (...) That's because it's not a plastic-glued-to-cardboard blister pack. The plastic is formed so that the cardboard back can slide in and (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.fun)
|
| |
| | New Products on Shop@Home
|
|
How long do products stay in the 'New' section on the Official Site. It's not going to be long before the entire contents of the database is going to be on the one page. Its kind of loosing its purpose. Time for a cleanup ?? -- James Stacey (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting retail pack
|
|
Besides being well-done and funny, we can recognise a highly ironical message behind this joke: If mainstream TLG were to produce a useful, very generic parts pack these days such as TECHNIC ball joints, it would probably market it as a hot-themed (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Contacting LEGO Australia.....
|
|
Hello all Could someone please let me know the best way to contact LEGO regarding..... ....A friend of mine is setting up a Playgroup with a specific focus on parents that have or have experienced depression or other mental illness's. It is a (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.people, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting retail pack
|
|
"Kevin Salm" <kdsalm@dreamscape.com> wrote in message news:H0ELLI.K33@lugnet.com... (...) call it (...) but (...) It was not me. I just happened to come accross it on Brickshelf and thought it was the oddest thing i'd seen in a while. I did not (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting retail pack
|
|
XFUT: Off-topic.fun (...) plastic (...) left (...) pictures. But that does not prove or disprove that the item in question is or is NOT a genuine Lego product. My vote is that it is NOT a genuine Lego product. If it were, I would call it the lamest (...) (22 years ago, 6-Aug-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting retail pack
|
|
Wow, time flies when you're having fun. Is it april again already? Duq "Troy's Surplus Lego" <legosales@tcphoto.net> wrote in message news:H0DwKA.Ltw@lugnet.com... (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting retail pack
|
|
(...) Well, if it is a fake, it appears that someone went to the trouble to actually make one, as it shows up on the table in these other shots in the same gallery: (URL) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting retail pack
|
|
(...) Really? I'd pay that much. But only if I needed the parts. (...) Actually, I think I've got enough, now. Steve (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting retail pack
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) I vote for a pretty good fake. If you look at the reflections on the plastic surface of the blister pack and track them around, you can see one that traverses the price tag. How do they get the price tag under the plastic? And the (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting retail pack
|
|
Even at $2.50 it still seems a little pricey to me. But, hey, who doesn't need more Yoda eyeballs? (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting retail pack
|
|
(...) On that packaging I believe those logo choices, sizing and placements violate in-house design rules. a fake. but made me laugh. nice job. only, next time, remember that SYSTEM came off SW packaging years ago. :-) -Suz (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting retail pack
|
|
(...) Wow! That's kinda odd, but rather dubious looking if you ask me. No set number, no part count (could be foreign I suppose?), wacky name for a set (heck, why make such a set?), and to date I can't think of any sets since the late 70's that have (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting retail pack
|
|
(...) Wow! Meijer had those on clearance? I'm really surprised... Steve (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Interesting retail pack
|
|
Would anyone from LEgo care to comment on this: (URL) has to be the oddest thing i've seen recently... Troy (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: What set is this part from?
|
|
I agree, and I'm sure MANY others agree, that 730 was an absolutely awesome set for parts or building. I don't think it would be considered a Legend, however. I could definitely see it as a Classic or Variant, though. Jake - if you can, mention that (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.general, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: Attack of the clones (Re: $Here’s the Deal$)
|
|
(...) For LDraw, we've 'declared' color code 383 to be for silver/chrome/metal. But chrome (and any metallic look) isn't a color so much as a surface appearance -- it's reflective, mirror-like. The only way to get a satisfying chrome (AFAIK) is to (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.general, lugnet.space)
|
| |
| | Re: Attack of the clones (what the heck was all that?)
|
|
(...) Well I will always prefer violet over purple, (just in case I haven't made that completly clear yet :-D) as for chrome well... That would be cool but I would much rather have silver plastic parts. (as found in the Spiderman Green Goblin set) (...) (22 years ago, 5-Aug-02, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.general, lugnet.space)
|
