|
The subject tells all. I ask this in light of 10018 and 19 being sent to
stores.
In lugnet.lego.direct, Thomas Stangl writes:
> Jason Spears wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Lou Zucaro writes:
> > <snip>
> > > And this is a pet peeve with me...please go back to the flap-and-tray boxes
> > > for larger sets!!! The current boxes are awful. That horrid thick corrguated
> > > cardboard with punchtabs is about the worst possible container for LEGO sets.
> >
> > Actually I like it. Now if someone has returned the set after opening it, or
> > worse yet, opened and plundered it at the store, there is no question about it.
> > Also those heavy duty cardboard boxes take abuse better than the old boxes
> > ever did. Look at the USC stuff, and how those boxes are always beat.
>
> The UCS sets are a rotten example. Whoever designed the UCS Tie and X-Wing boxes
> should be strangled, hanged, and SHOT. Those are the flimsiest, most useless boxes
> I've seen out of Lego. They are double the size they need to be (and at half the
> size they'd still have a commanding shelf presence), yet not large enough to store
> the models partially disassembled - the X-Wing fuselage is taller in any one
> direction that the box.
>
> I've NEVER seen a UCS box in a store that wasn't beat to heck thanks to the >flimsy cardboard and huge size, leading to dents/tears just from picking it >up from an end.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Packaging Style (was:You get to choose!)
|
| (...) The UCS sets are a rotten example. Whoever designed the UCS Tie and X-Wing boxes should be strangled, hanged, and SHOT. Those are the flimsiest, most useless boxes I've seen out of Lego. They are double the size they need to be (and at half (...) (23 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
89 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
|
|
|
|