|
|
 | | Re: Review of 10030 Imperial Star Destroyer
|
| (...) I'm not sure if it was only me, but I noticed some discrepancies with the deflector shield domes ("golf balls"). Most steps show one dome flush against the edge of the plate it sits on, and the other dome 1 stud away from the edge. Can someone (...) (22 years ago, 29-Dec-02, to lugnet.reviews, lugnet.starwars)
| | | | | Re: Review of 10030 Imperial Star Destroyer
|
| "Kerry Raymond" <kerry@dstc.edu.au> wrote in message news:H7szBH.CAG@lugnet.com... (...) ISD] <snip> (...) together, (...) greatest (...) (in (...) I agree about the unusual use of the magnets. They are a bit weak, yes. But If you take in count (...) (22 years ago, 29-Dec-02, to lugnet.reviews, lugnet.starwars, lugnet.loc.au)
| | | | | Re: Review of 10030 Imperial Star Destroyer
|
| Hey Kerry, While I'll agree that the model is not easily handled and cannot be swooshed around, I wasn't disappointed by this at all. In fact, I expected it. Given it's scale, the model would have to be glued together to be sturdy enough (horrors!). (...) (22 years ago, 29-Dec-02, to lugnet.reviews, lugnet.starwars, lugnet.loc.au)
| | | | | Re: Review of 10030 Imperial Star Destroyer
|
| (...) Agreed. While the magnet idea is cool, it is simply not strong enough. Even Though the magnets do not take all the strain, they still tend to slip and disconnect. For the most part, I didn't have much trouble, but when I began putting any (...) (22 years ago, 28-Dec-02, to lugnet.reviews, lugnet.starwars, lugnet.loc.au)
| | | | | Re: Review of 10030 Imperial Star Destroyer
|
| Kerry, your review was most thorough! I do not have the time nor the patience to type an equally thorough response. However, I respond just hours after completing my own ISD...I must say you are being too critical of the model's integrity. I would (...) (22 years ago, 28-Dec-02, to lugnet.reviews, lugnet.starwars, lugnet.loc.au)
|
|
