 | | Re: Bigger/better scans of 2000 sets? —John Neal
|
| | | Just a few nits: (...) actually 1x1x1.3 half-round with plate (6091) (...) actually 6081 (...) They are my favorite elements so please excuse my analness.... Analness?{;^D -John (...) (25 years ago, 5-Nov-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Bigger/better scans of 2000 sets? —Jeff Stembel
|
| | | | (...) Gaah! Why quibble over Semantics? ;) I generally use the overhead footprint when determining names. Besides, no one name is right. I did put in the part number, ya know. (...) Umm... Sorry, it is *not* part 6081. It does *not* have the (...) (25 years ago, 8-Nov-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Bigger/better scans of 2000 sets? —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | (...) Sure he could - there are many cases of sets having 2 stud widths at the legs, and 4 at the arms (the 1775 plane, for example. The cockpit could be 2-wide on the bottom, and his arms could be right over top of the studs on the 6081. In fact, (...) (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Bigger/better scans of 2000 sets? —John Neal
|
| | | | (...) I think it's time for a friendly wager. Meesa bet you Jar-Jar yessir! BTW I'm 0-2 in betting on SW sets. I lost a buck thinking the Gungan Sub was purple. Then I lost another bet thinking the Grimace was blue, not purple:-p Smart money might (...) (25 years ago, 9-Nov-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | |
