Subject:
|
Re: NLS opinion
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Sun, 18 Jun 2000 19:31:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
430 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, Mark Sandlin writes:
> The Snowspeeder isn't anywhere close to being as impressive
> as the UCSXW, but it's still a good set, especially for $20.
Actually, I think that the Snowspeeder is a lot *more* impressive than the UCS
X-Wing. It was designed to fit into a very specific scale, it was designed to
only contain a certain number of parts and fit into a specific spot in the Lego
product range, and it *still* manages to bea really well-designed set (looks a
lot like the thing it's intended to) with a good selection of parts.
> As always, it's my opinion too. If you're happy, that's great.. happy building
> to you. I just thought that it was interesting that my NLS was able to
> visually see how poorly the MF was built compared to the Snowspeeder.
...which is her opinion. Mine is also that the MF is a well-built set, and
that's after buying it and building it.
Out of curiousity, have you bought or built the set? Have you seen a set that
a friend bought, paged through the instructions at all, or are you just making
a judgement based on the pics circulating on the web, and on the box?
eric
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: NLS opinion
|
| (...) X-wing (...) that Star (...) Then why would she think the Snowspeeder is a good set? It was next to the UCS X-Wing also, and she still thought it looked good compared to the MF. The Snowspeeder isn't anywhere close to being as impressive as (...) (24 years ago, 18-Jun-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
13 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
