This set looks familiar...
https://brickset.com/article/127138

I feel like this set should have an abundance of transparent red and blue parts.

I never understood why European and American sets needed different numbers. I know American sets must present the number of pieces on the box but still...

@HOBBES said:
"I never understood why European and American sets needed different numbers. I know American sets must present the number of pieces on the box but still... "

This is just a guess, but maybe it's because American sets were made by Samsonite at that time?

The poor redshirt at the rock crusher has been severed in two by a wheelbarrow run right through his abdomen. What a gruesome sight!

Great instructions. Were proto-minifigure necks studs?

@namekuji said:
"Great instructions. Were proto-minifigure necks studs?"

Yes, they looked like this:
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=17

@Maxbricks14 said:
" @HOBBES said:
"I never understood why European and American sets needed different numbers. I know American sets must present the number of pieces on the box but still... "

Because Americans just have to be different I guess."

Samsonite LEGO was more of a Canadian thing than an American one. It was only sold here 11 years before TLG broke the contract and took over US distribution. Canada had it for a full quarter century.

@Zordboy said:
"So it's advanced, but it's also basic ... "

To quote Immortan Joe, Mediocre!

@HOBBES said:
"I never understood why European and American sets needed different numbers. I know American sets must present the number of pieces on the box but still... "

Often different names too. When I first started getting into websites like this and they used the US name for everything it confused the hell out of me

@Brickalili said:
" @HOBBES said:
"I never understood why European and American sets needed different numbers. I know American sets must present the number of pieces on the box but still... "

Often different names too. When I first started getting into websites like this and they used the US name for everything it confused the hell out of me"
It bothered me, too. Still does. It’s not 497-1 Galaxy Explorer. It was and always will be 928-1 Space Cruiser! The release years weren’t always the same either. Fortunately, Brickset’s database is pretty good at pairing sets with different names. It may in fact be complete in that regard.

This one goes to 911!

(but I don't see anything rersembling a Porsche?)

This isn't your average everyday basicness. This is... advanced basicness!

400 pieces and look at the variety of stuff you can build. Let your imagination and creativity run wild!

@Zander said:
" @Brickalili said:
" @HOBBES said:
"I never understood why European and American sets needed different numbers. I know American sets must present the number of pieces on the box but still... "

Often different names too. When I first started getting into websites like this and they used the US name for everything it confused the hell out of me"
It bothered me, too. Still does. It’s not 497-1 Galaxy Explorer. It was and always will be 928-1 Space Cruiser! The release years weren’t always the same either. Fortunately, Brickset’s database is pretty good at pairing sets with different names. It may in fact be complete in that regard."

It has its gaps. Just to give you two examples, 350 says that its alternate name is "Town Hall - Leonard Is Mayor Of Fabuland," getting it mixed up with 350-3, and 6872's entry says "Also known as Xenon X Craft." If you go to Bricklink's entry for the set lists it as "Lunar Patrol Craft," which is what my copy was called. On an unrelated note, Bricklink's entry also shows a minifig with no printing on the torso and shows a sticker sheet to give the Spaceman his Classic Space emblem. I am one hundred percent positive that mine didn't have that; the only spaceman with a sticker on his torso in my collection is https://brickset.com/minifigs/pln0010/plain-white-torso-with-white-arms-white-legs-white-helmet-trans-light-blue-visor from 1682.

@Zander said:
" @Brickalili said:
" @HOBBES said:
"I never understood why European and American sets needed different numbers. I know American sets must present the number of pieces on the box but still... "

Often different names too. When I first started getting into websites like this and they used the US name for everything it confused the hell out of me"
It bothered me, too. Still does. It’s not 497-1 Galaxy Explorer. It was and always will be 928-1 Space Cruiser! The release years weren’t always the same either. Fortunately, Brickset’s database is pretty good at pairing sets with different names. It may in fact be complete in that regard."

There are some times where it redundantly lists the same name, such as for 6885

I mean, it's *basically* an advanced set for it's time, I guess.

This isn't your average everyday basic set...

This is ADVANCED BASIC!

@560heliport said:
" @HOBBES said:
"I never understood why European and American sets needed different numbers. I know American sets must present the number of pieces on the box but still... "

This is just a guess, but maybe it's because American sets were made by Samsonite at that time?"

European set-numbers are metric, and therefore just better than the US imperial set-numbers.

@Crux said:
" @560heliport said:
" @HOBBES said:
"I never understood why European and American sets needed different numbers. I know American sets must present the number of pieces on the box but still... "

This is just a guess, but maybe it's because American sets were made by Samsonite at that time?"

European set-numbers are metric, and therefore just better than the US imperial set-numbers."

…for people who can’t do basic math.

This was my first and only LEGO set as a kid!!!!

@PurpleDave said:
" @Crux said:
" @560heliport said:
" @HOBBES said:
"I never understood why European and American sets needed different numbers. I know American sets must present the number of pieces on the box but still... "

This is just a guess, but maybe it's because American sets were made by Samsonite at that time?"

European set-numbers are metric, and therefore just better than the US imperial set-numbers."

…for people who can’t do basic math."

Josh Bazell wrote:
"In metric, one milliliter of water occupies one cubic centimeter, weighs one gram, and requires one calorie of energy to heat up by one degree centigrade—which is 1 percent of the difference between its freezing point and its boiling point. An amount of hydrogen weighing the same amount has exactly one mole of atoms in it. Whereas in the American system, the answer to ‘How much energy does it take to boil a room-temperature gallon of water?’ is ‘Go [fornicate] yourself,’ because you can’t directly relate any of those quantities."

@Crux:
And European bars still serve in pints and quarts, just with the metric equivalent stated for legal reasons. And I once read a story claiming to be one of the people who chose to switch Australia over to the metric system, only to realize his mistake when he tried to build a simple tool shed, while slightly lubricated. The thing you posted proves that metric is for people who can’t do math, because there’s zero math involved in that entire paragraph, which is why the guy in your example threw a tantrum when he was asked to do an actual math problem. Everything is made equal to each other so you never have to do math. What they’re not made equal to, however, is useful measurements, which is why you can still buy stuff in Europe that’s still measured in Imperial Standard units, and labeled with kiddie units.

Not like it matters, the next generation won’t even be able to handle metric “math”, where the answer to every test question will be to say, “They’re the same thing.” They’ll just ask ChatGPT for the answer.

@PurpleDave said:
" @Crux :
And European bars still serve in pints and quarts, just with the metric equivalent stated for legal reasons. And I once read a story claiming to be one of the people who chose to switch Australia over to the metric system, only to realize his mistake when he tried to build a simple tool shed, while slightly lubricated. The thing you posted proves that metric is for people who can’t do math, because there’s zero math involved in that entire paragraph, which is why the guy in your example threw a tantrum when he was asked to do an actual math problem. Everything is made equal to each other so you never have to do math. What they’re not made equal to, however, is useful measurements, which is why you can still buy stuff in Europe that’s still measured in Imperial Standard units, and labeled with kiddie units.

Not like it matters, the next generation won’t even be able to handle metric “math”, where the answer to every test question will be to say, “They’re the same thing.” They’ll just ask ChatGPT for the answer."

I once read a story about a monkey who could lift a mountain. It was pretty good. It was a pretty cool story, bro.

@PurpleDave said:
" @Crux said:
"European set-numbers are metric, and therefore just better than the US imperial set-numbers."

…for people who can’t do basic math."

Sometimes I wonder if illiteracy about the metric system is a result of its users not exercising their brains. Try some unit conversions. They're good for you!

Let's start by mentioning that meters are (er, aren't) one ten-millionth the distance from the North Pole to the equator, how that's a number with no practical application to begin with, how they measured it wrong anyway, and how the earth isn't even a sphere, so the whole concept is bogus.

"In metric, one milliliter of water occupies one cubic centimeter"
Only if you are discussing the years 1964–present. Prior to 1964, one milliliter has an official volume of approximately 1.000028 cubic centimeters.

"weighs one gram"
You're some where between 227 and forever years out of date on this one. Fluids change density with temperature and pressure. Rational people designing a measurement system would have known that, but the metric system came from the French Revolution, so actual rationality was in short supply. Still, even they abandoned this unworkable concept by 1799.

They later discovered they'd made the kilogram too big, so they officially pinned the definition of liters to the reference kilogram, then later changed their minds again. So 1 ml of water only had a mass of 1 g from 1901–1964, and then only at exactly 39.1712°F (its maximum volume), and only at a pressure of one "standard" atmosphere, and only if distilled, and only the correct isotopes. Note also that "standard atmospheres" are a completely made-up unit, much like the imaginary story of yards being defined as the distance from the king's nose to his fingertips, but this time in real life.

Today, 1 ml of water has a mass of approximately 1.000028 g, but ONLY at the extremely finicky conditions circumscribed above.

"and requires one calorie of energy to heat up by one degree centigrade"
Wrong again. It might require one calorie, or it might require 0.001 calories, and you'll never know which without somebody telling you, because there are two different calories, written the same way.

But that assumes calories themselves mean something, which they don't. In addition to multiple calories based on magitude, there are also at least 7 different calories based on your selection of starting temperature and pressure.

"which is 1 percent of the difference between its freezing point and its boiling point"
You can't just create an energy scale by mapping it directly to thermometer divisions, because the energy required changes based on starting temperature.

Worse, there's no single boiling point of water. It varies, very dramatically, by pressure. And pressure varies, very dramatically, with both random weather and elevation. It was also stupid to use boiling water as a temperature scale reference point because humans never directly encounter it as a temperature. You would instantly die if you did. To only way to know if water is boiling is if it has bubbles.

"An amount of hydrogen weighing the same amount has exactly one mole of atoms in it."
Fine, if we want to play that game, moles are indeed the SI unit of quantity. How do you like to buy eggs in metric countries, by the 20 yoctomole box? Do shoes come in sets of 3.32107813 yoctomoles? It must be an absolute doggone nightmare to have to multiply everything by 6.023214076e23 just to find out how much you're getting.

"Whereas in the American system"
You know what I really love? I can roughly measure distances with my shoes, because they're just about exactly 1 foot long.

Take that, metric weenies!

I love reading Brickset. You guys never fail to make me smile!

I've always found it amusing that here in America, a large bottle of soda has its volume measured in liters, but a smaller bottle has it's volume measured in fluid ounces. Getting back to the set, why is the bucket of that crane positioned directly over those two black minifigs? Somebody's not paying attention or has nefarious intentions.

@AllenSmith said:
"…a bunch of math…"

See, for people who can’t do math. Or monkeys.

@TheOtherMike:
Funny thing is, the US has no official system of measurements. In the Land of the Free, you get to choose which units of measurement make the most sense for the task at hand. Want to enjoy a refreshing 16oz bottled beverage? Measure it in ounces. Liked it so much you want to take home a 2-Liter? Measure it in liters. That’s just how we do.

Also, it’s pop. Soda is the adjective.

@AllenSmith said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @Crux said:
"European set-numbers are metric, and therefore just better than the US imperial set-numbers."

…for people who can’t do basic math."

Sometimes I wonder if illiteracy about the metric system is a result of its users not exercising their brains. Try some unit conversions. They're good for you!

Let's start by mentioning that meters are (er, aren't) one ten-millionth the distance from the North Pole to the equator, how that's a number with no practical application to begin with, how they measured it wrong anyway, and how the earth isn't even a sphere, so the whole concept is bogus.

"In metric, one milliliter of water occupies one cubic centimeter"
Only if you are discussing the years 1964–present. Prior to 1964, one milliliter has an official volume of approximately 1.000028 cubic centimeters.

"weighs one gram"
You're some where between 227 and forever years out of date on this one. Fluids change density with temperature and pressure. Rational people designing a measurement system would have known that, but the metric system came from the French Revolution, so actual rationality was in short supply. Still, even they abandoned this unworkable concept by 1799.

They later discovered they'd made the kilogram too big, so they officially pinned the definition of liters to the reference kilogram, then later changed their minds again. So 1 ml of water only had a mass of 1 g from 1901–1964, and then only at exactly 39.1712°F (its maximum volume), and only at a pressure of one "standard" atmosphere, and only if distilled, and only the correct isotopes. Note also that "standard atmospheres" are a completely made-up unit, much like the imaginary story of yards being defined as the distance from the king's nose to his fingertips, but this time in real life.

Today, 1 ml of water has a mass of approximately 1.000028 g, but ONLY at the extremely finicky conditions circumscribed above.

"and requires one calorie of energy to heat up by one degree centigrade"
Wrong again. It might require one calorie, or it might require 0.001 calories, and you'll never know which without somebody telling you, because there are two different calories, written the same way.

But that assumes calories themselves mean something, which they don't. In addition to multiple calories based on magitude, there are also at least 7 different calories based on your selection of starting temperature and pressure.

"which is 1 percent of the difference between its freezing point and its boiling point"
You can't just create an energy scale by mapping it directly to thermometer divisions, because the energy required changes based on starting temperature.

Worse, there's no single boiling point of water. It varies, very dramatically, by pressure. And pressure varies, very dramatically, with both random weather and elevation. It was also stupid to use boiling water as a temperature scale reference point because humans never directly encounter it as a temperature. You would instantly die if you did. To only way to know if water is boiling is if it has bubbles.

"An amount of hydrogen weighing the same amount has exactly one mole of atoms in it."
Fine, if we want to play that game, moles are indeed the SI unit of quantity. How do you like to buy eggs in metric countries, by the 20 yoctomole box? Do shoes come in sets of 3.32107813 yoctomoles? It must be an absolute doggone nightmare to have to multiply everything by 6.023214076e23 just to find out how much you're getting.

"Whereas in the American system"
You know what I really love? I can roughly measure distances with my shoes, because they're just about exactly 1 foot long.

Take that, metric weenies!"

Wow, it's so useful to me that YOUR shoes are "just about exactly" 1 foot long.
Especially silly after all of your nonsense about metric having so much imprecision.

The metric system is far superior.

@560heliport said:
"Wow, it's so useful to me that YOUR shoes are "just about exactly" 1 foot long."
At least my feet are EXACTLY 1 foot long. Might not be the same as somebody elses foot, but does that matter in Freedom Units?

@PurpleDave said:
"Also, it’s pop. Soda is the adjective."

Hey, at least I don't call the whole category Coke, like some people around where I live do.