* Change 1 Gear Red {case9 Storage Case with Molded Internal Tray with Four Compartments to case15 Storage Case with Two Sliding Latches 40 x 48 x 13 studs}
Case15 has the same dimensions as case2, which came out the following year. These two cases make much more sense that they would be the missing identities for sets 782, and 783 respectively. The Lugnet DB photo that's currently in use originates from a medium US 1984 catalog, but if you look it's clearly a reused older photo of set 781.
* Change 1 Gear Red {case9 Storage Case with Molded Internal Tray with Four Compartments to case15 Storage Case with Two Sliding Latches 40 x 48 x 13 studs}
Case15 has the same dimensions as case2, which came out the following year. These two cases make much more sense that they would be the missing identities for sets 782, and 783 respectively. The Lugnet DB photo that's currently in use originates from a medium US 1984 catalog, but if you look it's clearly a reused older photo of set 781.
I have been looking around, but I can't find any evidence that
I would like to wait for more evidence. Like was found for 781 and 783.
However: I did find a 1985 catalogue with case 15 for set 783 (see attached image),
the current case for set 783 shows up in a 1986 catalogue.
Maybe they were always behind with images??
* Change 1 Gear Red {case9 Storage Case with Molded Internal Tray with Four Compartments to case15 Storage Case with Two Sliding Latches 40 x 48 x 13 studs}
Case15 has the same dimensions as case2, which came out the following year. These two cases make much more sense that they would be the missing identities for sets 782, and 783 respectively. The Lugnet DB photo that's currently in use originates from a medium US 1984 catalog, but if you look it's clearly a reused older photo of set 781.
I have been looking around, but I can't find any evidence that
I would like to wait for more evidence. Like was found for 781 and 783.
However: I did find a 1985 catalogue with case 15 for set 783 (see attached image),
the current case for set 783 shows up in a 1986 catalogue.
Maybe they were always behind with images??
Diana
After searching for a long time back in March, I just found evidence by accident,
searching for something completely different in my catalogs It turns out
that the inventory of 782-1 is wrong (and you are right), because the set image
is wrong. I just found the set in this catalog.
Imo this makes the timeline of those cases as it should be and we should not
add case15 to set 783.
For the record: Attached the image that was on BrickLink before I changed it,
which doesn't show a set number. As you can see the catalog I have is not
in a very good condition.
USA, New York
Netherlands, Gelderland
It turns out
