ZO6

8295 Telescopic Handler Review

On a scale of 1 to 5   63 members have voted

  1. 1. How do you rate this set?

    • 1 - Poor
      3
    • 2 - Below Average
      8
    • 3 - Average
      16
    • 4 - Above Average
      32
    • 5 - Outstanding
      4

Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

58 posts in this topic

As I wait to acquire the newly released Technic sets, I thought I would do some quick reviews of a few slightly older sets. First up...

Set Name: Telescopic Handler

Set Number: 8295

Year Released: 2008

Number of Pieces: 1182

Price: $109.99 CAD, $89.99 USD

First up is the box - it is quite large and features the back corners which must be torn to get in.

3727607162_3ec902a2bc_o.jpg

The back of the box shows how the model can have power functions added. A picture of the alternate model is also displayed (Log Loader - the instructions can be found online).

3726803169_31a2f2c3e0_o.jpg

The build is split up over three instruction manuals, each weighing in at about 75 pages.

3726803247_de6b560c4e_o.jpg

Random shot from instructions. They are well laid out and easy to follow so long as you are paying enough attention. Colour separation is decent - there was only one point in which I accidentally used a pair of black beams in place of dark bley and did not catch my mistake until much later on.

3726803311_7c7bd12b22_o.jpg

At the end of the third manual are instructions as to adding power functions to the model. I tried this out using the motor and battery box from 8292 Cherry Picker and found it worked fairly well.

3726803383_1560655b5b_o.jpg

The sticker sheet after it's contents have been applied. They don't enhance the model greatly, but I figured I'd stick 'em on anyways.

3726803447_05be6cee22_o.jpg

The completed model.

3727607472_1a44e390c6_o.jpg

3727607522_4a334556aa_o.jpg

3726803599_e0d63ffabf_o.jpg

3727607614_b5d1de11a3_o.jpg

3726803675_017126155e_o.jpg

The exhaust is used to engage/disengage the stabilizers at the front.

3727607736_a6794a51b1_o.jpg

The cab features a little seat, levers, a steering wheel, and an instrument panel (sticker)

3727607808_ba2c6d485e_o.jpg

It also includes the lever to switch between raising/lowering and extending/retracting the boom, as well as steering controls (via hand of god)

3726803859_b9c6729be5_o.jpg

The 4-wheel steering tour...

3726803909_62acc3f121_o.jpg

3726803985_19736b62f1_o.jpg

The 4-wheel steering works not too badly, though it is perhaps a bit vague. Thanks to this system though, the large vehicle can make relatively tight turns.

3726804055_a9dd6277dc_o.jpg

A small modular section which is the starting point to all the action in the model. It can easily be removed and replaced with a motor.

3726804121_1c951d5ebf_o.jpg

The heart of the telescopic handler. (note: the cab was removed to make photographing easier)

3726804183_7069c8f203_o.jpg

The source of sore fingers. Cranking the beige gear sets things in motion.

3727608296_a119cc3d9b_o.jpg

By flipping the red lever on the side of the cab, the clutch mechanism can divert the cranking action of the beige gear at the back to either work it's way to the linear actuator thus raising or lowering the boom (green line), or to extending/retracting the boom (purple line)

3726804325_795b0b7102_o.jpg

Alternate angle. Walk through of functions. Green still for raising, purple for extending...

3726804443_885e622352_o.jpg

3726804531_09b73cd147_o.jpg

And voila! Boom fully raised.

3727608604_9c6efeb889_o.jpg

...continuing with the extension mechanism...

3727608664_3296917aa2_o.jpg

...still going... (note: the half pin is used to prevent the boom from retracting any further)

3727608736_a3475ebdf1_o.jpg

3728234370_f607ff5e02_o.jpg

...finally the 8-tooth gear gets to work it's magic! (note: the 1x2 slope is used to prevent the boom from extending further)

3727608786_6d48b878ae_o.jpg

Fully extended

3726804851_549d546b78_o.jpg

Raised and extended (measures approx. 18" (46cm) long and 19" (48cm) high.

3727608862_74dd47c8b1_o.jpg

Quick recap

3726804951_7a049b1eb8_o.jpg

The front forklift can be adjusted as well. A cargo pallet is also included.

3727607096_6164bb819c_o.jpg

Ratings:

Build - 4/5 Nearly 1200 pieces means the telescopic handler will take many hours to build. The model is quite large and therefore has a bit of flex to it - still feels quite solid though. Decent selection of pieces and gears. Includes 1 linear actuator.

Playability - 4.5/5 It's fun to drive this thing around and chase after house pets. Thanks to the 4-wheel steering, this thing has some pretty fun handling characteristics. When it's time to work the boom (raising/lowering, extending/retracting), front stabilizers can also be deployed. These functions are addictive to use, though turning the gear to do so gets hard on the fingers - this is where the set loses marks. Extending/retracting is relatively quick and painless, but raising/lowering is time consuming and requires significantly more effort. Power functions can be added to the model.

Price - 4.5/5 $110 CAD/$90 USD for nearly 1200 pieces (though of course many of these are small pins etc). IMO this set is very reasonably priced. It is large and fairly impressive

Overall - 4.5/5 I REALLY like the telescopic handler. It may not be as technically/mechanically impressive or complex as some other models, but it's still got a lot going on. A telescopic handler is not as easily recognizable as many other models featured in the Technic line and may perhaps be overlooked by many because of this. This is a shame as I think this set is pretty nifty and encourage more people to check it out if possible.

Comments, questions, suggestions are more than welcome!

Cheers!

Edited by WhiteFang
Poll is added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I evrt informative and may I add comical review you have there. :) :tongue: .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for doing this review! I own the set but want to recycle it so it was actually next on my list to review! It's a great review too; I especially like how you've shown the transmission path for the functions. :sweet:

As for the set, I'm undecided. It always seemed overpriced to me, but I got mine at a bit above half price! :wub: There's a lot I don't like about this model. For one, the steering is just plain odd. It's cool that it has four wheel steering, but due to the linkage via beams and ball-gears it feels that you are more requesting a steer rather than making it do so! The front and back are generally un-aligned because of this. I also didn't like the choice of using the stack as a stabiliser control stick. I don't mind it when it's used things like motor on/off or transmission, but as a hard link function I don't as it makes the model look silly when the stablisers are up.

Getting back on the positives, I love the look of this model, and it has a good part balance and I do recomend it.

(Sorry; I just hi-jacked your topic and semi-reviewed the set! :blush: It's just you've done such a fine job I don't think I can better it so I'll review another set instead...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For one, the steering is just plain odd. It's cool that it has four wheel steering, but due to the linkage via beams and ball-gears it feels that you are more requesting a steer rather than making it do so! The front and back are generally un-aligned because of this.

The steering actually works quite well, but you are correct that it isn't quite as smooth as two wheel steering, and due to the size of the model, as well as the weight, it can make it difficult to steering while the model is just sitting still.

Another problem with the steering is the beam that spans the underneath of the handler that connects the beacon on the cab, to the gears in the middle. Its very, very low and gets hung up on nearly everything. I couldn't even load mine on and of my trailers cause it would get hung up. I solved this by relocating the beam inside the chassis of the handler. It took some doing, but it wasn't to difficult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The steering actually works quite well, but you are correct that it isn't quite as smooth as two wheel steering, and due to the size of the model, as well as the weight, it can make it difficult to steering while the model is just sitting still.

8421 has six wheel steering and is a much heavier model, yet it's a smooth and light as a babys butt. I stand by my point. :grin:

I'm considering modifying it so it has a more traditional steering sytem so I can work out why TLG didn't...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 8295 has a very good inventory. That's all.

The model is not playable at all.

Steering and the mechanism with the linear actuator don't work well.

The mecanism for the outriggers is quite useless (definitely ugly).

8295 is among the worst sets that TLC released. :sadnew:

And no comment about the colors. It looks like a Christmas tree (I don't know if this translation is right ; but in French, it is an expression we use ^^ ).

As a conclusion, I see that, ONCE AGAIN, models are simply over marked on Eurobricks. -_-'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a conclusion, I see that, ONCE AGAIN, models are simply over marked on Eurobricks. -_-'

Actually I think it's not a Eurobricks thing; it's simply that people buy sets because they want them, and thus rate them high! :tongue: I do it all the time, but I do try to point out flaws at the same time so others can form their own opinion. As of late though I've got better at being objective; I was quite harsh in my last review as I gave 6/10. But I don't think I'd ever do a review of anything lower than 5 as if I thought it was that bad I wouldn't have it to review!

(Personally I'd give this set 7/10; I think it looks great and I liked the whole arm function.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May be you are right.

But members have to be objective when they write a review. Otherwise, it is useless, and even deceptive for the one who wants to buy the set !!

Giving 4,5 to such a model is just nonsense !!

4,5 is a mark for awesome models, such as 8480, 8421, and probably 8258.

On my website, I did many reviews. And I think that I'm objective (I try to be, at least).

For example, #10143, #8289, #8274 or #8386 don't deserve more than 2/5, for several reasons.

And sometimes, B-model get 1/5 (8274-B, 8275-B, etc).

A review must be written to inform people in an objective way. Otherwise, it is useless.

Edited by Anio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have two of these: for original price (90€) it was no-go. For discounted price (59€) it was good buy and great parts pack. For current price (40€) it's very good buy.

As a set it's not so great. Ok, the boom mechanism and gearing is nice and it looks ok, but otherwise I was dissapointed during the assembly. Steering is made in a wierd way, the front stands are sluggish and your hand could fall of during all the rotation needed for operating the arm.

As a parts pack it's nothing special, but considering it's low price it's great. You get for medium large tyres, one linear actuator, one switching ring and a lot of studless beams, pins and other stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The model is not playable at all.

Steering and the mechanism with the linear actuator don't work well.

As a conclusion, I see that, ONCE AGAIN, models are simply over marked on Eurobricks. -_-'

Actually I think it's not a Eurobricks thing; it's simply that people buy sets because they want them, and thus rate them high!

I think what Siegfried said sums things up nicely. After doing some research, I thought that 8295 looked like an interesting model and wanted to pick one up for myself. I only buy sets that appeal to me, I don't go around collecting everything. I own relatively few Technic sets, 8295 is my largest and therefore is special to me. When doing this review, I think I did a pretty thorough job of letting people know the functions of the set as well as what they are getting into. I think the comments in the rating section, as well as throughout the rest of the review cover the flaws. It's not all about the end ratings :wink:

May be you are right.

But members have to be objective when they write a review. Otherwise, it is useless, and even deceptive for the one who wants to buy the set !!

Giving 4,5 to such a model is just nonsense !!

4,5 is a mark for awesome models, such as 8480, 8421, and probably 8258.

On my website, I did many reviews. And I think that I'm objective (I try to be, at least).

For example, #10143, #8289, #8274 or #8386 don't deserve more than 2/5, for several reasons.

And sometimes, B-model get 1/5 (8274-B, 8275-B, etc).

A review must be written to inform people in an objective way. Otherwise, it is useless.

...and luckily I did cover what needs to be known about this set. :thumbup: For me, knowing about the functions and seeing how they work is the most important aspect of Technic sets. I plan on doing two more Technic reviews, both focusing on the model's functionality. Feel free to disagree with my scores, but please don't make it sound like I have not done an informative review. :tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the review is excellent. I've played with the set and that just reinforced the expectations I've had to the set. It's a must buy for me, but I will try and wait for a possible price reduction. It's not like I need the set, still got Technic sets waiting to be built, and not enough room.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A review ? What for ?

Almost all the models on EB get 8/10, 9/10 or 10/10.

A mark is between 0 and 10. So, 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 (I don't think that a set can get 0) are possible marks. Why are they never used on EB ? (please, do not tell me that all the Lego sets are excellent :hmpf: ).

Actually, many of the EB members don't seem to know what is the true purpose of a review. :/

The purpose of a review is not to write a text that TLC enjoy. Unless you get grant from the Company ? O_o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with others that this is not a great set. Like most of last year's sets, it has a few major flaws and I didn't buy it. I don't mind the steering here so much as the fork mechanism. Placing the control knob right there does not make for a proper Technic function and is rather lame to see on a model this size. This is the same problem with 8258 this year, but that set has several other nice functions to make up for it.

Actually, many of the EB members don't seem to know what is the true purpose of a review. :/

The purpose of a review is not to write a text that TLC enjoy. Unless you get grant from the Company ? O_o

The reviews here are meant to be more informative than critical, and any scores are always going to be inflated because of the nature of the reviews. Just think about it. There are many sets out there that I don't like, but I generally won't buy such sets, and even if I do, I'm not going to review them. I only have time to review a small fraction of the sets I have, and I could instead be covering my favorite sets. Of course, when everyone thinks like this but has different preferences with sets, you are rarely going to see a score lower than 8/10. :tongue:

I think it would make sense to not have any numerical scores in reviews. I read reviews to get factual information about the model (which is certainly provided here), and then make my own judgments based on that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The reviews here are meant to be more informative than critical

IMO, on the contrary, a review must be critical. It is very important to say what is good on the set, and what is bad. And that for design, functions, and playability. When I read EB reviews, I could think that all the models are terrific, which absolutely wrong.

Besides, I don't want to be pretentious, but I have been told many times that the reviews on my website are relevant (certainely because I'm critical). :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8421 has six wheel steering and is a much heavier model, yet it's a smooth and light as a babys butt. I stand by my point. :grin:

I'm considering modifying it so it has a more traditional steering sytem so I can work out why TLG didn't...

8421 also had two of its tires stationary to help ease some of the weight. The tires it uses are also lighter as well as less contact patch to the ground and can support the weight better. And one of the bigger factors is the gear used to turn the wheels of 8421 is twice the circumference of the beacon used on the handler. All aids in the steering effort. I won't argue that 4821 steering system is better. Cause your correct it is. But taking everything into consideration i think TLC did what they could with the handler (well not everything, cause as i said, i found a way to improve).

The 8295 has a very good inventory. That's all.

The model is not playable at all.

Steering and the mechanism with the linear actuator don't work well.

The mecanism for the outriggers is quite useless (definitely ugly).

8295 is among the worst sets that TLC released. :sadnew:

And no comment about the colors. It looks like a Christmas tree (I don't know if this translation is right ; but in French, it is an expression we use ^^ ).

As a conclusion, I see that, ONCE AGAIN, models are simply over marked on Eurobricks. -_-'

This is subjective. What you find useful or "playable" in a set, might be completely different than someone else. I found once you hooked up a Power functions motor to it, it was quite fun and is by no means one of the worst sets TLC has released. My biggest gripe was as CP5670 mentioned, the tilt mechanism for the forks. This was pretty lame for a model of this size. (though in TLC defence, i still haven't figured a better way to do this. Though i haven't taken much time to look into it either).

You have to take a review and look at it from your perspective and use the goods and bads as you see fit to what you expect in any given set. You can't knock someones positive review of a set cause it (the set)wasn't to your liking. That's not fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever you say, it is just impossible that the 8295 get 9/10 (4,5/5).

This very very good mark is only for awesome sets. And awesome sets are scarce (may be something like 7 or 8 models in the past 10 years). 8295 is not among these sets.

But well, well, well. Keep on posting your reviews. But do not forget to PM me when someone give 9/10 to the 8274 or the 8289.

It will be so hilarious, that I want to read it ! :tongue:

PS : I laughed a lot when I see the 9/10 for the snow groomer ! :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whatever you say, it is just impossible that the 8295 get 9/10 (4,5/5).

This very very good mark is only for awesome sets. And awesome sets are scarce (may be something like 7 or 8 models in the past 10 years). 8295 is not among these sets.

But well, well, well. Keep on posting your reviews. But do not forget to PM me when someone give 9/10 to the 8274 or the 8289.

It will be so hilarious, that I want to read it ! :tongue:

PS : I laughed a lot when I see the 9/10 for the snow groomer ! :laugh:

What exactly do you not like about this that makes it no more usefull than just a parts pack? I agree that it not superb, but its really not bad either. At least not as bad as your making it out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I explain with few words :sweet: :

-colors : too much different colors. it is striking. and the chassis is not yellow enough.

-linear actuator is missused. the tan 20t is too hard to turn

-the steering is too hard too, and not so efficient (with 20t/12t, it would have work better, thanks to the reduction)

-the outriggers : mecanism is just stupid. -_- And when outrigger are up, the chimney is not right ; it is ugly)

-the design of the chassis is very bad and don't enable to put a decent mechanism for the outriggers.

Besides, I had a discussion with Nathanaël Kuipers a few months ago, a very famous former Lego designer (you know him, isn't it ?). We talked about several Lego things. And for 8295, even if he is not the designer of this model, he exactly said : "I didn't have a good experience when I build this model".

Full interview in French there : http://www.setechnic.com/Forum/topic641.html and on the next page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PS : I laughed a lot when I see the 9/10 for the snow groomer ! :laugh:

Well, I wrote the snow groomer review. I have every single Technic set ever made, so it would seem like a pretty good set of experience to draw from. In my opinion, this set is a 9/10, that's why I wrote it. Obviously not everyone will agree. That's why there are a lot of other details in the review for the reader to make their own choice. Not everyone likes the same things. For instance, some people rate sets highly when they come with a lot of minifigs or a wide variety. I, on the other hand, couldn't care less about minifigs so these mean nothing to me. What I am looking for in a Technic set is functionality and originality. I felt the snow groomer had lots of both for its size. That's the other important point. You can't compare the snow groomer to the 8275 bulldozer. They are totally different sizes and price points. My rating is intended to indicate that, if you wanted a set this size, this would be a good one to get.

To each his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I wrote the snow groomer review. I have every single Technic set ever made, so it would seem like a pretty good set of experience to draw from. In my opinion, this set is a 9/10, that's why I wrote it. Obviously not everyone will agree. That's why there are a lot of other details in the review for the reader to make their own choice. Not everyone likes the same things. For instance, some people rate sets highly when they come with a lot of minifigs or a wide variety. I, on the other hand, couldn't care less about minifigs so these mean nothing to me. What I am looking for in a Technic set is functionality and originality. I felt the snow groomer had lots of both for its size. That's the other important point. You can't compare the snow groomer to the 8275 bulldozer. They are totally different sizes and price points. My rating is intended to indicate that, if you wanted a set this size, this would be a good one to get.

To each his own.

The 8263 is a 590 part set. And you gave 9/10. Well.

Now, let's find a set which is as big as this snow groomer.

Hum... I'm thinking.

The 8459 ! It is a 582 part set. This model is absolutely perfect. All the functions are perfect. And the design too. And that's the reason why it has been produced while several years (from 97 to 2004, trough 3 refs).

So, this set can get 9/10 (I'm not sure for 10/10, it is may be not perfect enough ^^)

Now I ask you :

Does your snow groomer deserve 9/10 compared to the 8439 ?

And so, if you still give 9/10 to the 8263, which mark get the 8439 ? 13/10 ? 14/10 ?

That's to say that like many models on EB, your 8263 is amply over marked with 9/10.

Edited by Anio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMO, on the contrary, a review must be critical. It is very important to say what is good on the set, and what is bad. And that for design, functions, and playability. When I read EB reviews, I could think that all the models are terrific, which absolutely wrong.

Not necessarily. A review can simply be a factual survey of the set. What is good or bad about a set is ultimately subjective, and a review is always going to be influenced by the writer's opinion. There are certainly people who consider anything Lego to be great, at least good enough to be worth buying.

I agree with you that the numerical scores around here are inflated to the point that they are useless, but as I said earlier, it won't work any other way unless EB pays people to write reviews full-time. :tongue: In any case, most reviews here do point out flaws in the sets. The significance of those flaws is a matter of opinion and is for the readers to decide.

My biggest gripe was as CP5670 mentioned, the tilt mechanism for the forks. This was pretty lame for a model of this size. (though in TLC defence, i still haven't figured a better way to do this. Though i haven't taken much time to look into it either).

It should be doable but would be a little tricky, mainly due to the fact that the boom extends. I have a few solutions in mind but can't explain them easily without pictures. :tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I explain with few words :sweet: :

-colors : too much different colors. it is striking. and the chassis is not yellow enough.

IN your opinion. This does not constitute a bad set.

-linear actuator is missused. the tan 20t is too hard to turn

How is it misused? Functions like this are what LA are used for. I will agree that it is hard to turn, but that also is a result of having a LA. Very set I've seen that uses LA's are a tad hard on the fingers to turn. Sure the gear reduction could have been lower, but then it would have taken twice as long to fully crank the arm up.

-the steering is too hard too, and not so efficient (with 20t/12t, it would have work better, thanks to the reduction)

I won't argue with you there. There is room for improvement on the steering.

-the outriggers : mecanism is just stupid. -_- And when outrigger are up, the chimney is not right ; it is ugly)

I've found that the lever mechanism is clever. While i would have preferred the stack to be vertical when outriggers ar up, its a minor detail that can be lived with, or even fixed.

-the design of the chassis is very bad and don't enable to put a decent mechanism for the outriggers.

Again, your opinion. The chassis accommodates all the necessary functions that a real telehandler has. So i can't agree with you on that.

Besides, I had a discussion with Nathanaël Kuipers a few months ago, a very famous former Lego designer (you know him, isn't it ?). We talked about several Lego things. And for 8295, even if he is not the designer of this model, he exactly said : "I didn't have a good experience when I build this model".

While i respect his thoughts on the matter given his old position at TLC, his overall opinion doesn't mean anything to me. I don't, and will not let someone else influence my thoughts on a given subject. I will analyze the data myself, and figure out whether the subject matter (In this case 8294) and decide myself if this set appeals to me. If you don't like it, fine. No ones forcing you. But you can't knock someone else's review/thoughts just cause there not the same as yours. Not cool.

Well, I wrote the snow groomer review. I have every single Technic set ever made, so it would seem like a pretty good set of experience to draw from. In my opinion, this set is a 9/10, that's why I wrote it. Obviously not everyone will agree. That's why there are a lot of other details in the review for the reader to make their own choice. Not everyone likes the same things. For instance, some people rate sets highly when they come with a lot of minifigs or a wide variety. I, on the other hand, couldn't care less about minifigs so these mean nothing to me. What I am looking for in a Technic set is functionality and originality. I felt the snow groomer had lots of both for its size. That's the other important point. You can't compare the snow groomer to the 8275 bulldozer. They are totally different sizes and price points. My rating is intended to indicate that, if you wanted a set this size, this would be a good one to get.

To each his own.

Agreed. Well said Blakbird.

The 8263 is a 590 part set. And you gave 9/10. Well.

Now, let's find a set which is as big as this snow groomer.

Hum... I'm thinking.

The 8459 ! It is a 582 part set. This model is absolutely perfect. All the functions are perfect. And the design too. And that's the reason why it has been produced while several years (from 97 to 2004, trough 3 refs).

So, this set can get 9/10 (I'm not sure for 10/10, it is may be not perfect enough ^^)

Now I ask you :

Does your snow groomer deserve 9/10 compared to the 8439 ?

And so, if you still give 9/10 to the 8263, which mark get the 8439 ? 13/10 ? 14/10 ?

That's to say that like many models on EB, your 8263 is amply over marked with 9/10.

You should look at the model/set and see what functions it has compared to the real one its based on and see how it compares. IN this case, the snow groomer has a front shovel that tilts up and down, side to side. (swivels) and has a mechanism in the rear that lowers up and down to compact the snow. TLC's set does exactly this. In terms of relism, the overall design is very similar to what you would find at a ski lodge getting the mountains ready for winter skiers. Same could be said for 8459. Great design, functions exactly like a real loader. So i could both model receiving high scores. Is it perfect? Nope. But does it deserve the low score that you claim it does?Again, thats subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, you seem to make me want to go out now and buy the set myself. Good Review, you've highlighted the good functions and sleek lines of the set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now I ask you :

Does your snow groomer deserve 9/10 compared to the 8439 ?

And so, if you still give 9/10 to the 8263, which mark get the 8439 ? 13/10 ? 14/10 ?

I'd probably give 8439 a 10. I stand by my rating of the snow groomer. I've seen LOTS of front end loaders, this is the first LEGO snow groomer. It gets points just for that.

Really, I don't see how you can argue with someone's rating. It's an opinion. You can't tell someone their opinion is not valid. You simply have a different opinion. Maybe I just really like snow groomers, I don't know. Make your own decision.

The same thing happens with movie critics. There are certain critics whom, if they give a movie a bad review, I am guaranteed to like it. Other critics are the opposite. People like different things. I think the snow groomer is fantastic.

Also note that there is no fixed definition of scale. A rating of 9 does not necessarily mean it is rated against every set ever. Maybe just against this year's sets. In my case, it was meant to represent how happy I am with my purchase.

In any case, I think we've spent enough bandwidth discussing an opinion. It is what it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not necessarily. A review can simply be a factual survey of the set.

Yeah, I totally agree with this. A review can be informative (even if a critical one is better :tongue: )

But if you do such a review, please, do not give a stupid mark in the end of the review... :sceptic:

Because if there are marks, the review is no more informative, but critical.

Edited by Anio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.