Everything is not shiny

[Triborough]

I noticed that the black on the Series 5 Gangster seems to be duller than the normal Lego black.

In the picture below, you can sort of see it on the black fedora, with the normal one on the left and the Gangster's on the right.

I also noticed the legs also seemed a bit duller. No doubt this is due to differing production.

The Brickfather by Triborough, on Flickr

[Khorne]

Yep, the colour differences can be attributed to the fact that the Collectibles are mostly Chinese-made. LEGO intended this line to be as cheap as possible (understandable, of course) and thus outsourced to China to cut production costs. But as we all now, stuff made in China is crap, so that's why the plastic is duller. I had the same "problem" with my Series 1 Ninja. The colour issue is also noticeable with the normal LEGO bricks, especially Dark Red and Reddish Brown. You can clearly view differences between bricks that are supposedly the same colour.

EDIT Nice gang of mobsters, btw .

Edited August 18, 2011 by Khorne

[Lyichir]

Yep, the colour differences can be attributed to the fact that the Collectibles are mostly Chinese-made. LEGO intended this line to be as cheap as possible (understandable, of course) and thus outsourced to China to cut production costs. But as we all now, stuff made in China is crap, so that's why the plastic is duller. I had the same "problem" with my Series 1 Ninja. The colour issue is also noticeable with the normal LEGO bricks, especially Dark Red and Reddish Brown. You can clearly view differences between bricks that are supposedly the same colour.

EDIT Nice gang of mobsters, btw .

The only thing that's crap is your logic.

The reason they manufacture in China is so that they can get cheaper labor WITHOUT sacrificing quality. And Lego does NOT outsource to China: that term refers to when a company lets another company located elsewhere work for them. Lego actually INSOURCED all of its production facilities, meaning the Chinese factory is owned and operated by the Lego Group itself.

Is the iPhone crap? Is the PS3 crap? Those are both produced in China. So there goes your argument that "stuff made in China is crap".

There are three possible reasons why the plastic on Chinese figs is more "matte", rather than glossy. It could be that Lego is working through quality issues in the newer Chinese production equipment. Or, like the lack of neck printing on minifigs, it could be a deliberate design change by Lego, which will eventually be implemented in all of their production facilities worldwide. Finally, it could be the result of Lego being required by law, as it is in China, to receive their dyes from local sources. Both the first and third possible causes are fixable, and the second assumes there is nothing to fix.

One last possibility is that, like your example with normal bricks, it is a simple case of discoloration that can occur in bricks from any production facility. I have bricks from before Lego started Chinese production that have notable color issues, most prominently the red bricks in set 10167. So blaming Chinese production for these sorts of issues is shortsighted and ignorant.

[Aanchir]

Something else to keep in mind: differences in how "shiny" parts are can depend heavily on the surface finish of the mold. Some molds are burnished to produce an extremely smooth, reflective texture, while others are not. Since the collectible minifigure body part molds were all newly-created for the Chinese production facility, there could have been a different surface finish, so the parts would be different even if made from the exact same batch of plastic.

There are a lot of reasons for parts having different surface finishes. I believe some surface finishes better retain printing than others. Some hide mold lines and scratches particularly well (this is the case with the rough texture that is standard for slope bricks).

Another difference between collectible minifigure torsos and other torsos is that torsos from regular themes (not Chinese-made) have a much more visible indentation in the center of the word "LEGO" on top of the neck stud. So we do know for certain that the collectible minifigure torso molds are not identical to the molds used in all of TLG's facilities (although I highly doubt the molds are entirely consistent between TLG's other facilities anyway, since some are bound to be newer and others older).

In the case of the fedora, it's even more obvious, since the fedora mold used in the Collectible Minifigures (starting with the S1 Cowboy) has an entirely different part number than the one in the Indiana Jones theme. The collectible one is 88410, whereas the IJ one is 61506. It should be noted that pretty much all parts in S1 and S2 were given new design IDs unique to the collectible minifigures; it wasn't until S3 that parts with older design IDs began to appear.

Also, Lyi, the insourcing of TLG's production facilities took place before Chinese production began and was completed in 2008. TLG does not yet own the Chinese production facility they use, although I believe the people working there are employed by TLG rather than the company that is leasing the facilities to them.

The plastic could indeed be a factor, but that shouldn't be an immediate assumption. Last I heard, there was a situation with Chinese manufacturing laws whereby TLG had to use a certain percentage of domestic materials in their production, so they were forced to use the closest ABS formulation to the one that they use in other facilities across the globe (which is, unlike the Chinese plastic, all from a single supplier). However, people often leap to conclusions about different plastic being responsible for all sorts of things that could just be mold differences (the same way they assume rubber parts exist for safety or cost reasons, the former of which is only sometimes the case and the latter of which is never the case).

[Rufus]

The only thing that's crap is your logic.

I'm sorry, what makes you the expert? Please refrain from this kind of tone.

[Khorne]

The only thing that's crap is your logic.

The reason they manufacture in China is so that they can get cheaper labor WITHOUT sacrificing quality. And Lego does NOT outsource to China: that term refers to when a company lets another company located elsewhere work for them. Lego actually INSOURCED all of its production facilities, meaning the Chinese factory is owned and operated by the Lego Group itself.

Whoops, I blame my lack of knowledge of proper English terms for my mistake here. I wasn't even aware insourcing was a word . I was aware, however, that the lower wages are indeed largely the reason for TLG to go to China. But I also thought they had lower quality demands for their factories there, so things like the Collectible Minifigs could be made as cheap as possible (and stuff like the Battlepacks or Magnets, you know the stuff that's not really LEGO's core business). Apparently, I am wrong here as well. My apologies.

Is the iPhone crap? Is the PS3 crap? Those are both produced in China. So there goes your argument that "stuff made in China is crap".

My wording may have been a bit harsh admittedly, but IMO I feel a lot of products made in China are inferior to things made here. I do admit that they produce and make some very good stuff there, as well. In my statement I was merely referring to the LEGO produced there and I really believe that LEGO originating in China doesn't really stand up to the LEGO made in Europe, the US or whatever nation. Maybe it has got to do with those manufacturing laws you and Aanchir mentioned.

There are three possible reasons why the plastic on Chinese figs is more "matte", rather than glossy. It could be that Lego is working through quality issues in the newer Chinese production equipment. Or, like the lack of neck printing on minifigs, it could be a deliberate design change by Lego, which will eventually be implemented in all of their production facilities worldwide. Finally, it could be the result of Lego being required by law, as it is in China, to receive their dyes from local sources. Both the first and third possible causes are fixable, and the second assumes there is nothing to fix.

I agree with you on all three points you made here . I also think the neck printing will be eventually discarded. I mean, what purpose does it serve anyway? It's only a waste of precious manufacturing to print the necks. So if they scrap it, it will save them time and money. I wouldn't really put the lack of neck printing in the category "low quality minifigs".

One last possibility is that, like your example with normal bricks, it is a simple case of discoloration that can occur in bricks from any production facility. I have bricks from before Lego started Chinese production that have notable color issues, most prominently the red bricks in set 10167. So blaming Chinese production for these sorts of issues is shortsighted and ignorant.

I wasn't aware that major colour issues were known before LEGO put the Chinese factories to use. It's been a while since I last bought LEGO and I assumed it had to do with China.

My apologies if my reaction come over as somewhat harsh or ignorant, I should've argumentated my position better .

[Lyichir]

Whoops, I blame my lack of knowledge of proper English terms for my mistake here. I wasn't even aware insourcing was a word . I was aware, however, that the lower wages are indeed largely the reason for TLG to go to China. But I also thought they had lower quality demands for their factories there, so things like the Collectible Minifigs could be made as cheap as possible (and stuff like the Battlepacks or Magnets, you know the stuff that's not really LEGO's core business). Apparently, I am wrong here as well. My apologies.

My wording may have been a bit harsh admittedly, but IMO I feel a lot of products made in China are inferior to things made here. I do admit that they produce and make some very good stuff there, as well. In my statement I was merely referring to the LEGO produced there and I really believe that LEGO originating in China doesn't really stand up to the LEGO made in Europe, the US or whatever nation. Maybe it has got to do with those manufacturing laws you and Aanchir mentioned.

I agree with you on all three points you made here . I also think the neck printing will be eventually discarded. I mean, what purpose does it serve anyway? It's only a waste of precious manufacturing to print the necks. So if they scrap it, it will save them time and money. I wouldn't really put the lack of neck printing in the category "low quality minifigs".

I wasn't aware that major colour issues were known before LEGO put the Chinese factories to use. It's been a while since I last bought LEGO and I assumed it had to do with China.

My apologies if my reaction come over as somewhat harsh or ignorant, I should've argumentated my position better .

Apology accepted. I should apologize for my rebuke as well, since looking at it again it was harsher than I intended. I'm just a little sick of the assumption that there is one root cause of differences in quality, when in fact there are many factors in play. And my response itself had its fair share of errors as well, so thanks to my bro Aanchir for clearing those up. So, sorry for the rudeness; I'm only now returning to having a web presence and I'm afraid I need to refresh my netiquette.

[Scouty]

I agree with you on all three points you made here . I also think the neck printing will be eventually discarded. I mean, what purpose does it serve anyway? It's only a waste of precious manufacturing to print the necks. So if they scrap it, it will save them time and money. I wouldn't really put the lack of neck printing in the category "low quality minifigs".

I'm not 100% sure about this, but I believe the reason for the neck printing was so that the head could be placed on the torso in the right direction, this way little children are not given minifigs with their necks broken already .

[davee123]

The reason they manufacture in China is so that they can get cheaper labor WITHOUT sacrificing quality.

For the record, I don't believe that's true-- I believe LEGO opened up more production in China because it was cheap to do, and they believed they could get reasonable quality. That is, they were aware that the quality would drop, but they believed that the drop in quality would be small enough to be worth the savings that they'd get from Chinese production.

As for whether or not the drop in quality is sufficient for you to complain or not is a matter of how picky you are. Some fans that are obsessed with LEGO's near-perfect quality levels are clearly upset and find it unacceptable. But most AFOLs seem to have the same attitude as LEGO-- they know it's slightly lower quality, but it's not so bad that they'll stop buying the product. And I expect that most of LEGO's actual customers (not hobbyists) are largely unaware of the difference in quality.

DaveE

[horizon]

What an offence in the second post;

as we all now, stuff made in China is crap, so that's why the plastic is duller.

That is wrong.

I've seen chinese printed torso's being better quality then others. The chinese headpieces have a better fit then the non-chinese headpieces.

..

in some cases.

If you throw all lego (danish, czech, mexican, chinese, etc) in a bucket, shake it up, you will never pick em apart again from what is what.

[Khorne]

What an offence in the second post;

As I've already said, it came out harsher than intended.

That is wrong.

I've seen chinese printed torso's being better quality then others. The chinese headpieces have a better fit then the non-chinese headpieces.

..

in some cases.

If you throw all lego (danish, czech, mexican, chinese, etc) in a bucket, shake it up, you will never pick em apart again from what is what.

Didn't these and these torsos made in China turn out pink? The white printing was of such poor quality, it seemed like it was pink instead of white. If I recall correctly, I think they were made in China (I could be mistaken, though).

[horizon]

Aha! It is Khorne being offended by the pink and purple of Slaanesh.

heh

Ah well, I seriously wouldn''t know. I can only tell from what I've had in my hands and that where ninjago products and some minifig collectables.

[Khorne]

Aha! It is Khorne being offended by the pink and purple of Slaanesh.

heh

Ah well, I seriously wouldn''t know. I can only tell from what I've had in my hands and that where ninjago products and some minifig collectables.

Here's a link to a thread about what I meant. This thread is about the PotC figures, but there's supposed to be one about the regular Pirates line figures too, but I can't seem to find it. There's no explanation given for teh colour issues in the thread I linked to, but there are some pictures to illustrate what I mean .

[KristofBD]

I've seen chinese printed torso's being better quality then others. The chinese headpieces have a better fit then the non-chinese headpieces.

Funnily enough the printing on the 'Chinese' figs (battlepacks, CM) is often better than the original one. However, the plastic still seems to be inferior. I just received my copy of the gangster as well. The first I noticed was indeed the lower quality of the plastic. Moreover, in contrast to for instance the gladiator, I find the quality of the printing on this fig also at best mediocre.

I do not believe it is 'a natural law' that Chinese figs are worse: the quality can improve. However, the quality of the Gangster is lower. That's a shame, but at least these figs are quite cheap (a sub-standard P{PotC would be far worse as these sets are far more expensive).

[Peppermint_M]

I think it has been established that the finish is duller, not the plastic quality.

[KristofBD]

I think it has been established that the finish is duller, not the plastic quality.

This may certainly be true, but I'm not sure this is the only problem; e.g. the legs are more loose and the grip of the hands is less firm. I'm not an expert - so may be this is also due to the finishing?

Edited August 19, 2011 by KristofBD

[Aanchir]

This may certainly be true, but I'm not sure this is the only problem; e.g. the legs are more loose and the grip of the hands is less firm. I'm not an expert - so may be this is also due to the finishing?

Could be the finish; could be the plastic; could be some other quality of the molds. One thing that bothers me about the Chinese plant is that since TLG doesn't yet own it it's hardly ever mentioned in any of their press releases, despite the importance of some of the minifigures and parts they produce.

I remember reading that the collectible minifigures were being produced in China not entirely because of costs but also because of capacity. Presumably TLG wanted to keep their other facilities reserved for their main themes, possibly in case the minifigures series were a flop, or possibly just because it would have been too much trouble in the older facilities to do such large but short-term production runs. It'd be nice if some of the LEGO employees on this forum would chime in more often in instances like this, since I can't remember who I remember mentioning that and I could very easily have my facts wrong.

Other problems that have been observed are translucency (possibly a mold problem, but more likely a plastic or dye problem since the leg molds aren't visibly thinner) and "pinkness" of white printing on red (not exclusive to Chinese-made parts, I've heard this is a consequence of having too few "coats" of white printing, which also afflicts other light colors like the yellow printing of the S2 Lifeguard). As for issues with printing being off-center or joints being too loose, I've heard reports to the contrary (that joints are too tight in some cases, and printing being better than TLG's other minifigures at times), so I would assume that these issues may be just a matter of inconsistency like that encountered in any other facility.

So far none of these things have really diminished my view of the quality of the collectible minifigures, but I earnestly hope that TLG can demonstrate a greater attentiveness to these issues by working towards "insourcing" the Chinese plant as they have done with all their other production, isolating the exact reason for these differences (I should hope that they know the reasons for certain, even if they're not telling us or not yet capable of doing anything about them), and, just to show they really care, making sure that their customer service department knows enough of the facts to explain these sorts of issues to dissatisfied customers.

[davee123]

I think it has been established that the finish is duller, not the plastic quality.

Unfortunately plastic "quality" isn't quite definitive enough. The plastic used in Chinese production is *different*, and we know that LEGO wanted to use its 'normal' plastic initially, reportedly because it was of "higher quality", but as stated, "quality" relates to many different aspects of the plastic.

1) Finish. That's a tricky one. The plastic has a different finish on it thanks to many different factors, but it's ultimately unclear to me whether or not the finish is due to the plastic, the mold, or the molding process itself.

2) Translucency. Clearly, the Chinese parts are different, and more translucent:

However, again, it's unclear if that's due to the plastic, or the molding process. Since roughly 2006, LEGO has been introducing a process by which all their ABS is initially translucent, and dye is injected into the plastic at the time of molding. Hence, this could be due to the plastic, or due to how the dye is applied during molding.

3) Tolerances. We suspect the tolerances are worse in Chinese production, thanks to things like stiff minifig hands that sometimes resist rotating. Whether that's due to tolerances or residual flashing is unclear, but that's likely not an aspect of the plastic, but of the process itself. If it's residual flashing (unlikely IMHO), it COULD be an aspect of the plastic being more/less brittle than standard ABS, but again, unlikely.

4) Rigidity/Elasticity. The Chinese plastic appears not to "bounce back" into its original form as well after being deformed, as is noted when removing arms from Chinese minifigures. The arms appear to deform slightly and fit less well after being removed, unlike more traditional minifigures. And that's likely due to the plastic (I would say it's lower quality, but others have argued that this isn't an aspect of "quality")

As for Chinese production in general, the benefits are really cost and supposedly printing quality. Chinese production can reportedly print at better quality, although what defines "print quality" is yet-another-matter. I suspect that the Chinese facility can print at a wider number of angles, and possibly with greater precision with multiple dyes, but that's just a guess.

As for volume of production? Meh-- That's just another way of saying "cost". In other words, they wanted a facility that could produce so many parts at a certain level of quality, and China's cost associated with producing that volume level was lower than other contenders. You could also spin it as "growth potential", where China had the potential for volume GROWTH beyond what LEGO initially needed-- but again, that's just cost, because if they needed the volume in the future somewhere else, that just translates to more money elsewhere.

DaveE

Edited August 19, 2011 by davee123

[CP5670]

That is a nice picture. The translucency is often difficult to capture in a photo, even when it's apparent in real life. It's a more pronounced form of that same issue we have seen with many other bricks, from all of TLG's production plants, ever since the change to clear ABS pellets that you mentioned.

Edited August 19, 2011 by CP5670

[TheLegoDr]

I noticed the Musketeer's legs were a duller black, but I attributed that to armor or padding or something. I didn't ever consider a quality issue. Oh well.

And I agree with one of the first posters, nice gang of mobsters!

[Aanchir]

Unfortunately plastic "quality" isn't quite definitive enough. The plastic used in Chinese production is *different*, and we know that LEGO wanted to use its 'normal' plastic initially, reportedly because it was of "higher quality", but as stated, "quality" relates to many different aspects of the plastic.

1) Finish. That's a tricky one. The plastic has a different finish on it thanks to many different factors, but it's ultimately unclear to me whether or not the finish is due to the plastic, the mold, or the molding process itself.

2) Translucency. Clearly, the Chinese parts are different, and more translucent:

However, again, it's unclear if that's due to the plastic, or the molding process. Since roughly 2006, LEGO has been introducing a process by which all their ABS is initially translucent, and dye is injected into the plastic at the time of molding. Hence, this could be due to the plastic, or due to how the dye is applied during molding.

3) Tolerances. We suspect the tolerances are worse in Chinese production, thanks to things like stiff minifig hands that sometimes resist rotating. Whether that's due to tolerances or residual flashing is unclear, but that's likely not an aspect of the plastic, but of the process itself. If it's residual flashing (unlikely IMHO), it COULD be an aspect of the plastic being more/less brittle than standard ABS, but again, unlikely.

4) Rigidity/Elasticity. The Chinese plastic appears not to "bounce back" into its original form as well after being deformed, as is noted when removing arms from Chinese minifigures. The arms appear to deform slightly and fit less well after being removed, unlike more traditional minifigures. And that's likely due to the plastic (I would say it's lower quality, but others have argued that this isn't an aspect of "quality")

As for Chinese production in general, the benefits are really cost and supposedly printing quality. Chinese production can reportedly print at better quality, although what defines "print quality" is yet-another-matter. I suspect that the Chinese facility can print at a wider number of angles, and possibly with greater precision with multiple dyes, but that's just a guess.

As for volume of production? Meh-- That's just another way of saying "cost". In other words, they wanted a facility that could produce so many parts at a certain level of quality, and China's cost associated with producing that volume level was lower than other contenders. You could also spin it as "growth potential", where China had the potential for volume GROWTH beyond what LEGO initially needed-- but again, that's just cost, because if they needed the volume in the future somewhere else, that just translates to more money elsewhere.

DaveE

The finish is almost purely a mold consideration I think. In one of the Cars 2 designer videos, a person modeling a new part design demonstrates how different surface finishes can be applied digitally before sending the final order to the 3-D printer they use for rapid-prototyped parts. Since this 3-D printer only uses one type of plastic (to my knowledge), we can probably assume that the surface finish is largely independent of the type of plastic used.

Also, I think one of the assets of Chinese production that lead to it being used for all sorts of complex parts and prints is just that it's the newest facility and thus stocked with some of the newest and most efficient machines. There was recently an interesting blog article linked from the General Discussion subforum about the Mexican plant, which mentioned that it's statistically the most reliable and efficient factory LEGO has at its disposal, which could be for similar reasons. Sometimes even a newer mold for an already-existing piece can churn the pieces out faster and more efficiently. Cost, of course, is also an asset, as it's probably cheaper to staff the Chinese facility due to a lower average wage there (and again, newer, more efficient machines and molds can often produce more parts than older machines and molds for the same cost).

Anyway, this is a much more thorough assessment of the differences between collectible and traditional minifigures than I could have put together! It's very informative. Thanks so much!