18 replies to this topic

[ditto]

I've been looking at Bricklink for the new set boxes' dimensions but have only found 8017 Vader's Tie. Dimensions for every other set is missing.
Is there anywhere else that I can find the dimensions of the boxes of the 2009 sets?

Also if anyone knows or could do a quick comparison, are the 2009 battle packs (8014/8015) the exact same size as say the 2008 (7667/7668) battle packs?

Motti:
Has anyone noticed that the general size of boxes (at least in SW) have grown larger? For example, the 30 dollar Bounty Hunter Chase is the same size as the General Grievous Fighter set, which is 20. I'm talking about sizes in relation to price, mainly. Of course, the value of the Am. dollar has fallen considerably, but I think not enough to affect box dimensions per se. So my question is: why? This just creates more empty space and increases shipping costs. Is it for appearance, perhaps. TLG may be trying to make buyers think their sets are large ones. A penny for your thoughts?

Edit: I merged the two topics, since they were about the same issue.

Edited by KimT, 15 June 2009 - 10:06 AM.
merged topics

[KimT]

I think the Battle Packs are the same size as the previous 4 released.
As for the other sets, I have no idea.
Usually I ask the seller to debox my purchases when I shop "out-of-state".
Serious reduction in shipping..
No boxes though, but I don't collect boxes, I collect Star Wars LEGO

[Robinson6142]

The new battle packs are definatly the same size as the old ones.

[Navy Trooper Fenson]

Battkepacks - Old Battlepacks
Vulture Bomber - Halfire Droid/Anakins JSF
AAT - unknown
Shuttle - Rouge Shadow

I hope I could help.

[Future74]

KimT, on Jan 13 2009, 08:30 AM, said:

... I don't collect boxes, I collect Star Wars LEGO

I collect both... seriously, I wish I still had the boxes of the Star Wars figures and vehicles I bought in the 80s. I'm not gonna make the mistake a second time. But thats me.

[Darth Legolas]

Future74, on Jan 13 2009, 03:24 PM, said:

I collect both... seriously, I wish I still had the boxes of the Star Wars figures and vehicles I bought in the 80s. I'm not gonna make the mistake a second time. But thats me.

They made Lego Star Wars in the 1980's? Where was I? Didn't LSW start in 1999?

Anyways, the AAT has a new size box as far as I could tell. I'll try to give you the exact measurements later, but I'm too lazy right now to get up off the chair and walk two flights of stares.  

[Natman8000]

I cant agree with you more motti. the ridiculous amount of unnecessary space the boxes take up is really bad. However, if TLC shrinks the boxes, they will be less appealing to people who admire a set by its box size. We should ask CopMike why they do this.

[Motti]

Yea, it's not just the box itself either. The pic grows proportionally. Back a few years ago, the pics were about the same size as the set itself, but for all of today's sets (at least most) have larger photos on the boxes. Sure, it's appealing...but a bit dissappointing once you open the box. I guess it's just marketing with concumer psychology....

[darkrebellion]

Well as a long time collector I have collected somewhat a large amount of "box history"    and I need to admit I miss the good old days   . Back to 1999-2003 we saw many cool box sizes but I especially love the boz size of sets as "Lightsaber Duel" or "Droid Fighter" sets. I also like the box size of sets like the "Geonosian Fighter" too   .

[KimT]

Star Wars figures and vehicles doesn't have to be LEGO...
I think he's referring to the awesome Star Wars toys released back then.
My neighbour had the MF and I didn't

[ditto]

wow guys, thanks all for the quick replies. this will really help with my acquisitions (and unfortunately leave me bankrupt. haha.).

[ditto]

lego box sizes are something that i have never quite grasped.

more reasonable box sizes will benefit:

1. TLG - less storage space needed
2. retailers - less shipping costs
3. consumers - reduced set prices/more parts, more space at home to store/buy more sets
4. earth! - less paper/cardboard wasted and less trees killed - this is what i think is most important!


i just really don't see the reason for oversized boxes for all themes. they can all be reduced by 30-50%!
i wrote an email to lego before about this but i just got ignored.

[Future74]

KimT, on Jan 14 2009, 01:58 PM, said:

Star Wars figures and vehicles doesn't have to be LEGO...
I think he's referring to the awesome Star Wars toys released back then.

Exactly... ...and that gives me a great idea! I shall take pictures of them both together!

KimT, on Jan 14 2009, 01:58 PM, said:

My neighbour had the MF and I didn't

Well you arent the only one...  
I mostly got the "non-canon" sets, because they were cheaper and I was too young to notice.

[Svelte]

Sadly, size matters. Casual shoppers think big = better when it comes to boxes and correlate value to how much shelf space it takes up in store. This is probably especially important for licensed themes such as SW where you do get less brick for your buck.

You'll notice that many S@H Exclusive sets which aren't sold in normal retail stores are a lot more efficient - eg the Factory sets or Community Workers, which is a truly tiny box, as it should be!

If you think the boxes look big when you're an AFOL, imagine the thrill of little kids half your size trying to heft up their ISD or MTT for the first time!  

[KimT]

svelte_corps, on Jan 15 2009, 12:17 AM, said:

You'll notice that many S@H Exclusive sets which aren't sold in normal retail stores are a lot more efficient - eg the Factory sets or Community Workers, which is a truly tiny box, as it should be!

And the UCS Millenium Falcon and the 10188 Death Star...
No space left there.

[Svelte]

KimT, on Jan 15 2009, 10:22 AM, said:

And the UCS Millenium Falcon and the 10188 Death Star...
No space left there.

Those are still comparatively massive boxes - but you're right, they need to be .

The other thing I've noticed with the larger CW sets is - why for the European/ rest of world releases have they reverted to the box style where you have to tear the corners and lift the flap, for example, as in 8019 Republic Attack Shuttle? I dislike this style as with the newer method you can at least easily flatten the boxes and store them.

Interestingly, the US release of the AT-TE and Republic Gunship last year had the new 'slit the tape and open the tabs' version and still were quite strong, so to keep vaguely on topic, size doesn't seem to be the factor for choosing the older style.

[LEGOscum]

I agree with all your comments (especially ditto's statement that it's a waste of paper) that the size of the boxes are too big. It suprises me that LEGO, being a Danish company, is so wasteful.

But Svelte Corps has hit the nail on the head:

svelte_corps, on Jan 14 2009, 11:17 PM, said:

Sadly, size matters. Casual shoppers think big = better when it comes to boxes and correlate value to how much shelf space it takes up in store.

It would take a industry-wide shakepup to get things the way we'd like to see them. If LEGO was to unilaterally reduce the size of its packaging do you think MegaBlocks would dothe same? No way. They'd relish the idea that their product was more prominent on toy shop shelves. So unless everyone did the same it's not going to happen.

Edited by LEGOscum, 15 January 2009 - 03:00 PM.

[KimT]

I've merged Motti's and Ditto's topics, since they were similar.

And here's my thoughts:
I know that they boost the size of the boxes to ensure sales, but it's odd that we (in 2009) still fall for such tricks of the trade. I had hoped that the "regular Joe" would step up and demand that companies acted more enviromentally correct.
The BP's for example are twice the size needed - saving the paper and print on those would do a lot for the enviroment, not to mention the space needed to ship these sets globally would also be cut in half.
It would be awesome if TLG had the balls, to say:
"In order to ensure a better enviroment, we've cut box size in half. Buy LEGO - save Mother Nature, buy Megablocks and strangle her instead"

LEGOscum, on Jan 15 2009, 04:00 PM, said:

I agree with all your comments (especially ditto's statement that it's a waste of paper) that the size of the boxes are too big. It suprises me that LEGO, being a Danish company, is so wasteful.

Yeah me too.
There's plenty of enviromental talk around here.
Windmills and solar energy is what the general public and a lot of politicians want.
So it is odd, that TLG doesn't take the above mentioned step.

[ditto]

although bigger boxes may get more people to buy the sets, can you imagine the reaction after opening the box? they may feel cheated and not buy lego next time.

in any case KimT i agree that TLG can take on the identity of an "environmentally-conscious" company and have more compact packaging.
you just need to manage your PR right and it will work.

oh, and actually the inflated box issues apply to all themes, of course. =)