Two Questions

[hawkyboy4]

I have two questions that I am sure others here on EB are unsure of too.

1: Why do some bricks have holes in the stick-bit on the underside? (Some sets will have the two different underside "stick-bits" in pre-2005 sets, so the idea of it being because of the colour change is out)

and

2: Why do dark red elements have a lower quality than other LEGO bricks? (and dark blue/navy)

Any thoughts?

And if someone high enough could think of a better title, it would be greatly appreciated.

[Enpaz]

Probably those colours are more difficult to produce than others, obviously. For example, the colour Maersk Blue was discontinued because it's too expensive. I don't know the reason why.

Enpaz

[Aanchir]

I can tell you that 154 Dark Red in particular did change its formulation at some point, even though it wasn't a case like with browns or greys where an entirely new color was brought in to replace it. An interesting consequence is that, while simply called Dark Red on most color charts, LEGO Digital Designer specifically refers to color 154 as "New Dark Red". Similar color changes have occurred with colors noted for their inconsistency-- for instance, 131 Silver was changed multiple times to try to achieve a more consistent color before finally being replaced with a new color, 315 Silver Metallic, earlier this year.

As for the inconsistency of plates and bricks with hollow or solid tubes on the underside, that's a consequence of subtle differences in molds. Chances are a new mold was introduces at some point, almost identical to the old mold, but it took a while for LEGO to finish distributing all the parts made using the previous style of mold. Note that although two parts can have the same part ID number, often times there will be slight changes in the mold.

As an example, I was able to identify two different styles of part 3068 (both styles being an instance of what Bricklink calls 3068b) simply by comparing those found in last year's 5972 Space Truck Getaway and this year's 5984 Lunar Limo. As with the inconsistency you observed, the differences here are only visible on the underside of the parts, and unlike with the new version of the 2x2 tile found in the collectible minifigures (88409), these two versions had the same part ID number. I'm sure with some investigation of parts from different years, you could find several other instances of parts that have slightly different molds despite sharing a part ID. And I'm sure that, in many cases, there will have been a "transition period" when LEGO had not yet gotten rid of all those made with the older version but had started releasing ones made with the newer version, just as you observed with pieces from 2005 sets.

[CP5670]

The tubes on the undersides of plates were originally filled in the 80s and were changed to be hollow around 1993. I'm not sure what the purpose of the change was, but it may have been done simply to use less plastic and reduce costs. TLG briefly went back to filled tubes again around 2006 when they started outsourcing brick production, and now seem to have reverted to hollow tubes once more.

[prateek]

I think the sticks are hollowed out so they harden better. It's the same reason they make big pieces hollow.

[hawkyboy4]

Thanks all, however, in response to CP5670's answer, I have sets from years other than 2006 that had both hollow holes and thick holes in them, and find them occuring in sets produced now. If you're right, then this would mean that TLG/TLC (what's the difference?) doesn't use their most recently produced pieces.

Considering I was in a hurry when typing this, all those who helped find the answer managed to understand what I was talking about. (I'm not trying to bump the topic, just to show my appreciation.)

[RileyC]

well dont all the 1 x something bricks have little filled pieces. This is really what Im imagining that you are talking about, but too lazy to get up and check my own lego pieces. I think when they are hollow you can put a single stud into them?

[Aanchir]

well dont all the 1 x something bricks have little filled pieces. This is really what Im imagining that you are talking about, but too lazy to get up and check my own lego pieces. I think when they are hollow you can put a single stud into them?

No, actually some 1 x something bricks and plates will have a tiny, almost needle-sized hole in each pin. It's not an attachment point; just a slight molding distinction.

Also, if I remember correctly, TLC (The LEGO Company) is what LEGO went by before 2004. I believe since 2004 they've been The LEGO Group.

Edited December 13, 2010 by Aanchir

[davee123]

For example, the colour Maersk Blue was discontinued because it's too expensive.

Really? I've never heard that one before.

The reason that Jake McKee told us for Maersk Blue being discontinued was that they simply ran out of the Maersk Blue ABS pellets, and their promotional deal with Maersk was unlikely to continue. However, Maersk and LEGO worked out a deal to produce one last batch for the re-release of the Maersk ship back in 2004. Here's Jake's post:

http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=2879

From what I heard from Jamie Berard (I hope I recall correctly), he said the most expensive color to make was red! I thought that was strange considering that they make many of their test pieces in red, but that's supposedly because red shows up very well and allows people to see more detail on an element than if they made them in other colors. I'm also assuming that's not counting other bizarro colors like the blended elements, chrome, trans-glitter, etc. I'm guessing he meant the most expensive of the *standard* solid-color ABS colors-- and I think he told me that back in roughly 2007/2008 or so?

I DO know that they stopped using chrome as much for cost reasons. The chroming process was simply too expensive to be used a lot. They can still use it, it just uses up a good chunk of the budget for a set design, so the designers avoid it more than they used to. And of course they now have their new chrome color which isn't really shiny, but is MUCH cheaper for them to produce.

DaveE

[Enpaz]

Really? I've never heard that one before.

I think so. The supplies ran out, and at this point they didn't see to getting new supplies as it wouldn't be profitable for them, simply because the colour really is not cheap. The colour just payed off for making a Maersk set. Noone would understand why they should spend more money on, let's say, a police car in Maersk Blue than a police car the same size in regular Blue. The colour's too expensive to lightheartedly use in normal sets -> they are just used where they are necessary (in Maersk sets) -> TLG doesn't make Maersk sets all the time -> no need for Maersk Blue when they don't do Maersk sets.

In the end, they did give it one final production run, yes, but a second time in partnership with Maersk: and in all probability TLG didn't have to bear the full costs for the colour then. Remember: It was the Maersk Company who came back to TLG wanting to be promoted again (by a Maersk set).

It's definitely Maersk who's got the "weaker brand", not the other way round. Most people who know Maersk also know Lego, but a much less amount of people knowing Lego know Maersk.

[Brickdoctor]

From what I heard from Jamie Berard (I hope I recall correctly), he said the most expensive color to make was red! I thought that was strange considering that they make many of their test pieces in red, but that's supposedly because red shows up very well and allows people to see more detail on an element than if they made them in other colors.

Wow, never would've guessed that. Learn something new everyday.

[CP5670]

Thanks all, however, in response to CP5670's answer, I have sets from years other than 2006 that had both hollow holes and thick holes in them, and find them occuring in sets produced now. If you're right, then this would mean that TLG/TLC (what's the difference?) doesn't use their most recently produced pieces.

Considering I was in a hurry when typing this, all those who helped find the answer managed to understand what I was talking about. (I'm not trying to bump the topic, just to show my appreciation.)

Their existing inventory may still have parts left over from those years, especially basic parts like plates that were produced in large quantities. It takes them a few years to flush these out of their system. I've seen both of types of plates recently too. I think the molds/blueprints that TLG gave Flextronics were somehow for the older, filled tube design, and TLG continued to produce those parts after they took over the Flextronics plants.

[danim]

something to remember about maersk is that if lego used the colour without maersk's permission lego could be fined as maersk copyrighted the colour so no other company can use that colour, it is the same with ups and their brown

[davee123]

something to remember about maersk is that if lego used the colour without maersk's permission lego could be fined as maersk copyrighted the colour

Yep, that's why LEGO only ever produced Maersk blue in Maersk sets. LEGO had to get everything approved by Maersk that used their color of blue before putting it on the market. That's why LEGO was using the same stockpile of Maersk blue ABS pellets for years-- once LEGO bought it, their only chance to use it was in Maersk sets, which are few and far between. So their ultra-large stockpile was just sitting there in storage until it finally got used up in the Maersk ship sets.

My guess is that this may be why Maersk blue was expensive-- not that the dyes used are more pricey or anything, but that there's more logistics in terms of getting Maersk to agree that the color's JUST right.

DaveE

[Enpaz]

Are you sure Lego wouldn't be allowed to use the Maersk colour for non-Maersk sets? I didn't know that Maersk Blue was patented. That's interesting.

Cheers!

[fred67]

How in hell does a company copyright (or even trademark) a color? That's an abuse of the system, right there.

[Enpaz]

I don't know and it does sound strange to me too. However, I have to say this is really not my field of expertise.

[Aanchir]

How in hell does a company copyright (or even trademark) a color? That's an abuse of the system, right there.

This way. Here's an interesting PDF of this sort of trademark.

Edited December 15, 2010 by Aanchir

[Enpaz]

Thanks Aanchir!