Mistake in LEGO's minifigure timeline?

[badbob001]

LEGO Club now has a minifigure timeline that is far from comprehensive and reads like advertising for Series 10, but I didn't expect there is be a glaring mistake on their own product:

As far as I know, those are NOT Duplo figures. Were these even called minifigures at the time?

I actually owned one of these a long time ago:

[Itaria No Shintaku]

LEGO Club now has a minifigure timeline that is far from comprehensive and reads like advertising for Series 10, but I didn't expect there is be a glaring mistake on their own product:

I don't get the problem.

That's a 1975 set.

http://www.bricklink...tem.asp?S=615-2

Edited May 3, 2013 by Fugazi
removed quoted images

[Bioslayer]

They are not duplo, I have a few of the old sets myself (including set 615).

Edited April 29, 2013 by Bioslayer

[badbob001]

Perhaps the LEGO Club editor got confused by these?

Handy Guide:

• DUPLO figures: safe(ish) for your child to put in his or her mouth.
  
• Minifigures: not safe for very young children.
  
• *Your* collectible minifigures: not for children. :)
  

[Aanchir]

Definitely an error, yeah. Kind of a shock that a LEGO Club publication would make such a major error.

[JopieK]

strange, probably some non-LEGO fan wrote that ;)

[TheLegoDr]

Well it is no different than a lot of their official images will show errors in pieces stuck together wrong. You'd think they would know how to build the set properly. In one of the new City pictures I saw the head wasn't pushed all the way down. In my King's Castle box art, one of the lattice windows is angled open instead of flush with the frame.

Just odd that it happens, so not really surprised that this happened also.

[SpiderSpaceman]

Well it is no different than a lot of their official images will show errors in pieces stuck together wrong. You'd think they would know how to build the set properly. In one of the new City pictures I saw the head wasn't pushed all the way down. In my King's Castle box art, one of the lattice windows is angled open instead of flush with the frame.

Just odd that it happens, so not really surprised that this happened also.

aaaaand one of the bearded male Agents hilariously has a female torso on the front of a catalog ;)

[Legogal]

Hahaha! Maybe the bearded agent really is a cross dresser....not sure that LEGO wants to go that route! I do sex changes on my figs all the time....many former men are now gals, and they leave the beards behind in my builds! Male figs are a wonderful source of torsos for female figs, especially since most LEGO women do not have noticeable busts, and all you have to add is female hair making sure that she looks like a female. This is truly easy with LEGO, but I would not want to try it in real life...OMG!

[Artanis I]

Bad mistake, those pictured are not duplo. Yeah probably confused the description with those limbless duplo figures you posted. I had a couple of those.

The Lego LOTR game has quite a few bearded ladies...

[davee123]

The original "LEGO figures" weren't even those guys! TECHNICALLY, the first ones that were sold with the LEGO building bricks were the little guys from the Town Plan days:

Apart from purely brick-built figures, I think the next ones were probably the maxifigs in 1974 (brick built, but with some specially molded human-like elements):

Then the "stiffy" figures in 1975:

Then the DUPLO figures in 1976:

Then minifigs in 1978:

Next would be... Fabuland in 1979?

And... the "Basic" figures in 1981 maybe?

Technic figures in 1986:

Newer DUPLO figures in 1991:

Other figure types I can think of offhand that were for general sale (ignoring store display figs, maquettes, clock-figs, etc):

-Belville

-DUPLO w/ arms

-Scala

-Primo

-Galidor (big stretch, since it wasn't sold with typical bricks)

-Bionicle-style (also Ben-10, Hero Factory)

-Newer DUPLO w/ arms

-Knight's Kingdom large scale (and newer Super Heroes)

-Micro-Bionicle (minifig-ish scale)

-Microfigs

-Friends

DaveE

Edited April 30, 2013 by davee123

[SpiderSpaceman]

(brick built, but with some specially molded human-like elements):

AKA Brick built from the armpits down

Did the stiff figs start as babies for the brickbuilt people? I know they were used that way but I didn't know if they'd made their own debut prior to being babies. The aesthetic differences make me suspect they were planned to be their own thing, whether or not they were first released that way.

[LEGO Historian]

Davee123, you were spot on 100%...

Only minor change is the basic figure (your "maybe") were the 1974-82 Maxifigs... which were in the 20-50 (111-114 USA) basic sets of 1976-80... and those were the same as the Maxifigs used in Homemaker sets, "Building Sets with People" and other basic sets...

[Dreamweb]

And... the "Basic" figures in 1981 maybe?

I have only one of those in my collection (blue body, brown hair). Not the most useful fig for MOCing I must admit.

[Hey Joe]

They put that ridiculous Mr. Gold on the timeline as well? Are they just trying to piss people off?

Joe

[Dreamweb]

The whole timeline seems rushed and has quite a few inconsistencies. The way it is presented it suggests that the Pirate from Collectable Minifigures was one of the early pirates introduced in 1989, which is obviously wrong. Also, and I mght be wrong here not being that much of a Castle expert, but I'm pretty sure the original ghosts didn't have legs - they got them only recently.

[LEGO Historian]

TLG has always had problems with Timelines... even the company history Timeline. I've talked with an old time employee at Billund who said that new employees don't have the sense of history of the company, and when they look up items in the LEGO Archives, that many things can be misinterpreted... which is often the case.

For anyone who has ever looked at the timeline in the 1999 ULTIMATE LEGO BOOK, there are many discrepancies that become apparent.

Edited April 30, 2013 by LEGO Historian

[davee123]

Did the stiff figs start as babies for the brickbuilt people? I know they were used that way but I didn't know if they'd made their own debut prior to being babies.

Pretty sure that they were always intended to be at their own scale, they just-so-happened to also work as children for the Homemaker sets.

The whole timeline seems rushed and has quite a few inconsistencies.

I get that impression from a lot of their stuff these days. They don't have access to stock photography of a lot of the historical stuff, and a good chunk of it isn't compiled together into a nice, friendly, central source.

They also might want to make everything look more modern and appealing in the images. IE, the concern might be that kids will be bored looking at old stuff from the 80's, so might as well jazz it up and use things like the modern pirate captain.

I mght be wrong here not being that much of a Castle expert, but I'm pretty sure the original ghosts didn't have legs - they got them only recently.

Yep. The original ghosts from 1990 used a 1x2 brick and a 1x2 plate in place of legs. I believe the first ghost that used actual legs was in 1997.

I think the timeline for minifigs looks something like:

1978 - First minifig

1989 - First non-smiley printed head (Pirates)

1989 - First minifig (non-stiffy) torso used without legs (Figure on pirate ship)

1989 - First minifig w/ non-hand (hook hand on pirate)

1989 - First minifig w/ non-leg leg (pegleg on pirate)

1990 - First minifig (non-stiffy) with non-yellow head (Ghost)

1990 - First slope used as a dress piece (6081 Princess)

1994 - First printed legs (Islanders and Spyrius robot)

1994 - First printed waist (Spyrius robot)

1996 - First minifig w/ transparent head (Ann-Droid in Exploriens)

1996 - First minifig w/ teeth (Bandit in Wild West)

1996 - First minifig with "pupils" (Timmy, Dr. Cyber)

1997 - First minifig w/ nose (Native Americans)

1997 - First alien minifig

2000 - First molded head (Jar-Jar)

2001 - First double-sided head (Voldemort)

2002 - First short legs (Yoda)

2003 - First flesh tones (NBA)

2003 - First printed arms (Boba Fett)

DaveE

Edited April 30, 2013 by davee123

[Galaxy Explorer]

I think the first short legs were on a goblin minifig from Harry Potter. I purchased Gringott's Bank in Jan. of 2002, and Yoda was released in May, unless he was in something before that, but I do not recall. Maybe a Toy Fair hand-out that year?

[Dreamweb]

Wasn't it the Metroliner train set back in the 90s that used the short legs for the first time? I might be wrong but that is what my memory is telling me.

[davee123]

I think the first short legs were on a goblin minifig from Harry Potter. I purchased Gringott's Bank in Jan. of 2002, and Yoda was released in May, unless he was in something before that, but I do not recall. Maybe a Toy Fair hand-out that year?

Ahh, good point, I think you may be correct-- I was doing a cursory lookup, so I wasn't sure the times of year when they were released.

DaveE

[Galaxy Explorer]

They say Yoda was the first one with short legs in the Character Encyclopedia and that always confused me. Maybe Yoda had been designed first, but the goblin got released earlier.

[Spitfire2865]

They say Yoda was the first one with short legs in the Character Encyclopedia and that always confused me. Maybe Yoda had been designed first, but the goblin got released earlier.

Isnt the Character Encyclopedia just Star Wars? Im sure Yoda was the first SW fig with short legs. Maybe they were referring just to SW in that?

[xboxtravis7992]

For anyone who has ever looked at the timeline in the 1999 ULTIMATE LEGO BOOK, there are many discrepancies that become apparent.

Dang it, that is where I learned most of my 1930-1999 Lego history from... Maybe that is why I was able to buy it for $1 at the the Dollar Store?

[davee123]

Dang it, that is where I learned most of my 1930-1999 Lego history from... Maybe that is why I was able to buy it for $1 at the the Dollar Store?

Yeah, I recall talking to the guys at the model shop in Enfield, and they said they once they started finding a few mistakes, they intentionally went through it to try and enumerate all of them. I remember one of their errors being a misspelling of "acrylonitrile", which you'd like to think they'd double-check, being a difficult word to spell to start with! But there were supposedly scads of errors.

DaveE