PICTORIAL REVIEW: 6246 Crocodile Cage

[Mister Phes]

All smaller images are thumbnail links to bigger pictures

View 6246 Crocodile Cage information page on Classic-Pirates.com

6246 Crocodile Cage is the second smallest set in the Islander sub-theme which depicts a caged Pirate under the watchful eye of a hungry crocodile and an overly pleased Islander. The Pirate's pegleg may indicate he's made past espace attempts but was gruesomely unsucessfully.

The concept for the set is quite interesting for a prision. The top of the cage is hinged so can be flipped back opening up the roof and barred front, but unfortunately the cage is rather small making it somewhat cubsersome to place mini-figures inside. The cage would really benefit from being one plate higher to allow ease of accessibility and enable the top to close more easily.

Crocodile Cage includes plenty of accessories and there's nice attention to detail like the campfire, presumably to cook the pirate the if the crocodile doesn't want to eat him! The set is well decorated with feathers and bones, one of which ends up in the Islander's hair and the other in his ceremonial staff. The set isn't short of weaponary either as the Islander is fully equipped with a shield, spear and bow and arrow. There's even a musket and sabre which probably belonged to the pirate before he was captured.

As for the fauna and flora... Even a parrot is thrown in for good meaure, surprising given the size of the set, but nevertheless it is a welcome addition. The set is garnished with a bush which balances its right side nicely.

Crocodile Cage works well as a small set and has good play potential - should the pirate make successful negotiations the Islander they could band together and roast the crocodile!

Rating Crocodile Cage as a small set I'd give it 4 out 5, however competing against the larger pirate sets I'd only give it 2.5.

Now its your turn!

Rate the set and tell us what you think!

Edited July 19, 2007 by phred

[Berry Syedow]

I actually own this set. It's got a handful of useful pieces, but other than that it isn't anything special, and if you own any of the larger sets then there really isn't much of a point to get this except for novelty, army building, or collecting.

But what the hey, if I saw one of these sitting on a store shelf, today, I'd probably buy it. 3.5/5 ~4/5

Against an entire lineup: 2/5

P.S. This set retailed for $7.25 According to Peeron.

Edited July 8, 2007 by Berry Syedow

[Starwars4J]

P.S. This set retailed for $7.25 According to Peeron.

Very useful information! I would've assumed that this set retailed for $3-4, but $7.25US? That's just too much. For my imaginary price I'd have given this a 5/5 (or 10/10, or 39/40) but at that price I'd have to kick it down to 2-3/5.

Really nice extras, but at a really bad price.

[Mister Phes]

I don't understand why the retail price is useful information since the set is no longer in production and available in stores. It seems obsolete information to me because you're unlikely to get a MISB copy for that price (MISB will likely be significantly more) and if you're a proficient eBayer you'll probably be able to purchase it for less, perhaps even for your imaginary price. Also that price might not be applicable to every store, especially internationally as prices tend to vary from country to country.

So I pose the question why is the retail price relevant to how you rate this set since its not really a current factor?

[SupaaSayajin]

This set is so cheap on ebay ;) if anyone wanna have it!

I think its a cool set, but i't can't hold along with the other great pirate sets!

[Starwars4J]

Well look at it this way, are we judging the quality of the set as a whole, or are we just judging the parts? Clearly if we were just concerning ourselves with parts, this would be a near-perfect set! The price point of a set is a very large factor that determines its overall quality. For a set of that price, the designers should have given us considerably more, and while what they gave us may be ample (or moreso) for a $3-4 set, for a $7 I would expect quite a bit more, and it feels lacking, almost like a rip-off.

Whether or not something is over or under priced is definitely a factor of the set, because not only does it show how creative and generous they were with the parts they had available, but it also shows us what they didn't have to give us, or what else they should've given us.

The new Castle Siege set is brilliant, and it would be a fantastic set for $50! However for $100 I would expect quite a bit more, and it lowers the ranking I would give it. Since Crocadile Cage is no longer being sold, the only price that it would make sense to reference would be the one that was a part of the environment when it was out in stores, since the BL and ebay prices vary, but ultimately do nothing but go up.

You see what I'm talking about?

[Mister Phes]

Well look at it this way, are we judging the quality of the set as a whole, or are we just judging the parts? Clearly if we were just concerning ourselves with parts, this would be a near-perfect set! The price point of a set is a very large factor that determines its overall quality.

We're judging the parts, concept, execution, playability and asethetics as a whole. Judging parts alone is pointless since you could buy them individually from BrickLink these day.

Since the original retail price varied around the world I don't think its fair that everyone take the former US price into consdieration. As I recall this set cost around $10 in local currency and that would have been about US$5 at the time.

For a set of that price, the designers should have given us considerably more, and while what they gave us may be ample (or moreso) for a $3-4 set, for a $7 I would expect quite a bit more, and it feels lacking, almost like a rip-off.

To be fair the retail price from every country should be stated, not just the US otherwise how can a non bias assessment be made? We're not all Americans so therefore the US retail price is not applicable to all of us.

You may argue that you are American and that price is applicable to you and therefore you consider the set as "almost a rip-off" thus lowering your rating. However, users from other countries where this set cost less may give it a higher rating because they considered it better value.

I find it strange the rating is influenced by a US price that was obsolete over 11 years ago, and since we can't really get prices from every country I don't think any prices should be referenced.

That's just my opinion so rate the set however you like, but when I reviewed it I totally disregared the price because of my forementioned reasons.

[Siegfried]

I'd buy it for parts, but as a set it is a bit lacking. However, many of the smaller sets that Lego released at the time were similar to this so I think it is unfair to judge it by todays standards. Lego is much better value today, even taking into consideration quaility.

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to say thanks for the review!

Edited July 9, 2007 by Sinner

[Starwars4J]

We're judging the parts, concept, execution, playability and asethetics as a whole. Judging parts alone is pointless since you could buy them individually from BrickLink these day.

Exactly why price needs to be considered as well X-D

Since the original retail price varied around the world I don't think its fair that everyone take the former US price into consdieration. As I recall this set cost around $10 in local currency and that would have been about US$5 at the time.

To be fair the retail price from every country should be stated, not just the US otherwise how can a non bias assessment be made? We're not all Americans so therefore the US retail price is not applicable to all of us.

You may argue that you are American and that price is applicable to you and therefore you consider the set as "almost a rip-off" thus lowering your rating. However, users from other countries where this set cost less may give it a higher rating because they considered it better value.

I find it strange the rating is influenced by a US price that was obsolete over 11 years ago, and since we can't really get prices from every country I don't think any prices should be referenced.

That's just my opinion so rate the set however you like, but when I reviewed it I totally disregared the price because of my forementioned reasons.

I don't believe I ever mentioned the US price, did I? I was commenting on the price that was given, which was far too high for what was offered. I never meant to imply that people should only post prices in USD, since...this is a European site afterall! I was merely discussing my disappointment with the one price given so far, and still stand by the point that price matters. You can have the best set in the world, but if it should be priced at $20US, and instead it's priced at $120US, it's not going to get very high reviews.

[Mister Phes]

EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to say thanks for the review!

You're welcome!

I don't believe I ever mentioned the US price, did I? I was commenting on the price that was given, which was far too high for what was offered. I never meant to imply that people should only post prices in USD,

I never meant to imply you mentioned the US price, perhaps I phrased my previous post inappropriately. I meant the price from Peeron.com is a US price (or I've assumed the price is in US dollars because any other decimal curreny would indicate which country its from) and that's the price you're using for your assessment.

You can have the best set in the world, but if it should be priced at $20US, and instead it's priced at $120US, it's not going to get very high reviews.

That's not a realistic example because very few people will buy a set for $100 more than its worth to begin with (I realise there are fools on eBay but not that many). Furthermore, nobody in their right mind would retail a set for $100 more than its worth for the very reason no sane person would buy it. Perhaps you exaggerated for the sake of your example but maybe too much.

I was merely discussing my disappointment with the one price given so far, and still stand by the point that price matters.

You don't even know if that price is accurate or was ever a retail price so it doesn't seem logical to stand by it. Just because Peeron.com or LUGNET specifies a price doesn't mean anything given the variation of prices globally and the fluxuation of exchange rates.

My arguement was the price from Peeron.com no longer reflects the current value of the set and that's why it shouldn't be taken into account. If the majority of Crocodile Cages were US$7.25 or it was 1994 and that's how much they were retailing for then I would factor it into my assessment, however this is not the case and we have no idea how Peeron.com came up with that price.

By the way... (To everyone) Don't take my posts as a dictation or a recommendation on how you should rate this set, if you want to factor in the price from Peeron.com (or anywhere else) then go ahead. I just like adding to this sub-discussion we have going here X-D

[Norrington]

I rated by itself: 5/5; Compared to everything else: 3/5.

(To everyone) Don't take my posts as a dictation or a recommendation on how you should rate this set, if you want to factor in the price from Peeron.com (or anywhere else) then go ahead. I just like adding to this sub-discussion we have going here X-D

*Begins pointing at Phes*Admins other than Mr.Phes, Admins other than Mr.Phes! Mr.Phes is telling me what to vote for, make him stop! X-D

BTW, Mr.Phes, I made a Pirate smily we could add.

*wig* =

Whay'da think?

[ZCerberus]

I don't know that the price is "too high" per se... I guess I would say the problem is there are not enough distinctive elements for your taste at $7.25 USD. I would imagine that the set fits the price point almost perfectly given the size of the elements and the number of figures.

In that sense, I think what you are trying to say is that if the set lacks distinctive elements, you would rate it higher if you could get a bargain on it, or conversely, if it lacks special elements, it should be priced lower than a formula based on the number and size of the elements and the number of figures...

I think we are jaded by time... a lot of the elements in this set were fairly new at the time. The islander figure as a whole, the crocodile, the cattle horns, the Islander figure's headpiece, his shield and even the fire elements were all pretty new back then as I think a lot of those elements came out around 1993 (Dragon Masters for Fire and the top jaw piece that went on the crocs and dragons). So there were plenty of new and distinctive elements in this set at the time.

I am sure I owned this set. I can't say I have any great recollection as it being the greatest set ever or anything, or having particularly found memories of it, but it did give me five spears, a cutlass, a musket, a crocodile, the cool fire element and some cattle horns (which fit nicely in the Dragon Master helmets) an islander figure, with the cool new oval shields (Also came out in Dragon Masters for the first time) and a pirate figure. All in all, not a bad list of nice parts for $7.25!

I guess I do agree that if something has no distinctive elements and therefore has nothing special compared to other sets which might sell at a lower price point, it should perhaps be rated a little lower, but on balance, there were plenty of new elements (probably the cheapest set to get a crocodile and 2 figures) in the set at the time to justify buying it at the retail price mentioned.

Because there were quite a few new elements in this set and it was fairly priced, I think I will give it a 4/5. At the time there were a lot of cool sets though, like the Islander Catamaran and the King's thrown, which had better figures over all. I will say it was only about a 2.5/5 compared to the other islander sets which also had canoes and tiki masks!

Edited July 9, 2007 by ZCerberus

[Mister Phes]

*Begins pointing at Phes*Admins other than Mr.Phes, Admins other than Mr.Phes! Mr.Phes is telling me what to vote for, make him stop! X-D

No, I wrote "if you want to factor in the price from Peeron.com (or anywhere else) then go ahead" so think however you like. But if I was to tell you how to think then I would say why don't you write a review like ZCerberus has, I think that's a very good review and you should aspire to writing like that.

BTW, Mr.Phes, I made a Pirate smily we could add.

*wig* = Whay'da think?

I think I should look into the smileys Imperial Scouts offered months ago :-P

[Starwars4J]

I hope I'm not infringing upon this topic at all, as I did really enjoy your review! Thanks for making it :-) Now with that said...

You mentioned you weren't sure about when the price referred to, however:

# Theme: LEGO / SYSTEM / Pirate / Islanders

# Year: 1994

# Pcs: 56

# Figs: 2

# MSRP: $7.25

From the link provided earlier, the MSRP refers to the price they held in stores (The Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price), which wouldn't refer to anything after it was no longer being sold, as it would no longer be retail by then, it would be on the secondary market.

And yes, I know most people wouldn't buy a $50 set that was priced at $100, but it was a hyperbole on my part, comparing it to someone paying $7.25 for a set that is worth, IMO, $3-4! It's just not enough "bang for the buck" in my eyes, though I may be alone in that!

And yes, I did base it on Peeron since, not only are their fairly reliable, but they're the only source we have to go by. While it's true that the market fluxes, it's also true that the US tends to always have sets more cheaply than the rest of the world, and it's always been that way to my limited knowledge. So it's it's that overpriced IMO in USD, I can just imagine how bad it was for the rest of the world!

[Mister Phes]

As for the rest of the world... Like I said the cost for me was around $10 (US$5.50 at the time) but I'm sure it was more like $8.50. Maybe recall a sale price and I'll probably never know what the local MSRP was so this is why I'll never factor in price into my reviews.

Mr Starwars4J, it seems the you've rated this set based on the parts for the price. You haven't mentioned other considerations like concept, execution, structure, playability, asethetics, etc. Aren't these also important considerations when evaluating a set?

[Starwars4J]

As for the rest of the world... Like I said the cost for me was around $10 (US$5.50 at the time) but I'm sure it was more like $8.50. Maybe recall a sale price and I'll probably never know what the local MSRP was so this is why I'll never factor in price into my reviews.

Mr Starwars4J, it seems the you've rated this set based on the parts for the price. You haven't mentioned other considerations like concept, execution, structure, playability, asethetics, etc. Aren't these also important considerations when evaluating a set?

Of course they are! And I thought i had, my apologies if I didn't express them well. The concept, execution, structure, and playability are all very well done, that's why I think it's such a great set! Or...that it would be a great set if it was cheaper. Some sets are just so poor that even if they were half the price they'd only be good as parts packs, they don't work as a set. I love this set, I think it's just completely over priced, which really ruins it, since they could have given us much more for the same as we paid.

You seemed to get a very good deal, and I think that would be the real time that I'd consider getting one, on some sort of sale. Hell, if I saw it on sale I'd get a few most likely (like I said it's a great set), it's just not worth what they were trying to charge.

I hope I wasn't as confusing this time

[Mister Phes]

Actually I didn't buy this set when it was in stores because it was during my Dark Age. :'-( However, I still occassionally went to stores every year to see what the new pirate sets were and there was still a longing to buy them. Sadly the expectation to leave toys behind overruled the acquisition of anymore pirates set so I was nothing more than a window shopper.

[ZCerberus]

Poor Phes!

I was just barely still young enough to feel like I could buy them and get some use out of them... barely... ;-)

I think we have an understanding here. I agree with Starwars4J (and Phes too) that price should be a consideration... but I also agree with Phes (and Starwars4J) that concept, execution, structure, playability, and aesthetics should be factored in. I also personally think we should factor in the number and type of new or distinctive elements in a set for both the aesthetics and "bang for the buck" considerations.

Because of this I disagree with Starwars4J that the set was overpriced in and of itself. I gave it a high 4 for small set because it had new and distinctive elements and figures and a good design, playability, etc at the second lowest price point for sets at that time. However.... I agree with Starwars4J that compared to other sets at the time, it might not have had as a good a "value". Therefore, I gave it a much lower 2.5 out of 5 because it didn't give tiki masks, canoes, drum-top tiles, or some of the other cool islander elements that could be had on sets that were very well designed like the Islander Catamaran or the King's thrown for a slightly higher or slightly lower price point.

Not that I need to break it down again, but on the price issue, since that seems to be the one we are debating the most, I would say the set in and of itself is not overpriced, but comparatively speaking, other sets at the time may have been a better value, that is, better bang for the buck, depending on what type of elements you were looking for and how "cool" you thought the set was compared to some of the other ones in existence at the time like the ones I mentioned!

I hope we can hear from some people who have not had a chance to discuss this set as well... Sometimes I fear long debates scare off newbies (though it attracts some long time members who have opinions on the debates and know the people in the discussion) due to all the quotations and counter-points from long time members, I think to a certain degree it might suggest we are criticizing each other and not discussing points of the sets. I know this in an AFOL community so we should be mature and take these as actual set debates, and that all the discussion is actually very good and enlightening generally, but I still hope that people who have not voted are not scared off by thinking they might get the third degree if we disagree with their opinion!

As a side note, I see that Phes already posted this on Classic-Pirates, is it going to be the set in the July Newsletter?

[El Bucanero]

As a small set: 4/5. At first thought, I'd have given it a 3/5, but considering the large amount of weapons, I gave it a 4.

Against all other Pirate sets: 2/5. Sure, a nice little set, but I'd always prefer a BSB to this! ;-) But against all the other Pirate sets, better than the Cross Bone Clipper.

I don't own this set btw...

Mr Tiber

[Mister Phes]

I was just barely still young enough to feel like I could buy them and get some use out of them... barely... ;-)

Precisely how young were you? Or is that a secret?

I hope we can hear from some people who have not had a chance to discuss this set as well... Sometimes I fear long debates scare off newbies (though it attracts some long time members who have opinions on the debates and know the people in the discussion)

I was thinking this as well but I did mention a couple of times that other users could rate the set however they like irrespective of our opinions. Although being a small and probably not very popular set it probably won't attract that many responses anyway.

As a side note, I see that Phes already posted this on Classic-Pirates, is it going to be the set in the July Newsletter?

You'll have to wait and see...

[ZCerberus]

Precisely how young were you? Or is that a secret?

In 1994 I would have been 12. As you can see I was prime Lego age for Pirates! That is probably why I still like them best, though I have a lot of castle as well... (where are the castle MOCs? non-existent for now!)

You'll have to wait and see...

Oh, the suspense!

Edited July 10, 2007 by ZCerberus

[zouave]

This isn't too good of a set to me. This is more of an islanders accessories kit than actuall set. :-|

3/5 for itself. 2/5 against all others.

[Timento]

I have this set for some time now... I bought it at eBay, together with King Kahuka's throne... They were 7

[ZeekyBoogeyDoog]

This was my first pirate set, I believe. I was especially fond of the Islander fig; I also always enjoyed the inevitable pirate vs. crocodile conflict that existed with this set. For the good number of accessories and playability, I think its a 4 out of 5.

[Wout]

This set was released short after my Dark ages begun, so I don't have him. I had found 2 other islanderssets in a shop in Belgium in 2002 from the same year and it was nice to have them.

This set is small, but has nice figs and parts, the design itself is also nice. Maybe a castle version of it for next year.