LEGO IDEAS - The Medieval Blacksmith

[Shiva]

Grover, I wonder where you have read your reviews from? The reviews I read have had both positive and negative comments.

Slates seem to have been used for quite long ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slate_industry_in_Wales

Seems that this building has got its slates from Cwt-y-Bugail ?

Aanchir, cheers for the photos of those blue slates.

[koalayummies]

On 1/1/2021 at 10:05 PM, Mr. President said:

A lot of submissions don't look like actual Lego sets, but the kind of models that AFOLs post on forums to get praise from each other; and they lack the features that Lego sets are supposed to have. The platform is at risk of becoming just another place for AFOLs to show off their building skills and congratulate each other.

 

54 minutes ago, Mr. President said:

The issue isn't "an opinion other than any given Lego set [is] the best thing ever made", it's the people who use their anonymous forum accounts to grade every set that comes out as though they're judges at the Olympics, and expect Lego to release either 10,000-piece MOCs or big grey walls as retail sets. Ironically, many of those same posts come from people who wouldn't dream of posting any kind of negative comments on the 10,000 piece MOC posts on Eurobricks.

This is good info.

Hey everyone, we're not supposed to build our own things or share them! Just consume what the company makes for us consumers.

[Aurore]

Thank you @henrysunset for your interesting review!

The discussions about the historical accuracy of this set remind me of a little story that happened at a medieval fair a few years ago…

The public attending that annual fair is generally a merry mix of hardcore reenactors who consider that modern underwear should be banned because it's not historical, young ladies dressed as Daenerys Targaryen (so many Danys…), and kids with shiny nylon tabards and foam armors.
One reenactor got quite mad at me, because I was wearing a "very 12th century France" dress with museum-grade replica of 11th century scandinavian earrings.
A heated discussion ensued with a fellow reenacor, about whether such a merely plausible outfit could count as historical, or if it could only qualify if all elements could be sourced to the same geographical area and timeframe. Meanwhile, I was quite embarassed because I was not aiming at anything historical, but simply at something nice that would fit in the mood of the fair.

I think the Medieval Blacksmith set suffers from the same issue as my outfit that day : not explicitely "fantasy" enough to prevent people from discussing its historical accuracy, but still "fantasy", so of course not historical enough to satisfy those people...

Edited January 21, 2021 by Aurore

[GeoBrick]

2 hours ago, Aurore said:

One reenactor got quite mad at me, because I was wearing a "very 12th century France" dress with museum-grade replica of 11th century scandinavian earrings.

Oh help. That's like complaining a grandmother walks around in jeans while still wearing the jewelry of her youth.

I can't even imagine all people back in medieval times only wore complete outfits from the same decade.
Jewelry and clothing can stay in the same family or group, even if only as hereditary stuff, to be worn at special occasions.

[natesroom]

13 hours ago, henrysunset said:

 

As a reviewer, it's my job to highlight the very best and worst aspects of every set that I cover—even the good (and great) sets!  Focusing on the highlights and lowlights is the most efficient way that I've found to help readers decide whether a set is a good match for their collection or not.  My job isn't to encourage folks to buy every set, but rather to make sure that they love each of the sets they decide to buy.  (If reviewers do their job well, fans who only buy a couple sets a year based on extensive research should feel like every set they buy is one of their favorites!)  Even serious AFOLs have limited time, space, and budget; I'm here to help!

As a more casual fan of LEGO, I would have probably just built the set, modified the roof a bit to match my preferences, and loved the finished product!

---tom

I agree if you are doing a review that is not biased, but an objective review, such as "The 2 minifigs included are very nicely detailed with an updated BF logo, etc. One thing to note is that one is male and one is female." Is a perfectly acceptable review. (i'm not saying you did this next part) If the reveiwer says "The minifigs included are horribly done, yes the printing is nice but they made one knight a female, and thats just not historically accurate, it just lego giving in to the liberal....." or "Kudos to lego trying to be diverse by including a femal knight in this set to make sure all the....etc"

Then i would say the its not an unbiased review for a toy, and as an AFOL (fan of a child toys) we should be better then this. Its imagination and if i want to imagine that its Joan of Arc or his wife traveling with him thats for the buyer to decide.

My point was that some of these "criticisms" arent really constructive, since its a toy and wasn't created to mimic or be a stand in for actual historical events, and LEGO can create a "Dog" who looks like a husky. I'm sure they had blacksmiths in cold climates where these dogs might be.

Edited January 21, 2021 by natesroom

[Grover]

6 hours ago, Aurore said:

The discussions about the historical accuracy of this set remind me of a little story that happened at a medieval fair a few years ago…

The public attending that annual fair is generally a merry mix of hardcore reenactors who consider that modern underwear should be banned because it's not historical, young ladies dressed as Daenerys Targaryen (so many Danys…), and kids with shiny nylon tabards and foam armors.
One reenactor got quite mad at me, because I was wearing a "very 12th century France" dress with museum-grade replica of 11th century scandinavian earrings.
A heated discussion ensued with a fellow reenacor, about whether such a merely plausible outfit could count as historical, or if it could only qualify if all elements could be sourced to the same geographical area and timeframe. Meanwhile, I was quite embarassed because I was not aiming at anything historical, but simply at something nice that would fit in the mood of the fair.

I think the Medieval Blacksmith set suffers from the same issue as my outfit that day : not explicitely "fantasy" enough to prevent people from discussing its historical accuracy, but still "fantasy", so of course not historical enough to satisfy those people...

I'm sorry that you had that experience.  I think it's really sad when people feel the need to tear others down.  What purpose does that serve?  You should be able to wear a Dany outfit with tennis shoes if you want!

[TheLegoDr]

I really liked the removable horns, especially the dark brown ones. That actually looks like an interesting animal that I may have to include in some of my builds.

Also, thanks for the slate pictures. Those really help seal how it should look. I am impressed by the official set. I didn't vote for the original submission. Depending on price, I may have bought either, but I do like the brighter colors more. Why would I want something so drab on my shelf?

For the rest, how hard is it to be the A in AFOL. Yes, negative comments will happen. We won't love everything TLG does, but adulting isn't that hard. I think the designer knocked it out of the park here. (I'm also trying to be more positive in my own life because everything else in the world is so negative)

[danth]

As in every thread on any forum about toys ever, the critical comments are reasonable and justified, and the comments complaining about the critiques are antagonistic and irritating.

Look, if anyone wants to worship an infallible god, there's always church. But Eurobricks ain't one, I hope. People might want to just accept the fact that others may be more critical than they are, and get over it.

[Aanchir]

Yeah, I don't have anything against criticisms on a general level, and while there are some forms of criticism that feel downright obnoxious, they're the sort that tend to make even the most critical comments in this thread feel gentle and refreshing by comparison. For example, I've seen some Brickset comments criticizing this set by saying it looks like a Friends or Duplo set, and Facebook comments claiming that both designers who worked on the final version of this set and any of their higher-ups who approved it ought to be fired.

There are definitely times that I find other people's criticisms confusing/surprising or that I just plain disagree with them, and in those cases I usually try to respectfully share my own perspective (including links that help to illustrate that perspective), but please rest assured that I am not trying to discourage people from sharing critical perspectives. After all, if I didn't enjoy reading and responding to those perspectives, I probably wouldn't continue to do so — after all, I try not to waste my time and energy on downright unreasonable ranting like some of the off-site comments I mentioned above.

Edited January 21, 2021 by Aanchir

[Mr. President]

15 hours ago, koalayummies said:

 

This is good info.

Hey everyone, we're not supposed to build our own things or share them! Just consume what the company makes for us consumers.

Not the point I was trying to make at all. I probably should have been more explicit about it, so I'll do so now:

Make whatever you want, like whatever you want - but don't be obnoxious about it. As someone else posted, the A in AFOL is supposed to stand for "adult".

[koalayummies]

2 hours ago, Mr. President said:

Not the point I was trying to make at all. I probably should have been more explicit about it, so I'll do so now:

Make whatever you want, like whatever you want - but don't be obnoxious about it. As someone else posted, the A in AFOL is supposed to stand for "adult".

There's nothing really un-adult-like happening here. Some were hoping for a goat, others wanted a more subdued color set and many are saying they're still going to get it despite any minor disappointment. That doesn't mean that Ideas is becoming MOCers just congratulating each other and the notion that ideas submissions don't look like actual sets TLG would make was also thoroughly debunked in the main Ideas thread.

And speculating that anyone who says that something disappoints them about an official set wouldn't dare say the same thing to a private builder's design is probably spot on. Private builders are inherently and undeniably limited in comparison to the multi-billion dollar Lego Group which has whole teams of the best builders and mountains of every part ever made. It'd be nice if more people commented on other's creations and designs rather than speculate what one may or may not say to a private builder just because of something else they said about an official set.

Edited January 22, 2021 by koalayummies

[KristinnK]

My thoughts about this set is that it's overall fine. We must keep in mind that the original model was 3000 pieces. TLG decreased that by more than 30%. Assuming same price per piece the set would have cost more that 220 dollars if they hadn't changed it.

Having said that I still have some gripes about the changes. I don't like the green moss on the roof. Just from a straightforward point of view of aesthetics.

Also I don't like the tree. I know many here express their appreciation for the tree, but I would have preferred a "normal" tree like in the Ideas submission.

These aren't big problems, they can be solved by Bricklinking Nexo shields for the roof and subbing in whatever kind of tree you like. However I think the minifigs are a big problem. Quality medieval minifigs are rare, simply because there haven't been medieval sets in almost a decade! There have been some nice CMF figs in this period, like the CMF 15 Frightening Knight and the CMF 20 Viking. But when an actual medieval set is released, especially a 150 dollar one, I expect multiple great figs. The 100 dollar Medieval Market Village had a full 8 figs, with two great female figs with torso+skirt printings, three copies of a nice commoner torso print, a so-and-so blacksmith and two normal soldiers.

In comparison this set is 50% more expensive (lets say ~25% if you count inflation), but has only half the minifig count! The blacksmith and the two soldiers are admittedly better than the corresponding MMV figs, but Lego has improved their minifigs a lot in the intervening years, so the difference is to be expected. The archer fig however is not very interesting at all, the torso print doesn't look medieval and there is no leg printing. Subbing that one out for a female fig with printed skirt would have been a significant improvement. Preferably there should just have been more figs in general.

[Aurore]

@Grover Don't worry, this experience did not prevent me from enjoying this fair (and many others) and I'm still amazed by the dedication and hard work of reenactors and the educational value of their activities.  

@KristinnK I totally agree with you concerning the minifigs! New medieval civilian minifigs would have been so appreciated. As far as I'm concerned, especially female : I love the recent skirt part mold, but there are too few printed options for commoners!

Now I hope that this pretty dun horse will be available thtough B&P, I definitely need a small herd…

[Weil]

49 minutes ago, KristinnK said:

The archer fig however is not very interesting at all, the torso print doesn't look medieval and there is no leg printing. Subbing that one out for a female fig with printed skirt would have been a significant improvement. Preferably there should just have been more figs in general.

What doesn't look medieval about the archer's torso? Maybe I am missing something but a lace up collar shirt and sleeveless buttoned waistcoat seem okay to me. I also like the dual molded legs over printed ones for that figure.

Of course, if you wanted something so characteristic of female medieval clothing that it could only be that then that's a bit different and I can see why you're dissapointed.  I understand that it's a bit frustrating that this looked like a good opportunity for new civilian medieval figure parts. However, If using pieces already in production for the archer meant they had the budget to do the new black falcon figures then I can see why they did that.

Regarding the amount of figures, i think the official set has twice as many as the ideas submission - so it seems very reasonable to me.

I too love the MMV but I'm not sure comparisons with MMV are that fair when they were trying to recreate the idea submisson as a marketable set, not recreate the MMV.

If they wanted to include even more figures then they presumably would have had to drop the piece count and deviated further from the original idea (and some people have criticised how far they deviated as it is!).

In terms of value compared with MMV, you seem to have not recognised this set has more overall parts (an increase of over 25% more, as it happens!). However, I agree that the MMV probably offered overall better value (it was a great set!).

There's a few little things I still don't like but having now seen the more detailed pictures/videos I think it's a very nice set.

I think the inside is very well done and they've actually managed to achieve quite a lot with the ground outside the building without using much space.

[Aurore]

1 minute ago, Weil said:

What doesn't look medieval about the archer's torso? Maybe I am missing something but a lace up collar shirt and sleeveless buttoned waistcoat seem okay to me. I also like the dual molded legs over printed ones for that figure.

Aaah, buttons...Another subject that remind me of heated discussions between my medievalist/reenactor acquaintances. From what I remember (and from what I just re-checked on google), buttons were already in used in Europe during the Middle-Ages, at least from the 12th century onward, but not as widely as today and mainly on sleeves. Medieval gambesons were more often laced (at least here in France). For women, cotehardies with front buttons date from the late Middle Ages only.
To me, a sleeveless waistcoat over a shirt like the one worn by the archer screams 18th century. 17th century at the soonest.

It does not really bother me that TLG included this torso in there as I consider it as a fantasy set. But still, I would have preferred a new, more medieval, print - or if reuse was necessary, the other female torso from the Barracuda Bay, which I find more original and detailed.

[Weil]

8 minutes ago, Aurore said:

To me, a sleeveless waistcoat over a shirt like the one worn by the archer screams 18th century. 17th century at the soonest.

Ah okay.  Sounds like you know more about this than me.  I agree the torso isn't characteristically medieval.  I just didn't find it jarring either.

[Hive]

1 hour ago, Aurore said:

To me, a sleeveless waistcoat over a shirt like the one worn by the archer screams 18th century. 17th century at the soonest.

That makes perfect sense, given that the torso in question was made for last year's Pirates of Barracuda Bay set. They simply re-used it for this.

While a new, exclusive civilian castle torso (we don't have a lot of those as is) would have been preferable, I can forgive them on account of giving us two new and extremely beautiful Black Falcon torsos/legs.

[Aurore]

7 minutes ago, Hive said:

That makes perfect sense, given that the torso in question was made for last year's Pirates of Barracuda Bay set. They simply re-used it for this.

Well...yes, I do know it was reused from that set. That's why I said that "if reuse was necessary", I would have preferred "the other female torso from the Barracuda Bay".

I agree those Black Falcons 2.0 are cool. By the way, it would have been even cooler if the archer minifig included a nod to the Forestmen! Something like the CMF Rogue's Wolfpack brooch...

[GeoBrick]

35 minutes ago, Aurore said:

I agree those Black Falcons 2.0 are cool. By the way, it would have been even cooler if the archer minifig included a nod to the Forestmen! Something like the CMF Rogue's Wolfpack brooch...

That would indeed have been a better choice. A variation of the Wolfpack attire in this CMF.
But, if rumours are true, and we indeed get a 3-in-1 medieval build next Summer, we might get a new medieval garb torso as well. The pirates got one in last year's 3-in-1's pirate ship.

[danth]

4 hours ago, Aurore said:

 By the way, it would have been even cooler if the archer minifig included a nod to the Forestmen! Something like the CMF Rogue's Wolfpack brooch...

That would have made this set 100% more exciting for me. And I don't want to hear any excuses about how a freakin' torso print would be "too expensive".

Dear Lego: This is how you make up for a missing goat!

[Weil]

1 hour ago, danth said:

And I don't want to hear any excuses about how a freakin' torso print would be "too expensive".

Of course not, don't be silly. However, the render of the forestmen's stag has been destroyed - so it's completely impossible for lego to ever print this again.

Also, they picked to give the archer a "green" torso design so what more do you want?

In any case, a forestmen figure is included in set 60271 so a forestmen set is currently on sale already.  Why don't you just buy that?  Plus we really recently got a CMF forestmen figure in 2010 so how many more do you need?

I also don't know whether lego could accommodate a set with a print of a stag alongside existing set 10275 either, which itself includes a stag.

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist. 

[Hive]

17 hours ago, Aurore said:

Well...yes, I do know it was reused from that set. That's why I said that "if reuse was necessary", I would have preferred "the other female torso from the Barracuda Bay".

My bad, I missed that part.

I agree that a homage to the Forestmen would have been epic.

[TheLegoDr]

20 hours ago, Weil said:

In any case, a forestmen figure is included in set 60271 so a forestmen set is currently on sale already.  Why don't you just buy that?  Plus we really recently got a CMF forestmen figure in 2010 so how many more do you need?

 

You call a light bley statue a Forestman figure and think that will satisfy fans/collectors/builders?

And a Forestman figure in 2010...that was over a decade ago. Yes, I think we could use something more recent than that.

Edited January 23, 2021 by TheLegoDr

[danth]

8 minutes ago, TheLegoDr said:

You call a light bley statue a Forestman figure and think that will satisfy fans/collectors/builders?

And a Forestman figure in 2010...that was over a decade ago. Yes, I think we could use something more recent than that.

Didn't catch the dripping sarcasm?

[Weil]

2 hours ago, TheLegoDr said:

You call a light bley statue a Forestman figure and think that will satisfy fans/collectors/builders?

And a Forestman figure in 2010...that was over a decade ago. Yes, I think we could use something more recent than that.

No, sorry.  I tried to make these statements ridiculous enough that they wouldn't be taken seriously.  They were meant to be poking fun at e.g.:

People pointing to Nexo Knights when others express a desire for new Castle

People pointing to some Ninjago sets when others express a desire for new Pirates

People pointing to Star Wars when others express a desire for new Space

etc.

2 hours ago, danth said:

Didn't catch the dripping sarcasm?