Lyichir Posted January 4, 2014 I'm dealing with the facts as they exist....as they are known. I'm not very good with 'what if Napoleon had a stealth bomber' type of discussion. Lego let us vote on what became 21021. It won are vote. They issued it in an architecture series box with an architecture series number. They did not make it available as they have the other 21---- series sets. I am not going to enter into a discussion that basically requires me to address false premise after false premise after another false premise. Nor will I get into a semantically based debate because someone used the word 'evil''. The facts are the facts. Others may ask 'what if Napoleon had a stealth bomber'. I'll stick to the facts as known. Unknown reasons for TLGs decision? Sorry, not going down that road. They are judged by their action and the facts as known.....not by me pulling excuses for them out of thin air and making stuff up based on the latest post to which I'm responding. And, I refuse to become a shill for TLG. Or, as you call it, a 'devil's advocate'. :-) Your ignorant reduction of my argument to "what ifs" is becoming infuriating. I'm not "making up facts", I'm using logic to, to the best of my ability, narrow down the only conceivable reasons why the set could be released this way, because I'm interested in why it was done. If having an interest in why the company that makes the product I love made a seemingly consumer-unfriendly decision makes me a shill, I'm sorry. But if you didn't want people to discuss the issue then maybe you shouldn't have started a discussion topic about it. I don't have time to argue with someone who's more interested in drumming up dissent than actually giving issues any thought, or someone who would rather resort to personal attacks than actually trying to see things from another point of view. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vee Posted January 4, 2014 (edited) Dream Americans, dream... :laugh: Out of stock! US$ 75 (converted). Another thing I don't understand is why Korea? Why not Australia that is technically closer to Singapore? There is so much oddness in this release... My explanation is that Lego wanted to make it REALLY difficult to get this set... Why oh why... “The Lego Co. has its reasons which reason knows not.” Edited January 4, 2014 by Vee Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CopMike Posted January 4, 2014 Ok, everybody relax and stop talking about each other and focus on the issue at hand. Otherwise I'll close this thread. And I'm waiting for an answer from TLG but I guess the holidays slows down that process a bit! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Off the wall Posted January 4, 2014 Thanks, CopMike. Appreciate your efforts in getting an explanation as to 'why' from Lego based on facts and not unfounded speculation. Not saying that some speculation isn't actually true. After all, there's always the blind squirrel finding the acorn, eh? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mecheon Posted January 4, 2014 Another thing I don't understand is why Korea? Why not Australia that is technically closer to Singapore? Hello, I still exist I don't believe the Architecture sets sell all that well here. Plus Australia misses out on a lot of odd sets, like the Creator Eagle and Green Robot sets from last year, or not receiving the Dinosaur sets until 6 months after the rest of the world It not showing in Australia is just what happens around here Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Off the wall Posted January 4, 2014 (edited) The bottom line is that as collectors, we expect all architecture sets to have the same wide distribution. If TLG wanted to limit the distribution of 21021 for whatever reason, fine. BUT.....get it out of the architecture series and treat it like, or similar to, 4000007 Ole Kirks House. That's all that's being said here. If the reason is licensing, a forecast of limited sales outside of a certain area, production limits, or 'just because'. .........that's all okay, Just don't call it an architecture series set. All Lego buildings/landmarks are not in the archetecture series. Tower Bridge. Large Sydney Opera House. Taj Mahal. Pretty simple and really requires little, if any, speculation on why 21021 has such a limited distribution. Edited January 4, 2014 by Off the wall Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lyichir Posted January 4, 2014 The bottom line is that as collectors, we expect all architecture sets to have the same wide distribution. If TLG wanted to limit the distribution of 21021 for whatever reason, fine. BUT.....get it out of the architecture series and treat it like, or similar to, 4000007 Ole Kirks House. That's all that's being said here. If the reason is licensing, a forecast of limited sales outside of a certain area, production limits, or 'just because'. .........that's all okay, Just don't call it an architecture series set. All Lego buildings/landmarks are not in the archetecture series. Tower Bridge. Large Sydney Opera House. Taj Mahal. Pretty simple and really requires little, if any, speculation on why 21021 has such a limited distribution. The thing is there's a significant difference between a large-scale architectural set (Sydney Opera House, Taj Mahal, Tower Bridge, etc.) and the actual Architecture series. And this set was clearly designed as the latter. And it should be. Wasn't the survey that voted this the most wanted architectural model specifically about the Architecture series? Even if we ignore WHY the set got a limited release, the option of NOT producing the set (or even producing it but not putting it in the Architecture series) would be disappointing fans by default, since it would be essentially ignoring the results of that fan survey. I'm sure Lego thought that releasing the set in the Architecture series, but on a limited scale, was the best possible compromise, even if it's clear that the majority of posters here disagrees with that assessment. As it is, I'm tired of discussing this. I'll never really understand the collector's perspective whereby the branding on the box of a set carries such a heavy weight, even if the contents are the same, and I'm tired of my attempts at deductive reasoning being written off as "unfounded speculation" or the legitimate possibilities I propose being unfairly compared to historical impossibilities (the difference between "what if Napoleon had a stealth bomber" and "Lego must have had a reason to release the set this way, so let's narrow down what possible reasons there could be" are as stark as night and day, and to say that they're the same is an insult both to my intelligence and to the time I wasted trying to apply logic to this issue that doesn't affect me at all in the end). I'll know better in the future to avoid entering a discussion that seems to solely exist for the purpose of fomenting outrage and exchanging pity, and trying to point out that there might be another side to the story that is being ignored by all involved parties. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Off the wall Posted January 4, 2014 I'll refrain from replying as CopMike has been kind enough not to lock this thread. For those who care, the issue is clear and not cluttered which irrelevant issues and pretzel logic. Back to building..... Or, as the popular American response goes.........'whatever'........ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vee Posted January 4, 2014 Some things in life we are not supposed to understand and never will. Why are we here? Where do we come from? If there is a Creator, who created the Creator and so on? Why Lego makes apparently stupid decisions? Some things we are not supposed to understand. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Off the wall Posted January 4, 2014 Ya know, Vee, the Internet reminds me of a line from the movie As Good As it Gets....with a few modifications. How do you communicate on the Internet? I think like I used to think.......except on the Internet I can take away all reason and accountability. :-) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Herky Posted January 4, 2014 Speaking of limited availability, what was the date on Lego House again, the other Architecture series set that we won't be able to get since it is not mass produced but yet a set that will be selling at 5 times actual value? Thanks CopMike for asking TLG, going to be interesting to see what they say... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vee Posted January 4, 2014 http://www.tvsyd.dk/artikel/223593:LEGO-forkaeler-lokale-butikker This Lego House set looks like a random pile of bricks that a 4 year old put together... http://www.flickr.com/photos/toomuchdew/11221486046/ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CopMike Posted January 4, 2014 When we, Eurobricks, got the set for review (together with a couple more especially choosen sites) it was shipped from TLG in Singapore. Usually we get them from Billund! Even the TLG Community people in Billund seems to find a way to get hold of a copy for themselfs. So that would indicate something a long the lines that TLG Singapore has made a special run/set of this. But still it´s a really valid point that you guys make, especially the "Collect them all" part AND that it won the poll. And that the Architecture sets used to be (might still be) hand packed outside the ordinary packing process. I´ve seen that myself in the Billund factory! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vee Posted January 4, 2014 All it takes for Lego to make a highly desirable set is to give it some strong exclusivity. Then, how it looks does not matter anymore. Crazy world. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CopMike Posted January 4, 2014 All it takes for Lego to make a highly desirable set is to give it some strong exclusivity. Then, how it looks does not matter anymore. Crazy world. Think what you want and you don´t have to buy it. That´s not so crazy, right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vee Posted January 4, 2014 (edited) Still, I can give my opinion, even if I am not interested in the set, because it may happen to a set that I would be interested which would upset me. Fortunately for me, 21021 is cool but too expensive and far from a priority, and this lego house is just ugly and I do think that Lego uses exclusivity as a tool to give some sets a higher value than it is worth, like the annual gifts to employees (Lego spends like 30 dollars manufacturing something that in the hands of their happy employees will be valued 300+), and the ones discussed here, etc. And Lego count on their fan(atic)s to make this happen and Lego is never disappointed. It is a crazy world. I don't play this game. Edited January 4, 2014 by Vee Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LEGO Historian Posted January 4, 2014 (edited) Sheldon Adelson... with a net worth of $37.5 billion (world's 11th richest man), and owner of the worldwide Sands gaming and hotel empire... probably was in either the Willis (Sears) Tower in Chicago... or Rockefeller Center in NYC... and saw the Architectural sets of those landmark buildings sold there. Mr. Adelson probably picked up the phone... called LEGO president Jørgen Vig Knudstrop and said... "hey Jørgen... just saw your LEGO model of the Willis Tower.... can I commission you to produce an architectural set for my new Marina Sands Hotel in Singapore? Money is no object... I'll underwrite the cost..." This scenario (or something remotely similar) could have been how this relative obscure (to the west) building came to be a LEGO Architectural model. I had never heard of this building... unlike every other LEGO Architectural set building, which were all familiar to me. So the reason for this model may very likely have strayed from the usual Architectural sets... in that it could have been a private commission, which may have been relegated to only being sold in Asia. Problem for worldwide LEGO Architectural collectors? Well, yes, if you collect them all. Stupid decision by TLG? Not sure... Edited January 4, 2014 by LEGO Historian Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vee Posted January 4, 2014 You theory makes a lot of sense, I like it. Stupid decision by TLG? Not in a business point of view but yes in a customer relationship point of view. Who won? Money, because money talks, as I said before. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kinggregus Posted January 4, 2014 I really understand the perspective from the collectors. I am also glad I am not collecting this line otherwise I would have clearly been upset. As for the building not being very well known, I do not think this is the case. I believe it was the most expensive building of its kind when build. It should in any cases not be an excuse for not producing many of these sets. I think TLG can still make it right by producing more of these sets. I will follow this tread hoping to see an answer from the group as I really do not like this trend to make sets exclusive. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LEGO Historian Posted January 5, 2014 Oh... and there's one other reason why I think that this was an underwritten project... it's a GAMBLING resort.... Gambling is not something that TLG would find as a natural fit with its' building toy... unless someone with deep pockets was willing to pay... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Vee Posted January 5, 2014 Anyway, if your theory is correct, then that Contest to choose the next Architecture set was a sham, right? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LEGO Historian Posted January 5, 2014 Anyway, if your theory is correct, then that Contest to choose the next Architecture set was a sham, right? Not necessarily... there may just have been one more Architectural set than TLG originally thought... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Off the wall Posted January 5, 2014 Oh... and there's one other reason why I think that this was an underwritten project... it's a GAMBLING resort.... Gambling is not something that TLG would find as a natural fit with its' building toy... unless someone with deep pockets was willing to pay... If moral concerns were a problem, they'd probably never do anything with a Frank Lloyd Wright theme. Ever read anything about that guy? Brilliant man, very interesting personal life. Very interesting..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dr_spock Posted January 5, 2014 In business it's money. They probably crunched some numbers on how they think the set will do in different regions of the world and determine it is not worth their while to market, distribute and sell this set out of the Asia. In my former line of work, we get the same concerns from customers why we don't offer our classes in their cities and they had to travel to the bigger cities to get our training. The answer is usually not enough interest in their cities. We need a minmum number of students to be financially worthwhile. I can query the databases to see where the majority of our students come from, how much they spent, determine trends, volume discount qualifications, etc. It would be nice if we can see their business plan and how they determine where to sell sets. A few years ago they didn't sell the 8258 Crane Truck in Canada. Fortunately I have relatives in the United States. I guess if you want sometning bad enough, you'll find a way to get it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Faefrost Posted January 5, 2014 Oh... and there's one other reason why I think that this was an underwritten project... it's a GAMBLING resort.... Gambling is not something that TLG would find as a natural fit with its' building toy... unless someone with deep pockets was willing to pay... I don't think that is necessarily a disqualifier in an architectural theme. Nothing in the model indicates that it involves gambling. Alcohol is served there to, but it doesn't trigger TLG's alcohol restrictions. It is more known as a resort hotel then it is as a Casino. Now if they had a minifig scale craps table... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
