ummester

Phase 4 - all sexuality is removed, we go back to the 70s minifigs where the only hint that a minifig was a girl was longer hair (but it could also have been a boy with long hair). I appreciate how your daughters play Slobey and think that that is how it should be with LEGO - the child's imagination and creativity should be utilized. Eventually they will stop being silent - when the outspoken become too ludicrous for them. NB, I can be outspoken so don't consider myself fully part of the silent majority, though I know people who definitely are, both men and women. Eventually the silent majority of men and women will go - We've had enough! Men are men and women are women - we can respect and appreciate our differences without having to be precious about it and we don't need to involve our offspring by projecting our insecurity onto a toy. The minifig is not meant to be some kind of reflection of social values - it is meant to be a collection of humanoid parts for a construction toy, so that human elements can be included in a build. The licensed minifig is a representation of a character from a given franchise, the sexuality of which is determined by the characterizations in that franchise. There is something really sad about adult humans imposing their political values onto little plastic figures. On a personal note with this, I find it bad form when LEGO Ideas is being used as a platform to pander to it. I could put up a project in which the disabled, lesbian astronaut from an ethnic minority conducts a peace mission for NASA and get support - this upsets me because it means the supporters are thinking more on social values than project build quality or idea potential.

This is the point where it gets interesting kibosh. I agree that an adult shouldn't feel bad if their intention is to build the set, use the parts, or as discussed, appreciate the packaged set as a potential future build. If the only reason the adult is purchasing the set is to turn a profit - then I would always argue the adult should feel bad about it because they are removing a potential sale for play or build from either another child or adult. Of course, you don't know that the next buyer will not be an investor either, so the argument can be made by an investor that they are just getting in before another investor does - however, if the whole investment mindset was removed from the LEGO equation, then everyone could build and play more equally. As already discussed here - if collectors weren't prepared to pay ridiculous sums of money for a toy, then investors would have no point in buying to hoard. So, ultimately, I would say that both investment and collection miss the point of a toy product entirely, from my point of view and fully agree with the logic in feed's post that shows TLG marketing strategy re-enforces both mindsets. On a personal note - I have thought about it. I've seen LOTRs sets on sale, which I have no desire to build or own but know they have unique minifgs. The thought to get the set, put it in cupboard and sell it for a profit to fund my MOCing down the track has crossed my mind - but I stop myself as I believe it is not the decent thing to do.

I agree - but it's still good to know how much that art is going to cost you to build for yourself :) It's as I suspected though - LEGO is an average of 10c US per piece. When you are looking at building a large MOC, be prepared to spend $100 US for every 1000 parts from Bricklink (plus postage).

It's true - we are all individuals. Looking at an unopened box seems like a strange way to enjoy a toy to me, though I can accept the possibility that other people get pleasure from it. Like Hive said, it may be the pleasure of looking forward to a new build - and I can appreciate that, I used to feel it. If it's just the pleasure of wondering how much it might be worth next year, it strikes me as a little greedy - but it is still valid pleasure.

Hive, I may be a bit different in that I don't often have a strong desire to build TLG sets anymore. I do have a strong desire to design in LDD and realize designs in bricks. I guess I have more of a desire to play and invent my own designs, which I was also like as a child. TLG sets are the best toys around, made better by the fact they can be used for the creation of even more. People talk about the UCS falcon as some kind of golden chalice of value - I can honestly say I'd want it more for the parts than either the initial build or it's financial value.

MAB - I agree that the LEGO company is probably more interested is sales than what people actually do with their product. So long as someone doesn't do something with their product that creates bad press, a sale is a sale. However, we'll have to agree to disagree on what the intended use of the product and play actually is. Keeping something in it's bag is not playing with it, or enjoying it in any tangible way. I get that a company keeps a vault of each product it has sold, over the years, as it is of historical and educational value to the company. For most, a vault is a place to keep valuables of financial worth. The primary value of a toy product should always reside in how it functions as a toy - it's not even complicated. Keeping it in a bag may increase it's financial value - but it can't possibly increase it's functional value and thus negates it's purpose. Investors impose a purpose on the product for their own gain that is outside of the product's design. It's fine, it's not illegal or anything and an investor can validate it however they want - but you will never convince me that it fair use within the products intended design. You can sit on a collectors set and sell it for a massive profit in 5 to ten years and pat yourself on the back, or you can design an impressive MOC and put it on display. I know which one I think is more in line with the products intended purpose and which accomplishment would make me feel more pleased. I see a beautiful MOC and feel inspired, I read someone sells a Mr Gold for over $1000 or something and it just feels disappointing. feed, I do agree that TLG marketing does feed (oops :) ) the LEGO investor mindset.

Really well done - a beautiful port for the Revenge to dock.

She has some really nice interior details and a colorful, lively looking crew. The play-ability factor does looks great, like you can just dive into the decks and move things around to your hearts content. Perhaps the short and hairy crew member is Tyrion Lannister and the Elsa is the boat that he and Varis were on at the end of Season 4 Well done.

It depends what your intentions are obsidianheart. If you intend to build/display but can't find the time/space, I'd say the purchase was a bit of a waste but was still in line with the design of the product. If your intention was to store for profit, from the get go, then it is a misuse of what the product was designed for and callous neglect for all of the sad children helplessly looking on in the world :D Either way, if you are buying more LEGO than you can actively use, don't you ever ask yourself why?

Your missing the point. An adult has as much legal right to buy a LEGO set as a child. However, an adult should be adult enough to realize that toys are ultimately made for children and not them. My argument was concerning a situation where there is only one set left in a particular store, that you want, and a sad child looking on who also wants and has the means to purchase it. The adult thing to do is let the child have first pick, because it is a toy. It's like letting an elderly person or pregnant woman have your seat in the bus, it's the decent thing to do given the situation. I have never said that an adult shouldn't be able to buy and enjoy LEGO (by taking it out of it's box and doing something with it) either by themselves, with friends, or their own children. They are utilizing the product as it was deigned. What I am saying is that leaving a LEGO set hidden away, in it's box, with the sole intention of investment, is in opposition to what the set was designed for - which is to be built and played with. It is effectively a waste of a perfectly good LEGO set for individual financial profit.

MAB - I was saying didums to the idea of an adult that is sad they missed out on a toy as a child. You see how ridiculously circular it is? My parents didn't get me a toy - so I will pay top dollar for it as an adult. Most common defense raised as to why it's alright for an investor to take a toy over a child - it will teach the child a lesson. What lesson, that if they miss out they should pay more for it as an adult? By their own arguments, a toy investor is profiting from their best defense. What's that whole LEGO creed? Build well and play nice, or something similar. I fail to see how a set that is left sitting untouched in a cupboard is either built well, or played with nicely.

Yea - that's fine, free market structure and all that - look at how well the economy is working out for the world ATM :D Global economics aside, it's a toy! I don't know why any other adult would fail to see that the idea of toy investment seems kind of wrong? You have gold, stocks - products designed for investment - toys are not designed for that purpose - they are designed to be played with.

Robuko, It's a toy :D I'm not opposed to the idea of secondary market supply - and I am not opposed to the idea of paying a supplier fair value for holding the stock. I am opposed to massive investment mark ups occurring on a toy. Perhaps the secondary LEGO market needs to be regulated :D Actually, as others have noted, TLG can regulate it by re-releasing sets. Perhaps what I would prefer is this - if any set made in a given amount of time (say 20 years) starts selling for more than twice it's initial value (plus inflation), the set should be re-released. Something like that.

I agree that going without sometimes is a valuable life lesson for kids. This does not justify toy investment, however. That is a life lesson the child's parents should decide on delivering, as required. Having a toy product available for a child (who does not need a life lesson at that point in time) far better suits it's purpose than utilising it for investment. I also have nothing against AFOLs (obviously), or AFOLs reselling sets to help support their own MOCing or collection habits. I like Bricklink (as a parts source) and know without AFOLs reselling (in some form) it wouldn't exist. I draw the line at pure investment in LEGO (or any toy), however - acquiring multiple copies of a child's plaything, to be locked away in pristine condition, in the hope to turn a buck. It more than defeats the purpose of the product, in my eyes, it stands in opposition to the product's meaning. Coins, stamps - fine, collect them, lock them away and hope their value increases. Play with stocks if you really want to speculate. But leave the toys alone, don't totally pervert their original purpose by so much with purely capitalist ideals.

Prince of Persia - all fleshies and some interesting faces. Some Torsos may be ok. Oh, Indiana Jones minifg parts might work also, though they can cost a bit.

I think this is an important ingredient here. Yes, LEGO is more popular now, especially in North America, than it has probably ever been. I think there has also been a conscious effort on behalf of TLG to increase popularity of the minifig as a collectable item. The combination of these 2 factors has led to some ridiculous minifg desire amongst buyers. You can sell the minifgs from an old Star Wars set on Ebay for more than what you can sell the complete set.

I think there is a greater, silent majority that doesn't give a toss either way, though.

kibosh, You have obviously never tried to find your children Batman 1, Spongebob or Harry Potter sets for their birthdays in a town with more cashed up kidults than kids. Where I live now is balanced - larger population, more retailers and smaller AFOL to child ratio. Where I used to live there were less retailers and a much smaller population, the majority of which were cash rich, time poor DINKs.

Very inventive cannon design - well done As to galleon vs frigate - I think it depends on the type of sail you put on the mizzen mast.

Buying a toy before a child does is not the same as buying a car/house etc before another adult does, in my eyes, which are those of a parent on this topic. This is why I wondered how many re-sellers were parents. For instance, if there was a single remaining set I wanted in a store and a child was there that also wanted it, I would let the child have it. Another adult I would tell to find their own. An adult that claimed to be buying for a child, I'd say prove it. It's a pretty unfair advantage when an adult competes with a child for purchase of a toy - especially an employed adult, without their own children, who can clear an aisle out of a given set in one hit. Diddums. Just because one child missed out, doesn't mean another child should have to. If child A misses out on set 'Big Yellow Castle' and adult B hoards it to sell to child A at adulthood, child C also misses out at the original time of sale. By the time child A became an adult, they should have already reconciled the lack of 'Big Yellow Castle' in their lives anyway.

Reading this thread makes me doubt being an AFOL. The re-seller's defense - 'they are toys, if you don't want to pay that much, don't buy them'. That's all well and good - but 'they are toys'. Every set a re-seller hoards for profit stops a child somewhere from acquiring it for the same price the re-seller did. Why do sets get held for profit - because AFOL collectors will buy them, not the children that they were originally aimed at as toys. There is something about profiting from a secondary toy market that just strikes me as worse than profiting from a secondary market of adult products - it's stealing candy from a baby. I wonder how many LEGO investors are also parents? Not people who run secondary LEGO stores and support families with the income, but people who buy 10 sets cheap from a supermarket sale, hoard them and resell them a couple of years down the track for profit.

Good point Bob. 'stickers are an important part of the build' -if the build has stickers, of course stickers are an important part of it in that case they are an important part for AFOLs also.

They call it LAYGO in South Austraylia :D

I agree with the part of the article that suggests LEGO was better marketed to children of both sexes in the 70s & 80s - purely as a construction toy, where minifigs were just humanoid parts without any gender bias in their design. People will always have something to say, one way or the other, when a product is sexualised in any way. Best for LEGO to avoid sexualisation of characters in all non licensed themes, IMO. It's sad that Dr Robinson (good surname, that one) believes he would have been out of a job if LEGO kept marketing sets like the old days.

I can only speak for my children on this - but they both disliked the stickers. It slowed down the build process for them and they could become frustrated with placement.