Slegengr

It is all a matter of personal preference and chosen constraints. As a child of the 90's, I've got deep-seated nostalgia for the original LEGO themes of that era, so I enjoy collecting and sorting out sets from themes such as Castle, Pirates, Space, Adventurers, Rock Raiders, Aquazone, Alpha Team, etc. Right now, my focus is more on original sets so my nephews can learn building techniques in a more-direct manner while they are young. For each theme, I keep a tub of theme-related parts for MOCs some day, all parts in original colors and types of parts used in the sets. Since I have such nostalgia and a preference for the 90's aesthetic while also liking some of the newer pieces that allow for interesting shapes that were not possible with the 90's parts palette, I tend to go one of three ways with this question: 1. Build period-correct MOCs with colors & parts available at the time of the original theme release, which has my preference from nostalgia and majority of parts/colors already in my collection. 2. Build MOCs from 90's themes using new colors (where they do not clash terribly with my nostalgia for the theme) and new parts, but sometimes limiting the color to the originals wherever feasible. 3. Build MOCs from 90's themes that could be modern sets so I can make instructions for them and source parts to gift the custom sets to my nephews to share my favorite themes without the higher prices of the retired sets/colors/parts. Some of these are modern remakes of original sets and some are new designs with aesthetic reference to the original themes. Some work well with color updates, such as light-bluish-gray in place of light-gray for M:Tron and Unitron (I think this exchange works well here), but some require the use of original colors, in my opinion, such as Rock Raiders (I think this theme benefits from both original colors and, for the most part, originally available parts for the angular 90's aesthetic). I find that the color update works well enough for my preference for all of Castle and Pirates even though I would tend to prefer the older color palette for rock/stone. Since the color change has already happened long ago, I am resigned to choosing from these 3 options. Oh, and I will mention that I pretty much never mix the new and old unless one version is hidden from view and was only included for mechanical/structural reasons within available part/color limitations. I think the case could be made to include new and old together for some variation in stone color, but I personally do not really like this idea, both from an aesthetics perspective and physical part-sorting consideration. I essentially have 2 collections of loose pieces: original parts and colors from the 90's and parts and colors from about 2005 and newer. This keeps it easier to make the above distinctions, especially when I am sorting an exact set from the 90's since I refuse to use new parts here (even down to different mold iterations across the years).

Thanks for the update pictures! There are so many excellent builds here! I'll have to keep looking through the pictures to see more and more wonderful details. This theme is nostalgic for me, and you have captured the essence for each subfaction so well. The reference to the theme is immediately recognizable, even for the Time Cruisers and Time Twisters builds!

Interesting responses, especially that Alpha Team question! That does not seem like a theme that would be known by name but not also known by sets/design. There was the Alpha Team: Mission Deep Sea subtheme, though, so I suppose an Aquazone MOC could be assumed to fit if the questioner had familiarity with Alpha Team but not with Aquazone. I'll check out your updates!

The pictures seem to be dead links? Due to my interest in the Rock Raiders theme, having had several sets as a child and with a full collection and several PC game model builds as well as some MOCs, I think I will like this idea, though I cannot yet tell if the original story being so identical to Rock Raiders yet made to be a new story is something I like or not... Either way, I am interested to see your expansions on the story!

Oh, yes, I really want to see that! Aquazone is a near-and-dear nostalgic theme for me (I was born in 1991 and had the large Aquazone poster on my bedroom door for several formative years of my childhood). I have several of your past updates bookmarked, though I am not sure if I ever commented on them. Building a large Aquazone layout with huge blue hexagonal columns and arches has been in my dreams (and loose beginning plans now) for quite some time as I pass on my nostalgia to my nephews with the excellent 90's LEGO-original themes.

Such a perfect addition (or 2 now, with the wall portion and tower section) to extend the set! I'm inspired to start my own similar project once I get the time available to do so (after my sort-list of some 80-100 original 90's sets, several extensive MOC ideas, limited available time for LEGO that is mostly spent now building and playing with sets with my nephews, ...I may never get to it...) This would be excellent, at least attached to the Dragon Fortress, maybe on the other side if it does not merge well with the sloped walls of these additions.

Lots of neat models on display there! I really like the modernized 6989 Multi-Core Magnetizer! Did you display any models there? I've seen many of your past builds shown here on Eurobricks that would be fitting for such an event, in my opinion.

I did notice the missing sand green on the top level... baseplates should reduce the overall height a bit so maybe the sand green layer can be included again. Also, a watchtower could logically be taller than the main fortress, so I would not worry about this myself. Interesting point! Other than the overly-blocky trunk, I agree. Good, I think? The result is bound to be even better with the updates! I think I'm at over 1000 orders on BrickLink, so I understand...

@The Reader Great side build for the Dragon Fortress! The tower is immediately recognizable from the source reference. Stepping the roof in at each level gives such a great appearance and shaping to the tower. That is a nice inclusion with the roof over the doorway similar to the original Ninja sets from the late 90's. I also like the basic, mostly empty interior much the same as sets of that era where they could be expanded upon and detailed according to the preferences of each builder. Though they are a bit chunky and simple, the trees in the style of Dino Island are okay here with a nice tie-in to other Adventurers designs. One thing I'd like to see is the use of this printed panel instead of the plain dark gray one: https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=30156px2#T=S&C=10&O={"color":10,"ss":"US","rpp":"100","iconly":0} It also would be nice if the tower actually connected directly to the original set somehow... maybe that is for a later day with the addition of a wall extension that ties into the fortress battlements. A new piece to me is the cow skull piece in red; I was not aware that existed (probably due to Ninjago somewhere along the line?). Though I do not like it quite as well as the original Dragon Masters horse headgear, it does work well enough as a modern replacement. Over several years now, I've had plans to expand upon the original sets similar to this (especially for the Dragon Fortress), but I have not had the time yet to actually build from my dreams yet. Most of my LEGO time today is spent sorting vintage sets and building them with my nephews. Edit: I just read your description and realized I did not read it before commenting, so a few of my points are redundant from your description!

I grew up in the 90's with an excellent selection of sets and deep nostalgia for the LEGO Castle, Pirates, and Space themes of the late 80's through 90's. My collection is quite large, mostly gathered by sorting out original sets from bulk lots like the one pictured. Due to buying and sorting lots for 15-20 years and that deep nostalgia, I have experience with picking out rare or special pieces from the pictures and can often guess which sets might be included, especially for early 90's sets from my favorite themes. Though I don't consider $400 for the pictured lot a "good deal" as though it was worth a lot more, it is reasonably worth that much to collectors today. Bidding war probably brought the price closer to market average rather than cheap for what is pictured. If you want random bulk pieces, your best option would be to look for lots with more modern sets. That particular lot is all higher value due to the age and relative scarcity today as well as the highly collectible nature of 90's Castle today. You can often find eBay lots for random bulk pieces for about $5 per pound, so this would be your best option for bulk pieces. Many will sell blind at random, but it is best if you can see actual pictures of what you are receiving so you can determine if it is what you want for the price. Rather than buy per pound from a continual-supply seller, I recommend trying to find bulk lots for a specific sale.

Do you happen to have any links to the torso you mentioned? Is it the same as the orange pirate jacket?

That price sounds about right to me from what I've seen. I have often looked for bulk lots like that over the years with evidence of old Castle sets that could be sorted and completed. This lot has quite a lot of Castle minifigures evident in the pictures including some with breastplates and pivoting visors. There are at least 3 Crusaders horse blankets and what appears to be a near-complete set 6042 Dungeon Hunters. The high amount of Castle and minifigures/horses visible in the pictures make this a desirable lot. The price is a little higher than I have typically paid, but Castle LEGO sets and minifigures are a hot commodity right now, and this lot appears to have quite a bit of 80's-90's Castle as well as Pirates. I can also see evidence of other sets visible on the top of the lot that, if complete, could definitely justify the cost of the lot versus buying each set outright. Though I dislike the high costs (even though it means I have quite a valuable collection), these prices seem pretty typical for today. LEGO is more of a collector's item today rather than just a toy for children now that there are children who grew up with LEGO as a primary toy that are now adults with strong nostalgia for those sets, me included. Oh, and I just noticed there is a complete very rare and sought-after Forestmen maiden from set 6071 in the lot which can sell for $60 or more on its own... if other parts for that set are included, it definitely jumps the perceived value of the lot!

Indeed, I agree with all points, though I think the lower ability to rebuild today is more due to smaller and more specific parts/plates more so than color palette (though colors do have an effect like you mentioned). LEGO still makes some good sets today, but the trend seems towards an increase smaller-part detailed models as larger display sets and decrease of good, rebuildable playsets of yesteryear. I agree completely. Though the way LEGO and K'Nex get used is distinctly different, the play value for cost seems comparable. K'Nex did not try to so much 'look good' before introducing LEGO-similar bricks, but rather seems to have tried to 'work good' for functional mechanical designs. The bars and cogs worked great for a prototype trebuchet catapult that was about 4' tall when I was in college, a feat that would have been much more difficult with LEGO (even Technic) pieces. The value of LEGO sets also seems to me to be increased by the low level of entry, as you mentioned. Buildability is fitting and straightforward for the listed age ranges, and costs were and still mostly are reasonable in my opinion for children to be able to buy or receive gifts of LEGO sets. The upward trend and adult collector's market increase are the concerns I have, hence why I think LEGO has become an expensive toy only in more recent years, though I do think LEGO toys have always been premium and slightly more costly than other toys. It all depends on how the word "expensive" gets defined, I suppose. When I was about 12, my family got a secondhand K'Nex "Big Ball Factory" that was so much fun to play with, as it lifted ~2" balls to the top of 4 different tracks with different functions all powered by gravity. The build came together much more quickly per volume than larger LEGO sets and had less interesting building techniques, but was mechanically interesting similar to LEGO Technic sets. It was totally different than LEGO play for us. Eventually, we broke it down to try to make our own tracks, but ultimately regretted breaking it down.

I for sure agree that many of the sets available today are not reusable, or are at least much less reusable than sets released before, oh, about 2010. Very few of my childhood sets remained intact. I think this is the main reason I did not consider LEGO to be 'expensive' so to speak when I was a child. With the inclusion of so many smaller parts in sets today, it would be a monumental task to sort these sets from a bulk collection where they were mixed in, though this is one of my favorite things to do with secondhand purchases when it comes to 80's-90's sets in a much more feasible manner. The collectible nature of the sets designed today to be display models rather than play sets seems anecdotally certainly an impact on rising prices and increase in net profit for TLG. Yeah, I see what you mean about nostalgia. I know it has an impact, though I have found some people to dismiss this as entirely irrelevant and invalidating of a shared opinion (as though nostalgia is the only and most significant factor, even though there are some cases where I can substantiate my opinions far beyond simply arguing from personal nostalgia). My childhood was still old-fashioned enough to maintain some of those best aspects. There were other non-brick-based toys we combined with our LEGO sets at a young age, but this was usually in place of getting a desired LEGO set. I'm sure it is a product of my era, but the limitation of the LEGO System of play is a big part of why I find it so engaging, primarily in simplicity. If I wanted a scaled-down, perfectly modeled representation of real-life, I think there are better materials for that, especially since I have a 3D-printer. What is interesting and engaging to me with LEGO sets is what can be achieved within those limitations. The more granular the sets become with details from small parts, the further TLG strays from my values, though there are certainly some small parts introduced recently that I do like. No question for me, LEGO was the reigning influence in my childhood, both in physical toys and in themes/storytelling. I'm sure that was at least in part due to growing up in the 90's when LEGO had their own rich history of original storylines and themes, hence my preference and nostalgia for this over all the licensed themes of today. Also, to note, I am not surprised I've seen some familiar names on this thread (you included, as well as Mylenium), as I often find that I agree with other comments across the forum and have some similar discussion interests. Ah, thanks for more explanation. I don't have a lot of hard data for comparison of price with those other brands though I did have some firsthand experience with K'nex. They served a distinctly different purpose due to the structural nature and overall larger size. Want to build a functioning trebuchet? Go with K'nex. Want to build a scale model toy with figures for storytelling potential? Go with LEGO. K'nex does seem to be a very good comparable toy to LEGO for considering expensiveness. I wonder what the 'price-per-piece' ratio would be? ...probably just as bogus a measure as it is for LEGO, but possibly higher cost per piece than LEGO due to the larger size of each piece. I feel like my brothers and I weighed the cost-to-play-value of K'nex fairly similarly to LEGO in the 90's, but all of this is just difficult to precisely define. Interesting that COBI is similar price to LEGO today. I'm quite certain COBI and others like MegaBloks were cheaper than LEGO, but not by a large enough margin to justify the lower quality or break from the system I was already invested in (not just brand loyalty, but some issues with incompatibility or differences in looks). It still feels to me like none of these were considered expensive toys when I was growing up, at least not as a whole. Obviously LEGO and all competitors released some larger sets for which I had to save up money for a while to have any hopes of buying them, but there was always plenty available in the affordable range. I just do not think prices of today can be justified dismissively with such a statement as I've come across often recently that LEGO has just always been an expensive toy. I can't blame TLG for maximizing profits, though, no matter how disappointing it is to me that my personal purchases are almost entirely for secondhand or long-discontinued products rather than for many new sets today due to my interests and values not being profitable enough for TLG to cater to.

Maybe I should ask a clarifying question as well: As a child, how often did you buy or get gifted some other toy than a LEGO set because LEGO was too expensive? Maybe I am misunderstanding the implications or assumptions made in those comments elsewhere, like what does "expensive" or "premium" mean more specifically? Thanks for response. I'm not so much wondering about the quality differences, but the actual affordability of LEGO products. I did not get many of the largest sets as a child, but I was able to gather a sizeable LEGO collection with moderately low income as a child. All of my friends also had sizeable collections, so it seems strange to me to see LEGO historically considered "expensive" in comparison to other toys of similar play value. Of course, the most expensive sets of today are much larger than the most expensive sets before 2000, so it is always hard to make an apples-to-apples comparison. I appreciate the input. I am aware of the impact of AFOL collecting and IP licensing making some sets more expensive. Of course, there are many nuances to this type of discussion, so what I guess I am really asking is if LEGO toys were inaccessibly expensive in your childhood or if it was more comparative to the cost of other similar-play-value toys (also somewhat hard to narrow down what this means exactly). That article sounds interesting. Ultimately, what I am wondering is if LEGO toys were prohibitively expensive for you to buy or receive as gifts when you were a child? They still are not necessarily prohibitively expensive today as an overall consideration, but the trend seems to be that they are becoming progressively more expensive in comparison to similar toys in more recent years. I could be wrong or too personally constrained in my view. Maybe it is the lower amount of smaller sets that I am noticing most; I do not know for sure yet. It just seems like LEGO sets were always on my list as affordable purchases and gifts as a child, though I did rarely get the larger sets in the themes unless I pooled together with my brothers. Gifting included, it sounds like you still got sets as a child while not from a high or rich class. I wonder if your parents felt like those sets were expensive or if they would have paid a similar amount for other toys for similar play value? I am sure that part of my view comes from an inherent justification of higher price than other toys due to the way the pieces could continually be combined and recombined to maintain play value and compatibility, so LEGO sets never seemed more expensive to me than other toys. This is an interesting perspective that helps fill in my gaps: what was it like for children in earlier times of LEGO's history? My childhood and experiential view are obviously influenced by the fact that I grew up in the 90's. I wonder if LEGO sets were most affordable in that time period? I know I will never have a perfect answer. Indeed, there have always been pricing tiers LEGO toys, so I am trying to consider an unquantifiable metric of comparable play value. In terms of hours of enjoyment from the same purchase, LEGO always seemed to be the highest value to me, though I understand how much of this is anecdotal/personal and is not certainly applicable to all. The effect of AFOL's, licenses, and overall shift to increased collectability in recent days does seem to show in the decrease of sets in the lower price points and increase in even larger sets that are mostly build-and-display models. It is nuanced, so I don't expect a perfect answer. Of course, I expect increase in popularity to increase demand which in turn increases cost. The marketing strategies of TLG seem to fit business models well enough for typical profit pursuit. This is certainly not meant by me to be a complaint about TLG cashing in on pop-culture and demand even if this moves the modern company somewhat away from what I valued as a child (and still do today). I just remember LEGO as a reasonably affordable toy as a child (maybe due to my own privileges of USA economy even though my family was relatively less well-to-do than my neighbors) and was thus surprised to see so many comments considering LEGO as always having been expensive. Maybe I need to better define the terms: does expensive mean that it took time to save up and I could not get every set I wanted? ...then LEGO sets were certainly expensive, especially the bigger sets. Does expensive mean that it costs noticeably more than what might generally be considered a comparable product? ...then LEGO seemed not-expensive to me, as the small to medium sets seemed only slightly more expensive than competitor brands and fairly comparable in value to other toys. Oh, don't get me wrong: children certainly would have been and still are influenced in play by stories, books, movies, cartoons, etc. The sets released today can still be used imaginatively if one chooses. The difference I see is that LEGO original themes were introductions to worlds and stories without having all of the characters named or the story filled out. Undeniably in my opinion, acting out Forestmen stealing treasure from the soldiers is inherently more imaginative telling a unique story than recreating a duel between named characters from a specific movie scene, unless, of course, the Forestmen are given specific names of characters from a specific relevant movie scene. Alternate builds encouraged children to build their own creations. The LEGO Movie is heavy with encouragement for the ideals the company was founded on, while most of the products today are showcased by influencers who have shelves of stock sets built as display pieces modeled after something from some other person's imagination or creativity. What it comes down to in my mind is that the marketing and product releases today seem to indicate a pursuit of profit through selling premium collectibles more so than pursuing the encouragement of children's imaginations and their own progress and creativity, certainly not in absolutes but evident enough to not seem like an over-generalization to me, at least. My friends and I gave our characters our own name selections and told our own stories, and this was openly encouraged in LEGO media of the time with alternate builds and most characters without a defining name. From a business perspective, TLG should only drip in enough encouragement for imagination to keep people idealizing their product as an imaginative toy and tool, but refrain from actually encouraging children to build too much with what they already have since that does not require another purchase. Yes, I do fully understand that businesses are in business to make a profit. That does not take away from what seems like a more modern market shift and relative increase in cost. I also know that I am in the minority that does not want licensed themes, knowing full-well that those make TLG more profit. Also, I do not intend to come across as viewing my childhood through rose-tinted glasses or that my specific era was the best. I think arguments can be made for the late 80's through the 90's being definitional in the LEGO aesthetic and could be considered a golden era beyond just my nostalgia, but nostalgia certainly plays a role in my overall view. The main advantage I see that set LEGO minifigures apart from most action figures and moulded figures was the ease of customization by swapping legs, torsos, and heads. Most action figures had some form of swap ability with accessories, just not as simple of an overarching system as LEGO minifigures. Your play in the 70's seems to have been equally imaginative. Does that hold true today, broadly speaking? I think other factors play a larger role than the shift in LEGO products, such as digital media, but I do think there is less imaginative play today than before, and I think this plays into TLG's marketing and profit pursuit today. Now, I'll stop shaking my fist at the clouds... Agreed, I think this is likely why I did not think of LEGO sets as expensive while growing up, at least not as a whole even though I did not get many of the largest sets. Being able to combine new sets with old sets increases value. Being able to rebuild the toy over and over again for new play value just multiplies the value of investment from the original expense. In general, I still feel the same as that about TLG today. They do not produce as much of what I want and make more profit from a market I am not in, but I can still buy the pieces I want to build what I want, so I still firmly like the LEGO brand and system of play. I certainly agree. There were always large sets that I could not afford, so maybe that means I should consider LEGO toys as expensive back then. The reason I did not count LEGO as expensive overall is that there were many different sets across the price points, so there was always something I could afford and something for which I could save up my money to buy. The difference that seemed evident to me but seems to not be the view of most here is the increasing disparity between costs for LEGO sets and comparable products, especially other brick brands. Do you have any data that LEGO has been more expensive than comparable toys in absolute terms? I'd be interested in seeing this. What I remember in the 90's was that LEGO sets were about 10% more expensive than comparably-sized sets from alternate brands, but the alternate brands were definitely of lower quality. When compared to completely different types of toys, it seemed to me that I got less value for the cost from other types of toys, so I guess I became a LEGO investor at an early age way before it was cool... hence why I guess I never viewed LEGO as "expensive" overall. Agreed, there are countless nuances that can be considered, which is why I find that I generally agree with some of the views shared today but also have enough manufacturing experience to know that a better argument is needed in most cases and I do not agree with many of the views as well. I also find it interesting how prices of remade sets for a new release track very closely to the inflated prices of old sets on BrickLink's average 6-month sales (understanding that those prices are inflated from MSRP due to direct economic inflation as well as ever-shrinking supply due to discontinuation and yet steady or growing demand). I specifically checked the BL 6m sales average for set 6276 when set 10320 came out, and the average for the original was almost exactly the same as MSRP for the new remake, down to a few cents difference. It seems quite similar with the recent Black Pearl. This is a very complex and nuanced discussion, but it still seems strange to me at face value, though I can see how it fits a business model and will likely work out in favor of TLG's profits. I buy some sets from TLG, but most of my purchases today are through secondary sources, since TLG produces much less today in the vein of their own original themes that got me into the brand to begin with. I know what you are saying, but price-per-piece seems like such a bogus method of balancing considerations, though it may seem to fit somewhat generally or broadly. Raised baseplates are an interesting example, since they would have been expensive to manufacture, especially with printing at different angles, and yet they added substantially to the size of the set, and therefore perceived value. Which child wants to start out with the investment of pieces to brick-build a baseplate versus having elevation differences incorporated from a raised baseplate? I know anecdotally that all of my family and friends absolutely loved raised baseplates. Beyond just the baseplate as well, many of those large sets had about half of the parts made up with larger elements, such as wall panels, that quickly built up a sizeable structure without looking flimsy or full of too many empty spaces or holes. Today, sets include way more tiny elements, which of course increases the piece count of comparable-volume sets and results in a higher price for the same volume if price-per-piece is still around $0.10. The fact that the number has stayed consistent over so many years indicates that there are several factors at play here, such as inflation increasing the price while lower manufacturing costs counterbalance for a more-stable price. I also remember some stability of price points and have some market experience to indicate possible reasons why. Your comparison is a reflection to me why LEGO is considered expensive today where I counted it affordable as a child. Agreed for sure, it does not feel to me like the "stuff" increases equivalently with the price today. I still wonder if comparison to competitor brands will begin to affect TLG even more than it has in the past as the disparity in price seems to have grown in recent years while difference in quality or included features (as you mentioned) is diminishing.

I have seen countless discussions popping up recently across different media about the price of LEGO sets today. I don't intend to make this another repeat of those discussions, but I have been wondering about a comment I see often showing up in those discussions: Something along the line of "LEGO sets have always been an expensive toy." I'm curious what people think of this claim? For a bit of clarity: I generally disagree with this claim and will get into this later; I was born, raised, and currently live in the USA where there are economic differences from many people across the world; I was born in 1991 so I was at the ideal age for LEGO sets around 1995-2003; I did have some other toys as a child and bought some new, but my childhood toy purchases were almost exclusively for LEGO sets; today I have a large collection and am pretty much completely brand-loyal to this point and am well aware of secondary market value for older sets; inflation obviously needs to be taken into account when looking back; I only have my own experiences and anecdotes, not well-documented research statistics at this point... For some details on my own LEGO backstory, in terms of USA economics in the 1990's and early 2000's, my family was certainly not rich when I was a child. I think we would have been at the low end of middle-class in terms of income, though I really do not know how this can be precisely defined. Compared to my friends in my local community, we had less but were certainly not in poverty. Having several siblings added to the family expenses while my father made only slightly more than minimum wage from what I know. I did have a few aunts and uncles that were not married or did not have families of their own, so they contributed from their reasonably average incomes to buy presents for special events, typically 1-2 times per year. Throughout my childhood, each year's toy acquisitions typically consisted of a few impulse buys of the cheapest sets ($1-3 at the time, so about $5-7 today accounting inflation), sometimes from my own cash and occasionally from my parents. With the money I saved from doing odd jobs, I would buy a medium-sized set with my own cash each summer ($20-30 then, so $50-60 today) and would occasionally find some cheap sets or bulk at yard sales that I would also buy with my own cash. Sometimes, my siblings and I would save up for a Shop-at-Home order once a year, typically for a medium-small set each or a larger set in combination with some siblings. The biggest acquisitions were for Christmas each year with a small/medium set from my parents ($10-20 then, $25-$40 today) and around the same size set from my aunts and uncles unless they bought one larger set ($80-100 then, $170-220 today) for me and my brothers together. These purchases led to a sizeable childhood collection by the time I was a teenager. At that time, I had some friends that entered a Dark Age and sold me their collections for around 10% original value, so that added to my overall collection as well. Even at what I believe was the lower end of middle class, it was not difficult for me to acquire a collection back then. In comparison to other toys: Based on my memories, stuffed animals costed $5-30 ($10-60 today) on average and had fairly comparable direct play value per dollar but could not be as easily combined with previous toys like LEGO sets could. The same could be said for video games; each game would cost about $15-30 ($30-60 today) and would lose utility value after it had been completed several times. Physical roleplay toys would typically cost about $10-30 ($20-60 today), such as toy tools or weapons, dart guns, parts of costumes, etc. Competitive brick brands were cheaper than comparably-sized LEGO sets, but typically around 10-15% lower, not 40-60% like seems fairly common today, and the quality was lower than that of LEGO brand toys. I'm still considering ways to collect data in order to substantiate my opinion beyond just anecdotes and bias, but it seems significantly evident that LEGO has become an expensive toy within the last decade or so due to the adult/collector market and pop-culture influence (obviously at least in part due to licensing costs). Sets in the 1990's and 2000's showed more of the emphasis of The LEGO Group to be on a quality toy that could be bought by/for children with the priority of imaginative play. Many sets today seem to show prioritization first for profit and collectability, especially through licensed themes to gain from pop-culture. Do not get me wrong: I do not think there should be no licensed themes, it is just disappointing to me that most of the market emphasis seems to be on making money from pop-culture rather than on making original and innovative toys and themes to encourage imaginative play. Though LEGO pieces are still of good quality, there seems to be enough evidence to indicate that TLG seeks profit-maximizing by reducing production costs through some compromises rather than the original "Only the best is good enough" motto. These factors seem significant to me in LEGO sets becoming an expensive toy in more recent days. What do you think? Is this a worthwhile discussion? Is my favorite childhood toy brand becoming mostly expensive premium collector's display models today or am I just nostalgic? Are sets relatively more expensive today due to the model-like nature of collectible sets rather than the open-world storytelling and rebuildable nature of the sets of yesteryear, or was I just a lot richer than I thought as a child? I do believe that there are still many children today that break up and combine sets in their collections to tell their own stories, as I experience this with children in my family/community and still see this aspect in secondhand bulk parts available today. Is this still of precedent value and high priority in TLG's marketing structure?

@danth TLG definitely seems to be going for the "premium cost" market with sets these days, inflation already accounted for. Things like the inclusion of parts of a new color of highly-sought Classic Space minifigure in a large but overly-expensive holiday set (unless they show up on PaB, as you mentioned) is direct evidence that TLG knows what will make profit but they do not actually care much about the customer base that got them to the stage they are on today. Instead of being an imaginative and creative toy for children, the nostalgic adult market has driven TLG to become a high-dollar collector's item, not exclusively but certainly substantially. The 3D-printed train is not something I want. Though it looks to be a laser-sintered (and therefore much better quality than extruded filament) print, it looks and emotionally feels distinctly non-LEGO to me. It seems an obvious grab into the market of the collector-of-rarities like the prior official 3D-printed parts. TLG knows that secondary market prices soar for the rare collectibles they make... I think 3D-printing forms a precedent that is dangerous to the core values of the LEGO System of play. Without the restriction of the building-blocks of the System, it just becomes another model toy. Would TLG encourage fans to print their own parts? I think their business model and media related to such topics as train parts seems to clearly indicate they do NOT want that, as it means less internal profit. This little train is an interesting idea, but really does not seem LEGO to me. Though the 3D-printed idea may just show up in rare inclusions like this single little train in a much larger set, the business feasibility of including such an element indicates a significant investment into the technology and machines needed for such production (unless they are outsourcing this, which I surely hope so), which could lead to more such inclusions in the future. Am I wrong in remembering that one significant factor in TLG almost going bankrupt around the turn of the millenia stemmed from a lack of trust in their own brand and product or system of play in competition with digital media? Was the LEGO Movie and subsequent surge in popularity of TLG not related directly to a core appeal for the original brick and system of play? It seems strange to me that TLG seems to be moving further today from those core values and trying new things again all across the board hoping something sticks. All-in-all, I am not taking an overly-negative view of these things yet, but there have been a significant number of recent decisions and changes that indicate prioritization of profit motive rather than my personal values and TLG's earlier stated motto (only the best is good enough) and ideals of imagination and creativity for the original toy that I grew up with. Thankfully, I already have a large collection of what I like and can still buy individual parts today to build what I want.

Sorry I cannot be of more help... that insight about projectile toys related to choking is interesting. I'm aware of the lore, but I don't think the toys were so clearly defined. Why would there be versions of Ironhook with and without a pegleg? Did he lose a leg later in the canon lore? LEGO produces children's toys, so research and consistency is not as high a priority as we would like it as fans. Reference Adventurers character names (and even character changes over time) for this sort of idea, especially Sam Sinister/Baron von Barron. My suspicion is that the original figure was designed to be a shipwrecked Captain Redbeard, but was later added to the named storyline as Captain Ironhook and thus developed the distinction that Captain Ironhook invaded the Islanders and Captain Redbeard fought with the Imperial factions. Basically, as an ongoing toy line theme, I do not think LEGO Pirates were as clearly defined as a movie plot would be, especially since this would go against the imaginative intent for children to make their own stories (though this is the primary direction of TLG today with mostly licensed themes based around a distinct movie story). I don't think we can know for sure, especially almost 40 years later, as you mentioned.

I remember all of these variations, though I do not know for sure when the changes were made. From what I remember reading and I think can be confirmed in databases, the original shooting cannons were included in the first release in 1989 but were shortly-after converted to the transitional black breech-pin cannons in North America (Maybe USA only) supposedly due to a lawsuit from an eye injury. I think the single-piece cannon barrel was released in 1991-1992, but have not found specific confirmation of this date. Since I was born in 1991 in USA, I only remember the single-piece cannons in the sets I got but I always wished for shooting cannons. In the 2002 re-release of Fort Legoredo (set 6762), the shooting cannon was included in USA, and I always begged my older brothers that got the set to let me use the shooting function (though they did not want their younger brother to lose their cannonballs, so I did not get to shoot it often). There is no question in my mind that the shooting function is preferable to children for the play value. The inclusion of the touch hole on the single-piece mold does add some realism to the cannons, though, so I like both (or all 3, technically) versions. When I started buying secondhand lots of old sets and acquiring shooting and transitional cannons, I did find out about LEGO's first flick-fire projectiles with the black transitional cannon... For the Redbeard head, I am fairly certain that the pegleg version of "Captain Ironhook" is a shipwrecked Captain Redbeard and would include the red print on the head. Captain Ironhook had dark red/brown hair and no pegleg as included in the Islanders sets. Since LEGO rarely gave specific clarification during the 90's, I do not think it is clearly defined and is based on assumptions. For the treasure chests, I think the change also came about around 1991/1992. It is certainly an engineered update for functionality. The original lids had smaller pips to receive in the indentations on the tabs of the chest, so were more prone to wear, causing the lids to misalign, flop loosely, or even fall off. This is very common on the chests without the tabs from old collections. Increasing the pip size for the hinge allows for better connection, but would likely stress the tabs during installation if the slots were not included. The slots allow for stress relief by allowing the entire side of the chest to flex during installation rather than a shorter tab. This spreading of stress keeps the plastic in "elastic" deformation so it returns to the original form. Shorter tabs could result in stressed "plastic" deformation, which means the flex/bend is permanent rather than just temporary. As to hollow or solid anti-studs on the bottom of plates and bricks, I have not found a definitive answer, though I commonly assume that solid was the case into the 90's where a transition to hollow began to happen. Due to stocked inventory, the transition lasted for quite a while with a lot of overlap of solid and hollow anti-studs. There are dark gray plates that have solid anti-studs but did not exist before 1996 (1x8 plate, for example), so it is still unclear when this transition happened. I'm quite certain some of my childhood sets from the early 90's had hollow anti-studs. I did not care enough make full distinction as a child, but I confirmed this long transitional time with a sealed Orient Expedition set 7413 from 2003 that had both hollow and solid anti-studs on the 1x4 black plates and the 1x6 red bricks. Though I have been interested in this topic for a long time and sort original sets with as much consistency as possible to the assumed version, I have never found definitive information on these mold variations. After about 2010, it becomes easier to confirm new mold variations, since there are small semi-circular marks on the flat bottom of the brick/plate from the mold, even though the anti-studs are mostly solid again on bricks (but hollow on plates), at least as far as I know off the top of my head.

I voted, but some were hard to answer only "Yes" or "No" without a "Sometimes" or "Maybe" type of choice; not that you should have changed the poll options, as simplicity is a benefit. This was a fun and simply direct poll!

I think I understand but have no experience yet as a seller. What I am referring to is less about the resale catalog and more about TLG's original instructions and inventory lists. I wish that LEGO.com was a good online resource for instructions and set inventories, as completely as possible, but TLG has shown that this is not very high on their list of priorities (I assume because it does not bring direct profit and marketing value is hard to quantify). Within the last 10-15 years, this has been upkept better on LEGO.com, but older set information is much less complete there and is better found elsewhere. The definition of a 'minifigure' certainly has changed recently. I'm too old-fashioned to keep up with it all; part of the reason I don't want to be a regular seller. There can be many nuances to cataloguing the history, thus adding complexities that are answered individually based on individual priorities. This is my basic concern with the account merge: I hope that TLG balances profit motive with customer preferences and does not change very much with how BrickLink operates after the account merge. I'm not very fearful they will change a lot, but I do think there is evidence that TLG prioritizes profit today more than the original company ideals and motto which could lead to changes that would be much less likely to happen with separate accounts (or separate ownership of the sites, though that ship has already sailed at this point). All-in-all, I am concerned with what the merge will bring, but am hopefully optimistic that it could fulfill TLG's purposes for the merge without negatively affecting our user experience on BrickLink.

I also was surprised for the same reasons that Brickset did not include the name. There are a few alternate names listed, but not including the North American catalog name. Strangely enough, most all sites I find call the theme "Western" instead of the "Wild West" North American catalog name. Indeed, other sites are better. This is why I want less direct control by TLG on one of my favorite LEGO databases and buying sites (BL). There will always be more direct profit motive for the company, which brings about different priorities. Agreed, the data is likely not directly at risk on BrickLink and will surely be kept by someone somewhere. My concern is related to different motives for the consumer and the producer. Consumers have interest in information databases, while producers are more profit-motivated. These tend to at least somewhat oppose each other, though ideally they could work together. It just seems to me that the perfect case would be that LEGO.com would be the best historical site for TLG rather than needing alternate websites and volunteers doing better to keep the historical data. Of course, other sites will still exist, as is the current state. This also seems to come down to a difference in primary motive (profit for producer, data/history/enjoyment for the consumer). This is also a bother for me, though I will get through it like most any update, given enough time. When I tried to make the account update on LEGO.com, for some reason my preferred username was rejected. I really don't know why the name "Slegengr" was rejected, but I did not want my BrickLink account to change to the random LEGO.com nickname, "Darth Maula": blah! It does look like my username update was finally accepted so it can remain the same. I preferred choosing whatever avatar I created, but don't have this option on LEGO.com, at least not at this point. (I assume this is to simplify censorship on a website frequented by children.)

I'm still hopeful that the merger is for these reasons and will not affect the use of BrickLink in a significant way. The spam prevention is an interesting point. As with their acquisition of BrickLink, I hope that TLG continues to recognize the marketing value of BL and the fact that the market will move elsewhere if they overreach. I'm not certain the name change is due to sensitivity, but I could not find the name "Weapons Wagon" in the set data on websites like Brickset, BrickEconomy, or the LEGO official site even though some list alternate set names. I do find the original USA name in the original catalogs (or scans thereof) and on BrickLink. The value of BrickLink as a more-thorough history of LEGO sets and parts is indispensable to me, and I hope this aspect is not lost. TLG does not seem overly censorial to me, especially since they are primarily a toy company for children and should have some appropriate censorship, but there do seem to be strange nuances to their regulations at times. I wish there was a way that we could help TLG keep and manage their historical database. Instead of relying on other sites, I do wish that LEGO.com was the best resource for old original instruction files, catalog scans, etc. Maybe it is too much of a management nightmare to review, and it seems evident that TLG does not consider this worthwhile to this point. This relates to my concern with TLG owning BrickLink and merging the accounts: originally, BrickLink data was reviewed and submitted by volunteering fans with vested interest in the historical database; I hope this is not lost due to TLG not counting it profitable enough. A similar example is with LEGO Digital Designer and Stud.io: the former was abandoned by TLG, likely because it did not seem profitable enough, while the latter is evidence that there is value to the fans (and TLG has now found ways to profit from it in ways like BrickLink Designer Program). Again, I am hopeful that TLG does recognize this, but not all past evidence points to shared values between the fans and the company.

Oh, I know they will not achieve world domination, just hoping they do not wish to or try to do so too hard. I think it is obvious that they treat BrickLink as valuable market research; that may be the primary purpose of the acquisition. I agree with all your points, especially the likelihood of aggressive market control attempts only hurting them. Of course, I think the rationale of the account merge is due to technical and security perspectives. I just prefer a secondary market separated from the primary market, as BrickLink definitely seems more geared to towards collectors of discontinued sets and towards MOC builders rather than to children in the market for new sets. In TLG's original acquisition of BrickLink, I was initially apprehensive but optimistic that they could handle it correctly, and that is my opinion to this day; TLG did cut out sales of customs or anything non-LEGO, which makes sense to me, but otherwise kept the site mostly intact the way it was. I do hope this current merger does not affect the functionality of the set too much, but in a fairly optimistic view similar to most any technical update to user interface. That is my general view and a fitting saying, though (as probably most here would agree) I would still prefer that the primary and secondary market were not literally merged into one login... I remained optimistic with TLG's acquisition of BrickLink and it mostly played out fine so far; hopefully this change will be similar even though I would prefer no merge of the accounts. Strange on that "wedge" concept: just today I looked up set 6716 to get digital instructions for the set and found that it apparently cannot still be called "Weapons Wagon" as it was in all of my central USA magazines... but it is still fine to leave the original "Indian" names. I also found it strange that most sites list this from the "Western" theme, so I had to go back and check if it was some sort of Mandela effect that I thought it was called "Wild West" in the catalogs. The catalogs did indeed label the theme "Wild West" as I had remembered, and set 6716 was indeed called "Weapons Wagon". Indeed, being too aggressive in the secondary market will just push the market to other sites. I also would prefer to stay with my well-established place on BrickLink, so I hope not much changes. You definitely are not alone in these thoughts, though I do suspect more agreement to come from those of us that are older collectors and MOC builders that are 30+ years old and are not in LEGO's target demographic (unless you count the crazy amount of 18+ huge expensive sets for display rather than play).

I share the same concerns. Hopefully, they handle this carefully similar to the original acquisition of BrickLink. How long can it really last in general for a company to own the main secondary market for the product? Regardless of what this change means and as disappointing as it would be for BrickLink to lose status as the best secondary market, a shift to other secondary markets seems inevitable to me. BrickLink is already not as free and open as its creator wanted it to be, but some of the changes seem inevitable in light of the tragic loss of the creator, and thus a loss of the original plans and insights or goals. It is fine that TLG uses BrickLink for marketing research, but it would be ironically like Lord Business to seek to control the secondary market and how people choose to use the product after initial purchase. I know all businesses seek to make a profit, but I hope the heart of the original LEGO ideals is not completely lost in pursuit of profit. I will always love these bricks and pieces as a creative artistic and engineering medium for imaginative play, but this does not seem to be the top goal of the company today. If TLG uses ownership of BrickLink to control the secondary market too much to restrict what we choose to do with the plastic we buy, the market will likely shift away from that corporate control. My wish and opinion is that the two site logins should not be merged and TLG should remain mostly hands-off for the secondary market, but I don't get to make the decisions except for where my money goes for future purchases.