anothergol

11 bucks for 3 little bits of cloth, doesn't sound like a bargain to me (but I guess Lego knows how to create artificial value, even easier now that they also own Bricklink and delay part releases)

it would be amazing if Lego was *only* charging parts 5x what it costs them to make

only whenever B&P updates, so more like once every 3 months

I think B&P has known its best days pre-merging, when all new parts popped up at the beginning of the month. Now it's lagging over 3 months behind (UCS Razor Crest is over 3 months old now, parts not there), & it's absurdly overpriced. I'll keep giving my money to competitors. I'd also boycott sets but I'm afraid I'd be the only one annoyed.

Well if you think of it, a Lego box has only one other purpose than containing the bags: to attract the eye on a shelf/present the set for someone to buy it. But when you buy online you don't need that, you've already bought it - unless it's a gift then I'd agree. But I'm pretty sure that most want pristine boxes for reselling later, which isn't a good reason to get angry when a box arrives dented IMHO. In fact, I wouldn't even mind Lego doing grey/simpler & more tightly packed (since the size doesn't have to reflect the price when you buy online) for Amazon or other online resellers. I'd even dig boxes without a manual if that reduces the price, as things have changed and we all have computers. Amazon should just put a sticker on a grey box and ship it. I've actually received Lego boxes like that, which isn't supposed to be a thing because the delivery guy isn't supposed to know what you're buying... yeah I've noticed that for wedge pairs. It makes sense when only one side has been produced for a specific set, but for light yellow they both come from the same set. Quite possible that they set prices very loosely (afterall the price of a part is mostly profit & subjective)

I know Lego sends for cheap, but a little part has nearly zero value, there's no doubt that the processing+shipping costed way more and wasted way more resources. I find it silly when you order frequently enough and you can just add it again to your next order instead. (that said, talking about B&P missing parts, I don't understand how simply weighing the bag of parts (Lego certainly knows the precise weight of each part) wouldn't fix the problem)

I feel bad when Lego sends a padded letter accross europe when one part is missing from my order, though. When it happens and I wasn't waiting for the part I tell them I'm ok with points for the same value (like it's common practice on Bricklink), but they send the part anyway... (and it's not just for ecological reasons, at the end of the day *we* pay for those letters one way or another)

Sounds bad to me. I've avoided "best seller" because I always place orders especially for new parts. In the past I was refilling some older parts as well but now that it's in another category I just avoid it, so I was happy that not much stuff was labelled as best seller.

What do you mean? They had pretty good prices very recently. I got the AT-AT for 560, it has never reached this price anywhere else.

That methodology is a bit shady. Just look at the price of the Disney Castle, 100 in Canada vs 350 in the US, this is no way a realistic difference and simply indicates a big sale at the time the survey was done. But such a price difference seriously impacts the average that's only computed on 8 sets. When Jangbricks was still displaying prices, it was pretty clear that street prices were significantly lower in the US. But it's also clear that street price means nothing in Europe, that it only applies to toy stores and that -30% is standard on Europe's Amazon. It was also rather normal for prices to be lower in the US if you account for Europe's 20% VAT. But it would also sound normal for US prices to have increased along with the euro dropping by 20%, since Lego is european. It says Belgium is supposed to have the best prices, that's not the truth (I'm Belgian) since I buy a lot and I generally buy on the german Amazon where it's the cheapest (& it's cheap in germany because they have to compete with Playmobil). But I understand why it would appear the cheapest in Belgium at one specific time, because of one shop named Dreamland that sometimes has really serious sales, and probably had one at the time of the survey.

Meanwhile Ali is gonna get my money that Lego doesn't seem to want (well not really, I bought a lot of Lego on black friday, but I should start thinking about boycotting them entirely, it's insulting what they've been doing this year)

isn't that limited to just 1 5eur voucher?

I'm still hesitating. The service I use can print on 3x3 round tiles now, I already got the back vents printed, I could definitely print accurate detail at the front. But it'd still be flat inside.

So, 3 years later I started reworking the model and was ready for a version 1.5, which looked like this: Had reworked all the details, and was ready to build it, then I realized it would probably look much better/flatter (but less round) if I ditched all those tiny slices. Especially now that we can easily find loads of wedge tiles. So I reworked it again: Less slices, will expose much less studs, the center pods are now thicker as they should be, things look more correct. But now I'm realizing that the holes in the prongs, which are too big, could be made the proper size using that new part that shrinks a 4x4 to a 3x3. Problem is, I was proud of the details in those holes, and it would have to be completely ditched. And I would probably have to revert to printed 3x3 tiles inside for the detail. But is it worth it? Those holes are definitely too big but it's not shocking to me.

I doubt it, I don't see the possible structural problems with simple plates with studs on 2 sides. It doesn't even need to be full on both sides, the ones out there are normal plates with a hollow stud that protrudes underneath. Half-plate stud inverters are also pretty safe. Stud inversion -in itself- can cause structural problems, but so does all SNOT in general, and we still have brackets (and I'm not gonna rand about brackets again, but China does them better, to me Lego's are flawed). And Lego's own models are SNOTted everywhere and they do stud inversion as well.

Just reporting a little mistake in the new 65676 triangle sign: the clip has been placed way too high (should be at the same place as 30259, only longer)

It *has* to be a rule (or rather, a philosophy shared by a couple of people at the top - but get replaced and things evolve over time) against direct stud inversion, since the problem is very old. It obviously is not a "lack of focus" when Lego is releasing a new hairpiece each day. Personally I don't care as if I need those, China makes them. It's different for other parts, though. -plates+stud brackets: has to be a rule because they would be extremely useful. Either to sell more combinations of bracket bricks instead of letting you doing them yourself, or because they judge there are not enough attach points (I doubt it) -standalone studs (I love these): this one is easy, Lego will never make them because kids would lose them inside bricks and cry. They would have to revisit every part in order to add blockers to prevent that. Not gonna happen, these will always remain Chinese -stud-to-stud: we already have these when the gap is above 3 plates, or even 2 plates when you have the room. But what I REALLY hate Lego for is the lack of useful bar+clip stuff. We are stuck with parts that started as minifig utensils and thus have decorations that block everything. And when they finally release GOOD parts for that, they put them in a pack.. can't buy them seperately, no! A bar + a small clip, we don't even have anything like that. The robot arm bar+clip is so idiotic that it doesn't even plug on the new-and-already-replaced 25893 (and when you clip it onto its replacement 79194, you can't even rotate it). But hey, we get new hairpieces. I think competition will force them to. It has already happened for some parts. You could still argue that Lego "didn't copy, just lagged behind", but the fact is that we got new parts that other brands already had

I got into the habit of going to specific parts when I need fillers, and I'm sometimes wondering if I'm not doing things wrong, either because there's better optimization, or because I got the info wrong. There are 2 reasons to pick a filler, price or weight. Not gonna debate about price since it's totally random out there, sometimes parts on BrickLink & B&P are on opposite sides. Also some fillers can be way cheaper on BL because no one goes for them when MOCing and there's less demand. So, weight, it's often an issue and over hundreds of parts, the difference can play. But I'm relying on BrickLink as for part weight here. The question is, is BL generally reliable for this (yes I could weigh them myself)? And also, is a part's weight even stable over time (material changes)? Anyway, generally I go for: Lightest 1x1 plate: I generally go for 85861 (round with hole) but BL says that 24866 (new flower) is lighter. But it could be an error? They're both cheap. I generally recycle filled studs though. 1x2 plate: 2xflowers but 35480 more practical 1x2 tile: 1748 is now beating the good old 2412 grille, but I suspect BL is wrong because 2x25269 is also beating 1748, doesn't look normal 2x2 plate: can't beat good old 4032? apparently 4xflowers would beat it 1x2/3: 33286 too hard to find, 2xflowers stack seems best (is the flower the ultimate Lego or is the reported weight just wrong?) 1x1 brick: 59900 technically, but 3062 is more stable 1x2 brick: used to be 2877 I think but now it is 68013 1x3 brick: can't find better than basic brick 1x4 brick: 2653. 32802 also good but only 2 studs 1x2x2 brick: I used to go for 87552 but 60032 is much lighter and 60592 is also lighter and stronger 1x4x2 brick: 15332 is a bit lighter than 14718 (will continue later if anyone's interested, as BL just went under maintenance)

Perhaps it has already been fixed since the last batch? If you axle-link it to a brick-with-technic-hole you'll see the little shift (just like when you attach a brick with 2 studs)

Just reporting a not-so-minor (not cosmetic) tiny misalignment in part 73230. The cross seems to have been aligned to bracket bricks studs instead of technic brick holes, so it's kinda "out of system" and will misalign builds, or refuse connections. For those who want a quick fix, just change this in 73230.xml, and delete the colision block (as it's only gonna change the connectivity, not the visual): <Axel type="4" length="0.8" grabbing="0" startCapped="0" endCapped="0" angle="120" ax="-0.57735" ay="0.57735" az="-0.57735" tx="0" ty="0.58" tz="0.4"/>

I know, I used to be a purist too. But now it has become a game, hunting for special parts, just as I was hunting for rare/not in set Lego parts/recolors.

they've lost it with these prices. This should be a massable utility part..

Another year another version, with a little more non-Lego parts (like those very handy 1x1 bracket plates that I wish Lego had made). Since I'm now using wedge tiles, I decided to add that extra plate thickness in the back, it looked too thick when I was using wedge plates, but with tiles it's ok. Same thing with the chin's lip. I decided to put it in the pose I had used for a 3D render last yearn, but obviously it wouldn't have standed by itself on just one leg, so I added the rocky base, onto which it's pinned. (also changed the interior a lot again, but didn't take pictures)

It was a nice surprise to see the new 2x3 slopes in unprinted version (even though they're too expensive), as this is the only way to get them

already gone :(