62Bricks

Here's an example of how you might use connectivity to define a class of LEGO elements: There are many pieces we usually think of as "finishing" pieces - these are pieces used to create a "finished" look to a model. Tiles are probably the most common kind of finish pieces. They are often used to cover up studs. Cheese slopes are another common type of finish piece - similar to a tile, but sloped. Various other pieces are also common finish pieces such as piece 88930: and 6191: Now Bricklink calls the upper piece a Curved Slope and the lower piece a Modified Brick even though they are essentially the same piece with different dimensions. This is kind of inconsistency that runs throughout the "standard" classification system (Bricklink seems to have inherited this particular oddity from LDraw/Peeron). A system based on how pieces connect, however, might put a "tile" a "cheese slope" and these two pieces in the same group by noting that these pieces have only one type of connection. They can connect to other pieces in only one way. An inverted tile would also fall into this class: Inexplicably, Bricklink put this fairly recent piece into the "Tile, Modified" category. It could just as easily be considered a modified plate, or even just a plain tile. This is only one of the problems that the current system creates. There has to be a better way to group pieces based on what you can observe intrinsically about the piece itself and not based on external, arbitrary knowledge.

Mine is white formica, which I like for sorting because the colors stand out in greater contrast. It's especially good for small trans parts like 1x1 dots which I have a hard time with. The smooth surface is also great for sorting, although for building it is also nice to have a fabric surface to keep parts from rolling or sliding away. My girlfriend makes jewelry with beads, and beaders have a great idea - they use a square of felt where they sort the beads. The felt keeps them from moving around.

Not completely lost, but I found this combo in a bulk lot. I wonder if it is from an official set? LEGO appears to acknowledge the difficulty in removing the blue pins because it includes a slot on the underside that can be used to pry them out from behind: The slot is too small to use the edge of a brick separator. I tried various minifig utensils, but they are not rigid enough to pry them loose. Attaching a tubed brick to the stud end of the pin also does not work, as the friction of the pin connection is greater than the friction of a normal knob-tube connection. I was able to get them out by pressing the stud into a Technic pin hole. That connection is firm enough they can be pulled out. It's a bit unusual, though, in that the piece is designed so you would have to use something like the tip of a knife to separate the pins using the slot on the underside. I'm especially interested if anyone recognizes this combination from an official set. One of the design principles TLG uses is that pieces should not be too difficult for children to remove. They perhaps relax that for Technic elements? Still - these pieces are in a lot of non-Technic sets.

There are knockoffs, and then there are those products that are produced "officially" but find their way out the back door of the factory. This is one of the risks of production in China and elsewhere. These "bootlegs" may actually be the identical product as the official one, produced on the same assembly line in the same factory and virtually indistinguishable from the "real" ones.

You give a pretty thorough description of the issue. I think "set scalping" really is a large part of the issue because it affects TLG's long-term marketing strategy. That strategy - which is shared by most large retailers - is to build up a large base of return customers. TLG knows that once a person has one LEGO set, they will probably want another one - to add pieces to their collection, complete a series, etc. From a long term perspective, then, LEGO would much rather sell 10 sets to 10 different customers than sell 10 sets to a single person because those 10 individuals are going to expand their base of customers meaning more sales in the long run. The immediate profit to LEGO is the same in either case. When Amazon sells a set at a discount, it is Amazon - not TLG - that is reducing its profit margin. LEGO receives the same amount of money for the set whether it's put on sale or sold at full price. When Amazon sells a set at 40% off the full price, Amazon may actually be losing money (especially if it has to ship it free). Amazon is willing to do this because it builds up return business. Once a person signs up for an Amazon account, enters in their credit card information, etc. it's very easy to come back and buy other things. Amazon is not taking any money from TLG's pocket, but it is taking away a potential return customer, which is much more valuable to TLG. So by restricting discounts, TLG is trying to ensure that more unique individuals are buying LEGO products. It is the same reason it places purchase limits on some sets at its own retail outlets.

You're right - I'm not using the term "tube" correctly - I mean the number of places a stud can connect. What is the accepted term? I've seen "anti-stud" used.

Thinking only of bricks and plates for the moment, they are currently distinguished by their height; A plate is one-third the height of a brick. But the height of a piece has no effect on how it can connect to another piece. In the context of a larger construction, of course, it makes a difference because a piece of a certain height may not align with other pieces. But considering only the types of connections they can make, a solid 2x4 brick is identical in function to a solid 2x4 plate. But is a 2x4 brick identical in function to a 2x2 brick? They each have just knobs and tubes to make connections with. But they have a different number of possible connection points. The 2x4 brick has 8 knobs and 8 tubes. The 2x2 brick has 4 knobs and 4 tubes. So functionally a 2x4 brick really has more in common with a 2x4 plate than it does with a 2x2 brick, yet the current system puts them in completely different categories.

This is true. If the system only considers the type of connections possible, it would not distinguish between a 2x2 plate and a 2x2 turntable. But it would put them in the same category side by side where you could distinguish them visually. Or perhaps a connection that allows free movement is a type itself, which would distinguish them.

By "function" I'm just thinking of the ways a piece can ("legally") connect to other pieces, not the effect it is used for. Using a turntable base as an architectural element still uses the same knob and tube connection as attaching a 2x2 plate. I can follow your reasoning, and perhaps this is the thought process that led to it being called a modified tile, but a little more thought shows that this is really just arbitrary. The piece is not "modified" from anything else. It does not begin life as a smooth tile and then have a clip attached. Neither does it start life as a 1x1 plate and have its stud replaced with a clip. The underside of the element is identical to both the 1x1 tile and the 1x1 plate. It's neither a tile nor a plate, but because there is no ready class for such a beast it arbitrarily gets classed as a tile - and not because it has no stud. I wish the "All modified plates have at least a stud somewhere on the top of the element... while modified tiles do not" rule was consistently true, but alas is a Tile, Modified 4x4 with Studs on Edge. In fact, 11 of the 25 elements on Bricklink under "Tile, Modified" have studs on the top. There seems to be no real rule about what makes a plate a plate and a tile a tile. A jumper plate could just as easily fit into Bricklink's modified tile category as its modified plate category. But if instead of trying to classify these pieces as either plates or tiles we had a system that classified them by the types of connections they could make, we wouldn't have that problem. The jumper plate would be, say, a piece with one top stud and two bottom tubes (that is, two places on the bottom where a stud can fit).

We can only guess, but I doubt it's only to increase the piece count. It may have to do with how many 1x4 plates LEGO has on hand from other production runs. It certainly is a more common piece than the 1x8 so perhaps they are balancing a surplus in their inventory by substituting them for the 1x8 where it makes no difference?

You're right, and people who build castles are going to sort their elements differently than people who build Technic mechanisms. I'm not talking about rules for sorting, but rather a more natural way to classify the elements by function rather than form. As it is now, if you are unfamiliar with the exceptions in the current system it is sometimes very difficult to guess what category a piece is classified in. Why is a 1x1 clip a modified tile and not a modified plate? Because neither category is really correct so they just had to choose one. A function-based classification system would let you find the piece knowing only what you can observe about the piece itself without having to know about the dozens of oddball parts that don't really fit into the form-based classifications.

The current method of classifying LEGO elements used by Bricklink, LDraw, Peeron, etc. is based first on an element's shape and appearance (brick, plate, tile, round, etc.) and then on its other characteristics (modified, decorated, modified AND decorated, etc.) This has always struck me as awkward as it does not reflect the natural way one would probably classify elements when actually sorting them. For example, I have a storage container where I sort elements with clips. This container has sections for 1x1 clips (tile, modified), 1x1 and 1x2 bricks with clips (brick, modified) and 1x1 plates with clips (plate, modified). I also sort the elements with handles into that container because to me it makes sense to have commonly-connected pieces together. I imagine most builders naturally do something similar and arrange specialized elements by how they are connected. I know the subject of sorting has been discussed extensively here, but rather than talking about the actual sorting I'm interested in talking about how we might come up with a classification system that is based on function rather than form. I think since the function of a LEGO element is to connect to another LEGO element, its connection type is its function. In this function-based system, the clip plates and clip bricks would all be in the same classification as they all have at least one knob, one tube, and one clip. Functionally, they are identical. The 1x1 clip (considered a "tile" in the form-based system) would be in a slightly different category, as it has a clip and a tube, but no knob. A flag, as another example, has only clips. This kind of system would perhaps not be heirarchical, but more nebulous. As a first step, it would need a standard nomenclature for the types of connections LEGO elements can make. Off the top of my head, I come up with: Knob Tube Bar Clip Bar hole Pin Pin w/friction Pin hole Pin Axle Pin Axle Hole Cross Axle Cross Axle Hole Ball Socket And of course all the types of hinges out there and probably a dozen more I'd come up with if I thought longer. Has anyone already done this? I imagine TLG has "official" names for the connections. Does anyone know of a list that exists somewhere?

I truthfully tell people the LEGO is for my son. I don't add that it will only be fully his after my estate is settled.

Not being very familiar with Modulex elements I had not seen these "turntables" before I happened upon a picture on eBay. They look useful:

The 8x8 plate with a 45-degree corner has an angled edge that is very close to 10 studs long. A similar technique would let you build securely out from it at 45-degrees. Here's another view:

The 3x3 plate with a 45-degree corner cut out has an angled edge that is very close to 3 studs long, enabling you to make a sturdy, seamless 45-degree corner. Here's the technique I came up with. It's fully interlocked and sturdy.

I've completed hundreds of LEGO purchases and sales on eBay - mostly sales - and only have a few bad experiences. One purchase was from a guy with lots of excellent feedback as a seller but he normally sold vintage shoes and was just getting rid of his son's LEGO collection. He divided it into two large lots and I won one of them at auction. In the pictures there were two moon baseplates clearly pictured as well as some ship hulls. They were not in the package I received. I tried a friendly inquiry about it and got an angry reply that he had probably shipped out the baseplates with the other lot he sold and that I had no reason to complain because I had only paid $150 for a bunch of LEGO he had spent hundreds of dollars for new and anyway LEGO is LEGO. It's the only negative feedback I've ever left. I also use the strategy of looking closely at the listings with blurry photos and clueless descriptions and have found some real bargains. I'm a piece collector and don't care much about minifigs or themes. That means I can pull out desirable stuff and turn around and sell it to pay for my bulk lots. Two weeks ago I bought a blurry bulk lot of 3 pounds of bricks that included about 25 classic space minifigs. I paid $22.50 and $12 shipping. I pulled out the 12 best minifigs, took bright, clear photos, wrote a good description and title and a few hours ago sold them for $47.00. Accounting for my eBay and Paypal fees, I'm up about $15 on the deal plus 3 pounds of what turned out to be nice, clean bricks. The main headache buying on eBay is sorting out the non-LEGO pieces. Here again, though, if you're willing to take the time to sort it out and if the photos are good enough you can get an idea of how much LEGO you're actually getting, you can adjust your bidding accordingly and often get a good deal.

Why does nobody ever seem to question the central line of reasoning behind these types of criticism that assumes ones personal identity is only validated by having it represented in popular culture? If I am a person of a certain color or gender am I only worthy if I see others like me on toy packages and television commercials? Shouldn't we be teaching children that they do not need to have been commidified and reduced to an easily-packaged version of their particular "identity" in order to be a respected human being? The balance of male to female minifigs is a non-problem. If children can imagine themselves as a tiny yellow plastic figure then they can imagine that little yellow figure is male, female, or whatever they wish regardless of its facial features. What I see is adults wanting to impose their own loss of imaginative ability onto their children, and perpetuating the idea that unless you see yourself on TV, you aren't being respected.

The US and Canada each have laws that require products to indicate on the packaging the quantity of what is being sold. This can be by weight, volume or piece count. The EU does not require the quantity to be printed on the packaging.

According to Brickset this set weighs 0.6 kg and has a retail price of $39.99 USD. That comes to $.067 per gram, which is quite a bit higher than the average Andy calculated. Yes, that seems to be the case with all the weight information I can find. The weights given on amazon seem to be the same as those given at Brickset (but amazon rounds them up to the nearest tenth of an ounce. To get only the weight of the pieces, you'd have to do something like you suggested earlier. Because almost every set comes in a box with an instruction book, though, it is fairly constant across all sets. It would make up a larger proportion of the weight of smaller sets.

You need to request an API key to use Brickset's API, but there is no charge. It requires a bit of programming, though, so is not necessarily the simplest solution. Shipping weights for currently available sets are also given on many shopping sites such as amazon. I don't see that LEGO includes this information on its own shop site, but it may be included when shipping charges are calculated.

I'm just a few years away from 50, and have been collecting LEGO for about 40 years (with only a minor setback in the early 80s when I went off to school and had to split the pile with my younger brother). I've never been very interested in the themed sets, perhaps because I was raised on the Universal sets. I get almost all my pieces in bulk used lots, now, and find I can pay for my habit by re-selling the themed items I happen to get with them. When I do buy a new set, it's usually one of the Creator series, which seem best to maintain the "Universal" ethic of the earliest days.

You could just use the API at Brickset, which includes package weight and retail prices in its records.

Here's another early alternative building technique documented in a 1965 Idea Book. Check out the accordion being played by the figure lower center:

LEGO certainly archives their old sites themselves, but removes them from the web as the site is updated and themes and sets are retired. However there is a non-profit organization called the Internet Archive that attempts to archive all public websites. Their files for lego.com prior to 2000 is a little spotty - and I think the Adventurers theme was introduced in '98 or '99? - but you might poke around there and find at least parts of the older theme pages. For example here is a page for the Adventurers Jungle theme from August of 2000. You can try clicking on the links just like a regular web page and you might find other theme sites, or you might hit a dead end. It's fun to look at the old sites, though. Here is a list of all the versions of lego.com that have been archived by the Internet Archive since 1996. Here is an archived copy of LEGO's 1996 web site - very interesting to look at! Remember that the worldwide web was still fairly new in 1996 and most of us were dialing in over the phone on 56K modems (or slower!) so the early site had small graphics and lots of text. Around 2000, LEGO started including a link to a "high-speed flash" version of the site.