Lego Mike

I've purchased many things on BrickLink and from many countries, and I've never had a problem. However, I recently completed a purchase and received my order today, and it's not a problem, but the situation was a bit askew. Does any of this sound familiar to anyone? I placed an order with a seller whose store says they're located in Hong Kong, but the packaging says the order was shipped from Shanghai. Also, just odd, really, but the miscellaneous items were all placed inside a sealed numbered (#4) Lego plastic bag, like the bags inside Lego sets. This plastic bag hadn't been opened, then reused. It was factory sealed and plainly says "2017 The LEGO Group." I have a photo of the order still in the plastic bag, but it's too large to upload here.

I just took a look at some of your MOCs, and that Excaliburg is hilarious. Very fun idea!

I just felt like sharing some thoughts. This is a Lego fan-oriented forum, so I don't really expect a lot of agreement, but some things might ring a tiny bell for some of you. I don't have a massive collection of the Lego stuff. I have maybe 90,000-100,000 bricks/parts, several hundred minifigures, and 40-50 large sets still intact. But I think most of it doesn't do me any good, and it hasn't for a few years. I really got into Lego as an adult (I'm 40-something now) at the end of 2016. I was traveling to Hanoi, Vietnam, and saw a Lego retailer just as a thunderstorm started. I ducked into the shop and briefly thought about buying one of those large Lego Classic boxes but decided not to. A few weeks later, back in South Korea, a department store opened in my city, and a toy store in it had a huge Lego section. I started to get an itch. I never got much Lego as a child because it just wasn't in my family's budget, but now there was nothing to stop me. I bought the Pizza Van (60150), then ordered the Architecture Studio (21050) online, and a friend sent me the Beatles Yellow Submarine (which was criminally twice as expensive in Korea as in the US). I looked for all the Lego Movie sets and loved them, and then when the Lego Batman sets came out, I bought most of them, too. It was fun; the build process was relaxing, and it was nice to feel like a kid again. At the same time, I had a lot going on. I had jobs teaching and writing textbook content in addition to a small editing service I was running, and I had started grad school, taking several courses at once because I enjoyed it so much, and then also there was a death in the family that I had to deal with while on the other side of the world. For a few years, up until about the early pandemic period in 2020, I bought lots of Lego as a way of decompressing or simply escaping daily life. And then I suppose I just stopped. Mostly. I still bought things that seemed fun, especially if they were on sale, but I didn't seem to enjoy anything anymore. As soon as I built a set, I would take it apart and put it away, and I vaguely felt silly for spending money on it. Now at the end of 2024, I have all this Lego and little to no interest in it, though I still keep up with Lego news and watch reviews on YouTube. Blah, blah, blah. I decided earlier this year to donate most of my collection to three or four local orphanages/children's charities. They would no doubt need and want it far more than I do. I did briefly try to sell my collection, but of course everyone who expressed interest was just another random BrickLink nobody trying to buy something for 10 cents and sell it for 10 dollars. That was a dumb idea anyway; giving it to kids was always the best idea. There are a few reasons why I just don't feel like having all this Lego around. Let me break them down for you. 1. I don't need it. It doesn't do anything for me to have a mountain of plastic bricks stored away in a cabinet upstairs. There are a few things I'll keep because they still make me happy -- the Yellow Submarine, the Lego Creator Fiat 500 (10271), the Detective's Office (10246), and many, many minifigs, &c., which will still just be stashed away somewhere -- but most of my Lego served its purpose on some random afternoon when I was bored or stressed, and that's it. Things are different now; people change, people grow. I once thought I might make some MOCs, but I never did except on Stud.io. I write books, and that's my creative outlet now. 2. The "spiritual" cost. I'm not a spiritual person at all, but that's the best word for it. And this is probably the thing most people won't understand, which is okay. But I don't like having a lot of material possessions. Clothes? Yes. A fork to eat with and dishes to cook with and eat from? Duh. Books? Sure. But I think that when you start to own too much, the things you own start to own you. They weigh you down, figuratively speaking, and you get stuck in this cycle of working just to get more things you don't really need or going into debt, and so on. And I say that as someone who's really never had the wherewithal to buy a lot of stuff. I'm just not an acquisitive person. When I splurge, I travel. Plus, I like the feeling of being able to pack up and go without having all kinds of junk to drag behind me. And as you can see with my plan to give away (most of) my Lego, I'm more inclined to give things away than hoard them. 3. I don't like the obsessive brand affinity of the Lego community. This is most common among younger fans, I think, but there are some adults as well. People will literally try to identify themselves first and foremost as Lego adherents, like it's the Middle Ages and they're gearing up for a Crusade, and usually, I think, it's to fill some void where their own sense of character and personality should be. It's a company that makes some fun and worthwhile products, that's all. I'm not going to feverishly pour my entire life and effort into defending it or trying to clamp my hand around its throat and demand that Lego cater to my frenzied opinions about leg printing, prices-per-part numbers, &c. A hobby should only be that -- a hobby. At best, it helps you cultivate new skills, meet likeminded people, and give you a sense of what you aspire to get out of life. It's not the end of the road, and your value and priorities should not depend on what a multinational company does from day to day. If you find yourself feeling "betrayed" by something a company does, guess what? You're just another disposable little tool in their industry, and they know it. 4. All dat plastic. Forget the paper bags (lined with plastic) that are haphazardly used in the production of new sets and rarely actually recyclable around the world, and forget how all the plant parts are (were?) supposedly made using plant-based plastics -- the Lego Group is bad for the environment. Is it worse than other companies? Not necessarily. Is it better? No. I recycle, I rely on public transportation, I try to make good decisions that help curb the climate crisis (though of course, the carbon footprint of every individual on Earth combined is still dwarfed dozens of times over by corporations), and it just gets to me sometimes, all that useless plastic I paid for in Lego sets. If I weren't giving it to children now (good money after bad, so to speak), I'd almost definitely carry it out to the recycling bins downstairs, no kidding. What a waste. What a pointless waste. 5. "Is there something I'd rather pay for?" It got to the point where I kept wondering that each time I considered buying some Lego. It usually convinced me to put the set back down, though not always. But what I meant was that if a set cost, say, $50, well, shoot, I could buy some really tasty food for that much instead, or it would pay for one night at a hotel in Osaka the next time I went to Japan. I just made it a habit to really see what I was doing with my money and whether I was doing what I wanted to do with it. When it came to Lego, I usually didn't want it. I was, if anything, bored at the time, but I didn't think being bored should cost me anything. Being bored makes a person look for distraction, and distraction by its nature is negative -- it's a hole you throw effort and money into just to fill it up, but there's nothing keeping it full. I wanted to shift to things that made me feel more engaged and less dependent on paying to be distracted. And the punchline, of course, is that even when I persuaded myself to take that $50 and buy some good ingredients and cook a fun meal, when I got to the store I'd just end up buying the same cheap stuff and eating the same (delicious) food as always. 6. I need room to buy more Lego. So it's become something of a love/hate -- or rather, love/not-always-crazy-about-it -- situation, and some of you might spot a similar feeling that's been creeping around the margins of your mind. And I guess I just mean to say that it's always okay to shift your focus to other things. People should always have several interests to pursue (preferably not all tied to various corporations' commercial/entertainment products). You don't owe Lego anything or vice versa. It's a company that makes some nice products, and you're free to not buy them if they seem like a waste of money or they're just not up to your standards. (I still don't know what the heck their problem is with printing.) If you don't agree with any of my reasons above, all right. They're my reasons, after all. I just wanted to sound them out and see if I understood myself well enough.

This is a good point. I've seen a lot of long-time reviewers develop a growing sense of entitlement, like "This isn't what I wanted," and I think it comes from an overreliance on getting everything for free. I mean, if a reviewer paid for everything themselves, they'd be more inclined to focus on what they want, which in turn might make them more aware of what feels worthwhile and what doesn't, whereas if they haven't invested anything in it, they aren't inclined toward balance. Sorry to say, but I guess they start sounding like spoiled children who don't know the value of money. Hrm. So a reviewer who relies too much on "sponsored" content can either a) insincerely say everything is wonderful because they're looking forward to the next free thing, or b) develop contempt and focus too much on the negative out of some misguided feeling of being owed free stuff. Fortunately, there are at least a few grounded, fair-minded reviewers (on YouTube or on their own websites) who avoid those pitfalls. Side note: And there are those other YouTube reviewers who occasionally post haul videos about what they've been given and then never, ever post reviews on any of it. I'm still trying to square that one.

To be fair, I think the reviewer in question only took products and no money. That's what he said, and I believe him. It may seem like a minor point, but it's salient to me, and I'm fine with a reviewer getting a product only. That said, I do agree with you about that follow-up video. It seemed like a lot of "Wait, you don't understand, let me spin things so I can eat my cake and have it too." If from the get-go he had said instead something like "Listen, I think my bona fides are sound, and I'm trying to make ends meet here, so please hear me out when I say I need sponsored content," I still wouldn't have cared. I would have understood. Instead, I think he spends a bit too much time feeling like he's on the defensive, and he has had a long, long history of talking down to viewers. He isolates himself in a very tight atmosphere where only those who agree and enable him are allowed to post comments, and that hasn't engendered a lot of respect or slack, which ironically is what he seems to be doing it all for. But then, there are much bigger fish to fry in the world, so this may boil down to simply unsubscribing and forgetting the whole thing. There are many more options to choose from these days.

Yes, he is best-known for Lego reviews but also occasionally does non-Lego, brick-based stuff. This sponsored post was something from CaDA.

A high-profile Lego YouTube reviewer recently posted a sponsored (non-Lego) review, and it doesn't really bother me one way or another. But this reviewer had long made it a point to not accept sponsorship and was very vocal about it, as if only non-sponsored reviews were legitimate. I think the YouTube money has been drying up for a while now, and I don't mind when people make sponsored videos -- I can spot the sincere reviews from the cash grabs, and I get the reality of relying on receiving Lego stuff for free to offset expenses. So I'm wondering what other people think. What's your response when a Lego review is sponsored? Does a reviewer look more sincere if they don't take sponsored content -- and what if they afterward reverse their opinion?

Thanks again, everyone! Rebrickable has been very useful and fun for getting a clearer picture of my collection. I have about 94,000 parts -- and I hesitate to think about or repeat what it says that much has been worth (or at least has afforded me!), especially when I'm just as likely to put it all in the recycling. Ha ha. I'm only half kidding. I could never throw out my Detective's Office, Speed Champions Mini Cooper, Yellow Submarine, Dragon Dance, or...or...or...!

Ah. That's probably was I was trying to remember. I knew something somewhere did that. Thanks!

Perhaps, and people keep saying this, but you also have to ask yourself if it's worth reassembling 100+ sets from thousands of parted-out bricks or if you'd rather just dump it all in the recycling bin, which I'd be more inclined to do. I'm sure that offering a collection as-is would be most economical in terms of time and effort.

Thanks. Do any of those resources provide a breakdown vis-a-vis part color and such? It's one thing to say I have, for example, 236 2x4 plates but much more significant to further break that number down by color.

I have a fairly large collection of sets, and many are still stored away with each set in a vinyl zipper bag, but I also have several dozen sets that I parted out. I'm considering selling everything, and I know that people will want to know how many bricks there are, what kinds, &c. There are simply too many -- too many! -- to count them, especially since there are so many kinds of bricks, accessories, and so on. If I'm not mistaken, there's a website or perhaps an app where I could enter the set numbers (I compiled a list including the stuff I parted out) and it would break down all the information into a useful catalog of contents. But I don't recall what it is or where to find it. Does anyone remember? I think I mentioned this last year -- I vaguely recall trying to sell this stuff last December -- but I've reached the point where having too much Lego is just a burden. I never do anything with it, it takes up space, and I don't like the idea of having all these plasticky material possessions. I still think Lego is great, but I suspect I'm more of a spectator at this point! ^^

Well... Poop. Thanks for confirming!

Are there no dark blue minifigure helmets or air tanks? Seems like such a common color, I assumed there would be. I got several dark blue Classic Space torsos and solid dark blue legs recently, so I thought I'd see if I could make full Classic Space spacemen with them. And I mean Classic Space helmets -- the bucket-like ones. There are modern motorcycle helmets, &c., but that's not quite classic. ;)

Just returned from my trip, and of course Rome was incredible! As for that particular Lego Store franchise, it was nice, and the prices in Italy at least are much better than I'm used to in Korea. I didn't buy any sets, though I was tempted by a few BrickHeadz things. I was, however, overjoyed to find the dark blue Classic Space torsos and matching solid dark blue legs. Wow! I bought six, then returned a few days later for three more. So fun!

I'm organizing the various titles from 1961 to circa 1983 by year, and this helps break things down into 12-issue chunks, maximum. Then I can freely switch from title to title when I'd like a change of pace but without leaving anything too far behind. And fortunately, until the mid-1980s, Marvel was very good about keeping the various titles (or family of titles) siloed, so someone in my position wouldn't have to go back a year or more to get a crucial Fantastic Four reference in an Avengers title. That said, starting with the '80s, Marvel got progressively into massive multi-issue tie-in events, and it got worse and worse from the '90s onward. That will entail a different way of thinking, but I have two-plus decades of issues to get through before that!

Well, I should clarify that I'm planning to read probably most of Marvel's superhero comic books from the Silver Age (Fantastic Four #1) onward. There are probably some titles I'll skip, but there are still 20,000+ issues within scope. I'll likely not finish them, but I'm definitely going to start. But since there are a lot of really detail-oriented, highly organized people in the Lego community, I wanted to ask: How would you organize all these issues and titles? I have a few options and may just end up jumbling them. 1. Strictly chronological. I have images of all the issues, and they've all been titled with the year, month, title, issue number, and page numbers (like "1961-11 - Fantastic Four - 001"), so it's easy to just pull a batch of 200+ issues into a folder, sort them numerically, and proceed come what may. However, that really only works until some characters (Spider-Man, the X-Men, &c.) start getting multiple titles, crossovers span multiple titles (Maximum Carnage, X-Cutioner's Song), and there are numerous limited series to wade through, so: 2. Silo characters and franchises (Avengers titles, all X-titles, Wolverine), and read each title until there's a crossover/event, then go back and get caught up on all the other issues until I'm ready to read the crossover/event by shifting back and forth among the various titles. 3. ??? Two things I want to be sure of are to be fairly thorough (especially reading things I've never had the chance to read) and to keep pace across all the title (that is, not reading Amazing Spider-Man up to 1980, then going back and starting Daredevil in 1964). For the latter, I just want to experience the slow unfolding of the Marvel universe rather than bounce back and forth. Anyway, just wanted to ask for some suggestions before I get underway. I ordered a tablet specifically for this project, and I'm going to arrange all the issues in PDFs and read them that way. Hopefully I can get something started before I leave for my 14-hour flight to Rome in mid-September!

The other day, I stopped by the local authorized Lego Store here in Daegu, South Korea, and the staff gave me a small Animal Crossing promotional item called '솔미 하우스' -- "Solmi House." You can see the social media post about it here: https://pf.kakao.com/_btTZj/106296676 I don't know anything about Animal Crossing, and especially not in Korea, but I think "Solmi" is the Korean name of the character Soleil, maybe? "Solmi" is a common name for girls in Korea, anyway. The set I was given has about as many parts as a polybag, but I can't locate a set number or any other indication of what it might officially be. It came in a small transparent vinyl bag with printed Lego-style instructions (though the print quality isn't quite as good as official Lego instructions). The parts are all new and clean, of course. Has anyone seen this set? Stores in Korea often have promotional items like this; the staff often gives them to me because I'm there every week already, but I usually just build them quickly and then part them out. I assumed they were official promotional sets but never thought of looking them up.

Ah, that's too bad, but I'm not surprised. Sounds like how it is over here. I'll be going anyway; my hotel is just a couple of minutes away. Thanks, though!

I think Lego does or at least can provide the escape that stressed-out people need, at least temporarily. The appeal of Lego in that regard is that it provides a largely physical experience -- the clicking, the sorting, &c. -- in addition to a sense of structure vis-a-vis the instructions. I've seen many articles about "Lego therapy" for those very reasons. But beyond all the psycho-babble and what-not, if it does help the average person decompress, then I say yeah, Lego is therapeutic. If a person finds they need more substantive help, though, they should seek it out, by all means. I found Lego very, very diverting six or seven years ago when I was under tremendous stress with grad school and more kinds of work and freelance tasks than I could shoulder, for the very reasons I stated above. ^^

I'm looking forward to many things about my trip to Rome next month, including stopping by the Tomacelli branch of the Lego Store. Has anyone been there? I'm sure it's just another Lego Store, but I'm used to ones in Japan and South Korea that run the gamot from just okay to dinky. (Lego Stores here tend to be franchises with great latitude in which sales and promotions they honor, and surprise -- they tend not to honor many.) Anyway, just checking. I'm going either way, but it's my first European Lego Store experience, so I'm hoping for something better.

Ha ha ha. You just got me to do the same thing. Sadly, no, there's no Lego set relevant to my birthdate -- but the customer support line gets pretty close.

Over here, it seems that customers (I would assume mostly children, but I think I'm wrong) have found the boxes easier to sort through than the blind bags -- they've just been popping up the corners of the boxes and peeking inside. D'oh. But in response, some retailers have started putting packing tape around the boxes, which, if you don't remove the tape, renders the boxes unrecyclable. Also, I feel bad for the clerks who have to tape all those boxes up.

See, I'm not even getting those number references. ^^ So who cares, right? I'm sure if someone explained it to me, I'd just roll my eyes anyway. But thanks, everyone, for your perspectives. It was indeed Jang I was referring to; I didn't mention him directly because I think the guy's okay and I didn't want to make it about him so much as the topic itself. I don't think it's an issue, and frankly, I don't think he's "testing the algorithm" or what-not; I think he was just having a crappy afternoon and went off the plot for a moment. We've all been there. (I do, though, have to say I've noticed an increasing amount of antagonism coming from his corner over the last few years. I think it's coming from something else, and I hope he can find a way to silence that static and enjoy his work more. I still look forward to all his stuff.) Actually, while we're at it, I've noticed that lately Jang's videos have been randomly missing from my subscription feed, especially the "my thoughts" kind of videos from the JANGBRICKS channel. That's never happened before, so I hope it gets straightened out soon. I believe you might find a two-part set if you look in the mirror, but it depends on how fit you are -- or rather, aren't. ;)

Autumn, you seem confused about my post. I don't think it's an issue, but since the YouTuber is such a high-profile member of the AFOL community at large, I thought I'd like to get everyone else's perspective about this supposed cause for alarm. I'm more interested in the issue as an issue than the issue itself, so to speak. I personally think it's just one YouTuber who's used to a tightly controlled environment in which his opinion is given entirely too much weight. Over the years, he's tended to develop more of a siege mentality about contrary opinions and has grown, unfortunately, more contentious about them. I suppose this is what comes from making one's bones from interacting with 14-year-olds and adults who still think like 14-year-olds. I hope he can find a new balance soon and regain his composure; I'm a long-time fan of his stuff and think he's a true Lego hall-of-famer. That said, I'm perfectly capable of seeing numbers as numbers -- even the childish giggle-inducing ones -- and getting on with my day. I don't think Lego is attempting to normalize any kind of adult behavior among children, which are, as always, its primary consumer base.