sammy_zammy

Me too, I agree that the Ironbelly would be great as a separate set and then this set to just be some vaults from Philosopher's Stone. I also feel this would fit with the theme of this being a D2C (presumably) more than a playset. About the size, again, I don't think Lego cares about continuity. It's not like the Hungarian Horntail was to scale.

I see what you mean now. Yeah, personally I think the underground would be better as a separate set. But this is just going off the latest hint. Even if it is a part of the set, I'm not sure it'd take up as many pieces as you think - they don't have to build massive structures for it. It could literally be the dragon like the Hungarian Horntail (which only has 143 pieces), some track, a couple of open-side/top vaults and the cart. They could even cut the dragon and make it only based off Philospher's Stone.

That's my point, there's no need for it to be underground. It can just be on the same level - which certainly wouldn't take anything away from the rest.

Yeah that definitely makes sense. I think people are expecting sprawling mine cart tracks underneath Gringotts, when in reality it's more likely to be a slight cave, dragon and some valuts just behind Gringotts on the same level. If there's any track at all (which would be awesome) I don't expect it'd be large and wouldn't go underneath. After all, the track would have to at least start on the same level as Gringotts, and there's no scene where they go down some steps to the cart or the cart goes down into a cave, so there's no reason it has to be underneath really.

What would?

I think you're overcomplicating it. They're certainly not gonna all be one structure, otherwise it would be impossible to transport. Even Hogwarts split into two and that is large in all dimensions, whereas this will just be long. And I highly doubt they'd elevate all the shops. Your suggestion of having a section of track underneath each shop would be possible perhaps, although I don't think that's likely. We know Lego doesn't care about continuity, as evidenced by the randomly placed interors on the Hogwarts castle sets. It's much more likely they'd have Gringotts, a door, and then an underground mine cart section. Simples.

You're still missing the point. No-one us saying that the MoM isn't possible. It certainly is possible. And I would love that to be a set. Just there was far more evidence of that set from reliable sources saying it wasn't a MoM set, compared to a random unverified new account randomly saying "Ministry of Magic set".

Oh yeah I understand the submission not having new parts, but the final design is so significantly different to the original that it seems odd they don’t let the set designers use new parts! I’m probably completely misunderstanding how set production works lol, sorry

I would really love this, it gives a chance to really flesh out this set. Hopefully given its price it wouldn’t come at the expense of a DA building. Ah I see. Seems a bit of an arbitrary rule to me, it’s not like they’re worried Barracuda Bay won’t sell, although I get that new molds are expensive.

I understand by “designer coins” you essentially mean budget. But why does everyone always say that Ideas sets have lower budget than Harry Potter? And why does everyone know this? Obviously the number of sets makes a big difference but it sounds like people mean for each set of equivalent size. Lol is that even legal, the way the pole just rests inside the stud with a hole in it (sorry don’t know technical names)?

I think I’m gonna use it as intended just 4.5 months later, and do a build a day to countdown until whenever lockdown ends! Been wanting some Lego to do but currently stuck at uni so I’ve got loads sitting at home that I can’t build, so this should be perfect!

You two managed to convince me, I've purchased the advent calendar and can't wait! Perfect lockdown set.

Thanks for the info, although items having multiple listings isn’t unusual on Amazon. It’s also common to get two results for the same product, one as an ad/sponsored and one as the normal product result, but they lead to the same place - are you sure you didn’t just see this (see the attached image - it happens for multiple products but one says “sponsored”)? So I don’t think it means anything I’m afraid. Also why would you have seen an unannounced new set if they’re just copies of old sets anyway?

Thank you so much :)

We get it, you believe this rumour. I think you’re misunderstanding what we mean by “believe” - we don’t Trust this rumour.

Think it was a typo! Yeah I bought this set purely for this purpose - I'm not bothered in buying the Fantastic Beasts sets, but this makes a perfect carriage to Hogwarts with a thestral.

That's very true. In my eyes the McGonnagall is a reused figure lol. But the Christmas trio is definitely a highlight and it'd be wondeful to decorate the Great Hall at Christmastime. And yes the architect would work very well there actually. I'd say you've almost sold me haha, I'll have a think!

Which is worse in your opinion? Typo? Did you mean "so kwwn NOT to believe"? Anyway, I don't think "$XX worth of sets for film Y" is their mindset at all. If they think a scene will translate well to a Lego set, they'll make it. If a film has fewer scenes that translate well, then so be it. They can't make everything at once and want variety. I don't think there's any formula or rhyme and reason other than they think it'll sell well and please fans. I'm not saying there's not many good scenes for Lego in OotP, but just that there's lots they want to include from the earlier films as that's arguably what people think of when you say "Harry Potter". They probably went back to CoS for Privet Drive because of this, and also because the Year1/2 wave was mostly taken up by generic non-year-specific sets that are essential for a Harry Potter theme. Yeah that's true. The figures are definitely cool, but don't know if they're cool enough to bother about!

I know it's kinda off topic, but with this year's advent calendar being mentioned, I was wondering what people's thoughts are on last year's? I missed out on it being super cheap from Waterstones the other week and so I was looking at getting it at £18 from someone on eBay. But then, the more I think about it, the more I feel it's collecting for collecting's sake. I thought I would get it for the minifigs, but then realised Dumbledore and McGonnagall are the same as in a set, Hermione's just wearing something different, Harry and Ron have their Xmas jumpers which I could get off Bricklink, and Flitwick's not that different to his CMF. And the builds, while good, aren't anything amazing. The fireplace is pretty cool for Floo or something. Do any of you think it's worth getting to add to the other sets in my collection for display purposes or not really? I feel the same about the Build Your Own Adventure book and its model - it's alright but don't know if it's worth it...

Why hasn't Gringotts aged well? B&B is excellent, yeah, although the interior is lackluster compared to today. Ollivander's being too bright, I can see why you'd say that, but otherwise it'd been really similar to B&B and look boring. I'd rather tham use some artistic licence to produce an attractive set.

Nobody's finding it hard to believe that they'd make the set, it's just hard to believe a new account that has no source and there hasn't been anyone else who've implied its existence. Anyone can create a random account, make a "leak" and post it. I feel you. I love that set and wish I had it! But you shouldn't be disappointed as you've still got a fantastic set to display. There will almost certainly be significant differences between them. It's just like when something goes on sale the day after you bought it! They're not looking for sympathy? They're just saying "dang, that's annoying".

Yeah the price is a giveaway, like what would they include really to make an interesting build for 600ish pieces...

Am I right in thinking that those numbers are for the later wave? That account has now posted some images of presumably the characters included. It's a new account so I guess that means it's probably fake. Especially as the only Weasley's being Arthur, Molly and Ginny doesn't seem likely.

Hmm that's an interesting thought. I feel to get the Gringotts we know, it wouldn't be connected to anything (from the sides at least). And they can't really add pins to just pavement either side. Gringotts, while arguably the most important building to include in a DA set, is also structurally the most sensible to omit. It would allow for more shops in DA and also potentially for Gringotts itself to be larger in a separate set (since there's so much inside). They could however have it significantly protruding out from the other shops (to obtain the trapezium-shaped front) and then connect further back. That'd look really cool all next to all the others actually.

Hopefully them being connectible doesn't make their fronts all flat in line. Diagaon Alley ought to be a bit higgledypiggledy and there needs to be some depth. What's awesome about this is it makes it really easy for them to include some actual street! So it's not just some buildings, it's an actual alley.