F1stzz

I've already decided that I'm swapping those for a 4194 Whitecap Bay brick built gates design in a heartbeat, lol I'll see if any slight modifications are needed in order to fit the size of a gateway in 10320 or I can just assemble an identical build (even tho a bit different in colours) & call it a day. I expect it to do A LOT better job imitating the original Eldorado's gates design than what we've got with 10320 👌🏻 Well, the dock being black is one thing, but the fact that its build copies the one from 1989 literally picture by picture is kinda underwhelming for real, as a 34 years old design had its obvious limitations which are absolutely unnecessary to bring back into the $/€200+ remake in 2023. The crane in its current proportions is quite an extra indeed, I think it's widely agreed with.

Alright-alright, then fr there's a good chance we'll see some vids from other reviewers tomorrow as well, thanks for a signal, m8

These types of MOCs is what will make 10320 a much more attractive product for a purchase The set is yet to hit the shelves & we already have some inspirational MOC ideas out, lol, the ride's gonna be wild

One was never produced for Bluecoats in particular But given what TLG's done with the Eldorado Fortress remake, I'm worried we ain't getting "the Ironram" (that'd be an equal to 10210) type of a flagship ever, lol. When the time comes to give the audience a new boat for Bluecoats (if there are any chances of that happening), it would more likely be kinda spitting image of the original Clipper made in style of 2015 Brick Bounty, I guess

Though there are people who genuinely think or suggest that's actually the case, which is why I decided to drop a sort of "disclaimer" here, lol, for everybody who's gonna be looking through the topic. Let's not allow this idea to spread widely, who knows how it might affect potential TLG's plans for future remakes

I'd be cautious about making such an assumption prior to the moment we'll get some detailed reviews of the set. I have a feeling the modularity in here is aimed more to give us an easier way to inspect what's "under the hood" and less — to turn this set into something different.

You see, that's my problem with the set in this particular case. You still have to spend some extra on da bootz, cuz you do wish to get 'em for your new Bluecoats, while this exact cost could've been added to the initial price of the set, that's already stepped over the $/€200 mark, with legs being included. You can spend €215 + €5-10+ (or whatever the additional cost would be, it's still just that — the additional cost) separately or have a €230 or some set with dual moulds already in it. The latter is much more convenient for those, who simply don't have a LEGO Store nearby or it just doesn't exist in their country at all (which is the case for me personally, btw). Those additional €5-10+ I've mentioned for people who have the LEGO Store around the corner are suddenly transforming into €20-30+ for people who don't have one (the amount of additional spendings may vary depending on the region). It doesn't mean the set becomes a flop by not having the piece, but there are cases that allow to consider this circumstance a negative.

Exactly, mate Thanks a lot for sharing these pics with us, sir! One thing is for sure: if anything, the box art of 10320 is gorgeous & absolutely pays its respects to the OG 6276 set

Yup, but as far as I know, they were adopted by British army first in the latter half of the 1800s indeed — and only after that their use started to gain popularity among the military and eventually became a norm in other European (as well as non-European) armies. Well, in Russian & Austro-Hungarian armies those were also used to cover & protect the foot, and the naming was the same. That's why I'm differentiating "puttees" & "gaiters", in fact.

It certainly is Oh, it sure does in big MOCs in general. But in official TLG products, when the cost of each piece & their total count matters, the perception of the whole thing changes a bit for me personally. Cheers That's understandable, & as I've already mentioned, with that in mind community had hopes and speculations prior to the official announcement about getting at least one or couple of those for Governor & Lieutenant, not necessarily the whole squad I don't think that would've caused some tragedy for the production lines and after all — someday dual-moulded legs could become a standard, we already have quite a few sets in production with various kinds of these moulds, so why should we be delaying the inevitable when opportunities are staring at us straight?

And this was never the point, the discussion was about not getting a cool piece (which many people would love to receive, especially army builders, we have a lot of these guys in the space) in an expensive set, which does appear as a con. Yeah, I bet if they were indeed important for that we'd get 'em in an instant That's not true at all, lol. It's enough to look through the now closed 10320 speculation topic to get the clear evidence of people voicing their desire to have double moulded legs on Bluecoats and discussing the potential of it happening based on the recent Nutcracker figure release. Not to mention the amount of MOC builders around that are swapping the legs on soldiers & officers (and pirates even) to double moulded once they get the opportunity — again, lots of evidence of that on Insta. Absolutely, but I haven't seen people complaining much about legs not being plain in sets or figures which included dual moulds or leg printing, while there's always some disappointment present in opposite cases. Finally I'm starting to hear the voice of reason, even tho the aforementioned Nutcracker was around just few months ago, so I'm sure TLG could've come up with something if they really cared. That's highly debatable: if you're an army builder or simply prioritize minifigs to the nature elements — hell nah to those old bolt joints, if you have your own LEGO city or any other suitable usecases (while u really appreciate the older mould more) — than yup, I can see that. Nope, I actually got confused ('mind u, English is not my first language, so sometimes I'm taking things quite literally), cuz I've never heard of puttees being applied on the boot instead of leg & quite frankly haven't heard at all of them being used on a regular basis in European armies prior to the 19th century, so that genuinely made me curious to do some fact checking. The fact that you're using a term "puttees" (an item that's placed inside the boot, in fact) to describe an item that covers the boot (or, funny enough, is the boot itself) indicates that you don't quite have an idea of what "puttees" actually is, therefore don't have an understanding of what you're trying to bring up in an argument. And that could indeed result in a confusion. Anyway, I'd say we've spent a bit too much time & space arguing about puttees both in a real world & a fantasy LEGO one, lol. As you can see, you've also failed to convince me that LEGO Pirates fans don't want minifigures to have double moulded legs or would necessarily prefer anything over it, or wouldn't be happy to get those in a set in general. Given that, I can see both of us moving forward Best regards

Respectfully disagree, it looks like 4ss. Masonry bricks' aesthetics couldn't be beaten by the aforementioned combos in mass-produced LEGO sets in my eyes, and those bricks are definitely the part savers at that.

Silly me, I was being constantly told LEGO is a fantasy world that has little to do with historic accuracy, but I guess bringing up anything history related is convenient when the lack of such a desired piece as dual molded legs in a $200+ set needs to be justified 😏 FYI, puttees were not even a common practice or norm in European armies before the second half of the nineteenth century, and then they were used to cover the leg itself, not the boot. The thing you're calling "white puttees" on few pictures of the French troops in 17th-18th century is actually a white overlay for the black boot or simply the boots in white colour, which were not in fact a combined arms standard & were used by specific regiments in a specific period. And while all that was indeed a thing at one point, the regular black high (up to the knee) leather boots never went anywhere & were indeed a combined arms standard used throughout the centuries (those were worn by Napoleon too, btw). Therefore, I still don't understand why we couldn't get double molded legs in Imperial Soldiers sets

I mean, yeah, if we have double molded legs in sets priced under the 100€/$ mark — why wouldn't TLG make them available in a 200+ bucks product? It'd have made a lot of sense to bring the piece into this set, as well as it would've made tons of people happy, but instead it's "sry — here's your Grandest Crane of 'Em All, dear customer, HF" I feel like we're stepping on a, let's say, Forbidden Island right here I'd consider those questions rather rhetorical

It's really unfortunate this thought crossed your mind just recently as 21322 is being sold now for double the original price sealed One thing I have to say tho, if you'll manage to find a good deal — I rly doubt you'd regret it. I have a couple of Bays & the amount of fun I had while merging them into a bigger ship + island was extraordinary, nothing like that in my experience The number of extra parts is also great to name it a "bang for buck" I mean, the set is 215€/$ (could be much more expensive in various parts of the world) and we get no prints on shakos, no double molded legs for soldiers (or at least for officers or admiral), no 2x2 version of the new flag, the use of parts for some structures (the crane is a great example here) is questionable, few design choices are straight lame & uninspired (TLG just literally copy-pasted the dock from a 34 years old set brick by brick, xcus me, many thought we've moved a couple inches forward from that primitivity over the years, but apparently not), minifigure selection might feel odd for a number of people & the stuff goes on. The initial feedback I see outside our forum so far does make an impression of 10320 being rather a bittersweet purchase for a noticeable amount of AFOLs compared to an immediate blast of happiness that came with the 21322 release. The upcoming reviews should do this set justice & provide us a more solid basis for an argument than what we have atm with the fragmentary info.

Btw, I think the "should've also gotten PoBB back in the day! " comments are gotta be some of the most popular ones in the field, lol, so your take might possibly represent the mindset of a considerable number of people, imo

I do agree on the point that we surely need to wait for manuals & see if there's anything informative about the characters to have a strong ground for future discussions. Overall, judging by my observations so far, the amount of "I wish there were some original characters" & "the build is kinda lazy here and there, PoBB was better" types of comments around the internet is noticeable enough for me to bring up topics about questionable building choices in this set, lack of important details and especially its minifigure selection. I understand that we've waited for 3 years to get something new & big for an underappreciated nowadays Pirates theme, were and are extremely hyped about 10320 release, but there's an apparent reason why all aforementioned comments exist. I don't want TLG to think they can just drop a carbon copy of an iconic set for 215€ without doing a deep research on its history or brainstorming much about how its design could be improved — and then call it done & dusted for another God knows how many years. When every, say, sixth comment I see in Insta or YT says "h-h-how m-m-much??? FOR WHAT?! NoStAlgiA??" — that's a worrying sign indeed. This shouldn't be happening to a theme, the lore of which could possibly even rival Ninjago's popularity if things are done right.

2015 wave brought Captain Redbeard back. Minifigure designs were also pretty much picture-by-picture reskins of the classic ones, even tho some of the characters got new names & a couple of new ones were introduced. PoBB didn't (there was a moment of confusion with a Robin Loot character tho, but it's not that big of a deal) — 10320 (considering the circumstance of it being promoted as a direct copy of the classic Eldorado Fortress), unfortunately, does. But in the end of the day that's my standpoint coming from certain things not meeting my expectations as well as those of others who share my view, it's not meant to be necessarily universally agreed with.

Yea, I'd even go as far as saying some of those reasons are from the similar category as the "50/50" stuff we're constantly mentioning here Thank God we're still getting something related to Islanders from CMFs once in a while Y-y-yup, I specified in the brackets that people won't mind to have any sorts of colorful minifigs for a pirate lady, governor's daughter or merchants as long as the main core of Imperial Soldiers is intact. Having some dedicated minifigures would've been a blast really, because 6276 was one of those few initial sets that started it all & the thought process behind the classic Eldorado Fortress was tremendously great. It is indeed sad to see the whole world of LEGO Pirates, masterfully created with comics/stories & classic sets, being flushed down the drain so carelessly. All those cassettes with audiobooks, arts, comics, promos, the whole idea behind the launch of the theme & the endless amount of effort that's been put into it by numerous ingenious people — all should now be forgotten and buried. If general public is OK with that — well, fine for them, cuz I'm not, and won't ever be.

It's definitely fitting for the theme overall, maybe for some of the officers or soldiers, or merchants, but not for Broadside. A couple of things here: first — as many have rightfully pointed out, the governor isn't immune to ageing, so gray facial hair should be there anyway. Second — it's all about the signature sideburns & mustache for this guy There's no sideburns on the faceprint you've suggested, nor gray hair — 2015 Governor (3626cpb1335) on the other hand has a complete package that meets all requirements 👌🏻 I might be called silly, but this version is such an upgrade over the classic one. It's even more impressive live with all those golden accents shining Again — zero idea why TLG decided to create a third design, which is, IMHO, not as good, instead of using the 2015 style. And they also didn't include a 2x2 flag to accompany the bigger one, which is sad.

M8, just take a look at governor's 2015 faceprint (which was a direct copy of an OG Broadside in fact) and the one that we have in 10320 (for an easier Bricklink search here are the codes: 3626cpb1335 & 3626cpb2144 respectively) — & then compare them both to the original Broadside's faceprint (3626bpb0054). I bet you'll question TLG's choice as well. If they didn't care to make a new faceprint for Broadside specifically (which is ridiculous indeed, as he's supposed to be the main figure here) — at least take the one that's resembling him the most.

Sir, I don't have spare male heads to mix things up. I'm sure it's gonna be the same problem for every other customer, who doesn't have 20+ sets in their disposal or a local LEGO shop to PaB/BaM. And I'm not gonna skip my chance to have a modern Imperial Fortress just because of minifigs not meeting my expectations. The fact of the matter is, LOTS of people would rather prefer having Anne Anchor, Camilla (or any other fancy figure to represent a pirate girl & governor's daughter) and a female merchant in this set than replacing a whole officer corps including Lt. de Martinet for the sake of "equality". One thing is creating a fantasy — the other is pushing an agenda at the expense of main characters. Hats off, mate — my point exactly Yup, completely agree with you, I've said it earlier & I'll say it again: using modern technique & parts for the tree and then just slapping an old school palm fronds/leafs onto it for a "nostalgia" effect is totally a half4ssing on TLG's part that was completely unnecessary. Having the baseplate for the fortress built with separate bricks actually adds A LOT to the expansion ability. For example, one could just take few more Medium Azure 16x16, build the same terrain structure on it, merge it with the existing baseplate and actually widen the fortress upon it. Stuff is actually cool, no questions there for me. The use of parts for the Fortress itself tho is def questionable. For example, I'm not sure why TLG went with a combo of white regular 1x2 plate & a couple of dark red rounded ones with open studs (3023 & 35480 respectively) in various parts of the build instead of just using a single dark red modified 1x2 brick with masonry profile (98283 on BL for that one). They've basically used 3 separate bricks every time they could've used a single one to achieve the same effect, lol. And who didn't already mention that abnormally huge crane, the part count of which might be enough to build another tower, idk

Yet still while "doing something new" they've used Redbeard's 2015 faceprint smh

Yeah, lol, AT LEAST we're lucky to have that Nope. It's because there's no cooking of Imperial Fortress in 2023 without adding a secret ingredient

The official set's model kinda pales in comparison to your take on the classic Merchant Boat, lad, that's undeniable. You have the layout done right, much more accurate to the original than TLG's take, especially when we're talking about the bow and the deck overall; you have an actual CARGO on an actual MERCHANT ship, lol; you have the appropriate minifigs there (yes, I'm gonna keep on whining about the minifigures trouble in 10320 everywhere ). Your model only lacks a steering wheel really and both yours & TLG's cutters have no functioning lid over the cargo hold like one in the OG design If I had no intent of buying 10320, I'd rather take your model & slap separately ordered sails from the set on it, and call it a day So mad props to you for the build, pal