ShaydDeGrai

I've harbored a wish-list for decades, but I doubt any of the items on it stand a chance of ever becoming official lines (mostly due to age - does anyone even remember who Gerry Anderson was these days?) So barring major reboots revitalizing forgotten franchises I doubt we'll see: 1) UFO - it only lasted one season, but SHADO had some nice hardware, a moonbase and, of course, invading aliens 2) Thunderbirds - (the marionette version, not the live action one) Five iconic vehicles, a command center and assorted action scenes to recreate 3) Star Blazers (aka Space Cruiser Yamato) - every Lego collection needs a wave motion gun and a UCS Comet Empire 4) Space:1999 - Moonbase, moon buggy, Eagles (various configurations), and Hawks 5) Buck Rogers in the 25th Century - a cheesy Gil Gerard/Erin Grey show from ~1980; again space ships, space stations robots, domed cities, lame plots and a hawk-man, what's not to love? 6) Star Trek - (all flavors, 'nuff said) 7) Stargate SG1 - Lot's of mixed culture art direction to play with on this one, from star cruisers and Death Gliders to ancient Egyptian and Babylonian civilizations 8) Battlestar Galactica- I remember building Vipers and Cylon Fighters back in 1979, the revival a few years ago made me wish it had gotten the Star Wars treatment back in the day. 9) Doctor Who - (others have already lobbied for this one, so I'll just say "ditto") 10) The Lord of the Rings - Yes, I know they already did this, but I always thought they could have done more with it. I'd love to see an Architecture-style line of iconic LOTR locations, highly detailed micro-scale models of Barad-dur, Orthanc, The Black Gate, Minas Tirith, The Argonath, The Golden Hall, Rivendell, etc. along the lines of the US Capitol Model or the upcoming Statue of Liberty kits.

I asked an agent this a couple year's back and her recommendation was to photograph everything (original box, instruction manual and model w/ figures clearly shown or the sealed box with unbroken seals clearly visible for Mint-in-Box claims) along with some "anchor" reference (like a driver's license) in every photo to prove that you were photographing _your_ set not just pulling a photo off the internet. Then back that up with a spreadsheet showing the set number, original purchase price, date of purchase and last known appraisal (which I got from a mix of BrickPicker.com and Bricklink - _asking_ prices on sites like eBay don't count, the appraisal has to be based on actual sales). Periodically backup your database to CD/DVD-R and stick it in a safety deposit box at a bank or other off site storage (friend or relative's house, desk at work whatever). Raw parts (other than minifigs) are a lot harder to prove value and, I'm told, when it comes to 'toys' most policies just take your word that you lost _something_ then cap how much they'll compensate you without hard proof. This cap is usually pretty low (2-3k) compared to the actual replacement cost. In my experience, when it comes to dealing with insurance companies, unless you have solid proof of a loss, they are very slow to compensate you. Years ago we had a brick chimney fall over in a hurricane. It went through the roof, collapsed a ceiling, destroyed some bedroom furniture and the debris damaged the hardwood floors. Then, because it left a big hole exposed to the elements for the balance of the storm, clothes, bedding, curtains, artwork, etc. in the room got serious water damage. Afterwards, we did a quick repair to the roof with just some plywood and tar paper to limit further damage, but when the insurance adjuster looked at things he wanted to reimburse us for the cost of the patch (about $200) and consider the matter closed. He claimed that if we'd maintained the (150 year old) chimney properly it wouldn't have blown over in 140mph winds; if the mortar was weak enough to allow the chimney to tip over it was something we would have had to replace eventually anyway, so replacing the chimney was a maintenance issue not an insurance one. Further, he said that we didn't have _proof_ that all the things damaged in the bedroom (including the ceiling and floor) were actually in the room and in good condition at the time of the chimney collapse, therefore those could be unrelated/unrecoverable damages that we'd simply 'staged' to milk the claim (this accusation came as he was standing in front of a dripping wet mattress covered in bricks and debris with his own footprints being the only sign of human intervention at the site). We argued, threatened to sue and he decided he'd throw in $50 for a new coat of paint to cover the water stains on the walls. In the end, we _did_ hire a lawyer, spent around $2000 in legal fees and the insurance company eventually settled out of court for ~$35,000 (but in the mean time we had to front all of our repair and replacement costs out of pocket (i.e. second mortgage), saving all of our receipts and job estimates from contractors (including the ones we didn't hire just to prove we didn't go with the most expensive bid), and it took over a year to get reimbursed). So the moral of the story is, don't assume that even if you have coverage, the insurance company will be on your side. The burden of proof is on you to prove loss and even when the magnitude of the loss seems obvious to you, remember that the adjuster works for the people who have to cut the check, not you. They will argue depreciation, authenticity, chain of custody, pre-existing condition, etc. to low-ball the settlement and the best way to defend yourself is to be as organized, knowledgable and well documented as possible (and willing to follow through if you threaten to sue - I'm willing to bet they get threats all the time, but when an actual lawyer calls them, they start paying attention).

I would love it even if they'd budge as little bit. For example, look at the 21050 Architecture Studio. The book that it comes with is lovely, but for the price I'd happily trade it for a few dozen more bricks (and sell the book separately, like people are doing aftermarket anyway). Now you'd have a lovely tub of white bricks, tiles and plates with a handful of trans-clear to go along with it - a bit like a monochromatic Creator tub for adults. Now make it available in other color schemes, like Sand Yellow (tan) with Light Trans blue, Light Bluish Gray with Trans-yellow, and Black with Trans-red - throw in a few Earth Green and Earth Blue plates in every kit as "landscaping" and you've got a useful, AFOL-friendly parts pack; All color variations are "mature and neutral" enough to justify being "expansions" of the Architecture Studio, but genuinely useful generic colors and shapes to buy in bulk. I'm not holding my breath for them to ever take me up on this idea though. As it is, the 21050 is too expensive to be a viable parts pack and too open-ended/undirected to be a real "Architecture Kit". While marketing the book separately and either lowering the price or upping the piece count could address this, it's another thing I just don't see happening. I remember the days when you could buy something like the 635 Extra Bricks in White, a polybag of Red Roof Tiles or a Castle Expander pack (gray arches, etc), but I fear as TLG embraced more and more licensed themes to claw its way back to profitability 20 years ago, actively marketing raw brick for original creations kind of fell off their radar.

This touches upon one of my newer pet peeves, the recent flirtation with reissued sets without significant renovation. Something like the new UCS Millenium Falcon is borderline, but at least it has something of an interior to difference it from the prior UCS MF; but things like the Taj Mahal and the Winter Toy Shop are basically just digging into the vault and re-issuing long since discontinued sets. Fortunately this hasn't happened _much_ yet, but I'd hate for it to become a trend. I'm not a Lego Investor/Scalper, so I don't really care what that practice might do to the after-market price of mint condition kits that have been sitting in someone's closet for a decade. And I don't begrudge lines like Lego Star Wars for revisiting popular subject matter on a regular basis (how many walkers, snow speeders and TIE fighters have we had at this point?); every new generation of fans wants these _models_ (as opposed to AFOLs who want specific _kits_) and at least TLG varies the design, scale, building techniques and/or associated builds such that you're at least getting a different take on a familiar theme when the "latest revision" comes out. What bothers _me_ about near verbatim re-issues, is that there is only so much room in the line-up for high-end landmark kits (like the Taj Mahal) or specialty themes (like Winter Village and the Toy Shop) and burning those slots on re-issues means we have to wait another year or two before we see something _new_. I already own the Taj Mahal (and Tower Bridge, and Sydney Opera House, and The Eiffel Tower, and Big Ben, etc.) and when I think about all the other great examples of architecture in the world that would make fun, interesting and challenging builds but have not yet been explored, I get annoyed by the fact that TLG blew the dust off a ten year old model, added a brick separator and gave it a new kit number. I get that some people might have missed something the first time 'round and don't want to go the time or expense of bricklinking the parts or tracking down an overpriced, mint-in-box original, but I'd still rather see variations on a theme rather than straight-up re-issues. If TLG wants to issue a new Toy Shop for the winter village line, I'm fine with that - just make it a _different_ Toy Shop, my winter village is large enough to support two stores in the same market sector. As nice and historically significant as something like the Cafe Corner is, I'd much rather see them revisit the generic concept of a "Hotel above a Restaurant" and give us all a fresh building than a repackaging of the exact model they offered us 11 years ago (before a lot of us even realized we wanted modular buildings). After the Toy Shop re-release, I was concerned when I heard rumors that the next year's kit was going to be the "Holiday Train" and was (eventually) relieved to discover that the 10254 Winter Holiday Train was a very different set than the prior 10173 Holiday Train, but my point is that (at least in _my_ mind) I shouldn't have had reason to be concerned in the first place. An expectation for new and innovative sets is something we should be able to take for granted, especially in lines that only see one or two new additions per year. New takes on old ideas are fine, but leave legacy sets to the aftermarket to sort out, don't displace new ideas with re-issues.

When _I_ was a kid, my friends would have said "What's Nintendo?" We also wouldn't have 'called' each other, we all had party lines and were told the phone was for adult use and emergencies only. I remember when Pong came out and when they first put video game machines in the pinball parlors; my first Lego wasn't even Lego, it was made by Samsonite. But I digress, that happens when you're older than dirt...

Actually, I happen to own an unabridged dictionary from 1992 that _does_ have a listing for "LEGO". It claims it's an adjective meaning a product of The LEGO Group company and refers you to their dictionary of Brands and Trademarks. It also has entries for Q-Tip and Kleenex (described as "diluted trademarks" now in common usage as proper nouns equated with cotton swabs and disposable tissues, respectively). If they were still publishing this book today (only available on CD-ROM for the past 20 years), I wonder if "LEGO" would be "downgraded" to a proper noun for children's bricks? Academics (speaking as a former professor) like to split hairs and violently argue with one another over who or what is or isn't _technically_ _correct_ the problem is, as many have pointed out. Natural language is barely technical (in scientific terms) and its measure of correctness is best weighed against its ability to clearly and completely convey an idea or message from one person to another, not how well it can be parsed into a sentence diagram ("Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo", anyone?). And as natural languages go, English is probably one of the worst offenders because its roots touch on so many other (lexically and grammatically) different languages. While many languages adopt words from foreign tongues to describe foreign objects, English borrowed entire chunks of (incompatible) grammar and syntax. Governments, scholars and marketeers have all laid claim to being the final authority for English, often trying to rewrite the dictionary or impose a new rule of grammar as a way of advancing some tangential agenda. "Technically correct" English is littered with artifacts of prior course corrections, idioms, and popular culture references that linger long after the reason for their existence is mostly forgotten. Rules like "Never split an infinitive" "Never end a sentence with a preposition" come out of an effort to Latin-ize English and exorcise German influences because, according to Strunk (of Strunk and White), the Romans gave us art, music and philosophy and the Germans were just barbarian hordes; (I guess if people like your poetry, you get a pass on things like entertainment bloodsports and mass slavery). English speaking people were perfectly happy splitting infinitives for centuries before this "rule" was cooked up without fear of misunderstanding, but English teachers have been taking points off for decades since Elements of Style got published. Phrases like "Dutch treat" (meaning having to pay your own way), or "in Dutch" (unable to payback a debt) were introduced by propagandists working for the British government at a time when rivalries with their continental neighbor were particularly high. "Jumbo" (meaning exceptionally larger than normal) comes from the name of an elephant once displayed by P.T. Barnum (largest in captivity at the time) - people who hear about Jumbo the Elephant often think that the beast was named for the word as a marketing gimmick, but it actually started the other way around; the elephant's name comes from the Swahili for 'hello' (jambo). Apple spent millions trying to convince the world to "think different" because they felt offending grammarians would make their ads more memorable, and to this day I meet millennials who don't know the difference between an adjective and an adverb. Keeping up with the Kardashians has grossly and frequently abused the word "literally" to the point where it has become its own antonym, making the word utterly meaningless in common practice. The English language IS technically incorrect and, so long as three or more people are speaking it, it's probably beyond repair. But the purpose of language is not to be correct or technical, it is to be clear. It usually achieves that clarity through consistency (rather than correctness), and mutual assent between speaker and listener. Even something as simple as spelling is fluid over time ( though now we have machines with spell checkers trying to enforce rules and conventions upon us with squiggly red underbars). As usage evolved S.C.U.B.A became SCUBA and eventually scuba (but tip was never T.I.P., if you care); the subjunctive case is barely distinguishable from the indicative case; and, everybody knew exactly what Captain Kirk meant when he said "to boldly go..." despite Strunk spinning in his grave every time Star Trek aired. So, whether you say "LEGO bricks" or "legos" or draw offense when someone else opts for the variation you shun, please remember that the only 'technically correct' truth is that, whatever you call them, they hurt like hell when you step on them barefoot.

I spend way too much time in front of screens over the course of the day so I try to adhere to a no surfing/social media after dinner rule and very little connectivity on weekends, so a paper catalog, to me, is very refreshing. Part of why I play with Lego is to escape electronics (I've been hip deep in hi-tech for 40 years now and my enthusiasm for most things related to it (except my paycheck) has waned), so using a computer really taints the process for me. If they got rid of the paper catalog, I'd probably end up buying a lot less because I have such a negative association with computers at this point. I really don't like the Lego shop web design. It's fine for placing an order (when it works), but a terrible place to browsing/discovering sets. AFOL sites are much better sources for learning about new stuff, but it's hit or miss on what's getting covered, when and where. Of course, the catalog is far less than comprehensive these days as well but it has the advantage of being browsable even when your ISP is down. I'm sure there will come a day when the printed catalog will go the way of video stores and payphones, but until that day comes I'll welcome every new Lego Catalog that lands in my mailbox like a surprise gift from an old friend.

This is really a counter example in my book. I'm NOT bothered in the least by a set like this: two figures and a modest build. Sure, its a bit tiny and without Luke you might not see it as anything special, but for its price point, its still a hut. It has an innate context beyond being a vignette for the Luke mini-fig (granted it has a LOT more context once you realize this particular hut is supposed to exist a long ago in a galaxy far far away and not just any hut on a south pacific island or a stone hovel out on the Orkney Isles, but it's still a meaningful build). This is the way _I_ would prefer TLG balance the question of building versus mini-figure collecting (questions of army builders/battle packs aside, as those really _are_ all about buying a particular type of generic figure in bulk and I have no problem with that). The sort of unbalanced builds I was complaining about are more along the lines of: The set is called Captain's Cabin, but they didn't even put a single bulkhead into it. Without the figs it's a bookcase, a table and a globe - and even at that, it's a very repetitive build. I've gotten more interesting builds from polybags, free with a $75 purchase. It's utility as an army builder is limited by the presence of Jack Sparrow, do we really need a whole hoard of those? Another example might be: I suppose this is better as an army builder (give or take an excess of Dastan Scabbards running around) but a dark tan bush and a pile of bricks is more along the lines of what I'd expect as extra parts at the end of a build rather than the build itself. Here I agree with you entirely. That which unites us is far greater than that which divides us and there is more than enough room in our community for all manner of subculture. I don't happen to be into (most) minifigures, but I don't begrudge those that are. I don't like mini-dolls, but I don't actively lobby against them. I have a friend whose never created a MOC in his life, only collects Lego Star Wars and obsesses over which way the 'Lego' logo on the studs are facing as he dutifully follows the directions - He's still and AFOL in my book. It bothers me when people feel the need to exclude others over trivial differences when, at our core, we have so much in common. I see this more with TFOLs at shows, often thinking that they somehow aggrandize themselves by belittling the tastes of others when all they're really doing is making themselves look petty and losing opportunities to connect with fellow fans. I saw the same thing happen to the Science Fiction/Fantasy/Comics fan community. Pre-Star Wars, we were geeks and dreamers generally mocked by the masses. There was no world wide web, and fan conventions were usually advertised via mimeo on college bulletin boards, so they were small and obscure events. We had to argue with libraries to put little "SF" stickers on the spines of books by people like Asimov, Clarke, Herbert and Heinlein because (unlike westerns, romances, and mysteries - which got their own bookcases) science fiction was just mixed in with general fiction (or dumped in the Young Adult section since, as one librarian once told me: Science Fiction isn't a genre, it's a phase, you grow out of it). When SciFi fans _did_ connect, we were a very accepting bunch. It didn't matter if you liked books or TV shows or comics better; or preferred Thunderbirds to Star Trek; or which (of the only four) Doctors was the best Doctor Who. We were so few in number (or at least it usually felt that way) that we'd accept anyone into the club. ( I ran a SciFi/Fantasy Club back in high school and I remember a lesbian couple joined and one of them didn't even care for Sci-Fi, but we were the only after school group she'd found that accepted her for who she was - though eventually she discovered the works of Andre Norton and we converted her to a Sci-fi fan). Post Star Wars, Science Fiction became acceptable and eventually popular and the internet made it easier and easier to connect with likeminded people. It should have been a golden age for the fan community, but sadly it became just another breeding ground for trolls. Topics that used to be the basis of rich, informative debate (Marvel vs. DC, Star Wars Vs. Star Trek, books vs movie) became genuine dividing points. Today, web sites and fora are filled with postings of Uber-Fans trying to out-geek one another while insulting one another's tastes and accusing each other of not being 'true' fans because of some trivial preference for obscure offering over another. Sometimes I think the "community" was better off when it was "uncool" to like SciFi and people felt lucky to get a book adapted into a movie (rather than belittle people who "liked the movie better" or, worse yet, never read the book). When it comes to Lego, let's face it, AFOLs are grown-ups playing with kids toys. Many of us (well, not me anymore) don't even have kids of our own and can't use them as an excuse. The notion that we should slight, marginalize or otherwise judge other members of our (small, but passionate) community because certain aspects of the hobby hold more appeal for one group than another is just foolish and like @MAB it irks me when someone gets all self-righteous about their special interest being "the one true path". May we never become so mainstream that we can afford to push other AFOLs away simply for expressing their individuality and their tastes.

While I side with the camp that feels the licensed sets really pushed the "Let's include a build-able element to circumvent the action-figure license issue, but we're really selling mini-figures not a construction toy" envelope, I think the place where this really marked a decline in a quality building experience in favor of collecting mini-figures _started_ with Harry Potter, not Star Wars. SW is vehicle-rich and most vehicles work as interesting kits with or without mini-figs. The mini-figs, in those cases, are like a sticker sheet; they dress up an already interesting build but they don't need to be there for the vehicle to "make sense" as a play element. HP was more sets and locations. Take away the figures from a lot of those kits (particularly in the low to mid range price-wise) and you've got a wall segment, or a set of stairs, or a spindly-looking tree, or a couple of hoops on sticks. It's not until you're shelling out the big bucks for the Hogwarts Express Train or a decent rendering of Hogwart's Castle or Diagon Alley that you're finally working on a construction set that is augmented by figures rather than the other way 'round. Since HP, other lines have also suffered the mini-figure centric curse (including SW) with pathetic little builds serving only as backdrops for spiffy mini-figures (again, mostly at the lower end of the price spectrum), but if City can release enjoyable, figure-optional kits for under $40 (and likewise Creator kits figure-free but totally worthwhile in the same price range) why can't more attention be paid to the subject matter and build experience of media IP and licensed sets? Including a cool/exclusive figure shouldn't be an excuse for slacking off on the quality of the build. And I'm also _not_ saying that the builds with licensed IP are universally lower quality. While Pirates of the Caribbean was not without its faults, overall I thought they struct a pretty good balance of figure to building component, and you didn't have to get into the Black Pearl and Queen Anne's Revenge price range to find a decent model, with the exception of Captains Cabin and Isla De La Muerta, interesting builds were pretty much spread across the (price) line, so it _can_ be done, just sometimes it isn't. And for the record, I totally would have bought the yellow castle even without mini-figures. When I started playing with Lego there were no mini-figures, and while I thought the introduction of "slabbies" was interesting, they never "sold" a set for me. When the first "real" mini-figures came out, I distinctly remember not liking the posable arms. For me, they looked too "cutesy" without enough range of motion to match my vision but just enough to interfere with it. These days, most of the (1,000+) mini-figures I own live in tubs and shoe boxes where they've not seen the light of day in years. I _appreciate_ that min-fig collecting is a huge subculture among AFOLs (and more power to 'em), I'm just not a member of that club. I also prefer coffee ice cream over chocolate, so sue me.

While I very much agree with this, I think there will still be consequences, particularly in the realm of entry-level impulse sales. Toys R Us was a great venue for buying something when you weren't sure what you wanted (or in the case of Aunts, Uncles and Grandparents, didn't quite know what Johnny or Janie would like) or (speaking as the father of a young, strong willed child) just needed to buy a quick stocking stuffer to trade for a quiet car ride home. For some people, (myself included) these impulse buys become the gateway drug for discovering Lego in a world increasingly obsessed with virtual, screen-based entertainment. Several million bricks ago, I came out of my dark ages because of an impulse buy at TRU. My niece got into Lego because her mother took her into a TRU to buy a doll and she (the kid) decided to get a LEGO kit instead. Granted this is just anecdotal evidence based on two data points, but my gut tells me that we can't be the only ones who ended up embracing the hobby due to a serendipitous find when we weren't looking for anything in particular or started off looking for something else. TLG enjoys great brand loyalty (something increasingly rare these days) among its established customers. Most AFOLs I know hope their kids will get into it as well. But as a children's toy (and a pricy one at that) the reality is there is always another generation of kids who are aging out of their of the target demographic and another wave that need to be introduced to the toy. Losing TRU means losing an avenue of introduction. On-line sales are fine and I'm very lucky to live within easy driving distance of four LEGO stores and a Discovery Center gift shop; but those are all predicated on the idea that you've gone out of your way to buy something "LEGO". Going to an actual toy store when you're not into/really aware of LEGO gives one the chance to discover and embrace something new. Growing up with LEGO and being part of the AFOL community often makes it easy to forget that there are non-(but potential)-FOLs out there; but that is the very demographic most essential to sustaining the company. Attracting new customers is the only way a business can avoid market saturation. Losing TRU, costs TLG about 15% of its "showroom" for attracting new customers, and they'll need to make up for that somehow. Sadly, from a society standpoint, I think there will also be some class ramifications to the TRU closures. I can't speak for the rest of the country, but at least in my area the LEGO shops are all in higher end malls catering to upper-middle class families. The two TRU stores (left at this point) are both in strip malls in, let's just say, less affluent suburbs. I walk into the LEGO store and the staff is far more diverse than the clientele. I walk into TRU and I see people of all ethnicities; I hear people speaking half a dozen foreign languages. As a former engineering professor and INROADS (a program to encourage minorities in engineering professions) mentor, I think it would be a shame fewer kids from poorer neighborhoods got the opportunity to discover LEGO (and their own creative potential) because their folks don't shop at malls that charge for parking and sell coffee for $10 a cup.

I wouldn't know about "most" girls, but I had a friend growing up that used to trick out her Barbie dolls with parts from tank models to make killer cyborgs. My favorite of her designs had a Barbie torso fitted into a panzer caterpillar base, with a howitzer for an arm and machine guns coming out of her hair like antennae (GI Joe never stood a chance). It's a pretty safe bet that if a Friends-Mecha line had been available then, she would have been all over it. So it's probably safe to say that there _is_ an audience out there, I'm just not sure it's large enough to sustain a toy line.

I studied trumpet for 12 years before finally acknowledging I was terrible at it and I was doing the world of music a favor by locking my horn away in a closet and moving on to quieter pursuits... I always wanted to learn the piano, but that was my sister's instrument and my folks didn't want to put me in a position where I might be stealing her thunder. Growing up, I had a habit of mimicking what my big sister was doing and often ended up excelling at things she 'thought' she was good at; it created its fair share of tension at home. It was frustrating growing up with a piano in the living room and only being able to touch it when no one else was home.

Granted 9474 Mines of Moria had a pretty good price point (and the second lowest price per piece ratio of the LOTR line) but there was wiggle room to make the set a better building experience and less of a sticker laden, piecemeal backdrop for mini-figures. I've seen mods of the official Mines of Moria that use less than a hundred additional parts and part substitutions to address successfully many of criticisms of the set. That would equate to about a 10% shift in the price point but still keep the MSRP under $100 and still $40 cheaper than Helm's Deep. Personally, however, I would haven take a different approach and kept the price point while narrowing the scope of the set (and introducing additional sets at other price points. Mines of Moria had nine figures in it (which probably contributed a lot to its popularity) but _I_ would have been happy with fewer figures in _this_ kit, a better build, and more kits to choose from. One could almost get an entire release wave out of the Mines of Moria story sequence ( Speak Friend and Enter, The Watcher in the Lake, The Tomb of Balin, Attack of the Cave Troll, The Bridge of Khazard Dum (with brick built Balrog), etc.). But then, I've always felt that they underutilized the LOTR license and was more than a little disappointed that the (excellent) minifigures overshadowed the building potential for the line. I would have loved to see, say, a Prancing Pony/Bree set along the lines of a 3739 Blacksmith's Shop or one of the buildings from the 10193 Medieval Market Village or a Golden Hall of Rohan akin to the 4842 Hogwarts Castle. Sadly, with the exception of Helm's Deep and Orthanc (and Bag End, but that's technically a different line), it seems most of the kits viewed the buildings as afterthoughts rather than focal points. Even 9472 Attack on Weathertop which had a nice "little" build suffered from issues of scale (and the second highest part per piece ratio of the line); if the price per piece had been closer to the average for the line (~10.5 cents) that would have translated to roughly 200 additional pieces available to expand the building at the same price point. Like the Harry Potter line, the LOTR has the innate disadvantage of not having cool spaceships and other swooshable vehicles as its primary construction component, so it relied heavily on the minifigures to sell the play-ability aspect of many of its kits. While I fully understand that this is a children's toy and play-ability matters, it still irks me that when the primary building subject is a piece of grand architecture, it takes a back seat to the minifigure standing in front of it. For nearly all City sets, I can leave off the stickers and remove the mini-figs and rarely do I find myself asking "what's that supposed to be?" when I look at what's left; that's not always the case when it comes to licensed sets with exclusive figures, and that's a pity.

I appreciate where you are coming from. I grew up with Lego-envy, never able to afford the really cool sets and had a dark age forced upon me when I needed to save for college and really couldn't afford much of anything (I kept what Lego I had but didn't play with it much because it just reminded me that I could afford to buy any of the new stuff that looked so inviting). After college I _was_ in a position to start buying again - but I didn't. I'd gotten out of the habit of building, true, but more to the point, part of me was so busy "being an adult" and having "adult" friends and "adult" hobbies, that I forgot to focus on being me. I think most people eventually reach a point where they look back and realize just how foolish they'd been at some point decades earlier (be it a first crush, a favored pop-star, questionable grooming and/or fashion sense, whatever). Too often, our foolish mistake is putting too much weight behind the opinions of people who are making foolish mistakes of their own. I remember something a Thermodynamics professor of mine said on the first day of class: "Don't bother copying answers from your friends, your friends may be morons and you'll be just as stupid as they are if you assume their wrong answer is better than your own. Better to be uniquely wrong than a wrong, boring sheep." If I could go back in time and tell 22 year old me that it's fine to play with Lego and that it doesn't matter if Carol, Kevin and John all think it's childish, I would do it in a heartbeat. (Of course, knowing how arrogant and foolish I was at 22, I probably wouldn't listen to myself until Future Me revealed that Carol was sleeping with Kevin behind my back and John still has all his Kenner Star Wars action figures from 1977 in a foot locker in his bedroom...) I wasted several years and thousands of dollars on hobbies and distractions that were never nearly as satisfying as my return to Lego and I wish I'd had the courage and forethought to embrace my inner AFOL much earlier. Actually, I used to be a professor in an engineering department and I not only played with Lego in my spare time, I used it in my classes and assigned design and prototyping projects with it as homework. In the end, you need to focus on what makes you happy, embraces your innate creativity, and, if possible, finds a way to make the world a better place while doing it. If Lego makes you happy, do it. If you make a brick film that puts a smile on a stranger's face or inspires someone else to get into the hobby, this is a good thing. If your friends can't see this, it's their problem, not yours.

I grew up generally Lego-poor and probably a bit envious of the collections my friends had (but, in my opinion, did not appreciate). I'd get a few kits a year (birthday, Easter, Christmas, maybe a special treat when vacationing with my grandmother) but, in general, we just couldn't really afford much. My dark ages started when my dad got laid off and every dime I could earn either went into my college fund or contributing to the family budget. Lego acquisition dropped to near nil as the focus moved to putting food on the table and saving for school. Skip ahead a couple decades and I'd graduated without debt and landed a good job that paid more than my dad was making at the time. One day, I happened to be playing chauffeur for my mother and was killing time in Toys R Us while she did her grocery shopping. I wandered down the Lego aisle and spotted the 8480 Technic Space Shuttle. I looked at the price tag and realized I'd never spent that much (~160USD) on a Lego set in my life. A moment later, I realized I also wasn't a ten year old kid trying to scrape together nickels and dimes from my paper route anymore. My friends from college were off squandering their new-found prosperity on fast cars, ski trips and designer fashions - I bought a space shuttle. I remember staying up half the night and finishing the build in one session. It was very cathartic; remembering all those kits I wanted as a child but couldn't afford; reflecting on the kits the campus bookstore had the audacity to stock just to taunt me as I gaped at the price of my required textbooks each semester; kicking myself for not having had the courage to walk into a toy store years earlier once the last tuition bill was paid for fear that people wouldn't understand why an adult would be playing with toys; and finally, telling myself, "screw that, I'm having fun and it's nobody's damned business but my own!" The next day I went back to Toys R Us and got more kits, called Enfield Connecticut to get on TLG's mailing list for their catalogs and the rest, as they say, is history.

"LEGOs" used to bother me for all the classic, not-enough-to-worry-about-already reasons ("It's an adjective, not a noun!", "It's trademark dilution!", "It's not legally or grammatically correct!", etc.), then I had a child. She's taught me to lower my expectations of others and grow a thicker skin. Now I don't even bat an eye when she says "let's play DUPLO" or "can we play with Daddy's legos? I promise not to break anything this time..." I'm just happy she likes her blocks and it's something we can do together. As for pet peeves I _haven't_ gotten over, I'd have to give the top slot to stickers, not just individual bits of hard-to-align sticky decals, but the whole philosophy behind them. I remember debating the point with Jamie Berard (Creator designer) at BrickFair New England a few years back. He was actually trying to get feedback from AFOLs on the question of printed bricks versus stickers (the former being generally considered "nicer" and more durable but more restrictive for reuse; and, the latter being more flexible for MOCs allowing people place stickers on the color brick of their choice or omit them entirely if they are parting out the set rather than building the model). My take on it is a bit different: overuse of stickers (or printed elements) is a sign of a lazy design. If you're designing a Ferrari, the model should look enough like a Ferrari that you don't have to cover a generic red toy car with Ferrari logos to 'sell' the model. The form language of the shape should suffice. I'm fine with little title plates for Architecture sets or the occasional clock face or printed window element (and, of course, mini-fig prints are a whole different matter) but over the years, TLG has released more than its fair share of kits that look pretty lame if you omit the stickers. I'd much rather pay a little more for a kit with a few extra pieces that produces an interesting build with lots of reuse potential than, say, a kit with a single big wall panel and a sticker to make the wall "interesting." Which would you prefer, a lightsaber handle, flame, a 1x2 brick w/clip and four 1x2 profile bricks or, a 1x2x5 brick with a sticker of a torch and mortar joints? To be clear, I'm not against stickers (well, that's not true, I'd rather have pre-printed elements) entirely, I'm against designs that _need_ surface prints to 'clarify' the model because the underlying form language is overly simplistic. Which brings me to my other big pet peeve, (non-battle pack) sets that are basically excuses to sell minifigures. Much of the Lord of the Rings/Hobbit stuff (and even some Harry Potter and Star Wars sets) suffered in this regard. I realize that the figures are collectable and that the way some of these toy licenses are written, differencing "action figure" rights from "construction toy" ones, TLG can't sell just the figures, they have to have a meaningful build-able component while still being affordable; but I find it disappointing when the figure overshadows the overall design. My litmus test for this is to build the kit, skip the stickers and remove all the figures and look at what's left. Sometimes it's great (e.g. most mid- to high-end Star Wars ships). Sometimes it's so generic and simplistic its hard to know what minifigure was supposed to be in the scene ("Hmm, tan wall with a sand green roof, maybe that's part of Hogwarts?") . And sometimes it's a real missed opportunity to offer a great build ("Seriously? That's supposed to be the Mines of Moria?") The Creator and City line rarely commit such sins, it's a pity that once one moves into the realms of named collectable mini-figs and licensed themes that the vignettes aren't always up to par. Maybe I'm just older than dirt (I've been a fan of Lego since the days before there _were_ minifigures) but I think of Lego first and foremost as a construction toy, the minifigures are just icing on the cake and should be there to enhance the model, not the other way 'round. I'm not saying they aren't cool collectables, I just think they shouldn't be considered an excuse to sell a mediocre kit.

I can't agree more. In my mind there's a good way and a risky way to do licensing and leading with a modest but high quality line across the price spectrum seems like the way to go. A couple of "stocking stuffers"/impulse buys, a few mid-range kits and flagship model once (or twice) a year for an unproven IP makes a lot more sense to me than three dozen largely forgettable kits that are mostly "background bricks" for some select mini-figure. If the line is successful and the property has staying power, plan to make more later, but the focus should be on quality rather than quantity. Interesting sets with useful generic parts will usually find an audience even if the licensed lego means little to them, but if you bet on the IP alone selling a crappy set for you, and interest in that IP wanes, you're kinda stuck.

From the various articles I've read, I don't think the high-end sets and exclusives are really the problem. I say this for a couple reasons. 1) The production runs on those kits seem to be limited. For example the $800 MF sold out quickly and the four lego stores in my area each started "wait-lists" for people who wanted to be called when they got more. TLG itself send out a mailing asking people if they intended to buy it (presumably to get a sense of how many more they should make) and a second email (to those who'd responded to the first) when new orders were being accepted again. I got mine promptly but five hours later a friend told me his attempt to buy one failed. So, I'm assuming that demand is exceeding supply for its target audience. 2) TLG has repeatedly cited excess inventory and old inventory clogging shelf space at third party retailers as part of the problem. This largely lets exclusives off the hook because they don't compete in the same price range and/or aren't stocked at all by third parties. I just don't see a dozen copies of poorly selling Expert series modular (if there is such a thing) burning precious retail shelf space for months on end. Even Lego Shops themselves just don't put out more than a couple copies of the high-end kits at time, they are just too easy to restock from the back room on demand; why waste prime eye-candy space on redundancy. (now maybe you _do_ a point with respect to some people curbing their low-end purchases to save up for something big, and that _would_ slow inventory turnover, but that's also not a new thing; people do it all the time, even during TLG's most profitable years, so I don't think it's a major factor now). 3) TLG has also cited City, DUPLO, Friends, Technic and basic bricks/creator as star performers in a down year. The only "themed" line that they called out as doing well was the Lego Batman movie. Reading a bit between the lines, that implies to me that it was really the licensed stuff and the media tie-ins where supply was exceeding demand. Such kits have always been the riskiest gamble with respect to an audience's short attention span. Something like the Emerald Night, or a Mini-Cooper, or a recognizable supercar is just a classic build that will always find an audience. But if you guess wrong with something like The Lone Ranger, or The Prince of Persia, or other other "big promise" movies that had no staying power at the box office, you've got a problem because, like the movie tickets themselves a third of the total sales happen in the first two weeks. Sure train AFOLs might grab want the train kit from TLR and western fans might love its stagecoach kits, but those are niche markets compared to kids who _loved_ the movie. Even the one-time savior of the TLG, Lego Star Wars, is not without its risks. Granted there are a handful of iconic ships that will always find an audience, but it's been done and redone so many times that there are also a lot of kits that just aren't _that_ iconic anymore. Perhaps the new Jabba's Castle isn't as cool as a previous version, or giant battle of Hoth is more just a bundle of smaller kits we've seen before, or this "exclusive" minifigure is _so_ exclusive you can't even remember which movie/tv show (let alone which scene) he actually was in or why you should care. Now, clearly, those examples hail from several years ago but I think the concept still applies. Last year there were dozens of Batman, Ninjago Movie, Star Wars, Ghostbusters, DC and Marvel Superheroes, Nexo-Knights, Dimensions, etc. sets vying for shelf space in front of eyes with short attention spans. I find it a little too easy to believe that they overestimated the demand for impulse buys on properties that weren't as popular as they thought they were going to be when they started designing the kits. Star Wars fatigue is setting in across the industry. Physical toy stores are going the way of bookstores in Amazon's wake. And, the popularity of TV properties change faster than scandal headlines coming out of today's White House. I think they need to remember their roots and focus on the building experience. In the past, they've gotten themselves in trouble with theme parks, software, and toys that aren't "lego" (as we love it). I think they need to be careful about over-playing their licensed/media tie-in hands and focus on growing wisely rather than quickly. In that world, quality "expert" sets aren't the problem, they are (part of) the solution.

I threw in my two pence for what it's worth. Good luck with your thesis.

I think we've all heard stories about how _this_ set really took off, and just the instruction book for _that_ set sells for more than the whole set originally sells for; It makes it easy to think that this a get rich quick scheme where no one could ever possibly lose money - but if that were really the case, we'd all be doing it and we'd all be immensely rich. Turns out, it doesn't work that way. There are certainly rare items that command premium prices from people who both desire and can afford them. According to Bricklink, someone paid close to the price of the original UCS Millenium Falcon just for the two gray lattice pieces that came in it, but these are really the exceptions to the rule (and just because someone ASKS for $10,000 for a Mint condition, unopened Green Grocer on eBay doesn't mean it sold for that). As a hobby, I think Lego is fantastic. As a toy that holds its value (both in playability and resale) it's hard to beat. But as an investment? It's right up there with comic books and stamps. People used to go crazy over getting issue #1 of anything, then DC came out with the "New 52" and labeled every issue "number 1". Certain comics are expensive because they are popular and/or historically important and, most keenly, rare. When people got excited about "investing in comics" and buying up issues in bulk, the publishers responded by printing more, making everything less rare and less important, and in the long term less valuable. Even in a field where supply is fixed, like old postage stamps, demand can dwindle. My dad collected stamps all his life, and by the time he passed, his collection was worth a fraction of what he'd paid for it, because stamp collecting is a dying hobby and you have more large collections heading for estate sales than you have people with disposable incomes going to auctions to outbid one another. So what does this have to do with Lego? Well, just looking in my closet I see I have the 3739 Blacksmith Shop and 10193 Medieval Market Village (MMV). Both mint in box; both very popular in their time; both coupled to an evergreen theme (Castle) and both sets that I liked enough to buy extra copies of (apparently). According to Brickset, I paid 40 bucks for the blacksmith's shop 16 years ago and now, based on actual bricklink sales it's worth $271, a 578% increase in value! To put this in perspective, if I'd put that same $40 into an index fund 16 years ago, it would be worth $212 today, so really, over the course of 16 years it really only beat an average (blind) investment by 27% - but hey, if I could find someone to give me a buck and quarter every time I gave them a buck I can still get rich eventually, right? As always the devil is in the details. MMV was even more popular than the blacksmith shop. It's appealing to the same audience, is an even richer set and had a higher MSRP ($100) so clearly I should be able to get even more money for it. Well, Mint-in-Box, its sales history says its worth about $150, still $50 more than what I paid for it nine years ago, but compared to a $100 investment in the stock market (again just an index fund, no active management) over those same nine years? The index fund would be worth $256 - over $100 more value while taking up none of my closet space. I chose these two sets because I happen to own them both mint-in-box and from a "I'm sure this is going to go up in value" standpoint they are/were very similar. Both _did_ appreciate (and will likely continue to do so) but compared to something as simple to acquire and manage as shares in an index fund they didn't fare so well. Taken together, they have a resale value of about $421, compared to $468 which is what I would have today if I'd invested in the stock market the same amount of money the same day I bought these sets. This doesn't even address the large number of sets that don't show any real appreciation over time (10223 Kingdom's Joust, another lovely Castle set, sold for $120 new six years ago and today commands the staggering price of $125, which, after you account for inflation, is actually about 15% less (in buying power) than the original price). There will always be stories about an "Inverted Jenny" or "Action Comics #1" fetching some new record high at auction or articles like this one (where by some twist of fate it seems I own 9 out 10 of the them - yea me - didn't realize that until five minutes ago...) but these are lottery fantasies, not an investment strategy. If you love Lego, play with it. If you're looking to invest, learn about investing and pick a vehicle that balances your sense of risk against your expectations on return (then spend the profit on Lego). The collectables market is unpredictable, even when you really know the product and while you _might_ turn a profit in an absolute sense, you need to consider time, space, inflation what that same initial investment could have netted you if you'd invested elsewhere.

Personally, I'd love a Medieval "Modular/Multi-build" theme, a sort of send-up to Classic Castle while also going beyond the traditional approach of yet another 32x32 footprint stronghold kit, backed up by a half dozen minifigure vignettes. You could have stand-alone buildings, like the two featured in the Medieval Market Village set (10193 - which could have been two $50 sets just as easily as a single $100 one ) and the one in the Blacksmith shop (3739), all of which have enough part variety to allow for simpler theme-appropriate alternate builds. In addition to "village" buildings, you could also have strongholds (also with simpler alternate builds) that combine like modular buildings (add extra stories to make towers taller, pin kits together to build larger keeps). And if you don't like the castle modular they suggest, each kit is a ready, color appropriate bulk parts pack for MOC-ing your own. Unfortunately, there's a right way and a wrong way to do "modular" and "multi-build" and TLG has experience releasing both. Creator 3-in-1 and Creator Expert do it pretty well; The Lord of the Rings line (which played surrogate for Castle for a few years) not so much. They released The Battle of Helm's Deep (9474), which was an okay castle, but a bit puny for LOTR fans given the scale of the place it was supposed to represent. Then they released the Uruk-Hai Army set (9471), which was basically a battle pack with a small wall section that could act as a "modular" upgrade to Helm's Deep. This always struct me a bit lop-sided. I can understand from a cost standpoint why they did it that way, but it left me feeling like I was patching a puny castle build, one dinky little wall segment at a time. Of course, that was better than their approach to The Black Gate (79007) where the official kit is really only half the original subject matter (Hey TLG, it's "the Towers of the Teeth", not tooth!) and you have to buy two copies just to build one complete model. (But then I suppose the same complaint could be leveled at the Horizon Express (10233) if you happen to think that a TGV shouldn't just stop in the middle). I actually don't mind buying multiple copies of a kit to get alternate builds simultaneously, but the alternate builds need to be compelling in some way. I thought their idea of multi-builds for the rolling stock of the Santa Fe Super Chief train (10025 & 10022 ) was brilliant when I first encountered it (these were 2-in1 and 3-in-1 builds back before it was really a 'thing' and all the alternate builds were also train cars) I think a modular castle line could work, especially if coupled with multi-build medieval buildings where the alternate builds complement both the civilian and martial primary builds (Rampart and Trebuchet or Mill with Waterwheel; Rampart and Siege Tower or Village Tavern and Well; Gatehouse with Drawbridge or Jousting Tournament, etc.) I think the trick is making each set _feel_ stand-alone and complete while making each alternate build compelling enough that people will want to buy an extra copy to be able to get both builds simultaneously. Of course the issue of buying multiple copies also speaks to the earlier debate of generic themes versus licensed (or highly directed internal) IP. If I'm going to buy three copies of a set, I probably don't want multiple copies of distinctive, pre-named characters. According to Brickset, I own 37 Harry Potters (24 different variations, plus duplicates) - out of seven books and eight movies there was only one time having multiple Harry's would actually be useful for recreating in Lego and even then you'd only need a few, not three dozen. If I were buying a 3-in-1 Medieval and/or Modular Castle line, I'd want the mini-figures to be as generic as possible so I could build up armies and populate angry mobs with ease, 37 Harry Potters (or even a dozen Lance Richmonds) just wouldn't have the same appeal.

The New Elementary did an article a few years back on the new/transitioning arch molds. Discussion of the changes to the 1x6x2 start about the 3rd paragraph down, if anyone's interested. As for getting a mix of old part new part in the same kit, what can I say, it happens. For me, I experienced it most with jumper plates, probably because they're a common part, distributed in quantity within a given kit and have gone through a couple design changes over the years. While, as a seasoned MOC designer and builder with occasional OCD tendencies, I find it a bit annoying, I have to agree with fred67 (above) that TLG likely does _not_ consider it a defect as far as their kits are concerned.

Speciality/collector item bricks aside, I'm going to go with the Lattice 3x28M03.2 in light blue-ish gray as a basic piece with a history of ridiculous after market bricklink prices . This piece is pretty common in black and brown (usually used for rigging in sailing ships) but has only appeared in three kits in light grey, the _least_ expensive of which was the original Ultimate Collector Series Millenium Falcon (UCS MF) at 500USD (which had two). The other two kits were a Serious Play parts part (which is where all the excess inventory Lattice parts from the MF wound up in 2010 and had six per kit) and in the new UCS Millenium Falcon (which has two). This part in this color has always been rare, in part because so few were produced initially and also because most people who have the kit it came in aren't scrapping their UCS MF's for parts. When production of the UCS MF ended, the excess inventory of this particular part went into Serious Play team building kits (also very pricey) where the majority likely ended up in the hands of non-AFOL adults who didn't realize how rare the piece was or even that there was an aftermarket economy for Lego parts. It's entirely possible that many of these parts were lost, destroyed or are still sitting in a company closet in bins with hundreds of other random parts waiting for the next company retreat/team building exercise. In black or brown this part typically sells for 6-7 USD, but in grey, the average price is about ten times that and I think the record price on bricklink is on the order of 430 USD (which would make bricklinking the original USC MF cost nearly twice the original retail price for the whole (5000+ piece) kit for just the price of two required parts.) Prices may have eased a bit with the reintroduction of the UCS Millenium Falcon last year (which both puts this part back into production and undercuts the whole market for people trying to bricklink their own version of the the original), but demand is still pretty high and the new UCS MF is still routinely out of stock.

For my larger MOCs I usually use a modular base system where each section consists of a baseplate (or several medium to larger plates, the cost can be similar to a large baseplate), then a partial layer of bricks ( technic bricks on the edges, regular brick (usually 2x2's) on the inside) with a finish layer of plates (color appropriate to the MOC) on top. The layer of interior bricks doesn't need to be solid, it just needs to support anticipated load points and span seams between plates in the upper and lower layers. The technic edges allow the use of technic pins to assemble large bases from more manageable-sized sub modules. Technic stud-pins can also be used to connect a decorative SNOT banding to the finished outside edge of the base. While this approach does use a fair bit of material and gives you a thick base (4-5 plates), I've found it to be very durable, flexible (with respect to configuring the modules to custom geometries), and leaves plenty of room for running wires for lights or motor functions.

Actually I have a Ph.D, have studied cognitive and developmental psychology and used to be part of a NSF funded research team specifically exploring the developmental impact of young children playing with Lego. There's a lot of literature on the topic of narratives, cognition and play (even broken out in to solo, parallel and interactive play) for young children and while I doubt most people posting here have ever read it, most of the anecdotal and "intuitive deductions" I've seen here aren't that far removed from actual findings that represent man-years of scientific study. Do all the professionals agree, of course not, but the majority find that kids embrace narratives, whether of their own creation or directed. Kids with rich fantasy lives tend to have (or develop) better abstract reasoning skills, visualization skills and tend to be early bloomers (academically speaking). This is a mathematically proven correlation, the question of _causality_ is still up for debate (i.e. Does having a good imagination make you "smarter"? Does being "smarter" mean you also have a good imagination? Does using bubble-gum flavored toothpaste make you smarter and help your imagination? Who knows...) Some studies have shown that children who engage in fabricating their own narratives score higher on intelligence and visualization tests than children who favor directed narratives ( the He-Man effect), but, to my knowledge, I don't think these have been found to be definitive. Brain scans however do show that children asked to make up a story from scratch (or seed) show much higher levels of activity than those of the same children being asked to recount a story they've been told repeatedly. Some people use this as the basis for the argument that an open narrative is "better" for a developing brain than a directed one. The place where a directed narrative does hold an advantage over an open ended one is in interactive play. In solo or parallel play, the child might be near other kids, but the narrative is his/hers alone, the other kids are doing other things. In interactive play, a shared narrative requires a "buy-in" by all parties (e.g. if Suzie says the block is a dinosaur and George insists it's a teapot the game breaks down). A directed narrative is ideal for bridging this gap (i.e. "Let's play Star Wars"), it establishes a lot of common ground to open up what would have been a solo experience to a social one - a valuable skill, but this a different one than what is being exercised by creating open-ended narratives. Even solo play in a directed narrative is not _bad_. Star Wars had a whole extended universe of books and comics that were, in essence, people extending a well defined narrative in new directions, but some studies do suggest (and some pre-school philosophies have been built up around the idea) that the more "original" and open-ended the narrative becomes, the better. Both types of narratives offer benefits and a multi-player, open-ended narrative might be the best of all worlds, but it is also the hardest to achieve in practice.