ShaydDeGrai

Try getting married, that certainly impacted my spending habits. I put all my Lego purchases on the same card, my wife gets to see the bill and then she reminds me that she'd like to remodel the kitchen one of these days. It's not a perfect system, but it does make me think twice about buying too much at once. To be fair, however, my wife is a very understanding spouse of an adult fan of Lego (VUSAFOL) and usually objects more to the space my collection occupies rather than the money (usually…)

For me it usually boils down to the trade-offs between quantity and time vs. price. I have the luxury of living within reasonable driving distance of five PaB wall locations (four stores and a Discovery Center gift shop) so if they happen to have the parts I need a cup is a quick and dirty solution (I also happen to be on good terms with one of the store managers who runs the wall so an unopened case of a particular part is also an option for really generic stuff that I just need in bulk) Same day gratification is the definite plus here. The down side is the limited and unpredictable inventory and the burning desire to take an hour or more to use up every void in the cup (sometimes with random parts you can't even imagine ever needing) just to make the price of the cup more justifiable. The biggest advantage of BrickLink is that _somebody_ out there _somewhere_ has exactly the part you're looking for. I've seen parts and colors that TLG haven't made in years available crop up with fairly simple searches. The other core advantages (more BL vendor specific) are, from my experience (and I have a fairly short list of preferred venders that I return to often), price and promptness. My BL suppliers almost always beat online PaB prices and most are very prompt fulfilling orders. I deal exclusively,with domestic, USA, vendors and often get my parts within 3-5 business days of completing the invoice. The biggest down side to BL, for me, is that to get parts in the quantities I'm usually after I have to split things up over a half dozen vendors which results in paying more postage and, invariably, the order with the parts you need first show up in the last package to arrive. I've never tried BrickOwl, but always generally assumed it was similar to BL with a few cosmetic modernizations. A number of my preferred suppliers are listed with both. Online PaB, Parts and Pieces and Lego Education (often good for new Technic parts in quantity) have the advantage of quantity, vary widely on price and almost always take a lot longer than BL orders. S@H PaB is usually significantly pricier than BL for small parts and the last time I ordered from them it took 7 weeks to get a box from Denmark; on the flip side that box included a number of lots where I had ordered several hundred of particular pieces that would have translated into scores of separate BL orders had I gone that route. I've only tried Bricks and Pieces once and that was because for the particular items I was looking for, the price was actually competitive with BL and, again, I could get the quantities I was after from a single supplier. Shipping time was again a factor, but not as bad as my S@H PaB experiences. I've had reasonable luck with Lego Education for bulk orders of larger technic parts (often beating BL prices) but they make up for it by charging PaB prices on the smaller stuff (20 cents for a gear that sells on BL for 3, 10 cents for a pin you could get 2 for a penny, etc.) so it really helps to be an informed consumer. The shipping is better than other official Lego parts channels though, usually about five to ten business days. BTW - while I _am_ an ex-educator, you don't need to be affiliated with a school to order from Lego Education, they'll sell to anyone with a credit card.

I only started publicly exhibiting my stuff a few years ago, so I can still remember asking myself the very sorts of questions you're wrestling with. I've seen very rich models on the scale of DTC modular buildings realized with just a few thousand parts, I've also seen huge builds with hundreds of thousands of parts that are, frankly, a bit tedious and repetitive. Size alone doesn't dictate an impressive display. Size is great for getting people's attention at a distance, but as you draw in your audience to take a closer look, you should reward them with details, visual jokes, and other reveals. It is possible to be both big and boring, so design in layers to keep things interesting from the long shot to the close inspection; give your centerpiece a general form that looks good from across the room such that people will say "hey, what's that?" and then, seed the work with points of interest that aren't even visible from across the room so that the audience keeps looking for the next reveal. Never let your audience feel that they've seen everything your piece has to offer before they're standing nose to nose with it (assuming it and they have noses…) A good design can speak for itself in any scale, be it nano-, minifigure, technic, or any arbitrary ratio. I built a tiny model of Minas Tirith from the Lord of the Rings that fit inside a 25 cm cube. It was a big hit, won an award at the show, got lots of people asking for instructions to build their own, etc. The selling point for that guy was really the very fact that it was so small - huge subject matter, lots of details, crammed into a tiny package. Focus on making the scale match the level of detail you plan to offer and you should be fine. If you're a fan of minifigures, use them to define the scale when appropriate and get the out of the way when not. When I built my Argonath sculpture, I included minifigures specifically because they were so tiny compared to the Pillars of the Kings and I wanted my audience to focus on the sense of grandeur even though the statues themselves still sat quite comfortably on a table top. On the other hand if I were to add a figure or two to my Helm's Deep model, it would totally destroy the effect I was shooting for. The Uruk Kai wouldn't have to scale the walls, they could just step over them. This approach works very well. I usually plan on having one "signature" piece that's hard to miss and then an array of smaller works for people to discover once I've gotten their attention. This is partly a function of good showmanship and partly a logistical matter. Big displays are hard to transport and more prone to breakage while in transit. Smaller things are (usually) easier to pack securely and can be crammed in as an after thought in the boot of your car once the big stuff is secured. This allows you to bring a broader variety of your work to the show while still having a high profile calling card. In terms of what I show, I usually don't have too much of a "plan" its more of a loose "vision" and I try to stay as flexible as possible. I've got show coming up in about 10 weeks and I still haven't decided (or built) my signature piece yet, let along figured out what else I might toss into the car on packing day. The one place where I DO plan these days is in actually designing my bigger pieces for travel. The Pillars of the Kings was a bear to transport and suffered a bit of damage both to and from the show. I learned my lesson. When I built my Barad Dur, I specifically architected the design so that it could come apart into manageable, secure sections. Realize that, as an exhibitor, you're going to have two different audiences, viewing your work under very different circumstances. The most obvious of these is the public viewing crowd: lots of people with kids, adults who haven't touched Lego in years (if at all); lots of noise and competition for people's attention. This is where having a "big" (by scale, lights, motion, whatever) signature piece can help draw in a crowd, but to really close the deal, be willing to engage with them - answer questions about your work, ask them about their own interests and hobbies. Your work should certainly speak for itself, but don't be afraid to be the guy making the introductions. The other audience you'll find at a show are the other exhibitors. These guys can take their time and inspect every piece no matter how big or small, during non-public hours. I know people that make it a point to photograph each and every model the even before the show. This audience are other AFOLs and, unlike the look-but-don't-touch-crowd of public hours, your fellow exhibitors are going to be interested in _how_ you built things, they might ask to handle (ALWAYS AS PERMISSION) your work or discuss some clever building technique you've used. Use the the show as a chance to network, as well as to learn and to teach. I'm not a member of a LUG, so of the shows I've attended, I would return empty handed just for the chance to catch up with some of the regulars I've met over the years - having the opportunity to share my work is just a bonus. On the matter of things going missing, I've never had a problem personally. I know people who've lost a minifigure here or there (always during public hours) so I'd advise you to a) don't put out any figures you'd have a hard time replacing if they "wandered off" and, b) don't leave figures unguarded during public hours. You, personally, don't need to be glued to your display for the entire day, but make it a point to have someone at your table playing watchdog (for both minifigure snatching and ill behaved children who want to "look" with their hands) at all times. Trade off shifts so no one person feels chained to the table. Most of all, have fun - that's why you're going in the first place.

I used to be a big movie junkie and have followed the Oscars for many years (though, admittedly, in the past 10-15 years its been with more of a morbid curiosity than anything else) and, frankly, last night's awards (and the nominations before them) really didn't surprise me very much. Trends swing back and forth with the Academy. There was a time when big, successful pictures would also rake in Oscar gold. There was also a time when a picture that opened in January had as much change of getting recognized as one that only played in New York and L.A. between Christmas and New Year's (in limited release to qualify as "coming out" in a given calendar year) rather than be summarily forgotten. I remember people complaining in the wake of major sweeps like Titanic (record setting box office, 11 Academy awards) that the Oscars had become a self congratulatory, "the richer get richer" sort of indulgence at a time when public schools were having to cut art and music programs from the curriculum for budget reasons. That set the pendulum swinging in the other direction to mitigate the "Oscar doesn't care about the little guy" and set in motion long standing trend where being commercially successful can be a detriment regardless of the quality of the product and political correctness is king (this was also the time that ushered the phrase "and the winner is..." out the door in favor of "and the Oscar goes to…" because, you know, we're _all_ winners…) Of course, "the little guy" by Hollywood standards is still pretty big, but even by that yardstick, look at last night's nominees: 8 films for best picture, most with budgets under 50 million USD and a _combined_ box office take (to date) adding up to less than half the revenue movies like Avatar or the Avengers made in their first month of release. In this context, American Sniper was the "blockbuster" of the group (earning more than the rest of the field combined) and, despite a respectable 6 nominations, only won one award for sound editing. Many people (correctly) predicted that as the popularity of the film grew between nomination time and the close of voting, most voters would flock to a smaller picture with a less famous director. Similarly, the Academy has frequently tried to make itself seem more, for lack of a better word, important with respect to politically correct causes, hardship stories, etc. rather than reward the (often needed, highly enjoyable, but far from "high art") escapism and fantasy of "popular" Hollywood. It's been said in the past 15 years or so among actors that if you want to win an Oscar, you need to: be very attractive and play physically ugly or emotionally unpleasant character; and, be of sound mind and body while feigning a character with serious physical of mental impairments. Bookies used this formula to predict the winners for Best Actor and Best Actress the day after the nominations this year and guessed right (again). So that puts our "lowly" Lego Movie in context with three strikes against it: profitable, popular, and escapist. While those who actually saw the film know that there was a "deeper" message or two about creativity, individualistic thinking and family bonding experiences, given that it was already shuffled off to the animated feature category, most nominators probably dismissed it out of hand as a two hour infomercial for Lego. As for the song-that-shall-not-be-named, I really think that losing to Glory was a political move, not a measure of the merit of the piece. Personally, I didn't particularly care for Glory as a musical composition and found the lyrics to be mediocre (go ahead flame me in PMs, I also prefer coffee ice cream over chocolate - feel free to tell me that opinion is wrong as well…) I'm not belittling the subject matter of the song or the importance of the message, but as a stand-alone _song_ it struck me as middle of the road gospel choir fare, I've heard better original offerings from the various a cappella groups at university as an undergrad. It I really think the song won as a proxy for Selma and the message _that film_ (which the Academy was lambasted for snubbing in the press after the nominations were announced) wanted to convey. Take away the film and the the song doesn't really stand on its own at least not in the context of other previous winners in the category. Out of curiosity, I sat down with one of my Academy award books and looked at previous winners in the Best Original Song category. From 1970 to 1990, I could recall the melody and a fair bit of the lyrics to _every_ best song winner save two. That's 18 songs from at least 25 years ago and the reason I remember them is not because I'm a great music buff (I'm not - BTW, I'm lucky to know that the Grammy's are given for music let alone who's winning them) but because _those_ songs are still getting played on the radio, used in movies and TV, even piped into stores at the mall. I just don't see Glory having that sort of staying power a quarter of a century from now. In contrast, it may take 25 years for me to get that accursed Lego song out of my head...

I'm a reasonably patient person so I try to wait to take advantage of double (or the rare triple) VIP points offers when I can, but, at least in my case, I think the general answer is "Yes, I have lots of rewards points because I spend ten to twenty times that much in actual purchases from LEGO" I also probably spend too much on non-LEGO suppliers such as Bricklink vendors and Amazon, but that's a different issue. When you stop to think about it, all the VIP points reward system is, is a 5% off coupon where the value of the coupon can only be redeemed against a _future_ purchase rather than the current one. So, to get a $150 kit "free" it really does involve spending $3000 on other kits. Even if all your purchases were in October (double points month), you're really only getting a 10% coupon, so you'd still be spending $1500 for that "free" modular (sort of like a polybag promotion on steroids…). If you see a kit on sale at Amazon for, say, 12% off MSRP, it's actually a better value than getting the same kit from LEGO even during double VIP points promotions and you don't have to commit to a future purchase to realize the savings. These days, I _am_ one of _those people_ who waves a VIP card and "magically" gets a high end set for (seemingly) pocket change, but I have a lot of empathy for people who simply can't afford to be in that position. Growing up as a 1st generation immigrant I kept asking my folks for Lego but they kept squandering their money on silly things like milk, bread and the occasional meat product that _didn't_ come from a can, so I appreciate what it means to have the luxury of a "disposable" income to indulge in personal vices and Lego is my vice of choice. I don't think it's anything to brag about, but it's nothing to be ashamed of either; it simply is what it is. As vices go, it's fairly innocuous compared with smoking, drinking, gambling, womanizing, etc. When I compare what I spend on Lego what some of my old college mates spend on ski trips, art collections, fine dining, etc it's really not that outrageous an expense. What I spend on Lego, I make up for in the budget by not buying something else and I've worked long enough and hard enough that the "something else" is definitely something I can live without - as opposed to trivial things like food and shelter back in the good old days I can relate to this. I am blessed with a VUSAFOL (very understanding spouse of an adult fan of Lego) but even she has her limits. My wife has expressed a strong desire for me to either tone down the collecting or build an addition on the house to get it out of the way -- this spring I hope to refinish the attic

I usually save them up for my birthday (which was just the other day actually). This year I picked up the UCS Batman Tumbler effectively free (just paid taxes) and I have enough left over for either a free Detective Agency Modular or the UCS Slave I for ten bucks (I'll get them both eventually, I just haven't decided which I want as my 'birthday freebie'). Spending them down $5 here, $10 there, just doesn't seem as gratifying as walking up to the cash register with one of the biggest sets in the store and paying less than then the guy in front of you who just bought a couple CMFs. ( The look on the clerk's face when they do a double take at your current point balance is just icing on the cake ).

Same here, though I usually skip the traditional 13 coils in favor of just 5 or 6. I'm also fond of the tumble hitch. I prefer the noose if I can slide the element out of the loop (such as anchoring to an axle). If I need to tie something through a hole in a single piece, I prefer the hitch. Both have the advantage of being really strong but easy to undo. Remove the element from the loop of a noose and apply pressure the the top of the knot and the knot unravels from the inside out. With a tumble hitch, where the the knot has two leads coming off of it, pull on one lead and the knot gets tighter, pull on the other and the knot unravels. It can be a pain to tie compared to a simple square knot, but you don't need a pair of tweezers, a magnifying glass and a ten minute long diatribe of profanities to untie it somewhere down the line.

The primary reason why nail polish chips (when used as originally intended) is because the finish is actually more rigid than the nail itself. Your nails are constantly growing, flexing, stressing under the pressure of your pulse, etc. whereas the coating itself, once it cures, is pretty stiff and brittle and actually bonds to itself better than it bonds to your fingernail, so when when something has to give (say, in response to a jarring impact) it tends to shear off in chips rather than flex or get riddled with tiny cracks. Way back in the days of Man, Myth and Magic, Blackmoor, and the very first editions of D&D, I used to use nail polish to distinguish the +10 values on my 20 sided dice (which where annoying numbered 0 to 9 twice rather than 1-20 as they are more often seen today). It worked great and, since the dice were just as rigid as the finish (if not more so) I never had a problem with chipping even though those guys were routinely being bounded off of table tops and each other. I've rarely use nail polish on Lego (just because I don't have much cause to do so) so I defer to the minifig customization crowd on specifics, but I see two issues that you should consider: 1) The issue of flexibility - as mentioned above, nail polish is prone to chipping when a rigid coat is applied to a flexible surface. Most LEGO parts are rigid so you're usually safe, but some minifigure hairpieces and accessories are made from a more flexible plastic. The larger the area you're painting and the more flexible the base material, the more likely the polish will eventually flake off. A dab of color here or there will probably be fine though. 2) The interaction of ABS and acetone - ABS is the dominant plastic used in rigid LEGO parts (they also use polycarbonate for the trans-colored bits and I'm not sure what the flexible parts are made from) and acetone is the base solvent used in most nail polish today. When combined, acetone will diffuse into the ABS. In small doses this can be a good thing for a paint job in that the nail polish really can penetrate the surface of the brick and get really good (mechanical) bonding to all the little pits and scratches that are too small for us to see with the naked eye. Over doing it, however, can compromise the material. Contrary often sighted belief, acetone does not actually break down the chemical structure of the ABS, but instead it permeates the material acting like a lubricant between molecular chains, allowing them to move past one another when faced with external stresses. This makes the ABS structurally weaker, more prone to flexing, twisting and getting squished out of shape. This is a mechanical diffusion process not an aggressive chemical reaction, so it takes time and is a function of the duration of exposure, the concentration of the acetone, the density of the ABS and the surface area exposed to the acetone vapors. In nail polish, the acetone content is fairly low (or replaced entirely by other chemicals) so you shouldn't have to worry about it "eating" any of your parts, but if you make a mistake and try to correct it with an acetone based nail polish remover you might end up making the part more prone to surface scratching and loss of clutch power in the future. Like damage caused by UV light exposure, it's one of those things that impact how ABS ages even if the immediate changes aren't readily apparent.

For this year's Expand the Winter Village Contest, I humbly offer the Conservatory, Florist and Garland Shoppe, home of Heather the Holiday Elf On the rim of Santa's Village, Amid the ice and snow, There stands a small oasis Where trees and flowers grow. A green thumbed little elf, Named Heather, minds the stalls, And tends the firs and flowers, That decorate the halls. Pointsetta, ameryllis, And springs of mistletoe, The holy and the ivy, And christmas cacti grow. And other elves, they help her Prepare for holidays, With grand trees fit for trimming And bouquets that amaze. They make the wreaths and garlands That decorate the land And boldly state for all to see That Yuletide is at hand So in that dark of winter, Let Heather set the scene; May your New Year bloom with life renewed And your christmas ever green. Thank you for your consideration (and please forgive my feeble attempt at poetry)

I'm about as far removed from the target Friends audience as one can get while remaining within the same species and even I can see that the only thing Friends is "guilty" of is offering an alternative with specific appeal to a certain audience. If you want to address sexism, ask why little girls are drawn to pinks and pastels in the first place or why a seven year old thinks an anorexic waistline is more appealing than a purely abstract form. Don't blame TLG for meeting people's expectations, take issue with a society that indoctrinates kids to those expectations from a very early age. It's true that prior Lego Group efforts to appeal to "girls" have ranged from blatant pandering to borderline insulting, but by comparison Friends, Princesses and the upcoming Elves lines are really good offerings. Now, personally, I'm not really a fan of the mini-doll, but then I'm not moved to tears by mini-figures either so I'll leave that debate aside; if some children find the big-foot Barbie design easier to relate to then the tubbie-townie, fine, at least _something_ is engaging their imaginations. The color palette of Friends, while bright and pastel, is far less "pink-centric" than prior lines. The kits have a genuine design aesthetic to them that justifies the palette well beyond simply pandering to some long held societal stereotype. Does anyone look at Picasso's blue period and say the works are "intended" just for boys because it's blue and his rose period was sexist and promoting stereotypes of girls because he used a lot of pink? No, he used cool and warm colors to convey mood and highlight contrast, just as any artist is trained to do. Now Picasso was a Master and we're just talking about toys here, but the role of palette selection in design dates back to cave paintings when man first discovered pigments, so I'm not sure under what rock anyone who can only see sexism when encountering the color pink has been living. Heartlake City, as a whole, is a clean, bright, happy place and sets depicting it are rendered in clean bright colors, where is the sexism in that? Gotham City is dark and gritty and it gets rendered in blacks and grays, almost an homage to Film Noir. Each is an ideal setting for imagining a certain type of story for a particular audience, and that audience is self-selecting: no one is telling a little girl she can't like Batman or telling a little boy he can't play with a cabin cruiser because it's "the wrong" color and it's the leisurely "dolphin cruiser" model rather than the "sharks with lasers strapped to their heads amphibious assault" craft. Most of all, though, I think the really win for both the Friends line and the kids who receive them is that it's finally a Lego offering that plays well with the rest of the system. Unlike prior attempts, these kits offer a real building experience using fully compatible parts at roughly the same scale as "traditional" Lego offerings. They may pander a bit to a particular audience in order to get noticed, but once the (mostly) girls get their hands on them, they offer that audience the same mental challenges, tactile feedback and rewards in confidence and sense of achievement as any comparable (by piece count and build complexity) Lego kit. I used to work in engineering education and when _I_ think of expressions sexism I think back to all the times supposedly smart people used to say things along the lines of "girls can't build stuff because they have a poor sense of spatial relations and don't know how subsystems fit together." The truth (at least as far as published research goes) is more along the lines of girls often have a retarded sense of spatial relations because they aren't given sufficient play opportunities to exercise that part of their brain in early childhood and this leads to frustration and avoidance behavior with respect to technical challenges later in life. I've known a fair number of talented female engineers and nearly all of them were fans of Lego growing up. I've also seen my fair share of college age kids (male and female) struggling to learn engineering skills and concepts and it seems like it was always the ones who didn't do crafts, or play with construction toys or, in general, make an effort to wrap their heads around a creative process and then realize a vision with their hands as a child, who end up switching to other majors. So, I'm of the opinion that if Friends gets a child who might not otherwise be interested in Lego to start building, thinking and creating, then who cares if it's pastel in color and has happy ponies prancing about. By encouraging girls to embrace this supposedly "sexist" toy as a child, we might actually be helping them the sharpen the very skills that will help them to stamp out sexist attitudes towards women in science and engineering in the future.

Welcome Zeev, You'll find we have some wonderful LEGO shipwrights here and most people here are more than willing to share tips and advice. Being in Boston also gives you a handy selection of real-life inspiration to draw from; as has been mentioned the USS Constitution "Old Ironsides" lives over at the Charlestown Navy Yard. She's the world's oldest commissioned naval vessel still afloat and is an excellent example of a square-rigged heavy frigate. She saw organized combat action in the War of 1812 and is a veteran pirate hunter. On a smaller scale, Boston also hosts a century old reproduction of the mercantile brig Beaver (one of the three ships raided during the Boston Tea Party). The Beaver is moored in the Fort Point Channel near the Children's Museum and is also open to the public (with admission to the Tea Party Museum). In the summer months, a pair of schooners, the Liberty Clipper and the Liberty Star sail from Central Wharf (near the New England Aquarium) as part of Boston's array of tourist trap activities. Over on Fan Pier, a red sailed historic schooner named Roseway makes frequent port and also offers fundraising cruises to support the World Ocean School. If you're like most city dwellers (Boston, New York, where ever) with wonderful touristy things in your own back yard, you probably haven't done any of them since that school field trip in 6th grade, but if your shopping for inspiration, its hard to beat actually getting on a real ship, seeing, not just how she looks, but how she feels and functions. There's nothing like a sail on an historic tall ship to get the creative juices flowing (just not in December, it's way too cold out there right now ) I look forward to seeing what you come up with. Welcome aboard!

I'll be the first to admit I'm really not that into the whole CMF thing; there are a few here and there that I've picked up because they're cool, but I'm definitely not a "collector" when it comes to these guys. That said, I must admit I do look forward to each and every review WhiteFang posts about these guys. The reviews are informative, entertaining and exceptionally well done. I really appreciate the effort, historical context and creativity that goes into them. WhiteFang, thanks once again for a wonderful article. (and while I'm not a CMF collector, I definitely see several Elite Galaxy Troopers in my future…)

For what it's worth... The Tower of Orthanc is a great source of black parts and, if you have the room, a pretty impressive display model. I found the build a bit repetitive though and the hospital gown design (i.e. open in back) was a little irksome. I expect a design like that in my Winter Village sets but I found it made Orthanc feel a little doll-house like rather than menacing and powerful. I liked the new Sandcrawler better than the 2005 model. The new design is more detailed, has a better interior, and was more fun to build. I'm not really sure how they compare from a "play" standpoint in that a) I don't really play with 'em I just display 'em, and b) they really seemed aimed at different age groups. The 2005 felt more like a kids model, whereas the new one has more of a grown-up (or at least teen) aura to it. They are certainly different enough such that, just because you have the old one is no reason to skip the new one. If I had to pick Sandcrawler vs. Othanc, I'd go with The Sandcrawler even though I'm a big LOTR fan. If you're into _building_ complex models, it's the better experience. As for the Tumbler, I'm still waiting to get one of those. I've been trying to get my hands on one since double VIP points in October but every time my local store gets some, they sell out the same day. I think it will be a great build and the photos look fantastic, but until I get my hands on one I really can't compare it to the others.

It sounds like you've got a budding engineer on your hands there. Who knows, maybe some day she'll be designing our first permanent colony on Mars.

I started with "slabbies" (or whatever people call them these days). I guess they were sort of the Neanderthal of the minifigure world. I think I got my very first one in a present my aunt sent over from Scotland, it was a little "forklift" set (even though the lift was really a solid platform not a fork) and the figure was red with a black hat. Slabbies didn't have arms, jointed legs or even facial printing. Of course having just one doesn't make for good play, even Robinson Crusoe had Friday and the occasional tribe of cannibals, so I remember being really excited when the 485 fire truck came out a short time after, it had three (count 'em, three) figures. I remember replacing the heads on some of them with 1x1 rounds so I could have humans and androids (androids didn't wear hats, but later would eventually get trans-red heads and wear helmets) Sure, they had all the pose-ability of a brick, but backed by my childhood imagination, it was good enough. I think my very first "modern" mini-figure came about three years later. I'm pretty sure it was this guy: For a long time I like my slabbies better, the redesign seemed too cute, too cheerful. As my collection grew, I made all my slabbies into "androids" with basic 1x1 round heads and used the blank (actual) heads I freed up on mini-figures who I felt shouldn't be smiling so much. Of course these days, the expressions are a lot more varied, ranging from happy to sad, laughing to grim, and, in the case of LOTR "combat faces" even painfully constipated. The minifigure has certainly come a long way, but I'll always remember my android army of slabbies fondly.

If I'm just assembling a kit per the instructions, any flat surface will do: coffee table; dinner table; ottoman with a board over it; TV dinner tray on my lap; whatever. If I'm working on a MOC, I work almost exclusively in my home office. There I have both a dedicated table set-up as well as my desk itself if I need more room. My parts cases fill one wall and when I'm in "full MOC" mode my office becomes a disaster of trays, cases, tubs, tins, baggies and piles. My wife is very understanding of my Lego hobby and I respect that (and her) enough to sequester the construction zone so that she doesn't have to deal with the spillover of WIPs. I never work on the floor though (unless you count working on something so big that _it's_ sitting on the floor so I can reach the top comfortably while seated). I did grievous harm to one of my knees some three decades ago and the ability to get down to floor level and back up is a becoming more and more of luxury these days for me.

Welcome aboard, glad you're here! Don't worry, I won't hold that against you I've got a PhD and taught at university for five years before coming to my senses... There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a collector, there's a lot of them around here actually. As for being creative, I think everyone has a creative streak in them somewhere. Some people are better at expressing that creativity than others. It's really just a function of having the courage to fail, the willingness to learn and the dedication to try again. We're generally a friendly and supportive bunch so if you decided you want to do more with MOC'ing there's certainly no shortage of people here who can help with questions, techniques and feedback.

Welcome Trish! Like you, I grew up "Lego poor" with just a few small precious sets to my name, never enough bricks to build the creations I envisioned. I've made up for a lot of lost time since coming out of my dark age, but I still never seem have enough bricks to build what I want. It's an addiction, but as vices go, you could do a lot worse. I think it's wonderful that you've found your way back to Lego and embraced the hobby both for yourself and as a bright path for your daughter to follow in years to come ( though once she outgrows Duplo you might need to share (or better yet, buy duplicate sets )) The Creator line is a great way to build up a collection at a reason price and a good place to discover parts and building techniques that may not have even existed when you were growing up (the Parisian Restaurant is a great set, by the way, well worth the money). As for being a latecomer to the Winter Village sets, if you want to revisit the retired sets it might be more cost effective to download the building instructions (available for free from Lego, Brickset and others) and just buy (or substitute) the parts separately from Bricklink vendors. Some of the prices kit speculators/scalpers ask on eBay for a MSIB retired set can be prohibitive if all you really want is the build experience and/or finished model. I look forward to seeing your creations, and don't be self-conscious about posting a first effort. I doubt there are very many people here who started with million piece collections and design skills that would rival Renaissance Masters. Sharing our ideas and efforts, learning from one another, inspiring others, it's how we all began and how we all get better over time. Welcome again!

Welcome! That's a lovely MOC, thanks for sharing. It sounds like it's almost time to set up the trains 'round the Christmas Tree again. I do the same thing. Be careful though, as has been pointed out, it can get addictive. Every year, an increasingly larger winter village springs up around my tree complete with trains, depots, multiple courses of track, etc., In recent years, we had to stop putting presents under the tree because there just wasn't any room left.

Welcome, TuftedDuck! I live in the USA but my dad's from Dundee (after the family moved to the "tropical" south - we're originally from the Isle of Lewis) I like Edinburgh, as cities go (and I've been to a lot of them), it's one of my favorites. I'm also fond of Sci-Fi and Fanstasy -- I'm recovering from a recent, multi-year binge of Lord of the Rings MOCing and am currently working on builds inspired by Frank Herbert's Dune (the book, not the movie) for the 50 year anniversary next year. I look forward to you sharing your work, insights and opinions. The more the merrier.

Actually, I've modded things out the other way. My WV set-up always starts with trains and a train station that I MOC'd a few years back, so for me it always the official sets that seemed a little small. I liked that the cottage fit right in without needing to be padded, extended or otherwise built out so that it didn't look like a glorified outhouse for the crew of the Emerald Night. I haven't had time to put together Santa's Workshop yet so I don't have a good sense as to how that one will fit for scale, but I've found that padding the WV designs to make them a little taller and/or a little wider is often easier than trying to shrink them (plus it's a good excuse to buy two copies to make sure you have the right parts in the right colors ).

I did a "little" bit of shopping this weekend, catching up on a few things I've been meaning to pick up, including: 21109 Exosuit 75055 Imperial Star Destroyer 42009 Mobile Crane MKII 79017 Hobbit, Battle of the five armies 79018 Hobbit, The Lonely Mountain 42030 RC Volvo Front-loader 42028 Bulldozer 79016 Hobbit, Attack on Lake Town 70161 Tremor Track Infiltrator 70165 Ultra Agents Mission HQ 10220 VW T1 Camper van Plus, I got a bunch of freebies (Black Friday holiday sets, turkey, reindeer, snowman, train ornament, etc) and (with double VIP points) I now have enough points to get a free UCS Tumbler (if they ever get them back in stock). You know it's been a good day of Lego shopping when the store manager has one of the clerks help you load your car for you.

In the quantities that I amass them, I don't really care about wear and tear (I'm not even sure if I've ever used the same separator two building sessions in a row, I just grab a couple from the bin when I need some). As for greater functionality, I _do_ appreciate the tile prying edge on the handle and the undersized technic axle pusher but I prefer my old gray ones because they've got a bit more heft to them and they fit my hands better. From the heel of my palm to the tip of my middle finger is 23 cm / 9 inches, so as a tool, the new design is a bit puny for my use (I can hold several in my hand, close my fist and they aren't even visible anymore) making the "classic" business end less effective for me than the old design. Then again, I think they scratch things up a lot less than metal tools (or teeth) have done when forced to resort to such in the past so I still use them, but I have over a hundred at this point and that's getting a bit ridiculous.

Hi Cindy, Welcome to Eurobricks. I'm also a fan of castles (and have been on a bit of a Lord of the Rings binge lately). I also really enjoyed the Haunted House set and if you can get your hands on one for a reasonable price I doubt you'll be disappointed. If you can't find one, however, fret not, there are several resources around the web where you can download the building instructions, get the required parts list and even buy the individual bricks and mini-figures. It's obviously more work than just getting the complete kit in a box, but it's an option and people around here are more than willing to point you in the right direction if you want to go that route. Welcome again and I look forward to see some of your creations.

I'm certainly among the first to embrace the concept of discounted LEGO and freebies, but beyond the shopping aspect, this can also be a social networking opportunity if you want it to become one. If nothing else, go a bit early and socialize with the other invitees while you wait for the store to open. If you're a member of a LUG it's a chance to recruit new AFOLs, if you're not, it's a lightweight way to meet other AFOLs in your area without having to break into an established clique. There's always the Creator line. Even if the models themselves have limited appeal, redundant copies of Creator sets and Modular buildings are usually reasonably priced sources of versatile bricks with a nice color palette. I got a couple town halls and a couple fire stations one year just to bulk up (no pun intended) my collection of "town MOC friendly" brick. I can neither confirm or deny that, but based on the numbers I've had in the past and the conversations I've had with one particular store a manger, I find the theory plausible. I doubt it's just an alphabetic listing as my last name in well into the alphabet but my numbers have always been on the low side. I suppose my store could just be inviting a lot of people whose names begin with Z, but more likely there's some sort of ranking involved related to spending habits. I'm told it varies by store as a function of physical size but is usually in the 2 to 3 dozen range (plus guests). There are actually 4 stores and a discovery center a reasonable distance from where I live and I remember the manager at my preferred store saying that they had one of the smallest footprints in the area but did the biggest sales volume. Unfortunately that meant that there were "avid" customers at her store that didn't get invites (because she just just didn't have room for them) who probably outspent invitees at other stores because the larger stores were allowed a bigger guest list and a lower cut-off threshold. I don't know how much of this is true (or outdated) information, but again, it seems plausible.