ShaydDeGrai

First of all, congrats to Peter Reid, to quote the old film Von Ryan's Express: "If one gets out, it's a miracle" The skeptic in me, though, really questions the timing, the batching and the ultimate selection. As Faefrost and others have pointed out, there were plenty of reason why the various projects might have died in review, but, truth be told, there were probably plenty of reasons to reject the exo-suit as well. Now I actually like the exo-suit - I'm pretty sure I voted for it - but the lovely little model that Peter Reid created won't be the same model CuuSoo actually ships. I think it is safe to say that TLG will rebuild the concept embodied by Peter's model to use parts currently in production, stronger ("Lego-legal") connections, parts on scale with a certain age-range recommendations, and a part count to keep its price in line with whatever the average supporter claimed thet they were willing to pay. By the time the redesign is done, will this model be significantly different from the old Exo-Force Mechs or any of the several mech/robot creations previously offered in the Creator line? (I'd like to think so, but CuuSoo's track record has yet to impress me) The skeptic in me thinks that TLG has been sitting on rejection results for months waiting for a "close enough" proposal just to avoid making a video where they announce that they are rejecting everything. I mean no disrespect to Peter's fine work, but I can't help but think that his proposal caught a break because TLG's public relations might have been pressuring them to accept _something_ before AFOLs lost what little faith they had left in CuuSoo. They've rejected so many proposals at this point, I think they _needed_ an idea they could produce cheaply (even if similar things had been done before) just to distract the audience while they sweep another 70,000 support votes under the nearest rug.

This is purely my opinion so discount it appropriately, but I think strings and tubes are the only "official" Lego parts where cutting is acceptable and, in the case of pneumatic tubing, is an anticipated aspect of the part's life cycle. From an engineering standpoint it makes sense that one would "right-size" pneumatic tubing and I even recall a few kits back when the pneumatic system first came out that came with one long tube and the official instructions told you to cut it to certain lengths. So, as far as the cutting action is concerned, _I_ don't consider it the same as "brick mutilation" where, say, someone took a razor saw and X-Acto Knife to shave the tube off the bottom off of one 2x2 plate and sawed off the side walls and tube of another then glued the second inside the underside of the first to make a double-studded, single height plate. Cutting an element that was designed to be cut pales by comparison. Now the second part of the question becomes what do you do with the tubing afterwards? Waste not want not is a long standing Lego tradition so that certainly justifies keeping odd bits around and using them in creative, non-traditional ways. The only place where I see the issue of an "illegal" connection rearing its ugly head comes back to my first rule: "Is jamming part X into part Y subjecting either part to unexpected strain that could damage or deform the parts?" This can be tricky to figure out when mixing materials, particularly in the case of hoses vs. PC or ABS because they are so much more elastic than the rigid members and are designed _to deform_ (it's how they connect to valves and pistons in the first place) without suffering (extraordinary) permanent damage (everything wears out eventually). In the case of flex tubing, those elements are designed to, well, flex; so really if a flex tube the only member in the system that is getting deformed (shy of kinks and side-wall collapse), does it really count as damage? The thing to keep in mind though is that in a static system, the forces have to balance. If one element is squeezing another (say a block with a bundle of short pneumatic hoses shoved up its tube) the compressive force on the inside element is balanced by a tensile force on the outer element. Both elements are subject to deformation but, depending on the materials involved, some elements deform (and recover from deformation) more readily than others. I think it's very difficult to draw a line in the sand when you start to use tubing as a structural member because you're treading on several razor blades at once: If you don't apply enough compressive force, the connection may be too weak for its expected role in the model. If you put it under too much force, you risk deforming the members that are applying that force. I think it's a foregone conclusion that it's an application we'll never see in an official set (as I doubt it has the strength to withstand the play habits of a seven year old) but I wouldn't go out of my way to report you to the Joinery Police for using one in a static display. _I_ don't think it's "legal", but as crimes against Lego go, it is at worst a misdemeanor.

Congratulations and many, many thanks for the thoughtful reviews and quality content you've all contributed to this site over the past five years. Here's to many more years of outstanding articles for a very appreciative audience. Keep up the great work!

I'd have to side with Aanchir on this one. Being "off the gird" is not the same as being "out of system." Were that the case, elements like hinges and turntables wouldn't exist. Based on TLG presentations, chats with other builders and my own lessons learned from pushing the envelope a tad too far on occasion, I feel that the four things to consider when deciding what is "illegal" are: 1) Does it place the brick under unnatural, persistent strain? 2) Is the connection strong and stable enough for its intended use in the model? 3) Can it be undone without resorting to extraordinary means (teeth, pliers, paper clips, finger strength of an elder titan, etc.)? 4) Did you need to mutilate, file, drill, glue, melt, etc. any part to get it work in the first place? As far as I'm concerned (not that that is worth much) if you answered "yes" to any of these questions, perhaps a better solution is in order. Of course, some of these rules are more subjective than others. For those whom I haven't already bored to tears, I will elaborate. Rule one, (strain) comes in many forms (compression, tension, torquing, etc.) but usually boils down to being just slightly "off the grid" such that a connection can be "made to work" with enough force or a willingness to let the parts deform over time. You mention round walls for things like a Roman Coliseum, these could be legal or illegal, it all depends on the parts used. If you simulate a round wall with actual hinges, you're fine. Likewise, if you build a bent wall by alternating, say, 1x3 bricks with 1x1 round bricks, this is also fine (down to about a 26 stud diameter circle, much smaller and the corners of the brick start to press against side-walls of the round) as you're effectively making your own (limited swing hinge). The place where many builders push the limit is when they build regular one stud thick walls and then use the micro-tolerances in the "rectangular" block and elasticity of the ABS to "bend" the wall into a broad curve. When building curved walls, _my_ general rule of thumb with respect to the strain rule is: "if it can't hold its shape when the two ends of the wall aren't connected to anything, it isn't legal. If there's spring-back (a tendency to become less curved when pressure is no longer being applied) there's too much strain on the bricks. My micro Minas Tirith MOC follows this rule and, I think, is a good example of going "off the grid" without putting undue strain on the bricks themselves. Rule two (strength for purpose) I find to be the most subjective. No all connections are of equal strength and I'm willing to accept a more delicate connection for a static display model than I am for a "toy". Spaceships should be "swooshable" without fear of bits flying off or being crushed when you pick them up "the wrong way". Technic models and trains are supposed to move and carry other things so they need to be rock solid. An architecture set, where the primary goal if to look good sitting on a shelf, on the other hand, can get away with "gravity fits" and under-supported elements. Sure the Leaning Tower of Pisa isn't the most stable kit out there and Falling Water becomes "Flying Pieces" if you flip it over, but for reasonable "anticipated use" they are good enough to be "legal" Rule Three (ability to undo) usually relates to the coefficient of friction between polycarbonate and itself (which is higher than that of PC to ABS or ABS to ABS) but also deals with "impossible to undo" connections. For example, in the Technic system, particularly with box frame parts , it is possible to create assemblies with length 2 axles that completely bury both ends of the axle and give the user no access path for disassembly. In addition, many connections that violate rule #1 (strain) violate this rule as well, such as jamming a 1x3 plate into the pin holes of a 1x4 Technic brick - it takes a fair amount of force to make the connection and similar (though harder to apply evenly) force to break it afterwards. Rule Four (purism) usually goes without saying. I'm willing to accept things held in place by string, magnets and rubber bands (so long as they are LEGO string, magnets and rubber bands) but I draw the line at filing off bits to make a gap go away, boring a hole in the side wall of a brick to accept a randomly aligned stud, gluing bricks (or parts of sawn up bricks) together to create "new" elements, etc. I'm just not a fan of brick mutilation.

I started small in 2006 with a modest request to run a loop of track around the base of our Christmas tree for a holiday themed train I built. Then each year more and more buildings stared cropping up. Now it takes longer to set up the winter village under the tree than it does to decorate the tree itself. Presents get piled against the wall on either side as there's no room for them under the tree anymore. My sweet wife is a lovely and very understanding woman

I actually like that it mixes up the heights a bit. Certainly it means you need to be a little more careful about what's sitting next to it, but I think varying the scale a bit gives modular city a more organic feel, just like buying an extra Grand Emporium to make it a five story building rather than just three. I suspect that the part count is misleading in that it seems like there are lots of small bits (tiles, feathers, flowers, etc.) as opposed to structural brick and it probably comes off feeling like a much smaller build than most of the line. Scale-wise it likely comes off as puny compared to the fire house or town hall. Overall, though I'm quite happy with the outcome. Now that I'll grant you. It is an awkward/abrupt transition that could have been better done, but what set isn't without a nit worth picking here or there? Still, that is the sort of thing that, if it bothers me once I have the set in front or me, I'll just tweak to my tastes.

Wow, based on the designer's video alone I think this may have just become my new favorite of the series. I've got a birthday coming up in January, I think I know what I'll be putting on the top of my wish list the next time my wife asks what I'd like.

I usually try to avoid anything that needs to be shipped over from Europe as Amazon (for sets) and Bricklink (for parts) are usually cheaper and often have as little as a 2-3 (business) day turn around time, but on those rare occasions when I had to resort to Official Lego PAB web orders (because Bricklink couldn't handle the volume without splitting the order over a score of venders and I didn't want to deal with that hassle) I've found that it seems to take forever (okay, maybe two full weeks or so, it just feels like forever when you're tracking your package twice a day hoping for progress) to get the package _to_ the US, but once it makes it to US shores, I get it within a day or two. I don't know where the bottleneck is (packaging robots in an automated factory running MS Vista that need to be manually rebooted every few hours? drug sniffing dogs at customs that think ABS smells like cocaine? DHL reviving transatlantic blimp traffic as its carrier of choice? who knows...) but I do take comfort in finally seeing a US location on the tracking log because once it's past US customs it's virtually on my doorstep.

Personally, I don't bother to label every bin, bag, and box. I tried it once thinking it would make me nice and organized; that was when I first started to realize the breadth and depth of my collection. It dawned on me that having four thousand plus labels staring back at me wasn't actually making me any more organized, it would just be pretty, well-branded clutter. That said, I _do_ find it helpful to have "Macro-level" labeling, such as "Black Std Plates 1-12 " on a storage box that, well, holds in sorted bins black rectangular plates with up to 12 studs - pieces ranging from 1x1s to 2x6s to 1x12s, etc. This allows me to quickly distinguish it from, say, "Black Mod Plates 1-16" which holds similarly sized rounds and angle plates. Due to the frosted nature of the plastic on the lids of the boxes, without the labels I'd need to open up the case to know which box holds which. Once I have the (proper) box open in front of me the labels become something of a moot point as I can see the actual contents of all twenty or so bins at once - so why label something if you already know what it is? I know some people who claim that exhaustive labeling helps them to know when they are getting low of a particular part and to have its proper part number for buying more at S@H PaB and/or Bricklink. I'll agree that knowing the part numbers can be helpful, I'm not convinced that the time it would take to inventory and research my entire collection would ever amount to a net savings of time and energy over just looking things up and browsing through search results when I need a specific part. Anyway, that's my take on it - your mileage may vary.

Thanks for the wonderful review, very useful indeed. As for the set itself, I'd put it firmly in the middle of the pack based on what I'm seeing at the moment (haven't pick one up yet). As subject matter goes it's okay, not great, but okay. It certainly is recognizable, but there are more visually interesting and/or historically significant subjects that are still awaiting their turn on the Lego stage. I give it high marks for the use of SNOT, clever building techniques and (generally positive) color management. From this review, I think it will be an enjoyable build that produces a nice display piece. As for the designer, I liked the Imperial Hotel better, but at least this offering is light years ahead of his Big Ben clock tower (which is the only Architecture set I've ever felt compelled to MOD - out of the box the proportions are just wrong) As pieces go, I think there'll be a lot of useful MOC'ing elements, but economically speaking we'll probably have to wait until this is 30% off on Amazon before it become cost-effective to scrap for parts. I'll likely pick one up the next time I happen to be The Lego Store but I won't be rushing out to get one immediately. It's a good model that fits well with my collection and I want one, but it just doesn't make me want to rush out and get a copy on day one the way prior offerings like the Imperial Hotel, Robie House, Brandeburg Gate and the White House did. Like the Leaning Tower of Pisa, Falling Water and Sungnyemun Gate, The UN set strikes me as worth having but not particularly compelling.

What kind of AFOL are you? Are you a member of a LUG? No. From time to time, people from NELUG have tried to "recruit" me when I see them at events but I've yet to feel any real compelling reason to join up. I know several of their members by name and they usually recognize me when I show up at an event, but we don't really socialize. Are you actively participating in your LUG? If yes, what do you do (e.g. helping out during events, making displays, etc.)? While not actually a member, I have on occasion helped "police" small hands at events when the official "guardian" of a display needs to step away for a bathroom break or to grab food. If no, what's holding you back? Time - never enough of that; Location - I live in the city proper and don't feel like taking an hour to drive 15 miles into the suburbs in rush hour traffic after work to make the meetings Activities - from what I gather, they're mostly a shopping and dinner club, meeting at a Lego Store and going to dinner afterwards; yes, they build things for events (and even set the record for longest monorail - twice ) but I kinda get the impression that spending time with the LUG would be taking time away from my "build time" rather than enhancing it. Maybe I just don't know what they do - maybe I just don't know what to expect from a LUG Focus - My local LUG is _REALLY_ into trains, which is fine, I like them too, but not to the detriment of everything else Lego encompasses. I remember talking with one member who really wanted NELUG to exhibit at Boston ComicCon but was getting a lot of opposition because other members didn't see what ComicCon had to do with trains and didn't think SuperHero ideas were worth pursuing. Force of Habit - I've been a Lego-loner for nearly half a century now. Even just sharing my work with others is something I've only recently (past couple of years) started toying with; I do enjoy chatting with other AFOLs, but my creative processes have always been rather solitary activities. Would you consider supporting more actively the online AFOL community (e.g. Eurobricks) as moderator, regulator (indexing, ...), making set reviews, etc.? "Consider" probably, follow through with, who knows. If the answer is yes, where do you possibly see yourself contributing? I could see myself doing a review here or there or maybe writing an article for some place like Brickset. Friends often ask me for purchasing advice and query my opinions of new sets already so writing things down for general consumption wouldn't be much of a departure from daily life. Words and opinions usually come (too) easily for me; Hell, my posts in the forums usually fill an entire screen - if anything, I need an editor to tell me when to stop typing... If the answer is no, what's the reason (e.g. lack of time, ...)? To quote Star Trek: Generations "Time is the fire in which we burn" or the original Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory "We have so little to do and so much time - no wait - strike that, reverse it!" Speaking of which, I'd best get back to work now...

Getting back to the original question(s) of where does the money go, there are really two different economic models in play; a product based one, and a collectables based one. Now I make no claim to to anything about the specifics of TLG's operation, but in the generic case, a product-based price point is driven by amortization of risks and overhead. That is to say that, when you buy, say a 2x4 brick, you aren't just paying for the raw material that went into it - in fact the actual cost of the ABS might not even be the lion's share of the cost of the part - you're paying a tiny fraction of ALL of the overhead incurred to get that part out of someone's imagination and into your hand. There are hidden (and not so hidden) costs at every step of the way. Designers need to be paid. Let's say a designer cost TLG $100K a year (completely arbitrary number to make the math easier) in salary and benefits and spends, on average two and half months prototyping and refining a set before it gets signed off on for production. That's an average of 5 sets per year or $20k worth of the designer's time that needs to be factored into the asking price of the finished set. You might say, "well if they make a million sets, that's only an extra 2 cents per set..." which is true, but the amortized expense doesn't stop there. The designer's management and support staff also have to get paid. The art department that designs the box and instruction manual have to get paid. The reviewers that tell the art department they did it wrong or that the designer's prototype needs to go back to the drawing board need to get paid. The market researchers and legal team need their expense covered. Pretty soon, two cents here, two cents there starts to add up and there isn't even a product to sell yet, it's just an idea and a prototype. In fact, it's possible that the entire idea might get scrapped at this stage for one reason or another and all of the expenses incurred developing it will need to get folded into the expense of a (potentially unrelated) more successful venture in the future. Then there's the question of the individual parts. Not only do you have amortization of the design and legal overhead of the parts themselves, now you have to factor in the overhead of the molds and molding machines that _make_ the parts. They have to be designed too. The molds wear out. The injection presses need to be maintained. The whole factory needs to be climate controlled, protected from the elements, etc. Even in a highly automated factory (like the one's owned by TLG) the robots themselves need to be maintained and that means more personnel costs, spare parts, redundant equipment, insurance, etc. It may be hard to look at a Lego brick and think that part of its cost is driven by the cost of hydraulic fluid in Mexico (and it's probably fractions of a cent) but it's in there. Even things like the size of the individual part can impact things. Obviously a 2x10 brick uses more material than a 1x1 plate, but it's more complicated than that. Industrial injection molds rarely make only one of something at a time (particularly if the part is small). Let's say it costs $100k to make a mold (again, an arbitrary number, I've heard of complex (non-Lego) molds costing 5 to 10 times that) and that mold can be used a million times before it needs to be replaced. The size of the mold allows it to make 5, 2x10 bricks at once. This means that in the life of the mold it should produce 5 million parts and factored into the cost of each part is 2 cents ($100k / 5 Mil) to cover the cost of the mold. Now a mold with the same form factor might be able to produce 100 1x1 studs at a time or 100 million parts over the life of the mold. Assuming the milling costs and useful lifetime for this mold were comparable to the first, the 1x1 stud is only incurring a tenth of a cent overhead per part to pay for the mold. Just as when you talk about design, you need to factor in the cost of failed designs; in manufacturing you need to cover the cost of non-salable product by raising the cost of every salable one. Parts that fail quality control (misprints, molding defects, color issues, etc.) still need to be paid for. The good news is that ABS plastic is easy to recycle (as a material), the bad news is that recycling it into a new part is a different process than making a part from "virgin" pellets and dye additives. The failed parts need to be detected, sequestered, checked for color and substance contamination, fragged back into pellets, etc. Corporation wide, recycling can be a cost savings compared to just throwing out the defective bits, but it isn't "free", there are costs - and where there are costs, end market prices go up. So now we have a design and the parts to build it; now we need to assemble things into kits. This means filling stations on an assembly line. More personnel and computer costs to figure out the optimum "fit" for which parts should go into which bags. We need to minimize the likelihood that bags will be missing parts (customer service request raise the price of EVERYBODY's set, not just the one that was missing something) while at the same time not going overboard on giving away free extras (sure, it builds good will, but good will alone doesn't pay the electric bill..). Here you're paying to configure the line, maintain the robots, paying for packaging that most of us just throw out, quality control, quality control rejects, more energy costs, maintenance costs, storage, real estate, taxes, etc. It turns out you've paid a tiny fraction of major operating expenses just to get the kit in a box, and you _still_ haven't managed to get the box to market. Here's where everyone who touches the box drives up the price; from loading and shrink-wrapping shipping palettes, moving those palettes from rail to boat to plane to truck, to crossing political borders, to breaking palettes and loading hand carts to stocking shelves. All along the way you've got personnel costs, fuels costs, taxes, tariffs, etc. In the course of shipping, some things will get damaged (crushed, torn, water damage, peed on by drug sniffing dog at customs, whatever) the manufacturer needs to anticipate a certain amount of loss in the distribution channel and price the surviving product accordingly. By distributing the product in advance of actual sales, you are also incurring another level of risk as well. Let's say you send equal amounts of a given product to Germany and Japan for distribution of local stores. Then after the fact you find that demand in Germany is much higher than anticipated while demand in Japan is almost non-existent. In Japan, you're paying to store kits that are just collecting dust and in Germany, you're potentially losing sales to competing products because the kits people want to buy are on the wrong side of the planet and Johann's birthday is tomorrow so they buy something else. Now you're dealing with lost sales and the question of whether to redistribute the unsold kits from Japan or to make more kits to send to Germany pay to store the kits in Japan until someone decides they want them. People often comment on how relative cheap LEGO is in the US - or conversely, how ridiculously expensive it is elsewhere (Hi Australia, I'm thinking of you in particular). They mistakenly think that the rest of the world is subsidizing the US market. I strongly suspect that the truth is closer to the fact that, in the US, considerable state and federal tax dollars are spent each year to keep transportation costs low, specifically to make it easy for manufacturers to bring goods to market cheaply. Fuel is cheap (by global standards), air freight is subsidized, the rail system is optimized for cargo rather than people, interstate borders are open with few inspections and no tariffs, 98% of the population lives within 15 miles of a major highway and if the post office doesn't go where you live, chances are pretty good your nearest neighbor is either a scorpion or a bear. While regional tastes vary, the country is big enough and diverse enough that you can sustain a market selling just about anything if the price is right. Still, even with these advantages, even people in the US have to pay _something_ for the cost of shipping from producer to retailer (and probably again from retailer to consumer in some cases, but that's usually a separate line item). Finally, you can start to talk about margin and mark-up - this is where all the costs of failed ideas, damaged products, licensing fees, poor investments, infrastructure, production, distribution, taxes, personnel, etc. have been met and people actually want to make a profit. In general, manufacturers, distributors, wholesalers, retailers, etc. all want a slice of the pie and the MSRP needs to be high enough to keep everyone happy while low enough to entice the consumer. I have no idea what margins TLG shoots for or how they split it with major retailers like Walmart Target and Amazon. Obviously, they get to keep more of the profit if you buy directly from S@H or a Lego Store, but those operations have costs too so it's not like TLG is laughing all the way to the bank every time you buy directly from them (it's probably more of a polite chuckle when no one is looking...) Even with all this logic behind a MSRP, it's not carved in stone. The retailer's themselves may entirely ignore it to suit their own purposes. A store might price gouge if it realizes that there's little competition in the area and that it's typical customer isn't internet savvy. Conversely a store might price bait, deliberately selling a particular product at a lost, gambling that once you're in the store you'll buy other items than more than make up for what they lost on the advertised item. Sometimes it just comes down to liquidity. Boxes gathering dust on a shelf or in a warehouse are a liability, cash on a balance sheet is an asset. Retailers often need to get product that isn't selling out of the way to get the capital and space to acquire product that _will_ sell and MSRP (and often the real, original cost) goes out the window in favor of a more liquid position. I'm sure this long missive has probably bored most to tears by now, (sorry, used to be a professor - I have a bad habit of running over at the keyboard...) but it really only scratches the surface of what _really_ is going on behind the scenes when you take a hard look at the workings (and expenses) of a major corporation turing ideas into products with realistic MSRPs and how that plays out to consumers in a product-based market. In the after-market case, as Aanchir and others have pointed out, the collectables market is quite simpler, particularly with LEGO. It's much more of a supply and demand abstraction. As far as I know, most Bricklink "stores" and eBay "vendors" aren't the primary occupation of the proprietors. Perhaps some of the larger ones are, but (anecdotally) it seems that most are run out of basements and garages (i.e. spaces that are already paid for by _something else_) and run by people part-time (i.e. their primary income, health insurance and retirement comes from _something else_) and they amortize their costs/risks by being part of a larger network (BrickLink, eBay, etc.) so they don't need to spend thousands of dollars in advertising just to get noticed (unless they want to). The whole complex mess of amortizing design costs, manufacturing costs, defects, etc. gets distilled down into one simple factor - supply; and the consumers' collective taste dictates the demand. This means that an individual piece might actually sell for less than it's original cost to TLG, while others, particularly mini-figures, might sell for much more. In the collectables market, the distribution chain is much shorter - one doesn't pre-position inventory in dozens of markets hoping for a random sale as Lego does stocking the shelves of Target with a variety of products across the country. Consumers in the collectables market typically know what they want, are actively looking for a specific thing and have a pretty good idea of where to look for it. The expense of getting the product to the consumer isn't an issue until the sale is already on the table, the channel is direct, the risk is less and the price reflects that. Certainly, there are expenses involved in buying and selling (any) collectables and risks that demand for X will fall off or, as a part-time vendor, you'll need capital quickly for something else and be forced to liquidate things as less than true market value, etc. but I've found that, at least with Lego, the collectables market is more about passion than the hard economics of the consumer product market. People often sell off excess inventory to subsidize their personal hobby rather than make a genuine profit. Sure, there are plenty of profiteers out there - you'll find that with any collectable from beanie babies to baseball cards - but I think the majority of BL vendors are actually consumers as well and being part of the the community, rather than standing outside of it trying to feed off of it, helps keep aftermarket prices reasonable for everyone.

While I appreciate the sentiment you're going for, I think the wording of your question belies a fundamental disconnect with the nature of crowd sourcing in general. Although I'm sure we, as AFOLs, might consider getting a set produced a "victory" I think it is wrong to think of CuuSoo as a "competition". I've seen postings from Lego community reps and also heard one speak in person basically saying that the proposal-support-review mechanism of CuuSoo should the thought of as a _process_ not a _contest_. Fans should consider every proposal in isolation, to support it (or not), and to focus comments on the project at hand, not how it compares to other projects, past present or future. If there are perceived "competing" projects or designers on CuuSoo, it is only because _WE_ (not TLG) have declared them to be so by choosing to support one but not the other. Getting back to the question of "consistently successful" project designers, TLG just wants greater brand visibility and hopes for new, fresh ideas out of CuuSoo; Who and what gets to 10k _first_ it less important to them than why and how they got there. The brand advertising mission of CuuSoo is achieved just by the fact that we're talking about it here and now. As for the crowd-sourcing aspects, the individual ideas really need to succeed of fail on their own merits, regardless of where they came from. From a business case standpoint, it makes no sense to ignore a good idea simply becouse it originated from someone who has already had other good ideas. As I said, CuuSoo isn't intended to be a competition, but even if it were, it wouldn't be a feel-good, "politically-corrected" game of T-ball where nobody keeps score and everyone goes home with a trophy whether they played well or not. It would be more of a popularity contest - irrational, fickle, and ripe for abuse - because that's what _we're_ guilty of making it every time we see two similar projects of quality and chose one over the other rather than supporting both, or throw a tantrum on-line because some other designer "stole" our idea (that we copied from existing IP anyway), etc. There are over 5000 active proposals on CuuSoo and the fact is only the smallest fraction of them are ever going to inspire official sets. Looking at this process as a competition between designers or even proposals makes about as much sense as fighting to cut ahead in a line to buy lottery tickets for fear that the guy in front of you will get the winning ticket. I'd like to think that originality, skill and execution of ideas matters a lot more with CuuSoo than dumb luck, but the truth is good projects still get rejected for all sorts of reasons already, I don't think we need a "spread the wealth" mentality as an extra hurdle.

I don't know, but in some cases it borders on a self fulfilling prophesy. As Blondie-Wan points out, there is historical precedent for imagining a $50 cap on CuuSoo kits, but I think the stigma of a $50 glass ceiling for "experimental" stuff goes deeper than that and, at least in my opinion, is pretty arbitrary. I remember back when word first leaked that TLG gotten the LOTR license. I was participating in various forums where people were comparing wish lists for what sets would come out. Even there, there was a strong cadre of nay-sayers that insisted that there wouldn't be a single set in the first wave with an asking price over $50 and that there'd never be a big flagship model unless the first wave sold really well. As it turns out, the nay sayers were half right/half wrong, LOTR _did_ debut with the typical range of price points but (depending on your opinion of Helm's Deep) one could argue that it did take until this past summer for a real "flagship" model to come out (Orthanc). I don't know where this idea that unproven ideas have to be kept under $50 began (perhaps someone who totally misinterpreted the whole concept of polybag promotions?) but with CuuSoo, it goes from a misconception to a detriment. As someone who likes large, complex builds, I've lost track of the number of times I've seen postings (both in CuuSoo threads at various forums AND on the comments of individual projects themselves) where self-appointed gatekeepers are actively telling AFOLs not to support big projects because they won't get made and that one would have to be pretty stupid to disagree with them. These pundits cite the magical $50 boundary or 500 part "limit" as if TLG had carved that in ABS somewhere (which, as far as I've seen from postings and talking to community reps, they have not). The idea of a "don't bother supporting this BECAUSE Lego will never produce it" mindset makes absolutely no sense to me. It's like looking at the roster for your favorite sports team before opening day and deciding that, since you're convinced they won't finish as the champion of the playoffs, you're going to boycott the entire season and anyone who roots for the team must be a moron. Aside from being a free advertising vehicle for the brand, CuuSoo is also a channel for AFOLs to tell TLG what we _want_ them to produce and how much we'd be willing to pay for it. If WE withhold support from all but the 500 part, <$50 proposals, we're sending the message that we're not interested in things like the beautiful Scorpion's Soul Pirate Ship (it really blows the official Imperial Flagship right out of the water). Yes it may be unrealistic to expect them to actually release _that_ model as proposed, but by telling TLG that at least 10,000 people out there are willing to spend $400 on a really impressive ship of the line rather than yet another $99 skiff gives them something to think about. Yes, the UCS Sandcrawler was rejected. but with 10,000 people saying that they wanted a bigger, more detailed version of the model with lights and motors, and would pay an appropriate price for one even though that already own the "official" one that came out a few years back - that had to resonate. Even if CuuSoo couldn't produce _that_ set for licensing reasons, the Lego Star Wars group would have to be blind and deaf not to realize that there's a demand for a UCS Sandcrawler whether it comes out of the CuuSoo group or not. I think it is useful to post approximate part counts when proposing things on CuuSoo so people have a better basis for guessing what they'd be willing to pay for a set. I also think it's vital that supporters be realistic about their price estimates when they vote for something (I knew one guy who always entered $1 for everything because he thought Lego was overpriced and felt he was sending a message that the should be cheaper - another mindset I just don't get...), but withholding support _because_ a set is "too big" or would be "too pricy", I think, sends exactly the wrong message.

Thanks Sandy - great feedback for all of us. I'm not an Heroica RPG person, but I must say I enjoyed this little build - it took me back to my old AD&D days. Congratulations to all for some really wonderful and inspired work.

I have both but perhaps I'm the wrong person to ask because I _like_ both of them as well. It's a bit like asking is chocolate ice cream better than coffee ice cream (assuming you like both flavors equally in the first place). Personally I'd give a slight edge to 6866 because (and these are purely personal issues) a) I was always a big Magneto fan, b) there's a fair amount of dark red in the chopper and I rather like that color for MOC'ing purposes (the black and dark bley are pretty useful too), and c) for it's size, it was a pretty good build. Things that did nothing for _me_ were Wolverine's motorcycle and an abundance of flick-fire missiles - been there, done that, not a selling point... The truck in 6867 was not bad but it reminded me of builds I'd done several times before in various Creator 2-1 and 3-1 kits and really didn't feel like I was breaking much new ground. Still, its a nice model, nice build made from eminently MOC-able parts. The figures weren't a big selling point for me because I already had the 6869 Quinjet Aerial Battle so they seemed largely redundant (of course if I didn't have 6869, I'd probably feel differently).

Do you have a lot of LEGO sets, which occupy a lot of living space? Not a "lot" of living space, I bought a bigger house so the percentage occupied by LEGO went down considerably... Did you buy many LEGO sets, but never open. and keep it unopened for years? (thinking about resale, regift, part-out LATER, but never happened?) I do have a backlog and a "rainy day stash" but I do get to them eventually. Did you buy many LEGO used pieces but still sitting in the bins and never have time to sort them out? Not at all, my current unsorted parts would easily fit inside a single 55 gallon oil drum, that's not "many" at all... Do you have have many unfinished MOCs from..like years? Yeah, why should MOCs be any different than half the DIY projects I've yet to finish around the house? Do you keep all the instruct books, all the boxes..even the LEGO club magazines. the sticker sheets and LEGO catalogs? even the plastic number bags?? Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and no - I draw the line at plastic bags (and if I have multiples of the same set, I only keep one box) Do you think "I have too many LEGO pieces" but still buy some more when you think it is cheap enough? No, I think "darn, I've got the wrong pieces for this project, will have to fix that" Do you not only buy some LEGO sets. but also some watches, key chain, playing cards, magnet or even eraser/notebook? Don't be silly, I let other people give me that stuff when they want to buy me a gift, know I like LEGO but don't have a clue about what I already own. what do you think ? As vices go, it's better that smoking or gambling - at least it has resale value for my next of kin if my collection one day tips over and crushes me to death

I think this is really the key issue. The ideas of "expense" and "value" are really relative and context dependent. It's been said that a "reasonable price" is one where both the buyer and the seller walk away from the transaction feeling that they have gotten more than what they gave up; That sense of "gotten more" really goes beyond a question of price tags and currency conversions. It's more a question of how much innate value (liquidity, pleasure, uniqueness, status, sentimentality, etc.) you place on what you paid or sold, versus how much value (same "soft" metrics) you place on what you got in exchange. This opens up a larger question of how much value do you place on all the _other_ things that you DIDN'T buy in order to make THIS transaction possible. If I look at a $20 LEGO kit, _I_ usually think it's a bargain because where I live $20 will buy you lunch, or _one_ ticket to a movie theatre with enough left over for popcorn and a drink so long as you don't "supersize" anything. Twenty dollars just isn't a lot of money in my (locally inflated) economy compared to what it was when I was growing up. On the other hand _I_ place a lot of innate value on LEGO (probably too much, but whatever) so even the "pricy" kits seem worth it to me compared to what a dollar can (and can't) buy elsewhere. My wife and I went out to dinner last night, nothing terribly fancy, but the final bill (with tax and tip) was more than what Jabba's Sail Barge was selling for at the far end of the mall (just to be clear, I'm not saying that I like LEGO more than a night out with my wife I'm just saying it's not hard to spend over a hundred dollars on things as simple as grabbing a bite to eat while running some errands). Now I've also been to places like Nebraska (for those EB members who've never been to the USA, it can be easy to forget how big and non-uniform (socially, economically, racially, politically, religiously, etc) the US really is) and, although they "enjoy" the same "low" MSRP on LEGO as I do, that same $20 kit effectively costs them a lot more because people living there make less money, pay less in taxes, get cheaper food and, in general, are measuring their expenses with a different scale. The asking price for the item may be the same, but the "value" of the item takes on a whole new meaning in the local context. There are some parts of this country where you can _buy_ a few acres of land for what I pay in real estate taxes on an annual basis. A small LEGO kit to them might equate to half a days' pay, whereas to me, it's just the cost of lunch. I don't know enough about Southeast Asian markets in general to know if similar scenarios are playing out (I only have one data point to go on). Is LEGO seen as having a higher innate value than other things people _could_ be spending their money on? The kids I met from HK definitely knew genuine LEGO from clone brands (and had pretty low opinions of the competition), do kids all over Asia have this same understanding and pressure their folks for the genuine article when they could be getting more parts for less money from a different brand?. What does the average family make in South Korea or Singapore or wherever compared to the local asking price for LEGO? How many bags of groceries could I fill for the price of an Ewok Village, for example? I'd love to know more about the local contexts and cultures to help put TLG's latest sales trend numbers in perspective.

Okay, I'm in. I don't know much about the Heroica RPG, but I hope my lighthearted send-up of D&D meets Scarface isn't to far afield

"Say Hello To My Little Friend!" The quest to apprehend the notorious crime boss and black market potion smuggler, Tonius Montanum, turned out to be more daunting than they'd first expected. The party quickly realized that Montanum's "guard dog" Chica was not, as they had been led to believe, a mild mannered chihuahua. The ever valiant, but often not so bright, Lord Crispin and his trusty steed Flambe (shown on the lower left) took the first hit. Ironically, his last words were: "Fear not! Tis but an illusion. Do not be fooled by such lame trickery! If that were an actual dragon, it would be spitting fireballs at us!" Fortunately for Crispin's faithful but expendable NPC squire Patsy (shown bottom center), years of adventuring next to Sir "I can't be killed, I'm too essential to the plot" has taught him two important life lessons - when to duck and when to run. As the smoke cleared, Crispin's companions begin to suspect that, not only is Chica not a chihuahua, but perhaps chic is not really a dog at all. Valleria the Spearmaiden (left paw) began to suspect that they might be in trouble....

Although it wasn't an option when this thread began, I have to give high marks to the Tower of Orthanc. Yes, it's expensive. Yes, there's room for improvement (4th wall anyone?). Yes, it takes some liberties with respect to what's on the inside. At the end of the day, though it really is "iconic." It's one of those things even people who aren't die-hard fans remember from the movie; it's a fun build; and, (for those into black - lots and LOTS of black) it's a great parts pack. I was a bit disappointed with many of the first wave of LOTR kits for reasons mentioned in previous posts but I think they did a real nice job with Orthanc and as I'm (too) often quick to complain about the things that peeve me, I felt I should take a moment to give credit where credit is due.

An old college friend of my wife is a corporate lawyer type in Hong Kong and rather well off (penthouse condo, two live-in nanny-esque / personal assistants, kids in private school, etc). She and her two daughters came to visit about a year ago to scope possible US college options. When her kids saw my Lego collection they were literally stunned speechless (no small feat when one of the people in question is a teenage girl...) After a suitable period of gaping in awe, the younger daughter asked if I was the richest man in America because she'd never seen so much (genuine) LEGO in a private collection before and they knew how expensive it was back in Hong Kong. The older girl was shocked that most of my sets were collecting dust in my attic and that, if she had a Statue of Liberty or a Taj Mahal she'd make sure everyone knew it because high-end LEGO kits were such a status symbol in her school. Supposedly some kids would even Photoshop themselves into photos of kits they found on-line to make it _look_ like they owned rare or valuable pieces in a bid to impress their peers and buy popularity. They went on to spend the next hour photographing themselves with my collection. One would have thought they were visiting the Smithsonian or something the way they treated everything like a cross between pop star memorabilia and a religious artifact. They kept going on about how nobody at school was ever going to believe they knew somebody with so much LEGO. When they were done, I gave them a couple of small (20-30 USD-ish) Creator sets (that I hadn't gotten around to opening yet) to take home. Their mother offered to grossly overpay me for the sets, echoing the sentiment that back in Hong Kong those would have been really primo gifts (both expensive AND hard to find in a sea of knock-offs). I pointed out that we weren't in Hong Kong and that, as my guests, a little entertainment in the form of a few hundred LEGO parts fell under the umbrella of hospitality. Now her kids weren't spoiled brats or anything (actually they were very polite and well behaved) but the family was definitely on the high end of family incomes, and even _they_ were talking about LEGO as a rich kid status symbol that they _wished_ they could own more of. I certainly don't mean to imply that the culture revealed at the one private school in one particular city as recounted by a teenage girl and her kid sister is indicative of the mindset of all of southeast Asia, but it does make one wonder. Maybe the mega-rich of Asia really are impacting the sales stats from that part of the world?

How about giving the Medieval textile industry its due? We could have a woad works with a big ox-driven grinding wheel, carts filled with woad, weld and madder, a dye house with vats and drying racks and a small stable of sheep waiting to be shorn. Then bundle that with the village weaver with a spinning wheel and a loom or two. It's a good excuse for lots of figures and animals (oxen, horses, sheep, sheep dog) and adds an essential civilian aspect of any medieval town (even if the woad works was usually relegated to the most remote part of town because, I'm told, boiling woad smelled awful).

I like 'em! I think the 2x3 slope on the gray one gives a nice scruffiness to the back of the neck compared to the 2x2 slope of the white, but I certainly understand prototyping with the parts you have on hand. Keep up the good work, I look forward to seeing these heads atop equally fierce-looking bodies.

Congratulations and welcome to the US of A.