ShaydDeGrai

Thanks for this trip down memory lane. For its day I thought this was a very ambitious set, perhaps overdoing the color mixing and sticker decoration, but impressive none the less. Mine took a cat-assisted plunge from a high shelf to a hardwood floor some years ago and was never rebuilt, but I recall it suffered from sag and peeling stickers long before that fateful afternoon when it proved it wasn't particularly aerodynamic either. Still, for a pioneer of the UCS line, I think it was pretty cool. Thanks for this second look at an old favorite, I look forward to your review of the new treatment soon.

I heartily second this. It's a fun build in its own right and a great source of generic parts, particularly for castle, city and architecture style MOCs. I was thinking about picking up an extra or two before they retired them but then TLG went and announced Orthanc and a new UCS X-Wing fighter. Decisions, decisions...

First, I'm very happy to see a genuine BIG build for the LOTR line (as opposed to lots of small builds in a common box like most of what we've seen so far) I would have gone even bigger, but I realize there are price points to worry about and LOTR line has not yet proven that it can sustain pricey UCS models like Star Wars has done with the Falcon and super star destroyer. I'll definitely be buying this set, partly for the set itself and partly to do my part to tell TLG, "Please make more like this..." It's a lot of black, but then most of my spare parts collection is already either black, white or some shade of gray so that doesn't bother me in the least. It's _supposed_ to be black, you can't hold that against it. I'm not happy about the hospital gown design (open in back) and will probably end up MOD'ing it to add a hinged backside (and perhaps a bit more height) Definitely not happy with the molded eagle. I'd hoped the prototypes I saw in the toy fair photos for The Hobbit wouldn't be the production models, but that proved not to be the case months ago. Perhaps I'll use some variation on the brick-built Creator Fierce Flyer kit instead. The Ent is a nice touch, I don't see why everyone seems so down on him. As Treebeard, he's terrible, but as a generic Ent? Sure, why not. As has been pointed out, the lack of Merry and Pipin and a more Treebread-esque Ent suggests that those three could be a future kit of their own.

Well said. I think the Uruk Hai armor should have the look and feel of cheap mass production (simple, redundant forms thrown together by barely skilled labor), but I always envisioned the forces of Mordor as having more of a varied and scavenged look to them. If some rich dude fall in battle and has better armor than you, take the armor. If the helm is bashed in but the mail is fine, take the mail - who cares if it doesn't go with your grieves or has some dead guy's coat of arms on it, an upgrade is an upgrade. Puny goblin armor too tight for that barrel chest of yours? Try lashing on some of that barding from that dead horse over by the tree - a few whacks with a hammer, half a dozen rivets, it will be a whole lot more protective than the leather jerkin you made out of the elf you tanned the other day... Keep it up for a few years and the chances of any two soldiers having the exact same outfit are pretty slim. Historically, even things like Roman legions, which film and TV often portray as having 100% uniformity in their dress and armament, had a fair amount of variation beyond the basic kit. I'd think a ravaging horde of orcs with a reputation for fighting amongst themselves over battlefield plunder would only magnify such variations.

I've been meaning to tackle Minas Morgul from the Lord Of The Rings for some time now and have been playing with designs and prototypes for a couple of years. When I signed up for BrickFair New England, it turned out to be just the motivation I needed to sit down and actually build the darn thing. The shape is inspired by the design used by Peter Jackson in The Two Towers. The concentric star design and soaring ramparts was actually what drew me to wanting to tackle it in the first place. For the curious, additional shots and commentary can be found over on MOCPages or on Flickr (along with photosets of my other LOTR builds) Thanks for stopping by!

Oh sure, bring _that_ up... Boy, I'm glad my wife never reads this forum. I _may_ have forgotten to mention to her that those invites are related to my spending habits.

I'm definitely not a fan. It sounds like the sort of thing trailer park dwelling Texans would say while recounting the story of how Sam Houston annexed the United States as a territory of their great nation... And by the way, for those who got a good laugh out of mocking U.S. Citizens for calling themselves 'Americans' while ignoring Canada, Mexico and the rest of the Western Hemisphere - you should really check your history. The practice of equating "American" exclusively with the U.S. started in Britain. From the 1500's to the late 1700's "American" used to refer to anything "new world" related. Around the time of the "American" revolution however, the convention in Britain (at least according to historical correspondence) was to use the term "American" for former colonists who were no longer subjects of the crown. Those former colonists, however, did NOT refer to themselves in that fashion (most did not even call themselves US citizens, they usually self-identified with their states (New Yorkers, Virginians, etc.), not the nation or the continent. Webster, in an attempt to codify "American English" as a different beast from "British English" explicitly defined "American" to refer to all of the western hemisphere in contrast to Oxford, which at the time, synonymized it with people and products of the U.S. of A. It was not until after WWII, where a lot of US soldiers stationed in Europe were exposed to the slang of being called "Yanks" or "Americans" started referring to themselves in that capacity. Prior to that, when a US citizen heard the term, his/her first thoughts would have been to include his/her neighbors to the north and south as well. So if it's a bad habit, well, blame Gen. John Burgoyne, as far as most historians can tell, he started it. And speaking of bad habits, if "Ameribricks" had lasted a day it would have been funny. If it had gone on for a day or two after people had openly expressed that the thread devoted to the discussion had become hostile / offensive / bullying, it would have been a bad and insensitive joke. To drag it on and ultimate mock the people hurt by the joke saying that they're too sensitive or just don't get it, is just plain cruel and goes against the welcoming spirit this place usually offers ("uniting LEGO fans..." not pitting them against each other for the sake of a few inside laughs??). And I'm sorry if I'm coming off as a little too sensitive about mocking Americans or the joys of stirring anti-American sentiments; I live in Boston and this past week has been a bit stressful, cut me some slack. Let's all break out some fresh bricks and move on.

You mean the one right across the street from Rudy's on one side and PJ Ryan's Pub on the other? Cool. Please thank your dad from me for his years of service in keeping my neighborhood safe. Perhaps I'll meet you in person at BrickFair New England this May.

Lately I've been doing mostly BrickLink orders for MOC'ing so it's been a while since my last big shopping trip to the LEGO store, but I couldn't let double VIP point slip by unobserved so I hopped off the wagon and picked up a few goodies I'd been meaning to acquire. By the time I was done, I had: The complete line of The Hobbit sets The Imperial Hotel Two copies of the Horizon Express The Palace Cinema and a couple modest Creator kits My contact at the store claimed that they had the new Lone Ranger train set in the back room but that they couldn't display or sell them yet - I guess I'll just have to go back ;->

I kinda have to agree with naugem here. Rather than spurring interest in SW, I think the saturation of sets, Clone Wars on TV, video games, LEGO movies, Family Guy parodies, comic books, novels and now the threat of a new movie on the horizon, I'm not "interested" I'm burnt out. Don't get me wrong, I was wearing a Darth Vader belt buckle and toting a Star Wars lunch pale a LONG time before it was cool and I like the franchise as much as the next fan, but it just doesn't engage me anymore. When it comes to MOCs, I just don't have a passion for SW as source material anymore. Why take the time to design a snowspeeder (my favorite SW craft) when I already own (at least) four official variations on the theme ranging from puny to UCS. Official kits are done and redone and redone again, CW kits are coming out for things I don't even recognize. And every now and then when a new SW MOC does surface, it is usually stunningly over the top, beyond anything I'd be attempting myself or anything TLG would consider trying to market even under an UCS label, so I don't really feel I have anything to add to the conversation as it were. I don't feel the need to build _another_ AT-AT or my umteenth TIE fighter, or any one of a dozen Clone War ships that resemble minor reworkings of designs from more iconic vessels from the movies. Personally I'd like a classic UCS style Star Destroyer that DOESN'T rely on magnets to hold it together, but I'm not irritated enough by the fragility of that particular model to bother MOCing up my own. I can't speak for anyone by me, but it just doesn't seem worth it; I don't have infinite time or an unlimited brick supply and the rewards of investing my time money and effort at MOCing in the SW universe just aren't there for me anymore. I still buy and build the kits, but a MOC represents a level of investment that just doesn't pay off at this point. There are lots of other franchises vying for my MOCing time (LOTR, Stargate, B5, Star Trek, Dr. Who, BSG, etc.) where there aren't (and probably won't be) a constant stream of official kits saturating the market and (most) subjects haven't been definitively done to death.

I'm not sure it counts as a "ritual" but, I usually alternate building and organizing pieces with lecturing, chasing or physically relocating my cats. I have one that likes to nest atop bags of parts or the current page of the instruction book and one that likes to run off with any unsuspecting piece left unguarded on the periphery of my work area. If I empty all the bags at once, it discourages the first from sitting on them, but it only increases the likelihood that the other will leap into the middle of the pile and start playing hockey with something. It's not the most productive of build methods, but it does encourage me to stretch my legs (to chase cats and retrieve parts) periodically on longer builds.

The nearest store for me is about a 30 min. drive so I can usually control the urge to go unless I'm in the neighborhood (the website is just a click away and I'm usually at my keyboard anyway so I have more issues on that front). It would be cool to have a Pick-a-Brick wall within walking distance of my office though. I could see myself going out for lunch and a tub of random parts once a week or so as long as I felt comfortable in the knowledge that I was spending more time packing the cup than getting to and from the store. Expense-wise it would probably add up but when a decent sandwich, a drink and some form of dessert already costs me 15-20USD/day, a cup of bricks doesn't seem that outrageous.

Somerville, Massachusetts (the Boston contingent grows...)

It totally depends on the set and whether or not my cats have "helped" to disassemble it. If I had to guess, I'd say I've probably got four dozen or so sets hanging around that have been assembled since the 1980's. My most recent "disassembly" was the Death Star II which, after an unfortunate experiment in gravitational attraction, ended up in more pieces than the one in the movie. The parts remain segregated, however, and I plan on putting it back together one of these days.

America is also to blame for marketing watered down/"lite" beer, NASCAR, and reality TV shows about 3rd grade drop-outs with severe tooth decay who wrestle alligators for a living, but I'd really prefer that these not be the first thing people think of when I tell them I'm an American. Actually, the cowboy is a creation of Spain. The vaquero were wrangling cattle and hanging out in their haciendas for a century before bringing their traditions to Mexico and South America. Romanticized stories of cowboys and bandits first appeared in English in the early 1700's. Cowboy traditions migrated to the US after the Mexican-American War (1848) but didn't really come into it's own as (an American tradition) until after the civil war (1860's) and fell into a long slow decline after the closing of the frontier (1890's). Like the short lived Pony Express, the notion of an "American Cowboy" is more a romanticized/marketing promotion than a realistic slice of history. Over hyped "Wild West Shows" travelled the country pushing as much fiction as fact and trying to tease the imaginations of the general public with revisionist tales of an "Old West" that never really existed (as least as recounted to rich, white city dwellers). In reality, cowboys are and always have been a small segment of the population and a highly localized phenomenon. Now if you're saying that the "cowboy" is a "recreation" of America (that is to say, take something with foreign roots, rebrand it as your own, gloss over inconvenient facts, and market the hell out of it until most people don't remember the truth of it's origins), well then I wholeheartedly agree with you. I whole-heartedly agree with you there, where we differ is in what constitutes a "great world icon." I'd rather be associated with the moon landing than the Superbowl. There are a lot of great things about America that aren't tired cliches - unfortunately cowboys and football are none of them. No, but being greeted by the "Ameribricks" banner just rubs me the wrong way and encourages me to click on other bookmarks rather than browsing here. It's childish, I know, but I'm just in the wrong mood to look past it right now. I can say that, were I newbie and I found a forum called "Ameribricks" with the sort of "Bob Roberts"-esque banner on the splash screen, I don't know that I'd stick around long enough to realize there's great content underneath.

At this point, I think it's less about whether or not it is a joke versus whether or not it is offensive. As a one day thing, fine we all need to learn to laugh at ourselves more; leaving it up for several days is starting to irritate me and I find myself popping back to the site more to see if things have gone back to "normal" rather than to read and post about LEGO as I used to. If is is a joke - end it, it stopped being funny about two days ago. If it isn't a joke, use the fact that most people assume that it was and revert the changes to save face - all you're achieving at this point is alienating users and dividing the community.

When I first saw the banner change I summarily dismissed it as an April Fool's joke. And frankly, part of me still hopes it still is one that has just dragged out too long. For the record, I consider myself to be first generation "American" and I am a U.S. Citizen (my dad earned his U.S. citizenship fighting in Korea - I was born and raised in the U.S.) I served my country for ten years as a special consultant for the government, particularly in the areas of defense, intelligence and law enforcement and let me tell you, I do not find "Ameribricks" particularly welcoming or attractive. If anything I think it promotes the worst of "American" stereotypes and belittles the distinguished (and inclusive) history of this site. Aside from the name change, I find the banner graphics particularly offensive. Other than the blue brick and the fact that I've eaten ostrich filets, there's nothing there that I, as an American relate to; it's a cliche mockery of how other people typically see us when Fawlty Towers needs an obnoxious guest character or when Woody Allen introduces pretty much any American who doesn't live in Manhattan. I've played exactly one game of (American) football in my life and don't even bother watching the Superbowl. I've never worn a cowboy hat (or outside of a Halloween Party) met anyone who does and it really bothers me when watching the opening ceremony of the Olympics every few years and they dress up the US team like Country Western singers. If those stereotypes are wrong, what is it to be an "average American"? Well, speaking as one: My favorite westerns were mostly filmed in Spain by and Italian director. My favorite dishes are mostly Italian though I also enjoy Indian, Chinese and Ethiopian cuisine. I haven't set foot in a McDonald's in over 30 years. I enjoy British comedies and French Cinema. I buy gallons of milk but 2-Liters of soda. I don't own a cowboy hat but do own a kilt. I've played more games of Cricket than I have of American Football, though I'm rubbish at both. I'm a Protestant, my wife is Catholic; we have friends who a Jewish, Moslem, Wiccan, Hindi, and generally agnostic. I have a favorite city abroad (and it is Edinburgh). I've never been to the Statue of Liberty, Washington Monument or Mt Rushmore (not saying I'm proud of that, just pointing out facts). My neighbors are U.S. Citizens as well, between us, we speak English, French, Italian, Portuguese, Cambodian, Greek, Hebrew, Chinese and Farsi (that I know of). As I said I am an American, and rebranding the site Ameribricks and promoting stereotypes is a joke in very poor taste (clever for April Fool's, not so much at this point). One of the biggest reasons I thought this was a joke was because the original posting referred to American "sensibilities" and "point of view" Anyone who actually knows anything about the "typical" American knows that there is no such thing. As with anywhere, certain demographics have certain biases, but with only 300 million people to draw from, I doubt you'd be able to find any two people with identical backgrounds, tastes or views on issues. That's the beauty of this place - the vast majority of us simply agree to disagree, embrace the things we have in common and take pride in the things that make us each unique. If Eurobricks wants to be more "American" it should call itself Eurobricks to honor its origins and welcome everyone regardless of country or origin. Oh wait, that's what you were doing all along, why change?

Thanks for this review, you've sold me. I wasn't even planning on seeing The Lone Ranger but regardless of the license tie-in and mini-figs, I think the train and track alone is worth picking up.

I used to work in academia and so have a very strict view of plagiarism and YES you have been wronged. A lot of people made the mistake of thinking that if no money was exchanged no harm was done - this is very, very incorrect. Plagiarism is the theft of intellectual property in any form. Some argue that it can't really be theft, because the original owner still has the original copy, but then utterly fail to see that what has been stole is the uniqueness of that expression as well as the time and effort that went into producing it. In addition to wearing their innate laziness/stupidity on their sleeve, what a plagiarist is effectively saying is "I respect your work enough to steal it, but I don't respect you enough to give you credit." Whether or not the thief profits (money, grades, promotions, fame, etc.) is immaterial to the theft itself. It is a public show of disrespect, and you have every right to take offense. (You also may have legal recourses available to you depending on where you and your plagiarist live, but over something this small and isolated it's probably not worth the hassle of pursuing.) Unfortunately, the internet is full of plagiarists and (as some of the comments above show) many internet users have grown so used to it that they don't even recognize it when they see it or can't see the harm. Were I in your place, I'd send a note to the sell requesting proper attribution and also add a statement to your web page to the effect of "Except where noted otherwise all content within is copyright [founding year]- 2013 [by me] fair use to copy with attribution is granted for non-commercial use." People will utterly ignore this statement (and by US law it is already implicit on all draft printed materials and websites) but it give you something to point out to the next person you catch doing the same thing.

I think you are mixing concepts ("purist", "custom", "official", "third party") a little too freely here. To begin with, no one is saying that "custom" is inherently bad (if fact, custom can be very good and creative) and _I_ would say that any DELIBERATE alteration of a LEGO factory "pure" piece IS a custom one. Likewise anything that didn't come from a LEGO factory isn't an official (LEGO) part, it can still be a perfectly good part but as the AFOL community defines "official" for the purposes shows and competitions, third party parts simply aren't. I don't think the crux of the argument is that "most people use LEGO." I think the bigger issue is that TLG developed the systems, filed the patents, invested in creating the market etc. and that people are sensitive to the idea that TLG almost went out of business at a time when cheap Asian knock-offs were flooding the market with low quality - in some cases toxic (e.g. lead, cadmium, arsenic and antimony) - parts that, in many cases were also being produced in clear violation of standing patents. Now MegaBloks is certainly one of the more legitimate clone brands (they at least wait for patents to expire before mass producing low quality, low end, rip-offs) but it still strikes a nerve with people. LEGO was the original and (IMHO) still pays the most attention to quality control; in my mind (and apparently in the mind of many others) THAT is what entitles them to wear the mantle of "official" Now if TLG were to start making part compatible Tinker Toys, Lincoln Logs, or Erector sets, they would be the "unofficial" player in those markets, but the "LEGO system of interconnecting construction elements" is called "the LEGO system" for a reason, and everyone else is and will always be just a clone brand (MegaBlocks, Kre-O) or a third party augmenter (BrickArms, Big Ben Bricks). The concept of "official LEGO" is so ingrained in the minds of AFOLs at this point that there is absolutely no point in even mentioning the "LEGO" part of it - if you use the word "official" you have to be referring to the LEGO brand or there no point in using the word. Being "official Sluban" or "official Best-Lock" is right up there with being an official "BigMic" sandwich from red and gold themed burger joint called "McRonalds" with a side of "Crock-o-Cola" The difference between a custom part and damaged one is the circumstances under which it reached its current state. If it was altered deliberately, it's custom; normal wear and tear, cracking, etc. is damage not customization. There are millions of "well loved" parts out there that are still both "official" and "pure" as most people define those terms. When a part changes from factory mint DESPITE one's best efforts to preserve it's original state, it is a very different thing than when someone DELIBERATELY ALTERS it to achieve a new state. As I said above, within the AFOL community, the "TO LEGO" part is the only "official" that's really worth arguing over. Other communities might not care, it's all a question of priority and context. I've got a five pound note in my desk left over from my last trip to Scotland and if I decided to photocopy it on this great color copier we've got in the office to hang the copy in my office as a bit of artwork, I don't think anyone would care (especially since I'm in the US). But I'm pretty sure that if I tried to buy a couple of forfar bridies in Edinburgh with my "official bank of Xerox" currency, the proprietor would not be amused. To be honest I just don't see why people are so hung up on not being "official," only TLG produces LEGO parts, everything else is either clone, custom or supplemental. You don't need some abstract blessing to have fun with your collection, get over it. They are your bricks, do what you want with them and have fun. Don't ruin your own day by dwelling over what is or isn't "official" or "pure," that only matters for shows and contests and in those contexts, its just a rule we have to live with. Contest organizers could equally well say use only blue bricks or only bricks that were available in "official" Harry Potter kits, or any other arbitrary restriction they want. It's not worth arguing over.

That two part gray piece isn't (technically) technic. I'm pretty sure that's a torso/shoulder part from the 1970's style figures (as opposed to mini-figure). Shoulder nibs fit into the round holes in the side and the head piece snapped down from the top to hold everything together. Given that it's gray, my guess would be that it came from set 198: Cowboys since, as afar as I can recall (hey - it's been nearly 40 years) gray was a less common color for that particular part.

On one hand, I think Aanchir has a very valid point, for me, "purist" does not imply better or worse than "custom". On the other hand, I take a really strict view of what "purist" means. Personally, when I think "purist" it means that a model was designed within a rigid set of constraints. The designer found clever ways of working around the limitations of his/her generic parts palette and produced something great without resorting to "shortcuts". A "purist" part for me is one that comes from TLG and is in essentially the same condition that it was the day it was packaged. This is a bit extreme in that it means stickers attached to the sticker sheet are "pure" as is the brick they get affixed to, but once the user puts the sticker on the brick it's not factory "pure" anymore, it's a hack - I don't care if the sticker came from TLG or the printer on my desk, _my_ definition of "pure" lego does not allow for applying adhesives to bricks once they've left the factory. As for factory printed bricks, that goes back to the notion of working within the _generic_ parts palette. I don't care who designed the printing or how long they've worked for TLG. The thing that qualifies those parts as "pure" is that, like the decision to invest in a new mould for a new shape of part, official factory printing is a statement about the mass production and generic appeal of the decoration. Such parts are either generic enough (even with the decoration) to be useful in multiple sets or uniquely popular enough to warrant their own production line in the factory. "Pure" LEGO to me is a design challenge. It means working with what you've got rather than what you might like; no strings, no decals, no third party elements (regardless of quality or popularity), no paper, no cut/melted/glued/sanded/etc FrankenElements, no painted/dyed/branded/Sharpie marker decorations, etc. That said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with not being "pure" Look at some of the great MOCs in the pirate forum - the sails and rigging on some of these frigates are beautiful, not "pure", but stunning. There's an entire Minifigure customization subculture dedicated to not limiting our little plastic people to their factory-intended configurations. As much as I detest stickers, I must admit that a custom sticker can be the icing on the cake when it comes to completing a design - I just don't delude myself into claiming it's "pure" afterwards. It's custom, it's creative, it's expressive; perhaps "pure" is overrated. Of course "custom" (as opposed to "pure") has it's own extremes. I think it's one thing to _supplement_ an otherwise pure palette with items not produced by TLG (string, sails, capes, decals, Brickarms accessories, Big Ben Bricks train parts, etc.) It's another thing to permanently alter formerly "pure" parts (shaving off studs with an X-Acto knife, cropping mini-fig legs to half their height then gluing the feet back on afterwards, filling the underside of plates with automotive body filler and grinding them smooth to make inverse tiles, etc.). I've certainly done the former from time to time, but I can't see myself ever doing the later (for the purposes of a MOC - as part of prototyping a new piece sure, but not for a MOC). And for the record, to return to the car analogy, I would NOT consider a classic muscle car "pure" if it had been repainted or bore 3rd party decals, etc. Other than the oil, the gas and the odometer reading I would expect all factory parts in their factory configuration in order to qualify as "pure" (right down to the paint job and the crappy speakers).

This is pure supposition on my part (I've never been to the LEGO factory or heard any official explanation) but, as an engineer, I've seen robotic packaging systems at work and a few of the considerations that such line (typically) need to take into account are: * The number of filling stations per line - the stations are usually fixed and each station only services one type of part so if your line only has 10 stations you can only put 10 different types of parts in a bag. * Size of the bin/bag handler - the conveyance from one station to the next has a limited capacity and may vary between lines (one line does little bags, one does big and several do mid-sized etc.) To keep all the lines active sometimes it makes more sense to fill two smaller containers with identical parts and include both bags (even if it means one bag has an extra part or two because the master plan called of a odd number of part X) rather than to fill one big one with twice as many parts because the large capacity line is busy doing something else. * The weight of parts vs. sensor calibration - when filling containers with odd shaped parts (bricks, tortilla chips, popcorn, etc.) most automated systems do so by weight. They know how much the bag weighed when it got to the station and how much the piece(s) to add weigh, so it adds (ideally one at a time in the case of bricks) parts until the weight of the bag is at or greater than (yea! free extras!) the target weight. For very light parts, calibration of the sensors can be tricky in that the sensors may have a range of accuracy that falls off as the bag gets heavier/more full (i.e. it's easier to detect a difference of a tenth of a gram in an empty bag than in one that already weighs half a kilo. This means that sometime it makes sense to have a "very small parts" line fill and seal a tiny bag and have a larger capacity line add that entire bag as an atomic part in a larger assembly process as bag of small parts, in its entirety finally weighs enough for the sensors on the bigger line to 'count' its addition accurately. * Synchronized supply for multiple lines - as alluded to above, packaging lines don't just package raw materials, they also bundle smaller packing units into larger ones (either a bag of bags or a retail box that holds all the bags. One of the considerations when deciding which part gets packaged by which line, is the question of trying to get all the line outputs to the final output stage at the same time for final bundling. If a finished package needs one of A, B, C and two copies of D, you want to keep things balanced such that it takes roughly the same amount of time to stop at all the filling stations for lines A, B, and C and that line D runs in half the time of any of them. This might mean that six copies of part Y get added in line B instead of line A because A was taking too long and B had a free station and was (previously) faster. If this sounds like an exercise in stacking live cats, it is (well, having tried to stack live cats and tune an assembly line I can tell you the cats are actually harder, the line at least is deterministic). Without knowing the capacity of the packaging facilities, it's easy to look at the output and think that it was random, but even as a complete outsider I can almost guarantee you that a lot of planning went into it. I just seems random because your needs/goals in looking for particular parts are completely orthogonal from the constraints that drove the packaging decisions of how to bundle those parts in the first place. Automated packaging is somewhere between an optimization problem and an art form. And while I often curse the seemingly excessive bags of bags in the typical high end LEGO kit, I understand why they're packaged that way and, as an engineer, I appreciate the good job TLG does at making sure nearly every kit is complete and (in its own way) organized even if optimizing that packaging for the builder wasn't high on their priority list.

I honestly have no idea. Other than official kits, I usually don't build in mini-figure scale so more often than not my minifigures just get shuffled away into storage. Still, I suspect with all the SW, HP, PotC, LotR, Modulars, Trains, Castle/Knights, Space and City sets I've picked up over the years, I've got to figure I've got quite a few at this point. I know this probably horrifies the mini-figure faithful, but the bulk of my mini-figure collection is 'displayed' in 1 gallon Zip Lock bags (sorted by theme) in plastic tubs in a closet. I even have a bulging quart-sized bag of the old "slabbies" from the mid -70's from the days before mini-figures had movable limbs and printed faces. Does anyone know the 'average' mass of a minifigure? I've got one tub that feels like it's about 15 kilos and another that's about half that. Deducting for the weight of the baggies and the tubs themselves, I think that comes out to the size of a reasonable sized angry mob (with blasters, swords, axes, spears, wands, and miscellaneous utensils). This weekend I was actually trying to find a LOTR Legolas figure for a display I'm putting together and, although I like to think my LEGO collection is reasonably organized (for someone without a dedicated LEGO room) it still took 20 mins of rummaging through the crowd to find him.

I can't say I'd be upset if Eames House (or the long-rumored Habitat 67) didn't happen. Other than the FLW kits, the Modernist offerings have been some of my least favorite of the Architecture line; more for the over simplicity and blockiness of the models than any issue with the school of design (with respect to FLW, I'm really looking forward to getting my hands on the Imperial Hotel). That said, if the preview of the Tower of Pisa is accurate, I'm afraid this kit falls into the same trap as the Big Ben kit. It's the wrong scale for what it's trying to be. If it were really tiny (like the one over at CuuSoo) I think most people would forgive the lack of detail, call it a cute little kit, build it and move on. If it were a little bigger (as your shot of the knock-off kit seems to show) it could be a nice display piece. But rendered as is, it just doesn't feel right - like the clock faces protruding from the tower in the official Big Ben set - it's too big to forgive the lack of detail and too small to help you see past the artifacts of the blocks themselves. Of course as a marketing move, it's probably perfect. I wound up buying TWO Big Ben sets to MOD them into a single, proper-looking model. I'll probably end up doing the same thing here, spending more money to get the look i want than I would have if they'd just done a better job in-house.