MAB

Yes, unless someone either says "it is a fact" or they provide evidence to back up their opinion as fact, I take anything said as opinion rather than fact. And if they say "it is a fact" and I don't believe it, then I'd ignore it unless there is proof and assume that it is opinion. Take these two statements, neither are offered as a fact or opinion, just statements: The 2x4 brick has 8 studs. Red bricks are much better than blue (or set X is better than set Y). The first one, probably nearly everyone will agree with, it is hard to argue against it and it can be taken as fact. The second one, many won't agree with it, it is clearly a subjective statement. It is an opinion not fact. However, if backed up by data (such as average review scores for sets) then it might have some credence.

There is a difference, in both the packaging and the umbrella. Anyone with the original set as an investment is hoping the packaging is worth about £1000.

+ + + Obviously with head and hands in yellow / flesh / whatever you prefer. Shakespeare hair also works for bald heads if you use yellow skins. There are a few printed parts that can be used such as the viking woman CMF dress piece for reddish brown robes, Prof Sprout for dark tan, etc. You can also flip her torso around and put a cape on if you want printed torso. Can be used for fleshie or yellow skin.

Why have you said that? You have not indicated that it is an opinion and not fact. You should have written "I agree, in my opinion, stating “my opinion is X” is better than stating it like “X is truth” and “Not X” is blasphemy." Which really gets to the issue here - whatever someone posts IS their opinion, not fact. There is no need to say "In my opinion ..." before every statement.

Similarly, just looking at the number of parts and the price and saying it is outstanding value is ridiculous. You have to look at what you get not just how many parts there are.

That would be interesting, as it would be very hard to distinguish LEGO's fake LEGO from fake LEGO. Yet if they are real LEGO (just unbranded) they would have to be allowed on BL, so fake LEGO could also get listed there. I guess they would need to somehow brand them inside to make it clear the fake LEGO is real LEGO ... But I agree, it isn't going to happen and there has been no indication at all that is the plot line. Actually, they lost and the European Court of Justice also turned down their appeal about trademarks. Other companies are now legitimately allowed to make clones (or fakes, whatever you want to call them) of the basic bricks and have been allowed to after the patent expired. The cases they won recently in China were for copying Friends packaging and having similar logos. As far as I am aware, the Lepin case is still ongoing.

The carrots are clubs and vice versa. I didn't spot it first time around, but did spot the 1x1 round plate.

It is not so much the techniques, but the parts. For example, there seem to be a lot of 1x2x2 bricks in there, which are quite cheap (about 2-5p on BL). So while the average price per part might be low, it is not necessarily a good indicator of value.

At $350/$400/$500 (various rumours on price), you would only ever get 2-3 modulars worth of bricks, or a few Great Halls worth. There would be complaints that it isn't Hogwarts, just a few individual parts. It would look a bit like the UCS Assault on Hoth. What's the point of it, when they are already doing minifigure scale building that you can assemble like that. More complaints that people are being "forced" to buy large sets to get a complete Hogwarts. LEGO cannot do Hogwarts at minifigure scale and make it sellable. Some people do want architecture style sets, and this is for them. The building is the selling point, not the minifigures. Those that want play sets already have the play sets with minifigures in. They will presumably get more of them too. Personally, I think they could have done this without the crappy little nano figs. To me, they add nothing in similar sets where the build is the star (Helicarrier, Saturn V). However, I imagine the cost of them is very low and the resale value will be quite high as they won't come with other smaller sets, so they may be a good way of offsetting part of the cost of the set. Here are six of those pieces ... :-) While it is a good price per part ratio compared to other licensed sets, there does appear to be a lot of basic bricks in primary colours in there (I haven't checked inventories yet) so when comparing the parts (outside of the minfiigs) maybe the Classic sets are a good comparison. The main reason people didn't like Assault on Hoth was not because of the design of the set, but because much of it had been released before. If LEGO did a Hogwarts set and it contained just two or three buildings, people would complain it is not Hogwarts, just two or three buildings. They could have (and still might) release those building individually. If they repeated the Great Hall in it at minifigure scale, there would be complaints about repetition. If they didn't have the Great Hall in it, there would be complaints that it is not complete. You are clearly focussed on minifigures, which is fine. Other people like buildings, with less focus on minifigures and this set appears to be for them.

They aren't. If you prefer minifig scale playsets, then buy the playsets. There are plenty of them. And if you want fakes, then buy fakes.

It is interesting that AFOLs are complaining about an architecture style set, which could be a decent large small-scale model with no play features. Often AFOLs complain about too many play features, making them appeal to juniors, at the expense of detail. Yet if it is a detailed set based on the architecture, it should have been something else. LEGO was never going to be able to make a full Hogwarts at minifigure scale. If they go minfiigure scale, they miss buildings and correct scale, if they go microscale they miss play features.

I remember the non-UCS Helicarrier.

So if it does turn out to be microscale, will people still refer to it using the (incorrect) UCS label?

That adjusted photo is really interesting. I know the heads are bigger than normal, as are minifigure heads, and so we are used to that. On the real minidoll the feet don't seem too big, I guess they are balanced by the size of the large head. Whereas the small head one appears to have quite thick legs and massive feet. Yet cover the feet up, and the legs look fine in proportion to the head, yet uncover the feet and they look like an elephant hybrid. This is the price that is paid for having the minifigures/dolls compatible with the stud widths. They could have made the minidolls significantly taller, but that would decrease the size of sets/builds in proportion or increase the number of parts needed and cost, and make the parts/accessories less interchangeable with minifigures. Or they could have had a base that they come with and have to stand on, but limiting playability. I can totally understand why the heads are big now.

They did A-team too. And Mission Impossible. Loads of guns but little actual violence, similar to James Bond.

Aren't all new sets in demand? Changing dates are probably due to either earlier production or more likely the original dates were just preliminary. Quidditch is already out in the UK, so in that and the range has already been released.

The ball joints are great. The downside is the lack of colour, people have been waiting a long time for the parts in new colours.

Yes, the same methods work.

It might be worth keeping the large licenses, so SW, DC, Marvel, Middle Earth, etc in a separate list, otherwise putting Star Wars on the same footing as Pocahontas' raccoon seems a bit odd. Personally, I would have kept all the Palace Pets together as that is the theme.

Yes, that is right. The parts are on there, but they are not linked to the set numbers. So when you search for the sets, they don't show up. BL uses its own number system which is why they don't tally. Also the parts numbers are not in the LEGO instructions (unlike most sets) so it makes them very hard to find. But they are there. Just look at 88585 and you will see many CMF torsos - all unavailable of course. It used to be that when you searched for the CMF series numbers, they did show you the generic parts that were more generally available, but even that has now been removed. For example, here are the torsos from Forest Maiden, Elf, Frightening Knight and Pretzel Girl. You cannot see any of these if you search for the set number, but you can if you search for the part number. Never available, but they are listed there. I think the only CMF parts that were ever available through B+P (as opposed to listed but unavailable) were the double molded legs from the Simpsons, Krusty, Bart and Homer torsos, etc - and these were duplicated by Dimensions which is probably why they were available.

Who would have added the D2C data to Amazon? Is it officially done by Amazon or is that from marketplace sellers adding information? Just seems strange, with it meant to be D2C.

I'm not going to disagree with that. The problem is you have to invest a lot of time before you can start to participate and subsequently decide if you want to play along in the longer term. That is a big barrier to starting. I don't have any answers as to how to improve it though, aside from maybe a synopsis of each game at the start that contains some of the best MOCs made in it and a rough idea as to the storyline. A bit like the synopsis on the back of a novel.

Lego needs to make brown sausages.

bricklink, brickowl, ebay.

If it is an early release, then it might not much / anything from the new theme in. The activity books can be a bit bland, with the same old mazes or matching games that could be for any theme.