MAB

You could create a rigid pseudo-brick 2.5 plates high by putting glue on the studs of a plate then putting another plate on top and only pushing it down half a unit. If it doesn't need to be as rigid then do the same but with no glue.

Most of the torsos I apply decals to are either white or black so colour is not a big deal. Transparent decal paper works best for white ones, and white paper printed black for black ones. I tend to colour the edges of black printed decals with a felt tip before applying. Matching colours is very difficult.The official RGB or CMY colours are available, but of course you need to know if the printer is correctly calibrated to get a perfect match. Another alternative is to laser cut vinyl stickers without a background so the background is not an issue, but again expensive and difficult to apply if small.

Personally, I don't. Homemade ones on printable sticker paper don't look great and professional printed ones are too expensive and still need to be cut accurately due to the thickness. I prefer waterslide decals for homemade decorated parts. The print quality is the same as printing on paper, but being thin the edges don't show as much as for sticker paper.

It makes sense for a fairly niche, mainly adult aimed franchise. Do one expensive set well, rather than 4-5 small sets aimed at kids that don't hit the spot for adults and are of no interest to kids.

Sell on ebay. Look at bricklink.com for SOLD prices, then try starting at 80% of those.

I wouldn't use it. Isn't that stuff more paint than dye, forming a rubbery like coat? If so it will crack when you bend the parts. I'd use fabric dye instead. Also a good idea to get some old parts (the same) and test it.

Sideways building can be a good way of brick building detailed patterns, as the smallest area becomes 1x 1/3(brick height) instead of 1x1 studs. Plus if you want to contour layers on top you can use jumpers for offsets, or a dual approach using sideways SNOT bricks where the normal SNOT additions are actually on top once you rotate it sideways.

LOTR and Dune are different in the sense that Dune has just had media in cinemas and will have again when this is out, whereas LOTR doesn't. This is important when you consider development time. If LEGO believe Dune sales are due to movie tie-ins, then follow-ups will be too late as the movies are long gone by the time they design and manufacture new sets. Whereas LOTR sales are based on a fanbase when there is no current movie, so is likely to be more stable in numbers.

No, not confirmed. That is a round up of speculated sets.

True, and the repetition of the same characters in the same outfits with tiny differences. I tend to keep one of each character in a particular outfit. If I can buy a new version of a minifigure with more detail and sell the old one for 10x as much, the old one gets sold!

Both are still performing pretty well at the box office and on Disney+. Only LEGO knows how well their sets are selling, but it wouldn't surprise me if SW remains in the top five best selling themes and if they continue to make lots of Super Hero sets while the movies are still popular. The large 18+ objects don't interest me, but the way they keep doing them implies enough people must be buying them to make them worthwhile.

That might mean dimensions of 18x31.5

I don't like it mainly as the hat is splays outwards from bottom to top, rather than inwards like the common shako. The hair is not too bad if you use it for one figure, such as a leader / commander if the hat matched the style of the others. But having a very different hat makes it look odd. I prefer the red toy soldier shako for a bit of variation, as you can have one important guy in a different coloured ceremonial hat that is otherwise the same as the black ones. The torso of the nutcracker is OK for me (and same with the toy soldier), but I don't like the legs. I prefer plain black.

The customisation workshop is here: https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/forum/90-minifig-customisation-workshop/ That is probably the preferable location if it is a "data dump" of files without showing them in use. If you are actually using them to decorate an army or a MOC, then posting in the historic section is also suitable and you could link to the files from there. I just realised your original question is more about where to host than where to link to them from at EB. Google drive is usually fine so long as the settings are to share with anyone with the link, or allow sharing with all, without expecting them to sign in or request access to view or download them.

Nice haul. What did you pay the guy that bought it for $1k? What was his tipping point?

Compare a CMF to a small DOTS set. One has a low number of parts that are all perceived to be of high value, the other has large numbers of parts that are perceived to be low value. DOTS have a low PPP and CMF have a high PPP. Just like comparing a bag of apples with a bag of grapes. You need to look at what is inside to determine the value, not the PPP. But how is this being done objectively? You have said I am confusing a feeling of how much I like something with an objective count that is independent of the individual. Now you are implying that there is some invariant way of including minifigures and part size into an objective measure, based only on information on the box? The minifig selection is often on the box, but what about part size? Is a minifigure worth 50 parts, 100 parts? A fixed price? Are licensed worth more than unlicensed? Are new licensed worth more than repeated characters? None of this feeds into the simple, objective measure of PPP. How is part size fed into PPP? LEGO don't list the number of big/small parts on the box, so this is not readily available. As soon as you are taking this into account, you are not using PPP, you are taking into account other factors that are important to the indivudual. The value is subjective, depending on what you want from a set. The correlation with the average price per part in a set is weak if you look at different types of sets. If you are factoring in minifigs and part size, you are using subjective measures, the same as I am doing when perceiving the value to me. It is no longer objective and varies from person to person.

I find printed legs are good for figures that you want to display standing upright. But if you want to pose them in action, they look bad if the print no longer matches up. I also don't like the break in print where it is meant to continue from torso to legs as LEGO cannot print to the edges. Some clone manufacturers do a better job here as they print the combined torso and legs. Obviously not an issue if it is just knee pads or boots.

I can't say I have ever bought a set because it was a fair price and definitely not buying blind based on a single number such as PPP. The former question is much more important to me, do I want it (at the asking price). The second half of that is determining the value based on how I value parts. There is other hard data in addition to price per part to determine a fair price, such as the weight of the set, how many minifigures are in the set, how many parts that aren't 1x1 plates or tiles in the set, how many new parts or how many 1x2 or 2x4 or larger bricks, these all take slightly more work but are still hard data. Which one is appropriate becomes subjective. There is also more anecdotal evidence such as whether or how long the set or a similar set was discounted and by how much, and how people respond to surveys about whether they would buy the set at the advertised price. If a similar set was heavily discounted then chances are the new one is not fairly priced either. If lots of people say they are going to purchase a set at the asking price, chances are it is a fair price. Then there is also data like how similar are the contents of a new set and price compared to other sets and were they at a fair price. For me, this is much more important than the average price of a part in the set. If a set is minifig heavy, a high PPP is not necessarily an instant no. If a set is minifig light, a low PPP is not necessarily good value. There is also another way to determine a fair price - cost it on bricklink - with educated guesses used for new parts based on similar existing parts and minifigs, then divide that by two as many sets parts out at about twice retail price. All of this is really knowing and understanding what value actually means rather than trying to come up with a simple calculation to say what is a fair price / good value / bad value without any knowledge of the contents. It is a measure of the average price of a part in a set, irrespective of what the parts are. Nothing more and nothing less. It only really has a comparative meaning if all parts are equally valuable or if the size/shape distribution of parts in a set is always similar no matter how large or small the set is. If someone can buy a bag of fruit for £1 (where one bag has five apples and the other bag has 20 grapes) do people go for the objectively lower price per fruit of 5p as the other at 20p per fruit is four times worse value. Or do they look in the bags and use their knowledge about the values of apples and grapes. Just because something can objectively be measured doesn't mean the value measured is of any practical use. And as soon as you look in the bag or look at the set, the PPP also takes on a subjective nature - just like when people say don't apply it to dots. And don't apply it to art sets. And don't apply it to even large sets like Rivendell without compensating for all the tiles used in the roof or Technic sets with large numbers of pins. As soon as exclusions start appearing, the measure is subjective again.

That was a very vaguely written possibility though and wasn't clear what it really meant - selected sets of their choice, or any set of an individual's choice, or modern remakes of retired/vintage sets. It may well be that is partly where the idea of remakes came from.

Unless they decide or have an agreement that it is licensed and not to use it elsewhere. There have been parts that appear to be really quite generic but turn out to be license-locked. I hope that is not the case here as the helmet and armour are really nice but Lucasfilm might object if it is IP-locked. This is the Star Wars guy it is from ... I guess it comes down to did they design it specifically for him and IP-lock it, or did they design it as a generic part and agree with LF that it is close enough and can be used for that character (like generic hoods are not licensed-locked, even the newish open one that looked like they might be for a while). Interesting that he shares a name with an Arthurian knight.

It is a metric, just a subjective one. A metric is just a measurement of something. It doesn't have to be objective or the same for everyone. How valuable something is to me is a metric, just like 3 stars out of 5 from a movie critic or for an amazon product is a metric. Even though it is subjective, it is essentially a combination of multiple objective metrics, but weighted towards what *I* want from a set and that is where the subjectivity comes in. PPP is not a very big deal for me. I weight the number of natural coloured parts much higher than brightly coloured parts, I weight the number of minifigure parts higher than the number of common bricks, I weight the number of regular bricks higher than the number of modified bricks and wedges. I weight the number of licensed figures higher than the number of non-licensed figures, I weight the license or in-house theme depending on whether I like it. All of those things are objective in that I can count what the set contains. I can then measure the value of the set to me by weighting those objective metrics to form a subjective metric. If you or anyone else have different weightings for what is important to you and come up with a different score, I don't care as it doesn't affect what I want out of a set. We would both have a metric, even if the result is different. I have a metric telling me what the value is to me, and you have one telling you what the value is to you. For me, the PPP is really quite a minor consideration, as I don't want parts: I want specific parts. Just because PPP is an objective metric doesn't mean it is the right metric. Just like the length of something in inches is a useless metric if the problem being posed is would I wear those clothes. Even if they fit, if they are green and orange stripes with a unicorn on, then I'm not wearing them. The length in that case is a useless metric even if it is an objective one. It is better to find a subjective metric that fits the problem than use a bad but objective metric. No, I'm not confusing it at all. I can understand that there is more to whether a set is good value or not (especially to an individual) than a single objective measurement. The length of something is determinate, it requires only one objective measurement. The value of something is not, it is indeterminate. There is no single objective measure of value as differnt people will value different aspects. You seem to be confusing determine with indeterminate and trying to apply the idea that because a single measure works for one it should also apply to the other, when it doesn't.

There is already a thread for this, frequently at or near the top of the page. And this part has already been discussed on it.

I'd also prefer to see a new ship rather than a re-release. A new, different rocket probably wouldn't sell as well as the Saturn V re-release, but they have much more freedom here.

They have always been very good when I have ordered from them. They have huge stocks of older parts. Their minimum is high but I tend to buy what I need from them, double it for "just in case", then double it again to sell on to other UK buyers. Not only does it help reach the store minimum, but it usually offsets the costs of the parts for me.

1. If LEGO didn't make official sets because someone else has made a MOC, then we wouldn't get anything official. Can you imagine the outcry if LEGO announced that they were going to remake the GE but didn't as plenty of people have made their own MOCs. 2. Comparing sets in one theme to another, especially one off sets, is a bit "the grass is always greener on the other side". I think I saw more positive comments about GE than the castle when it came to size and price. If they had padded out the set to make it 3 or 4 times larger and more expensive, would it really be a better set? Not to me. 3. 500 more pieces and 2 48x48 baseplate is probably another $100 and then gives a huge problem for some - displayability. For me, the ~32cm width is just about displayable on a shelf. Going to a 48x48 baseplate would lead to an overhang or the need to display on a table or larger cabinet, or paying for the base and not displaying it. I tried to build a base for it, from a large number of LBG plates and tiles, to fit my display shelves. Given it was only just slightly wider than the ship, I found it distracted from the ship. It looked great as a base / landscape for smaller ships, but really needs to be significantly larger than the ship to look good. 4. I found the windscreens fit the set well. For something like this, I prefer a decent looking set than a less good looking set with new parts. 5. I have one on display in my collection and people often gravitate to the GE first. I think it has a big shock and awe factor.