MAB

I would have loved it if they had chosen a style and stuck with it for 12 years. One of my favourite sets was the 2013 Snake, with this part ... If they had committed to do a similar set for 12 years, each with a small animal themed build built around a "collectable" printed common piece such as that 8x8 circular tile, I would have been hooked in. Even better if they didn't put the date but just year of the X, so a set of 12 could be reused perpetually.

At least this year, Creator has gone away from small minifigure based sets. I think the smallest one they are doing now is the haunted house. And I don't mind that, as Creator should be about the build rather than the minifigures. I like that the smaller Creator sets focus on building with fairly basic parts, especially as there are small minifigure based sets containing cars, helicopters, etc in City and other ranges. A small wagon and a couple of soldiers, for example, is not really the idea of Creator especially if it only turns into another wagon and a different type of wagon and it doesn't fit with any other kid aimed sets. Creator (especially small sets) seems to be more about building again rather than there to supplement other themes. Now figures are easily purchased through PAB, adults have plenty of army building parts to supplement the big sets and similarly castle specific parts are easy to get that way too.

I guess the issue is how such a cheap set fits in with other similar cheap sets. Why would kids or parents buy a castle set when there are no other cheap castle sets for them toplay with alongside it? And it wouldn't fit in with City or Ninjago. Those cheap sets also get mass marketted in many retail stores. They want the popular ranges that kids are going to want.

Personally, I don't think it is a bad thing. Going beyond basic 2x4 and 2x2 bricks was good, but I find the introduction of so many new parts recently a bit annoying. On one hand it is nice that they exist to create a specific design, but on the other there are now so many different but similar parts it seems unnecessary.

That's fine. If you buy them to enjoy and enjoy them, and are then happy with the price you get when you sell them, then it does what you wanted it to do. Whereas if someone invests in LEGO and keeps new sets new to sell, or buys up old sets at 50% of retail price and then flips them for instant profit, it does what they want to do.

There probably is a fair bit of truth in it about not needing to spend money on patents and lawyers. If they make a new plate that is say and L shape and the mirror inverse as they need it for a particular build, so what if another company copies it. Instead of paying for legal, they get on with the set design instead and so what if another company uses a fairly obvious design. Having that part and stopping others from using it is not going to stop people buying from other companies so there is no real advantage to protecting it.

But if you are using new moulds and techniques that were not around when the theme was current then your designs do not look like they could have at the time, so is it the same theme? This is why it is sometimes better to call it neo-theme and use whatever parts and design styles you want. Different people do it in different ways. So do what makes you happy.

It depends on what parameters you want to set yourself. The majority of my collection is "new" in the sense that it is from 2005 onwards so I tend to MOC with new colours and not use the old. In that sense, my MOCs tend to be neo Classic Space or neo (insert theme name). If you are building MOCS for a theme that is no longer and want to restrict yourself only to colours that existed at the time, then personally I think you should restrict yourself also to only using parts that existed at the time.

Different types of sets have had different shelf times for a longbtime now, especially when there are no longer individual themes. It makes sense that a large and expensive flagship set gets a long time on shelves whereas a cheaper one does not, especially if the big one comes first. LKC can stand alone on shelves and doesn't really need other castle sets to help sell it. While MTS looks like it is missing something if it is the only castle set available. I think this is an issue now that individual themes are no longer a thing, and sets are not released and retired together.

I think there is a difference between a collector and an investor, even if both roles are the same person. I do both. Sets / minifigures / parts in my collection, I build and display. Sets and minifigures bought for investment, I don't assemble. There is no need to assemble investment minifigures. I keep them as new and let the buyer do it.

Near me, rarely saw D&D boxes on shelves and when I did it was the same few figures left in the box. Whereas F1, I still see multiple shelf boxes with hardly any taken out. Same for the newer Spiderverse CMF.

Why would they do a CMF instead of a set though? Take Snow White, you could get 12 characters with SW, 7 dwarves, Prince, huntsman and then the Evil Queen as both a queen and a witch. So they could do a CMF series OR they could do a one off set with 12 characters plus a load of bricks and charge more for it.

Not really my thing. The frog is OK. But they could be improved as animals instead of costumes with plain red heads or ones like these

As LEGO keep doing it, presumably it is to the liking of the target audience. I imagine they analyse sales data as a function of time and know what the decay is like for sets bought by adults vs for kids. If there is anything I want, I tend to buy in the first year and like most adults wouldn't need to save up. If they stop selling a set then release another, I am more likely to buy something in what would have been the second (or whatever) year.

They look good. I think I prefer the plain hood to the furry hat.

I think that is the point of Ninjago. It contains pretty much everything that a non-realistic theme would have covered in the past, whereas anything realistic would go into City now. That way, everything goes together even if produced years apart.

There was also Kingdoms in 2010.

For truly new design parts especially with a novel function I can imagine there is some of that. But filling in obvious gaps especially in ranges that other brands produce, I doubt that would spoil it. If someone else does a 1x9 plate I doubt that would stop lego or vice versa.

Yes it can help, but in the same way as using fine grit sandpaper. It dulls the surface but can also get rid of scratches too.

You could try hydrogen peroxide again. I found when I did it, some yellowed again whereas others have remained white for years. Or buy replacement bricks from bricklink.

Not just that, but it would probably sell more to kids if it was the same castle design but came with Ninjago characters instead of Lion Knights or Black Falcons or any other classic faction, because of the large existing market for Ninjago. The good thing now is that while they are making castle sets for adults, the parts for minifigures are available reasonably cheap and typically very easy to get hold of through online PAB so any set can easily be turned into Castle. Ninjago needs little advertising as it is a constant known, year after year, whereas any new (kid) theme has to start from nothing when it comes to getting kids into it. LEGO know what they are doing when it comes to theme longevity. It is a downer for us as it means no more one year themes like they used to do 10-20 years ago, where if you didn't like one, you knew another was coming a year later.

No, we don't get sales figures. But we do get to see sets left on shelves, sets discounted, discussion about how bad people think sets are. But more importantly we get to see what LEGO chooses to focus on, which is almost certainly informed by sales as sales are what drives any company. They brought back / extended Ninjago and decided to stop doing Castle. They drip feed nostalgic Castle figures in CMF and do adult budget Castle sets but not kid budget ones. That gives a very good indication that their data is showing they should keep Castle aimed at AFOLs and other themes aimed at kids.

I think there are sometimes obvious parts to make but I guess the issue is are they really needed enough to be introduced. Then all of a sudden there are enough designs that can use them and so they produce them. There might also be a factor of new is good as people want new stuff. Take the obvious 1x5 plate. That's been around about 5 years now. I have a number of them and use them, but I don't think I ever actually needed to use one as opposed to some other combination of previously existing plates. The 1x7 is the next obvious one but necessary? Probably not.

Only if you exclude all the castle and space builds that LEGO does in their in-house themes. Last year, they even did a space year. Yet when Castle was on the shelves alongside Ninjago, Ninjago outsold it. The kids voted with their purchases and Ninjago won. Ninjago today is what Castle and Space (or the variations of them in later years) were back in the 80s and 90s. Those sets grab their interest and spark their imagination. They also get minifigures. There are many more minifigure based sets than minidoll based. They overlapped for a while and presumably LEGO took note of sales in 2010-2014. Castle sat on shelves while Ninjago took off. Kids went for the exciting stuff rather than what they saw as stale. And presumably they also see Castle as what their parents are interested in.

It is also popular with adults in ICONS and to some extent Creator. LEGO has decided it is best to aim what would be the Castle theme predominantly at the adult market.