davee123

Huh-- now, that's pretty interesting. We actually DO have confirmation from the VP of quality control in Denmark that the plastic in China is of lower quality than normal. They wanted to use their normal supply chain for the source of ABS, but ended up having to select an in-country alternative. Now, I just checked my brown 'hula hair' from another set, and it doesn't appear to have the same translucency issues as other plastic from the Chinese manufacturing. So that means it probably was NOT manufactured in China. But if it's the same exact mold (it appears to line up exactly with the Hula Girl's hair), that means they actually sent the mold off to China to be used for the minifigure line. I guess that would make sense (and with the Samurai armor like you also pointed out) if they're not planning on manufacturing it in the main queue Europe? That would make sense-- I believe the "ray gun" is coming out in the upcoming alien invasion sets, which might mean they're sending it back to Europe for normal production. NOOOOOooooo! That was one of my few hopes of easily distinguishing Chinese manufactured minifigs! That means it'll require some more involved methods to tell the difference... Le sigh. That was right from the horse's mouth at a Danish LEGO event, actually. The reason WHY wasn't clear-- it could be because of import regulations, extreme high cost thanks to import tax, or even something silly like availability and timing. I hope that LEGO can get the higher-grade ABS into use in China, but for now, I think it's still the low-grade stuff. DaveE

Huh... it seems like according to BrickLink, the magnet set is the ONLY set to contain this print. That seems very odd to me. Usually, magnet sets contain prints that exist elsewhere-- which implies to me that this printing is quite likely to be included in a set that was either scrapped for 2010, or is on the horizon for appearing in 2011 or 2012. One thing to check: do the arms on the torso have the little rectangular indents on the inside of the arm? If so, it's likely from the magnet set. However, if NOT, then it's likely that the torso is from somewhere else-- possibly a new set that hasn't been inventoried on BrickLink. Given the above, I'm betting that it came out in some new set that hasn't been inventoried yet, or perhaps from the in-store "Build Your Own Minifig" piles. I can't find any mention of the legs anywhere on Peeron or BL. DaveE

I believe that the molds they use in China are totally separate molds than the ones used in "main" sets. Certainly there are distinct differences on the arms, the bandanna, the pistol, the motorcycle helmet, the flippers, and the 2x2 tile. They've created a totally duplicate set of molds in China, which is supposedly MUCH cheaper. Hence, I'm guessing that it would make little sense to create all the Minifigure elements with high-quality expensive molds that can be used in other sets. I would expect that if we see another syringe element, it'll be using the Chinese mold. Of course, I have no idea if the Chinese molds themselves are "lower" quality or not-- that's an assumption on my part, based on the fact that LEGO has told us repeatedly that higher quality molds last longer and are more expensive. I'm guessing that the reason that LEGO can afford to do this barrage of new parts in the Minifigure line is because they're of the cheap mold variety. All we really know that's confirmed lower quality in China is the plastic itself. But I'll bet the molds are lower quality too. DaveE

I believe we've been told that LEGO molds cost roughly between $10,000 and $100,000 USD. How expensive the mold is depends on: 1) How long is the mold supposed to last? For various parts, they're not expected to have long lifespans. The molded octopus body for the Atlantis sets, the mold for the Nurse's syringe, the head for Captain Jack Sparrow? Those are probably all "low quality" molds that we've been told about-- My guess is they'd only a few production runs and then be unusable. 2) How complex is the mold? Some molds are very simple, like a 1x1 tile. Others, like the chain element are IMMENSELY complex. They can consist of many parts, and require tons of design work in order to predict how the ABS will flow through the mold and cool. Simple molds will be cheaper, complex molds will be more expensive. 3) Where is the mold is produced? I expect Chinese molds cost less than ones produced elsewhere. The Chinese have a huge industry around injection-molded plastic toys, and I expect it's pretty cheap there. But in Europe, it's likely more expensive. DaveE

First of all, please type more coherently. Punctuation and spelling-- they're your friends! That will encourage people to respond to you. As to your question, I don't think LEGO Digital Designer supports the functionality that you're looking for. It's designed for kids, and is not designed for more advanced users. Creating a physics engine with LEGO has been something people have been interested in making for many years, although I'm not aware of any programs that currently support it. DaveE

What program were you intending to use to modify and print them? In order to print to a particular size, you need to know how the program you're intending to use decides to print things. Photoshop's easy-- just change your image size and presto. No real need for a template. The side of a 1x1 plate is 8mm wide x 3.2mm tall. You should be able to figure out the rest, depending on what elements you're intending to build. DaveE

My interpretation was that the red material costs are the highest, and purple is just difficult and/or impossible to get consistently within a given mold. Hence, it may take more fine tuning to set up the mold for a purple element, or it simply may not be possible to set up a given mold in purple without getting color variation. But admittedly, the quote I remember was merely that red was "the most expensive", which could mean the whole process, or simply the material costs. Hard to say. My guess would be that for larger elements, purple would be worse. IE, if you've got a small element, there's less room for color variation, whereas large elements are more likely to contain mistakes. So, a 1x1 purple brick is probably fine, but a 2x10 purple brick is likely to have color problems. That'd be my guess anyway. DaveE

If I remember correctly, I recall Jamie Berard saying that RED was the most expensive color, actually. As has been said, I'm pretty sure it's NOT the cost that's the issue-- it's the color consistency of purple. But even if they perfect the method, I still don't think purple will be used all that much. It's just not a commonly seen color in real life. How many purple cars do you see compared to other colors? It's just generally a rare color, so I don't expect it'll be seen terribly much in LEGO, even if they figure out how to do a better job with it. DaveE

Sometimes, it's because each one is of a different quality. Some may have tooth marks, some may be clean, but have a few scratches, some may be pristine. In such cases, sellers may devise a "quality rating" system, which could be the "code" you're seeing. If you want to see more information, you'll probably need to visit that shop's "Splash" page. However, sometimes it's because sellers are lazy, or made a mistake. They add elements to their list without checking to see if it's already in their store, and BrickLink has no way of knowing that they ought to be combined, so it keeps them as separate lots. And sometimes (probably rarely) it has to do with how they have the LEGO sorted out for sale. They may have a baggie with a particular label that helps them locate it in their collection, possibly because they're selling on behalf of someone else, and need to keep track of WHOSE parts are purchased. If you have questions, ask the seller. Not that I'm aware. That could be dangerous, though, when there are multiple qualities and prices available in a store. DaveE

Ahh, ok-- I was seeing the "Affiliate program" from Jake's post back in 2005, and assuming it was the same as today's Certified Professionals program: http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=3409 DaveE

In a recent LEGO poll, I think I recall getting a question to the effect of: "Do you know about the following programs?" And it listed something like the LEGO Ambassadors, LEGO Affiliates, LEGO Certified Professionals, and ... uh... I think there was another one, but I forget if so. Anyway, it made me curious-- what's the difference between LEGO Affiliates and LEGO Certified Professionals? It looked to me like they were one and the same, but maybe they're distinct programs? DaveE

As I recall, most LEGO elements have the "LEGO Design ID", the mold ID, and the cavity ID. So "30376 2-02" means: Design ID: 30376 Mold #: 2 Cavity #: 02 The "Design ID" is the type of part that it is-- in this case, "Battle Droid Legs". This should NOT be confused with the "LEGO Part Number", which would mean "Battle Droid Legs in TAN" or "Battle Droid Legs in DARK GRAY". DaveE

A few years back, Jason Whittenburg posted his "AFOL History Project", attempting to build a history of both the LEGO company and the online LEGO community. However, since his site disappeared in late 2008, I've been quietly keeping up with entering new things and fleshing out the history. I've finally decided to take up the cause, and release my own version of the AFOL History Project, seeded with Jason's original list of events: http://www.suave.net/~dave/afol_history.pl So, feel free to take a walk down memory lane with various LEGO-related events. And if you see something that's wrong, or know of something we haven't added, submit it! I also have a pending list of events that I WISH I had dates for but don't. Thoughts? Criticisms? Ideas for improvement? DaveE

I would view blocking you as a responsible administrative action. However, I would view further critiquing you after having banned you as childish. Basically, you were acting like a troll, and the best thing to do with trolls is block them. No, it's trying to answer LEGO questions explicitly. Going back to the RTL example I mentioned before, people on RTL had similar arguments to yours regarding LEGO auctions. They actively WANTED LEGO auctions on the forums, and believed that forums were the best place for auctions, because you could do things like ask questions, and get increased exposure. IE, they saw separating out LEGO auctions as a silly thing, because other venues weren't suited to the functionality enjoyed by having auctions in newsgroups. BrickQ has a very specific subset of things that it's well suited to address-- IE good questions about LEGO that require a simple answer. Things like "What element is this?" and "When did LEGO start using electronics?" and "Are there any LEGO vendors in Sudan?". We don't really need those questions in forums. They take up space and don't add much. Not that I MIND them per se, but if there were another place that was explicitly for those questions, that's all the better. No, that's just using forum software, which isn't really right. Most forums where a question is asked may have a flurry of answers that you have to wade through in order to get to the best one. So it's not suited for people that are trying to look up an already-answered question. No, you get worked up when you THINK you see blatant stupidity. I don't think it's blatantly stupid. I just think it's not all that well implemented. And neither is Yahoo! Answers, really. I used to use Yahoo! Answers for a while, but it was similarly a dizzying amount of fluff. Again, people were just trying to answer uselessly without REALLY answering, because they would get points. There were no negative deductions for answering with junk, or asking QUALITY questions. It was mostly just a reward system for being ACTIVE, not USEFUL. I eventually gave up on it when they incorrectly moderated various things I had written because their moderators didn't understand the nature of the questions/answers being given. Anyway, I advise you to behave more maturely. We all sometimes get caught up in the anonymity of the internet sometimes, and post in a hostile manner. It's a childish reaction, and you did it. Accept that you were out of line, and try not to do it again. DaveE

Ok, I took the few extra minutes necessary to see your comments on YouTube. It appears your first response was: Followed by this: Then this: And you followed that up with a series of short comebacks that aren't worth repeating. I have to say your response was mostly just rude. But childish also. Basically, your response smacks of pretty stereotypical "internet rage". You had little to contribute, and were getting unnecessarily angry over something that doesn't matter. Maybe you're not REALLY that angry in real life (most aren't), but you come across online as though you're hopping mad. As for your "suggestion" of using a forum, I disagree wholeheartedly. This site is NOT faulty in its premise of being for LEGO-related questions. I would love it if there were a place to divert all the fluffy questions about "What set should I buy?" and so forth. For the record, RTL suffered similar problems. First, they were inundated with useless requests-- "What's the phone number for LEGO?" "Where can I find LEGO instructions online?" etc. So they released the LEGO FAQ to try and cut down on all the repeated questions. Similarly, in the 1995-1996 ballpark, people became similarly annoyed when the number of auctions and sales were flooding the forums. And when LUGNET came out with sub-groups for auctions and such, it helped TREMENDOUSLY. As did later advents like eBay and BrickLink. Personally, if BrickQ can divert the pointless fluff questions like "What set should I buy?" and "Which Ninjago character is the best?" and so forth, I'm all for it. I'm happy to reduce the quantity of those questions on the forums, and keep the forum content a little more adult. I don't necessarily think that the Yahoo! Answers technology is the BEST tool for the job, but it's certainly welcome in my opinion. DaveE

I hardly see how we can agree or disagree given that we don't have the particulars. You sound like you could easily have been childish, or could easily have been trying to be helpful. I can't tell. Honestly, I think it's unlikely to expect any sort of change to the BrickQ site. It seems pretty obvious that they're using some software package that's to blame for any failings in BrickQ itself, and there's no way they can change it, short of either being developers themselves (and quality developers at that), or paying tons of money to get developers to change what they've got. And even if they WERE developers, the developers that DID the work obviously put in a LOT of effort, and probably wouldn't be willing to change the system based on your critiques. Any way you slice it, your demands are likely infeasible, depending on what your specific critiques were. So even if you weren't banned, your comments will still likely go unimplemented. DaveE

It's the same as Yahoo! Answers, just LEGO-centric. They want to encourage you to answer questions, otherwise there's a concern that you'll just ask a lot of questions without contributing. Personally, I think it's not terribly useful. All your inputs, questions or answers, should be rateable by other members. Ask an inane question? Get marked down. Give a lame answer? Get marked down. Once you identify useful members, you can pay attention to their inputs and ratings and give them more sway. As is, the system is what it is-- not overly great. As is, it rewards people for answering questions, regardless of whether or not they spend any real time answering. And further, it allows you to ASK useless questions using a separate login solely for the purpose of answering them with the login that you CARE about, selecting it as the "best answer" (that's the way Yahoo! does the "best answer" selection-- I assume this is the same). Anyway, the reality is that the system is set up in a way that rewards ACTIVITY, not really rewarding QUALITY. I breezed through the first 4 pages of questions (40 total), and only saw 2 questions worth anything. I didn't go through all the answers, but they looked similar. I probably won't go back. That's pretty common-- I don't know the particulars of your comments and behavior, but if the result is that you get banned, then you should either be more careful with your critiques going forward, or you should just forget about them. I had never watched any of The Brick Show reviews until today. Now I've watched two. I guess I wasn't terribly impressed. They seemed overly lengthy (no evidence of editing or scripting), and the target audience is unclear. I don't really see any reason for them to make the reviews be in VIDEO format-- a consistent written format would be far better. If the videos were cut down to maybe 1/4 the length, they might work, but I found myself simply waiting for the videos to be over. They get paid? Do they actually have a large audience? After watching a couple reviews, I'm honestly surprised. It just seems rather... amateur to me. If they have a large following, I guess I could see that they might get sample sets to review, but actually getting PAID seems... unlikely to me. Have you seen evidence to suggest that they really ARE paid? Typically, bloggers get free samples to review to gain exposure, but it's only rarely (to my knowledge) that they receive actual MONETARY compensation. DaveE

Yep. "Xerox" was one of the big ones. In the 1980's, "Xerox" became the verb for "making a paper image copy". So, rather than saying "Can you photocopy this for me?" people would say "Can you xerox this for me?". Xerox was in danger of losing their trademark (in the USA) because it was entering too much into common use. Similar with "Google" or "Photoshop". I don't think LEGO's in too much danger of losing their trademark at this point, even if you went around saying "LEGOs". But regardless, LEGO's legal team is still aware of the potential issue. The bigger issue was really in the late 1990's and early 2000's. LEGO is known for its plastic building brick product, but that product doesn't actually have a NAME per se. It's not like "Nabisco Oreo Cookies", where "Oreos" are the product name, and "Nabisco" is the company. If LEGO had named their "construction brick products" something like "Mursten", they'd be in less danger from losing the "LEGO" brand, although probably in just as much danger of losing "Mursten". Anyway, in the 1990's and 2000's, LEGO started trying to branch out into things like children's clothes and such, meaning that for the first time since 1960, they weren't focused on their singular "construction brick" product-- so the entire brand would've been at risk. DaveE

I dunno about this whole "waiting" thing or "finally" thing-- LEGO used to publish a very similar disclaimer on the back of their catalogs in the 1980's. Here's one example from 1985 (lower-right-hand corner): http://peeron.com/catalogs/1985/medium/23/?id=190 Well, that's kinda iffy. If it were up to the lawyers, LEGO would be an adjective, not a noun. You'd call the company "the LEGO Company", or "the LEGO Group", or "InterLEGO AG", or what-have-you. And you'd call the bricks that they make "LEGO bricks" or "LEGO toys" or "LEGO elements" or "LEGO pieces". But none of us fans want to add in an extra word-- that sounds overly lawyerly to us. So as a compromise, many LEGO fans just say "LEGO" as the plural, rather than "LEGOS", thus avoiding the dreaded "LEGOS" that we've always been taught from a young age was wrong. DaveE

I see the beginning of it here: http://www.livewellnebraska.com/article/20101229/LIVING/712299980/103128 And more here: http://rainbow.omaha.com/2010/12/29/when-legos-fall-apart-so-do-i/ DaveE

Pretty tough call... Brickcitydepot: 1 Brickzone: 1 Cecilie: 1 Jameson42: 1 Lisqr: 1 Some great entries in there! DaveE

I don't know, but I expect Kevin did it because PDFs are more annoying to moderate-- images are easy to view and tell at a glance (mostly) whether they're acceptable or not. But PDFs require you to open a viewer in order to see what's in them. That's just a guess, though. Could be something else entirely like wanting to cut down on supported media or something. DaveE

Out of curiosity: Known: Minifig is about 3.2g Gold value is about $1406.09 per pound Gold coin is about 0.05602g Assuming that a minifig is roughly 150 lbs, a gold coin is about $53,844 USD (assuming it's solid 24k gold) Also, by volume: Known: Gold coin is about 58.79 mm^3 Gold has a density of roughly 19.3g per cubic centimeter Assuming 1 stud is 1 minifig foot, a gold coin is about 3251 cubic centimeters, and is worth about $2,836,910 USD (again, assuming 24k) DaveE

Wow, I'm AMAZED at how close my count is to Stash2Sixx's. I just counted them up and got: 10's: 233 20's: 241 30's: 232 40's: 235 Total Value: 23510 Of course, S2S posted his count back in May, so he's probably got me beat by now. But in theory, I can add the ones that my wife has (we're slowly combining our collections), but she can't find hers at the moment. DaveE

Just making my own list off the top of my head... Key: * - Big enough change to be noticeable ** - Pretty big change *** - Very big change Roughly in order of appearance: *** Introduction of the Automatic Binding Brick *** The LEGO "System of Play" *** Addition of tubes *** LEGO hinges *** LEGO wheels *** Instructions for sets *** LEGO gears ** LEGO Trains * LEGO Modulex (fails) * Samsonite & subsequent take-back *** Change from CA to ABS plastic ** LEGOLAND theme park *** LEGO Technic parts ** LEGO Duplo *** Introduction of the minifig *** LEGOLAND building 'system' ** LEGOLAND space ** LEGOLAND castle * Fabuland * Scala (jewelry) * Model Team (advanced building styles) ** Electric 9v System * LEGO starts to get clearly "evil" characters (this gets progressively pronounced) ** LEGOLAND pirates * LEGO introduces guns! (in pirate sets) * New face printings * LEGOLAND Aquazone * LEGOLAND Wild West * Belville & Scala *** Juniorization (Mostly in 'Town Jr') *** LEGO Mindstorms (RCX, NXT) ** LEGO licensing * LEGO Video Games (were mostly awful) ** Movement towards less-studded Technic builds * Znap *** LEGO interacting with the hobbyist community * More characterized printings (minifig torsos & heads) *** LEGO marketing to the hobbyist community (UCS Star Wars, Architecture, etc) * LEGO moves away from "LEGOLAND" system to a more disparate set of playthemes * LEGO Legends ** LEGO Bionicle (starting with Throwbots & Roboriders) ** Cheaper packaging (removing flip-up lids, instruction/sticker mooshing) * Set numbers become less cohesive (ranges start to mean nothing) * Increasing use of stickers rather than printed parts ** LEGO Brand Retail stores (including Pick-A-Brick!) * Flesh colored figures * Clikits *** 2004 Color Change ** Outsourced LEGO video games (success!) ** Pick-A-Brick online & LDD *** LEGO employing members of the hobbyist community (better set design, etc) ** Change to Power Functions (trains, technic) * New dye injection (color discontinuity) ** Chinese Manufacturing * LEGO collectibles (vintage figs, LEGO Minifigures) So... that's quite a bit! Although I'm sure there are a lot that I missed (or didn't think were worth mentioning) DaveE