davee123

I know some of them have genders on their bios on LEGO.com-- for instance: "[...] Teslo is the lookout for the yellow tribe of Electroids. He has an electrically charged tail but is afraid of heights! [...]" and "[...] LUNK might not be the brainiest, or the most graceful when waddling across ice balancing on his stubby hands [...]" No idea how many of them are described as "male" that way, though. Most don't have an ascribed gender in their bio (just some). The only ones I saw that had genders were male, though. It was pretty similar for the Collectible Minifigures, too-- the bios would USUALLY ascribe a gender, and you can be sure that almost ALL of the ones that COULD have been neutral were male. I think there were only a couple that expressly managed to remain neutral. DaveE

Yeah, plus the fact that Johnny Baker is pretty minor, and just-so-happens to be male! If they had opted to avoid him, it'd be 22% rather than 30%-- quite a jump! Do we know how Elves is performing monetarily? The few times I've tried to get a smidgen of an answer from LEGO reps on this, they can't tell me. I totally missed that, thanks! (above post edited) Yeah, I thought it was interesting that female characters popped up in the "baddie" list more frequently in Chima and Nexo Knights (or, it feels like more frequently, anyway-- I haven't actually analyzed Chima much). I wonder if that was primarily because Ninjago came first, before the others, and they've since adjusted the formula? DaveE

Huh, interesting-- so ballpark 8/70 to 8/80 named characters that are female (and have been minifigs). So around 10% - 12%, I guess? Difficult to figure out which characters "count", of course! But with that, it'd be 5/21, so about 23.8%? So, also hard to decide what constitutes a "story" based theme, but in percentage female for "non-licensed" story themes: 76% - Friends 70% - Elves 23.8% - Nexo Knights 20% - Knight's Kingdom I 20% - Pharaoh's Quest 19% - Adventurers 18.1% - Alpha Team 16.7% - Rock Raiders 16.7% - Monster Fighters (tough call) 15.8% - Agents 14.3% - Atlantis (unsure about baddies) 14.3% - Exo-Force 13.6% - Ultra Agents 12.5% - Galidor 11% - Ninjago 0% - Knight's Kingdom II 0% - Time Cruisers And a few that I'm intimidated by: Bionicle Chima Hero Factory Mixels So... as of my current count, Elves is actually the closest to balanced! Interesting! DaveE

No idea! He didn't know the details either at the time. My guess is that they probably did as much research as possible to find occurrences of children choking on LEGO to see the kinds of elements involved. And then probably used simulators to try and mimic the behavior of children's throats and what the elements would do if lodged inside. I might actually be curious if it's easier to dislodge without the air holes, but I'm obviously not sure. DaveE

I was talking about named figures like Cole, Frakjaw, Bytar, General Kozu, Slithraa, Bucko, Dareth, Dogshank, etc. I basically looked at the named characters in the BrickSet database. There are about 93 of them listed, but some are generic, like "Ninjoid Drone" or "Soul Archer", so I didn't want to count them. By my count, there were 11 generic characters, and 1 duplicate (Garmadon vs Lord Garmadon), and a few others that COULD be duplicates (I'm not familiar enough with the characters to know). So I was guessing about 80-ish. BrickLink, meanwhile, lists 245 variants, which are a lot of different versions of the ninjas and various characters. Have they all been made into minifigures? I know of female minifigures Nya, Cyren, Claire, Misako, and Pixal, I think. But I thought Cyren was an antogonist, and I think Claire supposedly wasn't in the show? And obviously there might be various "evil henchmen" that are female, but I honestly couldn't say which genders they all are without doing a bunch more research myself. I'm mostly talking about the toys rather than the show. Boys don't mind watching female characters, but they are less inclined to play with them as toys. If there are a lot of female protagonists that haven't been represented as minifigures, I think that probably underscores the gender bias. DaveE

Sorry to dredge up this old thread, but saw it linked, and figured I'd add more detail. I heard this confirmed directly from a LEGO designer when he came to visit. I asked why they changed the stud, and he elaborated: The solid stud design was identified as a choking hazard in the late 1980s, and a new mold was introduced in the 1990ish ballpark to help prevent possible injuries. There was no actual mandate from any government that they had to be in compliance with-- this was just LEGO trying to be a safer product. It's possible that they heard about children choking on a minifigure head as an incident, or that some similar event triggered the examination, but that's not really clear. Recently, as pointed out, LEGO has been facing more and more competition and copycat brands. So to help combat this, LEGO has had an initiative to make their name appear on as many elements as possible, especially prominent ones like minifigure parts. The company wanted to put the name back on the minifig head, but they didn't want to re-create a choking hazard. So they did some research and re-evaluated the risk. What they found (apparently) was that it was basically overkill, and that it wasn't necessary. Hence, they could do away with the hole, and write "LEGO" on the inside again. However, they couldn't return to the solid stud design, since various models over the years have made use of the hollow stud (which now wouldn't be possible with a solid stud again). DaveE

Well, it's all speculation, but I would guess that they probably played with other castle designs in various colors, until they settled on the gray ones with panels. As a kid, I remember disliking the yellow castle, but being more attracted to the more realistic looking gray ones. It's quite probable that LEGO did research and found that many kids felt the same way, hoping to make stone-colored castles rather than primary colored castles. My guess is that by 1985/1986, the designers were probably starting to work on the new 9V system, and they were releasing their final wave of 4.5V and 12V sets. The new "brick connections" used by 9V came out in 1986, and were followed shortly by the monorail in 1987, and the new 9V trains in 1991. At the time, LEGO was starting to face strong competition in the US from Tyco Super Blocks, who started competing with compatible bricks in 1984. They had an ad campaign that basically showed them as a cheaper alternative, and LEGO was VERY nervous about what that meant, because Tyco was a pretty big toy company at the time. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they pushed the Light and Sound system out faster than expected in order to help retain their edge. Keep in mind that at the time, the design process typically took about 3 years from concept to release, whereas now it's MUCH faster. So the 9V Light & Sound system was probably in the works in 1984 or earlier. And the train sets didn't get retired as quickly-- they had a longer lifespan. So I expect that designers probably didn't start doing much with 12V right after their 1985/1986 sets were released (which had a wave of 4.5/12V trains), and were likely focused on other projects (but again, just speculation). I'd guess that they were aware that the 9V system would be changing their track designs, and they were holding off until that was solidified. Also of note is that the monorail system was ALSO regarded as possibly being more "light rail" or town oriented. If you look up the old monorail patents from the 1980s, you'll see that they show various different engines, including ones that look a lot more like "present day" rather than futuristic. So it's likely that LEGO was hoping to capitalize further on the monorail system (which ended up not doing terribly well sales-wise). It's possible that train designers were working on other monorail sets that never saw the light of day (or simply working on the Airport Shuttle which was released later). Well, in some ways they probably had MORE of a cohesive vision, because they were a smaller company with fewer products, and with a longer rollout schedule. So they had a long time to think about things. However, I don't think they had as clearly defined of a plan, it was probably less detail oriented. Back then, I know they really planned out individual elements so that they'd be re-usable in many ways. Most elements attempted to be re-used across the product line while in the design phase. I recall someone explaining that to me with the old circular shield/radar dish elements that were seen in both castle and space sets. I had asked whether they were originally intended to be radar dishes or shields, and was told that the designers intentionally tried to make the element multi-purpose to reduce the number of molds needed. Supposedly that was pretty common practice-- whereas today, there are a lot of specialty elements that come out for a single lineup (since LEGO can afford to do that more easily). DaveE

I think that's probably poor data. If you look at the parts list, it shows the Knight's Kingdom figures from 2004-2006. The dark-colored helmets and characters were used in the "2nd wave" in 2005. Definitely not 2009. And if you notice, it's got several 2x3 plates in gray. Well... not terribly surprisingly, it matches exactly with the BrickLink inventory of the Ravensburger game released in 2006: http://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?G=218141#T=S&O={} Note that there was also an English version by Rose Art in 2004, but that was different (I actually have a copy of that game). I suspect that this entry in BrickSet is probably wrong, but I don't see any notes about it, really. Huw added it back in 2012 (as a 2012 set), and then changed it to 2009, adding a note that it may not have been released. What it looks like is that there was a potential LEGO Games game (probably totally unrelated to the defunct "Knights' Kingdom" from 2004-2006) that was learned about retroactively. The game probably had a working title like "Knights' Kingdom", and for some reason, the LEGO website lists its inventory as the same as the old Knights' Kingdom game (probably a mistake at LEGO). The actual set (I would think) would be very different from the theme, but wouldn't use minifigures, since they relied mostly on the LEGO Games "microfigs". If I had to guess, I would suspect that it was unreleased thanks to competing with the Heroica lineup, which was in the same genre. Or possibly, that's what Heroica was named before getting the "Heroica" name, in which case this could have been another expansion to the Heroica lineup. DaveE

Yeah, although its primary market is still boys, and most sets contain male figures. Typically the sets that have females in them also contain males. I think where we're seeing "City" (not really City) starting to be more gender balanced is what they're doing with the "Creator Town" lineup, where there are houses and stores rather than emergency vehicles and such. If they continue making more day-in-the-life sets that might attract more girls, the gender balance may get even better. Really? My count is something like 80-or-so named characters in Ninjago, and only 5 females? I don't know nearly all of them, but that'd be about 6%. Nexo Knights has a lot fewer characters, and they've got at least 4 females. Rock Raiders had 6 characters and 1 female-- 16.67%. The first Knight's Kingdom had 2 females and 8 named characters I think-- 20%. No idea about Chima. Knight's Kingdom II may have been the worst-- I don't think there were ANY females named or unnamed. Elves has 10 named "humanoid" characters (not counting dragons, etc), and 3/10 are male, so 30%. Actually, counting "named" figures (instead of occurrences), Friends has 10 males and 32 females, making it about 24%. Not too bad, although Elves is closer. Well, the problem is typically as noted above-- sets with BOTH male and female figures will do fine with boys-- the problems are usually the ones with JUST females. When kids play with minifigs, usually they identify with one or more characters. Imagine, for example, two kids playing and one says "I'll be Batman, you be Robin". The act of controlling a figure signifies identifying with it. So as long as boys have a male character to identify with, they're usually ok. The trouble is when there aren't any male figures in the sets, in which case they're very hesitant to play with the toys. What would be interesting to see is how sales of "lone females" have done compared to the rest of the lineup-- how well does Ultimate Macy sell? Or the Nya/Samurai X spinner sets? From what we've been told, boys don't usually want them as much as the other sets, but the few girls that are into the theme are probably all over them. It'll definitely be interesting to see how Nexo Knights develops, and whether or not it follows similar patterns to Ninjago. I haven't paid too much attention to the Ninjago storyline, (even less to Chima!), although I've seen a bit more of Nexo Knights. There are certainly more apparent similarities between the dynamics in Ninjago and Nexo Knights-- but I guess it remains to be seen. LEGO's still pretty new to making storylines that are this fleshed out. Most of their earlier stories were pretty lightweight, except maybe Bionicle and Galidor. DaveE

Another male character like Tidas? A villain like Ragana? I'm not sure I follow-- I think the fantasy concept behind Elves is probably more appealing cross-gender, and I think the design reflects that-- quite possibly intentionally. IE, the reason that we have Farran could be that designers recognized the increased appeal for boys, and added him as a character to make sure that boys wouldn't be totally turned off from the lineup. Granted, I don't actually know-- as noted, it could also be for other reasons, like to give the Elves a gender dynamic (in the cartoons, there are references to flirting between characters, which wouldn't exist without a male character), or it could be to satisfy social demands like making sure that their lineups are gender-diverse. But my guess would be marketing. Interestingly, when I've looked at various advertising for Elves, they DID picture a boy playing with an Elves set (although his face was obscured-- we joked that he didn't want his identity known!). But I don't think I've seen a boy pictured playing with Friends. Again, I think the concept and design for Friends just isn't targeted to encompass boys. I think that "should" and "perfect world" are important points there. I'd love to believe that there's perfect gender equality, and that we didn't alienate anyone from certain products, but that's probably a lofty goal. I think if you included a "boy" Friend, it would have to be as a second-tier character to make sure that the sets still hit their target market. If you had a main "boy" friend, and he were the sole character in a set, my guess is that you'd see that particular set do more poorly sales-wise. "Justin's Creative Workshop" likely won't sell as well. A lot of the concept behind LEGO Friends is about the audience identifying with the characters. IE, "which LEGO Friend are you?" That's part of why it's set in modern day times rather than being overly fantastical like Elves or Disney Princess. Those are fantasy worlds, but Friends is "the real world". One of the things they aimed at was girls who often engage in imagining what their future life is going to be like a few years from now. The impression that I get is that for some girls age 7-9 (ish), there's a fascination with pre-teen or teenage life, where there's more independence from parents, and a stronger relationship with friends. Hence, the LEGO Friends lineup attempts to capitalize on that. And while a girl has an easy time identifying with Stephanie or Olivia or Andrea, she's less likely to identify with a male character. Elves is a different concept-- it's more focused around a fantasy world and story problems. So it's (in my opinion) more likely to be inviting conceptually to boys, while simultaneously not turning off as many girls with a male character. It would certainly be interesting to see-- I think the closest thing we might get would be something similar to the LEGO Movie, where it's crafted to encompass the brand as a whole. Generally for product design, the gender is a huge factor. But for something like movies, part of the goal is to be broad and appeal to a wider audience. So, more likely to see a balanced cast in a movie licensed product than, say, Ninjago, Friends, City, Chima, Elves, etc. I admittedly was sad that we only saw Wyldstyle and Unikitty as primary female characters in the LEGO Movie. With roughly 8 main characters, I thought they could have easily made 1 or 2 more of them female, without losing anything. Hopefully the sequel will be more evenly distributed! DaveE

Nah. I believe the toy industry's actually been getting larger! People were afraid of this in the 1980s and 1990s, and physical toys still did OK. Although for a while, anytime bad things happened, toy companies blamed it on electronics. As long as kids have physical bodies, they'll want physical toys. If (someday) we're so amazingly advanced that kids can simulate physical play virtually and not be negatively affected developmentally, THEN yes. But that's off the cutting edge of science and basically onto science fiction (which may someday be reality, but as yet is totally unclear). Well, here's the thing: LEGO targets kids, and for them, this is all new! LEGO's primary market is in the 6-12 year old zone-- and if YOU didn't get bored with superheroes or Star Wars as a kid, then tomorrow's kids won't either. Sure, the particulars of each brand may change-- and yes, Star Wars could (in theory) get old and outdated someday (largely thanks to its adult market, if so), but it'd be foolish to assume that LEGO wouldn't stay current and get new licenses that are similarly popular. This seems a little closer to the mark-- LEGO might cut back and endure some decline. And adult hobbyists might become less prevalent. But I'd hardly call it a "crash". What COULD crash might be the secondary LEGO market with resellers. That might happen. And it would affect some of LEGO's sales. But given LEGO's attempts to curb resellers, I can't imagine that the resellers are making up a significant portion of LEGO's total sales that would dry up instantly. It would be a decline for LEGO, and more of a rapid shock to the resellers as they race to get rid of several year old stock before the secondary market bottoms out. DaveE

For the foreseeable future, they're fine. Oddly enough, competition really isn't a huge factor for them, mostly thanks to the power of their brand. Their brand is widely seen as a wholesome, educational toy of high quality, and there's a great deal of brand loyalty. Competition could affect their market share, and reduce their prominent position, but there aren't any competitors currently poised to do that. Virtually ALL of LEGO's competitors are competing to be "the cheap alternative", and virtually none of them are competing to be a "high quality alternative". So LEGO's pretty secure in their position, even if they "cheap" market encroaches on them. The biggest threat is probably one of the "cheap" competitors like Hasbro (who actually has a competing product and has leverage and decent licenses). If, for instance, Hasbro were to wrestle away the licensing for Star Wars, Superheros, and other strong licenses, and create a strong enough brand with its Kre-O product, it has potential to knock a large chunk out of LEGO's revenue. LEGO wouldn't be gone by any means, but they'd be less dominant. Beyond that is simply relevance. LEGO seems to be the "it" toy for the moment, with parents clinging to the value of its brand. But as their product expands into lower quality areas that aren't seen as educational, their brand image may suffer. This is already noticeable in some markets, like resistance from feminist groups to LEGO Friends, or general reaction to LEGO being less creative than in years past (a common complaint of bloggers everywhere). If the LEGO brand loses value, they'll similarly lose market share and prominence. Again, they won't be totally gone, but it's possible that they sink back down to a "reasonable" size like they were before (rather than the hulking giant that they are seemingly now becoming!) Beyond that, LEGO's got some more "out-there" threats that we can't predict: 3D printing is one. If (somehow) 3D printing becomes competitive price-wise with injection-molded plastic, then LEGO will have to react well. They might be able to survive by licensing "schematics" for their products, or incorporating other non-printable elements like electronics, patterned parts, or other materials, but it's very unclear at this point what that battle would look like. We'll have to know a lot more about what 3D printing is like in order to determine the effects on LEGO. Environmentalism is also a possibility. As resistance to global warming trends rises, there could be movements to reduce production of plastics, including children's toys. If combined with 3D printing (like, say, re-usable printed plastic), LEGO again might have difficulty staying relevant. Or if virtual products can simulate physical ones. But that's pretty far out there-- society would have to change a lot for this to be a major threat to LEGO. DaveE

It's definitely interesting to see how LEGO is handling mini-dolls. I think most of the criticisms you have are undoubtedly thanks to how LEGO is deciding to market to girls instead of boys. For example, the lack of "generic" characters in Friends is quite likely thanks to the fact that the focus of the sets is supposed to be on the relationships of the characters, rather than peripherals. IE, the girls' enjoyment of the sets likely doesn't seem that much higher when including other figures that could be more interesting, so LEGO isn't doing that as much. At least, that'll be my guess. Further to that point, if they expand the mini-dolls to include other interesting designs, it's possible that it begins to infringe on the already very successful minifigure lineup, and possibly competes. It could be that girls who would appreciate an expanded lineup of Friends figures might be the type who are already buying minifig-based sets. The "boy" friend is another likely marketing point. Girls aren't terribly objectioned to playing with "boy" figures, but they like playing with "girl" figures more-- kids usually want to identify with the figures they're playing with. However, by contrast, boys are HORRIFIED at the prospect of being seen as "girly". So it's very unlikely to see boys that want to buy Friends sets, and somewhat more likely to find girls that want to play with, say, Ninjago. So including a "girl" figure in Ninjago is probably more important than including a main "boy" friend. The fact that Farran exists in Elves kind of surprises me in that regard-- I wonder if Elves is perceived as possibly appealing to more boys than Friends, or if Farran's inclusion is testing the waters of making a male main character (or possibly LEGO responding to criticism). One interesting point I'll make: My wife and I made a LEGO Friends vs LEGO Elves chess set, which we displayed at BrickFair Virginia recently. When contrasted against a lot of the other "boy"-themed models, a lot of girls were very excited to see Friends and Elves. However, I did notice that none of the girls who came by seemed to know any of the Friends characters' names. But there were a bunch of girls who recognized the Elves by name. I'm not sure if that's a difference in the types of fans of each lineup, or if it's just coincidence-- or perhaps simply because the Elves are more concretely defined characters. But it was interesting. I'll definitely be curious to see how mini-dolls continue to evolve. They've only been around since 2012, so only about 4.5 years of actual sales and market presence to react to. How broad will the mini-doll lineup get? Or will it narrow if Elves, Disney Princess, and others perform poorly? DaveE

There's no real good solution. The official part names are often useless, like: * Voodoo Ball Ø10,2 * Dog W/ 1.5 Hole No. 4 "1" * Bad Robot Arm * Flat Tile 1X1, Round No. 56 Those names often aren't very helpful. The patterns that they're printed with are just numbered, not described. So if you have a batman printed tile, it won't say "Batman logo", it'll just say "No. 293". But with that said, you CAN get the official part names for most current parts. BrickSet inventories *USUALLY* use LEGO's official elements, although this isn't done consistently-- some set inventories come from Rebrickable, which uses hobbyist names. A lot of those are for sets that LEGO doesn't have inventories, like older ones or otherwise "special" sets. So for older elements, you'll likely have to use hobbyist descriptions, I believe. The hobbyist names for parts derived initially from LDraw, and then started propogating to Peeron, BrickLink, Rebrickable, etc. BrickLink is probably the best source for the names, although there are some discrepancies, of course. DaveE

They're basically doing it to promote the brand with people NOT in the AFOL/hobbyist crowd. Your average 10-year-old might think that's a pretty awesome project, but not have NEARLY the bricks or experience to build these things on their own. But it gets them thinking about how to build with LEGO. Honestly, LEGO probably doesn't care at all what ELSE you add to your creations, as long as it's not a competing product, and as long as you're using LEGO as the "core" of your creation. I doubt many AFOLs will be all that impressed with what they've done there. I mean, it's cute and all, but you can see better hobbyist creations pretty easily, that do all kinds of even crazier things-- most of which are totally purist. Actually... I can't think of a time when the LEGO company has really cared about the hobbyists being purists. They're usually purist about the products they sell-- but even LEGO Education has non-LEGO stuff in there (and has encouraged that for years). It's really the hobbyists who are obsessed with being purist. And a few of the things they show are pretty difficult to manage using strictly LEGO parts. DaveE

The trouble is that ABS plastic is really complex in terms of structure, which means that not all batches of plastic will behave the same way. Typically, when I see a model start to yellow, it's because a few bricks here and there start yellowing-- it doesn't happen all at the same time. Some pieces are more resistant to yellowing than others. It would probably be a good idea to test with a variety of different types of elements, rather than just 2x4 bricks (quite possibly from the same batch). Try a small bunch of them, like a 1x1 brick, 1x2 brick, 1x3 brick, 1x4 brick, and the same sizes in plates, all stacked up in a 1x5 rectangle. That way, it's more likely that each one came from a slightly different batch of plastic, and are more likely to yellow at different rates. DaveE

The problem is math. 45 degree right triangles don't result in integers-- that's just the way it goes: In order to make that element work the way you're looking to do it, you'd have to make some other aspect "break" in the piece, so that it wouldn't work in the system. You could (for instance) make the element a little "wider" at the angle to fill the space, but then when you stacked bricks on it, you'd end up with a space that you don't want. The closest you can probably come is to make it "fudge" with different sizes of things in between. For instance, this isn't perfect, but it's close enough to work with a span of 14.5 studs (the math says it should be about 14.485 studs): If you need an integer number of studs in the middle, I haven't tested it, but you can put 10 studs in between each angle piece (rather than the 4 shown above), and that should give you a close-enough-to-fudge 29-stud gap in the center (actually 28.9705 studs). DaveE

Most likely you can't. These days, LEGO uses a plastic weld to glue its pieces together-- basically, the molecules of ABS bond together as the two plastics "melt" into one between adjacent elements. Most of the gluing is done under the bricks, where you can't see it, but you'll essentially have to break the plastic in order to get them apart, which means you MIGHT break it along the seam, or you might break it somewhere else, making for a big hunk of plastic sticking off your bricks. Additionally, the effort involved in attempting to break glued elements apart will quite likely leave your bricks scratched on the surface-- you may even need to resort to something like an Exacto knife, which could create deep gashes in the bricks. I expect your only hope for un-gluing is that they used a different glue back in the 1980s. But I doubt that. I don't know when they started using MEK, but I'll bet it was probably in the late 60s or 70s, after the switch to ABS plastic from CA. But if they DID use a different glue (the kind that your typical kid or parent might use to glue their models together), then you MIGHT be able to dissolve the glue without causing much harm to the ABS. But it'd be a long shot, even then. Your best bet is probably to leave them intact. Just admire them or play with them. DaveE

Your parameters are kinda lacking. Should it be a set that's currently available? Or is it ok if it's from the past (possibly available from BrickLink or Amazon)? How pricey is "pricey"? Are you looking for cheapest per 2x brick, or cheapest overall? Would you count 2x6 bricks as more "desirable" than 2x2 bricks, since they take up more volume? You mentioned 1x8 bricks, do the other bricks in the set matter? In recent years (2012 onward), the cheapest per 2x brick in a standard release set (based on US costs) appears to be 4628 Fun with Bricks, which was $30 and had 226 of them (according to BrickLink data). The set with the most 2x bricks (in recent years) was 10664 Creative Tower, which had 484 of them, but it wasn't released in the US (only Europe, I think?) Anyway, the data is out there, but you may have to be a lot more specific about what you're looking for. DaveE

This makes me wonder-- there are quite a few parts that I NEVER use again, after building the main model. I've never used that gigantic "wing" piece from a few of the airplanes: So, that's gonna cost me a LOT more than something I use all the time, like, say, white 1x1's with side stud: I'm wondering something else-- what parts are used by hobbyists the most frequently? And which are used the least? If I took a random sampling of (say) 1000 LDraw/LDD files of various MOCs, which elements and colors would get the most use? Which would be the "most valuable" to an AFOL? You could probably make a similar statistic using, say, the number sold on BrickLink compared to the number available on BrickLink (though you'd need historical data from BL to figure that out well, I think). As I think about this, I like the idea of rating a set on its "usefulness" factor. Which sets give you the most bang-for-your-buck, and which ones will give you a lot of fluff you'll never use? DaveE

Probably isn't in the books, since it's not likely an actual "set". The "LEGO Collector" books mentioned were intended to be listings of all of LEGO's plastic brick products over the years-- I think the most recent one is the 2nd edition from 2011 (1st edition was 2008): http://brickset.com/sets/ISBN393597664X-1/LEGO-Collector-2nd-Edition Those books are interesting, but won't have a listing unless it's actually a set. Further, I think between BrickSet, BrickLink, and LUGNET online databases, they're likely more complete than the books. So if it's in the book, I think it's in the database. Plus, the sketchy periods are mostly older stuff. I would expect most things from the 1990s are accounted for. My suspicion is that it's probably not LEGO, given your description of the elements, plus the fact that we can't seem to find it anywhere. There are a couple possibilities still, but it's kinda iffy. I'd still recommend asking on the BrickSet forums, though. They may not know anything further, but at least there's a bunch of other Brits on there who may have a better chance of having seen it growing up. DaveE

Well, again, I don't think it's the one you wanted, but I found another set of instructions for a phone in one of the old LEGO magazines from the UK! Check out the 1988 Spring Bricks & Pieces magazine, page 9: http://images.brickset.com/library/view/?f=bricksAndPieces/1988-1%20Spring DaveE

Definitely not THAT large! LEGO has a few hinge elements that go together that way, but they're all in the 4x4 range or smaller that I'm aware of. DaveE

Ahh, just silly American slang based on police terminology. In the US at least, police will put out an "All Points Bulletin (APB)", which basically means that they'll have all police units be aware of a certain situation. In TV shows and movies, you'll occasionally hear things like "Ok, we'll put out an APB on that red minivan!" or something similar. Basically means to have everyone be on the lookout for someone or something. DaveE

Very hard to say. There were definitely other brands at the time. Tyco Super Blocks may have been around (they might have stopped by then), and Mega Bloks were also around by that time. Both are compatible with LEGO, and are often confused with LEGO. Cobi ... maybe? Not sure they'd be sold in the UK at the time, maybe just Europe. Best Lock? Not sure. And as to whether or not they had a large part like that? Ooof, very hard to say. Other products are very poorly documented, since there's not much of a dedicated fanbase. It's possible that it's LEGO, although if it is, it would be a very difficult thing to find. A lot of "generic" LEGO sets contained minimalistic instructions, and haven't been scanned by LEGO fans. Once we get into year 2000 and beyond, people have been pretty good about getting instructions scanned-- and by 2005 or so, LEGO was even putting out PDFs of all their instructions, so we're pretty complete there. But mid 1990s and before is kinda sketchy. Most minifig-based sets and technic sets are documented, but there's a smattering of other sets that are NOT well documented. However, given that it's a human-scale phone, it would normally be more likely to be in a LEGO idea book rather than a set (I would think). Most of the sets with instructions focused on minifig-scale constructions in the 1990s (that I know of), even in the "Basic/Freestyle" range. And I think all the idea books are pretty well scanned from the time period-- so... quite probably not in an idea book. And as mentioned, there are a few other oddities that might qualify. Magazines sometimes put out instructions, and occasionally so did the UK catalogs (I believe). Also, LEGOLAND in Windsor may have sold or handed out similar sheets that aren't documented. LEGOLAND parks often had free license to make whatever they wanted, and could have made "phone" instructions, hard to say. All that said, I can't seem to find anything in the LEGO documentation that matches what you're describing. You could also put out an APB on brickset.com's forums, too. There's a much larger contingent of UK-based AFOLs on that site, so you could get a response there that's worth something. DaveE