davee123

Hm... Well, I looked through Peeron's instructions through 1999, and the closest match I could find was a phone from a 1973 idea book: http://www.peeron.com/scans/221-1/41 But based on the above, I'll bet that's not right. Hmm... Do you know if it was an actual set? Or might it have been something else? It... could have been in a LEGO magazine, too. I think Brick Kicks and Mania Magazine were around at the time, although you sound like you're from the UK, so I'm not sure which ones would have been in the UK at the time offhand. There are some scans of the US magazines here: http://www.miniland....agazine eng.htm [edit] Oh, here's some scans of the UK magazines from the time period, too: http://www.miniland.nl/LEGOclub/lego%20magazine%20lezen%20eng.htm [/edit] DaveE

When were you "younger"? Could this have been a set from 2002? Or 1992? Or 1982? Or 1972? I assume this is probably a Basic/Freestyle/Bricks & More/Universal set that had a limited set of instructions-- I assume it had other models in the booklet? I believe there used to be a Mega Bloks Super Blocks phone (not LEGO) that was partially green, but I don't know if it had instructions, or if it was glued. It looked like this: How large was it? Big enough for a kid to hold in their hand? Or was it smaller? You show a push-button phone-- was it similarly a push-button, or was it a circular dial phone? Did it have a cord for the handset? If so, what was it made out of? Did it have multiple steps for the phone? How many (approximately)? 3 steps? 30 steps? DaveE

This was unreleased, but found in the LEGO vault: I also know that LEGO had plans for expanding the Rock Raiders theme-- initially it was categorized as "Underground", rather than just "Rock Raiders", and they had a few things planned for a "wave 2" with other underground creatures. I've never seen any pictures, though. A long time ago, I also heard from Tim Saupé that LEGO planned to make an AT-AT for its initial wave of Star Wars sets in 1999. However, they supposedly had a lot of difficulty with the legs, because all of their joints at the time were too flimsy to keep it standing up satisfactorily. Hence, it wasn't until LEGO designed the new "AT-AT knee joint" that we actually saw a LEGO AT-AT. My wife worked at LEGO Futura a long while back, and basically said that LEGO has gobs of unreleased stuff that they keep on hand for designers to refer to. She said that often, people would come up with ideas that they thought were new only to be told "Yeah, we tested something like that a few years ago". And sure enough, they've still got the concept art, pictures of sketch models, and so forth. But obviously a lot of this never makes its way out the door to the hobbyist community. DaveE

That's sort of what I would assume, since 1976 is crazy. I wouldn't imagine that LEGO was in the habit of doing any promotional minifigs (well, stiffy figs) at the time. A nurse from 1976 is certainly possible (although none are known as promos), since there was a red cross sticker in the old hospital sets. Flight attendants would be really surprising, though, because NONE of the stickers that I'm aware of at the time were detailed enough to indicate "flight attendant". They were pretty simplistic back then. So I'm skeptical without more information. DaveE

Since these are from 1976, I assume these are "stiffy" figures? Do they have special stickers on them or something? How do you know they're from 1976? Where did they come from? DaveE

Well... yes and no. I'd love it if they printed more stuff-- but then again I'd also love it if they improved other quality issues: - include an instruction backing for ALL instructions, not just big sets - make all the pieces in Denmark, where quality is higher - switch back to only a single supplier for colors to reduce variations - include alternate models on sets - use actual chrome rather than current silver/gold metallic - make flip-up lids again, with nice transparent inserts to view interesting parts - provide more color and element selections in PAB - return to previous ABS mixtures to avoid cracking elements - go back to pre-colored ABS to create more color consistency - include a wider variety of parts/colors in production at a time - retain replacement elements for a longer lifespan - etc... etc ... etc.... So, yes, technically, they could probably pick ONE of these and pass the cost on to the consumer, and it wouldn't be all that noticeable. But once you set that precedent, it's hard to avoid doing it everywhere else. How many pennies of extra cost would it take before customers would start complaining? Actually, they're already complaining. So... how much until it tips the scales? I'll leave that to the folks at LEGO. And hopefully, it'll mean more printed parts. Actually, I think it may already have done that. But I hope it continues :) DaveE

One of the big reasons that they're rich is that they CAN'T afford it. LEGO basically ran their business with the philosophy "Only The Best Is Good Enough" for a long time-- and it cost them gobs of money. They just didn't really have a complete picture of how their practices were affecting their business. That's how they ended up releasing the old fiber optic set with a LOWER retail cost than an INTERNAL cost! They just never connected the dots to figure out just how much cost they had incurred! To their credit, LEGO has actually been churning out a LOT of new prints. I was amazed when I looked at the latest Doctor Who and Big Bang Theory sets-- did you see how many new printed torsos, legs, bricks, and tiles they included in those? Anyway, it's a balancing act. Some stuff can get printed, and I'd love it if they did more (selectively), but keep in mind that if they go crazy with high quality across the board, it could well affect their business negatively. DaveE

I love stickers for big, ugly, horrible designs that I'll never use in a MOC, because then I don't have to apply them. Like this: Thankfully, I have never had to ruin a perfectly good 6x12 tile/plate with that big, gaping mouth. If it were printed, I'd have some big pieces that I'd never use. Printed parts like this make me sad, because I'm unlikely to use them: On the other hand, stickers suck for patterns I actually want. Like this: That would be an awesome printed element. But since it's a sticker, it will fade more quickly, possibly peel, won't perfectly match the background, will create a slight protrusion on the edge (for added friction), and might get applied at an angle. I'd rather it were printed. DaveE

I think that's what he meant when he said: "the bases of the LEGO Infinity figures are perfect but sadly not very practical for several reasons" Disney has a toys-to-life game called "Disney Infinity", and it's pretty similar to LEGO Dimensions conceptually. I assume he just confused the names. But as he mentions, those are a little impractical, mostly thanks to the cost! DaveE

This is probably a bad way to go about this. If you're looking to commission something and you've got a reasonable budget, you should approach people whose work you like and offer them the job. If you post generally like this, you might get someone whose work you won't want to pay for, in which case you'll both end up unhappy. You should state your budget, as well as more details on what you're looking for. You say "mini modular"-- do you mean like the Mini Modular LEGO sets that are models of the Modular Town buildings? Or did you want a modular town-sized building at minifig scale? Or maybe something totally different? Also, do you just want a design, or do you want a physical model? If it's a design, does it have to be, say, affordable via BrickLink? If so, what's the budget on the constructed model? You should also ask for a link to images of the person's work, so you can figure out if it's someone you're willing to pay. However, if you've only got a small budget (like $20 or something), this may just not be worth most builders' times, unless they're already interested in doing it themselves. In that case, you're going to have to inspire people to help you. It might be good to make a "1st pass" MOC yourself, and then ask for help once you've got something going. DaveE

Actually, I think that's totally fair. Prostitutes exist in real life (and have for thousands of years), but as a parent, I might not want my kid to have a LEGO City set where cops raid a brothel. Being "honest" to source material doesn't necessarily mean that you include everything with no filter. You can select the aspects of that source material that are appropriate. For example, they made Indiana Jones sets-- but for the Temple of Doom, they made a model of the mine cart chase, rather than tearing a heart out of a chest or eating monkey brains. They made Raiders of the Lost Ark, but they chose the snake pit in the tomb rather than the scene where someone's face melts off. So, what's interesting is where they've elected to put their filter. Back in the 1980s, the police didn't even have criminals to arrest in LEGOLAND Town sets. The police used walkie talkies, traffic signs, megaphones, and apparently sat around directing traffic all day. It wasn't until 1995 that we saw our first "prisoner" minifig (funnily enough, the first set with a depiction of an "arrest" is actually in Fabuland in 1984!). Nowadays, the police lineup is a lot more "cops-and-robbers" style-wise, but they still don't have guns, tasers, pepper spray, etc. They're pretty tame for police. Even in Star Wars (a recent and more violent theme), their filter has changed-- sets with hand-held blasters have gone from almost not there at all (2/13 in 1999) to being in almost every set (nearly 84% in 2015): LEGO's been getting more violent as time goes on-- that's pretty clear. But one thing that may be an important piece of the puzzle is that (I think) kids toys in general have been getting more violent and gruesome. As the internet has been getting more prevalent, kids are exposed to more and more extreme things, and it takes more extreme things to excite them-- including extreme violence. So the market in general (I expect) has been getting more violent, and LEGO's followed the trend. DaveE

The study is cute. It looks like a student research paper that was done because the students like LEGO, and wanted to do something LEGO-related as their project, which is fine. They downloaded BrickLink data, and used the easiest metric they could find to identify "weapons", because it would be very time consuming to include things like Johnny Thunder's torso, where he's packing heat (for example): Plus, they didn't account for set life. You'll see a big spike in their data at 1984, when LEGOLAND castle had a huge inflow of sets, and another one in 1989 when Pirates showed up, but those themes didn't disappear in 1985 and 1990 respectively, unlike more modern sets which have a quick shelf-life. As such, it's an acceptable metric, but it's not all that great. It's only enough to give a very rough idea. Then, they did an online survey-- they didn't use people off the street of more diverse backgrounds-- they just did an online survey. Probably shot out some emails for feedback, quite possibly on LEGO boards-- and asked people. And the people that responded were mostly male (no surprise). And they rated catalog scans. But it's not clear at all what they used to represent catalog images. They say: "In addition, we excluded pages that did not use the standard LEGO scale, such as those featuring DUPLO or Junior products." Which... is probably fine for DUPLO. But "Junior"? I'm not sure I would have excluded it-- especially since the new Juniors line contains minifigs. Jack Stone, maybe. Even then, I'm not sure. But did they include LEGO Friends? Clearly they didn't include the Architecture series, or Creator sets. However, that brings up a critical point regarding their FIRST metric. I thought it was pretty strange that it seemed to suggest that roughly a whopping 25% of all elements were "Minifig Weapons" as categorized by Bricklink, and that nearly 30% of sets contained weapons. Were they skipping over DUPLO, Friends, Junior, Technic, etc. in the weapon counts too? They don't say. So. The study's title appears to be WRONG. And that's very annoying. The study is apparently a study of MINIFIG-BASED LEGO products, NOT LEGO as a whole. That's misleading-- sorta like click-bait. I expect that the study's results are still correct-- LEGO has gotten more violent. But I doubt it's as pronounced as it would suggest. So my advice to the authors: Change the title. Be exact about what you're studying. I expect that overall, LEGO has gotten more violent, yes, but that it's probably not getting all that much worse in the last, say, 10 years. With LEGO Friends, Elves, and Disney Princess, LEGO's been attempting to attract a far less violent female market base. And things like Creator, Winter Village, Architecture, more D2C sets, etc, are likely balancing out the overall level of violence. It WOULD be interesting to do a better study on this-- but it would take more dedication to the data than these students (I'm assuming students) really took the time for. When did violence peak? What themes have been the most violent? Etc. I think this study pointed out the rather obvious general trend, which honestly isn't really that interesting to the AFOL community at large-- I mean, really, we already knew that. It's more dangerous to the general public, because they WON'T know this study's failings, and the TITLE makes it dangerous negative publicity. DaveE

Huh, I hadn't thought to check whether the math was possible on this, but it seems you're right-- no integer number of plates or headlight bricks will fill the space! No wonder I was having difficulty! I guess if I want something smoother, I'll have to adjust something along the edges, although I don't see anything immediately that'll do what I want. Interesting, though! Nah, as stated they're just aesthetic issues. Nothing even touches those surfaces, really-- the balls ride along the outer rim of the cam, and an axle goes through the center to drive it (technically that should be an axle-hole pictured, not a pin-hole). So it's just my internal desire to be persnickety. I couldn't come up with anything smoother-- as it stands, the stepping doesn't really seem to affect the balls, although I'd guess I've only run through about 600-800 balls or so in practice runs. Thank god for soccer balls being round! That'd be pretty handy-- I was always curious whether this was done to avoid making sharp corners, or perhaps because they were more prone to chipping on the edges if they made them with more pointed ends. Or, I suppose, problems with ABS plastic filling the smaller nooks (maybe air bubbles make those more difficult?) Anyway, yeah, it'd be nice! DaveE

I guess technically, yes-- In my current design, the gap that's closer to the center (directly under the central axle hole) is already obscured by the housing. But honestly, it's mostly about silly aesthetics and a sort of "can it be done?" question. The GBC's already built, and it seems to work fine (until I get it to the event, when I'm sure it'll fail catastrophically!). And I doubt anyone will really notice the gaps, since the cams spin pretty quickly, and the visible gap only pops into view shortly (they spin at about 1 rev per second, and are pretty much lost in the flurry of GBC-ness). So, even if it stays as is, I don't think it's really a big deal. I was mostly surprised when I sat down to do it that I had such difficulty! Most things that I've designed, if I have enough space to work with, I can often get them nice and smooth. But granted, I don't do that very often, so I'm not as experienced at it as others seem to be. I was mostly curious if it really COULD be done, and what specifically might be making this design as difficult as it was for me. I'm not stuck on the specific arrangement of the "border bricks", either-- I just wanted to follow the curve above as closely as possible, which this seemed to do pretty well. Obviously, if it sticks out a little here or there, it's not really a big detriment to the functionality. DaveE

Well, at least I've thoroughly frustrated someone else, too! Here's the outline I'm trying to follow: The 1x3 curved slope that's closest to the center should probably be replaced with a 1x2 curved slope-- although... I think I did that more out of part restrictions than actual desirability. Originally, I started "filling in" the design with the technic brick in the middle being rotated 90 degrees, which aligns it a little more correctly. But for whatever reason, that REALLY screwed me up. I spent a couple hours with it in that orientation before throwing it out and trying it in its current orientation (which seemed to work a bit better for me). But although I'm OK with SNOT-building, I'm not as good as a lot of folks out there, so I figured I'd ask! DaveE

I'm building a technic dealybob-- a GBC, actually. And it's got very large cams in it that are brick built. They're 1-stud thick, and they spiral outwards. However, my SNOT abilities are not quite up to perfection. I've got two small holes in my cam design that I'd love to believe are fill-able, but I haven't managed to get it yet. So... SNOT-masters, can you get a design that fills the gaps? (And hopefully is sturdy enough not to fall apart when spinning) DaveE

Possibly-- The year's not even halfway through, yet, though. They may fill those gaps a bit. ... And technically, although you didn't count them, they've also picked up 3 new DUPLO linups: Miles from Tomorrowland, Doc McStuffins, and Sofia the First (all Disney). But regardless, it's not really a useful metric, unless it's sustained over more time. When the stars align and projects are ready to roll out, they'll show up. And it'll be in the same general ballpark. They've got something like 20-30 different "themes" (depending on how you count them) going on at once. I wouldn't read too much into it unless it starts happening for 2-3 years in a row. DaveE

As if to drive the point home of being done to death... One of the funniest just-for-the-hell-of-it calculations that I did way-back-when was based on average mass/volume. Your average minifig is something like 3.3-3.5g, and your average human is something like 62 kg. I don't recall what the "volume" of a minifig is (I guesstimated using some odd numbers, assuming that the legs were solid, etc), but if scaled up appropriately, I remember it was surprisingly roughly accurate (as in, not all THAT much worse than using height or width). I recall being amazed that it wasn't TOTALLY out of whack, since I was expecting it to be a completely zany result. DaveE

Actually, I think this question has been done to death in the LEGO community. My first discussion about minifig scaling came in 2000. The first conversation I can find about minifig scale is in 1998, back on RTL. There are probably earlier ones, too. I wrote an online tool in early 2002 to convert things to minifig scale, hoping that the "default" options would help influence builders and get people on a standard. And I've seen the topic pop up all the time ever since. The answer is unfortunately: people are going to build their own things at their own scales. There's no consensus. And that's largely because: (1) LEGO figures aren't proportional to normal humans (2) LEGO figures are so small that in order to make something like "a coin" or "a fork" or "a frog" for minifigs, LEGO has to make them VERY oversized. (3) People base their scales on things that are "about right", like the size of an arch piece that they want to use, or the width of LEGO train tracks, or the length of a canopy. So, there's room to fudge. I've seen "minifig scale" between about 1:30 to about 1:60. It's a huge range. Mini-dolls are a little better-- they're slightly more human-proportioned. And Technic, Belville and Scala, too. I dunno about DUPLO and Fabuland, though. They're pretty out-of-whack (and DUPLO's done a few different designs, too). If you're looking to write an article, that's great-- you can even pick some reasonable scales and recommend them. But what's probably better is to pick some ranges, and say "this range is what most people seem to use", rather than picking a specific scale. DaveE

Well, there's always the Hero Factory / Bionicle style lightning bolt: Comes in a few different variants for colors... http://alpha.bricklink.com/pages/clone/searchproduct.page?q=hero%20factory%20flame%20lightning%20bolt%20with%20axle%20hole#T=A DaveE

Why is LEGO popular? It's constructive. I could watch football, read books, or listen to music. But LEGO lets me build something and be "productive". It's tactile. Sure, I can build a 3D virtual model or draw a picture, but I can't feel it in my hands. It's nostalgic. I grew up with LEGO, it's got a hold on me. It's a perfectionist's tool. Unlike other mediums like, say, clay, LEGO is "perfect", geometric, and fits a simple mental model of how shapes "should" be. It's challenging. A limited palette of elements with essentially unlimited possibilities? That's a fun challenge. It supports collectors. Some people love collecting "all" of something, and LEGO offers many opportunities there. It's a great learning tool. It teaches kids spatial relations, organizational skills, and other great things. So it's "good" for kids to play with. It's high quality. LEGO's had a long track record of being one of the highest quality construction toys-- it's the "best" of many different other options. It doesn't expire. LEGO can be handed down from generation to generation, and it doesn't go bad (well, not much anyway). It's wholesome. The brand image of LEGO is pretty pure (used to be even more so). Everyone's happy, colorful, and historically pretty non-violent. It supports all age levels. Every age person finds LEGO models interesting-- even adults are amazed and intrigued by well-done models. It's current. LEGO has kept with the times in terms of product offering, media, and so forth. It's valuable. In recent years, as the value of LEGO has increased, more people want to invest in it. It's enormously diverse. Especially with the licenses in the past 18 years, there have been a WIDE range of products. It's a moral company. Everyone loves a family-owned business that responds to moral issues, versus a faceless corporation solely after profits. What's the future of LEGO? Hard to say. I don't see LEGO's position changing too much in the next 10 years. The collector bubble might burst, their sales might fluctuate, or they might just keep reaching new heights. But they'll continue to be a leader in the toy industry. As for the comparison with Minecraft, I think that's off the mark. Sure, you can buy Minecraft for your kids, and it's technically "unlimited". And it's cheaper than LEGO! ... But if saving money is your goal... why not just download MLCAD for free? There are a LOT of reasons that both Minecraft *AND* LEGO are good. And any parent will realize that you can get both. They teach different skills. Furthermore, I don't put a lot of faith in the longevity of Minecraft. Will Minecraft still be popular in 10 years? Uh... hm. I'm not sure. Maybe. Maybe not. Will the adult LEGO market eventually dominate the kid LEGO market? I doubt it. LEGO's owners are committed to children. That's their focus, and likely will be for a LONG time to come. That's where they're putting their big money for investment. The adult part of the hobby? Yeah, they put some money there too, but not nearly as much as they do for kids. I don't see that changing. In 20 years and beyond, things get tricky. What's the future of 3D printing, for example? How will LEGO prevent me from making my own LEGO-compatible elements at home (or make me not want to)? If the technology gets cheap enough and good enough, it could someday make LEGO's current production and sales model obsolete. Will LEGO change with the times to adjust? I hope so. But we don't really know yet. And it's a long way off. There are enough intelligent adults interested in LEGO's survival that I expect they'll survive and do well... Even if the types of things they do will change. DaveE

I think they built a few "long stretches" of road out of LEGO bricks, probably for the shots with the bridges in them. For the other shots, it's built into a bridge. And, notice how the bridge has a 1-stud "lip" underneath it on the rail? That's the PERFECT depth for laying down a 1-stud brick built road. Anyway, they line them up for the bridges, and it's great. THEN, they get to the shot on page 10/11, and they want a road for the background, but they don't want to use baseplates (they do most everywhere else in the book), probably because they want it to cross over the water with the boat on page 10. Anyway, they lay out the long sections of brick-built roads, but without the surrounding structure of the rest of the bridge, it has a noticeable gap. Plus, they don't bother to make sure that the dashed-lines don't line up. And oops! It's in the final shot. Who's going to notice, anyway? (Well, I guess I noticed, some 30+ years later). It also seems to match the "LEGO gray" color pretty well-- I note that under the helicopter on page 10, the smooth "dock" surface has a distinct change in hue when it gets to the road, but the road matches very well in pages 14/15 and 22/23. So, the smooth surface (also shown on 14/15, but without a good contrast to tell) is probably NOT LEGO-- it's probably painted or something. But the road matches very well-- so... I'm guessing it's made out of LEGO. It COULD be something custom from LEGO. My first thought was a custom baseplate, with its own paint-job (which happens sometimes), but the brick seam makes it appear more substantial. Just the right height for a brick. Anyway, that's my theory. And I'm sure everyone is on the edge of their seats trying to figure this out :) DaveE

At first, I thought it was a custom part. Looking at it, I can't see any brick seams, although it's at an angle that you might not see them. So I pulled out my copy, and then I noticed this: check out page 11, near the top. It uses the SAME road design as pages 14/15 (and also 22/23), but it's got a very visible seam: That doesn't look like a baseplate seam to me-- it looks like a seam in a brick-built road with bricks laid on their side. And the edge even looks like it's about the width of a tile. So, I'm betting it's brick-built. DaveE

Phase I: Getting back into LEGO When I was 16, I pulled out all my childhood LEGO for a high school math project. It never made it back to the attic. My parents actually wanted to give it to my younger brother, who was about 5 years old at the time, but I made excuses, and kept it to myself. I built with it here-and-there, but didn't really build much until the summer following my senior year (at age 17). Phase II: Buying more LEGO My summer after high school, I worked as a camp counselor at a local day camp. We mostly did outdoorsy things like kickball and swimming, but some indoor activities like arts & crafts (and even a computer lab!). We didn't have any LEGO at the camp, but one day, one of my campers brought this in (yes, this was the summer of 1994): I secretly lusted after it. In the fall, I took a year off between high school and college, and got a retail job. Naturally, I didn't get much vacation time, so when the rest of my family went away for a week, I had the house to myself. And a car. And a steady paycheck with actual money that I could spend. I went out and bought LEGO every night that week. I didn't want my parents to know that I was actually buying more LEGO, though-- so I tried to keep it secret. When they came back, I would occasionally do more of the same-- sneaking out to buy LEGO at Toys R Us, and hiding it in my room. I think they knew I was probably buying more, but I'm not sure if they ever saw the evidence directly. Phase III: Finding other AFOLs I didn't have much space or time for LEGO in college. I bought a couple things here and there, but mostly kept it on the back burner. But towards the end of my senior year in college, I met another student who loved LEGO. And he showed me RTL (the newsgroup... k'now... newsgroups? Sorry, I'm old). I lurked there a while, and watched. Then, after school was out, I found a job, and also found LUGNET. Suddenly, I was a full-on crazy LEGO guy. And any secret shame about being an adult who was into LEGO went out the window. DaveE

The other effect that it might have is on currently desirable lineups like Star Wars / Superhero minifigures, Modular Town sets, UCS, etc. That is, if a significant portion of the buyers are indeed buying to resell, then they'll presumably stop buying when the bubble bursts. And that would mean LEGO sees a drop in sales, and decides to discontinue or cut back on these products. So it could have a negative effect for you, even if you don't really care about the prices involved. Personally, I hope it finds a balance point, rather than bursting. That'd be nice. But that's probably wishful thinking. So I guess that means I'm in favor of it staying as-is (as inflated as it may be). I honestly don't worry about my collection's value. I don't expect to sell it until I've been retired for a while, and it looks like I won't be around much longer. Then I'll start to sell, because chances are that burdening my family with a massive LEGO collection to get rid of is more than they'd want to deal with. But ... when that happens, I expect my really valuable sets will have decreased quite a bit in value. Who's going to want my old UCS Millennium Falcon in, say, 2045? Everyone that grew up with Star Wars is similarly dying, downsizing, and quite possibly selling at the same time. They younger folks that have money to spend are going to know the "new" Millennium Falcon from EP7-EP9 (assuming that it stays a prominent ship in the films), and my UCS LEGO version will be an interesting historical curiosity-- not a highly sought after display piece. So... I already expect that when I get rid of my collection, it'll be greatly devalued. So that's no matter to me. Buying new stuff? Well, I don't really care about that either. There are a few scant things that I don't have because of the price-- like Mr. Gold, for example. But mostly, if I want them, I buy them when they come out, without much difficulty. Perhaps if I were looking to really grow my collection, I might care-- because I could get stuff for cheap. But I've already got more than a million pieces. So I don't need to make my collection even more monstrous. I'm fine with prices as they are, even if they're inflated now. The only negative is really the possibility of re-selling. Sure, I don't plan on re-selling, but it's something I think about now and again. If I wanted to make a little money on the side, could I buy something cool, like, say, the SHIELD Helicarrier, and sell it in a few years? Well, it's fun to think about. And I like that the possibility is there. ... Not that I've ever done it. And (God forbid!) I have to sell my collection prematurely thanks to some personal crisis, it's nice to have the value to fall back on. Neither of those are likely, but they're possible. In the end, I guess that means I'd like it to stay where it is. DaveE