davee123

Well, I remember a half-hour show on Treasure HD that featured two LEGO collectors: http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=54664 Last year, they did a radio show for the Colin McEnroe Show on WNPR on Oct 23, 2012 about AFOLs: http://www.yourpublicmedia.org/node/22490 DaveE

Yeah, I recall talking to the guys at the model shop in Enfield, and they said they once they started finding a few mistakes, they intentionally went through it to try and enumerate all of them. I remember one of their errors being a misspelling of "acrylonitrile", which you'd like to think they'd double-check, being a difficult word to spell to start with! But there were supposedly scads of errors. DaveE

Ahh, good point, I think you may be correct-- I was doing a cursory lookup, so I wasn't sure the times of year when they were released. DaveE

Pretty sure that they were always intended to be at their own scale, they just-so-happened to also work as children for the Homemaker sets. I get that impression from a lot of their stuff these days. They don't have access to stock photography of a lot of the historical stuff, and a good chunk of it isn't compiled together into a nice, friendly, central source. They also might want to make everything look more modern and appealing in the images. IE, the concern might be that kids will be bored looking at old stuff from the 80's, so might as well jazz it up and use things like the modern pirate captain. Yep. The original ghosts from 1990 used a 1x2 brick and a 1x2 plate in place of legs. I believe the first ghost that used actual legs was in 1997. I think the timeline for minifigs looks something like: 1978 - First minifig 1989 - First non-smiley printed head (Pirates) 1989 - First minifig (non-stiffy) torso used without legs (Figure on pirate ship) 1989 - First minifig w/ non-hand (hook hand on pirate) 1989 - First minifig w/ non-leg leg (pegleg on pirate) 1990 - First minifig (non-stiffy) with non-yellow head (Ghost) 1990 - First slope used as a dress piece (6081 Princess) 1994 - First printed legs (Islanders and Spyrius robot) 1994 - First printed waist (Spyrius robot) 1996 - First minifig w/ transparent head (Ann-Droid in Exploriens) 1996 - First minifig w/ teeth (Bandit in Wild West) 1996 - First minifig with "pupils" (Timmy, Dr. Cyber) 1997 - First minifig w/ nose (Native Americans) 1997 - First alien minifig 2000 - First molded head (Jar-Jar) 2001 - First double-sided head (Voldemort) 2002 - First short legs (Yoda) 2003 - First flesh tones (NBA) 2003 - First printed arms (Boba Fett) DaveE

The original "LEGO figures" weren't even those guys! TECHNICALLY, the first ones that were sold with the LEGO building bricks were the little guys from the Town Plan days: Apart from purely brick-built figures, I think the next ones were probably the maxifigs in 1974 (brick built, but with some specially molded human-like elements): Then the "stiffy" figures in 1975: Then the DUPLO figures in 1976: Then minifigs in 1978: Next would be... Fabuland in 1979? And... the "Basic" figures in 1981 maybe? Technic figures in 1986: Newer DUPLO figures in 1991: Other figure types I can think of offhand that were for general sale (ignoring store display figs, maquettes, clock-figs, etc): -Belville -DUPLO w/ arms -Scala -Primo -Galidor (big stretch, since it wasn't sold with typical bricks) -Bionicle-style (also Ben-10, Hero Factory) -Newer DUPLO w/ arms -Knight's Kingdom large scale (and newer Super Heroes) -Micro-Bionicle (minifig-ish scale) -Microfigs -Friends DaveE

Well, the problem is in defining what a minifigure is! Is Jar-Jar Binks a minifig? How about a skeleton? R2-D2? The Cave Troll? Jabba the Hutt? The rancor? The mutant dinosaurs? BrickSet itself is pretty accurate-- it's just that it's up to you to decide if something's a minifig or not. Your opinion may be quite different from the admins at BrickSet, BrickLink, or even the people at LEGO! DaveE

Hmmm.... my records say 5,721, BrickSet says 5,463, and neither of those count my wife's who probably has another 1000+ easily. So, I'll wager in the 7,000 ballpark, give or take 500, maybe. DaveE

I would pay double for LEGO's quality to return to what it was in the 1990's and before. DaveE

I think what you're saying is that, yes, it IS "official", just not "official LEGO". It's "an official *BrickArms* product". IE, you want people to explicitly use a qualifier like "LEGO" in tandem with the word "official", like "This is an official LEGO element" rather than saying "This is an official element". But really, the qualifier "LEGO" is implied. IE, we're LEGO hobbyists, not "plastic-bricks-built-to-the-LEGO-established-stud-and-tube-system" hobbyists. Sure, some of us aren't brand-loyal, and don't mind mixing in other products other than LEGO products specifically, but by-and-large, the expectation is that LEGO is the ONLY official entity when it comes to this hobby. DaveE

Technically, yes. In practice, it's hard to say for sure. You probably won't notice if you store them that way for (say) 5 years. Probably not even 10 years. Beyond that, it gets fuzzy. Some people have kept them locked together for 15 years or more and never had a problem. Others have had slight issues. I personally noticed it with some bricks that I purchased that had been left assembled as a set for roughly 10-15 years. And I should note that although the bricks DID lose SOME clutch power (enough to be noticeable), the clutch was only lost with bricks in that particular configuration. So if you rotated the bricks by 180 degrees, they clutched fine, with no loss. Another instance I had was over a much shorter time, but was difficult to detect: I built an AT-AT back in late 2000/early 2001. The neck used a studs-forward design, and when I built it, it held up just fine. However, over the next 3 years, the neck became increasingly susceptible to falling apart. (For reference's sake, I rarely stored the AT-AT "standing", and usually had the neck detached.) Finally, around mid-2003, the studs lost enough clutch to hold the head up, and it simply seemed impossible to re-attach the neck and have it hold the head. The bricks still had clutch power, mind you-- and I couldn't tell the difference with my hands. But the weight of the AT-AT's head was SO close to the tipping point of the clutch power of the studs, that I think the lost clutch was enough to tip the scales. One point I'll make is that the other conditions of storage will probably affect the clutch as well, like humidity, temperature, and possibly UV exposure. I've been told that ABS absorbs humidity to a certain degree, so it's likely that if you store the bricks assembled in a humid environment (especially in a humid environment where there's a lot of temperature fluctuation), you're likely to see clutch loss more quickly. With that said, it's difficult to say how long it'll take before you notice clutch loss, and how severe it will be. Could be 10 years, could be 50 years, could be 100 years. And the plastic might start to degrade (IE, even if not-assembled) before you'd notice a difference from constant minor stress. DaveE

That's really up to you, but hopefully you won't let it get to you. Ultimately, posting images to the web is about pride (showing what you're capable of), participating in a community, getting feedback (improving and evaluating your skills), and inspiring others. You'll need to figure out why you're posting. Seriously, think about what makes you post a picture of a MOC rather than just building it and letting it sit on your desk, or having pictures that never get published anywhere. What's the benefit (to you) of posting your work? There's an inevitability that if you're a quality builder, you're going to have MOC pictures (or designs) stolen. I've had image theft happen many times (back when I was more actively MOCing), and I'm sure it's even more common today. Sometimes I didn't care (like if people used my image for their profile), sometimes I did (like when submitting for a building contest). Ultimately, though, posting pictures of my work was more valuable to me than not posting. The value I got back from the community was well worth the occasional theft. Particularly considering that people "in the know" in the LEGO community certainly knew that I was the original builder. DaveE

I think it's a matter of geek pride. I can definitely tell you that the hobbyists that talk online today are less fanatic than those talking "back in the day". So, I think some AFOLs have a desire to say "oh, I'm a REAL fan, you're just a wannabe fan". Basically, they want to maintain their identity as a raging geek by not including you in the group. And, to some extent, I have to admit that the term may become diluted when we extend it to all adults that have purchased a LEGO set. If (for example), someone bought a Tower Bridge set and displayed it on their bookshelf, is that enough to qualify them as an AFOL, even if they never buy another LEGO set? I tend to think "nah, not really", although I have difficulty putting my finger on exactly why, or how many sets it WOULD take before I'd be comfortable calling them an AFOL. After all, I'm sure there are AFOLs out there who can't afford to actually BUY LEGO, but still would qualify based on their interest level. Anyway, while I wouldn't classify you as an "EXTREME AFOL", you're definitely still an AFOL in my book. DaveE

I bought a bunch of LEGO in secret back in 1994 and 1995. I had just graduated high school, and I was still pretty embarrassed about buying LEGO-- what would everyone think about me? I hadn't discovered the AFOL community, either, so I didn't really have a support network or partner in crime, I just was nervous about admitting my closet hobby. At the time, I was working at a retail job (I was taking a year off of school before going to college), so I had to stay home to work while the rest of my family went away for Christmas vacation. They left the car with me, and I made a date with Toys R Us. However, I was so paranoid that I didn't buy very much-- only 2 sets. I didn't want the checkout people to know that the LEGO was for *me*! I even went out of my way to tell them that they were for my younger brother. But 2 sets didn't hold me for long. The next night I made the same run-- I bought another 2 sets. And the next night I did it again. I was hooked. However, on the 4th night, I was trapped. There were only 2 people working the checkout counters at TRU, and they were BOTH people that I had been to on previous nights. What if they recognized me? (Gasp!) I quickly developed an elaborate excuse that I had bought the wrong sets the previous day, and had returned to buy the RIGHT ones, and that I would be back to return the previous sets later. Of course, they didn't ACTUALLY care. If they recognized me, they certainly didn't say anything-- not that there would actually be anything to say! After my family returned home, I stopped going out to Toys R Us-- but I still needed to get my fix, and I needed to hide the evidence SOMEHOW. So, several times, I would "go out to the computer store" (or some other excuse), and would actually go to TRU instead. However, upon returning, I would take the bags of purchases and hide them in the garage, rather than bring them in the front door where I might get caught. And later that night, I would sneak out to the garage, retrieve my sets, and bring them back inside safely. Anyway, I've since grown proud rather than secretive about my hobby :) And my wife's an AFOL, so none of my LEGO purchases have to be hidden.... Except when I'm buying HER a LEGO gift! DaveE

Yep, as long as you're an AFOL (and can speak English, I guess), you're welcome to participate! DaveE

LEGO basically made a compromise. They said that they would "lock" certain colors, and prevent them from changing (without consulting with or informing the hobbyist community beforehand). However, for other colors, they were considered fair game for changing-- including things like metallic colors. One other thing that I've heard mention of is that LEGO *WAS* planning on revamping other colors (not just the grays and brown), but stopped dead in their tracks after the fallout in 2004. But while that was a rumor circulating around the community, I haven't heard any corroborating evidence directly from any official source. DaveE

I'm working on a project for this upcoming BrickFair in New England-- if you're going to be attending, never mind (you'll find out at the event)! But if you're not attending, and are interested in doing a survey (of sorts), shoot me a PM! DaveE

Here's the most relevant official response from LEGO: http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=1791 Basically, they didn't think anyone would really care all that much, and they thought it would make the product slightly better, so they went ahead and did it. After they decided to do that, though, they ran into a lot of problems, and pretty much promised never to do it again (at least without informing the community). The hobbyist community basically went nuts-- they couldn't believe that LEGO would seriously treat such a change so lightly, so a lot of other theories started coming up, none of which have ever shown any evidence of being true. Basically, the management at LEGO really DID just make a dumb decision. DaveE

D'oh! Thanks for catching that-- fixed! DaveE

From what I understand, raised baseplates are pretty pricey for LEGO to produce. They're also so large that they only fit into expensive sets, and they're often printed such that they really only fit into a single set for a given year. Hence, it's not unsurprising that LEGO has toned down their usage. It's sorta like chrome-- it's not that LEGO has abandoned it altogether, but for every expensive piece of chrome or baseplate that gets made, that means fewer elements that can go into a set. My understanding (certainly as reflects chrome, and probably baesplates as well) is that before LEGO's turnaround in the mid 2000's, LEGO focused a lot more on making sets be high quality, without caring as much what the cost was. So now, even though a set designer COULD decide to use a baseplate, they're more likely to choose NOT to, for the additional options it provides them in design. As for raised baseplates themselves, I think the first raised baseplate was the crater baseplate in 1979, which remained the only type of raised baseplate for 10 years until 1989, when the Ramp-And-Pit baseplate was introduced. Interestingly, it seems that all the raised baseplates these days are larger than 32x32-- usually 32x48. The last time a 32x32 raised baseplate was used appears to be in 2001! DaveE

Wouldn't "sexist" imply that if the genders were reversed, that LEGO wouldn't have acted as they did? I don't think it's appropriate to call what they did "sexist". You could label it "unnecessary censure" or something, but I don't think it's sexist. You could argue that it's "anti-sex", I suppose. All in all, though, I don't see the big deal. There's no way that LEGO would have approved it, unlikely that it would've gotten sponsored to 10k votes, and LEGO judged it as slightly too sexual to appear on their CUUSOO site. They sent a generic form letter in response, without giving an in-depth explanation, but hey, I'm pretty sure we all understand WHY they did it. Whether or not you agree with the decision is the only point of contention. DaveE

I think one problem is that you're saying that as if it's objective, and it's not. The inappropriateness of breasts will vary quite a bit depending on who you ask and how you frame it. LEGO has to consider that even though SOME people will view them as perfectly reasonable, others will view them as overtly sexual. And it's the same reason LEGO doesn't want to get into making religious symbols, violence, political views, or other things. They genearlly want to avoid contentious issues. Also, the focus of this idea is entirely centered on breasts, so there's no surrounding context to lessen the weight of "hey, boobs!" If, instead, this were an idea for making "more realistic minifigs", and featured tapered legs, bending elbows, contoured faces, etc., then you're not putting them right in someone's face (so to speak). The focus would be on making the figures realistic, and it'd be more likely to be deemed "appropriate". DaveE

I believe LEGO's marketed to Japan for quite a while-- they've also got LEGO retail stores (ClickBrick), which feature a variety of LEGO-themed things that you can't find anywhere else in the world (that I'm aware of). In the past, I heard rumors from LEGO that copyright/trademark/patent issues in Asian markets (China in particular) also made it a less desireable place for LEGO to want to do business. Additionally, I think there's been a culture and language barrier for some markets, like Asian and Arab countries. That's not to say that those countries don't have a sufficiently profitable middle/upper class, but that the culture for buying LEGO isn't as established there, and creates less of a market for LEGO. But as that changes (and it seems to be changing in Asia, at least), we may see a broader focus from LEGO. The word from LEGO that I've heard is that LEGO is just beginning to start catering to more Asian markets, since the growth there in recent years has supposedly been very strong. DaveE

I wouldn't put it past LEGO to issue re-designs (not reissues) of Star Wars UCS sets someday, but it would be slow to happen if so. The reason that the smaller sets are frequently re-designed is that kids want particular, iconic vehicles, and there are new kids entering the market all the time. LEGO's first X-wing fighter showed up in 1999, but many kids today were born after then-- so if a kid born in 1999 turns 8 in 2007 and wants an X-wing, LEGO wants to make sure that it's available! But applying that logic to the UCS sets is a bit different. Kids typically are into LEGO for a few years (maybe age 7-11?) but the target market for UCS sets is adults, who are Star Wars LEGO fans FOR LIFE. So chances are that if they came out with a new UCS Star Destroyer, it wouldn't sell all that well becuase... well... many of the adults that would normally buy one already own one! They bought one back in 2004 (or whenever). Hence, you might argue that out of a market of (say) 100,000 fans, 75,000 already own a copy and wouldn't buy a newer one. However, the adult collector community for UCS Star Wars sets is still growing. They started coming out with UCS in 2000, back when LEGO wasn't popularly associated with the Star Wars brand, and similarly wasn't as strong of a brand among adult hobbyists. So that base of 100,000 fans is increasing gradually. If it ever gets up to (say) 175,000 fans, you've got a pretty large base of potential buyers, even if 75,000 of them already own the set. One contrasting point is that you could offer a vehicle that was never offered before. Supposing that they released a UCS A-Wing fighter, they'd get the full 175,000 fans rather than only 100,000. And contrasting *that* point is the popularity of the model. Star Wars fans will be ALL OVER an iconic ship like the Millenium Falcon, but probably won't care so much about a Cloud Car or an XJ-6 Airspeeder. Anyway, given the extended life of the Star Wars license, I could believe that at some point, we might see a re-designed UCS set, like (say) the X-Wing! But I wouldn't really expect it to happen in the near term. DaveE

I've heard of parts changing in high humidity-- but generally (as is my understanding) they become "squishy" in those circumstances, and slowly work their way apart on their own. It's not outside the realm of possibility, certainly, for parts to change over time with various environmental conditions... but it certainly is pretty rare! I would guess that the worst-case conditions for elements changing would be to be stored in varying temperature and humidity-- where it frequently changes from hot to cold, and humid to not-humid. But even that shouldn't really be enough to do what you're describing. Clearly we need a plastics expert! DaveE

In order of set number, my favorites for 2012: 9474 Battle of Helm's Deep 9492 Tie Fighter 10223 Kingdoms Joust 10224 Town Hall 10225 UCS R2-D2 10226 Sopwith Camel 10227 UCS B-Wing 10228 Haunted House 10229 Winter Village Cottage 79003 An Unexpected Gathering DaveE