davee123

I think the offense is less at the idea of LEGO WWII and more at your statement that everyone that experienced WWII is pretty much gone. That statement is more than clearly false, which makes you out to be either grossly misinformed, or an internet troll. Are you trying to imply that a LEGO set representing some aspect of WWII would somehow be made superior based on firsthand evidence rather than indirect evidence? I could see that being a factor in, say, a book, or a film. But ... a LEGO set? That seems silly. Now, I COULD believe that the market for WWII memorabilia is slowly getting smaller-- I have no idea. Maybe the further we get from WWII, the less marketability there would be behind such LEGO sets. But otherwise, I don't see any downside to waiting, besides making people wait that are lusting after these sets. I don't know who your inside source is, but it would seem to be inaccurate. LEGO's been wildly successful as of late. They're supposedly planning around NOT being so successful, and expecting a downturn, thanks to the generally fad nature of the toy industry, but I haven't heard ANY rumors about them being in trouble financially. It may be possible that you misinterpreted the information, but I certainly can't say. LEGO is certainly interested in tapping into the market, but also wants to preserve their image. That's one reason why they made the decision to sell the Sopwith Camel-- it's military, just a more "gentle" introduction to LEGO military than plopping down a B-17 bomber or a howitzer. However, again, you really sound disreputable with your sensationalizing. I expect long before LEGO went out of business, they'd be purchased or relaunched by another company. "LEGO" as a brand name is way too valuable. Hey, maybe the Kristiansens would rather see the company disappear rather than see it owned by a giant like Hasbro or something, but I think it's a LONG way from having to make that decision. That's a fine opinion to have, but I think it's also fine to respect LEGO's decision not to want to delve into it. They don't want to answer angry phone calls from outraged customers, and they want to try and keep their brand away from certain things. You might think it's perfectly acceptable to have a LEGO product that teaches kids about sex, drugs, religion, evolution vs creationism, or any number of crazy topics. But LEGO wants to stay out of it, and that's fine. DaveE

I think it's more about the complex printing than the complex molds, actually. LEGO was supposedly leery about molding normal "building" bricks in China thanks to the different variety of ABS that's used in China (LEGO had to use a separate ABS supplier from within China than import their "standard" ABS). Hence, Chinese manufactured elements were those which typically didn't go into "constructions" (such as minifigs, kitchen magnets, minifig weapons). However, the Chinese facility is also really good at producing intricate prints. So when it comes to a very irregular surface that needs printing, they can do a much better job of it. Additionally, China seems to be producing a lot of "low-volume" molds. I'm not sure the reason for this, but according to LEGO, a lot of the elements that aren't slated for high volume or a lot of re-use are also frequently being made in China. By contrast, there are complex molds, like the LEGO chain-links element, which are AMAZINGLY complicated, and I believe those are made in Billund. Generally speaking, however, there are exceptions all over the place-- they'll ship molds back and forth between their facilities, and mold things at different locations. They'll package some things in one location, and others elsewhere-- I believe it's a VERY irregular process which constantly is in flux. That's supposedly one of the bigger annoyances for set designers-- they don't have a good idea of which parts they can or can't use when they're trying to design a set. The list is always changing, so they have to constantly go back and rework their models with a slightly different set of elements. DaveE

I don't know if I'd say that-- I expect they did market research on it back in the late 1990's or early 2000's, and made a decision to go with the single-piece stubby legs. LEGO is pretty good about exploring a lot of options-- they just don't discuss all of them with the hobby community. I believe the issue got pushed with licensed figures. How were they going to do certain characters without some sort of variant on the minifigure? Prior to 1999, the only "child" minifig (in a non-Maxifig set) that I'm aware of is Timmy from Time Cruisers in 1996? I can't think of any others offhand. Anyway, some characters, like young Anakin were probably "acceptable" to kids, despite their full 'adult' height. And others (jawas, Harry Potter goblins, etc) are lesser characters that MIGHT be able to be avoided, or might be unfamiliar enough to kids to again be acceptable. But other characters (particularly, I'm thinking Yoda and the ewoks) are less fitting, and are pretty prominent. Who's going to accept a Yoda that's as tall as Darth Vader? I would guess that there were a lot of ideas on the table, like individually poseable legs, connected poseable legs, fixed legs, smaller torsos, smaller arms-- maybe even smaller heads. They likely tested these, did their evaluations, and decided that the best bang-for-the-buck was the "short" legs that we have today. I'm not sure if they would have re-evaluated since then-- my guess would be probably not with any seriousness. But admittedly, the decision was more than 10 years ago now. At the time, LEGO was struggling, and didn't have cheap production as we see in China today. Would they make the same choice today? No idea. DaveE

That's fine-- just trying to prepare you for what the answer would probably be. Most of the time with this sort of thing, it comes down to cost: "The small benefit wasn't worth the cost". I haven't heard an answer to this particular question from LEGO (maybe someone out there has), but based on what we've heard before, it seems a likely reply. Yes. That's why I explicitly said "you'd need at least 2 molds-- preferably 3". Why not re-use the waist mold? Well, because then you don't get a lot of separation between the legs. Notice that normal minifig legs have about 8mm height-wise of separation between the legs, and the waist actually fills in the top 8mm where the rounded joint is. That means, if you re-used the waist, and kept the "short" (aka "stubby") legs at 9.6mm, you'd only have 1.6mm of height for the separation between the legs-- half a plate worth! Hence, if you were going to be making short legs that articulated, I'd recommend making that separation as large as possible, to still try and resemble "legs". If you cut off the bottom part of the disc on the existing waist, you could get about 4.3mm of separation, which is probably pretty reasonable. That could also be another reason for the prevention of the articulated short legs, too-- that any design they came up with prevented sufficient separation for kids to appreciate the fact that they were, in fact, "legs". That seems less likely to me, but possible. Anyway, like I said, it would take at least 2 new molded elements, preferably 3. And, I should clarify that's not to say that it requires 2-3 distinct *MOLDS* per se. They COULD do all 3 in a single mold. It just makes things more difficult (and therefore more expensive) when you want to separate out the distinct parts after they're ejected from the mold cavity. In the end, it just strikes me as a pretty expensive part to make, when compared to the 'standard' short legs. I would guess that LEGO probably play-tested several options, and found that kids were fine with non-articulate legs. If they weren't, you'd probably see stubby legs with similar connections to the standard minifigs. DaveE

Well, for starters, they'd be more expensive. With the current stubby legs, there's only 1 required mold. With 'folding' legs, you'd need at least 2 molds-- preferably 3 (one for the waist, one for the left and right legs). And then you need them to be assembled. They might also be a little too small for tiny hands to manipulate. Hence, they might only be able to be included for sets in ranges for older kids, which may limit the use of the elements. That's just wild speculation, though. Finally, I'm not sure it would do very much. The height of the figure wouldn't change noticeably from sitting to standing-- and since the legs wouldn't be long enough to stick out very far in front of the figure, it wouldn't really resemble someone sitting as well as the normal legs (which are already too short to be in proportion for human legs). So, my guess is that it's not sufficient gain for the price involved. Easily double the cost of the element (if not 3x, 4x, 5x or more), for what amounts to very little difference, and a possibly more limited-use element. Not to say that I don't WANT a pair-- they'd certainly be cool. But I would guess that if you asked LEGO this question, that's the answer you'd probably get. DaveE

BrickSet has this functionality, but it's complex. Check out: More... -> Advanced queries -> Advanced query builder Unfortunately, SQL is strange. It doesn't necessarily know how to deal with NULLs, empty values, etc. Plus, BrickSet has "price-per-piece" evaluated in GBP and USD, so you'll have to decide which you want. Then, you'll have to figure out whether you want "of all time" or just "currently available" or "anything from 2012" or, whatever. Also, I found that the SQL queries won't run unless you save them-- which means you have to be logged in. So if you don't have an account, you'll probably need to make one. For example, I did one that was: Price Per Piece in USD > 0 AND Year Released = 2012 Order by Price Per Piece in USD Ascending When I tried without the "Price Per Piece in USD > 0", I got a bunch of things that seemingly didn't have prices, which probably meant the database had NULL values, and the ordering was screwed up. Hence, you'll want to limit your query to that which HAS a valid value for "Price per piece in USD". DaveE

Mostly, I'm going off of 50 Years of Play and The World of LEGO Toys, which each seem to ALWAYS refer to him as "Ole Kirk" rather than "Ole" (granted, sometimes they use his full name). I don't recall if the other LEGO books do the same thing, but I'm tempted to look. Anyway, it was surprising to me to hear him called just plain "Ole", since I hadn't ever heard his name referenced that way in anything official from the company. ... Or, at least, I certainly don't recall any such references. DaveE

I always thought he was called "Ole Kirk" rather than "Ole"-- but they also say "Oh-lay", which... I think is wrong. Granted, I've always been curious to hear a proper Dane's opinion on the matter. DaveE

Huh-- I might have even thought the opposite. I recall from the "Stressing The Elements" presentation that the polycarbonite elements actually stick to each other REALLY well compared to ABS elements. But then again, you're missing the center tube. Now I'll have to play around when I get a chance! DaveE

You mean 1955? I'm not aware of anything really interesting happening in 1954, apart from that being when Godtfred had the conversation with the chief buyer for Magasin du Nord, which later inspired the 'system of play'. 1955 was the start of the LEGO "system" of play, with the town plan and other associated sets-- from my understanding, that, in combination with the stud-and-tube system in 1958 really got LEGO going. And LEGO has celebrated the 1958 anniversary. Not so much the 1955 one. From the way you say "System", however, I'm wondering what you mean-- today, we refer to "System" as the scale of regular LEGO bricks (as compared to DUPLO, Modulex, Jumbo, Quatro, Soft, Primo, or whatever). That scale was introduced in 1949, and was "perfected" in 1958 with stud-and-tubes. The "System" in 1955 refers to the fact that there were many similar toys in a toy line that were meant to be combined and added to. Previously, LEGO bricks were just general "boxes of bricks". But now, there was an explicit purpose to the bricks-- IE, adding to the "Town Plan" set. DaveE

We heard back from Tormod-- apparently, in 1957, the company celebrated its 25th anniversary. However, at the time, they selected August 10th arbitrarily as a good day for the celebration, which was a Saturday. Also, I believe that's roughly the time of year towards the end of people's typical vacations in Denmark, at the end of the summer. That year, the LEGO employees gave a gift to the company-- a sundial with the date, August 10th engraved in it. Ever since then, August 10th has been regarded as the birthday of the company! Mystery solved! DaveE

Supposedly, Tormod is going to ask over at the LEGO Idea House to see if they know what significance there is to August 10th. It could be that it was arbitrarily chosen as a good day to celebrate, rather than being particularly indicative of a specific event in LEGO's history. DaveE

Yeah, but there's no source for that :( I asked LEGO that question a while ago regarding 1932-- basically, I asked whether or not there was any "official" capacity in which LEGO registered with the government as a toy manufacturer, or otherwise. But the answer I got was pretty much "no, not really". Certainly, they didn't SOLELY produce toys, because according to their first price list (BrickFetish says it's from 1934, but 50 Years of Play says it's from 1932), they list other products. 50 Years of Play (which publishes the same picture) says that it includes items like stepladders and ironing boards. The details are sketchy in the World of LEGO Toys and 50 Years of Play, but it seemed to imply that the carpentry shop could have temporarily gone out of business in 1932. 50 Years of Play says:

Well, yeah, but that doesn't answer my question. The "company" was still in business on August 9th, 1932, and was even in business as early as 1916 (or 1895). 1932 is the year that the company started producing and selling toys, which is why the company uses 1932 as their "birth year". But what isn't clear is why August 10th in particular is the "birth day". Was it the day that they made their first toy? Was it they day they DECIDED to start making toys? Was it the day they SOLD their first toy? Or, maybe something else entirely? What's special about August 10th, that wasn't special about August 9th, since they were still in business the day before? DaveE

Yeah, doesn't help answer anything, though :( Maybe I'll check out Gary's CD and see if there's anything significant that happened on August 10th. I certainly haven't found anything online that would suggest anything interesting about that date in particular. DaveE

So, LEGO has posted that they're turning 80 tomorrow, August 10th 2012. What happened on August 10th, 1932? I expect this was possibly when Ole Kirk made and/or sold his first toy, since his shop was in business for years prior (since arguably 1916 or 1895). LEGO started making and selling toys in 1932, which is the milestone that they use for the age of the company. But I'm not sure I've ever heard what specifically took place that they've deemed "the start". Anyone know? DaveE

I'm going to guess you don't have kids :) I think it's sort of silly that it was "assumed" to be LEGO. I can only imagine that the doctor or the parents suggested this, and from there on out, that's what everyone was told. DaveE

That's the first I've ever heard of this-- I don't think it's just the temperature-- we've had bricks kept in cars many times in sweltering heat, with no ill effects. I *have* heard of pieces losing their clutch power in extreme, prolonged humidity, but if they were in a sealed plastic box, and within ziploc bags inside, it seems unlikely that the humidity would get in there very rapidly. DaveE

I don't think that's actually LEGO. I certainly don't recognize that tire, and I can't find anything on BrickLink that appears to match. And, in theory, this part is from 2009 or earlier, so it shouldn't be a new part. I'm guessing it's a Mega Blok tire, or some other clone brand. DaveE

I think one of the overwhelmingly basic goals of CUUSOO is being overlooked here: It's a marketing tool. In other words, they want you to encompass you with LEGO all day long. They want you thinking about LEGO, and more importantly telling all your friends about LEGO all the time. They want to give you an avenue for hope, so you'll walk away with a positive feeling about LEGO, and the possibility that your model might get produced someday. They don't really care about whether or not high quality models get in there. Because, let's face it, if you submit an idea to CUUSOO, you're probably going to spam your friends about it. "VOTE FOR MY LEGO MODEL!" Your non-LEGO friends will visit the site, see your model, and might even create an account to back you. It gets people into LEGO, and keeps them into LEGO. It's brand building. In that regard, LEGO doesn't really care all that much about producing amazing sets. I mean, let's face it-- they've got fantastic design teams and model builders that have been churning out great models, especially in recent years. They don't really need crowdsourcing for new ideas (at least not until they start going through some sort of big downturn). One thing that's depressed hobbyists for years is that LEGO refuses to accept ideas. The standard response from Brad/Jake/Steve/etc was "sorry, we can't accept ideas". It meant that as hobbyists, we felt like we were fighting with the company for their attention-- everyone believing that their idea was obviously worthy of being produced, IF ONLY the company would look at it! But now, with CUUSOO, we're not fighting with the company (at least not as much-- since we still fight with the ideas that hit 10,000 and get turned down), but we're fighting with other fans for attention. It gives us a better relationship with LEGO, and gives us an outlet to submit all those ideas that we always WANTED to submit but were refused. And don't get me wrong-- it's not the ONLY goal of CUUSOO to be a marketing tool. It *IS* in part about producing and selling cool models. But don't forget that there's more to the picture. Anyway. I don't think it's a flawed business model. It just may have some goals that you don't share. DaveE

My experience has been that normal torsos and arms can be removed and re-attached without much problem. Once you've done it a lot, or have put the arms under other stress, you may start noticing that they start to become loose. However, with Chinese-manufactured torsos, I've found that if I remove an arm even once, that may be enough to make it loose. That's seemingly not true of ALL Chinese-manufactured torsos, but I found it was true with several of the "battle pack" figures (Trolls, Kingdoms). I haven't tried with the Collectible Minifigures for fear that the same problem would happen. DaveE

Yes. You need 25 wedges, each shaped like an irregular trapezoid. One side of each wedge is 2 studs, and the parallel side is 4 studs. Then, there's a side that's perpendicular to those sides, which is 8 studs. The remaining side isn't an even stud length, but it's roughly 8.25 studs long. The top of each wedge would be made out of (for example) 2 of those wedge plates, a 1x8 plate, and a 1x4 plate. Arrange the wedges in a circular shape. You can use 1x4 hinge plates to attach them, or other connections, depending on the details of how you want to fit the floor into your MOC, or whatever other constraints exist. The resulting circle is roughly 32 studs in diameter, with a 16 stud diameter hole in the center. Attaching it to a structure is difficult, but it's pretty circular. DaveE

Well, the geometry works pretty perfectly-- If you get about 50 of these: And build 25 wedges, each 8 studs 'wide', 2 studs on one side and 4 studs on the other side, and line them up, you get roughly a 16-stud diameter 'hole' in the center, and about 32-stud diameter outer diameter. DaveE

Well, I think the idea is that you could change the business model. IE, if you had 5 people with the same idea and 4,000 votes each such that the overlap came out to (say) 12,000 supporters, they COULD divide any royalties and credit appropriately. It's more difficult (which is part of why it's not realistic, IMHO), but possible. BTW, at a quick look, I couldn't find any examples of anything UCS that's replicated that's close to getting 10,000 votes. I found 3 large AT-AT's, but combined they were still less than 1,000. DaveE

Unless you're using some other search criteria, I only see 2 projects for a UCS Venator-- one has 194 supporters, the other has 33 supporters. There's also a project for a mini-scale Venator (8 votes), and one for a midi-scale one (37 votes). There's also 4 other things that come up as matches for the word "Venator", but they're not actually for UCS Venators-- the word "Venator" just is in their description. So... total supporters for a UCS Venator, assuming no overlap is... 227. Not really close to 10,000. [edit]Oh, I found one more that says "UCS Republic Attack Cruiser", which has 81 supporters. That's up to 308 total.[/edit] I think that may certainly apply to other projects, but I think that's an inherent problem that you can't get around realistically. And in the end, I don't think it's a big deal. If there were 10,000 ravenous fans that wanted UCS Venators, you'd see more supports for the existing proposals, AND you'd probably see more, similar proposals. In other words, just as the mechanism is partially flawed in that regard (overlapping people asking for the same thing), it's ultimately accounted for in the number of required supporters. In other words, if they combined things that overlapped, they'd probably require a higher number of supporters to endorse a project. DaveE