Blondie-Wan

I doubt they'll ever reissue the specific set (by which I mean not just any "very large, detailed, accurate version of the Millennium Falcon," but the specific model design using the specific assortment of parts as 10179), but I can very much see them doing a new UCS (or "UCS-esque" version. As wonderful as the first one was, there are many obvious areas where a new one could surpass it (the whole lack of an interior, for example, or the design of the cockpit), and with the Death Star and the Tantive IV they've demonstrated a willingness to revisit even those "big, special" sets, if they take a sufficiently different approach, as the more play-oriented, minifigure-laden versions of those two did from their respective originals.

In fairness, the previous post in the thread was made just slightly less than two-thirds of a year ago, which I think is a bit of a stretch to call "almost a year" old (unless you're referring to the time the thread was started, which is well over a year earlier, but I'm not sure why that would be important)...

It sounds as though your LEGO plans for the year worked out very much like mine. I spent as much as I could afford on LEGO (and perhaps a little bit more ), but haven't spent nearly as much time building as I'd like. In part this has to do with the lack of significant building space in my home, though. We have a room called "the fun room" in which I keep my LEGO (and which we use for a few other things, such as game storage and computers), and it's supposed to be a building / display area as well as a storage one, but it's in serious need of reorganization before it'll really be useful for building in. I have some specific construction projects in mind that I've been mulling over for literally years, but which I haven't really gotten around to doing yet. Hopefully this year... Beyond that, though I spent a lot of money, I still haven't gotten certain sets I've been meaning to get, and I'm getting a little nervous about whether I'll be able to do so before they're gone (the Death Star being a prime example). There are actually a lot of smaller, less expensive sets that I've missed out on (so far), as well, though I'm hopeful I'll be able to pick up at least some of them.

I just realized I omitted a couple other reissues, one of which is important because it's an exception to the rule I observed: Armada Flagship - 6280 & 6291 10152 Maersk Sealand Container Ship & 10155 Maersk Line Container Ship The Maersk ship reissue was just a couple years ago, in 2010, well after all the others; it's the most recent example I can think of of a more or less straight reissue of a set (different box background art, and even a different set name, but it's still apparently the same model, except for having new stickers). I'd love to think this was some sort of test, or dipping their toes into the reissue waters to see if things work out, but given that it's a Maersk set I half-wonder whether it has more to do with a greater-than-anticipated availability of Maersk blue material (or perhaps even a specific reissue request from Maersk), and doesn't signify anything for other set reissues. Thoughts?

Well, will two non-Jacobs bogies between them have the parts one needs to build a single Jacobs bogie? If so, there won't be a problem (I'd actually expect a bigger issue to be whether the parts of the carriage bodies will include enough material to permit an alternate build with the bogie mounting point whereever it needs to be for a Jacobs bogie, but even then I think that even if it doesn't come with the appropriate parts out of the box, getting the necessary parts won't be much trouble). Sure, but does it qualify as a "joke"? I mean, just putting a coffee machine where one might normally, naturally expect a coffee machine to be isn't necessarily a joke, just attention to detail...

Thanks for the reveal! I haven't gotten the City calendar this year (although I got the last three), so it's nice to have the opportunity to see what I'm missing (perhaps I should get one now and catch up?) I'm doing the Star Wars and Friends calendars this year. It appears no one else here has posted a review / reveal for the Friends calendar; perhaps I should do it myself... That's apparently typical of LEGO's Advent Calendars. Every one of the six I've done or am doing (City 2009, City 2010, City 2011, Star Wars 2011, Star Wars 2012, Friends 2012) has done it that way. The most recent calendars all seem to have those little fold-out 'posters.' I think they started doing them last year, IIRC (I don't remember whether the 2011 City calendar did or not, but I know the 2011 Star Wars one did, and both Star Wars and Friends have them this year as well).

For all those lamenting that there are just two of certain minifigures per box, it's probably worth remembering that a couple previous series also had just two of certain minifigures per box in the early shipments (such as the Series 3 Fisherman), and then later shipments tweaked the ratios a bit. I wouldn't be surprised if boxes hitting the shelves later on had three or four of each figure.

Aiieee! I'm not ready yet! I'm still trying to get all the Series 7 and 8 I want!! For that matter, I'd like to find some more Series 6, but I think I've gotten all the ones of those that I'm going to be able to... Anyway, this is another great-looking series, and I plan to get at least two of each and more of a select few, as usual

I picked up a couple Pirates of the Caribbean sets today along with several Minifigures, including the Series 8 Actor.

I just picked up a couple Pirates of the Caribbean sets today, on the last day of the current Toys 'R' Us BOGO: 4181 - Isla De Muerta 4192 - Fountain of Youth ... as well as some Series 8 Minifigures, including the Elizabethan thespian.

Wow, so many people getting all these cool Hobbit / Lord of the Rings sets, and I'm still scrambling to catch up with stuff released years ago. I didn't even know about the Mirkwood Elf polybags until this thread! During Black Friday weekend I ordered 10193 Medieval Market Village from Shop at Home, so I finally have one now. I'd like to get another, but we'll see...

That's quite an attractive little creation! Nicely done. I must say, when I first saw the topic title I thought it would be a representation of C-3PO's version of the classic Christmas poem, from the Christmas in the Stars album. How interesting! I never see anything like this done at the TRU here; they don't appear to ever have non-corporate-run in-store events or displays like that. I wish we did. I'd be tempted to create some things for them myself, though I'd also be terrified of something happening to my beloved bricks. Are these displays of yours kept in the store behind glass or something?

Just picked up another copy of 8084 Snowtrooper Battle Pack (my fifth) at clearance.

Your last sentence here is interesting to me, as aside from the additional realism, one reason I'd thought of going all the way with the 'wires' would be to somehow use them to keep a fast train from flying off. I'd had this idea that maybe the pantograph could have some small projections on it that would stand up on either side of the wire, letting the wire serve as a sort of aerial guardrail that might help keep the train from tipping over and derailing when going around curves at high speeds. Of course, while this might not be feasible to begin with, any chance of it working would depend upon strengthening the towers enough so that they don't get pushed over themselves (I personally won't be gluing anything or otherwise modifying bricks, so I'd have to find something reliant entirely upon standard LEGO construction techniques)... (And obviously it wouldn't do anything to keep my minifigures from getting motion sickness with the sudden sideways g-forces, but there's only so much one can do about that. It's just the price they have to pay for riding a rail system with curves with such a short radius.)

Whoa! Lots of interesting stuff in this thread. Those "arms" are legs. The wheels aren't powered at all; they just roll freely. The engine moves those legs, and they push it along (!).

The latter is a particularly good point, though of course the risk would be mitigated by not putting the setup on display in some public venue. I'm going to have to think about replicating the look, though...

I have two Emerald Nights but haven't built them yet (they're still unopened! - but they won't be staying that way... ), so I'm not yet familiar enough with the build to have a truly informed opinion, I admit, but I can't help but wonder whether there's it's possible to build this in such a way that the wire from the tender to the engine is lower, with the coupling, so that it just looks like part of the normal connection. It's LEGO, after all; surely it must be possible to rebuild any number of ways while still preserving most of the original look... right?

I do! Even before scrolling down to see the original cover I was instantly able to recognize each of your five "improvised" characters for whom there aren't yet "official" versions (Vulture, Electro, Sandman, Mysterio, Kraven), so you can probably consider them successful.

Indeed, but even putting aside that option (I don't break up and sell off parts of sets, myself; if I keep a set, I keep the whole thing, even if it means having thirty or forty identical minifigures of Indiana Jones, say), I think the licensed sets actually offer comparable value to same-priced non-licensed sets out at the same time. For example, check out the contents of the 2008/2009 Star Wars battlepacks, and compare them to those of 8401 City Minifigure Collection. All these sets have MSRPs of $9.99, and I'd argue the content of 8401 certainly doesn't outweigh that of, for example, 7668 Rebel Scout Speeder - the latter has both more pieces and larger ones, and makes a more substantial model that 8401's comparatively modest assortment of street fixtures and accessories. These sets were released a year apart, close enough together that inflation shouldn't really be a factor - their product lifetimes overlapped a fair bit.

This is something that's been on my own mind lately, as I start thinking about a layout I'd like to do. I've been thinking about trying to go the whole nine yards and including not just the towers but the actual lines, using LEGO strings. I'm sure I can't be the first person to have given this some thought, and indeed people must have tried it or done it numerous times before. Has anyone here? Are there concerns to be aware of?

On a tangent... that's a very nifty chart, though I want to note 7199 - The Temple of Doom was available for longer than indicated there. The last copy that I got directly from LEGO itself I got at least as late as around August of 2010, and the last copy I got anywhere I picked up at a Toy'R'Us in Fort Myers in the spring of 2011.

I thought the same thing, actually - I'd long assumed the minifigures listed here as Roger/Redbeard and Ironhook represented the same character, with Ironhook simply being Redbeard after his ship got wrecked or sank, or his crew mutinied or something. I don't have a great many of the "classic" Pirate sets, though, and none of the comics and such from that era, and I haven't really gotten around to researching the backstory lore of the theme yet. I do at least have a couple apiece of Roger / Redbeard (Roger Redbeard?) and Ironhook, though, from the "Filming a Pirate Scene" Studios promo polybag and the reissue of Enchanted Island, respectively. I'd also wondered about this, actually. When the 2009 line came out I thought it was possible the captain was meant to be the same one as the classic Roger/Redbeard/Ironhook, just updated to reflect the later LEGO minifigure design style. Perhaps Roger, Redbeard, Ironhook and Brickbeard really are all the same guy?

You know, I see this complaint all the time, and I think it's wildly overblown or just outright false. Both the licensed themes and LEGO's homegrown original themes always have sets in a wide variety of price points, and at comparable set sizes. Obviously a $49.99 licensed set costs the same as a $49.99 non-licensed set; I presume the canard actually means that we get less in a licensed set than we do in a non-licensed set at the same price point. I'm not convinced this is the case, at least not always.

Well, I don't know how 3677 Red Cargo Train is/was sold in everyone else's countries, but here in the US it's a "Special Edition," exclusive to Toys 'R' Us. I'd guess that has something to do with its period of availability (though it doesn't necessarily mean a shorter availability window - the TRU-exclusive 6212 X-Wing Fighter was around a good five years (!) or so). The other two current basic City trains, 7938 and 7939, still feel like new sets to me, but they're both from 2010, which means they're coming up on their three-year marks (what time of year were they originally released? Are they some of those sets that actually leak out onto shelves late in the previous year, and thus actually three already?). I wouldn't be too surprised if both of them were refreshed next year (I kind of expect it, actually).

I recently received my Black Friday order from Shop at Home, which included the 2012 Star Wars Advent Calendar.