fred67

I agree... I would have bought some of these, but it's been a long discussion about about what "should be allowed" on Ideas. How some of these ideas get ANY votes is beyond me... of course I was even recently asked to vote for a set from the parent of someone who submitted a set. It was a nice MOC for a kid his age... it stands no chance of being made into a set. I didn't vote for it. I didn't tell them I didn't vote for it, but I didn't vote for it.

They're all ways of trying to objectively measure the "value" of a set, and weight might be a better measure, but they're both just "ballpark" estimates, and each set needs some further consideration. Minifigures, for example, are subjectively more "valuable" than regular pieces, so a set with a lot of minifigures might be way more valuable. But then there's this from the post you created: 10231: Year: 2011 Pieces: 1230 Weight: over 2KG Shuttle length when built: 17.5 inches Price: $100 60080: Year: 2015 Pieces: 586 Weight: 1.53KG Shuttle length when built: 10 inches. Price: $120 It's hard to subjectively determine the value of the other ridiculously priced sets this year, like The Lonely Mountain, but $130 for about 1.7KG puts in on order with the 60080 - which is objectively a ridiculous price.

Always appreciate your reviews, WhiteFang, but I have to disagree with your price rating - it's ridiculously overpriced, and just because it will likely bring a high value in return for speculators doesn't really change that fact.

It doesn't make sense at all, really. RI sold out and I think there was a second wave (I think it was already in production, a second wave of shipments). Why they didn't do more runs is baffling. As far as SA being too similar - when a set does that well, and sells out that quickly, you'd think they'd want to repeat that success. I guess not.

^^ That's an interesting article, but it's lacking in a few fundamentals, IMO. First, the prices should be culled to reflect only maybe the last ten years (since TLG started operating in the black instead of the red). The other thing is that, as pointed out, a lot of sets have more, but smaller pieces. I'm even surprised at how unstable some builds are while sacrificing larger pieces for smaller ones.... nothing heinous, but things you'd never do as a builder unless you were hard up on parts. Lastly, it's all about perception - so some people might not think there's been a price spike, but others definitely would. When I was still actively collecting SW sets, they took the very unusual step of actually raising prices on an EXISTING set (one of the battle packs went from $10 to $11 on the shelves). The latest battle packs are $13 - that's a 30% increase in five years. CMFs went from $2 to $4 in the US. It's only a couple of bucks, but it's still 100% price increase over the same time. Then, another set I pointed out, the Lonely Mountain is just heinously expensive. We can compare another set - the 10231 Shuttle Expedition. It was 1230 pieces for $100; the latest shuttle set 60080 space port, is 586 pieces for $120. If that's not pretty heinous, I don't know what is - but then we get back to the price/piece argument and whether or not it's valid. Well, for 20% more the 60080 is 1.53KG, only 75% of the 10231 at over 2KG. The physical built dimensions are also much smaller. What's an objective measure? Pieces? Weight? By both standards, some sets are a lot more expensive by comparison to previous incarnations, inflation or not... and it's so bad (Lonely Mountain) that people take notice.

OK, I'm going to be honest here and say I haven't look in several years, but based TLG's own financial statements, their profit has outpaced the increase in sales year after year. That means that year after year their profit margin increased. That's all there is to it. There is inflation, there are spikes in supplies coming from volatile markets (petroleum), but ultimately their own financial statements don't lie... profits increases outpaced sales increases. There's only two ways to do that: higher efficiency, or higher prices. As someone who supports the free market, I say it's their right to charge whatever the heck they want to. As a consumer, I don't have a problem complaining prices have risen too high, and not that TLG cares (as their sales keep increasing), but personally I buy less in actual dollars in LEGO now than I used to because I'm a little tired of the high prices... I'm doing a lot of trades lately, and I wait for sales when possible. I think the set that really set me off was the Lonely Mountain set price. I was invited to the first two special pre-"Brick-Friday" events for some LEGO VIP members... and have not been invited since. I also like to point out the CMF prices (as it's one of the things I still collect - although I don't buy boxes anymore, I just get my sets - mainly because of the price). CMFs started out at $2 in 2010; by 2014 they were $4. That's 100% price increase in four years. Assuming they already had a 25% profit margin ($0.50/figure), they are now well over 50% profit margin. I would agree they were probably underpriced at $2, but you still must assume TLG was making a profit - they knew what they were doing by then. As far as counting bricks is concerned - neither by weight nor number of parts is a great measure of a sets value. Quite obviously certain parts - even roughly the same size and weight can have vastly different values (always subjectively, of course - compare a red Darth Vader helmet to a black one). Sometimes chroming adds value, sometimes just a rare part or color. Objectively, though, either way gets you a ball-park estimate. You can adjust from there - a lot of small pieces lowers value, a lot of large ones increases it. Minifigures are objectively more valuable in price per part OR weight than average pieces. It's just a rough estimate. Ultimately it's a subjective thing.... So, subjectively, even adjusted for inflation ($165), the Bank is more expensive ($170) AND smaller.

I don't know why the nurse is so expensive, but the health chart she comes with makes sense as it's the only set it's in. But the nurse, by herself, is extremely expensive, too. I don't know why.

I don't understand. I know molds don't last forever, but they surely last longer than the short time a series of CMF are available. As for production slots, I don't see the difference between a new series with new molds and reusing old molds. They need the production capacity either way.

There's a lot of mifigure display threads on Eurobricks. Here. Here. Many more I'm not going to link. For single figures, I've done this. There are vendors for similar things specifically for LEGO. If you need something larger - like if you're going to build a small scene around the figure, then baseball or softball sized display boxes (some here from the Container Store) are suitable. When I use those particular Container Store style boxes, I add little rubber feet to the bottom (cheap on Amazon).

I think the Exo-Suit has the broadest appeal. Sure, I loved Ghostbusters (and Wall-E - I think given time Wall-E will outsell the Exo-Suit), but my kids, for example, thought Ghostbusters was kind of "meh," and so was Back to the Future... so it doesn't have the appeal to younger audiences; those movies came out when I was in my teens - they're chiseled into my psyche. But the Exo-Suit - while not my choice of best set, appeals to me AND a lot of kids. At the same time, I don't think sales stats are fair - for whatever reasons TLG had, the Exo-Suit was around for a long time. Some of the Ideas sets came and, despite immediately selling out, were not given nearly the same love as Exo-Suit, BTTF, and Ecto-1. I agree with Blondie-Wan on this - I completely missed sets because I was busy at the time and couldn't come to Eurobricks every day. At the end of the week, some sets were already sold out, never to be seen again - blink and you missed it. I won't understand the decision making process at TLG, but they're the most successful toy company in the world right now, so it doesn't really have to make sense to me.

It's impressive, no doubt, and a great rendition, but it's not the size of New York City.

Not really... I never gave up on trains, but I did get into more and more themes as time went on, finally deciding enough was enough and I cut way back. I will keep getting modulars, but only mainly because they fit in with the train theme quite nicely. A handful of creator building sets (like toy and bike shop, changing seasons, mountain cabin). I think I have just about all the Star Wars I'll get (being an OT fan and having collected my share of ships from those movies already). But I got realistic and gave up on themes not because another one stole me away, but financial and spacial considerations.

The "official" version will be minifigure "illusion" scale, as are most LEGO buildings. I.e. believably big enough for minifigures to use, but not actually to scale, in which case it would probably take 8 times as many bricks.

So I will reiterate my first post in this thread - the boxes, IMO, are fine... the "packaging" (when they ship) is terrible. I just got a Scooby Doo Mystery Mansion and a Christmas ornament... the ornament was not separately boxed, not even wrapped in plastic, just thrown in with the set and not enough packing materials so that everything was fairly loose in the box. The ornament opened and box just had loose pieces all over. Really stupid.

LEGO has extended double points - plus you get the Holiday Train with orders over $99 (I could forward this to you if you wanted, but you'd have to at least share shipping). It's as good a time as any to take me up on the 60% offer.

Uggh. At least a Ninjago series is more money I can save, but if it's got that many fans, then good for them. I liked the Simpsons, but completely understood how annoyed people who weren't fans were.

This should actually be motivation for TLG to do this. If the B (and possibly "C") models are actually good (like your Santa Fe example), people will buy several copies of the set, paying a little more for each set than they would if it were dedicated to a single model (and therefore having fewer pieces). TLG also saves money because they could release a single set that that encompasses two or three models in one box, saving on production and manufacturing costs, make 2 or 3 times as many of one set is more cost effective than making 2 or 3 different sets, and the buyer ends up with a nice little pile of parts they can use for other things - and look at it as a bonus, because it's far more than the few little extra bits you get in sets. Everybody would be happy (I would think). Sounds like win-win to me. Sure, some (parents, especially) might be inclined to just get the one because, at a whim, they could rebuild it into whatever model they wanted to play with - and parents would tell their kid that so they could save money, but I think the benefits would outweigh that possibility, and I also think you'd have more people buying because it could be a better value. I wonder how many Ideas sets were 2 or 3 in 1s. I don't recall seeing any. An interesting concept (and challenge) for Ideas submitters.

Interesting point, but I'd rather think a creator set would last longer, they could keep it in production longer, and keep fans from complaining there's no castle theme. And, of course, if they were to do castle again (because I'm sure as heck not counting Nexo Knights), I would hope it would last longer anyway.

Not only do I agree with this, but as a middle aged man, I would love some elves sets... I don't care about back story, but I think they are pretty cool. My only problem is that LEGO is expensive, and I don't want to spend as much as they're asking and not even get usable figures. If it were minifigures, I'd be all over it. When I got back into LEGO as an adult, it was for trains... but Fantasy Castle helped break me out of that. I'd love to see more Fantasy era sets with some prominent female figures (especially elves). If I were in the typical age range for these sets, I would ask my parents for Elves. Hell, I even think a lot of the friends sets are awesome sets. Good comment - you said it first, but I echoed it in my first response - TLG has been TRYING for years to broaden it's appeal. The problem nowadays is less with TLG and more with society at large. That last line I quoted from you is absolutely perfect, too, but perhaps in a different way than you were meaning - there's a lot of "social justice warriors" out there that would have girls absolutely NOT playing with Friends sets... as opposed to some parent telling their daughter they can't play with Ninjago because "it's for boys," they'd tell their daughter they couldn't play with Friends sets because "it's demeaning because it's targeted towards girls." I've met women that will not buy their daughters Barbie dolls. Period. Hey! Kids want what they want. In the OP's example about his niece saying "it's for boys," I promise you she didn't get that from anyone working for TLG. I bought my daughter EXACTLY the LEGO she asked for - she did PAB and got pinks and purples (knowing she could use my other colors, too), and the only set she ever picked out was a Belville set (Blossom Fairy - I know because I still have it from when she "outgrew" LEGO). It was completely usable with any other LEGO. I did have one interesting experience in a LEGO Store where I had some of the Christmas boxes to fill up for free at the PAB wall. A girl was there with her dad who seemed more excited about LEGO than she did. One of the bins had dogs in it, and her dad was busy filling up the PAB cup and said "no, they just waste space in the cup, these are the parts you need." So I handed her a "free" box, explained how it worked, and she went and got a handful of dogs, and then dug into some of the other bins. Again, I promise the OP that nobody at LEGO ever told his 9 year old niece that she couldn't get Ninjago because it was only for boys. If it's a true story, it likely came from a parent that didn't want to spend $200 on a LEGO set. I have a problem with Research Institute... it seemed to sell out really fast. Normally sets that sell really fast get reprinted. The Ecto-1 is still around, the Exo-Suit is still around... I don't get why they didn't make more Research Institutes. I did manage to get a copy, but they would be pretty nice gifts, IMO. Anyway, back on subject, I think the reaction to the set was interesting... people weren't really complaining (IMO), but they were flippantly complaining that it was all women. While I'm all for more female figures, the solution is not to start alienating boys in favor of girls. It's interesting, because a lot of people would disagree with you - I've had the same argument before, and people seem to think that everything has to be absolutely neutral. It doesn't matter that police and fire departments largely consist of men, there ARE some women in those fields and so sets should be EQUAL because it's TLG's "social responsibility" to teach kids it should be equal. The key here is that I would agree there should be more female figures in sets - that there should be more female cops and firefighters, but no, it's not TLG's responsibility to "guide" society to being entirely gender neutral. No... it's not their job. HOWEVER, as I said - I would be happy to see a lot more female figures, and even female figure dominated sets when it works, like research institute, although if TLG were to release a set like that in the future, I wouldn't mind the tables being turned to have females dominate the set, but obviously there was some bias there making ALL the figures female. And now, just offhand, I think about the Detective Agency and how a lot of modern cop shows are either neutral or actually female dominated (not even just modern - I remember watching Cagney and Lacy back in the 80s); but a set like the Detective Agency is a product of it's time, also - a very male dominated time in the U.S.. I know that excuse is being bandied about here with the Castle theme, but it rings a lot more true in sets like D.O.. The bottom line, IMO, is that TLG has been trying for quite some time, and they are succeeding. They can't change everything overnight, they can't force parents to buy Ninjago for their daughters any more than they can force parents to buy Friends for their sons. While the marketing may influence opinions, there's nothing in the marketing that says girls can't like Ninjago, and absolutely NOTHING that would lead a 9 year old girl get all sad and say "but it's for boys." I definitely WOULD like to see more female figures in sets, even if only one in three or four cops or firefighters are women.... and with the more detailed faces coming out, I would like obviously female ones that aren't screaming (helpless victims) or smiling... just serious, doing their job type expressions.

First thing: I haven't read all the responses; I'm actually surprised I missed the beginnings of this thread. I will go back and read through some more responses, and maybe edit this post, but I couldn't even make it entirely through the first message. My first reaction is "#@%ing again someone's whining about gender in LEGO? They're TRYING! They can't change it OVERNIGHT. It's already a lot different than it used to be. But I read this: And there's two things that immediately come to mind. The first thing is that it sounds entirely made up. Now, hear me out, maybe it isn't, but it sounds like a story any activist would come up with just to make a point. But, let's say it's true, let's try to think the best of each other and that we wouldn't exaggerate something like that trying to make some social point.... Even if true - TLG did NOT tell your niece this, they in NO WAY suggested it was only for boys, that she couldn't get or enjoy it. You know what it sounds like? Something a mom would say to a daughter wanting a $200 LEGO set, or something some of her friends might have said after finding out that she wanted it... she didn't get it from TLG or any store employees, she didn't get it from catalogs or commercials. You can't possibly lay the blame at the feet of TLG. The fact that she looked a bit sad when she said sounds exactly like someone told her she couldn't get it and then made up an excuse. And it's these kinds of stories that bring light to the fact that it's NOT TLG's fault, and that it's NOT their responsibility to educate kids that anyone can play with the sets. Their marketing is much more neutral than it used to be - there is still gender inequality in sets, to be sure, but there's nothing in their marketing that would suggest to a 9 year girl that she's "not allowed" to play with ANY set TLG releases. Secondly, some themes may seem targeted to gender, but keep in mind that, after the huge success of Friends (so complain all you want, but girls like it), they released Elves - which is COMPLETELY and ENTIRELY gender neutral. The point being, as I said, they are TRYING, but they can't change overnight, and they aren't going to stop doing what people quite obviously like (making them the most successful toy company in the world) in the name of "social justice." For the most part, they are doing a great job at giving people exactly what the people want.

Actually, I would think definitely not on Batman - I think there's a reason you didn't see Batman in TLM CMF series - it would count as an action figure and not a building set. While I wouldn't put anything past TLG, I think Ninjago is way too specific to have it's own series. That leaves TLM2. I honestly think that's the only real possibility.

I like it. Castle creator would be neat.

I agree - having a number of the Discovery series of sets, I really like the fact that those sets got the votes they needed, and am saddened that most sets are now a media popularity contest as opposed to what's a really great set. In any event, I hope they do more Discovery, regardless of what happens on Ideas. For the record, I voted for Ecto-1. Wall-E is also very nice, but I every time I see the picture I think of the design flaw. I actually have the box sitting here on my desk as I write this. I like the birds, but didn't get them. I'm on the fence about their worth, even if they were well done. I did get the research institute and the exo-suit; I will get BBT, but it's not a great representation of the show, IMO, and I didn't vote for it on ideas. I don't think a typical sitcom could really adequately be represented by a set. I didn't vote for Dr. Who. It looks like a nice set, I may get it, but I'm not a huge Dr. Who fan, and while the phone booth does a great job of making it identifiable, the rest of it is just meh, IMO. Ultimately, I think Wall-E is the most visually stunning, but the Ecto-1 is absolutely the best at giving is a visually stunning, iconic, instantly recognizable set without any functional design flaws.

+1 jFox, always a great person to work with!

I have a NISB Zombies set for trade in bazaar thread, but will look at your bricklink store to see if I can find anything there. EDIT: sorry, not seeing much in your store.