fred67

Crossposted in Town, but highlights the train, so thought I'd post it here. I previously brick-built the old Holiday train, but then I liked the engine on the newer one and just combined the sets.

Crossovers and switches....

Don't have the firehouse yet, and it's not all lit the way I'd like, but we do a little every year, so here's this year's Winter Village.

That's amazing, man! Well done!

I'm trying to sell off pretty much every set that is outside my narrowing interests, or that I just had extra. Image Album Located in USA in Georgia; Prices INCLUDE shipping in the continental U.S., willing to make deals on multiple buys that can combine shipping. Will ship outside U.S., buyer pays shipping (I will subsidize a bit). I live in close-in Gwinnett County in GA; if someone wants to accept locally, we can negotiate down on those large sets that I'm asking a little more for because of shipping. All sets are NISB except where noted. I based prices based on a combination of Bricklink 6 months sales averages and what's the cheapest set available in North America (consider I'm including shipping). Will consider BIG trades (like Assembly Square, including used/complete/with instructions; don't care about boxes). Star Wars: 4504 Millennium Falcon, (box flap slightly ripped) OT Edition $250 10186 UCS General Grievous $175 8087 TIE Defender $80 8016 Hyena Droid Bomber $35 8092 Luke's Landspeeder $32 7672 Rogue Shadow $175 6212 X-Wing $95 6205 V-Wing $12 (USED) 8015 Assassin Droid BP (x5) $12 7667 Imperial Dropship (x3) $25 7668 Rebel Scout Speeder $32 (NEW) and $13 (USED) 8014 Clone Walker BP $32 8036 Separatist Shuttle $23 (USED) 7256 Jedi Starfighter $14 (USED) 6205 V-Wing $13 (USED) 852554 Magnet Set (Chewbacca, Vader, OB1 - these are the old magnets that can be removed) $24 BIONICLE (see pictures for which have canisters) 8699 Takanuva $33 (USED, No Instructions) 8990 Fero & Skirmix $25 (USED) AS A SET: 8746 (Visorak Keelerak), 8564 (Lehvak), 8745 (Roporak), 8560 (Pahrak), 8561 (Nuhvok) $25 (USED, see pictures) HOLIDAY AS A SET: 10199 Toy Shop, 3300020 and 3300002 (the 2011 bonus sets, parts 1 and 2) $130 ARCHITECTURE 21010 Robie House $350 21000 Sears Tower signed by designer Adam Reed Tucker (see pics) $150 21001 John Hancock Center signed by designer Adam Reed Tucker (see pics) $220 * note that the prices for 21000 and 21001 are below Bricklink lowest prices for unsigned sets. I'll do $300 for both. OTHER/MISC 10210 Imperial Flagship $600 2283 HERO FACTORY Witch Doctor $90 (there are no new sets for sale on bricklink!) 852271 CASTLE Knights Battlepack $45 852132 CASTLE Fantasy Tic-Tac-Toe $50 4708 HARRY POTTER Hogwarts Express $160 10230 MODULAR Mini-Modulars $120 8100 EXO-FORCE Cyclone Defenter $10 Please ask any questions - will entertain reasonable offers.

This trading thread is dead, I wouldn't bother with it. You can post in the buy/sell/trade forum.

Two things, then I'll shut up about it: 1. Yes, a "mutual vote" club is completely unjustifiable and completely contrary to the spirit of Ideas. 2. Soliciting votes from friends and family isn't the problem - I was actually going to mention this, but I didn't feel it's worthwhile. When a kid piles a few bricks on a baseplate and gives it a name, and mom and dad and grandma and grandpa and uncle Joe all go and support it (despite the fact it's worthless and no one would ever buy it), I do think it's "wrong" on several levels, but I ultimately don't care because, after those five votes, the project just dies away anyway. It's pushing a not-great set to 10k and then TLG gets screwed because people who voted for it weren't actually willing to buy it. Ideas is NOT the place to show off your random brick pile to grandma and grandpa - send them a text for crying out loud.

Of course there's no obligation to buy - you might think it's worth $50 and it ends up being $100, then it's not worth it to you. And I like how you get to be pedantic, and I don't... the wording is the wording, and unlike @MAB, they've got plenty of lawyers double checking every word they put on that site. And for the record, if you think it's a good parts pack and, for the right price, would be worth it just for that, then you think it's a good idea... like I said, we all have different reasons for thing the submission is good, we all look for different things, and some people look for things like parts packs. "Hey, I like that Idea submission! It would be a great parts pack!" It's a valid reason. But clearly they are gauging interest in sets, and if you vote for something you have no interest in, then it's skewing the results (and it's the reason they kept jacking up the required number of votes). If you think it's worthy for other people, then let them vote for it. And really, what we're discussing here is a "mutual vote" club, which simply isn't justifiable. Honestly - there was suggestion floating around that, instead of this bricklink AFOL nonsense they are doing, TLG should make Ideas more like Kickstarter. They get a tight estimate of what X number of copies of the set would cost to produce and be profitable, then your vote is a requirement to buy (but you'd know the cost up front). Then you'd get rid of this mutual-votes idiocy, and the bar for number of supporters could be much lower.

You're being pedantic. It's clear that he meant that it's not raising projects because they are good. And I completely disagree with you on your last sentence. It's true that the worthiness of a project is in the eye of the beholder, and that beholder may have varied reasons for feeling a project is worthy, but supporting a project you don't think is "good" and wouldn't even buy is just plain counter to the objective of Ideas. That doesn't mean we can't disagree on the worth of a submission, it just means you should support projects that actually make you want to buy it. After all - are you then lying when it asks how many you would buy or how much you would pay for this set? It's not asking what you think the set is worth, it's asking how much YOU would pay for it. If you wouldn't buy it, the answer is zero.

Want a million dollars.

I understand your point, but as an off-topic, I find it interesting (not in a good way) when people conflate religion and politics. Agreed. Some Mosques, churches, temples, and even just some religious "sites" are absolute marvels and absolutely beautiful. This Hindu temple opened just down the road from me: It's just beautiful whether you are Hindu or not. But we're talking about Christmas here, and while I appreciate non-secular Christmas, it's still rooted in Christianity. We don't need TLG to release a nativity scene, but a "classic" small town church shouldn't be the end of the world: The latter, though, seems simple enough to build without needing a set, but then it would miss the little touches TLG adds to it's winder village set. Even the earlier sets had carolers. I get there are non-religious Christmas songs, but how many carolers don't include the religious ones? I get it; I wouldn't keep arguing the point or try to convince anyone from TLG that they should release a church, but I do think they are a bit too staunch about their objections. I bet they'd release a Jedi temple.

Throwing away bricks is probably too much. You may not want to keep them because every time you build something you'll be thinking "these are bricks that someone tried to scam me with." So donate them. Even just Goodwill (there are a lot better choices out there, though). For the record, I simply haven't bought on Ebay in years. I check occasionally, but am usually not thrilled with what I see. I know some people have had some fantastic purchases on Ebay, and that's great, but most of the time I see current auctions already above what you can get the set for on Bricklink. The last time I got something on Ebay I wasn't "scammed," but I ordered a complete set of Series 1 CMFs with a "custom built LEGO display." I really didn't give a #!$ about the display, but thought "hey, a bunch of filler bricks essentially for free," but they turned out to be Megablocks. So I'm very wary. Even on BL, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

I don't know what leads you to your first conclusion above. When it was Cuoso (sp?) the standards for getting a set made was much smaller, the community was a lot smaller, it wasn't a lot of non-LEGO enthusiasts voting for those sets. The reason the standards became higher was because it became very popular, and very easy to hit the original mark (wasn't it only 1000?). I actually happen to think some sets might even have been rejected BECAUSE so many votes came from new, single vote users who aren't LEGO enthusiasts to begin with. So while it may be a factor that they try to expose LEGO to people who hadn't considered it before, I don't think that it's the "purpose" of the Ideas. I think we should take it at face value that the purpose of Ideas is to expose a lot of great MOCs that, if they have enough appeal, can possibly be made for everyone to enjoy. As far as your point about AFOLs - yes, we should just be able to be inspired by what we see and build it ourselves. But that ignores a whole lot of important problems that arise from that point of view. 1) Most of us don't have vaults full of money. Consider the retail price of any of the trains you mentioned versus the cost to bricklink them. Buying the parts separately is way more expensive. 2) MOC builders often use parts that are uncommon, sometimes a lot of them (or uncommon colors) TLG can take a part that has appeared once or twice in small numbers over the last couple of years, and make millions of them. 3) Depending on the MOC, it may not be nearly as simple as looking at the outside to figure out how it was built. There are often some incredibly complex things going on underneath the hood. I just build the Downtown Diner, and was shaking my head at some of the techniques they used to create it - I would never have been able to figure it out by looking at it. Finally, some of us love LEGO but are just not as creative as others. On your last point: I completely agree. All you have to know is, especially if no license was concerned, that the only motivating factor is money - one way (it would cost too much to switch parts production) or another (they don't think enough people will buy it to be worthwhile). Things like "illegal" techniques are not really problems - they find ways around things like that; I don't think any of the significant Ideas sets didn't have a lot of changes by the LEGO designers.

Sorry, I don't visit as often as I like, but what I'm seeing is us giving you counter example after counter example, and all you're doing is saying "but..." because you can't just admit that, yes, they've done a number of sets based on live action TV, and there's no logical reason why they wouldn't continue doing that, and even adding new ones. As @MAB pointed out, even if you were right, it doesn't matter - it's not a pertinent counter argument. There was a point where they didn't do licensed sets at all. When they did start doing them, except for corporate tie-ins (like "Shell"), the media licenses were all animated. So back in 1998, someone like you (that sounds a lot worse than I mean it to sound, please don't take it the wrong way) was saying TLG would never do Star Wars because TLG only did animated licenses. Actually, back in '98 I guess it was "TLC," but whatever. People were probably also, like with LOTR, saying TLG wouldn't do SW because it was too violent, a lot of deaths, some of them fairly gruesome. I'm not going to argue about it any more - the ONLY reason for TLG to NOT try to do LOTR (because there are a lot of reasons outside of their control) is because they think they can make more money elsewhere.

Is that true, though? Maybe not themes, but aren't some DC sets based on the live action shows? Arrow? Flash? EDIT: It occurs to me that, outside Ideas, they've also done some classic Batman series sets.

But that's been changing. TLG has learned from other toy companies that so-called "program length commercials" TV strategies have been very successful. Now we have a bunch of shows co-based on LEGO products. When I say co-based, I mean they happened in conjunction of one another, not because of one another (like Uni-Kitty). As @MAB pointed out, there have been a number of series based on TV shows, and some Superhero sets (particularly DC) are based on shows. Back on point, we have to just remember one simple thing - TLG wants to maximize profits. That means that, even if a Castle or Pirate theme was actually profitable, it does make it worth it to TLG to produce them if they can make more with other themes. So when we're talking about things like themes not selling well, that doesn't mean they weren't profitable, it may very well mean that it wasn't profitable enough. They only have the capacity to make so much LEGO every year, so they focus on what will be the most profitable, not just profitable.

That doesn't explain why the shelf life was so short of the sets they did release. That's what I'm talking about. A Star Wars set comes out and has upwards of a 2 year life span, none of the LOTR sets lasted that long. If they were selling well, they would have restocked. I wasn't referring to creating new sets, I was referring to what they released dying out and not being replenished. You can come up with any hand-waving suggestions as to why, but the only logical reason is TLG didn't think it was worth it.

Honestly, I feel like the "sticky" feeling is just from use - people have oily hands, no matter how much you wash them. You use bricks, you touch bricks, you get them dirty. Taking them apart, I find, is often worse, because you may need to grip harder. When I build a set, I keep a damp washcloth nearby to keep cleaning my hands. I agree with @Peppermint_M, there have been a few quality control mishaps (notably with brown and dark red, but also other colors) from time to time, but by and large the quality is as good as it's ever been, IMO.

While his response may have been anecdotal, it's the best we'll ever get. TLG doesn't release data for specific themes. It's not a stretch to understand what happened though - if sets sell well, they stay on the shelves longer, and the company continues the theme. It's really that simple. LOTR and the Hobbit died quickly.

S@H PAB has always been ridiculously priced. If they priced sets like that, they'd cost 2 or more times what the sets sell for, but imagine you're TLG and someone orders a 1x1 round for $0.01. You lose money, even if the part doesn't cost that much to make. It's a completely different topic, though. The fact is that TLG needs to attempt to protect it's legal standing with copyrights, patents, and trademarks, or risk losing them. You can't let someone get away with it, and then sue someone else for doing the same thing, or suing the first company years later so that you can ask for more in damages. You need to keep up with protecting your IP, or the court will weaken your hold on it because you failed to act. It's why most laws have statutes of limitation.

Minifigures, maybe, but the basic brick quality is still not LEGO, not on par, or anywhere near par. They may have improved, as have all the competitors - including the more legitimate ones like MB and Bestlock, but even with those "mainstream" brands there is still a noticeable quality difference. I just separated out about 20% from a bulk lot because it was Bestlock. I may have gotten overzealous and actually discarded some LEGO. I was very unhappy. But I have bought some MB sets (particularly a call of duty zombie set). The brick quality was high, but not as good as LEGO.

Well, we have nothing but anecdotal evidence to suggest LOTR sales were bad, but it seems clear to me that, if sales were great, they'd keep the theme going. Like i said, i wouldn't hold my breath. EDIT: I should point out that they did stop HP before the series was even done. They claimed it was because it was getting "darker," and not such a suitable series for LEGO. However, when they came back at the end to release new sets, it seems they were very well received. I guess there's a psychology behind it - people want something more when you take it away. I guess there's also that new fans come along and see what they missed. Again, I would not put anything past them. That they ever even released LOTR sets was just a stunner to begin with - we'd been arguing here on EB for quite some time about the possibility of LOTR LEGO. I'd always argued, as I do now, to not count it as out of the question, but don't get your hopes up, either.

Wow, thanks for this - I didn't know about this book at all. Already added to my Amazon shopping cart.

I wouldn't hold my breath, but if they did sets based on a new "prequel" series, then it's not out of line that they would release new sets/versions from LOTR and They Hobbit, same as they are doing for Harry Potter and Star Wars.

Where are these available?