The LEGO Thread

[Marian Schedenig 9,042]

This seems as good a time as any to finally start the thread I've been meaning to start for years. LEGO IDEAS has just announced an upcoming set based on Jaws:

 

For those who don't know, LEGO IDEAS is LEGO's crowd-designing platform: Anyone can upload their designs, as long as they fulfil certain criteria, and if a design gets 10,000 votes from other users within a certain amount of time, the set will be considered for an upcoming release. Every few months, all eligible designs since the last selection are reviewed by LEGO, and usually one or a few of them are selected for production. The final set is created by LEGO designers based on the original submissions, so often diverge quite significantly from the original version - for various reasons like parts availability, stability, size/cost, or sometimes unknown and hotly debated reasons. In the case of this set, my guess is that the final version will look more polished (Bruce looks a bit too artificial to me in that submission - or perhaps that's the point?), and it will certainly have custom-printed minifigures that more closely match the film.

 

The John Williams connection is obvious, but it's even stronger than you might think at first: LEGO has a LOT of sets (and entire set themes) based on Williams-scored franchises:

• Star Wars (huge theme)
• Harry Potter (huge theme)
• Jurassic Park/World (big theme)
• Indiana Jones (recently revived theme)
• Home Alone (the McCallister house was a previous IDEAS set)
• E.T. (an E.T. minifig was produced for LEGO's Dimensions video game several years ago)
• Superman (various versions of the character have been produced for the DC Comics theme)
• …and now Jaws

 

Also, LEGO famously miscalculated during the late 90s and got into big financial trouble. It is generally acknowledged that the company wouldn't have survived without the Star Wars licence that they've been using since 1999. Considering that many of us agree that Star Wars wouldn't have had the impact it has without Williams, I believe it's not a big stretch to say that Williams indirectly saved the company.

[ThePenitentMan1 1,017]

This thread should be re-named "LEGO is more Awesome than Everything"

 

 

[blondheim 1,160]

I am a shameless adult Lego collector. I am currently building a Williams display shelf. As of now that contains:

 

the Temple of the Golden Idol diorama

the Emperor’s Throne Room Diorama

the T-Rex Breakout diorama

 

I also love the Ideas line. I have the Lego Pop-up book, the ship in a bottle, the buildable

Voltron and also the Lego Starry Night, possibly my favorite set.

 

This is a good thread. I’m probably getting the PAC Man arcade or Rivendell this month. I’m just trying to work out finances. Lego is many things but it’s definitely not a cheap hobby

[Marian Schedenig 9,042]

1 hour ago, blondheim said:

Lego is many things but it’s definitely not a cheap hobby

 

It's more expensive than soundtrack collecting, and that's not exactly a cheap hobby to begin with.

 

There was a point in time when the flood of interesting new soundtrack releases was decreasing and my spending went down, and my bank account balance was actually beginning to rise steadily. Then LEGO came, specifically the 10240 UCS X-Wing that I was given as a collective birthday present by my friends. That got me thinking: Perhaps I should buy a little LEGO set every once in a while. But that's not how LEGO works, once you dig into their catalogue and develop FOMO because most of their sets aren't available for a long time. By now I've run out of space to put my built sets, and I've got a huge backlog of unbuilt stuff that I have neither the place or time for at the moment. I've got the UCS Millennium Falcon, Star Destroyer, and AT-AT still in their unopened boxes, for example, and it won't be long before I get Rivendell and the Pac-Man set (at the moment that's probably the most exciting one for me).

[blondheim 1,160]

44 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

It's more expensive than soundtrack collecting, and that's not exactly a cheap hobby to begin with.

 

There was a point in time when the flood of interesting new soundtrack releases was decreasing and my spending went down, and my bank account balance was actually beginning to rise steadily. Then LEGO came, specifically the 10240 UCS X-Wing that I was given as a collective birthday present by my friends. That got me thinking: Perhaps I should buy a little LEGO set every once in a while. But that's not how LEGO works, once you dig into their catalogue and develop FOMO because most of their sets aren't available for a long time. By now I've run out of space to put my built sets, and I've got a huge backlog of unbuilt stuff that I have neither the place or time for at the moment. I've got the UCS Millennium Falcon, Star Destroyer, and AT-AT still in their unopened boxes, for example, and it won't be long before I get Rivendell and the Pac-Man set (at the moment that's probably the most exciting one for me).

I’ve begun mixing the hobbies together and setting up shelves based on major franchises/composers.

 

The Rivendell set needs to be grabbed because there’s a rumor that Barad-Dur is coming with the eye and… well that just needs to happen. My Howard Shore Middle Earth shelf would be very sightly indeed.

 

 

Jaws will get added to my Williams shelf for sure. I’ve been praying for a Zelda set to go with my Zelda fandom stuff.

 

i could talk about Lego for hours. The Fomo you describe is so real. Also sometimes the second run of limited sets go up in price. There was a time when the UCS Falcon was under 800 dollars.

 

Pac Man is going on my shelf with all my 80s pop music. The Atari and Nintendo will go on that shelf too when I grab those.

 

there’s a Sanderson sisters set coming soon and a Nightmare Before Christmas set coming as well so it’s going to get expensive.

 

I am waiting to see videos on the 1992 Batcave Shadowbox because my jury is still out on that set at that price point. For only one hundred more Rivendell is utterly gorgeous. I am also buying the Lego Villains icons set with the VHS boxes and books. That will go nicely on my Disney shelf.

 

…and this is how I end up spending all my money and pulling my hair out and living in a cardboard box because I can’t make rent.

[Jurassic Shark 13,158]

Great idea for a thread. It's time for a reprise of my previous LEGO post:

 

On 19/05/2018 at 8:01 PM, Jurassic Shark said:

My now playing CD rack. Holds both standard jewel cases and thick ones. 

 

 

[GerateWohl 5,040]

1 hour ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

It's more expensive than soundtrack collecting, and that's not exactly a cheap hobby to begin with.

 

There was a point in time when the flood of interesting new soundtrack releases was decreasing and my spending went down, and my bank account balance was actually beginning to rise steadily. Then LEGO came, specifically the 10240 UCS X-Wing that I was given as a collective birthday present by my friends. That got me thinking: Perhaps I should buy a little LEGO set every once in a while. But that's not how LEGO works, once you dig into their catalogue and develop FOMO because most of their sets aren't available for a long time. By now I've run out of space to put my built sets, and I've got a huge backlog of unbuilt stuff that I have neither the place or time for at the moment. I've got the UCS Millennium Falcon, Star Destroyer, and AT-AT still in their unopened boxes, for example, and it won't be long before I get Rivendell and the Pac-Man set (at the moment that's probably the most exciting one for me).

My youngest nearly grew out of LEGO. Probably three more years to go.

What really demotivated me to invest more into LEGO, If you calculate how much you actually pay per brick. That's not funny.

[Marian Schedenig 9,042]

54 minutes ago, blondheim said:

The Rivendell set needs to be grabbed because there’s a rumor that Barad-Dur is coming with the eye and… well that just needs to happen. My Howard Shore Middle Earth shelf would be very sightly indeed.

 

Not just a rumour, but actual pictures of a development set. No guarantee that it will actually be released, of course, but at the very least, it's come pretty far in the design process.

 

There's also speculation that the new microscale Hogwarts could pave the way for some microscale, architecture-style LOTR sets, and that would be a dream come true for me.

 

54 minutes ago, blondheim said:

I am waiting to see videos on the 1992 Batcave Shadowbox because my jury is still out on that set at that price point.

 

I think it looks amazing, and the idea is good. But luckily I'm not enough of a Batman fan to really want it. Instead I'm still on the fence whether I should get the huge Titanic…

 

54 minutes ago, blondheim said:

…and this is how I end up spending all my money and pulling my hair out and living in a cardboard box because I can’t make rent.

 

As I keep saying: If I didn't buy so much LEGO, I could afford the space I need to put it on display…

 

9 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

What really demotivated me to invest more into LEGO, If you calculate how much you actually pay per brick. That's not funny.

 

It's expensive, certainly. But there have been a couple of articles over the years that have compared LEGO prices throughout the decades, along with parameters like set size and complexity, and aligned with inflation, prices have overall been pretty stable since I got my first sets growing up in the 80s. Of course, when I was little, my family couldn't afford to spend as much on LEGO in a year as I do now in a month…

37 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Great idea for a thread. It's time for a reprise of my previous LEGO post:

 

I've toyed with the idea of constructing CD holders with LEGO, but I'm too much of an idealist… they'd need to be black, and minimalistic, and without exposed studs… and then I'd end up ordering a ton of parts.

 

But I do need to find a way to display all my signed albums as some point, with or without LEGO.

[Jurassic Shark 13,158]

34 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

I've toyed with the idea of constructing CD holders with LEGO, but I'm too much of an idealist… they'd need to be black, and minimalistic, and without exposed studs… and then I'd end up ordering a ton of parts.

 

You won't better mine anyway.

 

On 31/05/2023 at 9:35 PM, Marian Schedenig said:

availability

 

Does LEGO really have to take availability of parts into consideration when designing new sets? Can't they make more of the necessary parts if needed?

[Marian Schedenig 9,042]

23 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Does LEGO really have to take availability of parts into consideration when designing new sets? Can't they make more of the necessary parts if needed?

 

I was mainly talking about the availability of legacy parts. There's a lot of nostalgia in many of the ideas submissions, and often some of the parts aren't produced anymore.

 

I'm not sure how big a factor the production pipelines of specific parts and colours is on LEGO's choice of new sets (i.e. how much the current production pipelines and parts storage affect the choice of new sets, rather than the other way round). Certainly some, I imagine. There's a rather big community in mainly German-speaking countries (incited by an influencer/online store owner who calls himself Held der Steine) who don't miss a chance to bash LEGO for using bricks of various colours for the insides of their sets (the bits that are not visible once the build is finished) and claim that they do this to reduce production costs and make their higher ups massively rich. I don't buy that - partly the insides are colour-code to prevent building mistakes by using different part colours for different sides of symmetric builds; partly they're coloured so you can more easily see differences when looking at the building instructions - if everything in a black set were uniformly black, it would be much harder to see where you are and what the next step is. Personally, I also welcome them putting some rather rare colours inside where they don't matter, because you can swap them out with other parts from your collection and then use those colours for something else.

[Holko 10,231]

22 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

There's a rather big community in mainly German-speaking countries (incited by an influencer/online store owner who calls himself Held der Steine) who don't miss a chance to bash LEGO for using bricks of various colours for the insides of their sets (the bits that are not visible once the build is finished) and claim that they do this to reduce production costs and make their higher ups massively rich.

Wow, I've never heard that. I only care about and know of people who care about stuff like the highly visible blue technic pins in very very unfitting places.

[Tom Guernsey 2,681]

I used to love Lego as a kid, but my niece and nephew seem a bit uninterested in it. I do wonder whether one of the issues with all the franchise tie-ins is that people (kids and adults) get them because they want an X-Wing or Hogwarts or whatever and then don't want to take it apart. The kits also contain increasingly large numbers of fairly bespoke parts to make a particular kit work which perhaps requires more imagination to repurpose.

 

When I was a kid (so the 80s/90s), none of the movie tie-in stuff existed so the space stuff was just generic space ships so you didn't miss it when you took it apart to make something else. I mean, I had the space monorail set (which was great) and I used to play with it as though it was the Docklands Light Railway rather than a way to get between moon bases. Living on an island, I probably flew and took more ferries than many people so was obsessed with commuter turboprops (anyone remember the Fokker F27?!) and car ferries. I therefore tended to build model propellor planes with retractable undercarriage, working flaps and all that stuff, or car ferries with an opening bow door and ramp, plus a rear vehicle ramp. I was a strange child.

 

As an adult I have been given the (smaller - kinda want the big one) Millennium Falcon and the Jurassic Park T-Rex attack scene. If I were a kid now, I don't know if these days I would be so inclined to take apart either of these to make something else as there'd be that feeling that you'd lose (to other models) all the parts to other things should you ever want to make the Millennium Falcon again. Maybe I'm just projecting... but then neither my niece or nephew have taken apart the Lego they have to make something else. The various kits that make up the sections of Hogwarts (the play version rather than the architectural version) just sit on my niece's chest of drawers with all the HP mini-figs lined up in front.

 

As a slight aside, I used to dream (again, weird child) of being able to make remote controlled models of the various ferries that came to Guernsey but most remote controlled ships you could buy were tugs or yachts etc., but now with 3D printing, people have made excellent remote controlled models of ferries. I'd love to go to one of the shows to look at them. One thing I'd especially like would be a remote controlled hydrofoil, which someone used to have in Guernsey but I've not seen it in years. In fairness, if I were a multimillionaire, as well as funding an endless supply or film music recordings, I'd spend my life travelling the world in a luxury hydrofoil.

[Jurassic Shark 13,158]

I vote that Tom becomes a multimillionaire!

[Marian Schedenig 9,042]

40 minutes ago, Tom Guernsey said:

I used to love Lego as a kid, but my niece and nephew seem a bit uninterested in it. I do wonder whether one of the issues with all the franchise tie-ins is that people (kids and adults) get them because they want an X-Wing or Hogwarts or whatever and then don't want to take it apart. The kits also contain increasingly large numbers of fairly bespoke parts to make a particular kit work which perhaps requires more imagination to repurpose.

 

When I was a kid (so the 80s/90s), none of the movie tie-in stuff existed so the space stuff was just generic space ships so you didn't miss it when you took it apart to make something else.

 

You bring up some excellent points. LEGO these days is certainly much more complex and also much more explicitly "adult" in some of its themes. When I was a kid, I used to throw all my bricks in a couple of roughly sorted boxes and just build whatever out of them. Given the relative simplicity, most cars e.g. were built in a similar fashion, and if you gave me a bunch of bricks from a few car sets from the 80s, I know I could still whip up a custom car on the fly. These days, the sheer number of colours alone, and the much higher number of different parts, means that instead of dozens, you need a collection of hundreds or even thousands of bricks to create something relatively simple of your own.

 

Maybe the 80s and 90s were the ideal time for growing up with LEGO. The system had been around for several decades, but the minifigure is just a year older than I am (it was first produced in 1978), and that brought with it a significant evolutionary step in set complexity (and look) as well. Sets from the early 80s to the late 90s were all on a similar level of complexity, easy enough to grasp and come up with your own stuff, but still looking much more refined than LEGO from before 1980.

 

Yet as an adult what keeps me interested is how the much increased complexity of roughly 2010+ has led to new techniques that enabled stunning sets which wouldn't have been possible before - although it sadly also means that I don't have the time to create my own MOCs. And I could imagine that children today have a harder time with it, too, because they can't afford to build up a collection of enough parts to go wild with their own creativity.

 

What I admire about the system is how it's still built on the original LEGO brick, and each and every of the new bricks that have since been introduced integrate with that. I imagine there must be formal way to describe the system - like chemical formulas or logical grammars. And if I credit the LEGO I grew up with for being a significant influence in making me a pretty good programmer (if I say so myself), imagine what kids growing up with today's system may learn from it.

 

My own niece has had a steady supply of Duplo bricks, thanks to not only myself. Those of course haven't changed all that much since the 80s. She's about to graduate to "proper" LEGO, so I hope we can keep her interested.

 

And re the pre-franchise stuff: Some of my very first sets were classic Space, and of course City, and then classic Castle, up to the Forestmen (that's where I had a few of the more expensive sets, too). The Pirates theme (the first with different faces from the standard minifig smiley face that had been in use for 10+ years at that point) came out shortly before my own "dark ages", and I had several of those from the first wave (but none of the ships, those were too expensive). And I was a massive fan of the 12V trains (though I never had a full train set either, just combinations of smaller sets). And while I very much welcome some of the licenced themes - Star Wars has excellent stuff, and the LOTR theme still has tons of unused potential - I regret that Pirates of the Caribbean mostly killed the original Pirates range (first by replacing it and then by kids these days supposedly not being interested in pirates anymore). Castle has long been mostly dormant, too, probably due to LOTR (and the later Castle sets during my dark ages have a rather strong fantasy edge to them, while I've always loved the rather "pure" and simple setting of the original 80s theme). Star Wars has of course completely replaced classic Space, and trains have long been reduced to just a couple of big sets every couple of years instead of the modular and extensible theme of the 80s (when we still had things like remote controlled signals and points). Meanwhile, most of LEGO's own original themes post 2000 have been too specific, tie-in based (e.g. with matching TV series), or plain odd to me. I have almost no interest in stuff like Ninjago - although that particular theme has brought a couple of excellent large scale sets, and also a minifigure that required so few modifications to turn here into the Bride that I'm convinced the similarity wasn't an accident:

 

[Jurassic Shark 13,158]

2 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

These days, the sheer number of colours alone, and the much higher number of different parts, means that instead of dozens, you need a collection of hundreds or even thousands of bricks to create something relatively simple of your own.

 

Just buy a few sets of the most basic bricks/parts.

[Marian Schedenig 9,042]

24 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Just buy a few sets of the most basic bricks/parts.

 

Those have become more complicated than in the 80s, too. Back then, you could just buy a box of red bricks in various sizes. Now you have a couple of dedicated part sets in every wave, but because of the number of available colours, even the larger once tend to not be very extensive. For a larger number of specific bricks, directly buying individual parts either directly from LEGO or via BrickLink is usually more feasible.

[Tom Guernsey 2,681]

13 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

I vote that Tom becomes a multimillionaire!

I vote for that too, money is wasted on the rich.

 

12 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

You bring up some excellent points. LEGO these days is certainly much more complex and also much more explicitly "adult" in some of its themes. When I was a kid, I used to throw all my bricks in a couple of roughly sorted boxes and just build whatever out of them. Given the relative simplicity, most cars e.g. were built in a similar fashion, and if you gave me a bunch of bricks from a few car sets from the 80s, I know I could still whip up a custom car on the fly. These days, the sheer number of colours alone, and the much higher number of different parts, means that instead of dozens, you need a collection of hundreds or even thousands of bricks to create something relatively simple of your own.

 

Maybe the 80s and 90s were the ideal time for growing up with LEGO. The system had been around for several decades, but the minifigure is just a year older than I am (it was first produced in 1978), and that brought with it a significant evolutionary step in set complexity (and look) as well. Sets from the early 80s to the late 90s were all on a similar level of complexity, easy enough to grasp and come up with your own stuff, but still looking much more refined than LEGO from before 1980.

 

Yet as an adult what keeps me interested is how the much increased complexity of roughly 2010+ has led to new techniques that enabled stunning sets which wouldn't have been possible before - although it sadly also means that I don't have the time to create my own MOCs. And I could imagine that children today have a harder time with it, too, because they can't afford to build up a collection of enough parts to go wild with their own creativity.

 

What I admire about the system is how it's still built on the original LEGO brick, and each and every of the new bricks that have since been introduced integrate with that. I imagine there must be formal way to describe the system - like chemical formulas or logical grammars. And if I credit the LEGO I grew up with for being a significant influence in making me a pretty good programmer (if I say so myself), imagine what kids growing up with today's system may learn from it.

 

I had actually thought about the range of colours almost adding to the difficulty in making things. I remember making my model ferries with the green base pieces (since they had a smooth underside so they could effortless sail the seven seas (carpets) of my parents' house), but obviously you were stuck with them being green (although you didn't really see them) because they were for building houses on or whatever. I mean, I love the idea that I could have been able to build more nuanced models with more realistic, or at least more varied, colours, but as you say, you'd likely run into trouble of having enough of each particular colour at some point which is less likely when it's basically primary colours, grey, white and black.

 

Another feature of old Lego sets was that the back of the instruction booklet often (always?) had a couple of other things you could build with the pieces included. There weren't instructions for the other things, but you could make a good stab at it. The kits now are so specific (not to mention complicated) that they've done away with those alternate options. I also remember having a big book/magazine of ideas that Lego produced, not sure if they do that any more. They seem more focussed on either kits you just build and play with or the more architectural stuff that you build and admire.

 

Interesting you bring up the cost aspect as I'm sure Lego is way more expensive than it used to be, even if it's just because the sets are much bigger than they used to. The brother of a friend of mine is some kind of "official" Lego builder - he doesn't actually work for them as such, but builds things and goes to conventions and stuff (I don't know the specifics!), but he told me that when it comes to these Lego master builders, the biggest factor on the "best" Lego builders was often economics and simply being able to afford enough to build what you could imagine. He has a fair bit (I assume he gets some free) but compared to those who have entire garages and outhouses dedicated to it, it pales into insignificance.

 

Agreed that it's great that Lego still fits together with older sets and, as anyone who's had some "fake" Lego style bricks, their bricks always fit perfectly and don't come out in a way that the imitations never quite managed.

[Jurassic Shark 13,158]

10 minutes ago, Tom Guernsey said:

Another feature of old Lego sets was that the back of the instruction booklet often (always?) had a couple of other things you could build with the pieces included. There weren't instructions for the other things, but you could make a good stab at it.

 

I'm certain some of the sets also had instructions for the other things.

[Tom Guernsey 2,681]

16 minutes ago, Jurassic Shark said:

 

I'm certain some of the sets also had instructions for the other things.

Quite possibly, it's been a while!

[Marian Schedenig 9,042]

12 hours ago, Tom Guernsey said:

I had actually thought about the range of colours almost adding to the difficulty in making things. I remember making my model ferries with the green base pieces (since they had a smooth underside so they could effortless sail the seven seas (carpets) of my parents' house), but obviously you were stuck with them being green (although you didn't really see them) because they were for building houses on or whatever.

 

For most of my childhood, I just built my castles and ships out of randomly coloured bricks. Although I do remember building a fully black T-Rex (with glowing red eyes, thanks to the 12V light bricks).

 

12 hours ago, Tom Guernsey said:

Another feature of old Lego sets was that the back of the instruction booklet often (always?) had a couple of other things you could build with the pieces included. There weren't instructions for the other things, but you could make a good stab at it.

 

12 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

I'm certain some of the sets also had instructions for the other things.

 

The Technics sets usually had multiple models I believe. The other sets had multiple alternate models displayed on the box. They don't do that anymore, but on the other hand, there's the "3 in 1" Creator theme which always has three different models (and sometimes a fourth one via instructions on the web) that you can build.

 

There's still all kinds of books, including some "ideas" books I believe. I have two from my childhood (which they barely survived without falling apart completely); I still adore this one (linked to a PDF version):

[LSH 1,048]

I was Lego mad in my younger years and I got back into it during the Covid lockdowns.

 

Bought the Saturn V rocket set and I couldn't stop.

 

God it's expensive... but very addictive.

[Tom Guernsey 2,681]

20 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

 

For most of my childhood, I just built my castles and ships out of randomly coloured bricks. Although I do remember building a fully black T-Rex (with glowing red eyes, thanks to the 12V light bricks).

 

I'd love to see the T-Rex, sounds great! I didn't really get into the electrics side of things as much beyond the trains and monorail, although with all the LEDs these days, the options are far greater.

 

20 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

The Technics sets usually had multiple models I believe. The other sets had multiple alternate models displayed on the box. They don't do that anymore, but on the other hand, there's the "3 in 1" Creator theme which always has three different models (and sometimes a fourth one via instructions on the web) that you can build.

I had the big (red) Technic sports car, although looking at pix of it, it's more like a sporty dirt buggy thing, and also the yellow seaplane, both of which I remember being great to build, although I don't recall doing much with them beyond the original designs. I guess the Technic stuff, while interesting, was always challenging to turn into something else as the pieces had holes in them - they'd let the water in on my car ferry (and I went on the actual Herald of Free Enterprise, so was quite aware of the need not to do this... to caveat, it did not sink while I was on it).

 

20 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

There's still all kinds of books, including some "ideas" books I believe. I have two from my childhood (which they barely survived without falling apart completely); I still adore this one (linked to a PDF version):

I'm pretty sure I had the book, thanks for the link! I definitely remember the train set though - I loved that European aesthetic with the overhead wires (a more common feature of British trains now than when I was younger) but I never had the one pictured above (read - never persuaded my parents to get it for me ;-) although I think friends had it. I had the one that needed batteries, so no centre power rail, and had blue rails as I recall. I can't actually remember what the train was like that came with my set, but it certainly didn't have the magic of mains power and a cool European design! Man I want that train now lol.

[Marian Schedenig 9,042]

1 hour ago, Tom Guernsey said:

I'd love to see the T-Rex, sounds great! I didn't really get into the electrics side of things as much beyond the trains and monorail, although with all the LEDs these days, the options are far greater.

 

I did write down some instructions on a piece of paper when I took it apart again some 25+ (more like 30, possibly) years ago. I probably still have it hidden away in a box somewhere…

 

1 hour ago, Tom Guernsey said:

I'm pretty sure I had the book, thanks for the link! I definitely remember the train set though - I loved that European aesthetic with the overhead wires (a more common feature of British trains now than when I was younger) but I never had the one pictured above (read - never persuaded my parents to get it for me ;-) although I think friends had it. I had the one that needed batteries, so no centre power rail, and had blue rails as I recall. I can't actually remember what the train was like that came with my set, but it certainly didn't have the magic of mains power and a cool European design! Man I want that train now lol.

 

I *adored* that train as a child, always wanted to have it. It was always too expensive, though. My first train stuff was an assortment of various 4.5V (battery) and 12V bits and pieces I "inherited" from an older kid - all the blue tracks with white sleepers you mentioned, although with the powered centre rail. Pretty sure most of it came from this set. I later got several sets from the 80s train range (with the grey tracks), though never a full train set (and never one of the newer transformers; the few grey 12V remote switches I had were hooked up to the old blue transformer with wires). I think the first new train set I got (as a present for what I think is the first Christmas I remember) was the 7810 Push-Along Steam Engine, so I'm very fond of the near-exact anniversary replica LEGO released a few years ago:

[Stark 556]

I NEEEEED the Lego Rivendell!

[blondheim 1,160]

I’m buying it Friday when the double VIP points promotion hits. Buying big sets during that promotion is really the only way the LEGO store deals are worth anything. You’ve got to be able to buy the big sets on promotion days.

 

Price be damned, Rivendell will be mine.

[Marian Schedenig 9,042]

 

I made this for an incoming Indy movie afternoon/night with friends, but I figure it makes a good avatar for this site, too.

[Sweeping Strings 2,613]

I recall a Technic set I had, mostly red bricks. It made 2 different farm vehicles I think. On a sort of 'construction toys' side note, also had this which I really liked - 



 

[Marian Schedenig 9,042]

On 07/06/2023 at 9:35 PM, blondheim said:

I’m buying it Friday when the double VIP points promotion hits. Buying big sets during that promotion is really the only way the LEGO store deals are worth anything. You’ve got to be able to buy the big sets on promotion days.

 

Price be damned, Rivendell will be mine.

 

I almost got Rivendell… then I figured it's new and will be available for a while, maybe even get a late promotional gift or something, so I decided on this, which has been out for more than a year now and is unlikely to get a better deal:

[LSH 1,048]

My Lego prayers have been answered! I NEED this right now!

 

 

 

 

[Marian Schedenig 9,042]

I'm skipping this one. But I should make some time to finally build the space shuttle…

[Naïve Old Fart 10,426]

Do JWfaners know that there is such a thing as "Lego therapy"?

I shit you, not.

[Marian Schedenig 9,042]

On 04/06/2023 at 8:54 PM, Marian Schedenig said:

I have almost no interest in stuff like Ninjago - although that particular theme has brought a couple of excellent large scale sets, and also a minifigure that required so few modifications to turn here into the Bride that I'm convinced the similarity wasn't an accident:

 

Until rewatching Kill Bill recently, I hadn't realised that LEGO has also produced what is very clearly a Hattori Hanzō minifig (although I own one):

[LSH 1,048]

10 hours ago, Marian Schedenig said:

I'm skipping this one. But I should make some time to finally build the space shuttle…

That one is still on my wishlist. But Concorde comes first I think. Early Christmas/Housewarming present to myself.

[Marian Schedenig 9,042]

Figured the release of Hackney Diamonds was a good opportunity to finally builds this set I had lying around since the end of last year:

 

What I always thought (based on review pictures) to be an alternate builds turned out to be an integral part of the model, before putting on the final (optional) tongue layer:

(Placing all those 1x1 round plates will give you enough callouses to learn to play a steel string guitar)

 

Total build time: 2x Hackney Diamonds, 1x Let It Bleed, 1x Sticky Fingers, plus 12 minutes.

[Marian Schedenig 9,042]

RIP Matthew Perry

[Marian Schedenig 9,042]

 

 

[Jurassic Shark 13,158]

[Marian Schedenig 9,042]

The AI still has to learn how ageing works. And those legs look horribly painful.

[Jurassic Shark 13,158]

 

 

[Marian Schedenig 9,042]

That's next-level Theme from 2001.

[Jurassic Shark 13,158]

Strauss is hairier than I remembered!

[Marian Schedenig 9,042]

Happy Christmas everyone!

[Jurassic Shark 13,158]

Nice, but who's the guy on the left?

[Mr. Breathmask 566]

Ah, LEGO. That crippling plastic addiction.

 

I gave the Rivendell set a pass. It's a hefty price tag and it's way too big to display anywhere here.

 

That said, here's the sets I got just this year:

 

 

I may have a problem. Also not enough room anymore.

 

And yet, I still plan on picking up this set in the near future: 

 

 

Send help.

[Jurassic Shark 13,158]

Send the sets you don't have space for to my daughter.

[Marian Schedenig 9,042]

2 hours ago, Mr. Breathmask said:

That said, here's the sets I got just this year:

 

I've got most of those that I'm interested in (which is the majority). I'm still on the fence about the cabin (cool, but expensive… but cool), and I'm waiting for a good deal on the lighthouse (there was one recently, and repeatedly, but I figured it'll come back later and I'd already spent a lot of money).

 

I did skip the Majisto and Christmas GWPs (but I got the next ones, including the carriage).

 

Probably going to build at least the Eldorado Fortress over the holidays.

 

5 hours ago, Jurassic Shark said:

Nice, but who's the guy on the left?

 

 

[Jurassic Shark 13,158]

Ah, Tchaikovsky!

[Marian Schedenig 9,042]

4 hours ago, Mr. Breathmask said:

And yet, I still plan on picking up this set in the near future: 

 

 

Send help.

 

Careful, the Winter Village sets tend to become unavailable shortly after Christmas and only come back in stock later next year (or at least that's how it used to be). I always get them early enough to build them during December (although this year I was too lazy/short on time/space to do my usual Christmas diorama).

[Mr. Breathmask 566]

The new modular took the place of the Winter Village set this year. Mostly because I really wanted Majisto's Workshop to go with my Lion Knights Castle. Otherwise I would have gotten the Alpine Lodge in November and the Natural History Museum in December or January.

 

But now that you're pressuring me, I guess I'll have to take one more trip to the LEGO Store this year. Oh noes!

[Marian Schedenig 9,042]

I don't know how quickly it disappears from non-LEGO stores, so you may have some leeway there. Or you could simply wait for next year's Christmas season.

 

I in turn am waiting to get the new modular, because I think there's supposed to be a matching GWP for it at some point. I haven't build the previous two (or the Sanctum Sanctorum) yet anyway - for space reasons. My next purchase will probably be the Chinese New Year sets.

 

I did start with the Pac-Man arcade today.