Results 1 – 5 of about 25000.
|
Search took 0.01 CPU seconds.
|
|
|
| 
mosaic, moc
(score: 2.584)
|
|
| |
Hi all,
Brad is correct that the set is 99% basic bricks (depending on what you
consider basic). However, there are plenty of these 2x6's and 2x8's as well
as 2x10's. Most of these large bricks are blue or red, on the other hand
there are many smaller plates in green and yellow. Too bad I do not have any
blue tubs at all, so I can't compare the contents. However, I can easily
imagine that you can build a similar model for less money, but I wanted to
have *excactly* this S@H exclusive minifigure and not a MOC one (I tried
that a while back as well). Having build the set, it's really awesome and I
wouldn't have reached it that well without the set. If you want to build
excactly this model, you'd better buy the set. If you prefer having an own
similar version, go ahead and grab some tubs. Besides a few missing plates
and many 2x8's (that can easily be replaced by 2x4's) your minifigure will
look about the same, but it'll not be the same.
Note that the set also comes with a 16x32 green building plate as well as 3
stickers with the LEGO logo (and of course the building instruction).
I needed more than four hours to complete the set and it was a lot of fun. I
can't wait to see the next sets for this line (LEGO > Exclusives >
Sculptures ?). Well, I am sure that TLC already has its own plans about new
sets for this theme, but here are my top 5:
1) A large animal that you can find in the LEGOLand parcs. Something like a
dark grey elephant, a giraffe, a zebra, a dragon, rabbit or one of the
colourful dinos that can be found at many places...
2) More famous buildings, like the Big Ben, Schloss Neuschwanstein or
whatever will be most interesting...
3) What are your licenses for? :) Give us some scluptures for Star Wars, for
Disney or heck - give us a Harry Potter Sculpture. The possibilities are
endless...
4) Another minifgure but for a theme (an alien, a knight, a pirate...) or
maybe a Technic one...
5) What about famous characters? For their parcs, LEGO already made Albert
Einstein, Mr. Spock, Fred Flinstone, Luciano Pavarotti,...
You'll find many many more in the DK "Ultimate LEGO book", please give us
more of these!
BTW, what happened to the Mosaic Maker? There were rumors about something
that way as well, correct? Any infos?
Bye, Christian --- xTI@N.
LUGNet Member #479
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The World is full of AFOLs - gech1@t-online.de
"Brad Hamilton" <bhamilto1@home.com> wrote in message
news:G2FF59.J8x@lugnet.com...
> I am curious about the piece makeup in the mini-figure.
>
> It seems very expensive given that it appears to be made up almost • entirely
> of basic bricks. From the picture in the S&H catalog, it seems like you
> could by about 5 $20 "blue tubs" and build the mini-fig (for only $100) • and
> have lots of bricks left over. My only possible guess is that it looks • like
> the minifig has a lot of 2x6's and 2x8's. These pieces tend to be fairly
> expensive, and the minifig appears to have a lot of them.
>
> Can you comment on general piece distributions based on your set? Are • there
> more special bricks than you would think? Do the basic bricks contain an
> unusual percentage of 2x6's or 2x8's?
>
> thanks
>
>
> Christian Gemuenden <GECH1@t-online.de> wrote in message
> news:G2Exrp.Erw@lugnet.com...
> > Howdy!
> >
> > What an incredible surprise! I recieved a large packet from LEGO Shop at
> > Home [Germany] this morning, inlcuding the new Minifigure 3723 and the • Spy
> > Runner 3439! I backordered these a while ago, but didn't expect them to
> > arrive that soon. Am I the very first AFOL to get his copy?? Cooool! Now • I
> > can be sure that the S@H team really cared about my complains. (I had a • bit
> > of trouble with the new service right when it came alive, but this is
> > certainly over now. However, the thread started here:
> > http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=781 )
> >
> > Now a few facts about the two sets, I will try to get some scans online
> > later today.
> >
> > Seems like the two sets have been shipped directly from Denmark, but I • am
> > not quite sure about that. They are US-versions though, since the piece
> > count and set name are printed onto the boxes (which is unusual for the • EU).
> > There is not much to say about the Spy Runner, since it's a small set • and
> > the prictures have shown all about it. The minifigure set however is • very
> > large (same box size as 8458 Silver Champion). The box is totally
> > grey-shaded. Even the LEGO Logo is shown in black/white. Although this • might
> > sound like the UCS set design, this one looks totally different. On the
> > front you will find a large picture of our earth, surrounded by many • flying
> > basic bricks. On the left is a rather small picture of the actualy • minifgure
> > (all grey as well). The back of the box shows nothing at all, but a grey
> > sky, the large LEGO logo and the words "just imagine" right under it. A
> > strange but cool box. Oh, and some additional info for the set guide can • be
> > found on it as well:
> > - piece count: 1.849 pcs
> > - ages: 12+
> > Opening the box, you will find four smaller entirely white boxes, three
> > stickers of the LEGO log and the building instruction booklet. It's a
> > strange building instruction, since it is not 3D at all. You are looking
> > right onto the the bricks from above them, so that you can only see the
> > pieces that are being added each step (the previous steps are shown in • grey
> > then). I will have to get used to this building instruction, but it
> > shouldn't be a problem to get the set built. In the end there is a • picture
> > of the statue of liberty "3450 - available November 2000". Can't wait to
> > start building now...
> >
> > I hope this set review is detailed enough, but of course I will be happy • to
> > reply all additional questions.
> > Oh, and for some reason S@H has not claimed any shipping costs, is that
> > usual for a backordered set??
> >
> > Bye, Christian --- xTI@N.
> > LUGNet Member #479
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > The World is full of AFOLs - gech1@t-online.de
>
>
>
|
|
|
| 
mosaic, moc
(score: 2.438)
|
|
| |
Amnon, I think you may have misinterpreted my message, likely
because I misinterpreted yours :]
I assumed you meant that any average Joe consumer off the
street would be able to design their own sets, set up a
site, and sell them. This I think is unrealistic. TLC
would have no control over site content/presentation.
Whether or not the sets are TLC-native, they are nonetheless
LEGO products. TLC must be protective of its brand recognition
regardless of where their sets come from. Thus the
administration required to ensure that all these 100s of
little sites are kept in line with company doctrine is just
way too immense. The Tech Support requirements alone to
make sure everyone's ordering interface to TLC works okay
would be massive when everyone is running different systems,
software, languages, etc.
Anyhow, that was my initial assumption that you meant
*anybody* could sell. The rest of my post then went on
my assumption that since that was impractical, the sets
would be sold off LEGO.com directly. The only thing
a designer would do is submit a design to TLC, and that's
it. Completely in TLC's court after that. If you re-read
my post with this in mind it should now make more
sense, especially the bits about design copyright, royalties,
etc.
Now as I think I understand it better, you are instead
suggesting that only a small number of "groups" be allowed
to sell? This makes more sense. Keep it to a limited
number of "licensed" on-line LEGO merchants. In some
ways they would be like the official LEGO stores that dot the
world, but these would be responsible for designing their
own sets, and wouldn't sell TLC-native sets. This would
be far more manageable.
However, now the day-to-day control over which sets get
sold is with these group sites (TLC would still monitor
things for compatibility with company desires). So
now the average Joe from above who wants to have his set
sold submits it to the group site. So the overhead
burden of reviewing sets, making them available for
order, etc., gets pushed onto the group sites. And here's
the part that concerns me: who decides if a particular set
is going to be sold? If someone gets ticked because a
group site won't put their set up for sale, remember the
independent complaint channel probably runs directly
to TLC. Instant discrimination suit? I dunno...
Part of my original read on your post was that *every*
design submitted gets made available for sale. And
again I'm back to the overhead cost issue, whether it's
covered by TLC or the group sites, or both. Now if
you meant only selected designs are made available, then
we have this above issue of design selection. If
no group site will accept the design, then does the
individual not lobby LEGO Direct for permission to get
their own site? And etc...
In lugnet.dear-lego, Amnon Silverstein writes:
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> > In lugnet.dear-lego, Amnon Silverstein writes:
>
> No, this could be made to look like the customer was dealing directly with
> the FOL. Check out the T-shirt ordering system here. Go to the main page, go
> to the left corner, order a shirt. Everything you see in the following
> process is LUGNET. All the design copyright is owned by LUGNET. All the
> money, manufature, ordering, is handled by cafepress, but you don't see that.
Appearance and copyright issues aside, the key bits I was after
here was "money, manufacture, ordering". In particular the
manufacture. Once a design is made available to sell, it needs
a set number. There must be sorting for the pieces into that
kit. Instructions need to be printed. Potentially box art
needs to be made (I'd say skip it for cost reasons, but their
goes brand recognition again). And sets need to be available
for shipping on-demand. All of this is overhead investment.
TLC has to spend money before the kit even sells. If they
agree to offer *every* design for sale (so my 50,000 a year
number), then that is a massive cost, 1000 times more than
they might normally do. If however they severely limit the
number of designs to, say, 50 (so about double their yearly
offering), then it is much more maneageable. But still
expensive---they've just doubled their investment in
set preparation.
> If special interest groups maintained and promoted their own sites, they
> could do the editing and quality control on their own, so Lego wouldn't have
> to worry about it. LUGNET could have a list of member-voted excellent sets,
> and you wouldn't have to wade through tons of garbage to see great ideas.
> The train builders cold maintain a page for great train models, etc.
This is where I figured I misunderstood your original post. But
as above, I'll still contend that TLC will be strictly monitoring
controlling appearance/content on these sites. And the voting
to get sets selected, with maybe 50,000 entries per year (across
all sites) comes under scrutiny for fair play.
[5% Royalty]
> > I can't see this happening either. The set would either be
> > available for sale or it wouldn't. By allowing TLC to sell
> > the set, the designer is giving away their copyright on
> > the design (I doubt TLC would be willing to sell under
> > license to Joe FOL like it does with Lucas, Disney, etc.) So
> > at most if a design is accepted by TLC, a small one-time
> > royalty fee might be paid but then the FOL is cut out of
> > profits after that, regardless of quantity sold.
>
> This isn't true. LUGNET didn't give up its logo to the shirt printing
> company. You can design things with other people's parts and keep your
> design and copyright. If I design a new machine, I don't have to turn over
> my design rights to Ace Hardware because I made it using their bolts and
> brackets.
Again, I was at the scenario where there are no independent sites,
and all designs go direct to TLC. My claim is that TLC will
not negotiate floating royalties with submittals. They will at
most pay a one-time small fee..., in LEGO gift certificates.
Designers will be surrendering all rights to their design. Only
Lucas, Disney, etc., get to negotiate rates and keep designs,
permitting LEGO to sell under license only.
With your independent site scenario, yes the design rights can
stay with the designer.
> There is no reason Lego couldn't have any terms they want for the deal. My
> 5% proposal would reward people for helping them sell parts. AC Delco must
> give a price break to car manufacturers who sell cars that use a lot of
> their parts. This would be a similar buisness model.
Don't get me started on the automotive industry (that's where I
work now). You don't give a price break to OEMs (mfrs) that sell
more cars. You give the dirt cheapest price and the most insane
delivery timing you can to *any* mfr, just to make sure you
get to sell your parts. Otherwise you're out, because there is
no such thing as supply loyalty (on either end). Someone is always
willing to take your place. Besides, all parts going into a
vehicle are custom designed, and only afterward do they show up
in the replacements parts market. I've yet to have seen an
off-the-shelf part end up in a new car design..., including
most bolts.
As for the 5% rewarding people for helping TLC make money,
I'm back to TLC having to severely limit the number of designs
(and pieces) that will be made available for sale. See
below...
> > To come to this conclusion I look at it this way. Let's say
> > TLC today has about 50 new set designs introduced each year.
> > Let's say with FOL designs made available, that rises to
> > 50,000, or 1000 times as many sets available for sale. The
> > market would never rise so that 1000 times as many sets
> > are sold for each design. So far fewer sets would be
> > sold per design (intially 1/1000th the sales). Overhead
> > costs are going ride heavily based on the number of unique
> > items in inventory, which has gone from 50 to 50,000.
> > Ultimately the profit margins plummet..., unless prices
> > to consumers are raised and/or production costs are
> > lowered (lower quality, plain bagging for e-sales instead
> > of pretty boxes, etc.).
>
>
> One part you are missing in your calculation is the growth in the market. I
> have seen a lot of LUGNET people's designs that I would love to buy.
> Instead, my choice is to buy dozens of Throwbots, discard 90% of the parts,
> buy rare parts on eBay, buy a bunch of $10 service packs, and do the best I
> can. Most of the time, this doesn't cross the threshold of being worth
> doing, so I end up not buying anything. If I design a set, Lego is bound to
> sell at very least 1 copy, to me. I probably have a few friends who would be
> interested in buying my set, so that is a few more. I would be providing
> Lego with free marketing. Something like this worked great for Amazon.com. I
> can think of a dozen sets I would buy from FOLs, even though I have all the
> sets I want from Lego already. Many people who had never bought Lego sets
> before would certainly be persauded to buy sets designed by their friends,
> or buy special-interest designs that Lego has never produced.
I didn't missing the market growth at all. I'm saying initially it
will be zero. I'm also saying it will never reach 1000 times.
Again with my scenario that *every* design submittal is offered
for sale, annual unique offerings can shoot from 50 to 50,000
in one year. But intially the market will be the same size.
People spending money on custom designs will notbe spending them
on TLC-designs. People now buying thru the web, or their friends
as you suggest, will not be buying from stores. It's sales in
one market at the expense of another. A phenomenon that's
affecting just about every brick'n'mortar outlet out there
that's opened in .com-land. Some are doing better than others.
Everybody's struggling to take advantage of the paradigm shift,
but few can get it right. Anyhow, the market will never
grow by 1000 times. If it did, it would mean TLC just put
almost every single other toy manufacturer out of business,
and could now buy Lucas for themselves, hehe.
Yes there could be some small market growth. But not enough
to offset the overhead costs of 1000 times as many set offerings.
Take it waaaaay down to your scenario of only group sites
selling, and severely limiting the total design offering to
about 50 or so, then you may have something. But at only
50 extra offerings, wouldn't it make more sense for TLC to
run the whole thing, and just take design submission from
the group sites? Cuts out the middle man.
> The other part is the inventory. No FOL sets would be kept in inventory at
> all. They would be produced as needed. Computerized machinery would bag
> parts on demand. The 5% cut to the designer would be a sales bonus, not a
> cut for the economy of scale for producing a large number of identical sets.
And this is unrealistic. You can't say "we make them on demand
so there's no inventory and no costs". Quite the opposite, that
is extremely expensive. You need to have the computer systems
set up, printed matter designed and ready, packaging all set,
and employees ready to go. This isn't like shipping CDs and
books from on-line. This is *manufacturing* the CDs and books
in their entirety and then shipping them. And if you have
1000 times as many unique items to prepare for, you've just
sunk your company in overhead expenses. If you only have 100
total, then you have a chance, like with Mosaic. Keep a
very small number a design offerings with a very limited
selection of elements (e.g., just plain bricks) and you
have a chance.
> Also, the packaging could be automated and cool. There are several
> mini-press techniques for putting together great looking, finished booklets,
> for a cost of around $2. A nice ink-jet box could have the original FOL
> cover art, for the cost of perhaps another $2. The plastic box insert would
> be standardized based on the parts count.
Working at home these are great. Working with 1000's of sets
per day and you will be out of business.
> > With no guarantee that any given set will sell, TLC risks
> > the overhead cost on each and every design. And with very
> > low sales volumes per design, the FOL is almost going to
> > have to *pay TLC* to get them to try selling it.
>
> There is no inventory. Lego loses nothing if a set doesn't sell. They will
> already have the capacity to produce sets on demand, according to what they
> posted for their 2002 plan. The only thing that is different is the
> additional sales of kits from the new market.
Again I don't buy this. Above all else I stand by my assessment
in the above quoted paragraph. TLC has not said they can produce
any piece in any quantity on demand. We are likely going to
see the bulk offering expanded, and some basic common elements
made available for rudimetary designs.
> > I could only see this working on this scale if TLC ran an
> > ebaY or BrickBay. Let the FOLs sell whatever they want. TLC
> > gets a percentage cut of all sales. However, the FOL sellers
> > are responsible for getting their own parts, printing instructions,
> > etc., etc. TLC bulk ordering would provide their supply, where
> > practical.
>
> This would be less efficient than my proposal, since the FOL would have to
> order from Lego, and then sell kits themselves and ship them again, but this
> could be an additional channel.
I think the xxx-Bays sucks too, but now that I think about it, what's
efficiency matter? TLC sells the bulk elements. And then they
make a percentage off the MOC sales on the "LEGOBay". What could
be more beautiful than that to a business? Double-dipping off
the same product! :] And it doesn't intrude on retail sales at
all. (Kinda like how automakers make money on leasing a car,
and then make it all over again when they sell it after the
lease.) Ultimately a small market though.
> Thanks for your comments on my proposal, and I think you have some good
> points. But please look at my proposal assuming that Lego already has the
> automated kit production capacity in place, as they describe in their recent
> announcement.
I don't think they said this at all. Everyone seems to be misreading
their release clouded with pipe dreams of getting any set they
want on demand. It will not happen at that scale.
When you buy a new car, you specify the options you want. If a dealer
does not have that car on the lot, he can get it from the factory.
But have you noticed how the list of options combinations is
shrinking? Everything comes in "options packages". You want
the cruise control but nothing else? Too bad, you're getting
power-everything. You only want alloy wheels? You're stuck
with spoilers, stiff suspension, sunroof, etc. You want the
higher output engine? Sorry, you just bought every option
available. The options are being melted into the trim levels.
If you choose LX, DX, SE, whatever, you've just automatically
picked almost all of your options. That's how many places are
building computers now. And its how automakers are building
cars. It allows an assembly line for each trim level,
with no monkeying around to figure out which options go
into which car as they move along. If anything, the small
custom stuff gets left to the dealer to install.
I typed this novel, I have now come to a moment of perfect
clarity. I have only ever had 2 of these regarding the
internet, and I forget the second one :] Anyhow, it's
this:
The internet has not altered the physical world.
Everyone is continually trying to find ways to get on the
internet bandwagon and get rich. And they are rethinking
the entire business paradigm to do it. This is not a
bad thing. However, while the internet has brought amazing
advances, it is still only a communication tool. It's
an amazing way of spreading information, or gathering
information. It has been put to very good use in
commerce transmitting financial information (banking,
shopping, etc.).
But it has *not* radically affected manufacturing and
shipping. These are actions with physical items that
must be manipulated in the physical world, and sent
to physical destinations. The internet can help with
tracking and etc., but it cannot radically change
the physical processes themselves. The reality is
the more customization you put into your product
lines, the more expensive it gets, somewhat
exponentially. A company is not going to be able
to sustain making 50,000 different unique items
available on demand.
The internet is a remarkable tool for TLC to take
advantage off. If they can't do it right, they
are as good as dead. It's a very good idea to use
it to transfer design ideas from customers to TLC.
Whether they then choose to make those available
for sale is internet-irrelevant. They can put
them on the shelf in stores with the rest of the
sets. Or on LEGO.com. Or wherever. But they
cannot automagically produce anything and everything
that is requested from the Net. They can pull
off Mosiac because its very homogeneous. Limited
piece selection and colours. All pre-bagged (in
quantities of 90 each I've heard). A uniform interface
to design the sets and determine auto-sorting.
Plain jane packing.
But expanding this into generic parts selection,
many more colours, and unlimited restrictions
on the shape of the final model? They'll go
broke. 50 designs, okay. 50,000, no way. How
high can they go? They'll figure it out, but
don't expect the moon.
I would sincerely expect that if TLC has half the
lick of sense I give them credit for, they've got
manufacturing, shipping, etc., personnel in with
LEGO Direct helping guide them away from trying
something that looks great "with the internet"
but just can't be done in the physical activities.
I believe TLC would be wiser to increase bulk
offerings (and for gawd-sakes promote it more!),
and keep a few interesting custom-designed
sets options as practical, but that's it. And
I think that's where they will head.
I hope I'm not sounding too harsh and squashing
your good ideas, Amnon. I'm just trying to tie
in the limitations of the physical world with the
e-world. Unfortunately it took me an entire
novel to figure it out :]
I think a few custom-designed sets sold through
LUGNET would be awesome. But beyond that, just
make bulk more accessible so people can buy
and build whatever they want. There's going
to be a limited market for other people's
designs anyhow. If everything under the sun
is available for sale, where's the incentive
for kids to learn to create their own with what
they have?
KDJ
________________________________________
LUGNETer #203, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
|
|
|
|
mosaic, moc
(score: 2.422)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jake McKee writes:
> I have been a little concern lately that SO much of the discussion here
> has been focused on LEGO bashing. (Up until a day or two ago, all but one
> of the home page spotlights were about how LEGO sucks) [...]
Oy vey!
"all but one"?
I think we should take a closer look at that.
Below is a list of all the spotlight items going back 2 weeks. The homepage
shows at most 1 week back, so this covers a lot of ground. The vast majority
of Spotlight items are, as usual, things like S@H specials, new MOCs, group
meetings, LEGO media sightings, etc.
Not to make a big deal of it, but I think it's a big deal when perceptions
differ so greatly from reality, and reality isn't anywhere near as bad as
it's perceived to be. Viewers of the homepage may have experienced a
slightly larger proportion of negativism appearing on the "Top Stories" list
on the homepage than in the Spotlight list overall if more people marked the
negative topics as "Spotlight" than those who marked the non-negative items
as "Spotlight" -- but certainly not 9 out of 10 in the list. Not even 5 out
of 10, I'm sure.
I certainly hope it didn't _feel_ like 9 out of 10 -- that wouldn't be any
fun at all.
Keep up the good work!
--Todd
Fri Feb 9 14:00 Video clips of SMART meeting
http://news.lugnet.com/org/us/smart/?n=14
Fri Feb 9 03:43 Re: Torso stickers
http://news.lugnet.com/castle/?n=7777
Thu Feb 8 19:42 Re: Hey, like, is anyone there? (was: When is Mac support...
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=1826
Thu Feb 8 19:09 6769 Fort Legoredo on sale at Shop At Home!!
http://news.lugnet.com/market/shopping/?n=6790
Thu Feb 8 15:04 US LSAHS Shop at Home Specials, Feb. 7 - Feb. 13, 2001
http://news.lugnet.com/announce/lsahs/?n=127
Thu Feb 8 14:57 US S@H Specials, Feb 7 - Feb 13, 2001
http://news.lugnet.com/announce/lsahs/?n=126
Thu Feb 8 07:51 LDraw.org Meeting in New York City, Sun Feb 11
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=1205
Thu Feb 8 07:51 The Animated Brick Co. Showcase Presents...
http://news.lugnet.com/publish/cinema/?n=168
Thu Feb 8 03:56 Rebuilding starts after fireworks disaster
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=27592
Wed Feb 7 23:33 New MOC: Planetary Exploration Vehicle "Odyssey"
http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=6770
Wed Feb 7 23:20 Republish of the Guild of Bricksmiths(tm) Site
http://news.lugnet.com/announce/?n=951
Wed Feb 7 20:03 Nanobase2
http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=6762
Wed Feb 7 17:14 New personal web site
http://news.lugnet.com/publish/?n=2719
Wed Feb 7 12:46 Re: Really cool buses, etc?
http://news.lugnet.com/modelteam/?n=231
Wed Feb 7 10:39 'Appearances in the Media' is updated
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=27561
Wed Feb 7 06:13 Looks like the lawyers have struck..
http://news.lugnet.com/loc/au/?n=4346
Tue Feb 6 12:12 The Gathering - A Minifig Class Picture
http://news.lugnet.com/build/minifigs/?n=680
Tue Feb 6 10:48 Re: Mindstorms for Dummies
http://news.lugnet.com/robotics/rcx/?n=1031
Mon Feb 5 23:23 Introducing my new town: BrickTopia
http://news.lugnet.com/town/?n=2320
Mon Feb 5 18:46 Re: New LEGO Toys Based on Jurassic Park III
http://news.lugnet.com/publish/cinema/?n=154
Mon Feb 5 18:43 The End for EToys
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=27503
Mon Feb 5 16:34 MOCs - Re460 and an industry-diesel
http://news.lugnet.com/trains/?n=9586
Mon Feb 5 15:46 my LEGO display
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=27483
Mon Feb 5 13:16 New LEGO Toys Based on Jurassic Park III
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/announce/?n=30
Mon Feb 5 11:56 Re: "Lego's online dream" -- feature article in UK Guardi...
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=27472
Mon Feb 5 11:14 Space Police II - Boromir cruiser
http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=6704
Mon Feb 5 01:26 Display your LUG's logo on LUGNET
http://news.lugnet.com/org/?n=345
Sun Feb 4 20:41 MOCs from SEALUG meeting
http://news.lugnet.com/build/?n=7528
Sun Feb 4 20:39 Workbee (Star Trek MOC)
http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=6691
Sun Feb 4 20:12 2001 Town Building Contest Entry - Minifig Museum of Weaponry
http://news.lugnet.com/build/contests/?n=441
Sun Feb 4 20:02 LEGO sighting on TV
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=27432
Sun Feb 4 19:41 Toy Makers Resurrect Dormant Toys
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=27430
Sun Feb 4 17:28 Nanofig space station
http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=6674
Sun Feb 4 17:09 Rebuilding the Empire State Building
http://news.lugnet.com/town/?n=2297
Sun Feb 4 14:31 New groups for new LEGO games/software Alpha Team, Stunt R...
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/nntp/?n=235
Sun Feb 4 14:03 They're far ahead of us...
http://news.lugnet.com/org/ca/rtltoronto/?n=333
Sun Feb 4 13:04 Town Building contest update - ends Feb 15th
http://news.lugnet.com/announce/?n=949
Sun Feb 4 12:47 LEGO Company to Produce Two Software Titles based on the W...
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/announce/?n=29
Sun Feb 4 12:15 My latest MOC
http://news.lugnet.com/trains/?n=9544
Sun Feb 4 08:47 Re: From the first LEGO(r) Train Summit: LEGO(r) Trains a...
http://news.lugnet.com/trains/?n=9538
Sun Feb 4 01:51 WWII Creations: Panzer III and Stuka
http://news.lugnet.com/build/?n=7494
Sat Feb 3 19:37 Monorail/Train Transit Terminal
http://news.lugnet.com/build/?n=7484
Sat Feb 3 17:28 From the first LEGO(r) Train Summit: LEGO(r) Trains are al...
http://news.lugnet.com/trains/?n=9509
Sat Feb 3 16:57 "Lego's online dream" -- feature article in UK Guardian Un...
http://news.lugnet.com/loc/us/ca/sf/?n=1480
Sat Feb 3 14:46 lego software
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=27348
Sat Feb 3 12:34 Let's be realistc (WasRe:MoreVenomAnyone? (WasRe:Givethem...
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=1742
Sat Feb 3 09:52 Re: Juniorization Lives, and comments on marketing strategy
http://news.lugnet.com/dear-lego/?n=2894
Sat Feb 3 08:15 7317 review (was Re: New Stuff In Stock :)))))) wehheeeee...
http://news.lugnet.com/loc/au/?n=4287
Sat Feb 3 07:37 Gun modifications
http://news.lugnet.com/western/?n=381
Sat Feb 3 06:04 More Venom Anyone? ( Was Re: Give them a break (was:Hey, l...
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=1738
Sat Feb 3 03:15 Dan the Man posts new stuff!
http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=6646
Sat Feb 3 01:35 Re: Give them a break (was:Hey, like, is anyone there? )
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=1734
Sat Feb 3 01:17 Re: Hey, like, is anyone there? (was: When is Mac support ...
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=1733
Sat Feb 3 01:11 LARGEST LEGO LOT ON EBAY EVER!! (???)
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=27334
Fri Feb 2 22:28 The Quality Downfall
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=27329
Fri Feb 2 22:02 NY Times article on strategy
http://news.lugnet.com/dear-lego/?n=2888
Fri Feb 2 20:08 Destroyer sneak peek
http://news.lugnet.com/build/?n=7469
Fri Feb 2 18:20 Screensavers and more available at bionicle.com
http://news.lugnet.com/technic/bionicle/?n=32
Fri Feb 2 17:00 custom falcon, more pics!!!!!!
http://news.lugnet.com/starwars/?n=10809
Fri Feb 2 13:56 Mouseclops MOC
http://news.lugnet.com/space/?n=6632
Fri Feb 2 11:19 LCAD/LDraw.org Formal Organization
http://news.lugnet.com/cad/dev/org/ldraw/?n=1183
Fri Feb 2 09:33 Juniorization Lives, and comments on marketing strategy
http://news.lugnet.com/dear-lego/?n=2877
Thu Feb 1 14:45 LDraw MOTM winner for February 2001
http://news.lugnet.com/announce/?n=946
Thu Feb 1 13:44 LEGO Company in the News : Bionicle release
http://news.lugnet.com/technic/bionicle/?n=20
Thu Feb 1 11:29 Re: Bionicle Sets
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=27265
Thu Feb 1 11:04 Milhouse, LEGO sculpture
http://news.lugnet.com/build/?n=7454
Thu Feb 1 06:20 New Stuff In Stock :)))))) wehheeeeeeee :)
http://news.lugnet.com/loc/au/?n=4264
Thu Feb 1 03:32 Loads of new 8 / 6 wide MOC pix posted
http://news.lugnet.com/trains/?n=9470
Wed Jan 31 22:36 New organization: Mutual Aid Assosciation of Lego Fire De...
http://news.lugnet.com/announce/?n=945
Wed Jan 31 22:26 MOC commercial for a space travel agency
http://news.lugnet.com/publish/cinema/?n=120
Wed Jan 31 14:21 Robotics Competition - reg deadline 2/2/2001
http://news.lugnet.com/robotics/events/?n=145
Wed Jan 31 13:53 Theft of LEGO bricks
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=27214
Wed Jan 31 12:38 New newsgroups for LEGO Technic Slizer/ThrowBots, RoboRid...
http://news.lugnet.com/announce/?n=944
Wed Jan 31 11:21 Re: My Galactic Challenge Model
http://news.lugnet.com/starwars/?n=10776
Wed Jan 31 10:40 US S@H Specials, Jan 31 - Feb 6, 2001
http://news.lugnet.com/announce/lsahs/?n=125
Wed Jan 31 02:11 My Galactic Challenge Model
http://news.lugnet.com/starwars/?n=10769
Tue Jan 30 16:14 10 wide AM General HMMWV MOC
http://news.lugnet.com/build/?n=7420
Tue Jan 30 05:26 MOC update: improved roundhouse
http://news.lugnet.com/trains/?n=9447
Tue Jan 30 00:22 First SMART Meeting almost too successful!
http://news.lugnet.com/org/us/smart/?n=12
Mon Jan 29 23:57 Hey, like, is anyone there? (was: When is Mac support com...
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=1693
Mon Jan 29 23:14 Cave of Exile: Dark Secrets
http://news.lugnet.com/castle/org/cw/?n=660
Mon Jan 29 17:35 1957 Chevy Corvette pics
http://news.lugnet.com/announce/?n=942
Mon Jan 29 17:30 LEGO Company enters the world of music
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/announce/?n=28
Mon Jan 29 17:01 Children are our role models - a profile of the LEGO Comp...
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/announce/?n=27
Mon Jan 29 10:30 new falcon modell
http://news.lugnet.com/starwars/?n=10738
Mon Jan 29 07:31 Dark Gundam Zero Three
http://news.lugnet.com/build/mecha/?n=2186
Mon Jan 29 00:08 Jambalaya Mini-junk box #1 - New Idea for Jambalaya
http://news.lugnet.com/market/jambalaya/?n=1660
Sun Jan 28 14:39 Acronym FAQ Update - links to sets, "play themes" and "le...
http://news.lugnet.com/faq/?n=1079
Sun Jan 28 11:47 www.brickset.com rehosted
http://news.lugnet.com/announce/?n=939
Sun Jan 28 06:03 Studfest VII: The Gathering -- a thorough success
http://news.lugnet.com/loc/au/?n=4240
Sat Jan 27 23:23 Ohioans build giant green arch and working ferris wheel!
http://news.lugnet.com/loc/us/oh/cle/?n=108
[end of list]
|
|
|
|
mosaic, moc
(score: 2.406)
|
|
| |
Hi all,
Well, _Friedrich der Grosse_ and I are back from Fest,
after several harrowing moments and a few jostles on the
way home owing to a flat tire (sorry again about the bad
juju, Chris!) that necessitated its removal from the trunk
on the shoulder of I-295 in order to get at the spare, and
my own rather bizarre half-asleep and flu-ridden driving later.
She's still in five sections, but everything's there and
all I need is a few free hours to take some strategic snaps
and put together a page using those and the EXCELLENT pics
that Chris Weeks and Troy Cefaratti took at BrickFest (and
have graciously allowed me to use once I get a page laid
out). Their photos are far better resolution than my camera
can take, and are no doubt the best possible given the close
quarters here in my apartment. My ships don't get out much.
;)
But in any case, the pictures are up already in the BrickFest
2001 Archives:
http://www.brickfest.com/archives2001.html
So if you want to see the finished ship now, look at the
pictures there first! FdG came out very well--I walked away
with the vote for best large sculpture MOC (if only because
people didn't realize that Eric Harshbarger's San Fran mosaic
was "voteable") as well as nice ego strokes from lots of people.
(Thanks, everyone! :) ) My head is now four times its pre-Fest
size, which may or may not be a good thing. (*whonk* ow!)
The Pirate Game, of course, was a blast--but Frank will surely
produce a far better and more detailed writeup soon. I hope
we can get more of the .pirateheads from around the world to
come out next time round--at least, more from the immediate
area. Arrr! And, of course, I hope we'll be less on the
periphery next time--even though we did just fine where we were,
it's always nice to be in the thick of things.
best
Lindsay
|
|
|
|
mosaic, moc
(score: 2.360)
|
More: Next Page >>
|
