| |
Hi everyone -
I was just fooling around on lego.com and found something that may be of
interest:
http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?id=
%7B7B7F061E%2DEE40%2D11D5%2D8027%2D0008C7CAA0DE%7D
I've not heard of this, and a quick search here on Lugnet didn't turn up
anything - is this a new, heretofore unknown release?
In any case, way to go Dan! It's a cool-looking set (and a fine value, too!)
- Paul
|
|
| |
Great job Dan, that must be a great honor to have your MOC sold by LD as a
set. Good to see you rewarded for your hard work.
jt
In lugnet.castle, Paul Hanson writes:
> Hi everyone -
>
> I was just fooling around on lego.com and found something that may be of
> interest:
>
> http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?id=
> %7B7B7F061E%2DEE40%2D11D5%2D8027%2D0008C7CAA0DE%7D
>
> I've not heard of this, and a quick search here on Lugnet didn't turn up
> anything - is this a new, heretofore unknown release?
>
> In any case, way to go Dan! It's a cool-looking set (and a fine value, too!)
>
> - Paul
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Paul Hanson writes:
> Hi everyone -
>
> I was just fooling around on lego.com and found something that may be of
> interest:
>
> http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?id=%7B7B7F061E%2DEE40%2D11D5%2D8027%2D0008C7CAA0DE%7D
>
> I've not heard of this, and a quick search here on Lugnet didn't turn up
> anything - is this a new, heretofore unknown release?
>
> In any case, way to go Dan! It's a cool-looking set (and a fine value, too!)
HOLY CRIPES! That is so cool! Where did this program come from, and why
haven't we heard of it yet?
Here's the text from the page:
The first set created by a LEGO Fan!
This special set is the first in the “My Own Creation” series, featuring
original designs by LEGO builders just like you! Daniel Siskind’s Blacksmith
Shop was chosen by our LEGO Master Builders to be turned into a set you can
put together and add to your Castle village. The trusty blacksmith uses his
hammer and anvil to make the equipment knights need for their adventures.
The king’s men come from all over to buy his wares and learn the latest news
from the village. Includes blacksmith and blacksmith’s wife, hammer, anvil,
and more. A great companion to the Guarded Inn!
Now THIS could be an interesting twist to the arguments about the dearth of
sets in your favorite theme (whatever that may be). How many of these sets
will we see, how often, and how are they chosen? I MUST know!
An excited Matt
|
|
| |
> Now THIS could be an interesting twist to the arguments about the dearth of
> sets in your favorite theme (whatever that may be). How many of these sets
> will we see, how often, and how are they chosen? I MUST know!
I second this! I want to know all about it! This could throw people's
designs in a whole new direction - set feasibility. I for one would enjoy
the challenge of trying to do something like that, even if it was never
chosen! Bravo to Dan and Lego!
-Dave
www.bricktannia.com
|
|
| |
i just got off the phone with a S@H rep, she said it would be available to
order on Jan. 30.
awesome stuff!! Congrats Dan!!!!
i wonder... is it light blue or is the color balance in the photo wrong....
In lugnet.castle, Paul Hanson writes:
> Hi everyone -
>
> I was just fooling around on lego.com and found something that may be of
> interest:
>
> http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?id=
> %7B7B7F061E%2DEE40%2D11D5%2D8027%2D0008C7CAA0DE%7D
>
> I've not heard of this, and a quick search here on Lugnet didn't turn up
> anything - is this a new, heretofore unknown release?
>
> In any case, way to go Dan! It's a cool-looking set (and a fine value, too!)
>
> - Paul
|
|
| |
Wow, did the world just change?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Paul Hanson writes:
> Hi everyone -
>
> I was just fooling around on lego.com and found something that may be of
> interest:
>
> http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?id=
> %7B7B7F061E%2DEE40%2D11D5%2D8027%2D0008C7CAA0DE%7D
>
> I've not heard of this, and a quick search here on Lugnet didn't turn up
> anything - is this a new, heretofore unknown release?
Well, it's not heretofore unknown per se:
http://www.brickmania.com/store_pages/CastleKits.html#anchor1309931
It's just heretofore unknown as a *LEGO* release. :-)
It is particularly fitting that this has come to light on the very day that
is arguably the Guild of Bricksmiths anniversary, since it was on 13
December 1999 that Kevin and I got down to brass tacks to hammer out the
details of founding the Guild (as related here)
http://www.bricksmiths.com/guild_history.html
of the idea spawned here on LUGNET after I announced my custom hopper kit.
http://news.lugnet.com/market/theory/?n=610
Dan has been one of our staunchest and most prolific members almost from the
very start. It may well not be a coincidence (if I know Jake and Brad) that
this came to light on this particular day.
Bravo, Dan!!!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Paul Hanson writes:
> http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?id=
> %7B7B7F061E%2DEE40%2D11D5%2D8027%2D0008C7CAA0DE%7D
What intrigues me the most is the price per element on that thing. It's
approx. $0.06 USD an element. That's a pretty good deal for new bricks.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Paul Hanson writes:
> > Hi everyone -
> >
> > I was just fooling around on lego.com and found something that may be of
> > interest:
> >
> > http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?id=
> > %7B7B7F061E%2DEE40%2D11D5%2D8027%2D0008C7CAA0DE%7D
> >
> > I've not heard of this, and a quick search here on Lugnet didn't turn up
> > anything - is this a new, heretofore unknown release?
>
> Well, it's not heretofore unknown per se:
>
> http://www.brickmania.com/store_pages/CastleKits.html#anchor1309931
>
> It's just heretofore unknown as a *LEGO* release. :-)
Excellent! I noticed that a few modifications--which look like
improvements, really--have been made from the original GoB kit.
Good timing, though! :)
And although I've said it via email: congrats and kudos to Dan.
Woohoo! (And from TLC it's a really really inexpensive set, too!)
best
LFB
|
|
| |
> http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?id=
> %7B7B7F061E%2DEE40%2D11D5%2D8027%2D0008C7CAA0DE%7D
Dan,
nice, very nice to see this! The blacksmith was / is excellent work and it's
worth to be the first "AFOL-set".
Viele GRüße, René
|
|
| |
"Matthew Gerber" <matthew@digitaliris.com> wrote in message
news:GoB67r.KFt@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.castle, Paul Hanson writes:
> > Hi everyone -
> >
> > I was just fooling around on lego.com and found something that may be of
> > interest:
>
>
> http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?id=%7B7B7F061E%2DEE40%2D11D5%2D8027%2D0008 • C7CAA0DE%7D
> >
> > I've not heard of this, and a quick search here on Lugnet didn't turn up
> > anything - is this a new, heretofore unknown release?
> >
> > In any case, way to go Dan! It's a cool-looking set (and a fine value, • too!)
>
> HOLY CRIPES! That is so cool! Where did this program come from, and why
> haven't we heard of it yet?
That's right, HOLY #@$(^&$#%^&#@$%^$#%#$%*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Now THIS could be an interesting twist to the arguments about the dearth • of
> sets in your favorite theme (whatever that may be). How many of these sets
> will we see, how often, and how are they chosen? I MUST know!
This is SO cool! Another thing LD is doing in the right direction.
-Tim
|
|
| |
What country are you guys logging in with?
I get a "Sorry, item is not available in this country"
when I use that link :-(
Gary
Matthew Gerber <matthew@digitaliris.com> wrote in message
news:GoB67r.KFt@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.castle, Paul Hanson writes:
> > Hi everyone -
> >
> > I was just fooling around on lego.com and found something that may be of
> > interest:
>
>
> http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?id=%7B7B7F061E%2DEE40%2D11D5%2D8027%2D0008 • C7CAA0DE%7D
> >
> > I've not heard of this, and a quick search here on Lugnet didn't turn up
> > anything - is this a new, heretofore unknown release?
> >
> > In any case, way to go Dan! It's a cool-looking set (and a fine value, • too!)
>
> HOLY CRIPES! That is so cool! Where did this program come from, and why
> haven't we heard of it yet?
>
> Here's the text from the page:
>
> The first set created by a LEGO Fan!
>
> This special set is the first in the "My Own Creation" series, featuring
> original designs by LEGO builders just like you! Daniel Siskind's • Blacksmith
> Shop was chosen by our LEGO Master Builders to be turned into a set you • can
> put together and add to your Castle village. The trusty blacksmith uses • his
> hammer and anvil to make the equipment knights need for their adventures.
> The king's men come from all over to buy his wares and learn the latest • news
> from the village. Includes blacksmith and blacksmith's wife, hammer, • anvil,
> and more. A great companion to the Guarded Inn!
>
> Now THIS could be an interesting twist to the arguments about the dearth • of
> sets in your favorite theme (whatever that may be). How many of these sets
> will we see, how often, and how are they chosen? I MUST know!
>
> An excited Matt
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Erik Olson writes:
> Wow, did the world just change?
yes!!!--for the better--woohoo LEGO!!!
jeff
|
|
| |
"blessing" <blessing@icefog.net> wrote in message
news:GoBCF6.DK0@lugnet.com...
> What country are you guys logging in with?
> I get a "Sorry, item is not available in this country"
> when I use that link :-(
I used USA.
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tim Courtney writes:
> "Matthew Gerber" <matthew@digitaliris.com> wrote in message
> > HOLY CRIPES! That is so cool! Where did this program come from, and why
> > haven't we heard of it yet?
>
> That's right, HOLY #@$(^&$#%^&#@$%^$#%#$%*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dear Mr. Courtney,
It has come to our attention that you have used an expletive-deleted
string that could not possibly correspond to any known foul word.
As we pride ourselves in knowing EVERYTHING about foul words, we hereby
request a clarification. The current front-runner here at the office
is "bullwinkledoodoohead." I, however, have $5 riding on "donkeybottom-
biters."
Any help you could provide would be gratefully accepted.
Sincerely,
The Swearing Advisory Board.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Tim Courtney writes:
> > "Matthew Gerber" <matthew@digitaliris.com> wrote in message
> > > HOLY CRIPES! That is so cool! Where did this program come from, and why
> > > haven't we heard of it yet?
> >
> > That's right, HOLY #@$(^&$#%^&#@$%^$#%#$%*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Dear Mr. Courtney,
>
> It has come to our attention that you have used an expletive-deleted
> string that could not possibly correspond to any known foul word.
> As we pride ourselves in knowing EVERYTHING about foul words, we hereby
> request a clarification. The current front-runner here at the office
> is "bullwinkledoodoohead." I, however, have $5 riding on "donkeybottom-
> biters."
>
> Any help you could provide would be gratefully accepted.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> The Swearing Advisory Board.
Shouldn't that be "The Swearing Officiating Board" (S.O.B.)?
Matt
(LOL, BTW!)
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.castle, Paul Hanson writes:
http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?id=%7B7B7F061E%2DEE40%2D11D5%2D8027%2D0008C7CAA0DE%7D
Can’t wait to see what’s next from the “My Own Creation” Series…
Will it parallel the Legends Line in sequence and availability?
> An excited Matt wrote:
> How many of these sets will we see, how often, and how are they chosen?
> I MUST know!
Indeed, I too would +LOVE+ to get some details on the whole process!
> Tim Courtney wrote:
> This is SO cool! Another thing LD is doing in the right direction.
Lego Direct is a little ‘power-house’ that’s carryin’ the whole company
upon it’s back.
...
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=34513
First the SpiderMan sets, and now the MOC Series…TLG could be commin’ on
strong for 2002!!!!!!!!! :)
Good times ahead,
--==Richard==--
|
|
| |
Hi,
> http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?id=%7B7B7F061E%2DEE40%2D11D5%2D8027%2D0008C7CAA0DE%7D
Others have said it, but yes this is coolness! I will definitely get a
couple of these just for parts alone. 622 pieces for $39.99! Blue roof
slopes! Yay!
I am intrigued though, how did Lego pick this model? Was there some
sort of competition where anyone could submit models, or did Lego start
searching web pages for cool stuff? I'm sure a lot of people here would
like to submit something (myself included).
> http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=34513
>
> First the SpiderMan sets, and now the MOC Series…TLG could be commin’ on
> strong for 2002!!!!!!!!! :)
I agree SpiderMan is going to be cool. Now I have another way to get my
non-Lego-but-Spiderman-loving friends hooked on Lego!
Kevin
|
|
| |
"Mr L F Braun" <braunli1@pilot.msu.edu> wrote in message
news:GoBEou.Jo8@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Tim Courtney writes:
> > That's right, HOLY #@$(^&$#%^&#@$%^$#%#$%*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Dear Mr. Courtney,
>
> It has come to our attention that you have used an expletive-deleted
> string that could not possibly correspond to any known foul word.
> As we pride ourselves in knowing EVERYTHING about foul words, we hereby
> request a clarification. The current front-runner here at the office
> is "bullwinkledoodoohead." I, however, have $5 riding on • "donkeybottom-
> biters."
>
> Any help you could provide would be gratefully accepted.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> The Swearing Advisory Board.
To Whom It May Concern:
I have never heard of the Swearing Advisory Board. Allthough you pride
yourself on knowing *everything* about foul words, you carelessly overlooked
the word 'toadsniffingdoodiepants.' Your lack of knowledge of the complete
swearing vocabulary only shows me what dogpooscoopers you are.
Before you write any more such letters, I strongly advise you pick up a copy
of the Dictionary of All MaledictioNs (DAMN) and read it thoroughly.
Sincerely,
Tim Courtney
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Pawel Nazarewicz writes:
> > Coming next - Bloodstone Castle - $850.00 :)
> >
> > http://www.brickmania.com/castle/bloodstone.html
>
>
> I hate to disagree with you, Pawel, but $850 would be a
> *steal* for that castle! :D
I know ... and you don't think $39.99 is a steal for THIS?!?!?
Trying to make a point and on a natural high right now ...
-- Pawel
|
|
| |
I hope this line continues, I've got a couple of models I would like to be
made "official".
Congrats Dan!
Gary
Richard Noeckel <Shroud_of_kung_fu@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GoBG76.6o@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.castle, Paul Hanson writes:
http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?id=%7B7B7F061E%2DEE40%2D11D5%2D8027%2D0008C
7CAA0DE%7D
>
> Can't wait to see what's next from the "My Own Creation" Series.
> Will it parallel the Legends Line in sequence and availability?
>
> > An excited Matt wrote:
> > How many of these sets will we see, how often, and how are they chosen?
> > I MUST know!
>
> Indeed, I too would +LOVE+ to get some details on the whole process!
>
> > Tim Courtney wrote:
> > This is SO cool! Another thing LD is doing in the right direction.
>
> Lego Direct is a little 'power-house' that's carryin' the whole company
> upon it's back.
>
> ...
> http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=34513
> First the SpiderMan sets, and now the MOC Series.TLG could be commin' on
> strong for 2002!!!!!!!!! :)
>
>
> Good times ahead,
>
> --==Richard==--
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Pawel Nazarewicz writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > In lugnet.castle, Pawel Nazarewicz writes:
> > > Coming next - Bloodstone Castle - $850.00 :)
> > >
> > > http://www.brickmania.com/castle/bloodstone.html
> >
> >
> > I hate to disagree with you, Pawel, but $850 would be a
> > *steal* for that castle! :D
>
> I know ... and you don't think $39.99 is a steal for THIS?!?!?
>
> Trying to make a point and on a natural high right now ...
>
> -- Pawel
I totally know what you're saying Pawel. This is like every castle head's
dream come true! Coolness beyond words, possibly to the point of whimpering
in delight. lol. So when will the code be broken over what's to come next? I
REQUIRE more knowledge about this whole thing lol.
peace y'all.
-Jay
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Pawel Nazarewicz writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > In lugnet.castle, Pawel Nazarewicz writes:
> > > Coming next - Bloodstone Castle - $850.00 :)
> > >
> > > http://www.brickmania.com/castle/bloodstone.html
> >
> > I hate to disagree with you, Pawel, but $850 would be a
> > *steal* for that castle! :D
>
> I know ... and you don't think $39.99 is a steal for THIS?!?!?
Well, of course! But $850, even at TLC mass-production price
points, would be GREAT for a Dan Castle! :)
> Trying to make a point and on a natural high right now ...
Heh. Well, it's only a month away...
best
LFB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Paul Hanson writes:
> Hi everyone -
>
> I was just fooling around on lego.com and found something that may be of
> interest:
>
> http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?id=
> %7B7B7F061E%2DEE40%2D11D5%2D8027%2D0008C7CAA0DE%7D
>
> I've not heard of this, and a quick search here on Lugnet didn't turn up
> anything - is this a new, heretofore unknown release?
>
> In any case, way to go Dan! It's a cool-looking set (and a fine value, too!)
>
> - Paul
Great set! Only one question: Why, LEGO, why only in the USoA ?????
Is the rest of the world not 'good enough' to get these kind of gems?
|
|
| |
WOW! I haven't been this amazed legowise since the day I realised that
Brickfest 2001 was going to happen within spiting distance of where I live
(about 48 hours before it kicked off).
Awesome MOC, Dan, I'll need to get my hands on a few of those. It's also
great to see Lego open to this kind of thing, I can already see a new trend
of MOCs built as a possible lego product. I've never built anything myself
that I thought lego might want to use as an idea, but there's definetely a
whole new challenge now. Creating something with a great design, not
prohibitively huge/expensive, great playability, and everything, that a kid
would love as well as an AFOL is no mean challenge, and I hope that any
upcoming sets like this that Lego release will be up to the same standard
that Dan has set.
Magnus
|
|
| |
This is interesting for a couple of reasons -
1. It shows that Lego Direct is continuing to explore creative new ways of
selling the brick.
2. This may, hopefully, be the tip of the iceberg for the promised "create
your own set" method of selling.
3. The price point is right on. Recent re-releases from LD have been priced
right as well. (the new train cars come to mind)
This shows that LD can keep costs reasonable on their own issued sets . (I
have not bought at retail price in years.)
4. LD is publicly tipping their hat to the fantastic builders in the AFOL
community.
5. This, along with the re-released Guarded Inn, will truly drag me back
into the Castle theme. I have been a train/town only since I started
purchasing Lego again in 1999.
Like others in the group, I do hope to read more about the process used for
selecting Dan's model as well as what this says about future products from
LD.
What a nice Christmas present for both Dan and all Lego builders.
Bryan
(does this thread belong in .direct or .general??)
"Matthew Gerber" <matthew@digitaliris.com> wrote in message
news:GoB67r.KFt@lugnet.com...
> The first set created by a LEGO Fan!
>
> This special set is the first in the "My Own Creation" series, featuring
> original designs by LEGO builders just like you! Daniel Siskind's • Blacksmith
> Shop was chosen by our LEGO Master Builders to be turned into a set you • can
> put together and add to your Castle village. The trusty blacksmith uses • his
> hammer and anvil to make the equipment knights need for their adventures.
> The king's men come from all over to buy his wares and learn the latest • news
> from the village. Includes blacksmith and blacksmith's wife, hammer, • anvil,
> and more. A great companion to the Guarded Inn!
>
> Now THIS could be an interesting twist to the arguments about the dearth • of
> sets in your favorite theme (whatever that may be). How many of these sets
> will we see, how often, and how are they chosen? I MUST know!
>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Pawel Nazarewicz writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > In lugnet.castle, Pawel Nazarewicz writes:
> > > Coming next - Bloodstone Castle - $850.00 :)
> > >
> > > http://www.brickmania.com/castle/bloodstone.html
> >
> >
> > I hate to disagree with you, Pawel, but $850 would be a
> > *steal* for that castle! :D
>
> I know ... and you don't think $39.99 is a steal for THIS?!?!?
>
> Trying to make a point and on a natural high right now ...
>
> -- Pawel
I with Pawel on this, I am complete stoked about this. A set by an AFOL being
sold by Lego? Wooohoooo!!! And the price, even better, I know this will make
me think twice about the after Christmas sales.
-Jason
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Jason Spears
Michlug - http://www.michlug.org/
Lego Page - http://www.geocities.com/spearjr/brickcentral.html
Brickbay Store - http://www.brickbay.com/store.asp?p=jrspears
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
|
| |
Wow, wow, WOW!!! Words fail me. I want one. Wow. That is great - the set was
great to begin with, the price is ridiculously attainable and great value,
and I only wish I could get it in time as an Xmas present (did I say that
out loud...?).
Just curious, Dan, but are you getting royalties on this or anything?
Either way, totally awesome, totally a great direction for LD as Tim said. I
hope this'll come often!
-Shiri
In lugnet.castle, Paul Hanson writes:
> http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?id=
> %7B7B7F061E%2DEE40%2D11D5%2D8027%2D0008C7CAA0DE%7D
>
> I've not heard of this, and a quick search here on Lugnet didn't turn up
> anything - is this a new, heretofore unknown release?
>
> In any case, way to go Dan! It's a cool-looking set (and a fine value, too!)
|
|
| |
fine for UK too - but it does have no list price
--
James Stacey
---------
www.minifig.co.uk
#925 - I'm a citizen of Legoland travelling Incommunicado
"Tim Courtney" <tim@zacktron.com> wrote in message
news:GoBEEq.IzH@lugnet.com...
> "blessing" <blessing@icefog.net> wrote in message
> news:GoBCF6.DK0@lugnet.com...
> > What country are you guys logging in with?
> > I get a "Sorry, item is not available in this country"
> > when I use that link :-(
>
> I used USA.
>
> -Tim
>
>
|
|
| |
Hi Paul,
Which location are you in? I don't think this is USA only, it certainly
shows up when I click my former home country - UK.
Richard Morton
Chief Brick Sorter!
http://lego.britdog.com
"Markassius" <mark.de.kock@NOSPAM.home.nl> wrote in message
news:GoBpGL.Ju6@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.castle, Paul Hanson writes:
> > Hi everyone -
> >
> > I was just fooling around on lego.com and found something that may be of
> > interest:
> >
> > http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?id=
> > %7B7B7F061E%2DEE40%2D11D5%2D8027%2D0008C7CAA0DE%7D
> >
> > I've not heard of this, and a quick search here on Lugnet didn't turn up
> > anything - is this a new, heretofore unknown release?
> >
> > In any case, way to go Dan! It's a cool-looking set (and a fine value, • too!)
> >
> > - Paul
>
> Great set! Only one question: Why, LEGO, why only in the USoA ?????
> Is the rest of the world not 'good enough' to get these kind of gems?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Paul Hanson writes:
> Hi everyone -
>
> I was just fooling around on lego.com and found something that may be of
> interest:
>
> http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?id=
> %7B7B7F061E%2DEE40%2D11D5%2D8027%2D0008C7CAA0DE%7D
That Blacksmith Shop is incredible! They kept all the best parts of Dan's
already impressive MOC, and even went above and beyond, adding details like the
attic, torches, and weapons rack. This is probably the first thing I've seen
from Shop at Home that I feel that I HAVE to buy! I just hope they keep
expanding this line!
Steve
The Great Desert - http://www.buffnet.net/~beakman/lego/castle/index.htm
|
|
| |
As a happy purchaser of the 'original' of this set from www.brickmania.com,
I'd like to throw in my 2 cents.
a) It's a wonderful set. Between the details Dan threw into the interior,
to the sturdy walls, to the ivy on the outside. It was a joy to build and
display.
b) 40 bucks is an amazing price.
c) I'm interested in knowing the differences between the 'original' and Lego
Direct 'official' versions. I'm noticed the chiminy, the new 'attic', and
what looks like Queen Leonora (apparently, the blacksmith has made enough
money that his wife no longer has to help out. Good for him!). I can't
make out some of the other changes in the interior, but it looks like they
are there.
d) Can we expect to see more of Dan's awesome creations through Lego Direct,
he asks looking sadly at his bank account. Never buy a house, never!
Allen
In lugnet.castle, Paul Hanson writes:
> Hi everyone -
>
> I was just fooling around on lego.com and found something that may be of
> interest:
>
> http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?id=
> %7B7B7F061E%2DEE40%2D11D5%2D8027%2D0008C7CAA0DE%7D
>
> I've not heard of this, and a quick search here on Lugnet didn't turn up
> anything - is this a new, heretofore unknown release?
>
> In any case, way to go Dan! It's a cool-looking set (and a fine value, too!)
>
> - Paul
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Dave Amos writes:
> I second this! I want to know all about it! This could throw people's
> designs in a whole new direction - set feasibility. I for one would enjoy
> the challenge of trying to do something like that, even if it was never
> chosen! Bravo to Dan and Lego!
Holy Moley! Simply brilliant! Regardless of anything I have previously
said regarding set design and the direction of TLC, at this moment I can say
nothing short of, THANK YOU LEGO DIRECT, THANK YOU!
As for the challenge of trying build MOCs with "set feasibility", I totally
agree it is fun even if mine are never chosen. I for one have most often
tried to build at such a scale that my MOCs fit with my non-MOCs in a scene,
so that is just super with me!
Can't wait to see what LD does next!
-Hendo
PS Congrats to Dan for being the first! (Of many, I hope!)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Kevin Dixon writes:
> I am intrigued though, how did Lego pick this model? Was there some
> sort of competition where anyone could submit models, or did Lego start
> searching web pages for cool stuff? I'm sure a lot of people here would
> like to submit something (myself included).
I would also be curious if the creator of the model gets any financial
kickback. I know most of us here would love the recognition and pride of
getting a model reproduced by LD, but from a legal standpoint I wonder if
any offer of money was made, or if a clause of what is submitted becomes
property of LD/TLC.
(If a paint company reproduces an artists painting, the copyright usually
remains the property of the artist... And in this case LEGO is just the
medium as would be the paint.)
-Hendo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> It is particularly fitting that this has come to light on the very day that
> is arguably the Guild of Bricksmiths anniversary, since it was on 13
> December 1999 that Kevin and I got down to brass tacks to hammer out the
> details of founding the Guild (as related here)
>
> http://www.bricksmiths.com/guild_history.html
And also therefore quite fitting that the set is a Blacksmith Shop, which
further connects (in my mind) to building, founding, and guilds... :)
-H.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Mark de Kock writes:
> Great set! Only one question: Why, LEGO, why only in the USoA ?????
> Is the rest of the world not 'good enough' to get these kind of gems?
In addition to the posts suggesting it may be available in the UK, it is
also possible that LD has simply not yet worked out the details of
distribution. I haven't even seen a formal announcement from them on the
set, or the series. I suspect they may update the website and make it more
worldwide as the sell-date of Jan 30 gets closer...
-H.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Allen Carley writes:
> d) Can we expect to see more of Dan's awesome creations through Lego Direct,
> he asks looking sadly at his bank account. Never buy a house, never!
But if I never buy a house, where will I put this collection of LEGO that
currently fills several rooms in my apartment?? =)
-H.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Paul Hanson writes:
> Hi everyone -
>
> I was just fooling around on lego.com and found something that may be of
> interest:
>
> http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?id=
> %7B7B7F061E%2DEE40%2D11D5%2D8027%2D0008C7CAA0DE%7D
>
> I've not heard of this, and a quick search here on Lugnet didn't turn up
> anything - is this a new, heretofore unknown release?
>
> In any case, way to go Dan! It's a cool-looking set (and a fine value, too!)
>
> - Paul
Uhhhh What is going on?!? Why hasn't LEGO said anything about this before.
I must have any info anyone can give me!
OMG. I just had a thought. What if some of the Bricktopia buildings made
it into this MOC program. No words would desrcibe how sweet that would be!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Alexander Johnston writes:
> Uhhhh What is going on?!? Why hasn't LEGO said anything about this before.
> I must have any info anyone can give me!
It's called a leak, almost certainly unintentional on TLC's part...
-John
|
|
| |
Hello everyone!
I was as surprised and to see this post as anyone last night. I obviously
knew of this set, but I don't think this is how LD intended to unveil their
first MOC product. I don't mean to scold the folks of Lugnet for jumping the
gun, but this post took the wind out of the sails of any official announcement
to be made by Lego Direct, which I presume was scheduled for today...
Anyway, thanks for all the compliments and messages in regards to the
release of this kit. I have made an agreement with Lego not to discuss specific
details on our arrangement, but I would like to address some of the more general
questions that have been brought up:
How was my design chosen? I did not submit my design through any kind of
contest or even approach Lego in any way with my kits. I will say that a certain
VP at Lego bought a copy of my original Brickmania kit and obviously liked it a
lot. How the idea of making their own version of it came about is purely
speculation on my part, but I was approached with the idea about a year ago.
Can anyone have their MOC turned into a kit? I suppose the answer is yes,
but they do not want to be flooded with kit submissions. My suggestion is to not
send your submissions to them as it is doubtful that they have the time to deal
with them. Since my kit took more than a year in the pipeline, I would
speculate that they already have ideas of what they are doing next, purely
supposing that this is going to be more than a one-off thing.
Who owns the rights to the Blacksmith kit? Lego. I agreed to indefinitely
give up the rights to any further sales of my own Blacksmith Shop kits when I
agreed to let Lego reproduce them. They have been very cool as to let me
continue to keep the pictures of my original kits posted on my web site, but
otherwise it is no longer my deal.
Was I paid for my kit? Yes. How much is none of your business!!!
What are the changes between my kit and theirs? Cosmetically, the exterior
of the shop is more or less the same. So far as I can tell from the pictures
I've seen, the slight differences on the outside are a different arrangement of
the ivy, an possible additional window on the back wall, and a substituion of
round bricks instead of octagonal ones on the chimney. The interior has more
changes, like the addition of the attic space, which I understand makes it
easier to build the roof. They have also ommitted the spinning wheel (and have
givin me the OK to use it again in a future kit) and changed the furniture.
Their minifigs are also different, which like the octagonal bricks, were
probably changed due to the parts I used no longer being available (pure
speculation here).
I'm sure there are other questions I have overlooked, so I'll do my best to
respond as I can. I would like to say that yes, this is an important and
laudable step Lego is making in the right direction towards being more
responsive to the mature builder. However, this does not mean that support of
the custom kit builders should be diminished, as there is no way that Lego could
keep up with all of the great custom model kits being offered these days. I say
keep supporting the custom kit builders and every now and then we may all get
rewarded by LD picking up one of our designs. This would not have happened if it
were not for all of those people who paid $150 or more for my original kit.
Personally I thank all of those who have supported my custom model building and
they deserve a lot of credit for this coming out.
Dan
P.S. look for an important announcement next week on my next kit release - it's
going to be truly amazing!
In lugnet.castle, Paul Hanson writes:
> Hi everyone -
>
> I was just fooling around on lego.com and found something that may be of
> interest:
>
> http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?id=
> %7B7B7F061E%2DEE40%2D11D5%2D8027%2D0008C7CAA0DE%7D
>
> I've not heard of this, and a quick search here on Lugnet didn't turn up
> anything - is this a new, heretofore unknown release?
>
> In any case, way to go Dan! It's a cool-looking set (and a fine value, too!)
>
> - Paul
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Allen Carley writes:
<snip>
> c) I'm interested in knowing the differences between the 'original' and Lego
> Direct 'official' versions. I'm noticed the chiminy, the new 'attic', and
> what looks like Queen Leonora (apparently, the blacksmith has made enough
> money that his wife no longer has to help out. Good for him!). I can't
> make out some of the other changes in the interior, but it looks like they
> are there.
I'm guessing the attic was added as a way to sure up the roof a bit. The
version of this that I had seen seemed a bit "fragle" in the roof area.
Adding the attic is a great way to tighten things up and add a nice feature
at the same time.
jt
|
|
| |
>
>
> How was my design chosen? I did not submit my design through any kind of
> contest or even approach Lego in any way with my kits. I will say that a certain
> VP at Lego bought a copy of my original Brickmania kit and obviously liked it a
> lot. How the idea of making their own version of it came about is purely
> speculation on my part, but I was approached with the idea about a year ago.
Congratulations! This is awesome :)
> I'm sure there are other questions I have overlooked, so I'll do my best to
> respond as I can. I would like to say that yes, this is an important and
> laudable step Lego is making in the right direction towards being more
> responsive to the mature builder. However, this does not mean that support of
> the custom kit builders should be diminished, as there is no way that Lego could
> keep up with all of the great custom model kits being offered these days. I say
> keep supporting the custom kit builders and every now and then we may all get
> rewarded by LD picking up one of our designs. This would not have happened if it
> were not for all of those people who paid $150 or more for my original kit.
> Personally I thank all of those who have supported my custom model building and
> they deserve a lot of credit for this coming out.
I've got mine around here somewhere... I *knew* I should have
inventoried it :)
Look forward to seeing your next creation :)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Daniel Siskind writes:
> Hello everyone!
>
> I was as surprised and to see this post as anyone last night. I obviously
> knew of this set, but I don't think this is how LD intended to unveil their
> first MOC product. I don't mean to scold the folks of Lugnet for jumping the
> gun, but this post took the wind out of the sails of any official announcement
> to be made by Lego Direct, which I presume was scheduled for today...
Hi everyone (but expecially Dan and the FINE folks at LD) -
Now I feel really bad about posting about this set yesterday. I found it on the
Lego website, so I assumed that it was public knowledge, and that I was simply
out of the loop. I had no intention of spoiling the surprise, or of taking the
wind out of anyone's sails. My heartfelt appologies for any hurt feeling I may
have (unintentionally) caused.
Others have said it, but it bears repeating - the folks at LD are doing some
fabulous work. They (and Dan, of course) deserve all the credit for this set,
and for all of the other great things they are doing.
- Paul
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, John P. Henderson writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Mark de Kock writes:
> > Great set! Only one question: Why, LEGO, why only in the USoA ?????
> > Is the rest of the world not 'good enough' to get these kind of gems?
>
> In addition to the posts suggesting it may be available in the UK, it is
> also possible that LD has simply not yet worked out the details of
> distribution. I haven't even seen a formal announcement from them on the
> set, or the series. I suspect they may update the website and make it more
> worldwide as the sell-date of Jan 30 gets closer...
>
> -H.
I hope so too, but when comparing the different inventories of the US and
Dutch shop at home sites, it doesn't seem likely. Check out the mega-track
set that is not available in the red-white-and-blue of The Netherlands. And
it's been in the USoA for a long time.
Mark -still hoping for this one too- de Kock
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Richard Morton writes:
> Hi Paul,
>
> Which location are you in? I don't think this is USA only, it certainly
> shows up when I click my former home country - UK.
I'm in the US. For me the set is currently listed as "Not Available" (but I
expect that will change :-)). I don't know about other countries.
- Paul
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Daniel Siskind writes:
> Was I paid for my kit? Yes. How much is none of your business!!!
Were you paid in LEGO bricks? Now *that* would have been cool !!
<grin>
Seriously though, thanks for your post. It was both informative and
enlightening on a subject we would all agree is most wonderfully cool...
:)
-H.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Mark de Kock writes:
> In lugnet.castle, John P. Henderson writes:
> > In lugnet.castle, Mark de Kock writes:
> > > Great set! Only one question: Why, LEGO, why only in the USoA ?????
> > > Is the rest of the world not 'good enough' to get these kind of gems?
Uh-oh. It seems I spoke too soon. <puts on the cloack of shame>
Now the Blacksmith Shop is also to be seen in the Dutch section, under 'Hard
to Find'. No price and 'not available', but the picture is there.
LD, I apologize for my quick jump into the wrong. I should've known better,
as you have been amazing so far.
Mark -looking for the moment the set becomes available- de Kock
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Daniel Siskind writes:
>
> P.S. look for an important announcement next week on my next kit release - it's
> going to be truly amazing!
As someone who saw a version of it 'in progress' last night, I'll vouch for it
being "truly amazing"!!
Congrats from the whole GMLTC, Dan. You've definitely brought a LOT of
creativity and skills to our little club. We can't wait to see what you come up
with next!
JohnG, GMLTC
|
|
| |
I just wonder whether lego just want to control business or they realised
that these sets actually have a wide interest.
If this is the first one, then I hope the future will be brighted up with
more....
Sonnich
www.hot.ee/sonnich/lego/
Larry Pieniazek <lpieniazek@mercator.com> wrote in message
news:GoB95F.4vs@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.castle, Paul Hanson writes:
> > Hi everyone -
> >
> > I was just fooling around on lego.com and found something that may be of
> > interest:
> >
> > http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?id=
> > %7B7B7F061E%2DEE40%2D11D5%2D8027%2D0008C7CAA0DE%7D
> >
> > I've not heard of this, and a quick search here on Lugnet didn't turn up
> > anything - is this a new, heretofore unknown release?
>
> Well, it's not heretofore unknown per se:
>
> http://www.brickmania.com/store_pages/CastleKits.html#anchor1309931
>
> It's just heretofore unknown as a *LEGO* release. :-)
>
> It is particularly fitting that this has come to light on the very day • that
> is arguably the Guild of Bricksmiths anniversary, since it was on 13
> December 1999 that Kevin and I got down to brass tacks to hammer out the
> details of founding the Guild (as related here)
>
> http://www.bricksmiths.com/guild_history.html
>
> of the idea spawned here on LUGNET after I announced my custom hopper kit.
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/market/theory/?n=610
>
> Dan has been one of our staunchest and most prolific members almost from • the
> very start. It may well not be a coincidence (if I know Jake and Brad) • that
> this came to light on this particular day.
>
> Bravo, Dan!!!
|
|
| |
Well, I said it over in lugnet.direct, and I'll say it here too (without
crossposting even ;) ). This is AWESOME! It's a great set, it's an awesome
price, I'll be buying at least one, if not more (if I hadn't just gone to
Italy AND Walt Disney World, I could buy 100 of them, but I don't think I
should do that anyway :) ).
I see my reaction when I read about this wasn't "overboard", as it fits with
many other peoples reactions. I just couldn't get over it at all!
And yes, Pawel, one of the first things I thought of after reading about the
blacksmith was Bloodstone Castle (yes yes, I know that is totally
unfeasable, and I probably wouldn't buy one for the lack of room to build it
even if I COULD afford it :) ).
For some reason, I see a bunch of "Blacksmith Franchises" going up in
different cities now!
The only negative thought I've had about this whole announcement is this...
It almost seems too good to be real, how will they ever follow it up :)
Brett Kingery
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Paul Hanson writes:
> > Hi everyone -
> >
> > I was just fooling around on lego.com and found something that may be of
> > interest:
> >
> > http://shop.lego.com/product.asp?id=
> > %7B7B7F061E%2DEE40%2D11D5%2D8027%2D0008C7CAA0DE%7D
> >
> > I've not heard of this, and a quick search here on Lugnet didn't turn up
> > anything - is this a new, heretofore unknown release?
>
> Well, it's not heretofore unknown per se:
>
> http://www.brickmania.com/store_pages/CastleKits.html#anchor1309931
>
> It's just heretofore unknown as a *LEGO* release. :-)
>
> It is particularly fitting that this has come to light on the very day that
> is arguably the Guild of Bricksmiths anniversary, since it was on 13
> December 1999 that Kevin and I got down to brass tacks to hammer out the
> details of founding the Guild (as related here)
>
> http://www.bricksmiths.com/guild_history.html
>
> of the idea spawned here on LUGNET after I announced my custom hopper kit.
>
> http://news.lugnet.com/market/theory/?n=610
>
> Dan has been one of our staunchest and most prolific members almost from the
> very start. It may well not be a coincidence (if I know Jake and Brad) that
> this came to light on this particular day.
>
> Bravo, Dan!!!
Congradulations.....it is nice to see the line that finally recognizes the
efforts of the adult lego community. I just like to reply that one hand, I
think that the models in general from the Guild are pretty superb, (And
that producing multiple copies of a "special model" takes a lot more time
(not to mention printing copies of the instructions)) but on the other, I think
the kits are terribly overpriced.
I won't open a can of worms by going into getting paid for mass amounts
of time.....that can be interpreted anyway you look at... (direct labor
costs vs time spent as a hobby, etc).
The other problem I find with having the Guild is the concept of exclusivity.
It is your group, and you probably should have the right to decide the way
you decide your members, but I mean its the overall concept...."I don't think
your designs are up to the standard of the guild...etc. etc." I think
this concept relates to a certain train club, (that I will kindly
leave nameless), it is a "don't call us, we'll call you attitude".
This goes beyond a, my collection is bigger than your collection, attitude.
That is something, like life, you can't change. However, and I do mean a
big however, the selection process of the guild is something you could change,
which I might add is pretty limited.
Now, you might ask, what does this have to do with myself? Am I jealous.
Hardly. Do I want to become a member of the guild? Not really. I don't
really feel like marketing my ideas... Why do I care about posting this
message, if I don't really want to become involved in the guild? Like I said,
while the projects are very good, the prices are beyond sanity, and the
membership is extremely limited.
Now before you begin to cut me down. What is the purpose of the guild? To
sell "quality kits" to the average consumer. I don't necessarily disagree
with that, nor do I disagree that you should be well compensated for your
ideas, and your time (especially directly linked to your kits).
The other consideration would have to be the blindness of the public, or may
be their time factor. They probably don't want to spend the time building
their own special lego designs, (or have the pieces necessary), so they
are willing to buy the kits from the guild. Plus, some are in the E-bay
buying mode, buy the item at all cost mentality. So in that context, I guess
I may be a bit biased, since I know that lego really doesn't cost that much,
and if I wanted, I could build the kits, but I'd rather build my own stuff...
So on one hand, I think it is beneficial that the guild sells great stuff
(to a less informed public), but on the other hand, I think the prices
are exhorbatant, and the concept of the selection process, broods elitism.
Benjamin Medinets
|
|
| |
Hi Ben
I'm not going to answer every detail of your post, but there are a few
misconceptions that I need to address.
In lugnet.market.theory, Benjamin Medinets writes:
> Congradulations.....it is nice to see the line that finally recognizes the
> efforts of the adult lego community. I just like to reply that one hand, I
> think that the models in general from the Guild are pretty superb, (And
> that producing multiple copies of a "special model" takes a lot more time
> (not to mention printing copies of the instructions)) but on the other, I >think the kits are terribly overpriced.
I suggest you try producing a kit, Ben, and see just how much time it takes
to do a good job, and how much the right quality of Lego pieces costs you. I
know my hourly wage from doing this and believe me, I could do way better at
almost any 9-5 job. But I wouldn't have as much fun :-) We don't have any
special source of cheap Lego, so we're buying from stores on sale, S@H and
Brickbay just like you are.
As for the time, designing a kit for production takes longer than building a
single-use model (especially if you're making complete interior detail and
complete openable-ness so all that detail can be accessed); then you have to
LDraw it, split it into buildable steps, generate bitmaps of a suitable
quality for printing (not the same as screen quality), lay out instructions
(anything up to 86 pages of them in my case), print them (860 color pages is
a non-trivial print job), generate parts lists (combining multiple LDraw
files to do so), source the parts, sort the parts, make the packages, bind
the manuals, photograph the model, build the web page, market the kits....
there's more to doing this than may at first appear. Most people who start
doing it never get to production with their first kit and of those who do,
many never produce another.
> The other problem I find with having the Guild is the concept of exclusivity.
> It is your group, and you probably should have the right to decide the way
> you decide your members, but I mean its the overall concept...."I don't think
> your designs are up to the standard of the guild...etc. etc." I think
> this concept relates to a certain train club, (that I will kindly
> leave nameless), it is a "don't call us, we'll call you attitude".
Most organisations in the world which do not have a purely social purpose
(and some which do) are exclusive. Universities, businesses, many sports
teams, etc etc all require you meet their standards before you can join.
Since the GoB is a business group, not a social organisation (unlike the
certain train club) there is really no reason why we should accept all
comers. We have set ourselves a high standard, we have a reputation for that
high standard, and we plan to keep it that way.
> Now before you begin to cut me down. What is the purpose of the guild? To
> sell "quality kits" to the average consumer. I don't necessarily disagree
> with that, nor do I disagree that you should be well compensated for your
> ideas, and your time (especially directly linked to your kits).
In fact if you look at the Guild's home page, it says right there "They
[kits] are targeted at the discerning collector and hobbyist." The average
consumer really doesn't have the knowlege to evaluate the quality and
uniqueness of this type of kit: they compare directly with a TLC set on the
TRU shelf, which maks no sense. My experience of my buyers is that they are
people buying to add to the LEGO towns they are building themselves, who
appreciate quality and excellent design, and can afford it. GoB members are
not targeting the general public: we simply couldn't produce the required
volume of kits to do so! (Ask me about sorting out the parts for 10, 2000
piece kits, by hand...)
> The other consideration would have to be the blindness of the public, or may
> be their time factor. They probably don't want to spend the time building
> their own special lego designs, (or have the pieces necessary), so they
> are willing to buy the kits from the guild. Plus, some are in the E-bay
> buying mode, buy the item at all cost mentality.
Since you don't know who our customers are, or anything about them, this is
a bit insulting to them. From the pictures I have been sent of my kits in
their new homes, most of my customers are perfectly capable of designing and
building their own special Lego designs.
Kevin Wilson
Bricksmith
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
1st Annual SYSTEM Creativity Contest: http://www.creativity-contest.net/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Craftsman Lego Kits & Custom models: http://www.lionsgatemodels.com
Brickbay Lego parts store: http://www.brickbay.com/store.asp?p=Kevinw1
The Guild of Bricksmiths: http://www.bricksmiths.com
Personal Lego Web page:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/kwilson_tccs/lego.html
|
|
| |
If I actually could save up $850 to spend on LEGOS, and your Bloodstone
castle went on sale, I would be so emotionally torn as to whether I should buy
it or just save up another $150 to buy a life time pass to LEGOland.
On the one hand the life time pass would be good 'til the day I die.
On the other hand the castle would be the best LEGO purchase I'd ever made.
Then there's the downside of the first hand, which is the fact that a life time
pass doesn't get me any LEGOS for my very own. Then that second hand has the
downside of an instruction manual the size of a dictionary, plus the first
couple thousand pieces would take about a week each to find (assuming that they
were all dumped into 1 big box).
By the time a set like that castle is available, may God have the mercy
to make me rich enough to afford both.
David "Fuzzy" Gregory
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, David Gregory writes:
> If I actually could save up $850 to spend on LEGOS, and your Bloodstone
> castle went on sale, I would be so emotionally torn as to whether I should buy
> it or just save up another $150 to buy a life time pass to LEGOland.
As LFB pointed out, I was just kidding about putting a $850.00 sticker
on the Bloodstone Castle. I think that a 2-3K figure is much more like
it, but once the instructions and shipping would be factored in, the figure
would really be around 3K easy.
What I tried to do was simply show my amazement at what I thought was
a very low price by putting another exagerrated price on a model I think
we would never see for obvious reasons.
Nevertheless - one can still dream. And while on that topic, why not make it
like they did with train-heads and offer us different color schemes to pick
from?
"Lego S@H"
"Yes ... I would like the 10054 Bloodstone Castle"
"What color?"
"Hot purple."
"Your total comes to $3250.95 with shipping. Visa?"
Wouldn't THAT be wonderful?
-- Pawel
http://web.utk.edu/~pnazarew/new/
|
|
| |
Kevin Wilson wrote:
> As for the time, designing a kit for production takes longer than building a
> single-use model (especially if you're making complete interior detail and
> complete openable-ness so all that detail can be accessed); then you have to
> LDraw it, split it into buildable steps, generate bitmaps of a suitable
> quality for printing (not the same as screen quality), lay out instructions
> (anything up to 86 pages of them in my case), print them (860 color pages is
> a non-trivial print job), generate parts lists (combining multiple LDraw
> files to do so), source the parts, sort the parts, make the packages, bind
> the manuals, photograph the model, build the web page, market the kits....
> there's more to doing this than may at first appear. Most people who start
> doing it never get to production with their first kit and of those who do,
> many never produce another.
Though I have not yet even thought about entering the kit market, I can
agree with everything Kevin says. Yet, I still feel the kits are priced
above the level I am willing to spend. Part of that is that with my
extensive collection, I don't feel like paying a premium for someone
else to find the parts, I've probably got them already. I am open to
buying instructions and stickers, but I'm not sure there's a good enough
market to justify the price the kit seller would feel is fair for the
effort they have gone in to producing the kit.
On the other hand, I suspect these kits will be one of the most frequent
sources of sets to find their way into the My Own Creations line. One
reason is the quality of the set. The other is the fact that so many are
designed with currently available parts which increases the chance that
LEGO Direct can get the set produced. The My Own Creation series will be
a win win for everyone since LEGO's ability to market to a much wider
audience than GoB can reach and the ability to acquire the parts at cost
should allow them to offer the designer more than they could ever hope
to see from selling the sets themselves. They probably won't sell as
many copies of the Blacksmith Shop as the Guarded Inn, but I could see
them selling something like 1/3 to 1/2 as many pretty easily (and at
less than 10 cents a brick assuming the price and piece count is
correct, we will be buying many of them to part out - in fact, it's kind
of amusing that a set developed from parting out official sets is one of
the best candidates for parting out itself - I'm suspecting part of the
price break hints at the real costs of developing a set [it's reasonable
to pay an untested designer less than one which has a lot of history,
even if the reality is the skill is the same]).
Frank
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.market.theory, Frank Filz writes:
> > Kevin Wilson wrote:
> > As for the time, designing a kit for production takes longer than building a
> > single-use model (especially if you're making complete interior detail and
> > complete openable-ness so all that detail can be accessed); then you have to
> > LDraw it, split it into buildable steps, generate bitmaps of a suitable
> > quality for printing (not the same as screen quality), lay out instructions
> > (anything up to 86 pages of them in my case), print them (860 color pages is
> > a non-trivial print job), generate parts lists (combining multiple LDraw
> > files to do so), source the parts, sort the parts, make the packages, bind
> > the manuals, photograph the model, build the web page, market the kits....
> > there's more to doing this than may at first appear. Most people who start
> > doing it never get to production with their first kit and of those who do,
> > many never produce another.
It does indeed sound like a lot of work.
> Yet, I still feel the kits are priced
> above the level I am willing to spend. Part of that is that with my
> extensive collection, I don't feel like paying a premium for someone
> else to find the parts, I've probably got them already. I am open to
> buying instructions and stickers,
I wonder if some other 'guild' will attempt to fill this marketing void?
Why not offer just high quality step-by-step instructions for models you can
build with parts you already have?
> but I'm not sure there's a good enough
> market to justify the price the kit seller would feel is fair for the
> effort they have gone in to producing the kit.
Based on the very low quantities in the production runs and the overall
limited scope of these products, it seems as though the market for these
products is likely quite a tiny niche.
> On the other hand, I suspect these kits will be one of the most frequent
> sources of sets to find their way into the My Own Creations line.
I have to hope this won't be the case. For only one reason really; these
kits tend to gravitate towards existing themes and styles already offered by
LEGO. I'd really like to see LEGO Direct step out and find some kits that
don't fit into the pigeon holes the rest of the company already confines
itself to.
How do you do this? More sculptures. More non-minifig scale models.
Technic-styled models. The list goes on. So long as it's not a train or
castle set. These two themes have already been too heavily favored by LEGO
Direct.
> One
> reason is the quality of the set.
Agreed. But other builders have come up with things that are of an equally
high quality but haven't gone to the trouble to 'mass' produce it.
> The other is the fact that so many are
> designed with currently available parts which increases the chance that
> LEGO Direct can get the set produced.
It strikes me that the first model in the My Own Creation Series offers lots
of basic and not-so-basic bricks at an affordable price. This should be the
standard not only for other sets in the series, but for every product the
company produces.
> The My Own Creation series will be
> a win win for everyone since LEGO's ability to market to a much wider
> audience than GoB
GoB? Qu'est-ce que c'est?
> can reach and the ability to acquire the parts at cost
> should allow them to offer the designer more than they could ever hope
> to see from selling the sets themselves. They probably won't sell as
> many copies of the Blacksmith Shop as the Guarded Inn,
I don't know. It is certainly a more fully realized building and looks much
better designed that the 'fabled' Guarded Inn.
> but I could see
> them selling something like 1/3 to 1/2 as many pretty easily (and at
> less than 10 cents a brick assuming the price and piece count is
> correct, we will be buying many of them to part out - in fact, it's kind
> of amusing that a set developed from parting out official sets is one of
> the best candidates for parting out itself -
Is it just me, or is there something out of whack with this sort of
thinking? If this really is a strong reason that people would want to buy
this set, then the company needs to look at bulk parts in a brighter light
than ever before.
> I'm suspecting part of the
> price break hints at the real costs of developing a set
If development costs were really reflected in the cost of a LEGO set, then
the Jack Stone Police Headquarters would cost $1.99... tax included.
> [it's reasonable
> to pay an untested designer less than one which has a lot of history,
> even if the reality is the skill is the same]).
It would seem to me that this sort of deal is fairly new for the company.
It's much more likely that the regular in-house designers/developers/master
builders are salaried. This new My Own Creation deal is something that
likely saw the designer offered a fee to purchase all production and
marketing rights to this set. This sort of payment (in my mind) would be
based entirely on the set and not on the designer at all.
Regards,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
Allan Bedford wrote:
> > On the other hand, I suspect these kits will be one of the most frequent
> > sources of sets to find their way into the My Own Creations line.
>
> I have to hope this won't be the case. For only one reason really; these
> kits tend to gravitate towards existing themes and styles already offered by
> LEGO. I'd really like to see LEGO Direct step out and find some kits that
> don't fit into the pigeon holes the rest of the company already confines
> itself to.
>
> How do you do this? More sculptures. More non-minifig scale models.
> Technic-styled models. The list goes on. So long as it's not a train or
> castle set. These two themes have already been too heavily favored by LEGO
> Direct.
I agree that it would be nice to see a variety of sets. I think however
that you will continue to see a heavy weighting in favor of town, train,
and castle. Why? Because I think the bulk of LEGO sales are in these
categories (though space is up there also). Technic and sculptures have
a smaller market.
It would be nice if they took this as an opportunity to explore themes
which have not been explored yet. How about Romans or Greeks?
> > One
> > reason is the quality of the set.
>
> Agreed. But other builders have come up with things that are of an equally
> high quality but haven't gone to the trouble to 'mass' produce it.
A factor strongly in favor of commercializing an existing kit is that
the instructions have already been developed (though no doubt LEGO
Direct will alter the instructions to better fit their standards).
> > The My Own Creation series will be
> > a win win for everyone since LEGO's ability to market to a much wider
> > audience than GoB
>
> GoB? Qu'est-ce que c'est?
Guild of Bricksmiths.
> > can reach and the ability to acquire the parts at cost
> > should allow them to offer the designer more than they could ever hope
> > to see from selling the sets themselves. They probably won't sell as
> > many copies of the Blacksmith Shop as the Guarded Inn,
>
> I don't know. It is certainly a more fully realized building and looks much
> better designed that the 'fabled' Guarded Inn.
Oh no doubt. I can think of two reasons immediately which will reduce
volumes:
- it isn't a classic set everyone's heard of (not to belittle the
quality of the set)
- it costs more
> > but I could see
> > them selling something like 1/3 to 1/2 as many pretty easily (and at
> > less than 10 cents a brick assuming the price and piece count is
> > correct, we will be buying many of them to part out - in fact, it's kind
> > of amusing that a set developed from parting out official sets is one of
> > the best candidates for parting out itself -
>
> Is it just me, or is there something out of whack with this sort of
> thinking? If this really is a strong reason that people would want to buy
> this set, then the company needs to look at bulk parts in a brighter light
> than ever before.
No question, what is the value of bulk which the per part cost is
comparable to the cost of parts from a set? My point is that at less
than 10 cents a part, and the fact that this set is composed of many
basic bricks, and other good parts, makes it a desirable set for parting
out. That doesn't mean that I won't build one copy of the Blacksmith
Shop to keep.
> > I'm suspecting part of the
> > price break hints at the real costs of developing a set
>
> If development costs were really reflected in the cost of a LEGO set, then
> the Jack Stone Police Headquarters would cost $1.99... tax included.
While you may not find Jack Stone to your liking, I assure you there's
plenty of development cost. I also didn't say that the development cost
was the majority of the retail price of a set (the majority of the
retail price of a set is added on after the set is sealed into a box in
the way of LEGO's profit, shipping and handling costs, marketing costs,
fulfillment costs, and retail markup). On the other hand, for a lower
volume item like a S@H exclusive, the development cost must be amortized
over fewer copies of the set.
> > [it's reasonable
> > to pay an untested designer less than one which has a lot of history,
> > even if the reality is the skill is the same]).
>
> It would seem to me that this sort of deal is fairly new for the company.
> It's much more likely that the regular in-house designers/developers/master
> builders are salaried. This new My Own Creation deal is something that
> likely saw the designer offered a fee to purchase all production and
> marketing rights to this set. This sort of payment (in my mind) would be
> based entirely on the set and not on the designer at all.
I'm sure the designers are salaried, though they may have incentive pay.
But no matter whether they are salaried or paid by the job, the cost of
their employment (and all the various related support) still must be
factored into the cost of a kit (actually, this is one area where they
can save by picking up fan creations even if they pay the designer
comparably, they don't have to pay for an office for the fan designer,
don't have to buy him a new PC, etc. etc. etc.).
Frank
|
|
| |
In lugnet.market.theory, Allan Bedford writes:
> > In lugnet.market.theory, Frank Filz writes:
> > > Kevin Wilson wrote:
> > but I could see
> > them selling something like 1/3 to 1/2 as many pretty easily (and at
> > less than 10 cents a brick assuming the price and piece count is
> > correct, we will be buying many of them to part out - in fact, it's kind
> > of amusing that a set developed from parting out official sets is one of
> > the best candidates for parting out itself -
>
> Is it just me, or is there something out of whack with this sort of
> thinking? If this really is a strong reason that people would want to buy
> this set, then the company needs to look at bulk parts in a brighter light
> than ever before.
It's a very compelling reason. I haven't bought a set for the main model in
years; everything is a parts source. I'm positive I'm not the only AFOL out
there like this, either.
I've pre-ordered my first (mumble) copies already, strictly for parting out.
I'll build the model once (like any set I buy), but mostly it's parts
fodder. That's the main reason I've never bought any GoB (Guild of
Bricksmiths) kits - I'd rather build my own stuff, so they're just sources
for parts and ideas. The ideas aren't worth the premium the bricks cost.
(Not to say they aren't good ideas - they are! It's just heavily
overshadowed by how much the bricks would cost me)
thanks,
James
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.market.theory, Frank Filz writes:
> > Allan Bedford wrote:
> > > On the other hand, I suspect these kits will be one of the most frequent
> > > sources of sets to find their way into the My Own Creations line.
> >
> > I have to hope this won't be the case. For only one reason really; these
> > kits tend to gravitate towards existing themes and styles already offered by
> > LEGO. I'd really like to see LEGO Direct step out and find some kits that
> > don't fit into the pigeon holes the rest of the company already confines
> > itself to.
> >
> > How do you do this? More sculptures. More non-minifig scale models.
> > Technic-styled models. The list goes on. So long as it's not a train or
> > castle set. These two themes have already been too heavily favored by LEGO
> > Direct.
>
> I agree that it would be nice to see a variety of sets. I think however
> that you will continue to see a heavy weighting in favor of town, train,
> and castle. Why? Because I think the bulk of LEGO sales are in these
> categories (though space is up there also). Technic and sculptures have
> a smaller market.
Perhaps a valid point. However, it can be argued that virtually anything
can be a big seller if the kids want to buy it. Perfect example...
Bionicle. It's neither Town nor Train, but it's flying off the shelves
right now. Parents where I work are driving up to an hour away to find
stores that still have them in stock.
My point? Just because something has always been your traditional best
sellers doesn't mean you should focus on them to the exclusion of new ideas.
If this sort of thinking had been followed, we would never have had
Mindstorms or Star Wars. I think it's time for LEGO Direct to find a way to
tackle something like Classic Space or even a true LEGOland set. If you
want Town, then go back to where Town began. ;)
> It would be nice if they took this as an opportunity to explore themes
> which have not been explored yet. How about Romans or Greeks?
Fantastic ideas! I totally agree. Why not Aztec or Egyptian? How about a
model of the Golden Gate Bridge? Or the Empire State Building? For
Canadian fans, why not a CN Tower? Or the Skydome? A 747. A double decker
bus. A cool fire truck. A '57 Chevy. The list goes on and on and on.
There are so MANY other things to explore that go beyond the stiff walls of
Castle or Train.
> > > The My Own Creation series will be
> > > a win win for everyone since LEGO's ability to market to a much wider
> > > audience than GoB
> >
> > GoB? Qu'est-ce que c'est?
>
> Guild of Bricksmiths.
Ah. I thought it might be 'Gods of Billund'.
Sorry, I don't do acronyms.
> > > can reach and the ability to acquire the parts at cost
> > > should allow them to offer the designer more than they could ever hope
> > > to see from selling the sets themselves. They probably won't sell as
> > > many copies of the Blacksmith Shop as the Guarded Inn,
> >
> > I don't know. It is certainly a more fully realized building and looks much
> > better designed that the 'fabled' Guarded Inn.
>
> Oh no doubt. I can think of two reasons immediately which will reduce
> volumes:
>
> - it isn't a classic set everyone's heard of (not to belittle the
> quality of the set)
Not yet. ;)
> - it costs more
Per piece it's actually cheaper, isn't it?
> > > I'm suspecting part of the
> > > price break hints at the real costs of developing a set
> >
> > If development costs were really reflected in the cost of a LEGO set, then
> > the Jack Stone Police Headquarters would cost $1.99... tax included.
>
> While you may not find Jack Stone to your liking...
My apologies. I forgot the smilie at the end of that rant. I was again
trying to use hyperbole as a humor device. But for some reason it never
flies on LUGNET. :(
> I assure you there's
> plenty of development cost.
I assure you I realize that. I was simply trying to point out that if you
honestly take a look at the costs associated with LEGO products they follow
almost no trend. Look at the pricing on the Jack Stone sets compared to the
Harry Potter sets. No consistencty between lines or even within the lines
themselves.
Want really scary pricing vs. cost? Take a look at the new Star Wars 2002
sets. Example:
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/7201
I saw this set in Toys 'R Us over the weekend. Retail price in Canadian
dollars: $9.99. That's over 40 cents per piece! And what's with that
crazy archway at the back of whatever the hell that thing is supposed to be?
Couldn't that arch have been realized using existing pieces? Of course it
could. Craziness I tell you, craziness.
> > > [it's reasonable
> > > to pay an untested designer less than one which has a lot of history,
> > > even if the reality is the skill is the same]).
> >
> > It would seem to me that this sort of deal is fairly new for the company.
> > It's much more likely that the regular in-house designers/developers/master
> > builders are salaried. This new My Own Creation deal is something that
> > likely saw the designer offered a fee to purchase all production and
> > marketing rights to this set. This sort of payment (in my mind) would be
> > based entirely on the set and not on the designer at all.
>
> I'm sure the designers are salaried, though they may have incentive pay.
Or, if the company keeps losing money, they may not. ;)
> But no matter whether they are salaried or paid by the job, the cost of
> their employment (and all the various related support) still must be
> factored into the cost of a kit
Or into an overall budget for a particular series and/or the entire product
line for a year. I doubt LEGO could parse out the budget to figure out what
a given set is costing them based on design time. Especially since the
entire line is developed as a whole, in order to maintain design integrity.
That's the way it's done right? It must be... the Jack Stone line is so
consistently bad it *must* have been all designed at the same time.
Regards,
Allan B.
(Who saw dozens of Jack Stone sets at Toys R Us over the weekend, but still
won't rest until the world is rid of this poster boy of bad design)
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.market.theory, James Brown writes:
> > In lugnet.market.theory, Allan Bedford writes:
> > > them selling something like 1/3 to 1/2 as many pretty easily (and at
> > > less than 10 cents a brick assuming the price and piece count is
> > > correct, we will be buying many of them to part out - in fact, it's kind
> > > of amusing that a set developed from parting out official sets is one of
> > > the best candidates for parting out itself -
> >
> > Is it just me, or is there something out of whack with this sort of
> > thinking? If this really is a strong reason that people would want to buy
> > this set, then the company needs to look at bulk parts in a brighter light
> > than ever before.
>
> It's a very compelling reason. I haven't bought a set for the main model in
> years; everything is a parts source. I'm positive I'm not the only AFOL out
> there like this, either.
I'm exactly the opposite. I will ONLY buy a set that I like and I only buy
it for the set. Whatever parts it happens to contain then so be it. This
currently explains why I don't buy a lot of sets. Most of the current
offerings are so shallow on design that anything I build at home looks better.
When I built my adult collection of bricks from scratch 3 years ago I was
lucky. It happened to be the 30th anniversary year of LEGO in Canada. All
the Zellers and Wal-Mart stores were full of anniversary buckets and tubs.
I loaded up on tons of basic bricks. Then I bought a number of Technic and
eventually Star Wars sets, along with an assortment of others, to round out
my collection with a smattering of 'specialty bricks'.
As it turns out, I should have bought 3 times as many buckets and tubs. To
find one today in a Zellers is like finding Bill Gates loading MP3's onto an
iPod.
And as for sets... well as mentioned above I only buy things that look great
as a set. This doesn't leave much to buy nowadays. Anything of good design
is only available through Shop At Home and thanks to exchange, duty and
shipping, I don't use Shop At Home. If any one reading this doesn't yet
understand my frustration with this company, feel free to write me and I'll
elaborate further.
Regards,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.market.theory, Allan Bedford writes:
> I'm exactly the opposite. I will ONLY buy a set that I like and I only buy
> it for the set. Whatever parts it happens to contain then so be it. This
> currently explains why I don't buy a lot of sets. Most of the current
> offerings are so shallow on design that anything I build at home looks better.
Okay, so you only buy sets for their good design. The parts selection
doesn't matter...
> When I built my adult collection of bricks from scratch 3 years ago I was
> lucky. It happened to be the 30th anniversary year of LEGO in Canada. All
> the Zellers and Wal-Mart stores were full of anniversary buckets and tubs.
> I loaded up on tons of basic bricks.
Clearly, you didn't buy the buckets and tubs for their good design, but for
the parts selection....
> Then I bought a number of Technic and
> eventually Star Wars sets, along with an assortment of others,
So you found some good designs...
> to round out
> my collection with a smattering of 'specialty bricks'.
It seems like you were buying these for parts then...
> As it turns out, I should have bought 3 times as many buckets and tubs. To
> find one today in a Zellers is like finding Bill Gates loading MP3's onto an
> iPod.
But don't you only want to buy good designs?
> And as for sets... well as mentioned above I only buy things that look great
> as a set. This doesn't leave much to buy nowadays. Anything of good design
> is only available through Shop At Home and thanks to exchange, duty and
> shipping, I don't use Shop At Home. If any one reading this doesn't yet
> understand my frustration with this company, feel free to write me and I'll
> elaborate further.
Hmmm...
So to sum up: you want better designs and better brick selections, but when
LEGO makes them available, they're too expensive for you?
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.market.theory, Richie Dulin writes:
> > In lugnet.market.theory, Allan Bedford writes:
>
> > I'm exactly the opposite. I will ONLY buy a set that I like and I only buy
> > it for the set. Whatever parts it happens to contain then so be it. This
> > currently explains why I don't buy a lot of sets. Most of the current
> > offerings are so shallow on design that anything I build at home looks better.
>
> Okay, so you only buy sets for their good design. The parts selection
> doesn't matter...
>
> > When I built my adult collection of bricks from scratch 3 years ago I was
> > lucky. It happened to be the 30th anniversary year of LEGO in Canada. All
> > the Zellers and Wal-Mart stores were full of anniversary buckets and tubs.
> > I loaded up on tons of basic bricks.
>
> Clearly, you didn't buy the buckets and tubs for their good design, but for
> the parts selection....
>
> > Then I bought a number of Technic and
> > eventually Star Wars sets, along with an assortment of others,
>
> So you found some good designs...
>
> > to round out
> > my collection with a smattering of 'specialty bricks'.
>
> It seems like you were buying these for parts then...
No, to quote myself from the posting you replied to:
"Whatever parts it happens to contain then so be it. "
I have never and would never buy a set only to get a part or parts. If a
good set has interesting parts (and hopefully still a hefty dose of basic
bricks) then I buy it. This is one of the reasons I'm a big supporter of
bulk and service pack sales. If you want a particular brick or bricks, then
I feel that's where you should be able to get it. To buy a set for the sole
purpose of figuring out what parts it has you need and which ones you can
sell off, that's just too time consuming for me. For some this may work,
but it's not for me.
> > As it turns out, I should have bought 3 times as many buckets and tubs. To
> > find one today in a Zellers is like finding Bill Gates loading MP3's onto an
> > iPod.
>
> But don't you only want to buy good designs?
Yes. AND (please see my above comments) I want lots and lots of basic
bricks at a REASONABLE price. Currently I can't find any buckets or tubs in
retail stores here in my part of the country. To buy any quantity of basic
bricks at current bulk pricing is simply prohibitive.
I can't imagine I'm the only person in the world who wants LOTS of basic
bricks and a moderate selection of specialty parts to use as accent pieces.
Take my recent fire truck model for example. Its internal frame and external
body are primarily BASIC bricks. However some of the accent pieces are
anything from Technic bricks, to Star Wars light grey slopes to transparent
1x1 rounds for lights etc.
http://www.apotome.com/lego/station71/engine71.htm
The contrast to this style of building might be best shown in the Jack Stone
Police Headquarters. This set uses specialized pieces where basic bricks
would have done just as well. To my mind this is the cardinal sin of LEGO
building.
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/4611
There is no reason that those white columns could not have been done with
stacks of regular 2x2 bricks. Using specialty pieces just for the sake of
creating expensive new molds for parts just doesn't seem to make economic sense.
> > And as for sets... well as mentioned above I only buy things that look great
> > as a set. This doesn't leave much to buy nowadays. Anything of good design
> > is only available through Shop At Home and thanks to exchange, duty and
> > shipping, I don't use Shop At Home. If any one reading this doesn't yet
> > understand my frustration with this company, feel free to write me and I'll
> > elaborate further.
>
> Hmmm...
>
> So to sum up: you want better designs and better brick selections, but when
> LEGO makes them available, they're too expensive for you?
Richie... I don't know where you are, but I live in Canada. We used to have
a division of LEGO operating within our borders. I used to order from the
Shop At Home service and get service packs and Technic bulk bricks I needed.
Then they closed down LEGO Canada.
If you take a look at the Shop At Home catalog that now arrives at my door
you'll notice that everything is in U.S. prices. So if you want to know how
much a set (or bulk pack) will cost me, then double the price. It's
actually more than that, but I'm trying to keep this simple.
Then add in shipping (which is also quoted in U.S. dollars). To order any
significant quantity of bulk bricks would require me to secure a bank loan,
or miss a mortgage payment. I am simply advocating for more reasonable
pricing on bulk bricks OR (big OR) put more assorted tubs and buckets in
retail stores here in Canada where I can buy them readily.
I'm a LEGO builder Richie... not an AFOL, not a collector, not a reseller.
My primary goal (with regards to dealing with the LEGO company) is to get
them to understand that for a certain segment of their market, these are
dark times. Finding bricks that are readily available and moderately priced
(at least here in Canada) is a tough assignment.
Regards,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
Allan Bedford wrote:
> I'm exactly the opposite. I will ONLY buy a set that I like and I only buy
> it for the set. Whatever parts it happens to contain then so be it. This
> currently explains why I don't buy a lot of sets. Most of the current
> offerings are so shallow on design that anything I build at home looks better.
Why limit yourself so? I assume you don't mean that the only thing you
build is sets. I have purchased many sets which I have no interest
whatsoever in what the set builds, but I buy because of the great parts
selection in it. Deep discounts of course reduce the portion of the set
which has to be great for parts.
> When I built my adult collection of bricks from scratch 3 years ago I was
> lucky. It happened to be the 30th anniversary year of LEGO in Canada. All
> the Zellers and Wal-Mart stores were full of anniversary buckets and tubs.
> I loaded up on tons of basic bricks. Then I bought a number of Technic and
> eventually Star Wars sets, along with an assortment of others, to round out
> my collection with a smattering of 'specialty bricks'.
>
> As it turns out, I should have bought 3 times as many buckets and tubs. To
> find one today in a Zellers is like finding Bill Gates loading MP3's onto an
> iPod.
I suspect we all wish we had bought more of certain sets. I wish I have
bought more Anniversary Freestyle tubs. I wish I had bought more of the
recent Freestyle set which came with the 9 compartment "drawer" storage
unit (about the best ever TLC produced storage unit, take a look at some
of the "under construction" GMLTC pictures for an absolutely astounding
use of these - Conan has a whole wall of his basement lined with these).
> And as for sets... well as mentioned above I only buy things that look great
> as a set. This doesn't leave much to buy nowadays. Anything of good design
> is only available through Shop At Home and thanks to exchange, duty and
> shipping, I don't use Shop At Home. If any one reading this doesn't yet
> understand my frustration with this company, feel free to write me and I'll
> elaborate further.
I see a lot of good design today. Is it the same as 10 years ago? No.
But it's good in it's own way. Of course I enjoy the minifig themes
where you seem to be more of a Technic fan. I enjoy certain aspects of
Technic, but I don't find the "Super Breezeway Car" that attractive a
model (that's a little unfair, I haven't built it yet, and I know I will
enjoy it for what it is, but I'm sorry I just can't get excited over
such vehicles, I haven't bought any of the newer "super" cars - even
though with the new body panels [which I do see as decent parts) reduce
the breeziness of these cars).
I don't complain much about things like Jack Stone or Bionicle. They are
targeted at different markets. Who can really blame TLC for Bionicle
when stores can't even keep it on the shelf. That sounds like a good
investment in new parts, many of which are useable beyond the scope of
Bionicle.
Of course I'm a hearty fan of new parts. And I'm not the least bit
ashamed of that. I know why I stopped playing with LEGO as a kid. Even
though my LEGO playing years were from say 1967 to 1976 or so, the only
interesting bits we had from the later stuff was one meager train set
(which was an early 60s train set, not sure which one, but it just
didn't look like a train, and how exciting is a single oval of track)
and the gear set (which was pretty limited in what you could do with
it). We also had some classic doors and windows (red only) and a small
assortment of plates (the biggest value of the train set may have
actually been the plates). We had a small amount of slopes (red only,
probably only 2x2 and 2x4 with no peaks or corners). I also remember the
turntables, macaroni, and I think we had some of those 4x8 plates with
the curved edge.
What got me looking at LEGO again was Mindstorms. What sucked me in was
the minifig, and especially the Pirate ships. Trains and Castle quickly
took hold of me. I almost got sucked in a few years earlier when
Adventurers first came out. I remember looking at them in the store and
saying: "wow cool, you could almost build scenery for role playing games
out of these, but how ever would you get enough bricks and how well
would the miniatures stand on the studs?" I also remember looking at the
monorail several years ago. It looked interesting but limited. I think
it still is rather limited, but it works great at train shows. It
doesn't offer too much possibility for operation, though with a large
layout you could have fun running a passenger train schedule, and you
could even do some fiddling and come up with a freight switching layout.
I see many of the new parts today and see many possibilities which make
things other than square buildings possible. Each new curved type part
gives more flexibility for more streamlined looking models (without
going to the Legoland macro scale).
And why is TLC having trouble turning a profit? I can think of many
reasons: Video games are certainly the biggest hit. Kids are also not
encouraged to find lasting toys. Toys are acquired much more constantly
throughout the year and are quickly discarded. This means parents aren't
willing to pay as much for the toys (looking at a range of LEGO sets, I
see the price of the brick has stayed close to 10 cents for many years,
LEGO is getting CHEAPER!). We have developed a serious instant
gratification culture, and one unfamiliar with building things. I hardly
see the blocks which everyone I knew as a kid (including our family) had
a sizable array of (and I really enjoyed playing at other friends houses
who had many of the specialty blocks, about all we had were the two
styles of ramps [those from cutting the basic "2x4x1" block in half
<yes, blocks had their 2x4 also...>], the "1x4x2" arch [with 1x2x1 half
round insert], the "1x1x4" column and then a ton of basic blocks). I
know they are still available, and I have seen smaller blocks but the
classic blocks were so nice. The x1 narrow width was enough for a one
lane Matchbox of Hotwheels road, the x2 width wide enough for two lanes.
I used those blocks far more than the LEGO.
Frank
|
|
| |
Allan Bedford wrote:
> Perhaps a valid point. However, it can be argued that virtually anything
> can be a big seller if the kids want to buy it. Perfect example...
> Bionicle. It's neither Town nor Train, but it's flying off the shelves
> right now. Parents where I work are driving up to an hour away to find
> stores that still have them in stock.
>
> My point? Just because something has always been your traditional best
> sellers doesn't mean you should focus on them to the exclusion of new ideas.
> If this sort of thinking had been followed, we would never have had
> Mindstorms or Star Wars. I think it's time for LEGO Direct to find a way to
> tackle something like Classic Space or even a true LEGOland set. If you
> want Town, then go back to where Town began. ;)
Oh, no doubt about it it's good to branch out. Of course they have done
so with the sculptures and the Sopwith Camel (labeled a sculpture but
obviously Model Team).
> > It would be nice if they took this as an opportunity to explore themes
> > which have not been explored yet. How about Romans or Greeks?
>
> Fantastic ideas! I totally agree. Why not Aztec or Egyptian? How about a
I wouldn't hold my breath for Aztec or Egyptian. Too close to what's
been released for Adventurers.
> model of the Golden Gate Bridge? Or the Empire State Building? For
> Canadian fans, why not a CN Tower? Or the Skydome? A 747. A double decker
> bus. A cool fire truck. A '57 Chevy. The list goes on and on and on.
> There are so MANY other things to explore that go beyond the stiff walls of
> Castle or Train.
These would be nice models, and I hope and expect to see more sculptures
and Model Team sets. But they aren't TLC's bread an butter.
> > Oh no doubt. I can think of two reasons immediately which will reduce
> > volumes:
> >
> > - it isn't a classic set everyone's heard of (not to belittle the
> > quality of the set)
>
> Not yet. ;)
But by the time it becomes a similar classic, TLC won't be selling it...
> > - it costs more
>
> Per piece it's actually cheaper, isn't it?
Yes, but $25 is a magic price number that can be hard to beat (probably
one of the reasons Technic and Model Team don't do as well as some would
like, you really need more like a $50 set there).
> > I assure you there's
> > plenty of development cost.
>
> I assure you I realize that. I was simply trying to point out that if you
> honestly take a look at the costs associated with LEGO products they follow
> almost no trend. Look at the pricing on the Jack Stone sets compared to the
> Harry Potter sets. No consistencty between lines or even within the lines
> themselves.
I bet there's a lot more consistency than you can see. Of course there
will be funny blips due to marketing reasons (in the mid-price range you
can probably sometimes find a set a little cheaper than it seems like it
should be because they decided to accept a little less profit to make
the line overall work well without compromising the design of the
mid-priced set).
> Want really scary pricing vs. cost? Take a look at the new Star Wars 2002
> sets. Example:
>
> http://guide.lugnet.com/set/7201
>
> I saw this set in Toys 'R Us over the weekend. Retail price in Canadian
> dollars: $9.99. That's over 40 cents per piece! And what's with that
> crazy archway at the back of whatever the hell that thing is supposed to be?
> Couldn't that arch have been realized using existing pieces? Of course it
> could. Craziness I tell you, craziness.
Yes, that set is a little too expensive. These types of small sets
always are. It's also a HTO form factor (High Traffic Outlet - gas
stations and super markets) so this series is probably designed with a
bit more margin for the retailer in the MSRP. That arch piece originated
in Life on Mars, and would be difficult to build a similar shape out of
bricks, and would lose the "techniness" of the piece. I think a brick
arch would leave one feeling "ho hum", whereas that specialty piece says
"gee, this looks like it could be part of a space ship).
I bet this set could sell for $10 on eBay... Perhaps more (what do Darth
Vaders sell for, especially when listed in the Star Wars collectible
category?).
> Or into an overall budget for a particular series and/or the entire product
> line for a year. I doubt LEGO could parse out the budget to figure out what
> a given set is costing them based on design time. Especially since the
> entire line is developed as a whole, in order to maintain design integrity.
> That's the way it's done right? It must be... the Jack Stone line is so
> consistently bad it *must* have been all designed at the same time.
No they can't assign the costs perfectly, but I suspect they have a
pretty good feel. Of course they are going to take the whole series into
account, and will fudge things around based on marketing input,
especially the distribution of sales over the price range. I suspect TLC
has a pretty good idea of how many $6, $10, $15, and $20 sets sell in
proportion to each other.
Frank
|
|
| |
In lugnet.castle, Paul Hanson writes:
> Now I feel really bad about posting about this set yesterday. I found it on the
> Lego website, so I assumed that it was public knowledge, and that I was simply
> out of the loop. I had no intention of spoiling the surprise, or of taking the
> wind out of anyone's sails. My heartfelt appologies for any hurt feeling I may
> have (unintentionally) caused.
Don't feel upset. LEGO has always done things like this. You can start
finding catalogs for the following year, even before new themes and sets are
"officially" announced. I guess LEGO did the same here. I don't think they
realize that putting a set out on LEGO.com will result in this sort of
activity and were suprised by the result (although they should have known,
given the current status of the Internet and of LUGNET).
I'd say you did what comes naturally for people. You discovered something
new and different and wanted to talk about it. What's more, you discovered
it on LEGO.com so you *knew* it legitimate. I personally don't see any harm
in what you did.
Jeff
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> > In lugnet.market.theory, Richie Dulin writes:
> > > to round out
> > > my collection with a smattering of 'specialty bricks'.
> >
> > It seems like you were buying these for parts then...
>
> No, to quote myself from the posting you replied to:
>
> "Whatever parts it happens to contain then so be it. "
>
> I have never and would never buy a set only to get a part or parts.
But, you said you bought them "to round out my collection with a smattering
of 'specialty bricks'."
> If a
> good set has interesting parts (and hopefully still a hefty dose of basic
> bricks) then I buy it.
But you said you buy sets for good designs. And you just said "I have never
and would never buy a set only to get a part or parts.".
How can you reconcile "I have never and would never buy a set only to get a
part or parts. " and "If a good set has interesting parts (and hopefully
still a hefty dose of basic bricks) then I buy it. ", other than Orwellian
doublethink??
> This is one of the reasons I'm a big supporter of
> bulk and service pack sales.
But haven't you said you don't use S@H?
[snip]
> Take my recent fire truck model for example. Its internal frame and external
> body are primarily BASIC bricks. However some of the accent pieces are
> anything from Technic bricks, to Star Wars light grey slopes to transparent
> 1x1 rounds for lights etc.
>
> http://www.apotome.com/lego/station71/engine71.htm
Nice model.
>
> The contrast to this style of building might be best shown in the Jack Stone
> Police Headquarters. This set uses specialized pieces where basic bricks
> would have done just as well. To my mind this is the cardinal sin of LEGO
> building.
>
> http://guide.lugnet.com/set/4611
How many pieces does your fire truck have? A similar number to the Police
Station? Is it a valid comparison?
> There is no reason that those white columns could not have been done with
> stacks of regular 2x2 bricks.
They are easier for young kids (3+) to assemble. 2x2 bricks aren't textured
and wouldn't look as good.
> Using specialty pieces just for the sake of creating expensive new molds
> for parts just doesn't seem to make economic sense.
Think of all that money wasted on Bionicle molds... Think of all the clever
uses for those and other new parts in the future.
> > Hmmm...
> >
> > So to sum up: you want better designs and better brick selections, but when
> > LEGO makes them available, they're too expensive for you?
>
> Richie... I don't know where you are, but I live in Canada. We used to have
> a division of LEGO operating within our borders. I used to order from the
> Shop At Home service and get service packs and Technic bulk bricks I needed.
> Then they closed down LEGO Canada.
>
> If you take a look at the Shop At Home catalog that now arrives at my door
> you'll notice that everything is in U.S. prices. So if you want to know how
> much a set (or bulk pack) will cost me, then double the price. It's
> actually more than that, but I'm trying to keep this simple.
>
> Then add in shipping (which is also quoted in U.S. dollars). To order any
> significant quantity of bulk bricks would require me to secure a bank loan,
> or miss a mortgage payment. I am simply advocating for more reasonable
> pricing on bulk bricks OR (big OR) put more assorted tubs and buckets in
> retail stores here in Canada where I can buy them readily.
I'm in Australia. We have S@H now, although I thought we would never see it.
We wanted it, and LEGO delivered it, and now I support S@H. Delivery is
expensive, true. Selection isn't as wide as it might be, true. But I can
live with that. Things are getting better, and I think they'll continure to
get better.
> I'm a LEGO builder Richie... not an AFOL, not a collector, not a reseller.
Me too.
> My primary goal (with regards to dealing with the LEGO company) is to get
> them to understand that for a certain segment of their market, these are
> dark times.
But they're not... there's great stuff available.
>
> Finding bricks that are readily available and moderately priced
> (at least here in Canada) is a tough assignment.
You didn't agree or disagree with my summation: you want better designs and
better brick selections, but when LEGO makes them available, they're too
expensive for you?
If that's the case, maybe the problem is more of a personal budget issue for
you than it is a policy problem for LEGO.
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> > > > In lugnet.market.theory, Richie Dulin writes:
> > > > to round out
> > > > my collection with a smattering of 'specialty bricks'.
> > >
> > > It seems like you were buying these for parts then...
> >
> > No, to quote myself from the posting you replied to:
> >
> > "Whatever parts it happens to contain then so be it. "
> >
> > I have never and would never buy a set only to get a part or parts.
>
> But, you said you bought them "to round out my collection with a smattering
> of 'specialty bricks'."
Yes. You are absolutely correct. These are the things I've said. The two
things are not mutually exclusive. I am not such a 'brick purest' that I
don't recognize the value of specialty pieces. However, as mentioned, I
don't buy a set because it does or does not contain a particular piece or
pieces. I really don't think this is such a stretch.
I wonder if any one else would like to openly discuss their buying habits,
only to have them semantically chopped to pieces. I'm not trying to say "my
way of buying LEGO is the best", but rather as always I am trying to
highlight an alternative point of view. To make some of the folks at LEGO
and some of the folks on LUGNET, realize that not every adult buys their
LEGO in the same way.
I am NOT an AFOL, I do not find many of the things that make AFOLS giddy to
be very interesting to me. I am adult who enjoys 'building' with LEGO.
> > If a
> > good set has interesting parts (and hopefully still a hefty dose of basic
> > bricks) then I buy it.
>
> But you said you buy sets for good designs. And you just said "I have never
> and would never buy a set only to get a part or parts.".
O.K. I guess you caught me on this one. I guess what I should have said was:
If a set is good AND it interests me, then I buy it.
What I was trying to imply, as stated above, was that I don't get a set home
and chuck all the specialty pieces in the trash. Even my favorite sets of
the mid-70's used specialty pieces, they are a fact of life. Do they need
to be the majority of pieces? No, this is my point.
> How can you reconcile "I have never and would never buy a set only to get a
> part or parts. " and "If a good set has interesting parts (and hopefully
> still a hefty dose of basic bricks) then I buy it. ", other than Orwellian
> doublethink??
>
> > This is one of the reasons I'm a big supporter of
> > bulk and service pack sales.
>
> But haven't you said you don't use S@H?
You are correct. I don't currently use LEGO Shop at Home.
Why?
For the same reason, I suppose, that LEGO pulled out of Canada. Financial
reasons. I simply cannot financially justify buying anything through Shop
at Home, given current exchange rates and shipping costs.
However, I'm still a big supporter (in theory) of the service, especially
when it comes to bulk bricks. It's my hope that someday, if I make a big
enough nuisance of myself, then perhaps the service might be more readily
available up here. What frustrates me is that I currently live about 2
miles from where all the LEGO of my childhood originated. But today, when I
want LEGO I have to call down the U.S. Very sad for us Canadians, you must
realize this.
> [snip]
>
> > Take my recent fire truck model for example. Its internal frame and external
> > body are primarily BASIC bricks. However some of the accent pieces are
> > anything from Technic bricks, to Star Wars light grey slopes to transparent
> > 1x1 rounds for lights etc.
> >
> > http://www.apotome.com/lego/station71/engine71.htm
>
> Nice model.
Thank you.
> > The contrast to this style of building might be best shown in the Jack Stone
> > Police Headquarters. This set uses specialized pieces where basic bricks
> > would have done just as well. To my mind this is the cardinal sin of LEGO
> > building.
> >
> > http://guide.lugnet.com/set/4611
>
> How many pieces does your fire truck have?
I have no idea. :)
> A similar number to the Police
> Station?
Not in any way similar.
> Is it a valid comparison?
I wasn't comparing piece counts, I was comparing building styles. But since
you brought it up, and to be fair, let's compare it to something else.
Try this one:
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/370
Again, my point isn't all that complicated. I'm simply saying that given
the current state of financial affairs at LEGO, then perhaps they should try
sticking with traditional building techniques (DEFINITION: Using basic
bricks) rather then cranking out new molds at the drop of a hat.
> > There is no reason that those white columns could not have been done with
> > stacks of regular 2x2 bricks.
>
> They are easier for young kids (3+) to assemble. 2x2 bricks aren't textured
> and wouldn't look as good.
But... what exactly is this thing supposed to look like? The 1976 police
headquarters looks... like a building. The Jack Stone thingy looks like...
well, she don't look like a building to me.
> > Using specialty pieces just for the sake of creating expensive new molds
> > for parts just doesn't seem to make economic sense.
>
> Think of all that money wasted on Bionicle molds... Think of all the clever
> uses for those and other new parts in the future.
Thinking, thinking........ stack overload error. No useful data resulted.
> > > Hmmm...
> > >
> > > So to sum up: you want better designs and better brick selections, but when
> > > LEGO makes them available, they're too expensive for you?
> >
> > Richie... I don't know where you are, but I live in Canada. We used to have
> > a division of LEGO operating within our borders. I used to order from the
> > Shop At Home service and get service packs and Technic bulk bricks I needed.
> > Then they closed down LEGO Canada.
> >
> > If you take a look at the Shop At Home catalog that now arrives at my door
> > you'll notice that everything is in U.S. prices. So if you want to know how
> > much a set (or bulk pack) will cost me, then double the price. It's
> > actually more than that, but I'm trying to keep this simple.
> >
> > Then add in shipping (which is also quoted in U.S. dollars). To order any
> > significant quantity of bulk bricks would require me to secure a bank loan,
> > or miss a mortgage payment. I am simply advocating for more reasonable
> > pricing on bulk bricks OR (big OR) put more assorted tubs and buckets in
> > retail stores here in Canada where I can buy them readily.
>
> I'm in Australia. We have S@H now, although I thought we would never see it.
> We wanted it, and LEGO delivered it, and now I support S@H. Delivery is
> expensive, true. Selection isn't as wide as it might be, true. But I can
> live with that. Things are getting better, and I think they'll continure to
> get better.
And I support the way in which you support LEGO. For me, it's a decision of
a different flavor. I chose to NOT support the company financially, but
instead to work for hours each week online to try and raise issues that
others seem too shy to talk about. I'm not afraid of annoying someone at
LEGO for the simple reason that I am the customer.
> > I'm a LEGO builder Richie... not an AFOL, not a collector, not a reseller.
>
> Me too.
Then join the revolution my friend. Express alternative views. If you want
to buy sets, then buy them, but don't be afraid to keep telling them what
you want next. If it wasn't for people calling for bulk sales and reissues,
then how much of what's available to you today would be available?
> > My primary goal (with regards to dealing with the LEGO company) is to get
> > them to understand that for a certain segment of their market, these are
> > dark times.
>
> But they're not... there's great stuff available.
Again, everyone has a right to their opinion. I certainly respect yours.
> > Finding bricks that are readily available and moderately priced
> > (at least here in Canada) is a tough assignment.
>
> You didn't agree or disagree with my summation: you want better designs and
> better brick selections, but when LEGO makes them available, they're too
> expensive for you?
Sorry, didn't realize that I was under oath. ;)
I disagree with your summation. Because it's not complete.
I want better designs, better bricks selections AND better prices. Look at
Brad's most recent post to LUGNET. Looks like the bulk pricing is changing.
Maybe things are looking up.
> If that's the case, maybe the problem is more of a personal budget issue for
> you than it is a policy problem for LEGO.
Absolutely. I'm not Bill Gates. I'm an average guy, with an average job,
who drives a 10 year old car, has bills to pay and enjoys putting food on
the table. I shouldn't have to take out a bank loan to enjoy a hobby that's
supposed to be fun. :)
My dream is to walk into my local Zellers (or a Wal-Mart, I'm not fussy) and
see something akin to the 30th anniversary buckets on the shelves again.
Back then (only 3 years ago) I funneled a great deal of my disposable income
towards the LEGO company. But today I can't find anything fun or
interesting to buy. Is this MY fault? Am I really asking too much? In
fact, in this case I'm only asking for something that's already been done!
Not even something new. I'm just begging a company who has already produced
a product that I liked to make more. I'm not an idiot, they won't do this
just for me. But maybe there are more like me out there. Best be careful
y'all. ;)
Regards,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> I wasn't comparing piece counts, I was comparing building styles. But since
> you brought it up, and to be fair, let's compare it to something else.
>
> Try this one [to compare the Jack Stone police station to]:
>
> http://guide.lugnet.com/set/370
Deja vu! That set has more than double the pieces of the Jack Stone set -
it's not a valid comparison.
[snip]
> > I'm in Australia. We have S@H now, although I thought we would never see it.
> > We wanted it, and LEGO delivered it, and now I support S@H. Delivery is
> > expensive, true. Selection isn't as wide as it might be, true. But I can
> > live with that. Things are getting better, and I think they'll continure to
> > get better.
>
> And I support the way in which you support LEGO. For me, it's a decision of
> a different flavor. I chose to NOT support the company financially, but
> instead to work for hours each week online to try and raise issues that
> others seem too shy to talk about.
...or others disagree about.
> I'm not afraid of annoying someone at
> LEGO for the simple reason that I am the customer.
Except that you're not a customer of S@H. And not a major customer of the
rest of LEGO either.
[snip]
> If you want to buy sets, then buy them, but don't be afraid to keep
> telling them what you want next. If it wasn't for people calling for
> bulk sales and reissues, then how much of what's available to you today
> would be available?
> > But they're not... there's great stuff available.
>
> Again, everyone has a right to their opinion. I certainly respect yours.
I'm not sure you do - you've invited me to "join the revolution" and
"express alternative views"...
> > You didn't agree or disagree with my summation: you want better designs and
> > better brick selections, but when LEGO makes them available, they're too
> > expensive for you?
>
> Sorry, didn't realize that I was under oath. ;)
>
> I disagree with your summation. Because it's not complete.
>
> I want better designs, better bricks selections AND better prices.
Don't we all? I just think that LEGO is addressing the better designs and
better bricks selections, and the prices are not unreasonable...
[snip]
> My dream is to walk into my local Zellers (or a Wal-Mart, I'm not fussy) and
> see something akin to the 30th anniversary buckets on the shelves again.
> Back then (only 3 years ago) I funneled a great deal of my disposable income
> towards the LEGO company.
But that's nothing to do with set design...
> But today I can't find anything fun or
> interesting to buy. Is this MY fault?
Maybe... there is a wide product range.... I think that most people can find
one or two things they like in it...
> Am I really asking too much?
You may well be.
> In fact, in this case I'm only asking for something that's already been done!
> Not even something new.
But didn't you say "Just because something has always been your traditional
best sellers doesn't mean you should focus on them to the exclusion of new
ideas"?
To me it seems you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want new
designs, but old pieces; you want interesting sets, and you want increased
brick availability; you want new ideas, but you don't want Bionicles or Jack
Stone. And you want it all for less money.
I'm not saying don't criticize the company. Be fair in your criticism and
comparison. Acknowledge the progress they are making.
> I'm just begging a company who has already produced a product that I
> liked to make more.
I hope you're successful - it'd be good to see some 30th Anniversary Buckets
in Australia. Just not to the exclusion of good new stuff.
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
|
| |
Allan Bedford wrote:
> I am NOT an AFOL, I do not find many of the things that make AFOLS giddy to
> be very interesting to me. I am adult who enjoys 'building' with LEGO.
Adult who enjoys 'building' with LEGO sounds like an AFOL to me. What do
you think AFOL implies if it doesn't include this type of person? I
think any adult who has at least one of the following characteristics is
an AFOL:
- enjoys building with LEGO bricks
- enjoys collecting LEGO sets
- enjoys learning the history of the LEGO company
- enjoys talking about LEGO with other folks
I'd even go so far as to include folks who enjoy scouring flea markets
and yard sales for used LEGO and then putting it up for sale on eBay.
One person who comes to mind immediately here is Uncle Dan in the SF/Bay
area.
Frank
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> > I wasn't comparing piece counts, I was comparing building styles. But since
> > you brought it up, and to be fair, let's compare it to something else.
> >
> > Try this one [to compare the Jack Stone police station to]:
> >
> > http://guide.lugnet.com/set/370
>
> Deja vu! That set has more than double the pieces of the Jack Stone set -
> it's not a valid comparison.
Richie...
For whatever reason, you seem to latch onto one or more specific notions and
ignore other parts of my argument in order to make your point. The above is
a perfect example. I have already stated that I was NOT comparing piece
counts. Please go back, review what I said and then make a point. But
please do not snip my original comments, and turn my words around just to
try and make me look silly. I'm not cutting out any of your words.
Please... if you're going to debate, then be fair about it. I really do
respect your opinions, I only ask that you respect mine.
> [snip]
> > > I'm in Australia. We have S@H now, although I thought we would never see it.
> > > We wanted it, and LEGO delivered it, and now I support S@H. Delivery is
> > > expensive, true. Selection isn't as wide as it might be, true. But I can
> > > live with that. Things are getting better, and I think they'll continure to
> > > get better.
> >
> > And I support the way in which you support LEGO. For me, it's a decision of
> > a different flavor. I chose to NOT support the company financially, but
> > instead to work for hours each week online to try and raise issues that
> > others seem too shy to talk about.
>
> ...or others disagree about.
Yes. You are 100% correct. Please let me make one thing perfectly clear.
I am not asking any one to agree with me. If you do, great. If not, that's
just fine. I don't pretend to represent any views other than my own.
> > I'm not afraid of annoying someone at
> > LEGO for the simple reason that I am the customer.
>
> Except that you're not a customer of S@H. And not a major customer of the
> rest of LEGO either.
You're probably right. I guess the 50 - 60,000 bricks (all bought in the
last 3 years) that represent my new collection (completely separate from my
childhood collection) really doesn't qualify as a "major customer". But
then I never pretended to be. I am, however, a customer no matter how you
wish to define it. I am not doing anything other than making serious
suggestions to the company about ways in which they can manufacture products
that I would enjoy buying. If this doesn't make me a "major customer" then
so beit. But I don't think it makes me a bad customer.
> [snip]
>
> > If you want to buy sets, then buy them, but don't be afraid to keep
> > telling them what you want next. If it wasn't for people calling for
> > bulk sales and reissues, then how much of what's available to you today
> > would be available?
>
> > > But they're not... there's great stuff available.
> >
> > Again, everyone has a right to their opinion. I certainly respect yours.
>
> I'm not sure you do - you've invited me to "join the revolution" and
> "express alternative views"...
I invited you. How rude of me.
But I've learned my lesson. Next time, no invitation for Richie. ;)
> > > You didn't agree or disagree with my summation: you want better designs and
> > > better brick selections, but when LEGO makes them available, they're too
> > > expensive for you?
> >
> > Sorry, didn't realize that I was under oath. ;)
> >
> > I disagree with your summation. Because it's not complete.
> >
> > I want better designs, better bricks selections AND better prices.
>
> Don't we all? I just think that LEGO is addressing the better designs and
> better bricks selections, and the prices are not unreasonable...
As I've said. You are entitled to your opinion. By all means, post a
message to the Dear-LEGO newsgroup and tell them how pleased you are with
things. I'm not trying to suppress your opinion.
> > My dream is to walk into my local Zellers (or a Wal-Mart, I'm not fussy) and
> > see something akin to the 30th anniversary buckets on the shelves again.
> > Back then (only 3 years ago) I funneled a great deal of my disposable income
> > towards the LEGO company.
>
> But that's nothing to do with set design...
I agree. Where did I write that assorted buckets of bricks had anything to
do with set design. These are really two separate issues Richie, please
stop trying to cram them into one. You are again taking statements I make
about one issue and applying them the other. I invite you to disagree with
me. However I would ask that you stop trying to manipulate my postings in
attempts to make your arguments appear more valid.
> > But today I can't find anything fun or
> > interesting to buy. Is this MY fault?
>
> Maybe... there is a wide product range.... I think that most people can find
> one or two things they like in it...
I agree. But then, I'm not most people. ;)
> > Am I really asking too much?
>
> You may well be.
But as I've pointed out before and I will again... it never hurts to ask.
Do you think LEGO Direct's product mandate came about simply because someone
in Billund had a hankering to open a new division?
> > In fact, in this case I'm only asking for something that's already been done!
> > Not even something new.
>
> But didn't you say "Just because something has always been your traditional
> best sellers doesn't mean you should focus on them to the exclusion of new
> ideas"?
Exactly. You are almost always right Richie, but you are still trying to
make me look wrong. Let me clarify.
I am saying I want to see buckets and tubs in the stores again. But no
where, no where at all did I say that this should be to the exclusion of
other products. Did you read that somewhere? If you did, I didn't say it.
> To me it seems you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want new
> designs, but old pieces; you want interesting sets, and you want increased
> brick availability; you want new ideas, but you don't want Bionicles or Jack
> Stone. And you want it all for less money.
Hey, now you're really starting to understand me.
> I'm not saying don't criticize the company. Be fair in your criticism and
> comparison. Acknowledge the progress they are making.
Which parts of my criticism do you find to be unfair?
> > I'm just begging a company who has already produced a product that I
> > liked to make more.
>
> I hope you're successful - it'd be good to see some 30th Anniversary Buckets
> in Australia. Just not to the exclusion of good new stuff.
Richie... you're doing it again. Look at your last sentence. Those are
your words, not mine. Please... "Be fair in your criticism"
I'm willing to debate you on any LEGO-related topic Richie. But if you are
simply going to snip out large chunks of my comments, only to replace them
with versions of statements that are not really my words, then I really
can't take the time to continue replying to your posts.
All the best.
Play well, play fair.
Allan B.
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > Allan Bedford wrote:
> > I am NOT an AFOL, I do not find many of the things that make AFOLS giddy to
> > be very interesting to me. I am adult who enjoys 'building' with LEGO.
>
> Adult who enjoys 'building' with LEGO sounds like an AFOL to me.
I guess I'm just not fond of labels. If someone else wants to call themself
an AFOL I have no problem with that... it's just not for me.
Besides, if you could see inside my head, view how my brain operates, you'd
realize that even labeling myself an adult is based on the age shown on my
driver's license and nothing more. :)
> What do
> you think AFOL implies if it doesn't include this type of person?
I honestly don't know. That's why I'm not interested in being called one.
> I think any adult who has at least one of the following characteristics is
> an AFOL:
>
> - enjoys building with LEGO bricks
> - enjoys collecting LEGO sets
> - enjoys learning the history of the LEGO company
> - enjoys talking about LEGO with other folks
>
> I'd even go so far as to include folks who enjoy scouring flea markets
> and yard sales for used LEGO and then putting it up for sale on eBay.
Hey, like I said... I really don't worry much about what people call
themselves. If you want to be an AFOL, then by all means go nuts. I
support you 100%. But all I ask is that you respect my right not to use
this label. I'm an adult who, yes, enjoys LEGO, but who really sees it
through the eyes of a 9 year-old boy. When I'm building, it's 1977 all over
again. I stop worrying about credit cards, cat litter, washing the car, you
name it. I am flush with the memories and the good feelings that haven't
changed in 25 years.
> One person who comes to mind immediately here is Uncle Dan in the SF/Bay
> area.
I have no idea who you're talking about, sorry. Is this an inside joke or
something?
I guess the reason I go out of my way to mention that I'm not an AFOL and
not a member of the LUGNET community and not the type of person to ever
attend a Brickfest event (etc. etc.) is to remind people (hopefully the LEGO
company) that there are alternative opinions out there about their products
and the ways in which it is desired. I guess I'm trying to make the point
that when I look at LEGO sets or buckets or whatever it is, it's that kid
brain of mine that's doing the processing... nothing like the way my adult
brain functions at work when I'm coding.
As I've gone out of my way to point out to Richie... I don't expect anyone
to fully agree with me. If they do, great. But I'm not a preacher... I'm
not trying to convert anyone. If you like the AFOL label, use it... I
support you fully and completely. All I ask is the same respect in return.
Regards,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> > > I wasn't comparing piece counts, I was comparing building styles. But since
> > > you brought it up, and to be fair, let's compare it to something else.
> > >
> > > Try this one [to compare the Jack Stone police station to]:
> > >
> > > http://guide.lugnet.com/set/370
> >
> > Deja vu! That set has more than double the pieces of the Jack Stone set -
> > it's not a valid comparison.
>
> Richie...
>
> For whatever reason, you seem to latch onto one or more specific notions and
> ignore other parts of my argument in order to make your point.
I have “latched onto…specific notions” because I believe your arguments are
flawed or contradictory.
> The above is
> a perfect example. I have already stated that I was NOT comparing piece
> counts.
But on what basis do you think it is a valid comparison… that they are two
LEGO sets which are police stations? Why not throw the Duplo and Fabuland
equivalents in?
> Please go back, review what I said and then make a point. But
> please do not snip my original comments,
Nothing snipped in this post. The snipping was purely to make for a shorter
post and nothing contentious was intentionally left out.
> and turn my words around just to
> try and make me look silly.
Not to make you look silly, but to point out flaws and contradictions.
> I'm not cutting out any of your words.
> Please... if you're going to debate, then be fair about it. I really do
> respect your opinions, I only ask that you respect mine.
>
> > [snip]
> > > > I'm in Australia. We have S@H now, although I thought we would never see it.
> > > > We wanted it, and LEGO delivered it, and now I support S@H. Delivery is
> > > > expensive, true. Selection isn't as wide as it might be, true. But I can
> > > > live with that. Things are getting better, and I think they'll continure to
> > > > get better.
> > >
> > > And I support the way in which you support LEGO. For me, it's a decision of
> > > a different flavor. I chose to NOT support the company financially, but
> > > instead to work for hours each week online to try and raise issues that
> > > others seem too shy to talk about.
> >
> > ...or others disagree about.
>
> Yes. You are 100% correct. Please let me make one thing perfectly clear.
> I am not asking any one to agree with me. If you do, great. If not, that's
> just fine. I don't pretend to represent any views other than my own.
>
> > > I'm not afraid of annoying someone at
> > > LEGO for the simple reason that I am the customer.
> >
> > Except that you're not a customer of S@H. And not a major customer of the
> > rest of LEGO either.
>
> You're probably right. I guess the 50 - 60,000 bricks (all bought in the
> last 3 years) that represent my new collection (completely separate from my
> childhood collection) really doesn't qualify as a "major customer".
I’m sorry, I didn’t realise you were that large a customer, you’ve certainly
acquired more bricks than me. I’d inferred from your posts that you hadn’t
purchased much recently.
> But
> then I never pretended to be. I am, however, a customer no matter how you
> wish to define it. I am not doing anything other than making serious
> suggestions to the company about ways in which they can manufacture products
> that I would enjoy buying. If this doesn't make me a "major customer" then
> so beit. But I don't think it makes me a bad customer.
>
> > [snip]
> >
> > > If you want to buy sets, then buy them, but don't be afraid to keep
> > > telling them what you want next. If it wasn't for people calling for
> > > bulk sales and reissues, then how much of what's available to you today
> > > would be available?
> >
> > > > But they're not... there's great stuff available.
> > >
> > > Again, everyone has a right to their opinion. I certainly respect yours.
> >
> > I'm not sure you do - you've invited me to "join the revolution" and
> > "express alternative views"...
>
> I invited you. How rude of me.
>
> But I've learned my lesson. Next time, no invitation for Richie. ;)
>
> > > > You didn't agree or disagree with my summation: you want better designs and
> > > > better brick selections, but when LEGO makes them available, they're too
> > > > expensive for you?
> > >
> > > Sorry, didn't realize that I was under oath. ;)
> > >
> > > I disagree with your summation. Because it's not complete.
> > >
> > > I want better designs, better bricks selections AND better prices.
> >
> > Don't we all? I just think that LEGO is addressing the better designs and
> > better bricks selections, and the prices are not unreasonable...
>
> As I've said. You are entitled to your opinion. By all means, post a
> message to the Dear-LEGO newsgroup and tell them how pleased you are with
> things. I'm not trying to suppress your opinion.
No, I think you’re putting forward an alternative view, which isn’t
supported by facts.
>
> > > My dream is to walk into my local Zellers (or a Wal-Mart, I'm not fussy) and
> > > see something akin to the 30th anniversary buckets on the shelves again.
> > > Back then (only 3 years ago) I funneled a great deal of my disposable income
> > > towards the LEGO company.
> >
> > But that's nothing to do with set design...
>
> I agree. Where did I write that assorted buckets of bricks had anything to
> do with set design. These are really two separate issues Richie, please
> stop trying to cram them into one. You are again taking statements I make
> about one issue and applying them the other. I invite you to disagree with
> me. However I would ask that you stop trying to manipulate my postings in
> attempts to make your arguments appear more valid.
I don’t think they are entirely separate issues. I don’t think it’s fair to
say that you’ll only buy sets for good designs, and you’ll buy bricks/parts
in buckets. If a set contains good parts, and you’re prepared to buy parts,
why not buy the set for the parts?
> > > But today I can't find anything fun or
> > > interesting to buy. Is this MY fault?
> >
> > Maybe... there is a wide product range.... I think that most people can find
> > one or two things they like in it...
>
> I agree. But then, I'm not most people. ;)
>
> > > Am I really asking too much?
> >
> > You may well be.
>
> But as I've pointed out before and I will again... it never hurts to ask.
> Do you think LEGO Direct's product mandate came about simply because someone
> in Billund had a hankering to open a new division?
>
> > > In fact, in this case I'm only asking for something that's already been done!
> > > Not even something new.
> >
> > But didn't you say "Just because something has always been your traditional
> > best sellers doesn't mean you should focus on them to the exclusion of new
> > ideas"?
>
> Exactly. You are almost always right Richie, but you are still trying to
> make me look wrong. Let me clarify.
>
> I am saying I want to see buckets and tubs in the stores again. But no
> where, no where at all did I say that this should be to the exclusion of
> other products. Did you read that somewhere? If you did, I didn't say it.
No, I don’t think you said that – and I don’t think that I said that you
said that.
My point was that you said they should be trying new things (except
Bionicle!), but that you also said that they should be doing the old things.
>
> > To me it seems you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want new
> > designs, but old pieces; you want interesting sets, and you want increased
> > brick availability; you want new ideas, but you don't want Bionicles or Jack
> > Stone. And you want it all for less money.
>
> Hey, now you're really starting to understand me.
I might be accurately summing up your view, but I won’t claim to understand you.
>
> > I'm not saying don't criticize the company. Be fair in your criticism and
> > comparison. Acknowledge the progress they are making.
>
> Which parts of my criticism do you find to be unfair?
Your police station comparison
Your rejection of Bionicle as a good thing
Your rejection of sets of good design on the basis of price
Your rejection of the availability of Lego Direct on the basis of price
>
> > > I'm just begging a company who has already produced a product that I
> > > liked to make more.
> >
> > I hope you're successful - it'd be good to see some 30th Anniversary Buckets
> > in Australia. Just not to the exclusion of good new stuff.
>
> Richie... you're doing it again. Look at your last sentence. Those are
> your words, not mine. Please... "Be fair in your criticism"
>
> I'm willing to debate you on any LEGO-related topic Richie. But if you are
> simply going to snip out large chunks of my comments,
This post is awfully long. The snipping and adding bracketed summaries in
earlier posts was purely to make for a shorter post and nothing contentious
was intentionally left out.
> only to replace them
> with versions of statements that are not really my words,
I think whenever I snipped and added bracketed comments I preserved the
spirit of what you were saying. I’m sorry if that wasn’t the result . (Which
replacements did you think were misleading?)
> then I really
> can't take the time to continue replying to your posts.
>
> All the best.
>
> Play well, play fair.
Play with LEGO!
Cheers
Richie Dulin
PS Did you notice the latest announcement wasn’t on a Friday?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.market.theory, Frank Filz writes:
> I agree that it would be nice to see a variety of sets. I think however
> that you will continue to see a heavy weighting in favor of town, train,
> and castle. Why? Because I think the bulk of LEGO sales are in these
> categories (though space is up there also). Technic and sculptures have
> a smaller market.
>
> It would be nice if they took this as an opportunity to explore themes
> which have not been explored yet. How about Romans or Greeks?
That's what I was thinking when he said they fit into the same niche. Roman,
Greek, or Viking would be great.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > > Allan Bedford wrote:
> > > I am NOT an AFOL, I do not find many of the things that make AFOLS giddy to
> > > be very interesting to me. I am adult who enjoys 'building' with LEGO.
> >
> > Adult who enjoys 'building' with LEGO sounds like an AFOL to me.
>
> I guess I'm just not fond of labels. If someone else wants to call themself
> an AFOL I have no problem with that... it's just not for me.
But is not "adult who enjoys building with LEGO" as much a label as "adult fan
of LEGO"? 8?)
ROSCO
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > > > Allan Bedford wrote:
> > > > I am NOT an AFOL, I do not find many of the things that make AFOLS giddy to
> > > > be very interesting to me. I am adult who enjoys 'building' with LEGO.
> > >
> > > Adult who enjoys 'building' with LEGO sounds like an AFOL to me.
> >
> > I guess I'm just not fond of labels. If someone else wants to call themself
> > an AFOL I have no problem with that... it's just not for me.
> But is not "adult who enjoys building with LEGO" as much a label as "adult fan
> of LEGO"? 8?)
Is someone who believes in God necessarily a Christian?
Regards,
Allan B.
Definitely NOT an AFOL
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > But is not "adult who enjoys building with LEGO" as much a label as "adult
> > fan of LEGO"? 8?)
>
> Is someone who believes in God necessarily a Christian?
>
> Regards,
> Allan B.
> Definitely NOT an AFOL
It's all right Allan, we understand. It took me almost a year of lurking
before I could bring myself to post here, and being a closet AFOL was my dirty
little family secret for almost another year (although my Kindergartener almost
spilled the beans when the room mother overheard him tell another child that
his mom had way more LEGO than he did). But I can't tell you how liberating it
is once you are ready to admit your true nature. Until then, know that you are
not alone....
Maggie C.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
>
> > > > > Allan Bedford wrote:
> > > > > I am NOT an AFOL, I do not find many of the things that make AFOLS giddy to
> > > > > be very interesting to me. I am adult who enjoys 'building' with LEGO.
> > > >
> > > > Adult who enjoys 'building' with LEGO sounds like an AFOL to me.
> > >
> > > I guess I'm just not fond of labels. If someone else wants to call themself
> > > an AFOL I have no problem with that... it's just not for me.
>
> > But is not "adult who enjoys building with LEGO" as much a label as "adult fan
> > of LEGO"? 8?)
>
> Is someone who believes in God necessarily a Christian?
>
> Regards,
> Allan B.
> Definitely NOT an AFOL
Wow, this thread has gone from the discovery of the MOC series on the LEGO
website to asking the question, "Who is God?" :-) I think a better question
would have been: just because you live in a garage, does that make you a car?
But seriously, one can answer your question with yes. If Jesus Christ is God
and you believe in God, you are a Christian.
Jude
an AFOL, unlike Allan B., who is Definitely NOT an AFOL
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Maggie Cambron writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
>
> > > But is not "adult who enjoys building with LEGO" as much a label as "adult
> > > fan of LEGO"? 8?)
> >
> > Is someone who believes in God necessarily a Christian?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Allan B.
> > Definitely NOT an AFOL
>
> It's all right Allan, we understand. It took me almost a year of lurking
> before I could bring myself to post here,
I've was posting to rec.toys.lego about 3 1/2 years ago. I have been
posting to LUGNET for quite some time now (over 3 years) I'm not shy. I'm
not a lurker. Thanks for the sentiments though.
> and being a closet AFOL was my dirty
> little family secret for almost another year
Well, I feel bad for you that you felt you had to hide your interest in
LEGO. I certainly don't hide mine. For Christmas on my 30th birthday, my
dad gave me a 1200 piece tub from the 30th anniversary sets that were
available here in Canada. Later, the following year, before they
disappeared, he bought me another 4 of the purple anniversary buckets at
Wal-Mart.
I have no shame, nothing to hide. On my monitor at work rests a built copy
of Vader's Tie Fighter.
> (although my Kindergartener almost
> spilled the beans when the room mother overheard him tell another child that
> his mom had way more LEGO than he did). But I can't tell you how liberating
> it is once you are ready to admit your true nature.
Again, I really have nothing to hide, no problems understanding my true
nature. I'm a big kid. I sit on the floor and build with LEGO bricks.
That I happen to be an 'adult' is really beside the point. It's not through
my adult eyes that I view my interest in LEGO. This is why I have no
interest in being labeled an AFOL. No offense. As mentioned... anyone who
does wish to call themselves by that name has my full support. It's a term
that works for some, but not for me.
What *was* liberating was retiring my LUGNET membership. That felt good.
Then I took a break from posting and really didn't return until I was
certain of my position regarding LEGO and the company that spawned it.
> Until then, know that you are not alone....
I suspect I'm not. I do, however, get the feeling that some folks who post
to LUGNET are reluctant to say such a thing for fear of drawing negative
comments towards themselves. I do not suffer from this worry. :)
Best regards,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
>
> > > > > Allan Bedford wrote:
> > > > > I am NOT an AFOL, I do not find many of the things that make AFOLS giddy • to
> > > > > be very interesting to me. I am adult who enjoys 'building' with LEGO.
> > > >
> > > > Adult who enjoys 'building' with LEGO sounds like an AFOL to me.
> > >
> > > I guess I'm just not fond of labels. If someone else wants to call themself
> > > an AFOL I have no problem with that... it's just not for me.
>
> > But is not "adult who enjoys building with LEGO" as much a label as "adult • fan
> > of LEGO"? 8?)
>
> Is someone who believes in God necessarily a Christian?
You miss my point. I am not making a comment as to which best describes you,
just that you've said you're not fond of labels, then promptly labelled
youself.
The answer to your question is obviously no, but "someone who believes in God"
is just as much a label as "Christian".
ROSCO
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jude Beaudin writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> >
> > > > > > Allan Bedford wrote:
> > > > > > I am NOT an AFOL, I do not find many of the things that make AFOLS giddy to
> > > > > > be very interesting to me. I am adult who enjoys 'building' with LEGO.
> > > > >
> > > > > Adult who enjoys 'building' with LEGO sounds like an AFOL to me.
> > > >
> > > > I guess I'm just not fond of labels. If someone else wants to call themself
> > > > an AFOL I have no problem with that... it's just not for me.
> >
> > > But is not "adult who enjoys building with LEGO" as much a label as "adult fan
> > > of LEGO"? 8?)
> >
> > Is someone who believes in God necessarily a Christian?
> >
> > Regards,
> > Allan B.
> > Definitely NOT an AFOL
>
> Wow, this thread has gone from the discovery of the MOC series on the LEGO
> website to asking the question, "Who is God?" :-)
Testing, testing, 1... 2... 3, testing.
I am not 100% certain that the words I'm typing on my computer are
transmitting correctly to the LUGNET server. I'm almost certain I didn't
ask "Who is God?" What I asked was, "Is someone who believes in God
necessarily a Christian?" How an individual chooses to define (or not
believe in) a god is entirely their choice. But it is entirely accurate to
say that there are people in this world who believe in "god" (big or small
'G' is up to you) who absolutely do not call themselves Christians.
> I think a better question
> would have been: just because you live in a garage, does that make you a car?
No, the proper question (if using this metaphor) would have been to ask, "If
you live in a garage, do you want to call yourself a car?" Perhaps you want
to live in a garage and call yourself Fonzie. Perhaps you have decided to
identify yourself as homeless. Maybe you see yourself as a squatter, or a
person exploring 'alternative living arrangements'. But what you call
yourself is up to you, not up to anyone else.
If you want to believe in God, you don't have to be a Christian.
If you want to build with LEGO, and you are over 18, you don't have to call
yourself an AFOL.
> But seriously, one can answer your question with yes. If Jesus Christ is God
> and you believe in God, you are a Christian.
I guessed I missed a memo. I didn't realize that God had been defined as
being Jesus Christ. For some people God does not exist between the covers
of the Bible. For some people God/god is a force within themselves or
without... wandering through the cosmos. If you've never talked to a
believer in God who didn't label themselves as Christian I would really
recommend it. They are generally nice people. :)
> Jude
> an AFOL, unlike Allan B., who is Definitely NOT an AFOL
Allan
(Who respects Jude's desire to be identified as an AFOL and would try to
sway Jude into thinking anything differently)
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> >
> > > > > > Allan Bedford wrote:
> > > > > > I am NOT an AFOL, I do not find many of the things that make AFOLS giddy • to
> > > > > > be very interesting to me. I am adult who enjoys 'building' with LEGO.
> > > > >
> > > > > Adult who enjoys 'building' with LEGO sounds like an AFOL to me.
> > > >
> > > > I guess I'm just not fond of labels. If someone else wants to call themself
> > > > an AFOL I have no problem with that... it's just not for me.
> >
> > > But is not "adult who enjoys building with LEGO" as much a label as "adult • fan
> > > of LEGO"? 8?)
> >
> > Is someone who believes in God necessarily a Christian?
>
> You miss my point. I am not making a comment as to which best describes you,
> just that you've said you're not fond of labels, then promptly labelled
> youself.
I'm still missing your point I think. I don't recall labeling myself with
anything. I did try to express a description to help folks understand me,
but I really didn't define a label to attach to it. What label do you see
that I've called myself?
> The answer to your question is obviously no, but "someone who believes in God"
> is just as much a label as "Christian".
Ah, I think I might be seeing what you're getting at. Perhaps it's
semantics, perhaps it's just different ways of seeing the world. I see
short concise words like AFOL, Christian, genius, artist, geek etc. as
'labels'. In a word (or two) they attempt to group together a broad
collection of people related by one or more common connections. I see words
like "someone who believes in God" or "an adult who builds with LEGO" as
simply open-ended descriptions of one aspect of a person or persons. Sorry
if I appeared to try and paint myself with a label, that was certainly not
my intent.
Regards,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
Allan Bedford wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> > > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > >
> > > > > > > Allan Bedford wrote:
> > > > > > > I am NOT an AFOL, I do not find many of the things that make AFOLS giddy • to
> > > > > > > be very interesting to me. I am adult who enjoys 'building' with LEGO.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Adult who enjoys 'building' with LEGO sounds like an AFOL to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess I'm just not fond of labels. If someone else wants to call themself
> > > > > an AFOL I have no problem with that... it's just not for me.
> > >
> > > > But is not "adult who enjoys building with LEGO" as much a label as "adult • fan
> > > > of LEGO"? 8?)
> > >
> > > Is someone who believes in God necessarily a Christian?
> >
> > You miss my point. I am not making a comment as to which best describes you,
> > just that you've said you're not fond of labels, then promptly labelled
> > youself.
>
> I'm still missing your point I think. I don't recall labeling myself with
> anything. I did try to express a description to help folks understand me,
> but I really didn't define a label to attach to it. What label do you see
> that I've called myself?
You called yourself "an adult who likes to build with LEGO". That's a
label. Another label you claim for yourself is "Allan Bedford". I raise
that one to point out that without labels, conversation would be
impossible.
> > The answer to your question is obviously no, but "someone who believes in God"
> > is just as much a label as "Christian".
>
> Ah, I think I might be seeing what you're getting at. Perhaps it's
> semantics, perhaps it's just different ways of seeing the world. I see
> short concise words like AFOL, Christian, genius, artist, geek etc. as
> 'labels'. In a word (or two) they attempt to group together a broad
> collection of people related by one or more common connections. I see words
> like "someone who believes in God" or "an adult who builds with LEGO" as
> simply open-ended descriptions of one aspect of a person or persons. Sorry
> if I appeared to try and paint myself with a label, that was certainly not
> my intent.
And those "labels" are useful. The problem is when folks assume the
entirety about a person from the label or labels which have been applied
to them. Some labels which contribute to who I am:
- German
- Scottish
- American
- Unitarian Universalist
- Model Railroader
- Caver
- AFOL
- Gamer
- Male
- Young Adult (well, not quite any more...)
- Educated
- Red Head
- SF Fan
- Programmer
- Engineer
- New Englander
Your "an adult who builds with LEGO" really doesn't convey that much
different from AFOL (well, it does clarify that you do build, but
doesn't indicate whether you collect or not), in fact, AFOL is more open
ended (since all it says is that you're a fan of LEGO, and you are an
adult, you might build, you might collect, or who knows what else).
Labels (as you define them) can be useful because they convey the same
information with fewer words.
What is wrong is when folks try to misuse labels, either by misapplying
them ("he's gay because he plays with LEGO") or by assuming too much
about the person from a label ("all Muslims are terrorists"). That isn't
what I'm trying to do when I call people who have similar interests in
LEGO as I do AFOLS. All I'm inferring is that you are an adult (which
you have indicated you are) who enjoys LEGO (ok, maybe that's an
assumption, but it sounds like you enjoy building with LEGO).
Frank
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> > > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > >
> > > > > > > Allan Bedford wrote:
> > > > > > > I am NOT an AFOL, I do not find many of the things that make AFOLS • giddy
> > to
> > > > > > > be very interesting to me. I am adult who enjoys 'building' with LEGO.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Adult who enjoys 'building' with LEGO sounds like an AFOL to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > I guess I'm just not fond of labels. If someone else wants to call • themself
> > > > > an AFOL I have no problem with that... it's just not for me.
> > >
> > > > But is not "adult who enjoys building with LEGO" as much a label as "adult • fan
> > > > of LEGO"? 8?)
> > >
> > > Is someone who believes in God necessarily a Christian?
> >
> > You miss my point. I am not making a comment as to which best describes you,
> > just that you've said you're not fond of labels, then promptly labelled
> > youself.
>
> I'm still missing your point I think. I don't recall labeling myself with
> anything. I did try to express a description to help folks understand me,
> but I really didn't define a label to attach to it. What label do you see
> that I've called myself?
>
> > The answer to your question is obviously no, but "someone who believes in • God"
> > is just as much a label as "Christian".
>
> Ah, I think I might be seeing what you're getting at. Perhaps it's
> semantics, perhaps it's just different ways of seeing the world. I see
> short concise words like AFOL, Christian, genius, artist, geek etc. as
> 'labels'.
Well, that seems to be where we differ. I see AFOL as simply an acronymic
(????) abbreviation of "adult fan of LEGO". Maybe it's acronyms you're not fond
of?
> In a word (or two)
Or four 8?)
> they attempt to group together a broad
> collection of people related by one or more common connections. I see words
> like "someone who believes in God" or "an adult who builds with LEGO" as
> simply open-ended descriptions of one aspect of a person or persons.
So where's the distinction? Five words? I'm probably being pedantic here, but I
just don't see that "adult fan of LEGO" is any more a label than "adult who
builds with LEGO" (or any less an open-ended description of one aspect of a
person or persons).
And in my experience, a member of the latter group is generally a member of the
former, too. YMMV.
> Sorry
> if I appeared to try and paint myself with a label, that was certainly not
> my intent.
Apology not required, but accepted anyway! We often do things we don't intend.
ROSCO
|
|
| |
We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate, already in progress.
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> > > > I wasn't comparing piece counts, I was comparing building styles. But since
> > > > you brought it up, and to be fair, let's compare it to something else.
> > > >
> > > > Try this one [to compare the Jack Stone police station to]:
> > > >
> > > > http://guide.lugnet.com/set/370
> > >
> > > Deja vu! That set has more than double the pieces of the Jack Stone set -
> > > it's not a valid comparison.
> >
> > Richie...
> >
> > For whatever reason, you seem to latch onto one or more specific notions and
> > ignore other parts of my argument in order to make your point.
>
> I have “latched onto…specific notions” because I believe your arguments are
> flawed or contradictory.
Richie... I think we're getting somewhere. :)
I'm sorry to come off sounding so verbally heavy-handed in my last post, but
I really felt like our 'debate' was disolving into something like the 'Scott
and Larry Show' and I really didn't want any part in something like that.
Thank you for fully responding to my questions/concerns and in laying out
what it is that you find so troublesome about some of my arguments.
Since this post is getting really long I will do some snipping (as is normal
in most cases) but as I always do I will try to maintain the integrity of
your initial comments.
I get the feeling that much of what bothers you is that some of my
comments/criticisms are contradictory. To be honest, I hadn't noticed this
at first, but it's probably very true. As I mentioned, I'm really laying
out arguments for and against several aspects of the LEGO company's current
situation and product lines. Some of these feelings do conflict with one
another. But my final goal is the same. I hope to simply provide the
company with my thoughts and opinions. What happens after that is not under
my control.
> > The above is
> > a perfect example. I have already stated that I was NOT comparing piece
> > counts.
>
> But on what basis do you think it is a valid comparison… that they are two
> LEGO sets which are police stations? Why not throw the Duplo and Fabuland
> equivalents in?
>
> > Please go back, review what I said and then make a point. But
> > please do not snip my original comments,
>
> Nothing snipped in this post. The snipping was purely to make for a shorter
> post and nothing contentious was intentionally left out.
The completeness of your posting was appreciated. I just want to state that
directly. I have no argument with you Richie. It was just that from this
end, it was beginning to look like you were manipulating some of my comments
in order to take them out of context. I'm glad to hear that this wasn't the
case. Let the debate continue! :)
> > > Except that you're not a customer of S@H. And not a major customer of the
> > > rest of LEGO either.
> >
> > You're probably right. I guess the 50 - 60,000 bricks (all bought in the
> > last 3 years) that represent my new collection (completely separate from my
> > childhood collection) really doesn't qualify as a "major customer".
>
> I’m sorry, I didn’t realise you were that large a customer, you’ve certainly
> acquired more bricks than me. I’d inferred from your posts that you hadn’t
> purchased much recently.
You inferred correctly. 100% accurate. I haven't bought much from LEGO
lately. Two packaged sets from Zellers (Darth's Tie Fighter/Y-Wing,
packaged with Snowspeeder... for 50% off original retail) I bought two copies.
Most recent purchase? I hate to say it, but it was eBay. An old Universal
Building set. Had there been something at Zellers that day to buy instead,
the money would have gone to LEGO. But I was frustrated on returning from
yet another wasted trip to Zellers, so I logged onto eBay and gave money to
a perfect stranger. If LEGO doesn't want my money I can't make them take it.
But I honestly don't think my collection is of any significance. I'm
certain there are many many folks around here with bigger, better collections.
> > > > I disagree with your summation. Because it's not complete.
> > > >
> > > > I want better designs, better bricks selections AND better prices.
> > >
> > > Don't we all? I just think that LEGO is addressing the better designs and
> > > better bricks selections, and the prices are not unreasonable...
> >
> > As I've said. You are entitled to your opinion. By all means, post a
> > message to the Dear-LEGO newsgroup and tell them how pleased you are with
> > things. I'm not trying to suppress your opinion.
>
> No, I think you’re putting forward an alternative view, which isn’t
> supported by facts.
In some ways you're right. I often spout off without really backing up what
I have to say with facts and figures. However, since LEGO is a private
company, most of us (myself included) can only speculate on what goes on
'inside'. That is one reason that I've lobbied Brad Justus and others to
post any and all facts that they 'can' release, so that we're not operating
blind.
> > > > My dream is to walk into my local Zellers (or a Wal-Mart, I'm not fussy) and
> > > > see something akin to the 30th anniversary buckets on the shelves again.
> > > > Back then (only 3 years ago) I funneled a great deal of my disposable income
> > > > towards the LEGO company.
> > >
> > > But that's nothing to do with set design...
> >
> > I agree. Where did I write that assorted buckets of bricks had anything to
> > do with set design. These are really two separate issues Richie, please
> > stop trying to cram them into one. You are again taking statements I make
> > about one issue and applying them the other. I invite you to disagree with
> > me. However I would ask that you stop trying to manipulate my postings in
> > attempts to make your arguments appear more valid.
>
> I don’t think they are entirely separate issues. I don’t think it’s fair to
> say that you’ll only buy sets for good designs, and you’ll buy bricks/parts
> in buckets. If a set contains good parts, and you’re prepared to buy parts,
> why not buy the set for the parts?
I still have to disagree here.
1) I just want basic brick buckets so that I can get basic bricks (in a
variety of colors at a reasonable price)
2) I really do buy sets only if the set interests me. Let me try to cite
an example, and I promise this time to try very hard to make it a fair
comparison.
Take for example the Star Wars sets that I noted above.
I feel (please note these are personal opinions, not backed up by facts of
any kind) that the Snow Speeder is a good set. For several reasons. It
looks like a Snow Speeder. It uses bricks and plates that can be made into
this other than a Snow Speeder (some ended up in Engine 71, my fire truck).
And even the colors are similar to what I felt the Speeders looked like in
the movie.
Now, compare this with Slave 1. I feel that this is a fair comparison,
because the sets are roughly the same size and even come from the same
series. Now, to my little kid brain the LEGO Slave 1 just doesn't look like
the one in the movie. Was the one in the movie really green and brown?
Maybe there's something wrong with my eyes. I could have sworn it was grey.
Slave 1 was also packaged up into a buy 2 at 1/2 price deal at Zellers. I
won't buy it. Not even at 50% off. I think it's a poor set (flawed color
design mostly) and I have no interest in building it. It's not that I
didn't like Slave 1, it just that I would be embarassed to explain to my
co-workers why LEGO couldn't put out a properly colored Star Wars model. On
the other hand, the copy of Vader's Tie fighter that's on top of my monitor
at work gets 'OOOOOh's' and 'AAAAAAAAh's' because it looks.... like the
'real thing'.
> My point was that you said they should be trying new things (except
> Bionicle!), but that you also said that they should be doing the old things.
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that when some of the new things
aren't working, then why not look back and see why things once did work
well. You don't have to repeat history, but it's a shame not to learn from it.
> > > To me it seems you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want new
> > > designs, but old pieces; you want interesting sets, and you want increased
> > > brick availability; you want new ideas, but you don't want Bionicles or Jack
> > > Stone. And you want it all for less money.
> >
> > Hey, now you're really starting to understand me.
>
> I might be accurately summing up your view, but I won’t claim to understand >you.
You wouldn't be the first to admit that. I'm a study in contradictions, I
fully admit that. But I do feel I have some interesting points to make.
> > > I'm not saying don't criticize the company. Be fair in your criticism and
> > > comparison. Acknowledge the progress they are making.
> >
> > Which parts of my criticism do you find to be unfair?
>
> Your police station comparison
Perhaps a poor comparison. You might be right. The set from the mid-70's
was designed for and built by kids with attention spans. From what I'm told
today that often isn't the norm.
> Your rejection of Bionicle as a good thing
I believe Bionicle is a big seller for the company. (Likely a bit of luck
involved, but a big seller none-the-less). However, it concerns me deeply.
I'm not being silly here, I'm being serious. This series may actually do
more harm in the long run that the financial good it's doing now. It *may*
raise up many kids to be Bionicle fans. But it's doing little to promote
the brick and plate style of LEGO building to kids. It's not today that
concerns me, as much as when these kids are adults. What will draw them to
LEGO then?
> Your rejection of sets of good design on the basis of price
I'm a cheap bastard, what can I say? I want quality sets (like those
Megablocks is beginning to come out with) that include a high piece count
and I want it at a reasonable price (like Megablocks). But I want it filled
with LEGO bricks, NOT Megablocks. Man, I'm hard to please. ;)
> Your rejection of the availability of Lego Direct on the basis of price
This is perhaps my particular regional bias showing through. I'm not a
saint and I'm not above just firing off my opinion at the expense of reason.
I think it sucks (quite frankly) that LEGO shut down their Canadian
operations. I suspect few want to hear me bitch about this, other than
perhaps Canadian ex-LEGO employees.
> PS Did you notice the latest announcement wasn’t on a Friday?
I did! I only put forward that theory to see if anyone was paying
attention. I guess someone was. ;)
Best regards,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate, already in progress.
>
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin writes: • [snip]
> Richie... I think we're getting somewhere. :)
>
> I'm sorry to come off sounding so verbally heavy-handed in my last post, but
> I really felt like our 'debate' was disolving into something like the 'Scott
> and Larry Show' and I really didn't want any part in something like that.
I think we are/were a long way from that point. At least I hope we are/were ;-)
> Thank you for fully responding to my questions/concerns and in laying out
> what it is that you find so troublesome about some of my arguments.
>
> Since this post is getting really long I will do some snipping (as is normal
> in most cases) but as I always do I will try to maintain the integrity of
> your initial comments.
[Same here. I've left in the relevent bits I'm commenting on]
> I still have to disagree here [on the seperation of buckets & sets issue].
>
> 1) I just want basic brick buckets so that I can get basic bricks (in a
> variety of colors at a reasonable price)
>
> 2) I really do buy sets only if the set interests me. Let me try to cite
> an example, and I promise this time to try very hard to make it a fair
> comparison.
>
> Take for example the Star Wars sets that I noted above.
>
> I feel (please note these are personal opinions, not backed up by facts of
> any kind) that the Snow Speeder is a good set. For several reasons. It
> looks like a Snow Speeder. It uses bricks and plates that can be made into
> this other than a Snow Speeder (some ended up in Engine 71, my fire truck).
> And even the colors are similar to what I felt the Speeders looked like in
> the movie.
>
> Now, compare this with Slave 1. I feel that this is a fair comparison,
> because the sets are roughly the same size and even come from the same
> series. Now, to my little kid brain the LEGO Slave 1 just doesn't look like
> the one in the movie. Was the one in the movie really green and brown?
> Maybe there's something wrong with my eyes. I could have sworn it was grey.
> Slave 1 was also packaged up into a buy 2 at 1/2 price deal at Zellers. I
> won't buy it. Not even at 50% off. I think it's a poor set (flawed color
> design mostly) and I have no interest in building it. It's not that I
> didn't like Slave 1, it just that I would be embarassed to explain to my
> co-workers why LEGO couldn't put out a properly colored Star Wars model. On
> the other hand, the copy of Vader's Tie fighter that's on top of my monitor
> at work gets 'OOOOOh's' and 'AAAAAAAAh's' because it looks.... like the
> 'real thing'.
I'd invite you to have a look at the parts selection in Slave I. There are
bricks, slopes and plates. At half price it is particularly good value. I've
got a pair of Slave Is, and I didn't intend to play with them or display
them as Slave Is (just build it once for the "been there, done that" claim).
But it is an excellent supply of green and grey (particularly), colours that
I think most of us want. And Slave I is not overendowed with specialised
parts (other than Boba Fett, of course).
Note that Vader's Tie isn't consistently coloured with the movie either.
Don't forget that Slave I didn't get much screen time and is not as
recognisable as Vader's Tie.
...and you probably don't have to show your coworkers all your LEGO
purchases... do you? (Although I admit it is fun to do from time to time)
> > My point was that you said they should be trying new things (except
> > Bionicle!), but that you also said that they should be doing the old things.
>
> I guess what I'm really trying to say is that when some of the new things
> aren't working, then why not look back and see why things once did work
> well. You don't have to repeat history, but it's a shame not to learn
> from it.
I agree here, but I think it's also important to keep history in
perspective, remember the bad things as well as the good, and recognise the
progress. LEGO has consistently got cheaper here over the last five years
(although 2002 may prove the exception!), and I think there is now a wider
range of useful parts (old parts may be good, but there are a lot of recent
good ones too).
So I think one thing to learn from LEGO history is that progress and
expansion is beneficial.
[snip]
> This is perhaps my particular regional bias showing through. I'm not a
> saint and I'm not above just firing off my opinion at the expense of reason.
> I think it sucks (quite frankly) that LEGO shut down their Canadian
> operations. I suspect few want to hear me bitch about this, other than
> perhaps Canadian ex-LEGO employees.
It's not so long ago that we thought we were hard done by in Australia, but
we've been quite fortunate this year (still a few 3033's on the shelves - I
hope Santa's listening), both in terms of availability and pricing.
I think it is a pity that Canada has lost S@H (and not just because I've got
some Canadian relatives who buy me presents from time to time!). I hope the
situation gets better (and if they can run Australian S@H from Europe
without huge pricing problems, you'd think they could to the same for
Canadian S@H from the US).
[snip]
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > Allan Bedford wrote:
> > I'm still missing your point I think. I don't recall labeling myself with
> > anything. I did try to express a description to help folks understand me,
> > but I really didn't define a label to attach to it. What label do you see
> > that I've called myself?
>
> You called yourself "an adult who likes to build with LEGO". That's a
> label. Another label you claim for yourself is "Allan Bedford". I raise
> that one to point out that without labels, conversation would be
> impossible.
You win. Label me a quitter, because I give up on this debate.
> > > The answer to your question is obviously no, but "someone who believes in God"
> > > is just as much a label as "Christian".
> >
> > Ah, I think I might be seeing what you're getting at. Perhaps it's
> > semantics, perhaps it's just different ways of seeing the world. I see
> > short concise words like AFOL, Christian, genius, artist, geek etc. as
> > 'labels'. In a word (or two) they attempt to group together a broad
> > collection of people related by one or more common connections. I see words
> > like "someone who believes in God" or "an adult who builds with LEGO" as
> > simply open-ended descriptions of one aspect of a person or persons. Sorry
> > if I appeared to try and paint myself with a label, that was certainly not
> > my intent.
>
> And those "labels" are useful. The problem is when folks assume the
> entirety about a person from the label or labels which have been applied
> to them.
Which is exactly why I don't want to be lumped in with folks calling
themselves AFOL's. I simply don't have enough in common with them to
warrent using that term.
> Your "an adult who builds with LEGO" really doesn't convey that much
> different from AFOL
I'm not trying to convey who I am with that one sentence. That would be
somewhat ridiculous. I resist labels and descriptions of myself because
they are generally not accurate. You are free to call yourself whatever you
want, please don't let me stop you from labelling yourself.
> What is wrong is when folks try to misuse labels, either by misapplying
> them ("he's gay because he plays with LEGO") or by assuming too much
> about the person from a label ("all Muslims are terrorists"). That isn't
> what I'm trying to do when I call people who have similar interests in
> LEGO as I do AFOLS.
But you may as well, in my opinion. There are people who are really proud
to call themselves AFOL's. And that's well and good for them. No harm
done. But I don't subscribe to many of their views... most especially about
LEGO. You calling me an AFOL is offensive then, isn't it? This really
isn't that big an issue. If someone doesn't want to accept your label, why
fight it?
> All I'm inferring is that you are an adult (which
> you have indicated you are) who enjoys LEGO (ok, maybe that's an
> assumption, but it sounds like you enjoy building with LEGO).
And I saying, yes, your inference is correct. Leave it at that and don't
worry about labelling it anything more.
Sorry to have brought this up, I didn't mean to spark such a response.
Regards,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > All I'm inferring is that you are an adult (which
> > you have indicated you are) who enjoys LEGO (ok, maybe that's an
> > assumption, but it sounds like you enjoy building with LEGO).
>
> And I saying, yes, your inference is correct. Leave it at that and don't
> worry about labelling it anything more.
>
> Sorry to have brought this up, I didn't mean to spark such a response.
I think you are reading much more into the label "AFOL" than most people.
To me (and Frank, from what he says above) AFOL means no more than that you
are an adult who enjoys LEGO as a hobby. I've never thought it might mean
anything more until this conversation came up - you seem to think it means
something much different, and object to it on those grounds. If you don't
mind my asking, what do you think an AFOL is?
You don't want to be called an AFOL, and that's cool with me, but I have to
admit, in my own head, I'll still think of you as an AFOL, because you're an
adult who has a LEGO hobby. And that's all it takes, for me.
:)
James
(Of course, I'm only labeling you in my brain because I'm a
Compartmentalized Dork, and need to know where you go <GRIN>)
|
|
| |
allow me to add some colour (oops...that's canadian...) :) commentary.
<snip>
> > > >
> > > > Deja vu! That set has more than double the pieces of the Jack Stone set -
> > > > it's not a valid comparison.
but it does raise a contentious issue of reality of the set (design) vs.
ease of construction
plus, the older sets could be made into other creations, if the the child
didn't feel like making the primary model. Now adays, you have a much harder
time building alternative designs. (starwars / harry potter not withstanding)
<snip>
> > But on what basis do you think it is a valid comparison… that they are two
> > LEGO sets which are police stations? Why not throw the Duplo and Fabuland
> > equivalents in?
(again look at the above comments....about the different approaches to set
design)
<snip>
> > > > Except that you're not a customer of S@H. And not a major customer of the
> > > > rest of LEGO either.
> > >
> > > You're probably right. I guess the 50 - 60,000 bricks (all bought in the
> > > last 3 years) that represent my new collection (completely separate from my
> > > childhood collection) really doesn't qualify as a "major customer".
> > I’m sorry, I didn’t realise you were that large a customer, you’ve certainly
> > acquired more bricks than me. I’d inferred from your posts that you hadn’t
> > purchased much recently.
> You inferred correctly. 100% accurate. I haven't bought much from LEGO
> lately. Two packaged sets from Zellers (Darth's Tie Fighter/Y-Wing,
> packaged with Snowspeeder... for 50% off original retail) I bought two copies.
>
> Most recent purchase? I hate to say it, but it was eBay. An old Universal
> Building set. Had there been something at Zellers that day to buy instead,
> the money would have gone to LEGO. But I was frustrated on returning from
> yet another wasted trip to Zellers, so I logged onto eBay and gave money to
> a perfect stranger. If LEGO doesn't want my money I can't make them take it.
>
> But I honestly don't think my collection is of any significance. I'm
> certain there are many many folks around here with bigger, better collections.
I'd say that was a pretty sizable collection....I wonder what your childhood
collection is, if that isn't sizable.
I know some people have an insanely large-sized collection, but I'd say the
majority of collectors don't have that much.
I guess it all comes down to what you constitute piece make-up. If you group
all elements as pieces, it may seem large, but then some collectors only
collect technic pieces or train pieces, or only bulk bricks, and may not end
up using a lot of them.
Myself, I only have a small portion of "extra" bricks, some bulk, some
technic, but also have a bunch of pieces in buckets from "destroyed
taken apart / mixed in lego sets from my earlier town collection days.
>
> > > > > I disagree with your summation. Because it's not complete.
> > > > >
> > > > > I want better designs, better bricks selections AND better prices.
> > > >
> > > > Don't we all? I just think that LEGO is addressing the better designs and
> > > > better bricks selections, and the prices are not unreasonable...
> > >
> > > As I've said. You are entitled to your opinion. By all means, post a
> > > message to the Dear-LEGO newsgroup and tell them how pleased you are with
> > > things. I'm not trying to suppress your opinion.
> >
> > No, I think you’re putting forward an alternative view, which isn’t
> > supported by facts.
>
> In some ways you're right. I often spout off without really backing up what
> I have to say with facts and figures. However, since LEGO is a private
> company, most of us (myself included) can only speculate on what goes on
> 'inside'. That is one reason that I've lobbied Brad Justus and others to
> post any and all facts that they 'can' release, so that we're not operating
> blind.
>
> > > > > My dream is to walk into my local Zellers (or a Wal-Mart, I'm not fussy) and
> > > > > see something akin to the 30th anniversary buckets on the shelves again.
> > > > > Back then (only 3 years ago) I funneled a great deal of my disposable income
> > > > > towards the LEGO company.
> > > >
> > > > But that's nothing to do with set design...
> > >
> > > I agree. Where did I write that assorted buckets of bricks had anything to
> > > do with set design. These are really two separate issues Richie, please
> > > stop trying to cram them into one. You are again taking statements I make
> > > about one issue and applying them the other. I invite you to disagree with
> > > me. However I would ask that you stop trying to manipulate my postings in
> > > attempts to make your arguments appear more valid.
> >
> > I don’t think they are entirely separate issues. I don’t think it’s fair to
> > say that you’ll only buy sets for good designs, and you’ll buy bricks/parts
> > in buckets. If a set contains good parts, and you’re prepared to buy parts,
> > why not buy the set for the parts?
>
> I still have to disagree here.
>
> 1) I just want basic brick buckets so that I can get basic bricks (in a
> variety of colors at a reasonable price)
>
> 2) I really do buy sets only if the set interests me. Let me try to cite
> an example, and I promise this time to try very hard to make it a fair
> comparison.
>
> Take for example the Star Wars sets that I noted above.
>
> I feel (please note these are personal opinions, not backed up by facts of
> any kind) that the Snow Speeder is a good set. For several reasons. It
> looks like a Snow Speeder. It uses bricks and plates that can be made into
> this other than a Snow Speeder (some ended up in Engine 71, my fire truck).
> And even the colors are similar to what I felt the Speeders looked like in
> the movie.
>
> Now, compare this with Slave 1. I feel that this is a fair comparison,
> because the sets are roughly the same size and even come from the same
> series. Now, to my little kid brain the LEGO Slave 1 just doesn't look like
> the one in the movie. Was the one in the movie really green and brown?
> Maybe there's something wrong with my eyes. I could have sworn it was grey.
> Slave 1 was also packaged up into a buy 2 at 1/2 price deal at Zellers. I
> won't buy it. Not even at 50% off. I think it's a poor set (flawed color
> design mostly) and I have no interest in building it. It's not that I
> didn't like Slave 1, it just that I would be embarassed to explain to my
> co-workers why LEGO couldn't put out a properly colored Star Wars model. On
> the other hand, the copy of Vader's Tie fighter that's on top of my monitor
> at work gets 'OOOOOh's' and 'AAAAAAAAh's' because it looks.... like the
> 'real thing'.
>
> > My point was that you said they should be trying new things (except
> > Bionicle!), but that you also said that they should be doing the old things.
>
> I guess what I'm really trying to say is that when some of the new things
> aren't working, then why not look back and see why things once did work
> well. You don't have to repeat history, but it's a shame not to learn from it.
>
> > > > To me it seems you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want new
> > > > designs, but old pieces; you want interesting sets, and you want increased
> > > > brick availability; you want new ideas, but you don't want Bionicles or Jack
> > > > Stone. And you want it all for less money.
> > >
> > > Hey, now you're really starting to understand me.
> >
> > I might be accurately summing up your view, but I won’t claim to understand >you.
>
> You wouldn't be the first to admit that. I'm a study in contradictions, I
> fully admit that. But I do feel I have some interesting points to make.
>
> > > > I'm not saying don't criticize the company. Be fair in your criticism and
> > > > comparison. Acknowledge the progress they are making.
> > >
> > > Which parts of my criticism do you find to be unfair?
> >
> > Your police station comparison
>
> Perhaps a poor comparison. You might be right. The set from the mid-70's
> was designed for and built by kids with attention spans. From what I'm told
> today that often isn't the norm.
>
> > Your rejection of Bionicle as a good thing
>
> I believe Bionicle is a big seller for the company. (Likely a bit of luck
> involved, but a big seller none-the-less). However, it concerns me deeply.
> I'm not being silly here, I'm being serious. This series may actually do
> more harm in the long run that the financial good it's doing now. It *may*
> raise up many kids to be Bionicle fans. But it's doing little to promote
> the brick and plate style of LEGO building to kids. It's not today that
> concerns me, as much as when these kids are adults. What will draw them to
> LEGO then?
>
> > Your rejection of sets of good design on the basis of price
>
> I'm a cheap bastard, what can I say? I want quality sets (like those
> Megablocks is beginning to come out with) that include a high piece count
> and I want it at a reasonable price (like Megablocks). But I want it filled
> with LEGO bricks, NOT Megablocks. Man, I'm hard to please. ;)
>
> > Your rejection of the availability of Lego Direct on the basis of price
>
> This is perhaps my particular regional bias showing through. I'm not a
> saint and I'm not above just firing off my opinion at the expense of reason.
> I think it sucks (quite frankly) that LEGO shut down their Canadian
> operations. I suspect few want to hear me bitch about this, other than
> perhaps Canadian ex-LEGO employees.
I think I agree with your assessments of the Lego availability in Canada.
If I go into the average department store, and even lately in Toys R US,
I find either dismal choices in sets (really bad sets) or good sets that
cost way too much....(mostly bad sets).
Since, most of my income comes from American sources, I don't have a problem
with ordering from shop @ home, but a lot of my lego friends can't do this
because of the exchange rates.
Lego pulled out of Canada because of this very thing, which makes me sad,
and upset because it reduces the amount of people (in Canada) from ordering
great sets that Lego (direct) has put out.
Brad mentioned that there would be more sets that Lego has previously deemed
"exclusive" that would be sold in stores. Personally, I think the
public would rather spend their money on a $190 CDN Metroliner (in Canada)
than the Railroad Express....
or perhaps a bunch of buckets, if they ever do intent to put them out again...
which is real messed up, since the bulk sections still don't have any real
availability of 1X1 bricks, any sort of plates, except in red, white, and
black, and only very select elements...
I, myself, have stepped into Zellars Lego toy section (well aisle) and
have been tempted by the BOGOHP (buy one, get one half-price) but didn't
get it because of the considerations like you mentioned, certain select star
wars sets that have no real appeal (not realistic enough) but don't contain
any parts that I need.
It may be a contradiction, but really its reality. I, myself, don't mind
forking out money if the set is what I am looking for (in design) or if I
am looking for some parts.
Personally, I think (Allen) has some legimate concerns, especially buying
Lego in Canada, but Allen does have some unrealistic expectations.
Megablocks do have some interesting, even realistic designs, but I don't
think I'd see Lego prices come down that low!!
Let's just see what Lego has in store for 2002. From what I hear, the next
catalogue should be pretty good.... (for everyone, except Canadians).... :(
Benjamin Medinets
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford wrote:
> You win. Label me a quitter, because I give up on this debate.
(pssst! You forgot to mention 'Hitler'!)
> Which is exactly why I don't want to be lumped in with folks calling
> themselves AFOL's. I simply don't have enough in common with them to
> warrent using that term.
And I don't use 'AFOL' because when you say it out loud, it's something
awful.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford wrote:
>
> > You win. Label me a quitter, because I give up on this debate.
>
> (pssst! You forgot to mention 'Hitler'!)
I really don't think this comment is appropriate for this debate, Steve.
Not to overly criticize, but Allan wanted to distance himself from the
typical "fan of lego". I wanted to try to prove that he didn't come up
with the title, but alas he did. However, if you read any of his posts
regarding this, the overal context of his message is to "build in the eyes
of a 12 year old."
>
> > Which is exactly why I don't want to be lumped in with folks calling
> > themselves AFOL's. I simply don't have enough in common with them to
> > warrent using that term.
>
> And I don't use 'AFOL' because when you say it out loud, it's something
> awful.
Now...that is pretty funny.... :)
Benjamin Medinets
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Bliss writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford wrote:
>
> > You win. Label me a quitter, because I give up on this debate.
>
> (pssst! You forgot to mention 'Hitler'!)
Steve, I'm sorry, I don't quite understand your comment.
> > Which is exactly why I don't want to be lumped in with folks calling
> > themselves AFOL's. I simply don't have enough in common with them to
> > warrent using that term.
>
> And I don't use 'AFOL' because when you say it out loud, it's something
> awful.
Nor this comment. Your point is lost on me. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit.
Best regards,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Benjamin Medinets writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Bliss writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford wrote:
> >
> > > You win. Label me a quitter, because I give up on this debate.
> >
> > (pssst! You forgot to mention 'Hitler'!)
>
> I really don't think this comment is appropriate for this debate, Steve.
I have already responded to Steve by indicating that I honestly don't
understand his comment. Is there something I'm missing here?
> Not to overly criticize, but Allan wanted to distance himself from the
> typical "fan of lego".
That was part of my point. Thank you for seeing it.
> I wanted to try to prove that he didn't come up
> with the title, but alas he did.
"come up with the title"? O.K. now you've lost me. I'm not sure what you mean.
> However, if you read any of his posts
> regarding this, the overal context of his message is to "build in the eyes
> of a 12 year old."
My kid brain is only nine. ;)
It's still stuck on the day that I saw Star Wars for the first time at the
theater. My love of LEGO is routed in childhood, not in adulthood. When I
browse the shelves of a Toys R Us, it's with no adult thoughts in my head.
Other than the fact that I'm usually drinking a coffee and I'm almost 6 feet
tall, you'd probably think I was a kid if you could hear me 'ooo' and 'aaah'
at all the cool toys.
> > > Which is exactly why I don't want to be lumped in with folks calling
> > > themselves AFOL's. I simply don't have enough in common with them to
> > > warrent using that term.
> >
> > And I don't use 'AFOL' because when you say it out loud, it's something
> > awful.
>
> Now...that is pretty funny.... :)
O.K. Now someone's got some explaining to do. ;) What is the deal here?
I haven't said that the acronym A.F.O.L. shouldn't be used. Go crazy, get
business cards printed if you want. Just realize that not everyone *wants*
to be called that. That's all.
Regards,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Benjamin Medinets writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Bliss writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford wrote:
> > >
> > > > You win. Label me a quitter, because I give up on this debate.
> > >
> > > (pssst! You forgot to mention 'Hitler'!)
> >
> > I really don't think this comment is appropriate for this debate, Steve.
>
> I have already responded to Steve by indicating that I honestly don't
> understand his comment. Is there something I'm missing here?
It is understood around .debate that if you mention the name Hitler you
automatically concede the debate. That's all Steve was referring to.
Geez, you guys need to lighten up!
Maggie
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Maggie Cambron writes:
>
> Geez, you guys need to lighten up!
Sorry, Maggie, no can do - it's Christmas season!
I'll lighten up again in January!
Can someone please pass the Vegemite stuffing?
ROSCO
FUT .fun
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Maggie Cambron writes:
> > > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Bliss writes:
> > > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > You win. Label me a quitter, because I give up on this debate.
> > > >
> > > > (pssst! You forgot to mention 'Hitler'!)
> It is understood around .debate that if you mention the name Hitler you
> automatically concede the debate.
I guess it's not completely understood. ;)
I've been posting to LUGNET for over 3 years. This isn't my first
appearance in the .debate groups. This is certainly the first time I've
seen the use of a name like that. It really seems in poor taste for LUGNET.
Couldn't you have picked a more comical name if (as it appears) your intent
was to draw humor from it?
> Geez, you guys need to lighten up!
Hey, I'm just sorry I brought up this whole "I'm not an AFOL" thing in the
first place. It's clear that some people have really taken offense to me
*not* wanting to be one of them. Isn't it usually the other way around?
You have some guy who bitches and whines and you tell him, "We don't serve
your kind here, you'll have to wait outside." :)
Maggie, your other reply to my post really left me stumped. I replied to it
in a serious tone, although I somewhat suspected you were kidding, or at
least tying to make light of things. But you didn't use a single smilie in
your comments... therefore I was forced to take them at face value. Is this
another convention of the .debate groups?
Regards,
Allan B.
(Still not an AFOL, and as my friend Martha says, "That's a good thing.")
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Maggie Cambron writes:
> > > > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Bliss writes:
> > > > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > You win. Label me a quitter, because I give up on this debate.
> > > > >
> > > > > (pssst! You forgot to mention 'Hitler'!)
>
> > It is understood around .debate that if you mention the name Hitler you
> > automatically concede the debate.
>
> I guess it's not completely understood. ;)
>
> I've been posting to LUGNET for over 3 years. This isn't my first
> appearance in the .debate groups. This is certainly the first time I've
> seen the use of a name like that. It really seems in poor taste for LUGNET.
> Couldn't you have picked a more comical name if (as it appears) your intent
> was to draw humor from it?
The name wasn't arbitrarily chosen like yelling "uncle". I think it has more
to do with the tired examples involving Hitler that are invoked whenever
someone can't think of anything better to support their argument. Here's a bit
about it.
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=5095
There may be better examples in other posts, but I'm not inclined to look them
up at the moment-- this gives you an idea though.
> > Geez, you guys need to lighten up!
>
> Hey, I'm just sorry I brought up this whole "I'm not an AFOL" thing in the
> first place. It's clear that some people have really taken offense to me
> *not* wanting to be one of them. Isn't it usually the other way around?
> You have some guy who bitches and whines and you tell him, "We don't serve
> your kind here, you'll have to wait outside." :)
>
> Maggie, your other reply to my post really left me stumped. I replied to it
> in a serious tone, although I somewhat suspected you were kidding, or at
> least tying to make light of things. But you didn't use a single smilie in
> your comments... therefore I was forced to take them at face value. Is this
> another convention of the .debate groups?
Yeah, I was being tongue in cheek. The problem with the smiley is that while
the one I normally use is :-) I always feel like an imposter using it because a
more fitting one for me would be 8o) since I wear glasses and inherited my
dad's Irish nose. Not very flattering though, huh?
> Regards,
> Allan B.
> (Still not an AFOL, and as my friend Martha says, "That's a good thing.")
Hey Allan, don't tell me you're an AFOM? 8o)
Maggie (who also likes Martha)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> Can someone please pass the Vegemite stuffing?
Hmm... I can't decide whether I'm hoping this is a joke or whether I'm hoping
it's NOT a joke (in which case I'll be requesting the recipe Rosco!).
Maggie (who also occasionally gets stumped in the absence of the smiley)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Bliss writes:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford wrote:
> >
> > > You win. Label me a quitter, because I give up on this debate.
> >
> > (pssst! You forgot to mention 'Hitler'!)
>
> Steve, I'm sorry, I don't quite understand your comment.
Maggie's already covered this, so I won't re-iterate her response.
> > > Which is exactly why I don't want to be lumped in with folks calling
> > > themselves AFOL's. I simply don't have enough in common with them to
> > > warrent using that term.
> >
> > And I don't use 'AFOL' because when you say it out loud, it's something
> > awful.
>
> Nor this comment. Your point is lost on me. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit.
When I say "AFOL" out loud, it sounds an awful lot like "awful". Sorry
I forgot crosspost to .pun.
"MOC" is another lugnetish acronym that doesn't make a very good
transition to real life. IMO.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Bliss writes:
> When I say "AFOL" out loud, it sounds an awful lot like "awful". Sorry
> I forgot crosspost to .pun.
>
> "MOC" is another lugnetish acronym that doesn't make a very good
> transition to real life. IMO.
Kinda like "IANAL"? (I Am Not A Lawyer)
DaveE
(FUT fun)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Maggie Cambron writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
>
> > Can someone please pass the Vegemite stuffing?
>
> Hmm... I can't decide whether I'm hoping this is a joke or whether I'm hoping
> it's NOT a joke (in which case I'll be requesting the recipe Rosco!).
I hope it's a joke! I've never seen Vegemite stuffing, but I wouldn't be at all
surprised if someone's tried it!! As for the recipe, well who needs recipes
when Vegemite's involved, anyway? 8?)
> Maggie (who also occasionally gets stumped in the absence of the smiley)
I thought the FUT gave it away 8?)
ROSCO (whose dry humour often causes him to forego smileys...)
|
|
| |
Richie Dulin wrote:
> > > Except that you're not a customer of S@H. And not a major customer of the
> > > rest of LEGO either.
> >
> > You're probably right. I guess the 50 - 60,000 bricks (all bought in the
> > last 3 years) that represent my new collection (completely separate from my
> > childhood collection) really doesn't qualify as a "major customer".
Well, hate to burst your bubble, but 50-60K bricks in 3 years DOESN'T put you in the
"major customer" bracket. That's a drop in the ocean. Some people around here have
bought that many bricks (or more) in ONE DAY. And even that won't begin to be
noticed by TLG, as they don't have a very direct connection with the customer
(unless you ONLY buy from S@H).
> > But
> > then I never pretended to be. I am, however, a customer no matter how you
> > wish to define it. I am not doing anything other than making serious
> > suggestions to the company about ways in which they can manufacture products
> > that I would enjoy buying. If this doesn't make me a "major customer" then
> > so beit. But I don't think it makes me a bad customer.
No, just being noisy to the point that they'll tune you out, no matter if some of
your suggestions are constructive or not.
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
| |
Tom,
You should be a bit more careful with your quoting - most of this was
actually Allan's comments. Also, it makes things easier if you reply to the
actual post you're quoting most from.
Regards
ROSCO
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas Stangl writes:
> Richie Dulin wrote:
>
> > > > Except that you're not a customer of S@H. And not a major customer of the
> > > > rest of LEGO either.
> > >
> > > You're probably right. I guess the 50 - 60,000 bricks (all bought in the
> > > last 3 years) that represent my new collection (completely separate from my
> > > childhood collection) really doesn't qualify as a "major customer".
>
> Well, hate to burst your bubble, but 50-60K bricks in 3 years DOESN'T put you in the
> "major customer" bracket. That's a drop in the ocean. Some people around here have
> bought that many bricks (or more) in ONE DAY. And even that won't begin to be
> noticed by TLG, as they don't have a very direct connection with the customer
> (unless you ONLY buy from S@H).
>
>
> > > But
> > > then I never pretended to be. I am, however, a customer no matter how you
> > > wish to define it. I am not doing anything other than making serious
> > > suggestions to the company about ways in which they can manufacture products
> > > that I would enjoy buying. If this doesn't make me a "major customer" then
> > > so beit. But I don't think it makes me a bad customer.
>
> No, just being noisy to the point that they'll tune you out, no matter if some of
> your suggestions are constructive or not.
|
|
| |
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas Stangl writes:
> > > Richie Dulin wrote:
> > > Except that you're not a customer of S@H. And not a major customer of the
> > > rest of LEGO either.
> > Allan Bedford wrote:
> > You're probably right. I guess the 50 - 60,000 bricks (all bought in the
> > last 3 years) that represent my new collection (completely separate from my
> > childhood collection) really doesn't qualify as a "major customer".
> Well, hate to burst your bubble, but 50-60K bricks in 3 years DOESN'T put you in the
> "major customer" bracket. That's a drop in the ocean. Some people around here have
> bought that many bricks (or more) in ONE DAY. And even that won't begin to be
> noticed by TLG, as they don't have a very direct connection with the customer
> (unless you ONLY buy from S@H).
Tom, you're not bursting any bubble, you're simply confirming what I said.
I am not, and do not consider myself to be a "major customer" by any
definition. I have what I think is a fairly small collection for an adult.
50,000 bricks, spread across multiple colors, sizes and shapes, really isn't
a ton of bricks. I assume many people around here have much more substatial
collections. My comment was meant to be taken literally, not sarcastically.
My apologies if it was misconstrued.
> > Allan Bedford wrote:
> > But
> > then I never pretended to be. I am, however, a customer no matter how you
> > wish to define it. I am not doing anything other than making serious
> > suggestions to the company about ways in which they can manufacture products
> > that I would enjoy buying. If this doesn't make me a "major customer" then
> > so beit. But I don't think it makes me a bad customer.
> No, just being noisy to the point that they'll tune you out, no matter if >some of your suggestions are constructive or not.
Then they'll tune me out. I really can't control that. But it would be a
shame to not *try*. Your suggestion that they would disregard constructive
criticism, simply because I'm too vocal about my opinions, doesn't make much
business sense.
In business (at least in retail business, of which LEGO is a part) there is
an old belief that for every one customer who complains about something
there may be as many as 10 who feel the same way but who haven't taken the
time to complain.
Worse yet, that one customer who does complain may also tell friends and
family how dissatisfied they were with the products and/or service from a
particular company. This sort of bad publicity can erod gains made from
advertising or other methods used by the company, all of which cost money to
accomplish.
So the moral is....
Yes, I may be an internet loud-mouth who some people decide to ignore. And
that's o.k. with me. I don't expect many people on LUGNET to agree with me.
But, as mentioned above, I am still a customer of the company and have been
one essentially for 25 years. I feel I have at least the tiniest right to
say, "Hey, you know what? I think such-and-such a set could have been
better if you'd only put more zippity-bops in it." If the company decides
to ignore me it's no skin off my back.
However, I think it's only fair to point out again *why* I moan and complain
so much. It's my honest and sincere feeling that despite recent successes
like Star Wars, Bionicle and Harry Potter, these are still dark days for the
company. It's only my opinion, but I think there are signs this may be the
case. My suggestion is that those who disagree with me continue to
challenge my postings (in a polite way) and let's keep this debate alive.
Or, if you're tired of me, then don't reply to my postings. I'm not trying
to be a troll, as I will gladly defend anything I've said, or (and I do this
whenever needed) I will agree with you, agree that I was wrong, or flat out
apologize for something I've said that was wrong.
Oh, Tom... I see that your reply ended up looking like you were responding
to Richie's comments instead of mine. I wonder, were you using the web
interface to post? I've found that when I go to reply through the web that
the message in improperly formatted right off the hop. The person's name
(to whose message you are actually replying) ends up *without* the '>' quote
mark. However, their comments end up *with* the quote mark. This can be
very confusing if it's not manually corrected. Have you (or anyone else)
noticed this?
Best regards,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Thomas Stangl writes:
> > Well, hate to burst your bubble... <snip>
> Oh, Tom... I see that your reply ended up looking like you were responding
> to Richie's comments instead of mine. I wonder, were you using the web
> interface to post? I've found that when I go to reply through the web that
> the message in improperly formatted right off the hop. The person's name
> (to whose message you are actually replying) ends up *without* the '>' quote
> mark. However, their comments end up *with* the quote mark. This can be
> very confusing if it's not manually corrected.
No, it's actually quite clear. As in the example above. ("I" am saying that
YOU wrote the stuff that is marked with ">" symbols and YOU are saying that
TOM wrote the stuff that is marked with ">>" symbols.)
PLEASE DO NOT manually "correct" this. The internet standard is to do it
this way and if you change it by hand, you break it for most people. The web
interface, and the NNTP interface, and the mail interface are all working
correctly.
To repeat, attribution lines should have one *less* ">" than the quoted text
attributed by them. That's the standard. It is a good standard. Get used to
it. LUGNET is not broken in this area. Please don't fix it manually.
If you doubt me, you may want to do some research into RFCs.
FUT admin.nntp
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> 50,000 bricks, spread across multiple colors, sizes and shapes, really isn't
> a ton of bricks
You're right, though it could be 250-300 pounds.
I don't think I have a ton of bricks, either. Now half a million is sure to
be a ton of bricks.
|
|
| |
My wife keeps joking about our 2nd floor apt not being able to handle the weight
of the Lego - good thing that ton or more is spread out all over the place ;-)
Erik Olson wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> > 50,000 bricks, spread across multiple colors, sizes and shapes, really isn't
> > a ton of bricks
>
> You're right, though it could be 250-300 pounds.
>
> I don't think I have a ton of bricks, either. Now half a million is sure to
> be a ton of bricks.
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
|
