| |
I was wondering about what was actually the first ever occurrance of Lego
"Juniorization"? That is not an easy question to answer, since it is partly a
matter of interpretation, but this part from 1966 gets my vote...
http://peeron.com/inv/parts/824
It is the "4x8 Train Base With Wheel Holder" (with a 1x2 plate attached) wheel
holder for trains. Anybody found anything else that old???
I would think that in order for something to qualify for "Juniorization", it
would have to have made of the separate parts first. (You cannot say that 1:87
model cars/trucks are juniorized, when there wasn't something that preceded it
as separate parts first.)
Gary Istok
|
|
| |
Gary Istok wrote:
> I was wondering about what was actually the first ever occurrance of
> Lego "Juniorization"?
>
> http://peeron.com/inv/parts/824
It seems to me this part is impossible to build of other parts unless you
add one layer of plate?
My vote for 'first juniorization' would be
http://peeron.com/inv/parts/x1042b 'Brick 4 x 2 Round Half Circle with Stud
Notches'. It could easily be replaced by two quarter circle ones :-)
Or http://peeron.com/inv/parts/712 'Wing 4 x 8 Curved Left' ? It could have
been built by one ordinary 4x4 and one 4x4 with rounded corner, thereby
eliminating the need for 713 (the right counterpart).
All I'm actually trying to say is that the border between 'useful part' and
'juniorized part' is not so easily defined. It depends on in what context
the part is going to be used.
As for ordinary bricks and plates, one could argue that you don't *need*
much more than 1x1 and 2x1 plates. The rest could be built out of that...
--
Anders Isaksson, Sweden
BlockCAD: http://web.telia.com/~u16122508/proglego.htm
Gallery: http://web.telia.com/~u16122508/gallery/index.htm
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Anders Isaksson wrote:
> Gary Istok wrote:
> > I was wondering about what was actually the first ever occurrance of
> > Lego "Juniorization"?
> >
> > http://peeron.com/inv/parts/824
>
> It seems to me this part is impossible to build of other parts unless you
> add one layer of plate?
>
> My vote for 'first juniorization' would be
> http://peeron.com/inv/parts/x1042b 'Brick 4 x 2 Round Half Circle with Stud
> Notches'. It could easily be replaced by two quarter circle ones :-)
>
> Or http://peeron.com/inv/parts/712 'Wing 4 x 8 Curved Left' ? It could have
> been built by one ordinary 4x4 and one 4x4 with rounded corner, thereby
> eliminating the need for 713 (the right counterpart).
>
> All I'm actually trying to say is that the border between 'useful part' and
> 'juniorized part' is not so easily defined. It depends on in what context
> the part is going to be used.
>
> As for ordinary bricks and plates, one could argue that you don't *need*
> much more than 1x1 and 2x1 plates. The rest could be built out of that...
I think the term "Juniorization" implies changes in a model's parts for
assistance in assembly due to a lack of manual dexterity in the builder.
Elements being juniorized by the LEGO Company seemed to occur when children who
were too young to build a complex model without frustration succeeded in
obtaining them (as gifts or what have you). I believe it's a noticable point in
the company's history - coinciding with a socio-psycho-cultural thing. My first
pang would be from a one-piece car chassis - excluding ones like in Fabuland,
because those models were designed with a low target age range. (There was no
"trickery" on the box.)
The elements I see you guys pointing out all begin to suffer from what I'd call,
"annoying chunkification". That's when multiple pieces are made into a single
one, seemingly unnecessarily. The King of such monstrosities would have to be
the dreaded BURP.
(^_^)
IMHO, the less structurally improved the elements are by being united, and the
greater the resulting loss of building possibilities, the more Evil it is.
-Especially- bad is when the Chunk replaces its original elements. [cringing]
Thinking now of palm fronds being merged into a giant green throwing-star...
(-_-)
-Suz
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Anders Isaksson wrote:
> Gary Istok wrote:
> > I was wondering about what was actually the first ever occurrance of
> > Lego "Juniorization"?
> >
> > http://peeron.com/inv/parts/824
>
> It seems to me this part is impossible to build of other parts unless you
> add one layer of plate?
I agree with Anders, what parts were you thinking about that
were 'juniorized' to make this part.
> My vote for 'first juniorization' would be
> http://peeron.com/inv/parts/x1042b 'Brick 4 x 2 Round Half Circle with Stud
> Notches'. It could easily be replaced by two quarter circle ones :-)
>
> Or http://peeron.com/inv/parts/712 'Wing 4 x 8 Curved Left' ? It could have
> been built by one ordinary 4x4 and one 4x4 with rounded corner, thereby
> eliminating the need for 713 (the right counterpart).
Slight problem here Anders, the 4x4 with rounded corner
didn't exist until 40 years after the Wing 4x8
Wow 40 years, that's a really long time.
> All I'm actually trying to say is that the border between 'useful part' and
> 'juniorized part' is not so easily defined. It depends on in what context
> the part is going to be used.
>
> As for ordinary bricks and plates, one could argue that you don't *need*
> much more than 1x1 and 2x1 plates. The rest could be built out of that...
Oh yes you do need the larger bricks and plates.
You could never get good structural integrity out of only small
plates or bricks.
I have built many of the 'sculpture' sets Lego offers
and they need the larger plates to hold the smaller ones
firmly in place.
dave
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Shifflett wrote:
> Oh yes you do need the larger bricks and plates.
> You could never get good structural integrity out of only small
> plates or bricks.
> I have built many of the 'sculpture' sets Lego offers
> and they need the larger plates to hold the smaller ones
> firmly in place.
>
> dave
So, I guess you would say that a brick like "Plate 2x2 corner"
http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/2420
is not juniorized, as even if it could be made out of 1x1 and 2x1 plates it
would not keep the structural strenght
whereas its bigger and older counterpart "4x4 L brick"
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/217_2
is juniorized, as this can be made out of other bricks without losing the
structural strenght?
Arne, Copenhagen
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Shifflett wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Anders Isaksson wrote:
> > Gary Istok wrote:
> > > I was wondering about what was actually the first ever occurrance of
> > > Lego "Juniorization"?
> > >
> > > http://peeron.com/inv/parts/824
> >
> > It seems to me this part is impossible to build of other parts unless you
> > add one layer of plate?
>
> I agree with Anders, what parts were you thinking about that
> were 'juniorized' to make this part.
I don't have that part, and I just looked at it in Peeron. I didn't see the
hole in the middle the first time. My bad.
>
> > My vote for 'first juniorization' would be
> > http://peeron.com/inv/parts/x1042b 'Brick 4 x 2 Round Half Circle with Stud
> > Notches'. It could easily be replaced by two quarter circle ones :-)
> >
> > Or http://peeron.com/inv/parts/712 'Wing 4 x 8 Curved Left' ? It could have
> > been built by one ordinary 4x4 and one 4x4 with rounded corner, thereby
> > eliminating the need for 713 (the right counterpart).
>
> Slight problem here Anders, the 4x4 with rounded corner
> didn't exist until 40 years after the Wing 4x8
> Wow 40 years, that's a really long time.
I just found out from Phil Traviss that in Britain they made a few of these 4x8
curved plates with the missing notch of plastic (like all recent curved plates).
These were made circa 1965 near the end of production of these plates. These
were NOT produced in continental Europe or USA/Canada. A NEW (OLD) PART!!!!
> snippage
> dave
Gary Istok
|
|
| |
"D. Shifflett" <shifflett@redshift.com> wrote in message
news:IJI1ux.63s@lugnet.com...
> Oh yes you do need the larger bricks and plates.
> You could never get good structural integrity out of only small
> plates or bricks.
Some of the "juniorized" parts are also done for various structural reasons.
I'd also point out that the BURP can not be made of other parts. There are
LEGO sets that utilize the hollow nature of the BURP. These sets could not
be built the same way with bricks.
I'm not really convinced juniorization is a useful term. It's all too often
just used as a derogatory term for a part the speaker feels is useless,
ignoring that there might be valid design reasons for that part (which may
include creating sets for younger kids).
Frank
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Arne Lykke Nielsen wrote:
> In lugnet.general, David Shifflett wrote:
> > Oh yes you do need the larger bricks and plates.
> > You could never get good structural integrity out of only small
> > plates or bricks.
> > I have built many of the 'sculpture' sets Lego offers
> > and they need the larger plates to hold the smaller ones
> > firmly in place.
> >
> > dave
>
> So, I guess you would say that a brick like "Plate 2x2 corner"
> http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/2420
> is not juniorized, as even if it could be made out of 1x1 and 2x1 plates it
> would not keep the structural strenght
> whereas its bigger and older counterpart "4x4 L brick"
> http://guide.lugnet.com/set/217_2
> is juniorized, as this can be made out of other bricks without losing the
> structural strenght?
> Arne, Copenhagen
I guess I don't really know what juniorized means.
If it means creating a single part that could be made by
combining other current parts,
Then yes both of the parts you mentioned would be considered
juniorized (assuming the component parts existed
before the corner parts)
I also say that these parts are necessary for structural integrity,
especially the Plate 2x2 corner,
I just built a 3724 Dragon, which uses about 50 of these plates,
and about 150 Brick 2x2 corner.
dave
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, Frank Filz wrote:
>
> "D. Shifflett" <shifflett@redshift.com> wrote in message
> news:IJI1ux.63s@lugnet.com...
> > Oh yes you do need the larger bricks and plates.
> > You could never get good structural integrity out of only small
> > plates or bricks.
>
> Some of the "juniorized" parts are also done for various structural reasons.
>
> I'd also point out that the BURP can not be made of other parts. There are
> LEGO sets that utilize the hollow nature of the BURP. These sets could not
> be built the same way with bricks.
>
> I'm not really convinced juniorization is a useful term. It's all too often
> just used as a derogatory term for a part the speaker feels is useless,
> ignoring that there might be valid design reasons for that part (which may
> include creating sets for younger kids).
>
> Frank
My ignorance is showing,
what does BURP mean/stand for?
dave
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Shifflett wrote:
> My ignorance is showing,
> what does BURP mean/stand for?
Big Ugly Rock Piece. The 4x8x6 semi-rectangular and 4x6x7 trianglish pieces
usually in grey to simulate rock (recently showing up a lot in new brown).
I actually like them for building cliffs, and in a large cliff, with a small
amount of disguise, they actually work quite nicely. Using over 100 BURPS, I
built over 8 feet of 16 inch high cliff in a few weeks of evenings and weekends.
Frank
|
|
| |
In lugnet.general, David Shifflett wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Frank Filz wrote:
> >
> > "D. Shifflett" <shifflett@redshift.com> wrote in message
> > news:IJI1ux.63s@lugnet.com...
> > > Oh yes you do need the larger bricks and plates.
> > > You could never get good structural integrity out of only small
> > > plates or bricks.
> >
> > Some of the "juniorized" parts are also done for various structural reasons.
> >
> > I'd also point out that the BURP can not be made of other parts. There are
> > LEGO sets that utilize the hollow nature of the BURP. These sets could not
> > be built the same way with bricks.
> >
> > I'm not really convinced juniorization is a useful term. It's all too often
> > just used as a derogatory term for a part the speaker feels is useless,
> > ignoring that there might be valid design reasons for that part (which may
> > include creating sets for younger kids).
> >
> > Frank
>
> My ignorance is showing,
> what does BURP mean/stand for?
>
> dave
Concerning acronym, check http://www.lugnet.com/~88/acronym_faq/all
You will find :
"BURP: Big Ugly Rock Piece - either of the mountain pieces, appearing usually in
grey shades, but also tan, yellow, white and green."
curiously "LURP : Little Ugly Rock Piece" ( http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/6083
) is missing.
about Juniorized theme discussion part you will also find
"POOP: Piece [that can or should be made] of Other Pieces."
and
"SPUD: Special/Single Piece/Purpose Ugly/Useless/UnLEGOish Design/Decorative.
Many people think that the many meanings of this acronym make it a great one, as
it is not Single Purpose at all."
Are Juniorized parts POOPs and SPUDs ?
Didier
|
|
|
