| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, David Eaton wrote:
> How would you define "clone brands"? Something that's intended to be compatible
> with Lego? Or just any interlocking studded brick system? Cuz there are probably
> (I assume?) some totally non-compatible brands that are pretty bad quality.
Well, it's only my opinion, but I'd suggest that a "true" clone brand is based
on the studs-and-tubes system and is able to maintain reasonable clutch power
with LEGO bricks and plates. I used to consider the 3:1 plate:brick height
ratio to be an important factor, but Tyco and MEGABLOKS have both used a
successful 2:1 ratio, so that's out the window.
However, to my knowledge every compatible clone brand uses the 2x4 brick, so we
might propose a more detailed classification based on this nature of this brick
for each brand:
1. Compatible Clone Brand: The clone 2x4 brick matches the LEGO 2x4
brick in size and proportion, within a certain nebulously defined
threshold (microns, or what-have-you). This includes Tyco and
MEGABLOKS, for example.
2. Competitor Clone Brand: Adheres to the general interlocking brick
format but is not truly compatible because of differences in height
or proportion. May or may not work with LEGO to some extent.
Examples include Tente, Best-Lock, MEGABLOKS Nano, ATCO, and Loc-Bloc
3. Construction Toys: Designed to be wholly separate from LEGO and are
only incidentally compatible, if at all. Lincoln Logs, K'Nex, Tinker
Toy, and the like are included in this group.
> I know I've seen a page about clone brands before-- how many are out there that
> are actually compatible? Do any sites out there compare quality of clone brands?
Joseph Gonzalez maintained an excellent repository of information until he
entrusted it to me, since which time it has languished in html limbo. Here's a
brief list of compatible clone brands in what I consider to be decreasing order
of plastic quality, though my studies have hardly been exhaustive. Other
factors, such as cleverness of set design or piece:price value, are not factored
in:
Tyco, Coko, Larami, Oxford, Blok-Tek (there is evidence that these companies
have had access to the same molding equipment, so the degree of
separation between these companies is unclear. There is some clear
overlap, but other aspects, such as minifig design are distinct between
brands)
Byggis
Qubo
Hasbro's Built-To-Rule
Cobi, Block-Men (both have access to the same molding equipment, but not the
same molds or brick-types as Tyco et al)
C3 (currently in use by Mini-Mates for the Justice League line of sets)
Tandem (includes Intelli-Blox)
MEGABLOKS
Brick, Shifty (may be a single company and may have some affiliation with
Coko, but the link is uncertain and difficult to confirm. Both of these
brands are generally of much lower quality than Coko, and the brands
have violated LEGO's patent on numerous brick designs.
Ultra-Blox, Bricks By The Pound (really low quality plastic, kind of like
the plastic used in kiddie-pool toys.
There are others, but these are the ones that spring to mind first for me.
Dave!
|
|
| |
Hello,
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Tyco, Coko, Larami, Oxford, Blok-Tek (there is evidence that these companies
have had access to the same molding equipment, so the degree of
separation between these companies is unclear. There is some clear
overlap, but other aspects, such as minifig design are distinct between
brands)
|
Regarding Dave’s comment on the distinction of minifig designs between brands; I
have taken the liberty to do a rough comparison of the actual differences
between an Oxford minifig and a Lego one. I am posting it
here as it contains
some big images.
Another interesting point is that, if you look at
this thread, you’ll see that not even Lego has a consistent mold regarding its
own minifigs (Han Solo’s acute torso vs. Harry Potter’s rounder one). I’m still
pondering as to why this is, so if anyone has any information I’d appreciate
their sharing.
Finally, on my main site (http://www.redbeanstudio.net), I’ve compiled a list
of all the known (and working) websites of all the so-called ‘clone brands’ (it
can be found in the link section). I’ll appreciate it very much also if anyone
can point out if I’m missing anything. Oh, btw, I tend to classify clone brand
by the usability of its accessories by a Lego minifig, and the accessories have
to be made in hard ABS plastics (thus ruling out Kubricks). Thank you.
Red Bean
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Isaac Yue wrote:
| |
Hello,
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
Tyco, Coko, Larami, Oxford, Blok-Tek (there is evidence that these companies
have had access to the same molding equipment, so the degree of
separation between these companies is unclear. There is some clear
overlap, but other aspects, such as minifig design are distinct
between brands)
|
Regarding Dave’s comment on the distinction of minifig designs between
brands; I have taken the liberty to do a rough comparison of the actual
differences between an Oxford minifig and a Lego one. I am posting it
here as it contains
some big images.
|
That’s really interesting. The four Oxford minifigs that I have (from the tank
set 13000) have a leg design that’s considerably different from what you’ve
shown. I’ll try to scan them to show you what I mean.
| |
Finally, on my main site (http://www.redbeanstudio.net), I’ve compiled a
list of all the known (and working) websites of all the so-called ‘clone
brands’ (it can be found in the link section). I’ll appreciate it very much
also if anyone can point out if I’m missing anything. Oh, btw, I tend to
classify clone brand by the usability of its accessories by a Lego minifig,
and the accessories have to be made in hard ABS plastics (thus ruling out
Kubricks).
|
Here are two others:
Art Asylum. (The product is called
“C3,” but that part of the website apparently isn’t available quite yet).
Hasbro has the Built To Rule toys as showcased
here, but I don’t believe that the product line is being supported any longer.
Both of these brands use good quality ABS, but the accessories do not fit in
minifig hands at all.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Isaac Yue wrote:
| |
Oh, btw, I tend to classify clone brand by the usability of its accessories
by a Lego minifig, and the accessories have to be made in hard ABS plastics
(thus ruling out Kubricks).
|
Uh, wouldn’t that sorta rule out the real LEGO system? Shortswords haven’t been
made in ABS for years, and I don’t believe the minesweeper or cutlass/sabre ever
were. The huge axe and katana never were, and the whip/vine would probably
arrive damaged in many sets if it was. Or do you allow for some accessories to
be made from non-ABS plastic as long as the majority of them are?
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, David Laswell wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Isaac Yue wrote:
| |
Oh, btw, I tend to classify clone brand by the usability of its accessories
by a Lego minifig, and the accessories have to be made in hard ABS plastics
(thus ruling out Kubricks).
|
Uh, wouldn’t that sorta rule out the real LEGO system? Shortswords haven’t
been made in ABS for years, and I don’t believe the minesweeper or
cutlass/sabre ever were. The huge axe and katana never were, and the
whip/vine would probably arrive damaged in many sets if it was. Or do you
allow for some accessories to be made from non-ABS plastic as long as the
majority of them are?
|
Hey, I hadn’t thought of that. That also rules out Oxford and Coko, but it may
rule-in Stikfas, which are entirely non-compatible, other than their
accessories.
I stand by my 2x4 brick distintion!
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
That’s really interesting. The four Oxford minifigs that I have (from the
tank set 13000) have a leg design that’s considerably different from what
you’ve shown. I’ll try to scan them to show you what I mean.
|
After you said that I went back to look at all my Oxford figs, and I noticed
that the military Oxford figs I have also have different legs design (they’re
more like Lego’s with holes in the back, but are square instead of round). So
apparently Oxford have different molds for their figs, too (the other one is
from a Dragon set)!! I, too, will post some pics up later when I have some free
times.
Red Bean
|
|
| |
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, David Laswell wrote:
| |
Uh, wouldn’t that sorta rule out the real LEGO system? Shortswords haven’t
been made in ABS for years, and I don’t believe the minesweeper or
cutlass/sabre ever were. The huge axe and katana never were, and the
whip/vine would probably arrive damaged in many sets if it was. Or do you
allow for some accessories to be made from non-ABS plastic as long as the
majority of them are?
|
|
Hmm... I see you have a point there. So I guess what I really mean is as long as
the accessories don’t look out of place in the hands of a Lego minifig
(relatively speaking), I’d consider them a clone brand which I defined by
companies that are dedicated to making products that are compatible with the
Lego universe.
I think Dave’s 2x4 brick classification is a good one, too. But I’ve always been
more interested in minifigs & accessories from different brands than the actual
bricks themselves, so my way of classification is more geared towards that, I
guess. But good topic nonetheless :)
Red Bean
|
|
|
