Review: 76424 Flying Ford Anglia
Posted by CapnRex101,
Several versions of Arthur Weasley's enchanted Ford Anglia have been produced, including five at minifigure-scale. 76424 Flying Ford Anglia is the latest example and the first to be produced on its own, rather than forming part of a bigger set, as before.
I am surprised it has taken so long because this seems like an enjoyable set. The model looks better than ever and two essential characters are included, as well as their pets, for a price of only £12.99, $14.99 or €14.99.
Summary
76424 Flying Ford Anglia, 165 pieces.
£12.99 / $14.99 / €14.99 | 7.9p/9.1c/9.1c per piece.
Buy at LEGO.com »
The new Flying Ford Anglia is comfortably the best version yet, at an affordable price
- Ideal introduction to the Harry Potter theme
- Improves on earlier designs
- Great use of interior space
- Very affordable
- Door printing could be better
The set was provided for review by LEGO. All opinions expressed are those of the author.
Minifigures
Harry Potter and Ron Weasley have appeared in a number of sets wearing their clothes from the beginning of The Chamber of Secrets, as recently as 2020. These minifigures are therefore very similar to those in 75968 4 Privet Drive, but their torsos have actually been updated slightly for this set.
I am not convinced the changes were necessary, although Harry's plaid shirt looks excellent, lacking the brighter red accents used on the prior version. Ron's tan jumper is nicely detailed too, since its uneven lines resemble a knitted texture. In addition, Harry now includes dark tan legs, rather than black or dark bluish grey as before, which is more accurate to the movie.
The double-sided heads and hair pieces remain the same as usual, however. Harry's hair is cleverly designed with a parting to show his famous scar and both characters feature scared expressions as an alternative to smiles, as appropriate for this sequence! I find the large white dots used in Ron's eyes somewhat strange, but this is a minor problem.
Harry and Ron are both equipped with their wands and their pets are included as well. Hedwig looks superb, as always, thanks in particular to her striking yellow eyes, while Scabbers is also welcome. These animals are common across the entire range, but 76424 Flying Ford Anglia will doubtless serve as a good introductory set, so I am happy to see Hedwig and Scabbers here.
The Completed Model
I think LEGO renditions of the famous Flying Ford Anglia have always been quite successful, especially since 4841 Hogwarts Express was released in 2010. That design introduced many features enduring today, so subsequent models have consistently made only marginal, though beneficial, improvements. This version of the car is no exception.
There are thus many similarities between this recreation of the Ford Anglia and its immediate predecessor, from 75968 4 Privet Drive. The length of 12cm is identical and much of the body remains unchanged, but the colour has evidently been updated. I never had a problem with the earlier use of medium blue, although bright light blue looks splendid and is more faithful to the source material.
Moreover, the wheel arches are steeper and closer to the onscreen vehicle, while the bonnet has reverted to using the 4x4 roof element earlier seen on the Ford Anglia in 75953 Hogwarts Whomping Willow. As a result, the shape towards the front looks great, also employing a 1x6x1 wheel arch for the radiator shroud, as normal.
White stripes run along either side of the car, including printed sections on both doors. Sadly, there is a small difference in the shade between the white plates and the printed stripes, but I am happy the doors are printed. However, stickers are used for the number plates and another is applied inside, denoting the button for the car's invisibility booster. A large steering wheel is included as well.
As well as cosmetic changes, the new Ford Anglia can accommodate Harry and Ron seated side by side. This is a huge improvement on previous models, even though there is very little space for the characters' arms. Furthermore, you can place Hedwig on the parcel shelf behind the minifigures and still attach the roof on top.
Other than the colour and the interior, I think the new 1x2 slopes towards the rear are probably the most important update between prior models and this one. This piece is almost identical in shape to the existing 1x2 grille slope, albeit lacking the grille, so it should prove more versatile. The shape of the Ford Anglia is certainly much improved, thanks to the new slope.
The trans-orange and trans-red lights on the back look nice as well, flanking the opening boot. There is not much room for accessories available, but you can store the supplied suitcase and both wands in here, plus Scabbers. Considering the size of this model, I think the opportunity to place both minifigures, their pets and other accessories inside is commendable.
Overall
76424 Flying Ford Anglia is a simple set, but also an extremely effective one. This is definitely my favourite rendition of the Ford Anglia to date, making minor improvements to its shape and creating room for the minifigures to sit side by side, at last! Moreover, I think the updated colour looks lovely, better matching the original vehicle than medium blue.
The vehicle has appeared many times before though, so I could understand seasoned LEGO Harry Potter collectors deciding to skip this set, despite the changes since 2020. However, for the price of £12.99, $14.99 or €14.99, I think the Flying Ford Anglia is a delightful set and a nice companion for 74423 Hogwarts Express & Hogsmeade Station, released last year.
154 likes
76 comments on this article
I can't wait to get that 1x2 slope in more colors! That, and getting a standalone Ford Anglia is wonderful!
The previous color was medium blue, not medium azure @CapnRex101
The 1x2 slope without the grill looks so cursed. But at the same time it makes sense and will look good in many-a-set?? Augh... I'll get over it, but the grilled 1x2 slope will always be superior in my heart.
Finally, i’ve always desired a ford anglia but never really the large sets it required you to buy.
I will definitely pick it up, the lighter blue is much more accurate!
What if Harry Potter was Australian and Ron Weasley drove a Holden 48-215
@Murdoch17 said:
"The previous color was medium blue, not medium azure @CapnRex101"
Right you are; thanks.
Looking forward to mod this *a lot*, making it an 18+ rather than 7+ set - more accurate and detailed, a little less stable.
Very surprising that it's light royal blue seeing as it certainly looks medium blue on the box art, but then the light grey looks like dark grey on that, so something clearly went wrong with the colours on those renders.
Any idea why there are two 1x1 reddish brown round plates under the back bumper?
I really wish they had handed this off to the speed champions team who could have made the car incredible.
Been thinking about buying this set. Not because of HP, but so I can add a Ford Anglia to my town.
I am very much in favour of this being a standalone set, though I still don't think they've quite nailed the Ford Anglia. Bit too boxy still, which is understandable for a Lego set. It's fine as an unbranded magical flying car though and I'm glad they kept it cheap.
Looks good and I still don't own one.
Only flaw is the flat roof.
Time for some joyriding
I definitely prefer the look of my MOC, and I was thinking I could mod this into a Whomped version of my design. The color change kinda kills that idea, though.
"...the new Ford Anglia can accommodate Harry and Ron *seated* side by side."
Well, actually.... :-)
All jokes aside, pretty good ! Even when I'm not the biggest HP fan, I might get this one just for the car it represents. It's a bit of a shame Lego can't even properly print white on such a light color, but other than that, no complaints!
@Ridgeheart said:
"It's certainly a car."
A flying car!
@Ridgeheart said:
"It's certainly a car."
A nice looking one, too. I think I might get this one. Don't care about HP or the minifigs, but a nice 6-wide car is appreciated
At least we can get the cheaper one
Ooh those new 1x2 grille slopes without the grille are a long overdue piece, very excited.
I like it for the price point. We can always have more 15 euro sets!
Very nice, 2 figures , and €15 at rat and owl, as someone who doesn't have other HP sets , this could be my first .
I don't collect those €27 per-car Speed Champions either, so this is a better scale at almost half the price.
That wheel arch technique is very nice as well, and viable for a lot of custom cars, as those 1x1 snot brick and cheese slope come in lots of colors (for example 11027 : Creative Neon Fun or 11028 : Creative Pastel Fun have both those parts for at least 12 matching different colors, altho you'd need 2 sets for 8 1x1 + cheese slope combos)
That new 1x2 slope... such a staple from bootleg brands, but only appearing in real Lego for the first time in 2024. It is weird to see it happening.
And the set is great. Always wanted to have that vehicle but never had interest (or money) to buy the Hogwarts Express or the Privet Drive sets. The price is surprisingly good too.
Getting "Invalid car from the 70s" vibes
This is such a cute set, I think i'll get it.
Finally a set priced well
I wish LEGO would still produce proper trans clear pieces. That windscreen looks so extremely milky. What a shame that they cheaped out on that material and went the way of the off-brands and cheap copycats from China.
@WizardOfOss said:
[[[[...the new Ford Anglia can accommodate Harry and Ron *seated* side by side.]]
Well, actually.... :-)
All jokes aside, pretty good ! Even when I'm not the biggest HP fan, I might get this one just for the car it represents. It's a bit of a shame Lego can't even properly print white on such a light color, but other than that, no complaints!]]
I split two copies of 75953 with another member of my LUG (he got the castle bits, while I got the car and tree parts, and we split the minifigs). I ended up skipping the printed doors, not because of print quality, but location. They can’t print right next to the door handle, apparently, so I took a pair of plain doors and cut strips of white sticker border to make a continuous stripe. The gap on the printed doors was just too wide to ignore.
@one_wag said:
"Getting "Invalid car from the 70s" vibes"
Not sure what you mean by that, but it's actually based on a Anglia 105E DeLuxe 2-door saloon car from 1966. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Anglia
(You'll have to scroll down to the 105E section to read about what this car is based on. LEGO makes as mention in the model section as well )
This is is a Day 1 purchase for myself and my youngest son (who dearly loves HP). I'm really happy with the price...I figured this would be $20 maybe even $25.
Apparently, they used these as police cars in the UK at one point. You just need to swap out the blue doors for white, and add a police sign up top and you're good to go!
...No, I'm not joking.
I had always liked this car and was sad to let it go when I had to sell 4728 ages ago (owing to financial situation back in 2007). And never felt like buying the later incarnations in the larger sets.But now this as a standalone...a must purchase for me :)
I support the motion to outsource thematic road (ok and sky) vehicle releases as a Speed Champions crossover.
@CamberbrickGreen said:
"I support the motion to outsource thematic road (ok and sky) vehicle releases as a Speed Champions crossover. "
If it gets me a track-compatible DeLorean, I'd second the notion.
@one_wag said:
"Getting "Invalid car from the 70s" vibes"
You're right. It does look the Invacar, but with 4 wheels, not 3.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invacar
@Murdoch17 said:
"Apparently, they used these as police cars in the UK at one point. You just need to swap out the blue doors for white, and add a police sign up top and you're good to go!
...No, I'm not joking."
Indeed. Only panda cars though. Not quite the Sweeney! Also Morris Minors, Austin Allegros and Morris 1100s
@Ridgeheart said:
" @CamberbrickGreen said:
"I support the motion to outsource thematic road (ok and sky) vehicle releases as a Speed Champions crossover. "
The A-Team van, preferably with makeshift upgrades. KITT. Airwolf. Herbie. Christine. The Tumbler. The Dragula. The Bluesmobile.
I mean, I don't even LIKE cars, but I still support this motion."
Lego won't touch the Bluesmobile. (The film it's from is rated R... and I can't recall if Christine is rated the same or not.) And that Dragula comment reminds me my father has been seriously bugging me to make both Munster cars. I keep saying I have no idea where to start, but he won't relent.... Hopefully Lego puts one out to shut him up!
@MartyMcFly said:
" @one_wag said:
"Getting "Invalid car from the 70s" vibes"
You're right. It does look the Invacar, but with 4 wheels, not 3.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invacar"
Yes. The proportions are a bit out for an Anglia. Needs to be either slightly lower or longer, but that would be a bit tricky at this scale.
Having recently acquired 75953 without bag 1, this set couldn't have been better timed.
@MrClassic said:
"Looking forward to mod this *a lot*, making it an 18+ rather than 7+ set - more accurate and detailed, a little less stable.
Very surprising that it's light royal blue seeing as it certainly looks medium blue on the box art, but then the light grey looks like dark grey on that, so something clearly went wrong with the colours on those renders.
Any idea why there are two 1x1 reddish brown round plates under the back bumper?"
Rust?
Scabbers is not a pet. He's a grown man sitting on a child's lap.
(Tries not to think about this.)
Hey @CapnRex101 out of curiosity: Did you try if regular-legged Minifigures could/would fit inside too?
So glad to have this as a standalone set! I would've long liked to have one, but not enough to buy the larger sets it has been in.
@Glacier_Phoenix said:
"I really wish they had handed this off to the speed champions team who could have made the car incredible. "
Counterpoint: This car does not need to be 8-wide and scaled up way too far for minifigs.
@Murdoch17 said:
"Lego won't touch the Bluesmobile. (The film it's from is rated R... )"
Seriously? How is that rated R? Especially considering some properties Lego have made sets of....
The only thing I could think of is an old, outdated rating that has never been revised, but even then it's pretty baffling.
@Crasha said:
"Hey @CapnRex101 out of curiosity: Did you try if regular-legged Minifigures could/would fit inside too?"
I had not tried, but have now and yes they do. You need to add an extra plate on each side though, as the standing minifigures are placed in 1x2 recesses with tiles in front. With 1x2 plates filling the recesses, that creates 2x2 spaces for minifigures to sit down.
@WizardOfOss said:
" @Murdoch17 said:
"Lego won't touch the Bluesmobile. (The film it's from is rated R... )"
Seriously? How is that rated R? Especially considering some properties Lego have made sets of....
The only thing I could think of is an old, outdated rating that has never been revised, but even then it's pretty baffling."
I agree it's pretty dumb. Should be PG-13, but then again, that didn't exist in 1980. It was probably all the cursing that did it.
@CapnRex101 said:
" @Crasha said:
"Hey @CapnRex101 out of curiosity: Did you try if regular-legged Minifigures could/would fit inside too?"
I had not tried, but have now and yes they do. You need to add an extra plate on each side though, as the standing minifigures are placed in 1x2 recesses with tiles in front. With 1x2 plates filling the recesses, that creates 2x2 spaces for minifigures to sit down."
Cool, thank you for checking!
Luke's new Landspeeder set this year looks so... wizard.
@ResIpsaLoquitur said:
"Scabbers is not a pet. He's a grown man sitting on a child's lap.
(Tries not to think about this.)"
Of course he's not a pet. He's a familiar, who gets passed from one boy to another. And that does not help the situation one bit.
@WizardOfOss said:
" @Murdoch17 said:
"Lego won't touch the Bluesmobile. (The film it's from is rated R... )"
Seriously? How is that rated R? Especially considering some properties Lego have made sets of....
The only thing I could think of is an old, outdated rating that has never been revised, but even then it's pretty baffling."
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080455/parentalguide
There's no official reason attached to the rating certificate, but this list spells out all the various "infractions" that added up to net it an R rating from the MPAA. _If_ PG-13 existed when this film was submitted, it might have landed that instead, but I'm not sure I'd want to put money on it.
@PurpleDave said:
" @WizardOfOss said:
" @Murdoch17 said:
"Lego won't touch the Bluesmobile. (The film it's from is rated R... )"
Seriously? How is that rated R? Especially considering some properties Lego have made sets of....
The only thing I could think of is an old, outdated rating that has never been revised, but even then it's pretty baffling."
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080455/parentalguide
There's no official reason attached to the rating certificate, but this list spells out all the various "infractions" that added up to net it an R rating from the MPAA. _If_ PG-13 existed when this film was submitted, it might have landed that instead, but I'm not sure I'd want to put money on it."
That explanation only makes it weirder....
Meanwhile, here in the Netherlands it is rated AL, or all ages. The lowest rating in our system. The Harry Potter movies on the other hand are rated for 9+ and 12+. And rightfully so, I'd say.
@R1_Drift said:
"What if Harry Potter was Australian and Ron Weasley drove a Holden 48-215"
Oh god I wish that were true. I've always wanted a minifigure scale Lego FJ Holden. It is quite a difficult car to create.
Very happy that Lego is FINALLY selling the Ford Anglia separately to a big set, really not sure why it has taken them this long to do so. I already use the previous two Anglias as 1950s British police cars, I hope to get a bunch of this set and use the pieces for various classic 1950s/1960s cars for my city.
Great review CapnRex101, the change of colour is quite the surprise but I agree it is better. It is also annoying that after 3 recent cars they still haven't got that white stripe on the door printed right.
Lego really needs to double-strike those lighter inks on darker elements.
@Murdoch17 Yeah I've made them police cars for my city lol. I remember seeing them in Endeavor and Inspector George Gently.
@WizardOfOss:
You have to go back a ways to truly understand. And shift to sports. The 1919 World Series was rigged, and Major League Baseball hired a judge as commissioner to quell concerns about a repeat. Two years later, around 100 censorship bills were introduced at state and local levels, following a few social scandals in Hollywood leading to the general perception that Hollywood was a den of iniquity. SCOTUS ruled that the film industry was not protected by 1st Amendment right to free speech*, so rather than face an ever-changing morass of legal restrictions on what could and could not be shown, the film industry decided to self-regulate. They hired a Presbyterian church elder to oversee the earliest form of the film rating system, which came to be known as the Hays Code, after the man who was put in charge.
The Hays Code was very restrictive. You couldn't depict "white hat" characters as having _any_ vices of any sort (one cheat that Hollywood came up with was to make the protagonists criminals, which meant they could create rich characterizations). Any form of sex scene was forbidden (leading to smoking cigarettes becoming code for "just had sex"). The Hays Code turned out to be so restrictive that studios were doing anything they could to get around it, including simply ignoring it. In 1934, an amendment was made, requiring all films to be submitted for a seal of approval. And in 1946 it was made pretty clear that this "requirement" had no teeth whatsoever.
Between TV being subject to different rules, and foreign films not being subject to any, the Hays Code went through several changes, and in 1968 the first form of the modern MPAA rating system went into effect. The ratings were G (General), M (Mature), R (Restricted), and X (pretty much what you'd expect). M became GP became PG, then PG-13 was added as a fifth rating, and X became NC-17 because the MPAA never bothered to trademark that rating. And that's the modern version of the rating system.
* There have been enough landmark cases since that early SCOTUS ruling that all those early attempts to legislation the film industry would probably be overturned in modern times, but the expense of fighting this is probably enough to keep Hollywood from abandoning the MPAA rating system. Additionally, PG-13 is the "money" rating, so studios actually _want_ to slap that on big-budget films in the hopes they'll do well at the box office.
I was aware of most of that, but even then....we're talking about Blues Brothers. Which happens to have the same rating as, say, Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Natural Born Killers. Even when PG-13 didn't exist, how was it not just PG?
But then again, i'm European. We ain't afraid of no boobs! ;-)
@Glacier_Phoenix said:
"I really wish they had handed this off to the speed champions team who could have made the car incredible. "
But having the same level of detail as a Speed Champions set would probably necessitate a Speed Champions level price, this way it looks fairly good but also at a good pocket money price point.
@WizardOfOss:
So look at the OT Star Wars films, and Raiders of the Lost Ark. Cleaner language, no nudity (that got noticed), no cigarettes (at least not that I can remember), only Raiders features heavy drinking, violence in SW was heavily defused by the fact that you can't see anyone inside of Stormtrooper armor, violence in Raiders often happened off-screen...
If you want to see an extreme form of how you can play the rules in your favor, look at The Dark Knight. There is an R-rated film that's happening just inches outside of frame. Within the frame, the only person you ever see die is the guy whose back is turned towards the camera when Nurse Joker shoots him. Pencil trick? Guy's head is completely out of frame when it hits the table, and they cut away from the pencil.
@dylanwho said:
"Lego really needs to double-strike those lighter inks on darker elements. "
Motto: 'One Coat is Good Enough.'
@PurpleDave said:
" @WizardOfOss:
So look at the OT Star Wars films, and Raiders of the Lost Ark. Cleaner language, no nudity (that got noticed), no cigarettes (at least not that I can remember), only Raiders features heavy drinking, violence in SW was heavily defused by the fact that you can't see anyone inside of Stormtrooper armor, violence in Raiders often happened off-screen...
If you want to see an extreme form of how you can play the rules in your favor, look at The Dark Knight. There is an R-rated film that's happening just inches outside of frame. Within the frame, the only person you ever see die is the guy whose back is turned towards the camera when Nurse Joker shoots him. Pencil trick? Guy's head is completely out of frame when it hits the table, and they cut away from the pencil."
I beg to differ on Raiders being PG appropriate. The whole Ark causing faces melting / exploding scene is nightmare fuel... I STILL have to close my eyes for that part and I'm in my late twenties!
@Murdoch17:
I remember my friend's mom talking to mine, saying they (the parents) went to watch Raiders alone, then having decided it was okay for the kids, took them to watch it. And the reason this came up is because they didn't do a test viewing of Temple of Doom.
PG in the pre-PG-13 era was a different thing than it is today. Basically, the tamer half of PG-13 fell into PG, and the other half got kicked up to R. Ghostbusters would have never landed a PG rating if it came out a year later.
@PurpleDave said:
" @Murdoch17 :
I remember my friend's mom talking to mine, saying they (the parents) went to watch Raiders alone, then having decided it was okay for the kids, took them to watch it. And the reason this came up is because they didn't do a test viewing of Temple of Doom.
PG in the pre-PG-13 era was a different thing than it is today. Basically, the tamer half of PG-13 fell into PG, and the other half got kicked up to R. Ghostbusters would have never landed a PG rating if it came out a year later."
Well, not always the tamer half of PG-13. Raiders and Temple of Doom would be borderline if not rated R by today's standards, even if it's mostly just for one or two scenes.
That way too thick C-pillar is ruining the whole look. The previous car looked better in that regard. The new bracket from the Orient-Express and a new 1x2 slope with inverted studs would have made the pillar half as thick.
I'm actually not a Harry Potter fan at all (although I'm definitely willing to read the books/watch the films) but I'm quite interested in this set! I like the minifigures and the price is very affordable for an introductory set to the theme, so I'll try to pick this one up
(even if I don't end up enjoying the franchise, I still get a nice car, so no harm there)
@Trigger_ said:
"Well, not always the tamer half of PG-13. Raiders and Temple of Doom would be borderline if not rated R by today's standards, even if it's mostly just for one or two scenes."
The "tomato soup" in Temple of Doom did it for me as a kid.....truly stuff of nightmares....
But also looking at the examples Dave mentioned, I think there's quite a difference in how the American and at least our Dutch (can't say about other countries) rating system work. The MPAA system is very much checking boxes for what's actually visible on screen, while our system is more geared towards the intent or what is suggested. After all, you can make a highly disturbing film while not showing anything on screen. Also, besides the age suggestion, there can be separate icons for stuff like violence, strong language or scary scenes. It's all a bit more subjective, which can also backfire though, as shown by some recent controversy about some kids movies that suddenly got a much higher rating for some pretty insignificant scenes.
Yesterday I mentioned Blues Brothers is all ages here, but that turns out to be an error on IMDb. It's actually rated 6 and up, with warnings for violence and strong language. Which seems fair to me, even when it's all very much comedic in nature. A boob that's apparently visible for half a second doesn't do anything for the rating though.
@PurpleDave said:
" @WizardOfOss :
So look at the OT Star Wars films, and Raiders of the Lost Ark. Cleaner language, no nudity (that got noticed), no cigarettes (at least not that I can remember), only Raiders features heavy drinking, violence in SW was heavily defused by the fact that you can't see anyone inside of Stormtrooper armor, violence in Raiders often happened off-screen...
If you want to see an extreme form of how you can play the rules in your favor, look at The Dark Knight. There is an R-rated film that's happening just inches outside of frame. Within the frame, the only person you ever see die is the guy whose back is turned towards the camera when Nurse Joker shoots him. Pencil trick? Guy's head is completely out of frame when it hits the table, and they cut away from the pencil."
Jabba was tokin'... and, eatin' psychedelic frogs.
@AustinPowers said:
"I wish LEGO would still produce proper trans clear pieces. That windscreen looks so extremely milky. What a shame that they cheaped out on that material and went the way of the off-brands and cheap copycats from China. "
Before you complain about something, maybe you should first do some research.
So, why did LEGO really change the type of plastic used for transclear pieces?
Long story (reasonably) short. They used to use Polycarbonate, which has come under more and more scrutiny in Europe because it uses Bisphenol A in its production. Bisphenol A is quite toxic, and heavily regulated (almost banned) in Europe. You can produce Polycarbonate without Bisphenol A, but that is difficult and changes the properties of the end product.
Additionally, Polycarbonate required different molds for the same piece because it shrinks more than ABS (or MABS) during cooling. So, for every new Transclear piece, LEGO needed to make a new mold. And Polycarbonate is slightly weaker and more brittle in certain constellations, which did not allow them to make certain types of pieces in transclear.
For al of the above reasons LEGO decided to switch to MABS for transclear. This not only removed the concerns related to Polycarbonate production and ensured they would be in line with European regulations, but also allowed them to reuse molds used for regular pieces. That is why you start seeing way more types of pieces in transclear, like minifig legs, jumper plates, slopes, clamps, etc....
In short, the use of MABS for transclear has nothing to do with them cheaping out, as you so baselessly claim.
Note that LEGO does not use ABS fore transclear pieces. That is because ABS is a milky plastic and cannot be made clear. Instead they use MABS, which is indeed a clear plastic, but inherits the slightly "milky" property from ABS. I agree that MABS indeed can look slightly milky, but only under certain lighting conditions. But MABS production has come a long way in recent years, and the quality had improved quite a bit. I am sure that LEGO is constantly looking at ways to improve its quality.
Anyway, to me and many others it is hardly the dealbreaker that you make it out to be. I have plenty new sets with transclear pieces displayed here, and only when the light shines on them at very specific angles do I notice a slightly bluish, "milky" tint.
@MrBedhead:
When I worked in thermoforming, we had one customer who wanted their parts formed with ABS that had Microban added. Since they were the _ONLY_ such customer, they opted for natural ABS to save money. It was a nasty, slightly translucent cream color, similar to the most yellowed white LEGO parts I’ve ever seen (except, again, slightly translucent). My boss at the time did tell me there was a clear ABS, but that it was insanely expensive. Instead, we used PET-G for clear, which had its own issues since the router bits that worked on ABS would shatter the edge of PET-G, and we also had to thoroughly clean the trim area so no PET-G got into our ABS regrind. Anyways, I never heard any further details on this transparent ABS, but I’m wondering if he meant MABS.
@MrBedhead : thanks for the backstory, but the fact remains that the new trans-milk pieces look horrible compared to the perfectly translucent parts that LEGO had used for decades.
Perhaps the new material is more environmentally friendly (and not cheaper even though it looks exactly that way), but it still looks exactly like the material LEPIN and other copycats used to use. When I bought their Green Grocer clone years ago I swapped all the trans-whatever pieces for the LEGO versions, which back then still were of the old and crystal clear material.
Perhaps you don't notice a difference, but I wonder why, because it's so blatantly obvious, under any lighting condition.
I have built quite a few Classic Space sets I bought on ebay recently and when compared to those canopies for example the difference is immediately obvious. The old material looks like glass, really glossy, the new one looks like watered down bluish milk.
Plus, even if you don't mind (or notice) the very noticeable bluish fog like tint, you can't deny that the new material is also much softer than the old and very prone to scratches.
@AustinPowers said:
" @MrBedhead : thanks for the backstory, but the fact remains that the new trans-milk pieces look horrible compared to the perfectly translucent parts that LEGO had used for decades.
Perhaps the new material is more environmentally friendly (and not cheaper even though it looks exactly that way), but it still looks exactly like the material LEPIN and other copycats used to use. When I bought their Green Grocer clone years ago I swapped all the trans-whatever pieces for the LEGO versions, which back then still were of the old and crystal clear material.
Perhaps you don't notice a difference, but I wonder why, because it's so blatantly obvious, under any lighting condition.
I have built quite a few Classic Space sets I bought on ebay recently and when compared to those the difference is immediately obvious. The old material looks like glass, really glossy, the new one looks like watered down bluish milk. "
My main issue with your post is that they did not change to cheap out, as you so blatantly and baselessly claimed. The reason is mainly environmental, and to have more types of transparent pieces.
On the topic: I do not think the new material looks horrible, and yes I only see the difference in certain lighting conditions. You have confirmed again that you are just an old man who complains to complain, even if he has to make baseless claims that are not rooted in reality.
Also, you admit that you bought a LEPIN clone? You really have no shame, do you? I kinda understood you when you started showing your support for alternative producers, but this just shows that you will buy what you want, no matter what the consequences are. You do realize that the guys behind LEPIN are pure criminals, right?
@MrBedhead : the reason I said that they cheaped out is that this is what it appears to anyone who is not an expert in plastic moulding technology like you appear to be.
I simply went by what I see. All the alternative brands (legal as well as illegal ones) have used milky looking plastic in the past, looking exactly like the one LEGO is now using.
Since those other brands are way cheaper than LEGO (even when they are totally legit and don't steal designs or infringe on copyright), a layman has to assume that their pieces are made of cheaper materials.
But the only pieces that looked very different to original LEGO were the transparent ones.
Now the LEGO ones look like the material used by off brands.
Interestingly enough, several alternatives have changed to totally transparent material for their trans-pieces in recent years. Perhaps they use a different material again, but at least their parts look like how LEGO's used to before the switch. Best of both worlds I would say.
And as for the LEPIN set I bought, that was years ago, way before I knew who they were. Plus, I have mentioned this fact many times before on Brickset so it's not like I had made a secret of it until now.
At the time by the way I thought that the whole thing was legal. After all, the original set had been EOL for a long time, and the same was common in other industries as well.
Take car parts. After a while the design patents expire and third party manufacturers can legally produce parts/products that look identical and have the same functions as those by OEMs. And in those cases the OEM parts are still manufactured and sold at the same time as the third party offerings.
That at least wasn't the case with the LEGO/LEPIN situation.
And in general: Why is it illegal in the case of LEGO sets but legal everywhere else? I mean, it's literally the exact same thing. A third party using someone else's design and selling it for their own profit without having had the costs and effort of the original design.
@austinpowers , an intelligent man does not simply go by what he sees. An intelligent persons asks himself the question “why” before making baseless claims on a public forum.
Also, the design of any set remains the property of LEGO, even after it has retired. Like it or not, but that is how we organise things to avoid that just anyone steals a design and starts reproducing this. I honestly do not understand how you can come to a different conclusion and assume that it is ok because LEGO stopped producing the set
Ask yourself the question: it might be legal to copy a design of a specific part if the manufacturer was not smart enough to file either the design or a patent, but it is not legal to just copy the design of an entire car. Maybe it is in China, where many of your beloved alternative manufacturers come from, and where they do not give flying F about this, but where most of us come from, it is not. And we should all be very happy that it is not. I leave it up to you to figure our why.
@MrBedhead : perhaps I am indeed not intelligent (or diligent) enough to come to that conclusion, but I still don't see why there are other rules for LEGO than for other industries like the one I mentioned.
I mean seriously, we are not talking about Chinese copycats in that other field I mentioned.
When I need to buy a replacement part for my car, say a new headlight unit, or a turbocharger, or a trunk lid, I can officially buy either an OEM version or a third party product. In Germany, often both even made in Germany, fully legal. Only difference is in the price - like with LEGO versus alternatives by the way.
And all of these "parts" I mentioned are not a single piece, like a LEGO 2x4 brick, but a complex piece of engineering, made from several pieces and items, just like a LEGO set.
The OEM originally did the design, and now third parties are allowed to manufacture the same design and sell it to customers, who have the choice of whether they want the expensive original or the cheaper alternative that is of exactly the same quality (OEMs might argue otherwise - just like LEGO does - but independent tests in car magazines have proven time and time again that third party parts can be of exactly the same quality as the original - also like with LEGO).
And don't assume that I like alternatives because they are made in China. I don't care which country they are made in. One of my favorite alternatives is Cobi, and they produce entirely in the EU - not even LEGO does that!
Also I don't buy alternative brands because they are cheaper. I buy sets I like and that meet my expectations for quality and value for money - value for money doesn't equal "cheap" you know.
I love sets of certain subjects. I love prints and hate stickers. I love Classic Space, and Technic sets that deserve the name.
So I spend my money accordingly. Sometimes that means still buying LEGO (like with the new Space theme which includes some great sets - with cool designs, prints only, and at very reasonable prices too!), sometimes alternatives. Like when it comes to Star Trek for example, or train sets, or the aforementioned true Technic style sets from the likes of CaDa or Mould King, to name but two.
The gist is, when I bought that LEPIN set I thought nothing of it. I was curious at the time because back then I didn't know ANY alternatives existed at all, let alone ones that offered retired sets. If I hadn't been so surprised by the quality of that set, I might never have gotten into alternatives in the first place. Or maybe only much later than when I did.
Yes, had I known back then what I know today I wouldn't have bought a set by LEPIN specifically, or any other clone, but I would still have bought all the Star Trek sets I bought from BlueBrixx over the years, or my CaDa Technical sets, or my collection of Cobi cars and ships. Every one of those sets is 100% legal, the ones depicting real source material are all fully licenced, and the quality is excellent and in some areas (especially when it comes to prints) way above anything LEGO has produced, particularly in recent years.
Just come to think of it, another completely different example would be in the food industry.
When one buys at discounters like Aldi or Lidl one has many different kinds of products where in the same isle on the same shelf one can choose between a branded product and a much cheaper "own-brand" version. Quality-wise the branded product is often even WORSE than the "own-brand" one, going by independent tests, and sometimes both versions are even made by the same manufacturer.
It's as if LEGO would offer a cheaper version under a different label, with only insiders knowing about it.
@AustinPowers:
I have heard, however accurate, that once a set retires, the design is not as guarded under their Fair Use policy. And claims that they brought the Taj Majal back just so they had grounds to take Lepin to court. And as far as that goes, Lepin might seem no different than other clone brands.
I also remember they announced that they’d signed deals to produce sets designed by several prominent members of the AFOL community, at least one of whom went on the record saying they’d never even been contacted (and in their case, I think some of the sets would still require licensing deals with the IP owners).
And I don’t remember the brand, but I do know you’ve posted links to images of one brand that was blatantly violating patent and/or copyright on new shapes from the previous five years.
As for why it’s different for LEGO sets vs car parts, I’d venture a guess that the car parts aren’t copyrighted as works of art. And car parts aren’t generally exact matches to OEM spec, so that may work like molding a 2x4 brick with hollow studs to claim it’s distinct from a LEGO 2x4 brick. A few years ago, my dad got a 3rd party door handle when the original broke on his 1987 Toyota pickup (he couldn’t find a source for OEM parts). We ended up having to cut notches into the handle itself because otherwise you couldn’t lift it high enough to engage the door release mechanism. So, clearly not a direct copy.
@PurpleDave said:
"A few years ago, my dad got a 3rd party door handle when the original broke on his 1987 Toyota pickup (he couldn’t find a source for OEM parts). We ended up having to cut notches into the handle itself because otherwise you couldn’t lift it high enough to engage the door release mechanism. So, clearly not a direct copy."
That sounds like a cheap and in our case illegal version.
Over here it is mandatory for parts (especially safety related ones) to be made exactly to factory specs for them to be allowed to be sold and fitted at all. So the dimensions and specs necessary to perform the intended function must be identical. There might still be minimal differences that are not related to the function, but what you describe goes way beyond that. Such an item would not be allowed to be sold here. And German regulators can be really anal about these things, as is the customs department. After all, they're just as thorough when it comes to "illegal" third party brick sets.
@AustinPowers:
It's a 1987 Toyota pickup. They weren't exactly common here in 1987, but over three decades later they are almost unheard of. The door handle was probably designed based on factory specs, but without a working vehicle to test fit it with, even a minor cosmetic change, or a structural "improvement" can have unforeseen consequences.
My first thougt when I saw this car:
"This is a Trabant." - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant
That grey PLATE 1X2 W. VERTICAL should be replaced to a white one.... :/
I found it exceptionally difficult to get both minifigs in the car together, and have the doors close properly. There's very limited ways to go about it, most of which involve the characters having their arms stuck up in the air. After a few attempts I finally got them in a very specific position where the doors could close flush, but it was exceptionally fiddly to achieve.