21062 Trevi Fountain unveiled!
Posted by Huw,
This year's Architecture set has been revealed!
It's being launched eleven years after the first version of the iconic Roman landmark, 21020, was released. It has over double the number of pieces of that one, so it's larger and far more detailed. We don't have a press release, but you'll find more images after the break.
21062 Trevi Fountain
Rated 18+, 1,880 pieces
$159.99 / £139.99 / €159.99
Available at LEGO.com from 1st March
Engage your creativity with the Trevi Fountain in Rome, Italy. Immerse yourself in the details as you create the model using warm white, tan and pink elements, with gradient shades of blue to depict the water’s depth. Build the impressive Palazzo Poli facade, complete with papal crest. Add in the various sculptures, recreated in minifigure form, and enjoy the full glory of this iconic landmark.
Are you happy that this tourist attraction has been re-made, or would you rather have something new?
116 likes
90 comments on this article
Hold up, is that the CMF hobby horse head? I love it.
Still needs a few hundred minifigs crammed in front to where you can't see a thing when visiting...
Too bad the statues are bland and white but don’t have shading or grey lines indicating structure and texture
I wonder about the “warm white” colour. I can’t identify from the photos that the white bricks are different from regular white…
Is it a typo or have LEGO adressed the yellowing of white bricks by changing the name to one that takes the colour shift into account?
@Euca said:
"I wonder about the “warm white” colour. I can’t identify from the photos that the white bricks are different from regular white…
Is it a typo or have LEGO adressed the yellowing of white bricks by changing the name to one that takes the colour shift into account?"
Maybe it's saying the colour palette of white, tan and link is warm? I can't imagine they'd risk another colour tweak after the 2004 fiasco.
@merman said:
"Too bad the statues are bland and white but don’t have shading or grey lines indicating structure and texture"
I don’t know, I think that sometimes a lot of the charm comes when things aren’t excessively detailed. In this particular context I think it would stick out a bit too much.
The original Trevi Fountain is still one of my favorite Architecture sets. So overall, I'm happy to see an updated, more detailed version. But if we're only going to get one Architecture set per year; I'd much rather have something new!
It's a nice re-made set but why re-made this fountain ??
There are so many other interesting buildings around the world that you can build from Lego !
Lego make some new buildings !!!
The problem is that the horses are impossible to do in an attractive way unless on a bigger scale.
Nice building, though.
Excellent. One of the original Architecture sets I regretted missing out on due to being in my dark age.
Recreations of several other pre-2016 Architecture sets would also be most welcome!
I hope we get more Architecture sets, 1 per year is a joke.
Frogs!
Looks great, though I'm not interested enough in the subject matter for the price. I will echo comments about how it'd be nice to get more than one Architecture set per year.
@Wargorr said:
"I hope we get more Architecture sets, 1 per year is a joke."
Also more £90-100 prices Architecture sets, like 21042, 21046, and 21056.
That's the first time the mothership calls its creamy-white "warm" white I think...
But what's with the colours anyway? Pink walls?
This is no improvement on the previous version. And as others have said, enough with all the re-hashing!
Burj Khalifa, Big Ben, Taj Mahal, Eiffel Tower, Lady Liberty, Empire State Building, Guggenheim Museum, Sydney Opera House have all been done multiple times.
Architecture needs a higher output per year
Still think these sets without new moulds (I assume), stickers, minifigures and what not justifies a lower than usual price, it's actually really expensive considering what you get.
no lego coins in the water?
As someone who had the original model, this is far more impressive.
As the Lionfield guys would say: Approved!
Just needs a few football hooligans to ruin it....
I suspect that Lego have done plenty of research into the perfect time line for re-inventing older sets, dependant on the how many join, leave or re-join the hobby. 10 years seems about right to me.
Maybe 1 rehash plus 1 totally new Architecture set per year would work.
@Lamarider said:
"Still think these sets without new moulds (I assume), stickers, minifigures and what not justifies a lower than usual price, it's actually really expensive considering what you get."
They usually have a lot of recolors and quantities, and 8 cents per piece is lower than the usual price for almost every other theme
@Duq said:
"Burj Khalifa, Big Ben, Taj Mahal, Eiffel Tower, Lady Liberty, Empire State Building, Guggenheim Museum, Sydney Opera House have all been done multiple times."
I feel like it makes sense that hugely popular landmarks got made twice, several years apart.
Took a look back through:
Burj Khalifa, 5 years apart, then 3 apart, 6 years ago
Big Ben, 4 years apart, 9 years ago
Taj Mahal, reissue after 9 years, then 4 apart, 4 years ago
Eiffel Tower, 7 years apart, then 8 apart
Lady Liberty, 18 years apart, 7 years ago
Empire State Building, 10 years apart, 6 years ago
Guggenheim Museum, 8 years apart, 8 years ago
Sydney Opera House, 1 year apart, 12 years ago
And given how the new editions are usually at a wildly different scale and level of detail, I don't think you can really call them "rehashes"
Monumental.
I have 21020, and I'm not sure it needed an upgrade. Yes, there's more detail, it's bigger, but I quite liked the original.
When they did 21056, it was a good idea, have something more affordable than 10189, plus easier to display, but this, I'm just not sure.
I would have preferred something new, if this is the only architure set we're getting this year.
Ordinarily I don't like redoing sets that have been done before, but at least this looks fantastic and it's been 10+ years since the original
Why are we remaking an architecture set again? Very lazy! So many wonderful buildings and monuments that could be chosen instead.
That perfect horse head paired with the intentionally robotic appearance of Exo-Force arms looks entirely like a cyborg horse and it's all I can look at here.
I do like it, but I have the original and can't justify the cost for another one. Too many other better sets to go for.
@Bumblepants said:
"Still needs a few hundred minifigs crammed in front to where you can't see a thing when visiting..."
Hmm, sounds expensive - how about a historic recreation of the scene from "Roman Holiday"?
If you are *really* good at forced perspective you could pair it with 10298 for the famous Vespa...
The thing about white-heavy builds is they don’t photograph nearly as nicely as they look with your eyes, so I imagine this is quite lovely in person.
When they launched Notre Dame, I hope it would usher in sets like St Paul's or Florence Cathedral, a series of new buildings. Instead it's a repeat I'm not sure was needed.
Is that a new half dome piece in light nougat?
@Lamarider said:
"Still think these sets without new moulds (I assume), stickers, minifigures and what not justifies a lower than usual price, it's actually really expensive considering what you get."
Especially when you consider the large number of tiny pieces used.
Too little depth to the facade/not extended enough front for the price (for me), especially since it seems like it's pretty small (similar to the SW dioramas yet +$60).
Let's make a NEW monument for the Architecture line?
Nah!
Let's just repeat ANOTHER of of those we already did but make it bigger because that's definitely what everyone was claiming for...
LEGO is so unbelievably disconnected from its consumer base it's starting to strike an awful resemblance to Disney-LucasFilm
Seems rather an odd choice. While its a more detailed and better version of the origional 21020 set, I'd say its got rather a limited appeal. Its certainly not something that interests me, and theres plenty of other architectural treasures they could have made sets of.
Ankor Wat Perhaps? Petra? The Hagia Sophia? Machua Picchu? Just to name a couple off the top of my head.
@ADRILEGIA said:
"no lego coins in the water?"
That was my feeling too. Even just a few gold 1x1 round plates would have been a nice Easter Egg.
@djcbs said:
"Let's make a NEW monument for the Architecture line?
Nah!
Let's just repeat ANOTHER of of those we already did but make it bigger because that's definitely what everyone was claiming for...
LEGO is so unbelievably disconnected from its consumer base it's starting to strike an awful resemblance to Disney-LucasFilm"
I reckon they are spot on with this one though. More than a decade since the last one, bigger set and massive improvement in design, more adult fans now, an instantly recognizable tourist scene from Rome where many European and American buyers will have been.
I'll be interested to see a side-by-side comparison of the two.
@djcbs said:
"Let's make a NEW monument for the Architecture line?
Nah!
Let's just repeat ANOTHER of of those we already did but make it bigger because that's definitely what everyone was claiming for...
LEGO is so unbelievably disconnected from its consumer base it's starting to strike an awful resemblance to Disney-LucasFilm"
The previous version came before the resurgence from lockdowns, and basically came before the resurgence from The Lego Movie. So the vast majority of Lego fans would have no access to the old set, if they even know it exists. About 10,000 people visit the fountain each day, so it's a pretty popular landmark.
It's possible that TLG is disconnected from their consumers, but it's also possible that you're not as connected as you might think.
A no, but I like it response from me. Architecture sets have come along way, look at the old version of this for an example.
I think it's such a shame that TLG has turned the Architecture theme into Gift Shop / Souvenir material. Some of the sets from the early days were proper 'Architecture'. Sets like 21005 Fallingwater, 21009 Farnsworth House, 21010 Robie House and 21014 Villa Savoye were the products of Architects (ok, ok, every building has an architect, but you know what I mean).
These days, particularly the Skyline sets, they're just "Here's a nice little reminder of your City Break.'
Another set to add to the collection of sets that contain frog pieces!
More Fontana? Meh
@BooTheMightyHamster said:
"I think it's such a shame that TLG has turned the Architecture theme into Gift Shop / Souvenir material. Some of the sets from the early days were proper 'Architecture'. Sets like 21005 Fallingwater, 21009 Farnsworth House, 21010 Robie House and 21014 Villa Savoye were the products of Architects (ok, ok, every building has an architect, but you know what I mean).
These days, particularly the Skyline sets, they're just "Here's a nice little reminder of your City Break.'"
But because of all the complaints about regional exclusives it's more likely "Here's a souvenir of a city you never visited"...
@Wargorr said:
"I hope we get more Architecture sets, 1 per year is a joke."
I mainly buy sets from the 2000s but when it comes to newer ones I bought most of the buildings from Architecture and skylines. When there were fewer of them I rather changed my direction to Speed Champions.
In some ways, I prefer the older one. It's a more convenient size, and captures the essence just as well.
@BooTheMightyHamster said:
"Sets like 21005 Fallingwater, 21009 Farnsworth House, 21010 Robie House and 21014 Villa Savoye were the products of Architects (ok, ok, every building has an architect, but you know what I mean)."
Those are nice, but a very, very narrow slice of architecture. All are houses, the earliest was built in 1909 and the latest in 1951, all Western, and two of them are by Frank Lloyd Wright.
About the only Architecture sets that I can see a claim to not being architecture (not a good claim, but...) are 21058 , 21041 , 21036 , and 21019 , because they're monuments that are not "buildings". Just because you can't live in it doesn't make it not architecture, though.
I suggest making every previous Architecture set into a bigger, more expensive version and afterwards repeat them as an UCS remake too. That way they can make more profit from both the collectors who want to own every Architecture set and bring in new customers too. It's not like there are hundreds of other architectural wonders that haven't been depicted in LEGO form before. ;)
@fakespacesquid said:
" @djcbs said:
"Let's make a NEW monument for the Architecture line?
Nah!
Let's just repeat ANOTHER of of those we already did but make it bigger because that's definitely what everyone was claiming for...
LEGO is so unbelievably disconnected from its consumer base it's starting to strike an awful resemblance to Disney-LucasFilm"
The previous version came before the resurgence from lockdowns, and basically came before the resurgence from The Lego Movie. So the vast majority of Lego fans would have no access to the old set, if they even know it exists. About 10,000 people visit the fountain each day, so it's a pretty popular landmark.
It's possible that TLG is disconnected from their consumers, but it's also possible that you're not as connected as you might think. "
Definitely the latter. If LEGO would be 'out of touch with their fan base', I'm sure they wouldn't be raking in billions.
I find it hilarious to see (adult) collectors write stuff to the effect of: "I already have a previous version of this, make something I don't have yet." As if there aren't millions of other people worldwide who occasionally, maybe once or twice a year, buy a LEGO set, for themselves or as a present, and just go about with their lives, without ever leaving a comment on LEGO fan sites. Those are the folks LEGO is making these sets for.
Popular items get remade every few years or so, simply because they sell well. Period.
The one reliable fact with comment sections is that know-alls don't!
Disappointed at another remake. It is possible for Lego to re-release sets instead of remaking.
The problem I have with the remakes is that they make the former redundant.
@Euca said:
"I wonder about the “warm white” colour. I can’t identify from the photos that the white bricks are different from regular white…
Is it a typo or have LEGO adressed the yellowing of white bricks by changing the name to one that takes the colour shift into account?"
Very strange copy but I assume it's meant for non-Lego fans. Lego's white plastic is relatively warm in colour temperature. Compare it to their more cool white stickers and you'll see what I mean. The plastic here looks like regular white to me.
Maybe just me, but I think I prefer the original version.
@ToysFromTheAttic said:
" Definitely the latter. If LEGO would be 'out of touch with their fan base', I'm sure they wouldn't be raking in billions.
I find it hilarious to see (adult) collectors write stuff to the effect of: "I already have a previous version of this, make something I don't have yet." As if there aren't millions of other people worldwide who occasionally, maybe once or twice a year, buy a LEGO set, for themselves or as a present, and just go about with their lives, without ever leaving a comment on LEGO fan sites. Those are the folks LEGO is making these sets for.
Popular items get remade every few years or so, simply because they sell well. Period."
You must have missed the part where LEGO's profits are down.
And that LEGO has been increasingly producing flops.
And that sets are being discounted faster than ever due to a severe slow-down in demand.
Nah. You're soooooo smart compared to the rest of us that you definitely didn't miss any of that.
Where is the exclusive Anita Ekberg figure?
@djcbs said:
" @ToysFromTheAttic said:
" Definitely the latter. If LEGO would be 'out of touch with their fan base', I'm sure they wouldn't be raking in billions.
I find it hilarious to see (adult) collectors write stuff to the effect of: "I already have a previous version of this, make something I don't have yet." As if there aren't millions of other people worldwide who occasionally, maybe once or twice a year, buy a LEGO set, for themselves or as a present, and just go about with their lives, without ever leaving a comment on LEGO fan sites. Those are the folks LEGO is making these sets for.
Popular items get remade every few years or so, simply because they sell well. Period."
You must have missed the part where LEGO's profits are down.
And that LEGO has been increasingly producing flops.
And that sets are being discounted faster than ever due to a severe slow-down in demand.
Nah. You're soooooo smart compared to the rest of us that you definitely didn't miss any of that."
"Producing flops" and "discounted faster" are basically unprovable unless you happen to work there and have access to that info. Looking at Target shelves and Amazon discounts doesn't quite cut it. And sure, profit was down 5% while revenue was up 3%. That doesn't scream "TLG doesn't know what they're doing" to me.
@fakespacesquid said:
" @djcbs said:
" @ToysFromTheAttic said:
" Definitely the latter. If LEGO would be 'out of touch with their fan base', I'm sure they wouldn't be raking in billions.
I find it hilarious to see (adult) collectors write stuff to the effect of: "I already have a previous version of this, make something I don't have yet." As if there aren't millions of other people worldwide who occasionally, maybe once or twice a year, buy a LEGO set, for themselves or as a present, and just go about with their lives, without ever leaving a comment on LEGO fan sites. Those are the folks LEGO is making these sets for.
Popular items get remade every few years or so, simply because they sell well. Period."
You must have missed the part where LEGO's profits are down.
And that LEGO has been increasingly producing flops.
And that sets are being discounted faster than ever due to a severe slow-down in demand.
Nah. You're soooooo smart compared to the rest of us that you definitely didn't miss any of that."
"Producing flops" and "discounted faster" are basically unprovable unless you happen to work there and have access to that info. Looking at Target shelves and Amazon discounts doesn't quite cut it. And sure, profit was down 5% while revenue was up 3%. That doesn't scream "TLG doesn't know what they're doing" to me. "
Lol, these numbers were actually for 2023 as I couldn't find a more recent article. Found the more recent article from August last year analyzing the first half of 2024, and net profit was up 16% and revenue was up 13%.
Please tell us more about how much they're struggling and flopping, if you have more to back it up than "Travel Moments was terrible"
I seem to be the only person who voted "No, it's too big." Which is understandable, it's not all *that* big of a model. But I am rapidly running out of building, storage, and display space. If space weren't an issue, however, I'd definitely be picking this up, which is the case for a lot of sets. At least I have 21020.
@sjr60 said:
"The one reliable fact with comment sections is that know-alls don't!"
I'm reminded of the "What's Up With That" series on which an actual, recently-retired Lego designer (James May, a.k.a. @poshhammer, and no, not *that* James May) went into detail on why Lego makes some of the decisions it does. Lot of know-it-alls in those comments, too.
While I agree with the fact that LEGO often does cheap remakes and re-releases, in this case I give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't know if many people still follow the news, but you can google it for yourself:
ROME, Dec 22 (Reuters) - A restored Trevi Fountain was unveiled on Sunday after more than two months of cleaning and restoration, part of Rome's preparations for the 2025 Roman Catholic Holy Year.
That means millions and millions of more tourists than they already have in Rome. So a logical choice for a remake this year.
It's an ok set. Doesn't interest me but I do understand it's a beautiful structure and fountain with those elegant sculpted figures. The Lego set really does not capture it.
Not really a set I can see many people clamoring for.
Although, it is nice to have if you have an Italian Lego shop. Having more landmarks on sale of your home country is always a thrill to see and have.
When they did those stadium builds, I was so sure Lego was going to do Yankee Stadium. It would be a HUGE seller in NYC. It would sell out here no doubt.
Really hoping for that.
On my wish list...
Brooklyn also being such a hot place for everything right now in NYC, a large detailed Brooklyn Bridge would be excellent. A large Chrysler Building, Mount Rushmore and a micro-scale of the entire Manhattan island.
@legoDad42 said:
"When they did those stadium builds, I was so sure Lego was going to do Yankee Stadium. It would be a HUGE seller in NYC. It would sell out here no doubt.
Really hoping for that."
The only stadium I'd love to see is the original (twin towers) Wembley Stadium. Could even make it a Live Aid set!
I love the new X-wing landspeeder although it's a bit expensive for something I already have so a discount will be necessary.
It's sad that niw they charge to see the real thing. I appreciated seeing it, but quickly scampered off to a cafe for some Roman culture that wasn't so touristy.
@J0rgen said:
"Where is the exclusive Anita Ekberg figure?"
And Marcello standing just outside the fountain...
@StyleCounselor said:
"It's sad that niw they charge to see the real thing. I appreciated seeing it, but quickly scampered off to a cafe for some Roman culture that wasn't so touristy."
While increasing global affluence is generally a good thing (decreasing poverty, lowering mortality etc), an unfortunate consequence has been the added pressure on historic sites and other places of interest. When I visited the fountain about 45 years ago, there weren’t many people around. You could easily go up to the edge, toss in coins for good luck and take unobstructed pictures.
Looks quite nice, but after building 21058 The Great Pyramid of Giza, I can't help but wish for more monumental ancient buildings, especially from the Americas. I'm thinking Chichen Itza, Tikal, Copan, Teotihuacan, Machu Picchu, maybe even the Nazca lines! Would that even qualify as Architecture? Not sure but it'd be cool to see. And if they adopt the same "as it used to look" approach as for the Giza Pyramid, maybe the Athenian Parthenon would be good to do. Also, are we getting any new skyline sets? I quite liked them, and I think they could have explored more historical cities, like Florence or Memphis (the Egyptian one).
This set is built for all the non collectors out there that go to the LEGO store once a year and buy a set. These buyers do not know that in 2014 there was already a Trevi Fountain. LEGO knows it sells because of how famous it is and just keeps remaking them, maybe once every 10 years.
I forgot to mention earlier that "Three Coins in the Fountain started running through my head as soon as I saw this article. That's not just me, right.
@RCPlaneguy said:"...maybe even the Nazca lines! Would that even qualify as Architecture?"
I think the Art line might be a better fit there.
Ten years does seem a reasonable time between versions, and the change in size and detail mean it's not a "rehash" IMO. It also seems reasonable to issue a set based in Rome given this is a Jubilee year. This doesn't count as a "small" set, but I doubt they could have done anything more evocative of Rome at any scale and it *is* lovely. I'm not sure I want to buy it...but I suspect I'll have plenty of time to decide!
I do wish Architecture sets weren't limited to one per year. Perhaps there will be a new Skyline one as well? (A Skyline set of Rome would also have been a timely release for the Jubilee year, at a somewhat more affordable price for the pilgrim/tourists....)
I see gold coins are included in the build!
would much prefer something new,as the repeating is getting old as there are so many other places to do
@Zander said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"It's sad that niw they charge to see the real thing. I appreciated seeing it, but quickly scampered off to a cafe for some Roman culture that wasn't so touristy."
While increasing global affluence is generally a good thing (decreasing poverty, lowering mortality etc), an unfortunate consequence has been the added pressure on historic sites and other places of interest. When I visited the fountain about 45 years ago, there weren’t many people around. You could easily go up to the edge, toss in coins for good luck and take unobstructed pictures.
"
Yes, I suppose that's true.
You'd think that an attraction whose main interaction involves the donation of remuneration wouldn't require additional capitalization, but you'd be mistaken. :(
@MegaBlocks said:
"Disappointed at another remake. It is possible for Lego to re-release sets instead of remaking.
The problem I have with the remakes is that they make the former redundant."
LEGO don't make the old one any more, so why would they care about it? If they re-release an old set exactly as it was a decade ago, other people will complain that it is a waste of a slot and that they are doing it to undermine the value for collectors or investors of the original set. I prefer to see remakes using modern styles and parts rather than exact copies of old sets.
@pedro_lego said:
"This set is built for all the non collectors out there that go to the LEGO store once a year and buy a set. These buyers do not know that in 2014 there was already a Trevi Fountain. LEGO knows it sells because of how famous it is and just keeps remaking them, maybe once every 10 years."
It will also be sold online to people that weren't into LEGO at the time, or were and didn't buy it, or already bought the original and want an upgrade.
The fountain and figures are really well done considering the original is too detailed at this scale, possibly some light tan in-between the dark tan. The palace is an interesting architect build on it's own. I like the way the white tones down the coral which would be too bright on its own.
@legoDad42 said:
"When they did those stadium builds, I was so sure Lego was going to do Yankee Stadium. It would be a HUGE seller in NYC. It would sell out here no doubt."
Aren't most houses in New York too small for such a set? ;-)
All jokes aside, it would probably have the same issues as the stadiums they had: While many people think it's cool, it is both expensive and pretty hard to display properly. And thus no one actually bought them, not even at 50% discount.
Instead of a full stadium, I think it would make more sense to just make the facade as an Art set. I'd buy that....
@legoDad42 said:
"....and a micro-scale of the entire Manhattan island."
BlueBrixx already made a start with just Lower Manhattan, either in 17 small sets or one massive 21,515 piece set: https://www.bluebrixx.com/en/architecture/103047/Lower-Manhattan-BlueBrixx-Special
This is a beautiful remake of an amazing and famous structure!
I love the size and detail …… don’t love the price.
Might pick it up on sale at some stage.
Whilst they are remaking original (2009) Architecture sets in much larger scale …..
A new Fallingwater (with more colours) would be amazing!!……
@fakespacesquid said:
" @fakespacesquid said:
" @djcbs said:
" @ToysFromTheAttic said:
" Definitely the latter. If LEGO would be 'out of touch with their fan base', I'm sure they wouldn't be raking in billions.
I find it hilarious to see (adult) collectors write stuff to the effect of: "I already have a previous version of this, make something I don't have yet." As if there aren't millions of other people worldwide who occasionally, maybe once or twice a year, buy a LEGO set, for themselves or as a present, and just go about with their lives, without ever leaving a comment on LEGO fan sites. Those are the folks LEGO is making these sets for.
Popular items get remade every few years or so, simply because they sell well. Period."
You must have missed the part where LEGO's profits are down.
And that LEGO has been increasingly producing flops.
And that sets are being discounted faster than ever due to a severe slow-down in demand.
Nah. You're soooooo smart compared to the rest of us that you definitely didn't miss any of that."
"Producing flops" and "discounted faster" are basically unprovable unless you happen to work there and have access to that info. Looking at Target shelves and Amazon discounts doesn't quite cut it. And sure, profit was down 5% while revenue was up 3%. That doesn't scream "TLG doesn't know what they're doing" to me. "
Lol, these numbers were actually for 2023 as I couldn't find a more recent article. Found the more recent article from August last year analyzing the first half of 2024, and net profit was up 16% and revenue was up 13%.
Please tell us more about how much they're struggling and flopping, if you have more to back it up than "Travel Moments was terrible""
I think we have a Lepin troll in the midst of us. ;-)
I can understand though that people might think that if items get discounted quickly that a company isn't doing so well. However, that's not taking into consideration that A) most items actually sell really well, and make up for any potential losses, and B) discounts are done by retailers, not by the manufacturer -- meaning that LEGO has already been paid by that point.
Even the clearances on the LEGO site don't mean they're losing out on that much money, considering that overhead costs are already accounted for in the wholesale price. If they sell items online with 50 percent off the retail price, they're still making money off that. Considerably less than they would've otherwise, but still enough to turn a profit.
But yeah, this type of response is exactly what I was addressing: people who have some anecdotal experience with a brand and a gut feeling, and automatically assume the brand doen't know what they're doing. This sentiment is really quite strong in the adult toy collecting community, where a lot of folks feel companies should cater just to their needs, and not consider the wider market where major profits are to be made -- which companies need so they can also make niche items for true die-hards. Without kiddie toys and 'souvenir' displays items, no collector stuff.
@ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @fakespacesquid said:
" @fakespacesquid said:
" @djcbs said:
" @ToysFromTheAttic said:
" Definitely the latter. If LEGO would be 'out of touch with their fan base', I'm sure they wouldn't be raking in billions.
I find it hilarious to see (adult) collectors write stuff to the effect of: "I already have a previous version of this, make something I don't have yet." As if there aren't millions of other people worldwide who occasionally, maybe once or twice a year, buy a LEGO set, for themselves or as a present, and just go about with their lives, without ever leaving a comment on LEGO fan sites. Those are the folks LEGO is making these sets for.
Popular items get remade every few years or so, simply because they sell well. Period."
You must have missed the part where LEGO's profits are down.
And that LEGO has been increasingly producing flops.
And that sets are being discounted faster than ever due to a severe slow-down in demand.
Nah. You're soooooo smart compared to the rest of us that you definitely didn't miss any of that."
"Producing flops" and "discounted faster" are basically unprovable unless you happen to work there and have access to that info. Looking at Target shelves and Amazon discounts doesn't quite cut it. And sure, profit was down 5% while revenue was up 3%. That doesn't scream "TLG doesn't know what they're doing" to me. "
Lol, these numbers were actually for 2023 as I couldn't find a more recent article. Found the more recent article from August last year analyzing the first half of 2024, and net profit was up 16% and revenue was up 13%.
Please tell us more about how much they're struggling and flopping, if you have more to back it up than "Travel Moments was terrible""
I think we have a Lepin troll in the midst of us. ;-)
I can understand though that people might think that if items get discounted quickly that a company isn't doing so well. However, that's not taking into consideration that A) most items actually sell really well, and make up for any potential losses, and B) discounts are done by retailers, not by the manufacturer -- meaning that LEGO has already been paid by that point.
Even the clearances on the LEGO site don't mean they're losing out on that much money, considering that overhead costs are already accounted for in the wholesale price. If they sell items online with 50 percent off the retail price, they're still making money off that. Considerably less than they would've otherwise, but still enough to turn a profit.
But yeah, this type of response is exactly what I was addressing: people who have some anecdotal experience with a brand and a gut feeling, and automatically assume the brand doen't know what they're doing. This sentiment is really quite strong in the adult toy collecting community, where a lot of folks feel companies should cater just to their needs, and not consider the wider market where major profits are to be made -- which companies need so they can also make niche items for true die-hards. Without kiddie toys and 'souvenir' displays items, no collector stuff."
Tell me you know nothing of business and economics without telling me you know nothing of business and economics.
When LEGO launches a set like, for example, the 76215 Black Panther bust for 350€ and then has to discount it by almost 50%, that means it's A FAILURE. Because the set is NOT selling at the price that LEGO had envisioned for it and taking a severe loss in the projected profits for that set just so they can at least get rid of the produced inventory.
Same applies to other sets like the 76210 Hulkbuster, the 40634 Icons of Play etc.
LEGO isn't a company that aims at taking losses, decrease revenue or not meeting sales targets.
We're not using "anecdotal experiences" or "gut feeling". We're doing what you are unable to do d
@djcbs said:
" @ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @fakespacesquid said:
" @fakespacesquid said:
" @djcbs said:
" You must have missed the part where LEGO's profits are down.
And that LEGO has been increasingly producing flops.
And that sets are being discounted faster than ever due to a severe slow-down in demand.
Nah. You're soooooo smart compared to the rest of us that you definitely didn't miss any of that."
"Producing flops" and "discounted faster" are basically unprovable unless you happen to work there and have access to that info. Looking at Target shelves and Amazon discounts doesn't quite cut it. And sure, profit was down 5% while revenue was up 3%. That doesn't scream "TLG doesn't know what they're doing" to me. "
Lol, these numbers were actually for 2023 as I couldn't find a more recent article. Found the more recent article from August last year analyzing the first half of 2024, and net profit was up 16% and revenue was up 13%.
Please tell us more about how much they're struggling and flopping, if you have more to back it up than "Travel Moments was terrible""
I think we have a Lepin troll in the midst of us. ;-)
I can understand though that people might think that if items get discounted quickly that a company isn't doing so well. However, that's not taking into consideration that A) most items actually sell really well, and make up for any potential losses, and B) discounts are done by retailers, not by the manufacturer -- meaning that LEGO has already been paid by that point.
Even the clearances on the LEGO site don't mean they're losing out on that much money, considering that overhead costs are already accounted for in the wholesale price. If they sell items online with 50 percent off the retail price, they're still making money off that. Considerably less than they would've otherwise, but still enough to turn a profit.
But yeah, this type of response is exactly what I was addressing: people who have some anecdotal experience with a brand and a gut feeling, and automatically assume the brand doen't know what they're doing. This sentiment is really quite strong in the adult toy collecting community, where a lot of folks feel companies should cater just to their needs, and not consider the wider market where major profits are to be made -- which companies need so they can also make niche items for true die-hards. Without kiddie toys and 'souvenir' displays items, no collector stuff."
Tell me you know nothing of business and economics without telling me you know nothing of business and economics.
When LEGO launches a set like, for example, the 76215 Black Panther bust for 350€ and then has to discount it by almost 50%, that means it's A FAILURE. Because the set is NOT selling at the price that LEGO had envisioned for it and taking a severe loss in the projected profits for that set just so they can at least get rid of the produced inventory.
Same applies to other sets like the 76210 Hulkbuster, the 40634 Icons of Play etc.
LEGO isn't a company that aims at taking losses, decrease revenue or not meeting sales targets.
We're not using "anecdotal experiences" or "gut feeling". We're doing what you are unable to do d"
So your examples are two sets from 2022 and one from 2023? That's "increasingly producing flops" in your perspective, two sets out of the 500 sets from that year?
You mentioned that profit was down. Do you have a source for that? Or a source for not meeting sales targets, or a source for decreasing revenue, or a source for taking losses? Because that goes counter to every source I've seen (the reports are all available here on Brickset).
@ItisNoe said:
"Too little depth to the facade/not extended enough front for the price (for me), especially since it seems like it's pretty small (similar to the SW dioramas yet +$60). "
Well, it's almost as wide as the Natural History Museum and only 6cm smaller. But it is indeed expensive.
@djcbs said:
"
When LEGO launches a set like, for example, the 76215 Black Panther bust for 350€ and then has to discount it by almost 50%, that means it's A FAILURE. Because the set is NOT selling at the price that LEGO had envisioned for it and taking a severe loss in the projected profits for that set just so they can at least get rid of the produced inventory.
Same applies to other sets like the 76210 Hulkbuster, the 40634 Icons of Play etc.
"
Yeah the Black Panther bust set was a failure, obviously poor sales and derided by fans. But no doubt any loss of projected profit on that was more than made up by good sales on other Marvel sets, let alone the rest of their output.
@CC said:
"Is that a new half dome piece in light nougat?"
That was the first thing that caught my eye as well! I hope it is new and they make it in more colours soon. I am building a larger version of Madam Malkin's robes and these would be perfect over the doorways.
@Vickinator said:
" @CC said:
"Is that a new half dome piece in light nougat?"
That was the first thing that caught my eye as well! I hope it is new and they make it in more colours soon. I am building a larger version of Madam Malkin's robes and these would be perfect over the doorways."
The designer mentions that piece in Tiago's video about the set... she said it was new, but not designed for this set specifically, it's newly designed for another 2025 set.
@WizardOfOss said:
" @legoDad42 said:
"When they did those stadium builds, I was so sure Lego was going to do Yankee Stadium. It would be a HUGE seller in NYC. It would sell out here no doubt."
Aren't most houses in New York too small for such a set? ;-)
All jokes aside, it would probably have the same issues as the stadiums they had: While many people think it's cool, it is both expensive and pretty hard to display properly. And thus no one actually bought them, not even at 50% discount.
Instead of a full stadium, I think it would make more sense to just make the facade as an Art set. I'd buy that....
@legoDad42 said:
"....and a micro-scale of the entire Manhattan island."
BlueBrixx already made a start with just Lower Manhattan, either in 17 small sets or one massive 21,515 piece set: https://www.bluebrixx.com/en/architecture/103047/Lower-Manhattan-BlueBrixx-Special"
Thx so much for the link Wizard.
Gonna' check that massive set out!
I'ld say it's pretty accurate, aside from the very detailed statues of the real thing, which is undertsandable and doesn't matter. I'ld buy it in a heartbeat if I had visited the place. Looks beautiful, made me wanna visit Rome even more.
Such a beautiful set! Too bad it's out of my regular buying themes. Still it's way better than the older iteration. I wonder how it would look in minifig/almost-minifig scale though
While it looks like a great model I really wish they had done something new as there are still so many major landmarks in the world that they do not need to start recycling landmarks yet. I've been a fan of architecture since day 1 and have them all. Since they add so few architecture sets each year now it would be nice to focus on attractions that do not yet have a set.
I much preferred the earlier Architecture sets that were more 'architecture' than the landmarks and monuments we've been getting more recently (nothing wrong with these sets, many are amazing)
I'd like to see more architectural styles covered - many styles would lend themselves to recreation in bricks...
@fakespacesquid said:
" @djcbs said:
" @ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @fakespacesquid said:
" @fakespacesquid said:
" @djcbs said:
" You must have missed the part where LEGO's profits are down.
And that LEGO has been increasingly producing flops.
And that sets are being discounted faster than ever due to a severe slow-down in demand.
Nah. You're soooooo smart compared to the rest of us that you definitely didn't miss any of that."
"Producing flops" and "discounted faster" are basically unprovable unless you happen to work there and have access to that info. Looking at Target shelves and Amazon discounts doesn't quite cut it. And sure, profit was down 5% while revenue was up 3%. That doesn't scream "TLG doesn't know what they're doing" to me. "
Lol, these numbers were actually for 2023 as I couldn't find a more recent article. Found the more recent article from August last year analyzing the first half of 2024, and net profit was up 16% and revenue was up 13%.
Please tell us more about how much they're struggling and flopping, if you have more to back it up than "Travel Moments was terrible""
I think we have a Lepin troll in the midst of us. ;-)
I can understand though that people might think that if items get discounted quickly that a company isn't doing so well. However, that's not taking into consideration that A) most items actually sell really well, and make up for any potential losses, and B) discounts are done by retailers, not by the manufacturer -- meaning that LEGO has already been paid by that point.
Even the clearances on the LEGO site don't mean they're losing out on that much money, considering that overhead costs are already accounted for in the wholesale price. If they sell items online with 50 percent off the retail price, they're still making money off that. Considerably less than they would've otherwise, but still enough to turn a profit.."
Tell me you know nothing of business and economics without telling me you know nothing of business and economics.
When LEGO launches a set like, for example, the 76215 Black Panther bust for 350€ and then has to discount it by almost 50%, that means it's A FAILURE. Because the set is NOT selling at the price that LEGO had envisioned for it and taking a severe loss in the projected profits for that set just so they can at least get rid of the produced inventory.
Same applies to other sets like the 76210 Hulkbuster, the 40634 Icons of Play etc.
LEGO isn't a company that aims at taking losses, decrease revenue or not meeting sales targets.
We're not using "anecdotal experiences" or "gut feeling". We're doing what you are unable to do d"
So your examples are two sets from 2022 and one from 2023? That's "increasingly producing flops" in your perspective, two sets out of the 500 sets from that year?
You mentioned that profit was down. Do you have a source for that? Or a source for not meeting sales targets, or a source for decreasing revenue, or a source for taking losses? Because that goes counter to every source I've seen (the reports are all available here on Brickset). "
This guy obviously can't produce any evidence, because it isn't there, so he'll just keep repeating the same talking point. Sure, some sets don't sell well, we all can agree on that, and I'm not claiming otherwise, but TLG can afford to have some flops because of their diverse product portfolio that is, overwhelmingly, profitable. If anyone claims otherwise, please show me the numbers.