Former LEGO designer finds illegal technique in new model

When you make a toy and try to save as much as possible to make a very affordable product, you obviously have to cut costs in the controls. It happens.

I hadn't seen Tiago's video, but I did see a short about this issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQFtZpKr3_w And now there's *another* dodgy connection? I bought 76205 despite its issue with the socket joint pieces on the fender piece, but this one, I'm not sure I'll be as willing to ignore.

@Crux said:
"The disgust that courses through me, you could bottle it."

You're leaving something important out. How big of a bottle would be required?

actually, looking at the pics again, there's more than enough space to have used a recolor of 15444. god forbid LEGO spend just a little bit more on completely reasonable recolors

@TheOtherMike said:
"I bought 76205 despite its issue with the socket joint pieces on the fender piece…"

I bought three copies _because_ of the intersection, figuring the set might be subjected to a recall, or at least modified mid-run. I had a heck of a time actually buying them before street date, too. Between Meijer, Target, and Walmart, I think I found them shelved at least 4-5 times before they were supposed to go on sale, but only one of those three chains let me buy them a few days early. The other two had the street date coded into their inventory software, so whenever it was scanned in prior to that date, it would inform the cashier that they needed to confiscate the set(s), and it wouldn’t even ring up normally at self-check. You’d just get the error message and your screen would lock up until a cashier came over and cleared it. And confiscated the set.

This is a case where 1x2x1 fence would be perfect. I so wish Lego would eventually make 1x2x1 fence and also a 2x2x1 corner fence. Most recent brackets or snot bricks have studs on the outside. The fence parts allow to receive the studs from another brick - just like the back of the headlight brick (as shown in step 167 of the Ford model T). And since the fence does not protrude like the brackets do (2LU), it makes for clean designs (YMMV). That said, a 1x2x1 fence brick would not allow for a top connection - but is it really necessary here? It can just be covered up and the look would be the same.

Part 3633 is the 1x4x1 fence.

@Graysmith said:
"I will certainly hold off on buying the set until this is corrected."

Alternatively, you could pick up the rare error variant before it's pulled!

If this was in a City or Friends set, likely to be built and rebuilt dozens of times by young children, this might be of some concern. In a set like this, which is likely to be built once, then stay on a shelf for life, I couldn't give a jot about an 'illegal' connection that might slightly stress a couple of bricks. Still looking forward to getting this excellent set on March 1st, while a handful of others are left clutching their pearls and grizzling in horror!

@Murdoch17 said:

Best comment in the thread, hands down.]]

Thank you! :)

@BrickHeadzsStrongestSoldieress said:
"actually, looking at the pics again, there's more than enough space to have used a recolor of 15444. god forbid LEGO spend just a little bit more on completely reasonable recolors"

You realize that https://brickset.com/parts/design-15444 hasn't been used since 2017, right? They would have decommissioned and destroyed the mold years ago, so a recolor is not an option. Yes, they could cut a new one, but that would affect the set's cost, too, and I don't think they cut new molds for situations like this, anyway.

@CapnRex101 said:
" @djcbs said:
""Do you have theories as to why this has been allowed to happen?"

Well, I'm not expecting LAN members to notice this because they get stuff for free to shill for LEGO, but the rest of us has been saying for YEARS now that the quality standards at LEGO have been falling severely.
In fact, the more the prices go up, the more the quality goes down."

It was literally a LAN member who identified this problem and reported it, so I am not sure what more Fan Media can actually do.

You would have no way of knowing this, so I cannot blame you for doubting it, but LAN members give a huge amount of critical feedback on countless topics."

That is exactly THE problem. Such criticism is easily ignored.

You can't softball a company that acts like a Putin-Stalin hybrid when it comes to media coverage.

DOWN WITH THE LAN!!!

Why don't people just sand down the stud like I had to in the 75317 pram instead of blaming TLG for every little issue that is their fault?

@CapnRex101 said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @CapnRex101 said:
" @djcbs said:
""Do you have theories as to why this has been allowed to happen?"

Well, I'm not expecting LAN members to notice this because they get stuff for free to shill for LEGO, but the rest of us has been saying for YEARS now that the quality standards at LEGO have been falling severely.
In fact, the more the prices go up, the more the quality goes down."

It was literally a LAN member who identified this problem and reported it, so I am not sure what more Fan Media can actually do.

You would have no way of knowing this, so I cannot blame you for doubting it, but LAN members give a huge amount of critical feedback on countless topics."

That is exactly THE problem. Such criticism is easily ignored.

You can't softball a company that acts like a Putin-Stalin hybrid when it comes to media coverage.

DOWN WITH THE LAN!!!"

A ridiculous overstatement, obviously, but presumably you have an idea for a method of giving criticism that cannot be ignored?"

The bright, healing light of sunshine! Do it in public. Soft, gentle mutterings inside the dark, private Echo Chamber are meaningless other than assuaging the easily-bruised self-righteous feelings of the LANNIES.

As long as Lego promotion is based on control, access, and happy Lego fun time with friends, we will never believe. Bias is not subjective. It is an objective measure, i.e., have you placed yourself in a position to be subject to pessure.

Lego requires all LAN members to be in a position where they are subject to such pressure.

@WizardOfOss said:
" @Sandinista said:
" @Bricklunch said:
"Do you have theories as to why this has been allowed to happen?

Corporate greed?"

Or too much time in a CAD model"

Assuming they use proper software with a accurate parts catalog, that should automatically detect problems like this. Even ones that would be barely noticeable in real life.

This on the other hand is one you don't need software for to detect...."

lol, lmao even

Maybe it can be fixed by using a 1x1 behind the headlight brick? Surely it'd function the same.

Right to jail!

@djcbs said:
""Do you have theories as to why this has been allowed to happen?"

Well, I'm not expecting LAN members to notice this because they get stuff for free to shill for LEGO, but the rest of us has been saying for YEARS now that the quality standards at LEGO have been falling severely.
In fact, the more the prices go up, the more the quality goes down.

That being said, I'm of the mind that there's no such thing as an "illegal technique". We are free to do whatever we want with our pieces and LEGO is as well.
As long as the QUALITY OF THE BRICKS is good, there's no issue. A ton of sets from the 70's, 80's and 90's used "illegal" techniques and they're all still perfectly fine.
Whereas more modern sets are falling apart because of the quality of some bricks (remember the dark red fiasco? It wasn't that long ago).

So what concerns me here is that they're using an "illegal" technique in a time when the quality of their products is also falling severely."

Interestingly, this particular example was not in Jamie's presentation:
https://casadebricks.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Stressing-The-Elements.pdf

(An aside, the redesign of the 1x1 with clip on top was done specifically to make the technique on page 16 possible)

@TheOtherMike said:
"I hadn't seen Tiago's video, but I did see a short about this issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQFtZpKr3_w And now there's *another* dodgy connection? I bought 76205 despite its issue with the socket joint pieces on the fender piece, but this one, I'm not sure I'll be as willing to ignore.

@Crux said:
"The disgust that courses through me, you could bottle it."

You're leaving something important out. How big of a bottle would be required?"

I was debating what bottled disgust would look like. Kombucha? Fermented herring?

@Sandinista said:
" @WizardOfOss said:
" @Sandinista said:
" @Bricklunch said:
"Do you have theories as to why this has been allowed to happen?

Corporate greed?"

Or too much time in a CAD model"

Assuming they use proper software with a accurate parts catalog, that should automatically detect problems like this. Even ones that would be barely noticeable in real life.

This on the other hand is one you don't need software for to detect...."

I work with a CAD Design system for a living, and our clash detection software is abysmal. If my multi billion dollar company can't get it's piping software right, I have less faith in one that makes toys lol"

you speak as if LEGO themselves isn't also a multi-billion dollar company

This is another one actually in recent times. Its clear they desiging most models by programs now.

I know the headlight part for decades but was not aware of that characteristic.

This is the reason the headlight was replaced by the brick with stud on one side, but seems the empty back of the headlight brick is more important here for connection. Just unsure why the other headlight brick is needed and if so cannot they be placed on the same level to connect together?

@SweSarah said:
" @TheOtherMike said:
"I hadn't seen Tiago's video, but I did see a short about this issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQFtZpKr3_w And now there's *another* dodgy connection? I bought 76205 despite its issue with the socket joint pieces on the fender piece, but this one, I'm not sure I'll be as willing to ignore.

@Crux said:
"The disgust that courses through me, you could bottle it."

You're leaving something important out. How big of a bottle would be required?"

I was debating what bottled disgust would look like. Kombucha? Fermented herring?"

I bottled you a delicious bass.

You know, quality brand and so on...

Guys, you definitely think too high of Lego.

Lego sets nowadays are throw-away 3D puzzles, not intricate mechanical and robust structures with longevity and rebuildability anymore.

Or do you really think any of these "issues" have any impact on sales? No? See, Lego doesn't think so, too.

@StyleCounselor said:
" @SweSarah said:
" @TheOtherMike said:
"I hadn't seen Tiago's video, but I did see a short about this issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQFtZpKr3_w And now there's *another* dodgy connection? I bought 76205 despite its issue with the socket joint pieces on the fender piece, but this one, I'm not sure I'll be as willing to ignore.

@Crux said:
"The disgust that courses through me, you could bottle it."

You're leaving something important out. How big of a bottle would be required?"

I was debating what bottled disgust would look like. Kombucha? Fermented herring?"

I bottled you a delicious bass."

That stuff is dangerous. I hear you can get totally addicted to it.

@chrisaw said:
" @Brick_t_ said:
"I guess more benefits are made by cutting budget of QC or so.”"

Where’s the report the shows that budgets for QC have been cut? Or is this just the usual hyperbole thrown about.

"

It's just a theory to be proven or disproven.

So far, experiments still support the theory and can clearly explain the effect.

So a disprove and/or a better theory is needed. Until then, it's a valid claim.

Could a 1x2 technic brick with 2 holes not rectify this design flaw? Or are the holes not at the right height?

This matters very little to me. I'm sure those who find this unacceptable will not buy this set, ever.

I can see that this is an annoyance for people who are new to Lego: It will be hard to put the plate on top of the Erling-bricks. But beyond that, what is the problem?

Us Lego fans can redesign this in a couple of minutes to be legal.

I have a much bigger gripe the 42177 Technic Mercedes G. The greenhouse is put together by bending the technic bricks quite a lot, especially in the rear part of the cabin. I took extra care to make sure I had built it right, as the bending just didn't seem right to me.

I can't see how that made it through quality control, and even for a Technic fan like me it is not easy to redesign to be legal.

@Hiratha said:
" @magni_nominis_umbra said:
" @Rare_White_Ape said:
"Can someone smarter than me please catalogue all of the major faults in Lego sets, plot them over time on a graph, and then do a write-up for Brickset?

I'd love to see if the frequency of them actually goes up each year or changes as a percentage of new sets released, because I'm sure that humans are very bad at measuring that sort of thing and I'd like to compare it to the opinions of people who state loudly and with full certainty that Lego's quality control is in the toilet lately."

I think my favourite will forever be the fact that TLG spend squillions on computerised inventories, part sorting and storage, super accurate weighing and measuring and probably these days AI 'robot eyes' to get their sets out the door yet personal (and that of everyone I deliberately go out of my way to ask) experience appears to show a set inventory error rate of 5-10%.
In the 50's through 80's, this was done by a bunch of nannas from Billund who by the now alien method of "showing up and doing your GD job" managed a close to zero error rate.
Excuse me, I've just noticed a cloud I need to go and yell at..."

… I think the only inventory mistake I’ve had from Lego was while trying out the new online Build a Minifigure widget (my poor minifig turned up bald). My sets have always had all the pieces. 5-10%? Really? Maybe it’s regional."

I recall the Sherlock Book Nook had a 1x2 orange/noguat shade brick missing when I built it, which I had to request from lego as I had no spares and there was a set before which I can't remember now that with a missing piece that I also had to request.

Then there was the architecture Buckingham Palace that had an entire bag missing, which I had to phone customer service about, send the set back, and receive a new, complete set.

Then there's the failure of the dark red bricks and plates in the modular fire station and cafe corner which need reordering or buying when I've had to dismantle and rebuild each time I'm forced to move.

And let's not forget the Enterprise or Orient express sticker sagas...

As for this mistake, I'm not surprised there's something, but there should be a way to fix it.

@Hiratha said:
" @magni_nominis_umbra said:
" @Rare_White_Ape said:
"Can someone smarter than me please catalogue all of the major faults in Lego sets, plot them over time on a graph, and then do a write-up for Brickset?

I'd love to see if the frequency of them actually goes up each year or changes as a percentage of new sets released, because I'm sure that humans are very bad at measuring that sort of thing and I'd like to compare it to the opinions of people who state loudly and with full certainty that Lego's quality control is in the toilet lately."

I think my favourite will forever be the fact that TLG spend squillions on computerised inventories, part sorting and storage, super accurate weighing and measuring and probably these days AI 'robot eyes' to get their sets out the door yet personal (and that of everyone I deliberately go out of my way to ask) experience appears to show a set inventory error rate of 5-10%.
In the 50's through 80's, this was done by a bunch of nannas from Billund who by the now alien method of "showing up and doing your GD job" managed a close to zero error rate.
Excuse me, I've just noticed a cloud I need to go and yell at..."

… I think the only inventory mistake I’ve had from Lego was while trying out the new online Build a Minifigure widget (my poor minifig turned up bald). My sets have always had all the pieces. 5-10%? Really? Maybe it’s regional."

The closest to an inventory mistake I've had in recent years was when the parts that were supposed to be in bag twelve in 10312 were actually in the bag thirteen. I already had the replacements on the way when I discovered (via this YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gRVQVos32lY) that the error was in the instructions, not the packing. And @Rare_White_Ape, you'd need to nail down a definition of "major fault" before you could write such an article.

@Brickchap said:
"Lego's responses to these concerns:

AFOL: Did you use an illegal technique for the Model T Ford Icons set?

Lego: You want answers?

AFOL: I want the truth!

Lego: YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH.

Lego:
We live in a world where shops have shelves. And those shelves need Lego sets on them. Whose gonna design the sets? You? Jangbricks? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom.
You weep about lacking quality standards and you curse illegal techniques. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that placing a headlight brick against another, while tragic, probably saves extra pieces.
You dont want the truth because deep down in places you dont talk about on Eurobricks,
You want those sets on that shelf. You need them on that shelf.

I have neither the time, nor inclination, to explain myself to a man who gets enjoyment out of the complex interlocking brick system I provide, and then *questions* the manner in which I provide it! Id rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way.
Otherwise, I suggest you submit a project to IDEAS for it to be rejected. Either way, I dont give a *damn* what you think youre entitled to!

AFOLs: Did you use an illegal technique?

Lego: YOU'RE GOD-DAMN RIGHT I DID!"

Absolute Cinema

@TheOtherMike said:
"And @Rare_White_Ape, you'd need to nail down a definition of "major fault" before you could write such an article."

That would be the job for the hypothetical smarter-person-than-me who writes the article ;)

@Crux said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @SweSarah said:
" @TheOtherMike said:
"I hadn't seen Tiago's video, but I did see a short about this issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQFtZpKr3_w And now there's *another* dodgy connection? I bought 76205 despite its issue with the socket joint pieces on the fender piece, but this one, I'm not sure I'll be as willing to ignore.

@Crux said:
"The disgust that courses through me, you could bottle it."

You're leaving something important out. How big of a bottle would be required?"

I was debating what bottled disgust would look like. Kombucha? Fermented herring?"

I bottled you a delicious bass."

That stuff is dangerous. I hear you can get totally addicted to it."

Only if you add a drum.

@WokePope said:
"The unreliable Technic axle mentioned in the review is an even bigger issue, IMO. Frankly these errors put me off buying the model, even if I am not a particularly finnicky person most times.

LEGO charges a premium so their products should reflect that. A set having not one but TWO major construction issues isn't OK in my book."

That axle issue is awful. It looks like it could be dealt with fairly easily too.

I always chuckle when I see or hear, "illegal" building techniques. It's not like the Brick Police are going to arrest me because I've connected pieces in a way that might be objectionable to other people. And in this specific example, I would file the side stud shorter so that it wouldn't cause stress on the other pieces.

@randyhoar said:
"Could a 1x2 technic brick with 2 holes not rectify this design flaw? Or are the holes not at the right height?"

I'd think so too. Yes, the hole in that is 0,1 mm higher, but considering how it is used in this specific case I can't imagine that being a problem here.

Its a Ford its normal

@PurpleDave said:
"The binoculars are messy because the piece isn't a plate, but a pair of bars linked together. And they still have to function as bars, so minifigs can hold them. Cut away too much of the underside, and it affects the outside in a way that makes it impossible for a minifig to grip them. So when put on a hollow stud, they don't seat all the way. And putting them on a solid stud is worse, because the raised logo basically doubles the gap below the part. To make it seat the way a plate does, you'd need the full height of a solid stud w/ logo on top, plus a little extra for an air gap, at which point a minifig would be unable to hold it properly."
No chance of an updated mould in other words? You'd think LEGO designers and quality department should be aware of this, yet 40955 is the at least third time binoculars have been used illegally in recent years. Still, the binoculars in the original fan design of 40448 Vintage Car were removed just because of this issue!

I don't understand why people call this a QC-problem.
This is NOT a QC problem,

This is simply stupidity, laziness, a blind designer...

@AustinPowers said:
" @Brickchap said:
"Lego's responses to these concerns:

AFOL: Did you use an illegal technique for the Model T Ford Icons set?

Lego: You want answers?

AFOL: I want the truth!

Lego: YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH.

Lego:
We live in a world where shops have shelves. And those shelves need Lego sets on them. Whose gonna design the sets? You? Jangbricks? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom.
You weep about lacking quality standards and you curse illegal techniques. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know, that placing a headlight brick against another, while tragic, probably saves extra pieces.
You dont want the truth because deep down in places you dont talk about on Eurobricks,
You want those sets on that shelf. You need them on that shelf.

I have neither the time, nor inclination, to explain myself to a man who gets enjoyment out of the complex interlocking brick system I provide, and then *questions* the manner in which I provide it! Id rather you just said "thank you" and went on your way.
Otherwise, I suggest you submit a project to IDEAS for it to be rejected. Either way, I dont give a *damn* what you think youre entitled to!

AFOLs: Did you use an illegal technique?

Lego: YOU'RE GOD-DAMN RIGHT I DID!"
THAT is the kind of comment I come here for.
Downright genius.

And just imagine that exchange in the voices of Jack Nicholson and Tom Cruise.

Which reminds me, I have to re-watch the movie again. So awesome. "

I'm hearing the above long quote from Lego in the voice of Peter Weller (Admiral Alexander Marcus in Star Trek into Darkness)

Lego's just trying to add to the realism... it wouldn't be a Ford without glitches and recalls.

@MrClassic said:
" @PurpleDave said:
"The binoculars are messy because the piece isn't a plate, but a pair of bars linked together. And they still have to function as bars, so minifigs can hold them. Cut away too much of the underside, and it affects the outside in a way that makes it impossible for a minifig to grip them. So when put on a hollow stud, they don't seat all the way. And putting them on a solid stud is worse, because the raised logo basically doubles the gap below the part. To make it seat the way a plate does, you'd need the full height of a solid stud w/ logo on top, plus a little extra for an air gap, at which point a minifig would be unable to hold it properly."
No chance of an updated mould in other words? You'd think LEGO designers and quality department should be aware of this, yet 40955 is the at least third time binoculars have been used illegally in recent years. Still, the binoculars in the original fan design of 40448 Vintage Car were removed just because of this issue!"

Doubtful. Any change they make would impact current connectivity, which causes problems with backwards compatibility. For a minifig accessory to become not minifig compatible is a huge problem.

Right, because something we all have noticed as Lego fans is that if we post a criticism in public Lego immediately responds, le gasp! and we see immediate results. Because that’s how sunlight works!

Anyway does anyone know why the new Juggernaut and MTT kits are still so expensive at RRP? The Sunlight Phone might not be working.

Did they ever update or make an announcement about the previous sets with mistakes?

@yellowcastle said:
" @PurpleDave said:
"...Now, the funny thing is, BDP is subject to the same scrutiny as the official sets, and 910016 was known to have used an illegal technique in the original design. It was modified to eliminate this in the official release, but then buyers noted that the safe mechanism no longer worked with the “corrected” design. And then the original designer had a graphic posted right away suggesting anyone who had problems with the function should revise the construction to use the original illegal technique."

Great, now I feel bad for modifying my safe so that it could work right. This is still one of if not my favorite BDP set to date. :o)"

It's one of only four BDP sets on my wanted list, the other three being 910011, 910015, and 910028. And since 910015 and 910028 don't have sticker sheets, I really should just source the parts from PaB or Bricklink to build them.

@lekalog said:
" @Sandinista said:
" @WizardOfOss said:
" @Sandinista said:
" @Bricklunch said:
"Do you have theories as to why this has been allowed to happen?

Corporate greed?"

Or too much time in a CAD model"

Assuming they use proper software with a accurate parts catalog, that should automatically detect problems like this. Even ones that would be barely noticeable in real life.

This on the other hand is one you don't need software for to detect...."

I work with a CAD Design system for a living, and our clash detection software is abysmal. If my multi billion dollar company can't get it's piping software right, I have less faith in one that makes toys lol"

you speak as if LEGO themselves isn't also a multi-billion dollar company"

Oil and gas got nothing on Lego lol

@Sandinista said:
" @lekalog said:
" @Sandinista said:
" @WizardOfOss said:
" @Sandinista said:
" @Bricklunch said:
"Do you have theories as to why this has been allowed to happen?

Corporate greed?"

Or too much time in a CAD model"

Assuming they use proper software with a accurate parts catalog, that should automatically detect problems like this. Even ones that would be barely noticeable in real life.

This on the other hand is one you don't need software for to detect...."

I work with a CAD Design system for a living, and our clash detection software is abysmal. If my multi billion dollar company can't get it's piping software right, I have less faith in one that makes toys lol"

you speak as if LEGO themselves isn't also a multi-billion dollar company"

Oil and gas got nothing on Lego lol"

I don't know, I think most politicians consider oil and gas a better use of petroleum. Politicians can be really foolish...

@yellowcastle said:
" @yellowcastle said:
" @MisterBrickster said:
" @CapnRex101 said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @CapnRex101 said:
"A ridiculous overstatement, obviously, but presumably you have an idea for a method of giving criticism that cannot be ignored?"

The bright, healing light of sunshine! Do it in public. Soft, gentle mutterings inside the dark, private Echo Chamber are meaningless other than assuaging the easily-bruised self-righteous feelings of the LANNIES.

As long as Lego promotion is based on control, access, and happy Lego fun time with friends, we will never believe. Bias is not subjective. It is an objective measure, i.e., have you placed yourself in a position to be subject to pessure.

Lego requires all LAN members to be in a position where they are subject to such pressure. "

Fan Media already give our criticisms publicly and this article, plus Tiago's review, are prime examples. However, there are occasions where criticism and suggestions are more effective when you have a chance to speak to specific individuals directly.

As for your other comments, I think it is obvious where the bias lies, to the point of deluded and blatantly false conspiracies about the LAN."

Why even engage with this nonsense ? All it does is drag their comments back into visibility for people who have blocked them. It’s clearly either a tinfoil hat, or, more likely, a bad case of “y U gEt FrEe lEgOs NoT mE”"

I actually appreciate the level of engagement. There's clearly a narrative out there that "the LAN is not doing its job for the community" or such and that feeling does not seem to be held by just a random individual. I welcome Brickset addressing this narrative and challenging it, where they see fit. I have not leveraged the newish "block" function here but I would consider it for those who type in "magazine ransom letter style" with random upper and lower case letters. :o)"

@PurpleDave - my “LAN” response was to MisterBrickster. I ended up posting back to back so it may have been conflated with the Safe response."

The position of privilege you accept from Lego as a LAN member subjects you to their conditions. That is a position that is based solely upon the discretion of Lego. Thus, you are subject to bias whether you recognize it or not.

No journalist (or other professional) of any integrity would accept such a position. To call yourself 'objective' is your delusion, not mine.

When it comes to critiques, you do a far better job than most. I do appreciate it.

Yet, it is ridiculous to make excuses for the LAN by claiming they are covertly working to create change. The LAN/Lego couldn't care less about the fan community as long as their profits (LAN and Lego) continue.

Attacking me as a conspiracy theorist is base slander and I expect better from you. Everything I have asserted comes from direct evidence.

The LAN members poisoned our water supply, burned our crops, and delivered a plague unto our houses!

I would have imagined that when they build these sets in whatever software they use, it would automatically flag part collisions… Surely TLG knows the dimensions of their own headlight brick? I just can’t understand how this passed a digital OR physical build test. Unlike the Gargantos arch collision which is presumably harder to accurately model, this comes down to the stud being taller than the recess; that is, one length is greater than another. I’d have thought modern computer processing power might just be enough to notice if one number is bigger than another.

@magni_nominis_umbra said:
" @Rare_White_Ape said:
"Can someone smarter than me please catalogue all of the major faults in Lego sets, plot them over time on a graph, and then do a write-up for Brickset?

I'd love to see if the frequency of them actually goes up each year or changes as a percentage of new sets released, because I'm sure that humans are very bad at measuring that sort of thing and I'd like to compare it to the opinions of people who state loudly and with full certainty that Lego's quality control is in the toilet lately."

I think my favourite will forever be the fact that TLG spend squillions on computerised inventories, part sorting and storage, super accurate weighing and measuring and probably these days AI 'robot eyes' to get their sets out the door yet personal (and that of everyone I deliberately go out of my way to ask) experience appears to show a set inventory error rate of 5-10%.
In the 50's through 80's, this was done by a bunch of nannas from Billund who by the now alien method of "showing up and doing your GD job" managed a close to zero error rate.
Excuse me, I've just noticed a cloud I need to go and yell at..."

There is no way the error rate is anywhere close to that high.

@DekoPuma said:
" @magni_nominis_umbra said:
" @Rare_White_Ape said:
"Can someone smarter than me please catalogue all of the major faults in Lego sets, plot them over time on a graph, and then do a write-up for Brickset?

I'd love to see if the frequency of them actually goes up each year or changes as a percentage of new sets released, because I'm sure that humans are very bad at measuring that sort of thing and I'd like to compare it to the opinions of people who state loudly and with full certainty that Lego's quality control is in the toilet lately."

I think my favourite will forever be the fact that TLG spend squillions on computerised inventories, part sorting and storage, super accurate weighing and measuring and probably these days AI 'robot eyes' to get their sets out the door yet personal (and that of everyone I deliberately go out of my way to ask) experience appears to show a set inventory error rate of 5-10%.
In the 50's through 80's, this was done by a bunch of nannas from Billund who by the now alien method of "showing up and doing your GD job" managed a close to zero error rate.
Excuse me, I've just noticed a cloud I need to go and yell at..."

There is no way the error rate is anywhere close to that high."

I agree. I built 71512 yesterday, and it was missing an Earth Blue 1x1 round tile. But there is a spare from a previous bag, so it's good, and I'm not completely sure that it's not around here somewhere.
The last time I had a missing piece was in the "Solo" Millennium Falcon- I got a 6x6 round plate in place of a 4x6 rectangle plate. I had recently got some 4x6s from PAB, so the round just got added to my loose parts. I've bought at least 700 sets between then and now without any missing pieces.

@yellowcastle said:
" @DekoPuma said:
" @magni_nominis_umbra said:
" @Rare_White_Ape said:
"Can someone smarter than me please catalogue all of the major faults in Lego sets, plot them over time on a graph, and then do a write-up for Brickset?

I'd love to see if the frequency of them actually goes up each year or changes as a percentage of new sets released, because I'm sure that humans are very bad at measuring that sort of thing and I'd like to compare it to the opinions of people who state loudly and with full certainty that Lego's quality control is in the toilet lately."

I think my favourite will forever be the fact that TLG spend squillions on computerised inventories, part sorting and storage, super accurate weighing and measuring and probably these days AI 'robot eyes' to get their sets out the door yet personal (and that of everyone I deliberately go out of my way to ask) experience appears to show a set inventory error rate of 5-10%.
In the 50's through 80's, this was done by a bunch of nannas from Billund who by the now alien method of "showing up and doing your GD job" managed a close to zero error rate.
Excuse me, I've just noticed a cloud I need to go and yell at..."

There is no way the error rate is anywhere close to that high."

That depends on what you qualify as an error. 43010, for instance…"

My partner *loves* that kit. I’m under request (I do most of the obsessive bargain hunting duties between the two of us) to try and pick it up at a discount at some point, since they don’t feel they’re sportsy enough to justify it at full price but they respect the design approach enormously.

@Chemistry2101 said:
"I would have imagined that when they build these sets in whatever software they use, it would automatically flag part collisions… Surely TLG knows the dimensions of their own headlight brick? I just can’t understand how this passed a digital OR physical build test. Unlike the Gargantos arch collision which is presumably harder to accurately model, this comes down to the stud being taller than the recess; that is, one length is greater than another. I’d have thought modern computer processing power might just be enough to notice if one number is bigger than another."

They have access to the design files that were used to create the tooling to manufacture the parts. That’s the most accurate data anyone can procure. It’s not 100% perfectly accurate, since there are things that work in the brick even when collision software says they shouldn’t, but their data is always going to be more accurate to the final shape than anything AFOLs are compiling from measuring with calipers.

@davee123:
They also had the iteration that was Ye Olde Boys Club, where all the Ambassadors had to sign NDAs to participate, and then zero information was ever cleared for public dissemination, meaning Ambassadors could be standing next to a conversation about an official press release and couldn’t participate because it would put them in breach of their NDA. I think that was hands down the least successful version.

@PurpleDave said:
"They also had the iteration that was Ye Olde Boys Club, where all the Ambassadors had to sign NDAs to participate, and then zero information was ever cleared for public dissemination, meaning Ambassadors could be standing next to a conversation about an official press release and couldn’t participate because it would put them in breach of their NDA. I think that was hands down the least successful version."

Indeed! That was also a problem because the Ambassadors weren't selected by the community, but by LEGO. They were picking people who were prominent in the community, without giving ways to make sure that less popular AFOLs were heard. The newer version is better, although not without its own faults.

I've personally encountered more quality issues while building sets in the last 4 years than during the 25 previous ones. So it is probably as hyperbolic as you want it to be, but even if QC budget has not been cutted down whatsoever, overall quality of the sets I pay and build is lesser than it used to be. It's not a vision in my mind, but facts. I was just wondering what could be the reasons for so many issues on sets nowadays. QC budget or requirements could be parts of an answer. I just wonder. And If I'm wrong, I'm ok with that. But still wonder.

@PurpleDave said:
" @emjim21 said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @TheOtherMike said:
"I bought 76205 despite its issue with the socket joint pieces on the fender piece…"

I bought three copies _because_ of the intersection, figuring the set might be subjected to a recall, or at least modified mid-run. I had a heck of a time actually buying them before street date, too. Between Meijer, Target, and Walmart, I think I found them shelved at least 4-5 times before they were supposed to go on sale, but only one of those three chains let me buy them a few days early. The other two had the street date coded into their inventory software, so whenever it was scanned in prior to that date, it would inform the cashier that they needed to confiscate the set(s), and it wouldn’t even ring up normally at self-check. You’d just get the error message and your screen would lock up until a cashier came over and cleared it. And confiscated the set."

How is this relevant?
"

It's complicated. Pay attention.

@MrClassic:
The binoculars are messy because the piece isn't a plate, but a pair of bars linked together. And they still have to function as bars, so minifigs can hold them. Cut away too much of the underside, and it affects the outside in a way that makes it impossible for a minifig to grip them. So when put on a hollow stud, they don't seat all the way. And putting them on a solid stud is worse, because the raised logo basically doubles the gap below the part. To make it seat the way a plate does, you'd need the full height of a solid stud w/ logo on top, plus a little extra for an air gap, at which point a minifig would be unable to hold it properly.

@Modeltrainman:
A 1x1 what?"

1x1 brick, sorry. Is there a useful reason that they did this?

@davee123 said:
" @PurpleDave said:
"They also had the iteration that was Ye Olde Boys Club, where all the Ambassadors had to sign NDAs to participate, and then zero information was ever cleared for public dissemination, meaning Ambassadors could be standing next to a conversation about an official press release and couldn’t participate because it would put them in breach of their NDA. I think that was hands down the least successful version."

Indeed! That was also a problem because the Ambassadors weren't selected by the community, but by LEGO. They were picking people who were prominent in the community, without giving ways to make sure that less popular AFOLs were heard. The newer version is better, although not without its own faults."

I’d be curious to see the geographic distribution between then and now. I suspect that a lot of the first set may have been concentrated in a handful of small communities. In the US, I’d guess the Pacific NW, the California coast, or Chicago, but definitely not a clean distribution.

@Modeltrainman:
https://images.brickset.com/news/129979_635195388_1383633620230531_16653.jpg

If you check this picture, it shows two Monkie Kid hilts plugged into the back of the two lower headlight bricks, and you can just make out a jumper plate with a 1x1 round tile attached to the forward facing studs of the higher headlight bricks. I suspect it might have been possible to avoid this with some clever use of brackets in a handshake arrangement, or they certainly could have swapped out the lower headlight bricks for a pair of 1x1 Technic bricks or their 1x2 equivalent.

@Andrusi said:
"The LAN members poisoned our water supply, burned our crops, and delivered a plague unto our houses!"

They're trying to pollute our precious bodily fluids, corrupt our purity of essence! (I never pass up the chance for that reference.)

@PurpleDave said:
"I’d be curious to see the geographic distribution between then and now. I suspect that a lot of the first set may have been concentrated in a handful of small communities. In the US, I’d guess the Pacific NW, the California coast, or Chicago, but definitely not a clean distribution."

I couldn't find it by city/region within the US, but here's one that someone did back when Cycle 5 was announced:

https://news.lugnet.com/ambassadors/?n=96

Cycle 1:
USA - 9
UK - 2
Canada - 1
Germany - 1
Hungary - 1
Netherlands - 1

Cycle 2:
USA - 9
UK - 3
Canada - 2
Germany - 2
Denmark - 1
Hungary - 1
Netherlands - 1
Portugal - 1

Cycle 3:
USA - 11
Canada - 2
UK - 2
Australia - 1
Denmark - 1
France - 1
Germany - 1
Netherlands - 1
Poland - 1
Portugal - 1

Cycle 4:
USA - 7
Canada - 2
Germany - 2
Netherlands - 2
UK - 2
Australia - 1
Denmark - 1
France - 1
Italy - 1
Singapore - 1
Spain - 1

Cycle 5:
USA - 10
Netherlands - 4
Australia - 2
Canada - 2
Denmark - 2
Germany - 2
UK - 2
Belgium - 1
France - 1
Italy - 1
Portugal - 1
Singapore - 1
Spain - 1

@davee123 said:
" @PurpleDave said:
"I’d be curious to see the geographic distribution between then and now. I suspect that a lot of the first set may have been concentrated in a handful of small communities. In the US, I’d guess the Pacific NW, the California coast, or Chicago, but definitely not a clean distribution."

I couldn't find it by city/region within the US, but here's one that someone did back when Cycle 5 was announced:

https://news.lugnet.com/ambassadors/?n=96"

I recognize a few of the US names, but I've only met one in person. I think. Paul Jannsen was a charter member of my LUG, but lived in the next state and has never been active in the club since I started attending meetings, but I'm pretty sure I did bump into him one time at a show. @Huw was on the list for the first two cycles, so maybe he has some insights that he could put forth (assuming the NDA has been lifted). The two Americans with the most active record were also two of the most active members of LUGNET. I believe both designed sets for the LEGO Factory program, and one went on to be an actual set designer.

The solution is obvious. LEGO just needs to include a file with each set.

@davee123 said:
"Seriously, though, my experience with LAN members is that they're hobbyists just like everyone else here. "

I don't think any LAN members are truly hobbyists, as they all monetize their review content somehow whether through affiliate links or advertisement income on YouTube and thus profit from the free sets they get much earlier than anyone else. They are fans of LEGO for sure, but that is not the same as a hobbyist.

@Vesperas:
Oh, OPAB is a thing unto itself. I almost never have any problems with PABS coming from Billund, which is usually item-precise every time*, but the PABB that ships domestically is all over the map. I've had lots of orders that have one extra piece added for every X increment of parts ordered (like 1 for every ten, 1 for every 20, etc.). And I've had orders where I think the picker tried to gauge the size of their handful...and wildly misjudged it. I've had orders where one part was shorted by over 50%, and I've had one order where I got about 120% more than I ordered for one specific element. I've had orders arrive where one part was subbed with something that looks nothing like it.

*The one major SNAFU I got from Billund was just recently, where I had one order that hadn't arrived after the following few orders had. When I called about it, they resubmitted that portion of the order, but two of the elements had shifted to PABB and shipped domestically. And that order was...so wrong. The inner bag was open, I was missing one piece from what I was supposed to get, and had a significant chunk of someone else's order (along with the last two pages of their invoice). But of course that was again mostly a problem with the PABB side of things.

@CCC said:
" @davee123 said:
"Seriously, though, my experience with LAN members is that they're hobbyists just like everyone else here. "

I don't think any LAN members are truly hobbyists, as they all monetize their review content somehow whether through affiliate links or advertisement income on YouTube and thus profit from the free sets they get much earlier than anyone else. They are fans of LEGO for sure, but that is not the same as a hobbyist."

Excuse me? Did you miss where I mentioned that my LUG has an Ambassador? That individual does around 20 displays per year, which is on the extreme end of being a hobbyist.

@PurpleDave said:
" @Vesperas:
Oh, OPAB is a thing unto itself. I almost never have any problems with PABS coming from Billund, which is usually item-precise every time*, but the PABB that ships domestically is all over the map. I've had lots of orders that have one extra piece added for every X increment of parts ordered (like 1 for every ten, 1 for every 20, etc.). And I've had orders where I think the picker tried to gauge the size of their handful...and wildly misjudged it. I've had orders where one part was shorted by over 50%, and I've had one order where I got about 120% more than I ordered for one specific element. I've had orders arrive where one part was subbed with something that looks nothing like it."

Do they not use scales for large enough orders? I worked at a small local plastic company for a short time, packing orders for shipping, and I put the orders on a scale to make sure there were enough parts in the box. Granted, were talking packages of hundreds of pieces at a time, and I don't know how common it is for PaB to get orders on that scale, but you'd think it happens enough that they'd use something precise.

@TheOtherMike said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @Vesperas:
Oh, OPAB is a thing unto itself. I almost never have any problems with PABS coming from Billund, which is usually item-precise every time*, but the PABB that ships domestically is all over the map. I've had lots of orders that have one extra piece added for every X increment of parts ordered (like 1 for every ten, 1 for every 20, etc.). And I've had orders where I think the picker tried to gauge the size of their handful...and wildly misjudged it. I've had orders where one part was shorted by over 50%, and I've had one order where I got about 120% more than I ordered for one specific element. I've had orders arrive where one part was subbed with something that looks nothing like it."

Do they not use scales for large enough orders? I worked at a small local plastic company for a short time, packing orders for shipping, and I put the orders on a scale to make sure there were enough parts in the box. Granted, were talking packages of hundreds of pieces at a time, and I don't know how common it is for PaB to get orders on that scale, but you'd think it happens enough that they'd use something precise."

I don’t know what they use. And I don’t make it easy on them by frequently ordering to build, not in easy quantities. For PABB, if you stick to 100pc quantities, those might come prepacked so they only have to grab one _bag_ instead of counting out individual pieces. I say this because I frequently notice that large quantities like that come in their own bag that’s put inside the main bag.

@Murdoch17 said:
" @djcbs said:
""Do you have theories as to why this has been allowed to happen?"

Well, I'm not expecting LAN members to notice this because they get stuff for free to shill for LEGO, but the rest of us has been saying for YEARS now that the quality standards at LEGO have been falling severely.
In fact, the more the prices go up, the more the quality goes down.

That being said, I'm of the mind that there's no such thing as an "illegal technique". We are free to do whatever we want with our pieces and LEGO is as well.
As long as the QUALITY OF THE BRICKS is good, there's no issue. A ton of sets from the 70's, 80's and 90's used "illegal" techniques and they're all still perfectly fine.
Whereas more modern sets are falling apart because of the quality of some bricks (remember the dark red fiasco? It wasn't that long ago).

So what concerns me here is that they're using an "illegal" technique in a time when the quality of their products is also falling severely."

You are free to use illegal techniques all you want, but LEGO (usually) doesn't because it breaks / bends parts, which drives up consumer complaints and part replacement requests plus it gives the company a black eye to the public when things like this surface. These 'legal / illegal' rules have changed slightly over time as the parts catalog and design ideals evolve. (Example: The sideways-plate-wedged-between-the-studs of 1970s sets wouldn't fly today. Tiles, however are fine like that, but studded plates are not, as they as slightly thicker in width due to the LEGO logo on the studs) So this error - and others like it - is a big deal, and it's very odd it passed muster with the issues it has.

Personally, I think the sets mentioned were digitally designed as was the case during COVID, and were not tested as thoroughly as they should have been, possibly to cut costs. (or something like that)"

I didn't think the digital building app would allow for illegal builds?

@CCC said:
"I don't think any LAN members are truly hobbyists, as they all monetize their review content somehow whether through affiliate links or advertisement income on YouTube and thus profit from the free sets they get much earlier than anyone else. They are fans of LEGO for sure, but that is not the same as a hobbyist."

Well, I can tell you that's not true for the Ambassadors that I know. Plus, it sounds like you're not drawing an important distinction between Fan Media and LUG Ambassadors. My LUG has had 6 ambassadors (3 in the "new style"), and I can tell you that they're all legit AFOLs. I've also met and talked with something like 4 other LUG ambassadors in person, and have corresponded with more. They've all seemed like genuine AFOLs.

Fan Media's a different story-- I've met representatives from around 4 of the different Fan Media groups, and I have to say I haven't gotten an impression that they're being fake or deceptive. They DO in some cases depend on their platforms to generate money-- but it seems unlikely that their revenue stream is purely driven by early reviews. In order to even qualify, you have to have already established a fanbase-- so there should be some other content that they're producing that is the primary driver of their income, not really early set reviews.

Now, there certainly could be exceptions to that rule-- It makes total sense that there are or could be Fan Media groups that are just in it for the money. I haven't met them, but sure, it's possible. My personal experience is that the majority of LAN members are genuine hobbyists.

Fire Brigade had a whole missing bag in their run, I remember getting something sent to me after I complained. Just like Wall-E.

So they could release this set just fine and come up with a fix and release the fixed bag to whomever complains.

It is understandable to have this illegal technique considering how janky some of those old cars were in real life.

I'm getting it either way, whether the bricks be stressed or not.

@davee123 said:
"Well, I can tell you that's not true for the Ambassadors that I know. Plus, it sounds like you're not drawing an important distinction between Fan Media and LUG Ambassadors. My LUG has had 6 ambassadors (3 in the "new style"), and I can tell you that they're all legit AFOLs."

Okay, so three in the “new style” means probably three from the first five cycles when TLG just picked the names and sent out direct invites? Which LUG do you belong to, and where is it located?

@PurpleDave said:
"Okay, so three in the “new style” means probably three from the first five cycles when TLG just picked the names and sent out direct invites? Which LUG do you belong to, and where is it located?"

I'm in NELUG-- we had Eric K. (cycles 1-3), myself (cycle 6), and Bill B., who was ambassador right around when they transitioned (not sure where he was in that process), and ... maybe Doug E. ? Doug was a member of NELUG and then left for North Carolina-- and he was a Cycle 5 ambassador. I think he left our club before becoming an ambassador, but I don't recall exactly. So I certainly knew him, but I don't remember ever talking to him about his ambassadorship, so I'm guessing he had left our club by then.

In the modern version of the program, we mostly had a single ambassador, but we've switched twice, and seems like we're about to switch again.

@davee123 said:
" @PurpleDave said:
"Okay, so three in the “new style” means probably three from the first five cycles when TLG just picked the names and sent out direct invites? Which LUG do you belong to, and where is it located?"

I'm in NELUG-- we had Eric K. (cycles 1-3), myself (cycle 6), and Bill B., who was ambassador right around when they transitioned (not sure where he was in that process), and ... maybe Doug E. ? Doug was a member of NELUG and then left for North Carolina-- and he was a Cycle 5 ambassador. I think he left our club before becoming an ambassador, but I don't recall exactly. So I certainly knew him, but I don't remember ever talking to him about his ambassadorship, so I'm guessing he had left our club by then.

In the modern version of the program, we mostly had a single ambassador, but we've switched twice, and seems like we're about to switch again."

Okay, so NELUG was pretty heavily on their radar for the Millyard Project around that time, where my LUG was just a couple years away from doing 26 shows in one calendar year. That was really after the invitational cycles ended, but the result of our show schedule is that most of our members don’t even bother going to any AFOL conventions, and I think the only thing that really did make us more visible to them was being the host city for the NMRA’s national train show in 2007(?), when about a dozen different LUGs and other groups filled 40,000sqft of the 100,000sqft convention hall, at a show for hobby trains. But that still wouldn’t have really made individual builders visible enough that we would have been likely to have anyone get an invite for the first few years. Or if they did, they may have simply declined over the restrictions. I might have been able to swing an invite if they’d started when I was still running MaskofDestiny.com, but most of the web presence our club had around that time was Brickshelf accounts, which don’t allow for feedback unless you post contact info to your account.

Also, NELUG is close to Enfield, yes?

@PurpleDave said:
"Okay, so NELUG was pretty heavily on their radar for the Millyard Project around that time, ..."

Yeah, we've basically been on their radar since forever. LUGNET was launched in 1998 by Todd & Suz who were both in the Boston area. NELUG itself formed in 1999, and then we got to participate in the event that Tormud always touted as the start of the AFOL / LEGO relationship-- the MIT Mindfest in late 1999. We did the Millyard project which built a really close relationship with them (we continued to enjoy a close status and collaborated with them on a lot of small projects after that), and of course they sniped 3 of our members as designers: Jamie Berard, Mike Psiaki, and Jme Wheeler.

@PurpleDave said:
"Also, NELUG is close to Enfield, yes?"

Yeah, it encompasses all of New England, including Connecticut. These days, I think LUGs would probably claim a smaller area (like metro Boston only, say), but back in 1999, there were so few AFOLs that the entirety of New England made more sense.

@Vesperas said:
"While sets have become more complicated, product lines more varied and demand has risen, I'm not sure how these reasonably effect many of the QC issues we've seen in recent years, such as the repeated grammar / sticker design mistake seen with 10356, nor do I see why demand should have an impact on the rising prevalence of design errors present in yet-to-release sets."

The increased range and size of sets has only caused a massive increase in the opportunities for errors to occur. The increased complexity has made it harder to identify the errors early in the process. It’s easy to look at a polybag and verify the contents are correct, but not nearly so easy when you’re looking at a $500 set.

Where I work, we measure errors in both hard numbers and DPM (Defects Per Million). Your total number of errors may increase, but if it came with an increase in total transactions, your DPM could show that your accuracy is actually improving by frequency.

And for errors in the programmed set inventory, these will be corrected as they’re identified, meaning subsequent runs should only have singular mispack issues. Being a Day One buyer simply exposes you to more of the global errors that will impact everyone standing in line with you. Buyers who wait a few months won’t be as likely to encounter those errors as the early stock should have all been sold by the time they purchase their copy. It’s like buying 1st Edition books. Typos will be identified, reported, and corrected in later print runs, so buying 1st Editions will expose you to the greatest concentration of typos. It doesn’t mean the editing has necessarily gone downhill, but rather than you’re seeing the worst concentration of them before any were able to be corrected.

"I've also had to reach out to LEGO no less than three separate times for replacement sticker sheets because the stickers had either come off their backing and placed themselves on something while in transport, or had become folded and torn."

The increased size of sets has put more mass inside the box with those sticker sheets, and the increased size of sticker sheets has made them more prone to being damaged. I bought a copy of the TMNT Shellraiser that ended up packed in such a way that the weight of the bagged contents ended up bending a train base that got placed in the box at an angle with all the bags set on top of it.

"As far as PAB is concerned, as much as I wish you hadn't had the experiences you described, I'm actually somewhat relieved knowing that I'm not the only person that has had abysmal experiences with the service. I've also received orders that were incorrect--sometimes to my gain, but it's been short far more often and in one case, massively so."

I’m pretty sure the massive miscounts are the result of new hires who are freaked out about hitting efficiency targets (or who simply don’t care about accuracy), and as customers report shortages (or overages), these errors will be easily traced back to the individual pickers, who will either be retrained in the proper procedure, or let go if they’ve been making too many errors. Either way, these instances should clear up pretty quickly when they do happen.

I don’t pre-order and I rarely buy shortly after release so maybe that’s why I haven’t encountered any problems, then (aside from that quickly-fixed bald online BAM minifig). By the time a set gets to me Lego have already worked out any production kits.

(The sticker sheets always do worry me, though. They’re the first thing I check after opening the box because the lack of protection seems like asking for trouble. But they have, thus far, always been fine despite their obvious peril.)

@Hiratha said:
"I don’t pre-order and I rarely buy shortly after release so maybe that’s why I haven’t encountered any problems, then (aside from that quickly-fixed bald online BAM minifig). By the time a set gets to me Lego have already worked out any production kits.

(The sticker sheets always do worry me, though. They’re the first thing I check after opening the box because the lack of protection seems like asking for trouble. But they have, thus far, always been fine despite their obvious peril.)"

I've had a few sticker sheets be folded or otherwise not flat, but never so bad that stickers came off and stuck to something else in the box, or anything like that. And most of my sticker sheets have come out of the box in fine shape.

Current bricks aren't as brittle as they once were.
For 'Illegal Technique' read 'Click Bait'.
Confident that the couple of bricks involve will still be in perfect order in 20 years time!

It's understandable for LEGO to make slight mistakes here and there. It's not understandable that, when speaking with customer service, we're told we built it wrong and to try again.

@PurpleDave said:
" @Vesperas said:
"While sets have become more complicated, product lines more varied and demand has risen, I'm not sure how these reasonably effect many of the QC issues we've seen in recent years, such as the repeated grammar / sticker design mistake seen with 10356, nor do I see why demand should have an impact on the rising prevalence of design errors present in yet-to-release sets."

The increased range and size of sets has only caused a massive increase in the opportunities for errors to occur. The increased complexity has made it harder to identify the errors early in the process. It’s easy to look at a polybag and verify the contents are correct, but not nearly so easy when you’re looking at a $500 set."

It shouldn't matter if it's a $10 set or $500 set with those kinds of errors though. If a LEGO fan can easily spot a design flaw while building a set that has gone through the entire design process, testing, development of instructions and press release, or the launch set for a new and highly anticipated franchise has an obvious spelling error on the sticker sheet, it's a pretty clear indication that LEGO simply isn't properly testing their models or paying close enough attention.

As far as I'm concerned, these sort of small mistakes are only possible when the process (and employees) are over-stressed, and fault ultimately lies with the CEO. LEGO clearly took on too much, too quickly, and their QC measures haven't kept pace with the ambitions of executive leadership.

This conclusion comes from my background working in healthcare. Mistakes in my profession can easily harm (or even kill) people, so we have a protracted and heavily supervised process with numerous hard stops along the way. It isn't meant to be efficient--it's meant to ensure patient safety, maintain compliance with federal and state laws, and recommended best practices.

The only time it can possibly fail is either at the very, very end (usually involving an under trained, overworked or exhausted nurse doing something dumb) or because executive leadership is pushing us to do more with the same staff levels. It's extremely rare for leadership to have any real understanding of how long a process actually takes, so when leaders do this it invariably leads to people cutting corners or circumventing the process in order to save time to meet leadership expectations.

@PurpleDave said:
"The increased size of sets has put more mass inside the box with those sticker sheets, and the increased size of sticker sheets has made them more prone to being damaged. I bought a copy of the TMNT Shellraiser that ended up packed in such a way that the weight of the bagged contents ended up bending a train base that got placed in the box at an angle with all the bags set on top of it."

The issue with stickers is that they're not consistently packaged in a way where the sheet is protected. Every time I've had issues with stickers it's been because they were packaged loose in the box--the size of the set doesn't really matter much. The sets with the stickers coming off the backing weren't large at all: 71747 and 31125. The folded sheet was from a larger set though.

@Chemistry2101 said:
" @sjr60 said:
"Current bricks aren't as brittle as they once were.
For 'Illegal Technique' read 'Click Bait'.
Confident that the couple of bricks involve will still be in perfect order in 20 years time!"

Do you not see them obviously bending and being stressed in the photos? Maybe they’ll be usable in 20 years, maybe they won’t. But the point is that such an assembly is well below TLG’s expected standards and reporting on that is the duty of any independent reviewer. In this very thread alone we’ve had people criticise Brickset for being too pro-LEGO, now here you are saying they’re looking for clicks by being anti-LEGO."
The 'click bait' referred to the source video, not to Brickset for whom, I would think, articles are very much secondary compared to the prime purpose of cataloguing sets. I look forward to receiving 11376 in a week or so, providing it hasn't been impounded by the 'illegal technique' police.

Many such cases with lego the past few years; poor printing, poor graphic design, lazy designs, missing features, etc

Even galidor was well made even if it wasn't "right"!

Very unfortunate

Not great from Lego, but boy is this is really nit-picking!

@Marc100 said:
"Only the best is good enough"

Evertonian?