Review: The Periodic Table of LEGO Colours
Posted by Huw,
The Periodic Table of LEGO Colours is a wall chart containing samples of and information about over 60 LEGO colours laid out to look like the periodic table of elements.
It's produced by WLWYB, who also run MOCHub, the 'LEGO kit fulfilment centre', that we mentioned and reviewed last year.
Version 2 of the chart, which includes two colours not on the first one, has just been launched, and we've been sent one to review. We've also been provided with a discount code which will save you 10% when you purchase it from shop.wlwyb.com. Simply enter the code BRICKSET at checkout. It's valid until 25th February.
The chart measures 300x400mm and is manufactured from 3mm plastic card, so is very sturdy.
65 genuine 1x1 LEGO pieces are mounted on the board, each in its own square that provides information about the colour: number of sets it appears in, years of manufacture and so on, and a made-up two- or three-letter abbreviation to mimic those of chemical elements.
The chart itself is divided into three sections: warm colours on the left, cool on the right, and rare(r) ones, that are found in fewer than 300 or so sets, below where the rare metals are on a regular chart.
A key to Bricklink names and IDs cross-referenced to LEGO colour names is provided on the right, although because it's printed in grey, it's difficult to read. Unfortunately, the colour abbreviations are not given, and it's ordered by BrickLink colour name. It would have made more sense to order by the abbreviations which would enable you to look at the chart then find the actual colour names more easily.
A key to the information in the boxes is situated in the bottom left-hand corner.
It's very well-made: all the parts are affixed securely, squarely, and without glue spilling out from the edges, and overall it's very attractive.
A thing to facilitate hanging is affixed to back, but I think it would look much better framed. Ikea make a 300x400mm Ribba frame which would probably be ideal.
Unfortunately, it's not without its faults. The main one that bothers me is that the years quoted for the first use of some of the colours are not exactly incorrect, but are not what most people would expect them to be. For example dark blue and sand green in the image below are stated as being first used in 1961 and 1964 respectively.
BrickLink does indeed state that the colours first appeared in those years, but only as the bodies of 1:87 scale cars, and not actual bricks. Dark blue bricks first appeared in 2002 and sand green in 2000, and I think the majority of people would consider those to be the years they were introduced into the LEGO System colour palette.
I also don't like the inclusion of BrickLink colour IDs. They are randomly allocated, largely inconsequential, irrelevant away from BrickLink, and aren't really that important on it. They just clutter the boxes, making it not immediately obvious which number is the BL ID and which is the LEGO ID (BL is the top, LEGO, the bottom).
Finally, and perhaps most infuriatingly, some information is incorrect. The LEGO colour ID of vibrant coral is given as 1017 when in fact it's 353, and drum lacquered metallic gold as 1004, which should be 299. Trans-blue with glitter is wrong, too, and there may be other anomalies: I've not checked them all.
Despite these relatively minor issues, it remains a quirky, interesting and eye-catching item to hang on the wall, with or without framing it first.
It's available to buy now from shop.wlwyb.com for $39.99 with a 10% discount when you use the code BRICKSET at checkout until 25th February.
On the 25th we'll be giving UK resident Instagram users a chance to win one, so stay tuned for more information on the day.
Thanks to WLWYB for providing the chart for review. All opinions expressed are my own.
#Ad: Brickset will receive a small commission from purchases made via the links in the article.
115 likes
66 comments on this article
I think that the addition of the Brick Link definition (name) of the colour is recomendable, because most of us buy in BL and it is better to know the exact name of the colour we are looking for. I know that the LEGO name is the oficial one, but normally, we do not buy separate bricks on LEGO.
I am just buying one.
Thanks for the link! I saw a few of these pop up on Instagram and now I am getting my own. Lego art is totally my jam.
^^ The name, yes, but not the ID which is just a database primary key that's been generated in sequence as colours are added.
Thanks for he heads-up! Despite the minor mistakes (which, for shame, I wouldn't have noticed...) this is a lovely display & conversation piece.
Can't wait for the plague to be behind us so people can come over again!
EDIT: we can all argue like colour geeks for days about what is\isn't\should be on there, but I think we just need to take this product for what it is: a lovely thing to look at.
My biggest issue is the list on the right. It's in alphabetical order, instead of the same order as the table is in. That's really confusing when the table doesn't give the full colour names, and the list doesn't include the short codes. The only thing linking them is the Bricklink ID. It makes looking up the proper colour names more confusing than it needed to be.
Edit - the more I look, the more weird stuff I find. Why is pink a 'warm colour' when it's opaque, but a 'cold colour' in the translucent bricks?
^ I agree. As I said, it should have been in colour abbreviation order.
I got mine (v1) a few weeks ago, I really like it. The new one looks very dark. I'm wondering what these two new colors are, I hope they added Trans-Neon Orange.
Also, to frame it you would need some type of shadow box, since it's at least one brick's height deep, and 300 x 400mm (15.7 x 11.8in) is the picture size, not the frame size.
I still miss the sand red, but otherwise it's a nice idea.
I like it, but I think it should be without so many errors, and it should include colours like Maersk blue and salmon and maybe milky white also.
I need one of these for ma dirty, cracked, stained and sunburnt bricks.
The colours included are most likely determined by what parts can be obtained in quantity.
Sadly 1x1 sand red pieces are like rocking horse droppings nowadays...
@Wrecknbuild said:
"I like it, but I think it should be without so many errors, and it should include colours like Maersk blue and salmon and maybe milky white also."
Maersk blue is on it.
I was surprised to see the date on sand green. No wonder...
@pgremeau said:
" @Wrecknbuild said:
"I like it, but I think it should be without so many errors, and it should include colours like Maersk blue and salmon and maybe milky white also."
Maersk blue is on it."
Mb = Medium blue, not Maersk blue.
@Huw said:
" @pgremeau said:
" @Wrecknbuild said:
"I like it, but I think it should be without so many errors, and it should include colours like Maersk blue and salmon and maybe milky white also."
Maersk blue is on it."
Mb = Medium blue, not Maersk blue."
Mab = Maersk Blue(BL)/Pastel Blue(LEGO)
But I have version 1.
Love this concept. Almost ordered v1, but might wait for v3 based on the review.
@pgremeau said:
" @Wrecknbuild said:
"I like it, but I think it should be without so many errors, and it should include colours like Maersk blue and salmon and maybe milky white also."
Maersk blue is on it."
Maersk Blue is not on this version but it was on version 1
It feels super nit-picky, but I'd prefer the spelling 'colour' if it's a European product. Wonder if it's possible for them to print a variant?
^ I agree, I don't like it when European companies pander to the American market :-)
@d_m_t_arnold said:
"Strangely Version 1 had more colours over all as it has 69 colours instead of 65, and version 2 actually has 4 colours that V1 doesn't have, not 2! So you might be better off getting this one with the discount code as a potential V3 might not have all the colours of this version."
OK, this is getting complicated. Where are the release notes for the new version? ;-)
I bought the first version and love it. It fits well in the IKEA 300x400 frame, but you can't use the plastic glass with the frame.
Very nice product though, I'll wait for a few years before buying a second with changes
@pgremeau said:
"I'm wondering what these two new colors are, I hope they added Trans-Neon Orange."
It looks like they did add Trans Neon Orange, along with Bright Light Yellow (Cool Yellow), Flat Dark Gold (Metallic Sand Yellow) and Glitter Trans Light Blue (strangely there are four additional colours not 2, and there are 7 colours that are not on this version that were on version 1)
@MissJaneJetson said:
"Love this concept. Almost ordered v1, but might wait for v3 based on the review. "
Strangely Version 1 had more colours over all as it has 70* colours instead of 65, and version 2 actually has 4 colours that V1 doesn't have, not 2! So you might be better off getting this one with the discount code as a potential V3 might not have all the colours of this version.
(Edited as I incorrectly said that V1 has 69, then 68 colours)
@pgremeau said:
" @d_m_t_arnold said:
"Strangely Version 1 had more colours over all as it has 69 colours instead of 65, and version 2 actually has 4 colours that V1 doesn't have, not 2! So you might be better off getting this one with the discount code as a potential V3 might not have all the colours of this version."
OK, this is getting complicated. Where are the release notes for the new version? ;-)"
Could't find any notes but I compared the Version 1 I have with the image above and made a quick spreadsheet to compare.
@d_m_t_arnold said:
" @pgremeau said:
"I'm wondering what these two new colors are, I hope they added Trans-Neon Orange."
It looks like they did add Trans Neon Orange, along with Bright Light Yellow (Cool Yellow), Flat Dark Gold (Metallic Sand Yellow) and Glitter Trans Light Blue (strangely there are four additional colours not 2, and there are 7 colours that are not on this version that were on version 1)"
Glitter Trans Light Blue is on v1 (Gtb, next to last at the bottom).
Thanks for doing the work though.
Edit: I've completely confused myself as I missed a couple of things but in short, V1 has more colours and more elements over all even if V2 has a couple of colours V1 doesn't't
It seems their claim of having 2 extra colours is both misleading and incorrect and they don't clearly explain the differences on their website.
I've worked out:
There are 3 colours on this V2 that are not on V1
But:
There are 8 colours on V1 that are NOT on V2
So V1 has 70 elements/colours, 5 more than V2.
Colours that V2 has that V1 doesn't:
Trans Neon Orange; Bright Light Yellow (Cool Yellow); Flat Dark Gold (Metallic Sand Yellow)
Colours that V1 had that V2 doesn't:
Blue Violet (Med. Bluish Violet); Brown (Earth Orange); Glitter Trans Neon Green; Light Nougat; Maersk Blue (Pastel Blue); Medium Orange (Br. Yellowish Orange); Pearl Light Grey (Silver); Very Light Grey (Light Grey)
Although I really like this product I feel that ideally it would have been a buildable chart that you could buy add on packs as more colours became available and you could rearrange in to your favourite categories but hey this is Lego after all so I could build one myself!
@pgremeau said:
" @d_m_t_arnold said:
" @pgremeau said:
"I'm wondering what these two new colors are, I hope they added Trans-Neon Orange."
It looks like they did add Trans Neon Orange, along with Bright Light Yellow (Cool Yellow), Flat Dark Gold (Metallic Sand Yellow) and Glitter Trans Light Blue (strangely there are four additional colours not 2, and there are 7 colours that are not on this version that were on version 1)"
Glitter Trans Light Blue is on v1 (Gtb, next to last at the bottom).
Thanks for doing the work though."
Ah, thanks! Even though I have V1 it's in a box and I was going off an online image and on checking it I can see it now.
This looks stupid, to be completely honest. The point of the actual periodic table is that all the elements are arranged in such a way that there is an actual periodic pattern to their properties, hence the name. What's "periodic" about this table?
@Baldarek said:
"This looks stupid, to be completely honest. The point of the actual periodic table is that all the elements are arranged in such a way that there is an actual periodic pattern to their properties, hence the name. What's "periodic" about this table?"
I agree. Professor Sir Martyn Poliakoff agrees as well.
I think that's a cool idea.
Wouldn't look out of place on the wall of Sheldon's apartment in the BBT. :-)
@Huw said:
"^ I agree, I don't like it when European companies pander to the American market :-)"
Maybe the European countries are just pandering to the English-speaking countries they have trade deals with?
I like the idea, but $39.99 is too much for me. I would prefer to just mount a bunch of 1 x 1 or 1 x 2 parts on a plate and have a general knowledge of each color.
I am triggered by the fact that Mg isn't where it is supposed to be O_o
The problem for me is that it straddles art and functionality and doesn’t end up accomplishing either. It isn’t complete enough to be practically useful as an actual reference guide, and if I just want a LEGO thing to hang on my wall, I’d rather bricklink $40 worth of 1x1s to make my own mosaic.
It looks kinda fun, but also like something that I would rather make myself and actually get right.
Any idea why Light Bluish Grey, Flat Silver, Orange, Dark Tan, and Trans-Medium Blue are on 3D looking squares?
Initially this looks great, but as others have stated it is a bit too flawed to make me need it.
If it was £20 I'd probably get one for decoration, I doubt I'd use it as a proper reference point anyway.
Why did colour become color? Historically? Anyone know?*
*Yes, I know I can Google it, but what’s the point of interacting in a community if not to ask a question from time to time instead of going to the search bar every time?
I am more bothered by the fact that the groupings don't seem terribly logical. Sometimes trans colors are in row 3, but other times they are random. Sometimes the colors get darker in the same family as you go down the periods (e.g. red and orange) but sometimes they don't (e.g. green and blue).
This is supposed to be a periodic table. As a chemist, to me that means it should be easy to discern the "periodic" trends (across a row) and the "groups" (down a column). I would love to see one that follows some color theory or grouping.
@blogzilly said:
"Why did colour become color? Historically? Anyone know?*
*Yes, I know I can Google it, but what’s the point of interacting in a community if not to ask a question from time to time instead of going to the search bar every time?"
Actually, color may be the older version. American English often is closer to original usage, and British English has more of the modifications since Independence. But before dictionaries, people spelled however they pleased.
@Huw said:
"^ I agree, I don't like it when European companies pander to the American market :-)"
Don't more people globally use American spelling than the Queen's English? Business =/= pandering.
Don't be upset that England is no longer at the centER of English language usage! Don't over-analyZe it. If you're well traveLed, you can cataloG the America usages without much labOr, and come to realiZe that your defenSe in favOr of British spelling is akin to eating a dOnut for its fibER content rather than its flavOr.
/s for humOr
@wiggy said:
"(...)
If it was £20 I'd probably get one for decoration(...)"
£27 is not a bad price for quite a nice display item. It works out similar to that set of "collectable" coins, but with a bit more appeal for any non-LEGO people who might see it. Yeah, we can get picky about colour designations, things that are missing, and spellings, but it's just plain nice to look at.
No chrome >:(
Just picked up as perfect present for my sister's lad.
I'm confused. A product that is not cheap and differs from a previous version and still isn't complete..
I guess if you want to buy multiple copies, because surely they will release another version in the future. But how can it be a table of LEGO colors if it is incomplete on each version??
I understand including actual bricks/pieces limits to how many they can make due to scarcity. But why not just print a picture of a 1x1 brick in the color you need it to be and you could have a complete chart. With the mish-mash of brick types it looks off to me. I like too uniformity too much I guess.
Good for you that like this. I hope you enjoy it. I will pass.
Too many issues with this. From the errors mentioned in the review to the questionable periodic table format, I really can't justify getting this.
As others have said, make it a buildable display on a baseplate so it can easily be modified and added to and I'd get one. ...especially if the creator had some industry experts (like Huw) do some verification of data to prevent simple errors like this has.
Very impressive. I might have to consider getting one!
naaah ... the periodic table is shaped as it is exactly because of the items that are organized in it. it only makes sense for chemical elements with their proton counts and outer shell electrons.
those attempts to organize anything else in exactly that form that results from chemical properties / quantum mechanics is doomed to be a complete disappointment on second sight when it becomes obvious that the implied organisation is no organisation at all but it's just a list of items crammed into a wrong shape.
A Lego color table, organised in a color sorting system (there are many so interesting ones!) would be highly welcome.
A "periodic" table for something that has no periods is just wrong.
@blogzilly said:
"Why did colour become color? Historically? Anyone know?*
*Yes, I know I can Google it, but what’s the point of interacting in a community if not to ask a question from time to time instead of going to the search bar every time?"
Not sure about the world "colour" specifically, but the British are rather fond of heritage and tradition, so the spelling didn't follow the change in pronunciation over time.
Americans don't seem to mind changing the spelling as much as the British do.
@Snagel said:
"naaah ... the periodic table is shaped as it is exactly because of the items that are organized in it. it only makes sense for chemical elements with their proton counts and outer shell electrons.
those attempts to organize anything else in exactly that form that results from chemical properties / quantum mechanics is doomed to be a complete disappointment on second sight when it becomes obvious that the implied organisation is no organisation at all but it's just a list of items crammed into a wrong shape.
A Lego color table, organised in a color sorting system (there are many so interesting ones!) would be highly welcome.
A "periodic" table for something that has no periods is just wrong. "
Agreed. The groups are bizzare. Why is dark brown underneath some pink pieces. Why is dark green underneath grey/black
@blogzilly said:
"Why did colour become color? Historically? Anyone know?"
In modern times most of the Americanizations of words can be credited to one man, Mr. Webster of the original Webster's Dictionary. He changed a bunch of words insignificantly as a grand & devastating act of rebellion against the British Empire. It's... pretty silly really.
I bought a frame at Action (chain of stores selling cheap stuff in a few European countries) for something like 5€ only, and it is perfect for it :
https://brickshelf.com/gallery/antpbe/Misc/dsc_5337_1.jpg
https://brickshelf.com/gallery/antpbe/Misc/dsc_5338_1.jpg
(I have v1)
This is pretty awful in my opinion. As others have pointed out, there’s no functional value to it being a periodic table. If anything, laying it out this way complicates color identification rather than simplifying it. On the other hand, if it’s value proposition is simply to be a visual gag...I’d say it fails here too, as there’s only modest effort made to make it look like a traditional periodic table. Instead, loud graphics and a distracting background are added; these elements further detract from its functionality while making it visually cluttered. The choice to use single stud pieces of varying shapes (rather than uniform bricks or tiles, for example) doesn’t help either.
But I just think it’s ugly. It’d be great if a chart about Lego colors was colorful! And followed a system of color-based logic. Here I just see a blast of yellow and a mess of information. It doesn’t work as a reference tool any better than it does as art or as a joke.
"A key to the information in the boxes is situated in the bottom left-hand corner."
Don't you mean right-hand corner?
Lego + glue? :-(
@blogzilly said:
"Why did colour become color? Historically? Anyone know?*
*Yes, I know I can Google it, but what’s the point of interacting in a community if not to ask a question from time to time instead of going to the search bar every time?"
The explanation I always heard was that American printers charged by the letter, so a lot of words got letters cut as long as their meaning didn't drastically change.
@fakespacesquid said:
" @blogzilly said:
"Why did colour become color? Historically? Anyone know?*
*Yes, I know I can Google it, but what’s the point of interacting in a community if not to ask a question from time to time instead of going to the search bar every time?"
The explanation I always heard was that American printers charged by the letter, so a lot of words got letters cut as long as their meaning didn't drastically change. "
We covered this in school. It was a deliberate attempt to distance themselves from British English. The guy who did the first US dictionary (one of the Miriam/Webster, can't remember which), kinda forced the issue by publishing with his preferred spellings. But a lot of 'American' spellings are actually variants of British spellings that simply fell out of use in the UK but continued on in the colonies.
British English is used across Africa and Asia but US English is gaining traction due to 'international English' (as in, commonly adopted by tech) leaning more towards US spelling, even though in many cases British English words are used - so realized instead of realised, but nappy instead of diaper.
Well, “color” is obviously the older spelling, as that’s how it was spelled in Latin. ;-)
As for how it was first spelled in English, well, there’s not really any way to know. It was borrowed into Middle English from either Latin or French, or more likely both. French at the time spelled it several different ways, some with a “u” and some without. It was spelled in even more ways in Middle English. Here are just the first few spellings listed in the Oxford English Dictionary: coleour, coleure, colewre, colovre, coulur, culur, kolour, collore, colowr, colowre, culoure, coler, coleur, colore, coloure, colur, colure, cullour, culour, color, colour… (It goes on to list dozens more after this.)
“colour” was the dominant spelling the 1700s when the US won its independence from the UK, but “color” was also very common on both sides of the Atlantic, particularly in scientific writing which favored Latin spellings.
While the earliest English dictionaries began appearing in the 1600s, they were very incomplete and not regarded as authoritative. The first truly reliable English dictionary didn't appear until 1754 (Samuel Johnson), only two decades before American independence. While it was very influential it was not universally regarded as definitive and English spelling remained very much in flux.
Noah Webster wrote the first American dictionary and while simplification of spelling was a major goal he was also a great scholar of linguistics (he’s said to have learned 26 languages) and generally preferred to make spellings to reflect the origins of words. Hence his preference for Latin-influenced spellings such as “color” or “defense” although many of his spellings failed to catch on. For example, he spelled “tongue” as “tung” (based on an older spelling, “tunge” in Old English, Old Frisian, and Middle Low German) but that never entered popular usage.
Today’s most definitive authority on the English language is probably the Oxford English Dictionary. Their preferred spellings include a mix of both British and American spellings, depending on a number of factors, but they take a more descriptive rather than prescriptive approach and recognize spellings used in many countries.
I just got mine in the mail. I love it!
I have one of these I purchase late last year. FYI they ship from hungry or somewhere in eastern Europe. So it took a bit to ship to the US. Mine is blue instead of black. The color names did bug me at first but I got over it and they do have the lego names you just have to reference the chart. I have used it for reference a few times as opposed to looking up the names.
Thanks for the discount! I had been thinking about getting it and that convinced me today!
I'm a little disappointed Light Nougat didn't make the cut. It's a prevalent colour... as far as minifig parts go... not so much as a brick colour. But as a colour currently in mass production, it does feel like it's missing. A minifig head would have been oversized, and those 1x1 tiles are still sort of rare and probably too expensive for V2. Maybe V3 can bring it back, especially if an ART set eventually includes them.
Regardless, I had already purchased one over a week ago, and it's on it's way!
@orange1x4 said:
"I have one of these I purchase late last year. ... Mine is blue instead of black. ..."
That would be because you have version 1 of this chart. This article is referencing version 2.
Where is Sand Red?
Its not very sturdy, I dropped mine whilst hanging it, and it cracked front to back. Fortunately off to the right side with the text and only about 1/3rd up. I think a slightly more flexible material would have been better given a lot of these will be hung on walls and the mounting point is very minimal and you will find it hard to hang.
But this and the faults mentioned by the author will hopefully be corrected for the next one, as it still a great design and relatively inexpensive.
This would look cool hanging in the LEGO room. The only thing that really bothers me is the "number of sets" feature. This means it is likely already outdated. Sort of like those complete LEGO Star Wars books where, as soon as it hits the market, you know it is missing sets already.