Review: 21056 Taj Mahal
Posted by Huw,
The Taj Mahal is one of the seven wonders of the modern world and this is the second LEGO version of the mausoleum, the first being the 6,000-piece 10189 released during 2008.
The new Architecture version, 21056 Taj Mahal, has around 1/3rd the number of pieces and will be available from June 1st in Europe/ROW and August 1st in the USA and Canada.
Unfortunately it is so proportionally inaccurate that it will have its occupants turning in their graves...
The building
The building is on the southern bank of the river Yamuna in the Indian city of Agra. It was commissioned in 1632 by Mughal emperor Shah Jahan to house the tomb of his favourite wife Mumtaz Mahal, and now also houses his as well.
This is the view that greets you when you visit the site and as you can see the four minarets (towers in the corners) are an important and prominent feature of the structure. Although they are not as tall as the central dome, they look to be a similar height from this angle. More on that later...
Construction
The building is constructed on a sturdy 30x30 base which, like all Architecture sets, has a black tile border and printed tile.
It's raised by a brick to form the marble base upon which the building sits. The central section houses the tombs of the emperor and his wife, represented here by two white 1x2 ingots.
The next stage of construction involves placing around 200 white and tan 1x1 tiles onto 2x3 plates. It takes time and patience to ensure they are all positioned squarely, around half and hour or so, and I was glad when I'd finished!
With the base out the way, we can begin on the main part of the building, the mausoleum. It's built in eight subassemblies: four corners and four side sections, which thus involves some repetitious building. The corner sections incorporate some interesting building techniques to form the 45-degree angle.
The eight subassemblies are attached to the base to create the uneven octagonal shaped building.
A removable dome section is added to the centre before finishing off the edges of the roof with 1-high fence pieces.
The building's main onion-shaped dome is cleverly constructed using a variety of SNOT techniques which I will leave for you to discover for yourself.
The central section of the roof rests on tiles which allows it to be removed to access the interior.
Four smaller domes are placed at the corners of the main one and the absence of any suitable arches to form the lower part of them has necessitated the use of droid arms to approximate their shape. It's not entirely successful, in my opinion, but a clever solution nonetheless. It's actually quite hard to build them because all the arms need to be lined up with the top ring before clipping any of them onto it.
The completed model
The last parts to be added are the four minarets in the corners. They are constructed using 1x1 round bricks at the bottom with Technic axle connectors above.
Unfortunately, as you can see, they are far too thin compared to the size of the main mausoleum. The real building is 56m square and the minarets have a diameter of exactly 1/10th of that. The model is 18 studs square, so the towers should be 1.8 studs diameter, not just one.
If you refer back to the aerial picture of the real building above, you'll also notice that the base of the model is too small. The real one is 95m square so, with the 56m square building in the centre, there's a 20m gap all around it. The model's building is 18 studs wide, so each stud represents about 3m of the real building. Therefore, there should be at least 6 studs around it, not 3.
The main part of the structure, however, looks excellent: packed with realistic details, interesting parts usage and building techniques and, while it probably isn't 100% proportionally accurate, it looks to be.
The minarets are totally inadequate and therefore spoil what otherwise would be an excellent model. In fact, when I first glanced at the picture on the front of the box, I thought they'd been omitted, they are so puny.
The view from this angle really highlights how bad they look compared to the actual site.
As I mentioned above, the roof lifts off, as does the dome in the middle, to reveal the tombs in the centre.
Modifying the Minarets
I can't really understand why the minarets are so thin when, surely the solution is to use 2x2 round bricks? So, to see what they look like, that's what I've done here.
They perhaps look a little crude and bulky, and some tapering at the top would be welcome, but in my opinion they are more to scale with the building than the 1-wide ones.
They would look better and more in proportion had the base been enlarged as well so that those at the front are further away from the building which, from this angle, would then also give the impression that they are similar in height to the main dome, as in the picture of the real building. That would require a total rebuild, and probably two copies of the set unless you can muster enough 1x1 tiles and the white 1x2 ingots to use around the edges.
Verdict
The shrunken base and puny minarets spoil what would otherwise be an excellent model. I appreciate that selective compression is a useful technique to reduce a model's dimensions to keep the size and cost manageable, but in this case it has ruined it completely.
So, as it is, unless you're prepared to heavily modify it to correct the proportions, or can live with the inaccuracies, I really can't recommend it. It's a shame, because the main mausoleum section is on the whole pretty much perfect.
The set will be available at LEGO.com from June 1st (EU/ROW) and August 1st (US/CA), priced at €120/$120/£90 which, for the UK at least, seems very reasonable for over 2000 pieces.
Thanks to LEGO for providing the set for review. All opinions expressed are my own.
146 likes
86 comments on this article
I think the smaller ones look better given their (incorrect) proximity to the main structure, but it's interesting to see both sizes. Great review, thanks. It's not something I would enjoy building I think so it's an easy pass, but I'm happy to see them take the Architecture series in a new direction, makes me wonder if they have any other surprises coming.
meh.
Wow, really not pulling any punches here. Still, I suppose for this kind of product a certain degree of accuracy is to be expected.
I think minarets would look best if they would made of white barrels if barrel piece would exist in that color.
Yeah, the proportions look weird. That's going to tee off a lot of people and only reinforce the failure. A shame, as clearly you can see that the designers snuck in some clever details and made an effort. Not too sure about your point with the minarets, though. To me it looks more like this is a case of where a 1.5 diameter similar to the various "robot head" cones would be most appropriate and LEGO should perhaps produced a new custom tube part of that size.
Something 1.5 diameter would indeed be ideal.
I prefer the the thin minarets. With the thick ones, they are too close to the main building, and if you increased the size of the base to compensate, the model would be too big - it loses the advantage of been a smaller version of 10189.
@Huw, for once, I completely agree with you. I was tempted to buy the model, but looking at the minarets as they are made is not really worth it.
Some proportions are always going to be off on a build this size, however personally I think they've done a fantastic job. I prefer the 1x1 minarets. Cant wait to add it to my collection :-)
Unless you increase the size of the base to match, the 2x2 minarets are way too thick.
^ Indeed, as stated in my review. Does anyone actually read them or just look at the pictures? :)
Neither version of the minarets look perfect to me, but like you said most of this is due to the fact that the distance to the main building is far too small.
I am happy to have the large one which, while also not perfect by any means, just looks far more impressive.
All those 1 x 1 tiles. I hate aligning those.
@Huw said:
"^ Indeed, as stated in my review. Does anyone actually read them or just look at the pictures? :)"
I read it, honest!
Glad to hear it!
Huw, you said this is the second version of Taj Mahal set - why didn't you mention the 2017 version (10256, which I am happy to own) ?
@Altair1970 said:
"Huw, you said this is the second version of Taj Mahal set - why didn't you mention the 2017 version (10256, which I am happy to own) ? "
Because it's the same as the first.
The original 10189 was too beautiful, that any smaller version would never quite be the same.
Would've been nice to see the SNOT technique. I will not be buying this set so leaving it for me to discover on my own doesn't quite work out.
@Altair1970 said:
"Huw, you said this is the second version of Taj Mahal set - why didn't you mention the 2017 version (10256, which I am happy to own) ? "
That's true and also, this set is nice but needed a few more parts.
@Huw said:
" @Altair1970 said:
"Huw, you said this is the second version of Taj Mahal set - why didn't you mention the 2017 version (10256, which I am happy to own) ? "
Because it's the same as the first."
@Huw
Could you possibly do an article about the differences between original and rereleases?
Thanks for the review too.
Well, it looks nice, but it's not a big yeah for me...
@Huw said:
"Something 1.5 diameter would indeed be ideal."
Maybe, white minifigure heads?
@nick3c said:
" @Huw said:
" @Altair1970 said:
"Huw, you said this is the second version of Taj Mahal set - why didn't you mention the 2017 version (10256, which I am happy to own) ? "
Because it's the same as the first."
@Huw
Could you possibly do an article about the differences between original and rereleases?
Thanks for the review too.
"
I think it is exactly the same except for the fact the second one had a brick separator.
Great review Huw.
As soon as I saw the first images I thought the proportions were off but I had no idea how much until this review. I'll certainly follow your minaret suggestions and I think I'll extend the base too. Such a shame - Lego could easily have got this right. It seems like a schoolboy error, like many recent sets, but one we can rectify fairly easily.
I saw another review earlier praising it so much, but no mention of scale or accuracy. Its annoying but will mean I could actually display this with other architects sets.
How big is the new one? I could not find this anywhere.
I would of loved the larger one to but again no where to show off something so square and big!
I don't find the minarets to be a major issue, and certainly not enough to "ruin" it completely. Liberties should be taken to keep the model concise within reason, and I think the girth and distance away from the centre is completely within reason.
Thanks for the knowledgeable review. I have enjoyed building the currently offered Architecture sets this past year and have not expected much accuracy given the small scale. Still, they are fun to build and look great to display. After your review, I'll still build this one but will be considering why certain choices were made in the design. The comparison of minarets was great to see!
I think this set looks very good. There are often, by necessity, more liberties taken with proportions in Architecture sets than Creator Expert sets.
In this case, the choice was obviously between matching the proportions of the minarets to the main building or to the area of the base. In the elevated view the 2x2s look better. However, in the side-on view they look much worse.
I think, overall, the choice of 1x1 was fine, given the size of the model, and assuming that it will most likely be viewed from the side, on a shelf, rather than from above, in a city.
@nick3c said:
" @Huw said:
" @Altair1970 said:
"Huw, you said this is the second version of Taj Mahal set - why didn't you mention the 2017 version (10256, which I am happy to own) ? "
Because it's the same as the first."
@Huw
Could you possibly do an article about the differences between original and rereleases?
Thanks for the review too.
"
This would be rather a short article! The updated model contains a brick separator and dark bluish grey 3M axles with studs inside each minaret were replaced with dark tan equivalents.
The latter model also features numbered bags, which 10189 Taj Mahal lacked.
@lippidp said:
"Would've been nice to see the SNOT technique. I will not be buying this set so leaving it for me to discover on my own doesn't quite work out. "
Once Lego.com uploads the instructions pdf, it'll automatically be linked here on Brickset on this set's page; so you can always discover the technique that way. That's what I plan on doing. :)
Does this mean a miniature Roman Colosseum is the next Architecture set?
@Huw you might want to consider having a second image of photograph of the actual building underneath the head-on shot of the completed model that is after the sentence "The view from this angle really highlights how bad they look compared to the actual site". That way readers wouldn't have to scroll up to the top and then back down when comparing the two front views.
Thanks for showing an image with 2x2 minarets, as it satisfies my curiosity as to which version would be better - I prefer the original 1x1. Still looking forward to getting this one.
We will need other sets like the Taj Ma-Small, like the Great Small of China, the Teeny Tower of Pisa, the Shrinx, and Roman Coliseum—The Coliseum—Coli—I have to think about that one.
@MrJackson, good idea. Done.
The droid arm technique on those domes absolutely kills this model in my opinion. I could live with the minarets being smaller as a sort of forced perspective kind of concession but those domes look absolutely horrible and unacceptable for a finished model.
Wow, really don’t like those minarets lol. I think it’s fine considering this is meant to be a smaller, more affordable version. The model still looks great and I think many people wouldn’t necessarily notice the inaccuracies.
Maybe not incredibly impressive, but nice set. I remember when I was shocked that the reissue of 10189 was released, because I was about to save money for MiSB 10189. If I had managed to buy it before 10256 was released, I would have gone crazy.
@Freddy_Hodson said:
"I don't find the minarets to be a major issue, and certainly not enough to "ruin" it completely. Liberties should be taken to keep the model concise within reason, and I think the girth and distance away from the centre is completely within reason."
Well put. The design choice did not bother me as much as releasing this set so soon after 10256.
I have noticed recently Huw has taken issue with more design choices, such as the blue roof of 21325 Blacksmith. The beauty of LEGO is you can modify to your pleasing, but these quibbles don’t add much to reviews for me.
Man, that back-to-back comparison shot of the actual building and the set really highlights its inadequacies. I almost prefer the thinner minarets because of how close they are to the main structure, which is a problem in and of itself. The 2x2s seem real bulky, but again, I think that's an illusion caused by proximity - if they were farther out, it would be fine.
Those droid arms, though, totally spoil the set for me. I accept that there probably isn't a better solution, but for a site this iconic, between those, the minarets, the lack of correct area, and some strange scaling issues that are more apparent to me now (the central dome should be taller, for one thing), this set falls into the same trap that the 10262 Aston Martin did: If you can't nail verisimilitude to the source material, you probably shouldn't build it.
@CherryRose said:
"We will need other sets like the Taj Ma-Small, like the Great Small of China, the Teeny Tower of Pisa, the Shrinx, and Roman Coliseum—The Coliseum—Coli—I have to think about that one."
The Smalliseum, perhaps?
Huw, it’s selective bias. People who read all the reviews don’t comment on things you already mention in the article, but the people who don’t read it all, type up their redundant question, which then makes up a decent proportion of the comments which makes you think that nobody reads the reviews. All because those who read don’t usually need to post.
@CC said:
" these quibbles don’t add much to reviews for me."
One minute we are criticised for always being positive, the next for pointing out flaws. We can't win, it seems!
It’s a review. The purpose of a review is to analyze positive and negative qualities of the subject. “Quibbles” are an inherent part of criticism. If I don’t like the writing style of a book or the performances in a film, then my review will state those as negatives. The same thing is true of LEGO.
As for the set itself, I think it looks fine, but completely understand why some, especially those intimately familiar with the building, have taken issue with it.
I like the antennas on the roof. It's for communicating with the International Space Station obviously (same ski poles)
If those two white ingots represent the emperor and his wife, which people are inside the vertical tombs around the edges?
@mtpelepele said:
" @CherryRose said:
"We will need other sets like the Taj Ma-Small, like the Great Small of China, the Teeny Tower of Pisa, the Shrinx, and Roman Coliseum—The Coliseum—Coli—I have to think about that one."
The Smalliseum, perhaps?"
We already have the Great Small of China (21041)
Maybe white Clikits beads for the minarets?
Or: https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=74967T=S&C=1&O={%22color%22:%221%22,%22iconly%22:0}
Despite a rather surprisingly negative review, I am still going to purchase this set. The modification suggested detracts from the overall appearance somewhat, in my opinion, even it is a more accurate representation. I think the thinness gives the illusion of height, which seems to be what they were trying to convey perhaps.
Some buildings work and look great at Architecture scale, others don't and need to be larger scale like the Expert range. For me, the 10189 Taj looks great. Although, I might consider modding mine with 1x1 tiles.
However I understand that not have the space or the money for the Expert/18+ range, and if I didn't already have a Taj, I would get this one.
I am continually amazed at how educational these Architecture set reviews can be! Keep up the great work, Huw!
@ikontrec said:
" @Huw said:
"Something 1.5 diameter would indeed be ideal."
Maybe, white minifigure heads?"
I thought the same. I guess the inability to run a bar through them means a tower of heads isn't strong enough for a retail set?
@CherryRose said:
"We will need other sets like the Taj Ma-Small, like the Great Small of China, the Teeny Tower of Pisa, the Shrinx, and Roman Coliseum—The Coliseum—Coli—I have to think about that one."
Here's my Teeny Roman Coliseum: https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-49895/kaosconman/roma-colosseo-amphitheatrum-flavium/
Very “meh”
My initial thought on seeing the announced model was that it looked really good. Having read Huw's review, there are some obvious shortcomings, when they are pointed out, however, this doesn't detract from the overall model in too significant a way, in my opinion. They are all very valid criticisms, however, so YMMV!
Looking at many of the Architecture models, there are always going to be compromises that have been made, when building at such a small scale with Lego bricks. I could pick a number of holes in 21045 Trafalgar Square: For the lions being far too big, the width of the National Gallery being too wide, the sizes of the central fountains etc. I still really like the model though!
Anyway, this is still on my wishlist!
It's evident that shrinking a large subject down to a small build is going to require compromises, short of creating new pieces. I think it looks reasonable, though cannot unsee the issues as already pointed out. And it has a much smaller footprint and price tag compared to the previous releases, which matters to me.
Certainly an interesting set, especially how it balances technical accuracy with aesthetic accuracy.
Sometimes shrinking down the exact scale and dimensions of a real life landmark doesn't give the same majesty and glory as a technically inaccurate but perhaps "better-looking" model. Of course, what is "better-looking" is for each of us to decide, and for LEGO I can tell some careful, and debatable, decisions were made.
Reminds me of the Statue of Liberty face debate. To some it looked fine, and to others it looked weird, but each method has its own balances to make and no matter which one LEGO chooses the end community response is still gonna be the same: people sharing their ideas of what they think looks better.
"Unfortunately it is so proportionally inaccurate that it will have its occupants turning in their graves..."
It's not too bad. Very recognizable.
The 21004: Solomon Guggenheim Museum, now that was a tragedy of a Lego model so far off of the source material.
In spite of imperfections the model is perfect.
The droid arms for the smaller domes are the only real problem with the set.
The designer thought it'd get an illusion of some arches there but doesn't work.
The domes don't swoop in like that.
Best to have just used like an angle brick (a 2x2 w/45° angle?) and forego any arch showing. Maybe a sticker to show indicate an arch.
I really love the original set (I have the 2017 version), and I'm glad a smaller, more "polished" version is being made! The proportions definitely look off when comparing it directly to pictures but I didn't notice it before this review. I'll still pick this one up and probably not modify it, as I think the minarets look too thick with the 2x2 bricks and I'd rather have them look too thin. Hopefully in 10 years we get another 6000-piece Taj Mahal with modern building techniques!
Actually, the diameter of the Taj Mahal's dome at its widest point is 58 meters, while the minarets are 5.65 meters in diameter, which means the ratio is just under 1/10th. By comparison the LEGO set has a diameter ratio of just under 1/8th (one stud to just over eight studs). Proportionally, this is much more accurate than the 1/4th ratio diameter used in the revised version.
Part of why the minarets are perceived as being thicker in the reference photos than they are in the images of the LEGO set is how images are compressed at longer focal lengths and how certain features are exaggerated at shorter focal lengths. In the images used for the Taj Mahal, the photographer likely shot the image from as close to the subject as possible while still keeping all the necessary features in frame (short focal length, high distortion, subjects closer to the focal plane appear larger). Whereas for the LEGO set, the photographer has a lot more room to distance him/herself from the subject (low distortion, subjects are represented closer to their true scale).
It definitely is recognisable but if you have seen the real thing in person, you know right away that there is something truly off with this new model. When I first saw the pictures, the minarets stood out as being extremely wrong right away. I definitely prefer the 2x2 ones but having to add 3 more rings of 1x1 to achieve the proper spacing between structures (plus the necessary plates underneath) suddenly makes this set very expensive and not worth it. Totally agree with Huw on this one. But I'll still consult the instructions for any gems in building techniques. Besides, you can't buy or display them all.....
I don’t like your modification. The original seems better though.
You complained about having to place all the times at the base and then complained that the model needed to be wider and have more of that empty space, which would mean more tedious tile placement. So the trade off for a more accurate design would be a less enjoyable build process, right? I can see why they might have made some compromises in this regard, and I don't think there is an easy solution of "just make it bigger".
Beyond that nitpicking, it looks like an interesting model, and I enjoyed the pictures of the build. (Especially because I probably won't be picking this up myself anyway.) And appreciate the comparisons to the main building. Thanks for the review!
@Huw said:
" @CC said:
" these quibbles don’t add much to reviews for me."
One minute we are criticised for always being positive, the next for pointing out flaws. We can't win, it seems!
"
I suspect that most AFOLs prefer candour to pander. LEGO is an expensive hobby that takes time and space, none of which are in abundant supply for the majority of enthusiasts. So if a set has shortcomings, we are going to want to know about them. We may not agree with you - I don’t on this occasion - but we very much value your* expert opinion.
* By ‘your’ I mean all of Brickset’s in-house reviewers.
I'm rather torn with this one. I own the reissued Taj Mahal and it's prominently displayed and likely always will be; I find it to be spectacular on display and it was a remarkable building experience. Normally I'd therefore not think twice about getting this except for two factors: I've become a collector of the Architecture line (I own all of the in-print ones, and in fact, the Statue of Liberty was what got me out of my Dark Age), and I love the interior of this model. Still, is that enough to spend a not insignificant amount of money on a miniature version of a set I already own?
It might be ruined by its inaccuracy, it really looks like a good lego set to me, a beautiful display piece.
@Huw said:
" @CC said:
" these quibbles don’t add much to reviews for me."
One minute we are criticised for always being positive, the next for pointing out flaws. We can't win, it seems!
"
Honestly, with how many sets (big ones especially!) that Lego has been releasing over the last couple of years, I'm glad to hear anything negative (within reason) in reviews. There's so many to choose from, and being able to eliminate any from my wish list, regardless of the reason, is helpful to me. Perhaps it's also partly due to my growing cynicism about the company having worked for them for over a decade. Please continue to let us know your opinions, regardless of what they may be.
At any rate, thanks for the review and keep up the good work Huw!
Since I don't own the large version of the Taj Mahal, I'm very likely to put this on my want list (which is, admittedly, now far too long for me to get all of it). To me, the biggest problem with the minarets is the loss of their subtle taper from base to top, and the next biggest problem is that they are crammed in too close to the main building--but I don't see how the taper could be managed at this scale and expanding the base would, indeed, make the build much more tedious. Given the givens, I think the designers made very reasonable decisions, and I think the final build is beautiful, even if not perfectly to scale.
Whilst the comparisons of proportions are interesting and a valid point, I disagree with the conclusion that the model is spoiled almost irreparably by the design choices that were made.
I think the compromises that were made were probably better than any of the alternatives that Huw showed or suggested, and I also think it's a decent and recognisable model of the Taj Mahal. Perhaps this will be a polarising set but I think plenty of people will like this model, even while recognising that it's not a perfect representation (as no microscale model in LEGO is ever going to be).
@CC said:
"
I have noticed recently Huw has taken issue with more design choices, such as the blue roof of 21325 Blacksmith. The beauty of LEGO is you can modify to your pleasing, but these quibbles don’t add much to reviews for me."
Isn't that the whole point of a review? To highlight the good and the bad?
It is, afterall, just an honest opinion of the reviewer.
@The_Sly_Fox said:
" @CC said:
"
I have noticed recently Huw has taken issue with more design choices, such as the blue roof of 21325 Blacksmith. The beauty of LEGO is you can modify to your pleasing, but these quibbles don’t add much to reviews for me."
Isn't that the whole point of a review? To highlight the good and the bad?
It is, afterall, just an honest opinion of the reviewer.
"
I may not agree with the conclusion of the review but I like that Huw presents alternatives. In fact I plan to add 21325 Blacksmith to my city and his “ renovations ” are welcomed. I wish he not stop to make them. It gives a better review I think.
@Huw said:
"One minute we are criticised for always being positive, the next for pointing out flaws. We can't win, it seems!"
Huw, I appreciate all your reviews and I welcome hearing if they are positive or negative. I was noting the reviews in which you have presented a modification to the set such as 21325 or 40488. I just meant to say I don’t come to a review looking for how to modify a set, but others in comments do appreciate this aspect.
The border around the base is 3 studs wide, if they didn't made it and just used the whole baseplate for the base the proportions would have been correct.
Still in doubt if I want to buy this or not, it would just be to complete the series, as I already have the big one I wouldn't keep this on display anyway.
Is the duplo one that someone made on Ideas better than this one?
But more importantly, I'd like to see a comparison of this one and the 2008 one, it's fine if you don't have the other in-hand (I would hate to see the person who could fit it in their hand) because I know what I'm asking for.
The criticism is a bit harsh IMO. It’s still immediately recognizable and a decent rendition
Great review, however I feel you were a little harsh. I have no issue with criticism, and I appreciate you providing an alternative design. However I feel the smaller minarets were intentional and pulled off incredibly well. Yes, 1.5 studs would be more accurate, however given that the base is too small, it makes the minarets look thicker than they actually are as they are closer to the main structure than they should be. As a result I would say that the perspective created by the smaller base creates the perfect proportions. I think that Lego created an excellent illusion here.
I understand the desire to be accurate in enlarging the base, but doing so doesn’t really add anything to the model aside from another $20-$30. I think that the previous iteration of this building was the one designed for perfectionist and was uncompromising when it came to price. The goal of this model to me is to create an affordable (or at least more affordable) option for people who want to have this building built in Lego but couldn’t afford the larger set. I think that this was a very sensible compromise, in the same way I feel that the smaller X-Wing and TIE sets this year are very sensible compromises. I think that Lego is definitely taking a step in the right direction by making more affordable sets, and cutting a few corners to make that happen is perfectly fine for me.
@CapnRex101 said:
" @nick3c said:
" @Huw said:
" @Altair1970 said:
"Huw, you said this is the second version of Taj Mahal set - why didn't you mention the 2017 version (10256, which I am happy to own) ? "
Because it's the same as the first."
@Huw
Could you possibly do an article about the differences between original and rereleases?
Thanks for the review too.
"
This would be rather a short article! The updated model contains a brick separator and dark bluish grey 3M axles with studs inside each minaret were replaced with dark tan equivalents.
The latter model also features numbered bags, which 10189 Taj Mahal lacked."
@Huw
Thanks for the response.
I was meaning a separate article about rereleases over the years, or something similar to that.
What do you think?
@CapnRex101 said:
" @nick3c said:
" @Huw said:
" @Altair1970 said:
"Huw, you said this is the second version of Taj Mahal set - why didn't you mention the 2017 version (10256, which I am happy to own) ? "
Because it's the same as the first."
@Huw
Could you possibly do an article about the differences between original and rereleases?
Thanks for the review too.
"
This would be rather a short article! The updated model contains a brick separator and dark bluish grey 3M axles with studs inside each minaret were replaced with dark tan equivalents.
The latter model also features numbered bags, which 10189 Taj Mahal lacked."
Great piece! 5/5 ;)
Fair and accurate assessment. While I would love to get my hands on either Creator larger scale version, funds and space will need to be directed elsewhere. I'm ok settling for this one though.
I own the other Taj Mahal set 10256 and it is much bigger and it looks much better in my opinion.
Trivia Notes: the minarets were built to lean slightly away from the main building, in case of earthquake. There are tiny perfect circles inscribed in the platform for surveying, which I have only seen, but never mentioned in articles or books. I think the designers compromised as well as they could. It looks much like many souvenir models available in Agra, that are off proportioned in order to be molded well and stay strong enough.
I've always wondered if any of these architecture sets have copyright protection associated with the original building. Many public buildings in the world have copyright protection for taking photos of them and require a photo release to be used in publications and movies. I have always assumed Lego had rights to re create these buildings in Lego form, but with a lot of other shady stuff that has happened in the past year. Just wondering if anyone has looked into that, or maybe that doesn't extend to models? I do know it does extend to the architect who created the building, and I know it does only apply to buildings after 1990 when the law was established, but the Burj Khalifa and one world trade in the smaller models definitely fall into that category. Just curious.
@Huw said:
"^ Indeed, as stated in my review. Does anyone actually read them or just look at the pictures? :)"
There's writing? Huh. ;)