Random set of the day: Baby's Nursery
Posted by Huwbot,
Today's random set is 3112 Baby's Nursery, released in 1998. It's one of 24 Scala sets produced that year. It contains 32 pieces and 1 minifig.
It's owned by 44 Brickset members. If you want to add it to your collection you might find it for sale at BrickLink or eBay.
Help me come to life! If you like the set I've chosen for you today, please pledge your support for me on LEGO Ideas so I have a chance of becoming an official LEGO set!
45 likes
44 comments on this article
Those are some pretty advanced thoughts for a baby. I guess they'll be growing up to be an interior designer.
@MCLegoboy said:
"Those are some pretty advanced thoughts for a baby. I guess they'll be growing up to be an interior designer."
Whose to say that's really a baby? Maybe it looks like a baby, but is actually a highly advanced Technic robot sent to Earth by aliens to prepare for an invasion by Galidor forces. (as evidenced by the far away Earth in the lower left hand side of the picture)
Leaving parts on the sprue for the cover shot. Wow that is sooooo lazy. LEGO was in the middle of its dark years.
I'm going to have nightmares. Thanks, Huwbot.
Mom is dreaming of locking the baby in a room and abandoning it. Meanwhile, Baby is dreaming about murdering Mom and burying her out back. I mean, that’s just the logical conclusion, for a scene where they’re both looking forward to an assembled playroom, with Baby but no Mom, right?
@PurpleDave said:
"Mom is dreaming of locking the baby in a room and abandoning it. Meanwhile, Baby is dreaming about murdering Mom and burying her out back. I mean, that’s just the logical conclusion, for a scene where they’re both looking forward to an assembled playroom, with Baby but no Mom, right?"
I am with you. That unnaturally bald toddler is pure evil.
When I was like 4? I got a small set of miniaturized (REAL!) tools. For lack of a better word, that's what my room looked like; and probably why I'd never got another toolset until I was 11 (I did borrow my Granddad's tools...). And let's not forget what happened when I got my first Swiss Army Knife. Took everything apart the Phillips and two slotted would fit. I'm pretty sure some of the same thoughts going through the baby's head went through mine; but ended in disaster. But, at 8, and really just screwing around, I made a weird sled kinda thing out of an old axle out of a former milk hand truck (which Granddad had taken out to replace with larger turf tires so that it could be used to haul around firewood), a broken shovel handle, and scrap lumber/sheet of plywood. I've still got it, and modified it a bit as I figured out what I was gonna do with it. Works good to lift and drag around stuff.
Heck, my grandparents didn't let me touch a power tool until well into my teens. Never mind, I had a hand crank Millers Falls Model 2A drill from the '50s. After learning to clean and properly maintain the tool much later; with good quality drill bits, it outperforms a modern cordless drill. Out in the woods, if I need to put a hole in something, it's the drill I take with me. I skip the cordless drill to this date, I don't own one; but borrow my folks'), and if the job gets really rough, I have a vintage 3/8 Craftsman electric that Granddad gave me (which was officially my first power tool that was not a cheap Dremel) and a modern 5/8 Hitachi that will drill a hole through basically anything with the right bits.
The old "Yankee" push drills and that old Miller's Falls do what I need very well. I prefer the push drill for installing shelving and photos. The problem is that the Yankee takes a specialized bit. I'm looking at nearly $10 for the now common Phillips (luckily, the used drill I bought came with a slotted bit that does fit a modern Phillips well). These suckers got discontinued long before Torx became a thing (which I prefer over Phillips--much rarer to strip/cam out). There's a guy making and selling $30 adapters, but they look made from cheap quick release bit extenders; which cost $5 and break. I'm getting out the tools and making my own from the pile of standard 1/4 extenders I own.
Talk about a face only a mother could love...
Are those orange and green handcuffs?
Wait, so, the baby is going to assemble the play room?
That's a pretty smart baby. At that age, I was mostly just sleeping a lot and vomitting.
Demon baby is back
Are the mother and the baby having the EXACT SAME THOUGHT AT THE EXACT SAME TIME?
That is NOT normal...
That baby is not creepy at all!
Earthquake edition?
Maybe this is My Dad's baby or before he became My Dad.
Scala= Great parts ; Creepy babies
“This cage will be perfect for baby!”
Nobody puts baby in a corner (of a garbage pile)!
A quick tip for those who prefer not to have any nightmares: don't look at the pictures of Baby Thomas over at Bricklink!
Pure evil.
LEGO designers in 1998 had access to some serious psychotropics.
@namekuji said:
"Earthquake edition?"
Like the entire range from that year apparently, if you look at the set list.
Bring back Dad, I want to see Dad. I don't recognize this world of Scala without him. There's a baby now? Get Dad back here he'll make it make sense.
And I thought the Hidden Side box art did not do the underlying sets justice... This is the stuff of real nightmares...
Why is the assembled picture the smaller one? Why is there even a disassembled image at all? And the background, are they in orbit? But if they're in orbit, what is up with space?
@madforLEGO said:
"Scala= Great parts ; Creepy babies"
I actually do have one of those Scala babies, and they don't really look as creepy in person as they do on the box art. The Belville baby from a few years later was far, far worse:
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?id=37714T=S&O={%22iconly%22:0}
But creepy babies aside, can we stop for a moment and appreciate the sheer multitude of unique parts Scala blessed us with? By just looking at the box art alone, I instantly want to buy this set just to play around with all those pieces.
Every time one of these sets pops up for RSotD, I think LEGO must not have had a marketing department at this time. I can’t think anyone marketing a product would think it made sense to use such discouraging, tornado-esque photos. There is no way my mom would have allowed me to purchase a jumbled mess - and yet, I am certain I would have loved to have made this when I was a kid. Lots of play potential.
Little girls generally don’t care that toy babies are bald, by the way.
As a kid I played with Scala and really really love it! It was fun to build different room each time, animals are so so cute! Still keep all my LEGO Scala safe in a box, just animals are on display :) I know, series wasn't that popular, but they have special place in my heart!
@LegoDavid said:
" @madforLEGO said:
"Scala= Great parts ; Creepy babies"
I actually do have one of those Scala babies, and they don't really look as creepy in person as they do on the box art. The Belville baby from a few years later was far, far worse:
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?id=37714T=S&O={%22iconly%22:0}
But creepy babies aside, can we stop for a moment and appreciate the sheer multitude of unique parts Scala blessed us with? By just looking at the box art alone, I instantly want to buy this set just to play around with all those pieces. "
Yikes, that’s a scary baby!
No wonder she appeared in only 1 set!
What on earth were Lego thinking at this time?!
If a kid wanted dolls, they would have bought the far better barbie or something else.
If they wanted building blocks, there was almost no other choice than Lego!!
@LegoDavid said: ....I actually do have one of those Scala babies, and they don't really look as creepy in person as they do on the box art. The Belville baby from a few years later was far, far worse:
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?id=37714 T=S&O={%22iconly%22:0}
That thing looks like Elmer Fudd's illegitimate love child. Don't know who the unfortunate mother would be. As for this set's box art, I think Creepy Baby is just imagining him/her/itself NOT lying in a pile of rubble.
For what it's worth, re. those commenting on it, according to Bricklink this image was actually the cover of the instructions, not the box itself; the box-art did indeed show the assembled model as the main image: https://img.bricklink.com/ItemImage/ON/0/3112-1.png
So Lego wasn't actually expecting people to buy the set on the basis of just an image of a disassembled pile of parts!
WOW, weird
@AndyB1 said:
"Are those orange and green handcuffs?"
Or collars. With spikes on the inside, no less.
Why is there a shower above the sink? Possibly the nursery was already assembled and the baby was left alone in there and now they both have brief memories of what it used to look like. To be fair to the baby it does look a bit flimsy without any Lego 'clutch' bricks, and I'm sure like most dads he will have little interest in putting it all back together again. One for yesterday's recycle article.
My Dad is both figuratively and literally a homewrecker.
@lemish34 said:
" @LegoDavid said:
" @madforLEGO said:
"Scala= Great parts ; Creepy babies"
I actually do have one of those Scala babies, and they don't really look as creepy in person as they do on the box art. The Belville baby from a few years later was far, far worse:
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?id=37714 T=S&O={%22iconly%22:0}
But creepy babies aside, can we stop for a moment and appreciate the sheer multitude of unique parts Scala blessed us with? By just looking at the box art alone, I instantly want to buy this set just to play around with all those pieces. "
Yikes, that’s a scary baby!
No wonder she appeared in only 1 set!
What on earth were Lego thinking at this time?!
If a kid wanted dolls, they would have bought the far better barbie or something else.
If they wanted building blocks, there was almost no other choice than Lego!!"
I think the idea with Scala and Belville was that they were sort of an attempt to appeal to kids who already played with dolls by giving them a doll-like entry point to LEGO’s brick construction play, and thus sort of reel in newcomers that way. Presumably not the most successful of LEGO’s ventures, but I can understand the thinking behind it.
I do wish I had some Scala stuff, honestly, and a lot more Belville, for the variety.
When I think of these sets, I think of Elmyra from the old "Tiny Toon Adventures" show for some reason. Don't ask me why, but I just picture her voice as she's feeding baby with scale Lego peas or something.
The idea of Lego trying to appeal to kids and "back to basics" with quick builds for instant play and gratification, in an era when the fan base was starting to demand more advanced models and satisfying the needs of a growing number of AFOLs, is head-shaking.
SCALA attempted to but didn't fit the bill.
Is this the first or only time that Lego has shown the sprue in ANY official photo? (In case people don't know what a sprue is, it's the circle bit that holds all the pieces together that you're supposed to snap out. The baby is holding it in this photo.)
This is the best one yet!
Mother, her hair disheveled and a maniacal smirk on her face, has just finished demolishing the nursery after Thomas, demon spawn that he is, upset the laundry basket for the seventeenth time today. "If I can't have nice things, then neither shall you!" Mother shrieked before beginning her rampage, bitter at the fetching red cocktail dress she will never wear in public again. In the rubble, she visualizes Thomas's prone corpse on the nursery floor. Meanwhile, Thomas imagines sleeping peacefully in a Mother-free nursery, and reaches for the deadly beetle/butterfly/bow/flower sprue, ready to fling it at Mother in hopes of forever freeing himself from this vile, self-centered monster who tends him.
This was a normal nursery once. But when it became Baby's nursery it started to look like that.
I want that bear. Lazy question: is that the same bear that was in recent sets, or is it a different mold?
@ForestMenOfEndor said:
"is that the same bear that was in recent sets, or is it a different mold?"
It's different. And it has no actual connection points. I had fun with that on the last Scala RSOTD:
https://brickset.com/article/59323/random-set-of-the-day-swinging-stroller
@AllenSmith said: "This is the best one yet!"
Wow, dude. That got dark.
@Zordboy:
They’re always dark to begin with. We're just, um, shining a light on it.