Result: What are your favourite sets of 2022?

Well deserved for both 76911 and 10305 !!

@The_1_Chris said:
"Both the Aston Martin and Lion Knights' Castle are awesome sets, let's hoop 2023 will bring some great sets as well."

Of course, Rivendell is coming :-)

True, this poll design really wasn’t “what is your single favorite set”, but “what are your three favorite sets, in any order”, so interpreted in that light the Galaxy Explorer and the Lion Knights Castle are tied. I think I voted for both of them. They’re both truly excellent sets.

Hopefully one day I'll get that awesome castle.

I personally put the Lamborghini Countach before the Aston Martin, but the Aloy figure and castle were myh number 1 picks as well. The castle is a beautiful set with lots of playh features. The Galaxy explorer and hotel were my number 2 & 3 picks as well. Beautiful sets. Hope LEGO will continue to revive older sets like this and continue with the modular line for a long time.

I lent my vote to the Castle because I thought the Explorer would win in a landslide, I wonder if others did the same.

Unsurprising that Speed Champions won easily in the affordable category. The DB5 and Countach were both amazing. I'm a little disappointed that the XL-15 didn't see much love, but it unfortunately suffered due to the price bracketing. It stood no chance in the favorite sets, and it was above the price category for budget. I loved the Speed Champions spaceship though.

@B_Space_Man said:
"I’ve really enjoyed the Galaxy Explorer, but the permanent 25% (and sometimes 50%) off at Walmart and other places makes me wonder if they overshot with production. I’m curious if it draws interest from those outside of the AFOL community. "

Ive wondered this too. Do non AFOLs look at it and just see a set from the 70s and, if they want space, prefer 60349 Space Station, 60350 Research Base, 10266 Lunar Lander, 10283 Discovery? Even putting aside pure nostalgia, a lot of the great things about this set - building techniques to get the shaping, parts use to recreate at 150% of original scale, etc - just won’t appeal as much to non AFOLs.

@binaryeye said:
" @CCC said:
"The poll wasn't about value or price. It was about favourite sets. If I could only have one of the castle or Galaxy Explorer, I'd go for the castle."

But how do you define favorite? If I could have only one, I'd also pick the castle. But in terms of enjoying the build and evoking nostalgia, Galaxy Explorer is my favorite of the two."

You don't :) That's the whole point. It's not "Best set" or "Most value". It's favourite, a fluid term. You can have a favourite even if you don't own it, or never will.

I think it's funny how a good few people have pointed out the DB5's color issue with the stickers, but nobody's pointed out the Countach's with the printing on the canopy. Well, until now, that is. C-C-C-Combo Breaker! Anyway, I find it interesting that I have four of the top five sub-$40 sets, and the other one (75333) is one I am planning to get. Little surprised Majestic Tiger showed up, given its price. Not that it didn't deserve a spot, but it's the cheapest set on the list, and the only one I've seen at Walmart, other than 10497.

@TheOtherMike said:
"I think it's funny how a good few people have pointed out the DB5's color issue with the stickers, but nobody's pointed out the Countach's with the printing on the canopy."
Fair point, that's the one and only thing I really don't like about the Countach. That said, that's a problem with many Speed Champions sets.....including the DB5.
(just a few more shades of grey and they could make a book and movie about this car!)

Lego being bad with matching colors from prints and plastic is a shame. But the sticker issue could be resolved so easily: just make clear backed stickers....

Interesting article. I find myself somehow following the trend, having the most of the ones on the cheaper side (9), and only four of the most expensive, but the first three sets included.

Speed champions were amazing last year. This year, not so much, so far.

But if one simply had to pick which one set you wanted to have more than any other, regardless of price, the castle was obviously it for me. And I voted accordingly. Only one vote.

@TheOtherMike said:
"I think it's funny how a good few people have pointed out the DB5's color issue with the stickers, but nobody's pointed out the Countach's with the printing on the canopy"
Although I liked the Countach it was the gaps at the front and back of the front wheel arches, more than the colour mismatch, that ruled it out of the top three favourites for me.

I didn’t read every word, maybe I missed something… Seems like a weird poll. Did everyone who voted actually buy all the sets to compare them? I kind of doubt it. So if somebody just bought one set and really liked it they say it was their favorite set of the year having not built the other sets. So, kind of neat but I’m not really sure what it all means.

Perhaps if there was a vote for best set under £100, 10497 Galaxy Explorer might run away with it!

@ForestMenOfEndor said:
" @nashikens said:
"I didn’t read every word, maybe I missed something… Seems like a weird poll. Did everyone who voted actually buy all the sets to compare them? I kind of doubt it. So if somebody just bought one set and really liked it they say it was their favorite set of the year having not built the other sets. So, kind of neat but I’m not really sure what it all means. "

On the other hand, actually purchasing a set is akin to "voting" for it. People buy and build the sets that they like. It would be kind of odd to pick a favorite set that one _didn't_ want to own."
Yeah? Maybe I’m just immersed in it a little more. I have the opportunity to see and build sets I don’t own somewhat frequently. I also often don’t buy sets that I have built or I have read reviews on that I think I would like. It’s a numbers game

@nashikens said:
"I have the opportunity to see and build sets I don’t own somewhat frequently."

I would like to sign up for that! Maybe I need more friends who are AFOLs....

Not surprised about the results. Lion knights' Castle is a perfect tribute to Castle theme, and as my favourite theme, I bought this set, paying the highest quantity of money I've ever paid!! But I love it!
And 007 Aston Martin is also a set I bought, it is great!!
Definetively, not surprised!! I voted for both!!

Favourite is a very subjective thing and it's not necessarily based on value. I chose my favourite based on if I could only buy one set out of 2022 release, which would it be. And what would be my second purchase if I could buy two and so on. Lion Knight's Castle was my 1. BTTF 2. Number 3 was very hard between Boutique Hotel and Sanctum but I chose Boutique Hotel cause I collect modulars and this design is one of my favourite amongst the whole modular line.

7428 10497 owned versus 4785 10305 owned says that the Galaxy Explorer is the favorite. I certainly have no qualms with 10305 tasking the palm on that specific poll though. If I can find the resources to get it before it is discontinued, I will get it (too many other sets I want).

Similarly to the minifig list and the sets below 40 list, the order is all relative. What is listed up there (all 3 polls) is all fine and deservedly so.

@PurpleDave:
Maybe in 25 years, when I retire from the career that I love, I can find some part-time employment to fritter away the hours! To be fair, I do spend a lot of time in the LEGO store already....

@Hobbes:
Maybe. I managed to grab the Explorer for $50 (sorry @craiggrannell) and was very happy to do so. I haven't ponied up for the Lion Knights' Castle, yet, but my birthday is coming up in a couple of months! Although I own the one and not the other (yet), I still voted for the Castle. If I had the spare $400, it would have been a Day One purchase.

@B_Space_Man said:
"I’ve really enjoyed the Galaxy Explorer, but the permanent 25% (and sometimes 50%) off at Walmart and other places makes me wonder if they overshot with production. I’m curious if it draws interest from those outside of the AFOL community. "

I've never seen one physically in my local Wal-Mart, and from what I know, that's the only place to get one unless you go directly to LEGO or the aftermarket. The 50% off window was brief and just before Christmas. All that to say, whatever anomalies surround the set's performance at retail Walmart could have more to do with Walmart than the set itself.

@WizardOfOss said:
"(just a few more shades of grey and they could make a book and movie about this car!)"

Bite your tongue. Off!

@SillyTwig: "Might?"

@ForestMenOfEndor said:
"Also, to your point @Hobbes, 7428 copies of 10497 would cost $742,800 at retail. 4785 copies of 10305 would cost $1,914,000 at retail. If one was inclined, one could argue that the representative "favorite" set is the one that people have spent the most cumulative money to acquire. But it's all just fun and games! These are two of the best sets in recent memory."

I like that approach as well. Here is even another take: if we take the owned and wanted: Galaxy Explorer: 7428 + 2701 = 10129 Lion's Castle: 4875 + 4770 = 9645. Even if the Galaxy is still higher, we can then say that: those who wanted the Galaxy Explorer got it already (because it was affordable). From those who wanted the Castle, half bought it and the other half are still saving for it (because it is a much bigger commitment).

Someone could also ask him/herself this: do you regret not buying 7189. If the answer to this question is yes, then the logical thing to do is to concentrate on getting this one before it is retired.

Of this whole thing, I only own 4: Galaxy Explorer 10497, Horizon:Tallneck 76989, Picnic in the Park (aka squirrel battle pack!) 60326 and Mobile Crane 60324. Of course, because of this I also own the most popular minifig: Aloy.

Great! Now gimme that Lotus Esprit please Lego.

I want a Roger Moore fig with a raised eyebrow and a fish.

The Aston Martin is a great little set and a deserved winner.

The higher priced list doesn't represent my tastes very well. I like castles well enough and I love actual space stuff more than the nostalgia space and the boutique hotel was one of the ugliest modulars I've seen in a long while (haven't picked it up, it may be the first I skip since I started). Not that it's badly made, it just looks like a tacky hotel with awful colour choices.

Ah well, it's nice to be different !

With all the people who mentioned the lion knight’s castle set in the initial post, I’m not surprised that it won. It’s a great set

@Huw, shouldn’t Favorite Theme be posted by now?

I was not expecting that much of a blowout by by Lion Knights Castle and Galaxy Explorer!

I hope they both actually sold well. I saw huge sales on Galaxy Explorers at Wal-Mart. I want more space!

One more clear sign to TLG: BRING BACK THE CASTLE THEME, PLEASE!

I voted for Aloy, Countach and Castle, so overall I am ok with the results.

I just start to think that the Classic Space fans are like Bionicle fans: "Who cares, what the numbers are, our set is the winner and the best too".

I 'silvered' on fave set overall ( @Samie: Also bring back Classic Space...or at least Neo-Classic Space...numbers are there...:)), would've done the same on 'under $40', but put in for 'Ice Cream Police Chase'...didn't even place...and 'Maintenance Robot' for minifig, so...I'm fine with what I vote/how I voted...:)

@560heliport said:
"It's just a poll. "What's your favorite?" It doesn't really mean anything.
"Galaxy Explorer got robbed"... of what?
Also, it's a poll of AFOLs. Actually, of Brickset members.
I'd love to see the results of a poll of people that represent all of Lego's customers.

"

True - did the castle sell very well, compared to other high priced adult oriented sets? Every time I've looked at it as a possibility to purchase for myself, it's been available then and there. Whereas some other popular sets on that list have been out of stock for most of their run (ultimately, I've never caved on the castle because of it's size, and having somewhere to display it!)

Which doesn't REALLY mean anything, because something being out of stock all the time may just be about Lego underestimating demand. So the castle may have anticipated it's demand more accurately.

With three votes I'm not surprised the Castle won. But the fact that 10497 Galaxy Explorer did so well against a set that cost 4x as much is a testament to how great that set is. A $100 Castle would have lost badly.

@PurpleDave said:
" @ra226:
If a bunch of kids did put 10497 on their Christmas lists, imagine how complex 100497 will be when they have to scale it up again so adults can once again experience what it was like to hold this version as kids."

Oh man, in 45 more years, I am there!

I bet Lego wish that all the people who voted for the Castle actually bought the set.

The castle 10305 is hardly a surprise, but maybe it's unfair that such huge sets are in the same category with smaller ones, they just can't compete in terms of details and playability.
Instead I am puzzled by the Aston Martin 76911 ... I mean, it looks so goofy with its flat front, like it's been used in a crash test! Reminds more of a Trabant...

@Andhe said:
"(...)
I own the Lions Castle, and is BY FAR the most I've ever spent on a lego set, and have to admit that the price did hurt my opinion of it. It's big, but not that big (if you have space to display two modulars, you have space for this) and isn't particulary packed with detail (again because of the size, a lot ends up hidden, or just basic walls). (...)"
Hmmm, this raises an interesting theory: did some owners of the 10305 Castle vote for it because they had spent so much on it and felt they needed to justify the cost?

Follow-on question & follow-up poll suggestion:
Would you rather have ONE 10305 Lion Kinghts' Castle or FOUR 10497 Galaxy Explorers?

Yeah, 60333 Bathtub Stunt Bike made it into the Top3 and became the Speed champion of hearts (might even drive further to the top if pushed)!
Guess the castle won because of more play features than a spaceship could ever have. Or is this a general choice - location over vehicle?

@bananaworld said:
"
@Andhe said:
"(...)
I own the Lions Castle, and is BY FAR the most I've ever spent on a lego set, and have to admit that the price did hurt my opinion of it. It's big, but not that big (if you have space to display two modulars, you have space for this) and isn't particulary packed with detail (again because of the size, a lot ends up hidden, or just basic walls). (...)"
Hmmm, this raises an interesting theory: did some owners of the 10305 Castle vote for it because they had spent so much on it and felt they needed to justify the cost?

Follow-on question & follow-up poll suggestion:
Would you rather have ONE 10305 Lion Kinghts' Castle or FOUR 10497 Galaxy Explorers?"

Well, I have three 10497 Galaxy Explorers, and zero 10305 Lion Knights' Castle, so...

@Andhe
I feel exactly the same way... I was all in on the hype for the castle but once it's real and you step back.. it's disappointing. Like you said not as big as you'd think, the interior to me is really a shame. Just a bunch of tiny dollhouse areas, I was hoping for a large feast hall or substantial armory. The price is awful.

@vzarmo:
Are you referring to that time when they had to merge all the votes for different Castle factions together to beat Bionicle (which still spanked Classic Space) because they clearly never had any intention of making the Fan Vote set based on the theme that saved the company, and all they could muster up for the “2nd place” theme was 11021 Sad Tahu?

@ScholtzTKO said:
" @Andhe
I feel exactly the same way... I was all in on the hype for the castle but once it's real and you step back.. it's disappointing. Like you said not as big as you'd think, the interior to me is really a shame. Just a bunch of tiny dollhouse areas, I was hoping for a large feast hall or substantial armory. The price is awful."

It's funny that people complain about price tag yet at the same time saying that interior is too small... ok lets do better interior keeping the same scale so extra 2k pieces then we can conclude the price tag would be 550 $ at least

@560heliport said:
" @bananaworld said:
"
Follow-on question & follow-up poll suggestion:
Would you rather have ONE 10305 Lion Kinghts' Castle or FOUR 10497 Galaxy Explorers?"

Well, I have three 10497 Galaxy Explorers, and zero 10305 Lion Knights' Castle, so..."

Niiiiice! TLG knew what they were doing with the alternate builds...
I 'only' have two, and that was already the most I've ever spent on LEGO in one go; the castle is simply unobtainable.

@biffuz said:
"The castle 10305 is hardly a surprise, but maybe it's unfair that such huge sets are in the same category with smaller ones, they just can't compete in terms of details and playability.
Instead I am puzzled by the Aston Martin 76911 ... I mean, it looks so goofy with its flat front, like it's been used in a crash test! Reminds more of a Trabant..."

Maybe it's time to create another class (above $300) just like there is a (below $40) class.

Reading the recent comments, it appears that the castle, despite its size, is not all that great - which is a bummer as I kind of convinced myself that I should try to get it (my previous decision was that it was too expensive and better alternatives to buy). Now I have to go back to ponder all this once more.

@bananaworld said:
"
@560heliport said:
" @bananaworld said:
"
Follow-on question & follow-up poll suggestion:
Would you rather have ONE 10305 Lion Kinghts' Castle or FOUR 10497 Galaxy Explorers?"

Well, I have three 10497 Galaxy Explorers, and zero 10305 Lion Knights' Castle, so..."

Niiiiice! TLG knew what they were doing with the alternate builds...
I 'only' have two, and that was already the most I've ever spent on LEGO in one go; the castle is simply unobtainable."

I did something a bit different. I 'only' have one copy but I spend something like $200+ at bricks-n-pieces/pick-a-brick to build myself 'The missing base-plate'. The base is 48 by 72 studs all tilled with the Lego space landing pattern (radius of 39 stud - looks good!) plus a small taxiway for Lego space buggy. It has a small lunar dune in the corner, a research/communication base, a refueling station and a tiny rover drilling for life.

@Spaceman82 said:
"I lent my vote to the Castle because I thought the Explorer would win in a landslide, I wonder if others did the same."
Brexit reloaded ;-)

As for the results, while to me the Castle is the inferior set compared to the Galaxy Explorer, I can understand that it won. After all, I think Classic Castle fans still outnumber Classic Space fans by a wide margin.

I actually only considered voting for sets that I own, and since I didn't buy the Castle I wouldn't vote for it anyway. To me it's just tremendously overpriced, especially compared to the Galaxy Explorer (of which I currently have two copies).
My number two set would have been Optimus Prime, which the Tallneck in third place.

Of the sub 40 Euro sets I voted for the Dolphin and Turtle, but the two Speed Champions sets at the top are awesome too.

@HOBBES said:
" @biffuz said:
"The castle 10305 is hardly a surprise, but maybe it's unfair that such huge sets are in the same category with smaller ones, they just can't compete in terms of details and playability.
Instead I am puzzled by the Aston Martin 76911 ... I mean, it looks so goofy with its flat front, like it's been used in a crash test! Reminds more of a Trabant..."

Maybe it's time to create another class (above $300) just like there is a (below $40) class.

Reading the recent comments, it appears that the castle, despite its size, is not all that great - which is a bummer as I kind of convinced myself that I should try to get it (my previous decision was that it was too expensive and better alternatives to buy). Now I have to go back to ponder all this once more. "

I wouldn't put that much trust in comments where there seems to be some silly rivalry going on. ;-)

To me it's cool to see two classic themes on top of the list, but like others pointed out: how well did they actually sell?

It's not wrong to ponder, in the end you'll either end up saving money or end up with a cool set. :-)

@TheOtherMike said:
" @Huw, proposal for next year's poll: Include a GWP section. Just built 40580 yesterday, and it's a banger. And there are some other nice-looking ones (Houses of the World, if nothing else) to come."

I second this proposal.

To be honest, I'm more surprised to see Boutique Hotel in third place. In the final it's just another building, wile DeLorean is an iconic car, and Starry Night, Optimus and Tellneck are just some unique sets.

@gradatim said:
It's funny that people complain about price tag yet at the same time saying that interior is too small...

I get what you are saying but my thought is for 400$ the interior should already be better. I don't like the decision to have a bunch of itty bitty rooms. I will also add that I like castle way more than space, and perhaps my expectations for a 400$ castle set must have been too high. ...only the best is good enough...

@HOBBES said:
" @biffuz said:
"The castle 10305 is hardly a surprise, but maybe it's unfair that such huge sets are in the same category with smaller ones, they just can't compete in terms of details and playability.
Instead I am puzzled by the Aston Martin 76911 ... I mean, it looks so goofy with its flat front, like it's been used in a crash test! Reminds more of a Trabant..."

Maybe it's time to create another class (above $300) just like there is a (below $40) class.

Reading the recent comments, it appears that the castle, despite its size, is not all that great - which is a bummer as I kind of convinced myself that I should try to get it (my previous decision was that it was too expensive and better alternatives to buy). Now I have to go back to ponder all this once more. "

Meh...if you haven't already taken a look at the instructions, I would use those to make your determination. There are a lot of voices here in the comments that I just flat-out disagree with. It's allowed. Is the cost high? Yes. Is the set phenomenally designed and an eye-catching piece on display with a lot of aesthetic appeal for nostalgic AND other reasons? Absolutely! Full disclosure: I bought one (with a $100 off VIP voucher), I built it, and I am in love with it. Still voted for 10497 as my favorite, because that is a phenomenal set and space is my favorite theme (which is also allowed).

At the end of the day, both are great sets. Easily top 2 on the "favorites" list for me.

@CapnRex101: Yeah, that's another banger of an homage, so not doing that category is understandable.

@Draykov

Yes I consulted the building instructions (I spend way too much time doing that for all sorts of sets for which I don't even have a remote interest in). My initial conclusion was: get something else, you cannot even afford your basic wish list. Then I thought, I'd really liked to have purchased 7189 - I would not want to make the same mistake. I still have not bought the Medieval Blacksmith - a bit cheaper and truly well loved - but it does not have all the cool figures and animals. I suppose I still have about a year to figure this out - but then again 7189 disappeared extremely quickly!

@CapnRex101:
Oops, I guess I asked the wrong person. Are you planning to post the Best Theme results soon?

@PurpleDave said:
" @CapnRex101:
Oops, I guess I asked the wrong person. Are you planning to post the Best Theme results soon?"

Results are on the original post. Top three were: Icons, Star Wars, Speed Champions.

@CapnRex101 said:
" @TheOtherMike said:
" @Huw, proposal for next year's poll: Include a GWP section. Just built 40580 yesterday, and it's a banger. And there are some other nice-looking ones (Houses of the World, if nothing else) to come."

I considered that for 2022, but thought 40567 Forest Hideout would probably render the poll uncompetitive. As you said though, there could be more competition in 2023."

Would not have been my vote. Would actually have been the micro speed champions. Those are very fun and a reasonable price threshold for a spur of the moment buy (which is what GWP should be)... Or the Harry Potter micro castle. I got three of those and enjoy them a lot.

I wonder if the Majestic Tiger would of received any votes if not for a certain piece?

@CCC said:
"The poll wasn't about value or price. It was about favourite sets. If I could only have one of the castle or Galaxy Explorer, I'd go for the castle."

I think that using this criteria simply this pool, that involves the whole LEGO production in one year, becomes meaningless, because it simply fosters larger sets.
Obviously nothing prevent someone to prefer a 5 bucks set, but I doubt this kind of choices are statistically relevant (and this is a pool, statistics counts! ;) )

Perhaps next year there should be a poll "what is the best (at RRP) value for money set of the year".
The end result would look quite different.

@AustinPowers said:
"Perhaps next year there should be a poll "what is the best (at RRP) value for money set of the year".
The end result would look quite different. "

Pointless. How would value be determined?

@CAC101:
One of my cousins passed away two decades ago, and tigers were her favorite animal. It'd have received at least one vote.

Surprised Optimus Prime wasn’t in the top three given what it achieved as a set

I note No Eiffel Tower

@560heliport said:
" @AustinPowers said:
"Perhaps next year there should be a poll "what is the best (at RRP) value for money set of the year".
The end result would look quite different. "

Pointless. How would value be determined? "
Isn't it obvious? Value is measurable.

For example, you have two Technic sets of comparable size and price. One has a B-model, the other one hasn't. Or one has electronic components, the other one hasn't. It's obvious in both cases which has more value for the same amount of money.
Or take two sets of comparable price and size. One has stickers, the other has prints only. Prints are more expensive to produce, hence the set with prints has a higher value for money.
Or two sets of comparable design, i. e. parts composition, one has twice the amount of pieces for the same price. Again, it's obvious which has a higher value.

Those of course are only the objective values.
If you are only into modern cars, a Classic Castle or Space set will be of lesser subjective value to you than say a Technic supercar or Creator Expert car. But that's not the kind of "value" I am talking about.
I'm talking about the measurable one, like the ones mentioned above.

@AustinPowers
Those are still just subjective measures.

I like stickers because they can be used on different parts; printed parts are more limited in use.

Electronic parts need batteries. To replace them, you often need a screwdriver. So this extra "value" comes with extra cost.

So "value" is still subjective.

@560heliport said:
" @AustinPowers
Those are still just subjective measures.

I like stickers because they can be used on different parts; printed parts are more limited in use.

Electronic parts need batteries. To replace them, you often need a screwdriver. So this extra "value" comes with extra cost.

So "value" is still subjective."
No it isn't.
What you describe is your subjective "value" you decide to assign to these properties.
Prints cost far more to produce, hence have a higher objective value.
Whether you prefer stickers or not has nothing to do with the value added by prints.
That electronic components need batteries is a given and doesn't affect the extra value.

Same with the other things I mentioned.
Like if there's a B-model included for the same price, or more pieces of a similar nature, electronic components, it all adds objective value.

But since you apparently don't (or don't want to) understand what objective value is, I won't try to explain it to you anymore.
The important thing is that you are happy with what you perceive as good value. If that's the case for you then win-win scenario for you and LEGO.

@AustinPowers said:
"Isn't it obvious? Value is measurable.

For example, you have two Technic sets of comparable size and price. One has a B-model, the other one hasn't. Or one has electronic components, the other one hasn't. It's obvious in both cases which has more value for the same amount of money."

The one with Batman.

"Or take two sets of comparable price and size. One has stickers, the other has prints only."

Also the one with Batman.

"Or two sets of comparable design, i. e. parts composition, one has twice the amount of pieces for the same price. Again, it's obvious which has a higher value."

Again, the one with Batman.

@560heliport said:
"Pointless. How would value be determined? "

The "value" is assigned from you when you vote.
That means you are voting for a set that you value a good set, but taking account of its cost.

In other words, when you vote, you apply the simple formula:
score = subjective value of the set / cost of the set

@AustinPowers said:
" @560heliport said:
" @AustinPowers
Those are still just subjective measures.

I like stickers because they can be used on different parts; printed parts are more limited in use.

Electronic parts need batteries. To replace them, you often need a screwdriver. So this extra "value" comes with extra cost.

So "value" is still subjective."
No it isn't.
What you describe is your subjective "value" you decide to assign to these properties.
Prints cost far more to produce, hence have a higher objective value.
Whether you prefer stickers or not has nothing to do with the value added by prints.
That electronic components need batteries is a given and doesn't affect the extra value.

Same with the other things I mentioned.
Like if there's a B-model included for the same price, or more pieces of a similar nature, electronic components, it all adds objective value.

But since you apparently don't (or don't want to) understand what objective value is, I won't try to explain it to you anymore.
The important thing is that you are happy with what you perceive as good value. If that's the case for you then win-win scenario for you and LEGO. "

The most important lesson of optimization theory is that despite the term "objective function," there is no such thing as a truly objective multifactor evaluation. The "objective function" combines factors in a SUBJECTIVE way subject to the preferences of the person who defines the objective function.

In other words, "objective value" to you is going to be very different than "objective value" to someone else.

In other words, there is no such thing as "objective value."

Source: my grad classes about optimization theory

@iwybs said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @560heliport said:
" @AustinPowers
Those are still just subjective measures.

I like stickers because they can be used on different parts; printed parts are more limited in use.

Electronic parts need batteries. To replace them, you often need a screwdriver. So this extra "value" comes with extra cost.

So "value" is still subjective."
No it isn't.
What you describe is your subjective "value" you decide to assign to these properties.
Prints cost far more to produce, hence have a higher objective value.
Whether you prefer stickers or not has nothing to do with the value added by prints.
That electronic components need batteries is a given and doesn't affect the extra value.

Same with the other things I mentioned.
Like if there's a B-model included for the same price, or more pieces of a similar nature, electronic components, it all adds objective value.

But since you apparently don't (or don't want to) understand what objective value is, I won't try to explain it to you anymore.
The important thing is that you are happy with what you perceive as good value. If that's the case for you then win-win scenario for you and LEGO. "

The most important lesson of optimization theory is that despite the term "objective function," there is no such thing as a truly objective multifactor evaluation. The "objective function" combines factors in a SUBJECTIVE way subject to the preferences of the person who defines the objective function.

In other words, "objective value" to you is going to be very different than "objective value" to someone else.

In other words, there is no such thing as "objective value."

Source: my grad classes about optimization theory"

Thank you!!

@iwybs said:
"The most important lesson of optimization theory is that despite the term "objective function," there is no such thing as a truly objective multifactor evaluation. The "objective function" combines factors in a SUBJECTIVE way subject to the preferences of the person who defines the objective function.

In other words, "objective value" to you is going to be very different than "objective value" to someone else.

In other words, there is no such thing as "objective value."

Source: my grad classes about optimization theory"
That's all well and good, but has nothing to do with the value of a set I described.

I have studied economics, among other things, and we learned that every component of every product, material or immaterial, has a certain objective, measurable value. It has to, after all you need those values in order to, among many other things, calculate pricing.

So to make it as easy to understand as possible:
You have part X, which costs 2 cents to produce in its basic form. (all-in that is, so ABS raw material, energy, machine and factory depreciation, transportation, worker wages, etc.)

Now you print the piece, which say costs 10 cents all-in.
Alternatively you add a stickersheet with twenty stickers, one of which is the same design as the print. The sticker sheet costs two cents to produce all-in, the individual sticker (let's assume for easier calculation that all of the stickers are of similar size) therefore costs 0.1 cents.

So the printed part has a basic value of
2+10=12 cents
while the unprinted part plus sticker has a basic value of
2+0.1=2.1 cents

Still not clear which of the two has the higher value?

What you all describe is not the value of the part/set, but what it is worth to you personally. Of course that will always be subjective, and the question in this poll after all was "what is YOUR FAVORITE set".
But this has got nothing to do with the objective value of a set, which of course can be measured.

Every aspect of a set has a measurable value. From the brand name LEGO, to the costs of the licence (if it's a licenced theme of course), to the design costs, the materials, production, packaging, distribution, etc etc.

If that's too hard to grasp then I give up.
After all it's basic economics 101.

I understand what you’re talking about.

You understand what I’m talking about.

We’re talking past each other.

You’re talking about the cost of production of the parts plus some intangibles. I’m talking about how the intangibles are valued. I say there is no truly objective way of valuing those intangibles.

You had suggested a poll for the best-value set. Then you say there is an objective way of measuring that. But that “objective value” from the perspective of a trained economist requires the consideration of hundreds or thousands of variables that the average consumer has no way of knowing nor combining, so it is inappropriate for a consumer website poll. Even then that so-called “objective value” from the perspective of a trained economist is only that -

The value computed using the objective function common to trained economists.

And an objective function is a very subjective thing, beholden to the values of the people who define it and use it.

It’s not set in stone, handed down from on high, a law of nature. It’s mathematical sausage, putting lots of different things together in one homogeneous number after slicing and dicing and spicing them to taste.

So it may be appropriate for a trained economist like yourself to contribute a guest article estimating the “objective value” of the year’s sets, but it’s not an appropriate subject for a poll unless trained economists like yourself can accept the fact that peoples perceptions of value when they respond to the poll will be subjective according to their own idiosyncratic, loosely defined, even subconscious “objective functions.”

Ok, that’s all for now. Have a nice day.

Edit, I haven’t reread the whole thread, I apologize if this comment attributed any ideas to you that you did not actually say.

@iwybs: you're right in that my suggestion of a poll would likely not yield professional results but again lots of subjective opinions.
Doesn't matter.

All is well.

More fundamental than the subjectivity or objectivity of 'value' is the fact that it has two distinct and often contradictory dictionary definitions. One is monetary worth, another is personal usefulness.

@peterlmorris said:
"I was not expecting that much of a blowout by by Lion Knights Castle and Galaxy Explorer!

I hope they both actually sold well. I saw huge sales on Galaxy Explorers at Wal-Mart. I want more space!"

For those keeping score at home, the price of 10497 on Walmart's website (USA) is back up to MSRP + a penny.