Nice vehicle but maybe to military-ish might get pulled back by LEGO; V19-Osprey

The mini model of this had better damn well come with a standard minifigure extinguisher on the back.

@Goujon said:
" @BrickCollection said:
"Nice vehicle but maybe to military-ish might get pulled back by LEGO; V19-Osprey"

If this happens I’m going on a crusade to the Lego HQ, it’s getting ridiculous. I’m not having another Osprey situation. I know it was probably pulled due to the mechanical failure in the gear box but the fact they officially said it was because of it being a military craft was awful. What I wouldn’t give to own that thing."

I know LEGO gets way too Overzealous on the military thing but what's really funny is the Indiana Jones sets which have many Actual Military Vehicles and Minifigs.

Swoon

Why is the price almost 100$ more in Canada?? Shouldn’t it be like $50 more tops

What are the technic beams on the side supposed to be?

A great subject for the vehicle series, and I think they did a very good job with it. I love how it looks all festooned with gear, I'm a sucker for that kind of stuff.
Won't be long before someone stretches it to a 110, I assume.

@legojeroen said:
"I really like that all set pictures are real instead of those ugly renders they use way too often lately"

Indeed, but they could have done a quick check to see of all the bricks have been pushed together nicely, on the left side of the roof there is a bit too much room between the white parts...

As for the model, it looks awesome, the price is a bit high for my liking, but having bought every other large car model, this one will be welcome as well!

I still have no idea what this is (as a dumb American), but wow this looks nice! Not totally my thing but I absolutely love all the giant details and accesories.

It looks very very nice... but they already have one on Technic : \ ...

@Tuzi said:
"What a nice set. Does the numberplate "L316 HUE" have any hidden meaning? Lego.. 316.. and a mispelling of Huw?"

It might be a coincidence, but 316 could mean 3/16 or March 16, Launched March 16th.

Me who has no clue what this is: green van with stuff.

L316 was the internal product code of the old Defender.

HUE -> HUE 166 - registration plate of one of the first prototypes of the Defender ( I believe the oldest operational one).

@fakespacesquid said:
" @merman said:
"I know I sound like a broken record but that price is really absurd. "

In what world? $240 for 2,336 pieces is just barely over the 10/p standard.

Yes, the price might be large, but it isn't comparatively large. It isn't too large for what you get. It's a big price, not an unfair price. Unless you want every set to have the PPP of a Creator random box"
Keep in mind that poster is listed as the Netherlands.

Thinking about size and what you actually get is a better gauge of value than price per piece.

Again a Land Rover Defender?
We just had the Technic one (42110).

Were there really no other iconic cars they could've picked?

Damn, I was hoping for a first gen Disco in a dromedary inspired livery.
Or one of those roided out Bond Rovers.

@560heliport said:
" @someguy827 said:
"Why is the price almost 100$ more in Canada?? Shouldn’t it be like $50 more tops"

Exchange rate today is 1 USD = 1.38 CAD. So 240 USD = 331 CAD (rounded to nearest dollar). "

I had the same initial reaction. Then I checked the exchange rate and realized it was ok. I think Canadiens overvalue their money…

Anyway, I really love the model despite not being into cars at all. Contrary to some of you, I don’t really like sand green except when it’s essential as in 70840. But I would consider buying it anyway if I find it at a nice discount.

@monkyby87 said:
" @fakespacesquid said:
" @merman said:
"I know I sound like a broken record but that price is really absurd. "

In what world? $240 for 2,336 pieces is just barely over the 10/p standard.

Yes, the price might be large, but it isn't comparatively large. It isn't too large for what you get. It's a big price, not an unfair price. Unless you want every set to have the PPP of a Creator random box"
Keep in mind that poster is listed as the Netherlands.

Thinking about size and what you actually get is a better gauge of value than price per piece.
"

I don't see how that changes the question, as it's still 240 Euro and by and large, most sets have been either the same price in $/euro or 10 euro cheaper, keeping them close to the 10/p that we've gone by for decades

Separately, yes, size can be a more helpful gauge. Unfortunately, size is tough to gauge when all you have is digital photos. The size that would actually help with measuring the price is the size in-person, seeing the actual built object. Since no one here can do that, seems like a useless comparison. Thinking about what size it is, isn't the same as actually seeing what size it is. Set announcement comment sections are solid proof of that

A REAL Defender, not that ugly poser they make now! Being as the Defender 90 is blocky in real life, it lends itself very well to LEGO.

I don't have room for this, and I don't have the cash for this. I'm hoping we get a scaled-down version in Speed Champions much like we did for the DB-5.

On another note, Mjolnir with a long handle representing a Model Team-scale sledgehammer is pretty weird.

@sirventricle said:
"What are the technic beams on the side supposed to be?"

You place them in front or behind the wheels IF the vehicle gets stuck in sand or mud - traction plates

I have never before heard a Land Rover Defender described as "prestigious"

@Darth_Dee said:
"Sir Axelrod! Now we just need the puddle of oil underneath..."

And the Lucas Gremlins.

I wonder why the License plate is L316, seems like it should have been L317? or is there some other meaning there.

HUE is of course a tribute to the very first Series Land Rover (HUE 166) for those who don't know.

@sirventricle said:
"What are the technic beams on the side supposed to be?"
Sand ladders. Basically metal plates that can be put down over soft ground to allow a vehicle to cross or help free it from being stuck.

@Robot99 said:
"I still have no idea what this is (as a dumb American), but wow this looks nice! Not totally my thing but I absolutely love all the giant details and accesories."
But it's "instantly recognisable around the world"! I'm sure it is in many countries, but as someone in the US, Land Rover seems to be an alternative luxury brand for the wealthy person that would normally buy BMW or Mercedes but doesn't want to be another wealthy person buying BMW or Mercedes. I've never seen a Land Rover that looked like it spent a day off-road, but I've also never seen a Land Rover like the one this set is based on. If given no information beyond the image, I would have guessed it was a 70s Toyota off-road vehicle of some sort.

Those wheel arch pieces feel a bit cheat-y, but other than that it looks like a great model. Not one I'll buy, but I can see it selling well.

After seeing the pale yellow Defender 110 in the promotional video, I kinda wish we'd been given that instead, but overall looks great and love all the accessories. Not a bad price either.

Acoording to the licence plate and the release date of April 1st, I'm considering this would be this years April fools.....

@huw The set details link is broken for me

@meccanotwitch said:
"Very expensive and I do hope they produce all the sand green parts in the same shade"

Judging by the photos shown the different shades of green makes it look camouflage.

Hmm, sand green off-road vehicle with white roof. That sounds kind of familiar.

Ah yes, now I remember:
https://www.bluebrixx.com/en/motor-vehicle/103251/klassischer-Gelaendewagen-4WD-BlueBrixx-Special

;-)

a little steep price-wise, but that's what VIP points are for

I especially like the inclusion of the “Birmingham screwdriver” for all your motoring repair needs.

The Technic one was cool, but I like this one even more!

It looks really nice and I do enjoy Lego's larger-scale vehicles, but I'm not paying nearly $250 for it. I just don't have a connection to the brand, and not because I'm an American. Frankly I'm surprised by the number of people who are unfamiliar with this vehicle, as Land Rovers are uncommon in the USA but hardly what I'd call esoteric.

Still, nice looking set. I might consider it if I can find it for $200 or less.

Looking forward to seeing MOCs for conversion into 110/130/Ragtop.

I'm excited to see the willy jeep mocs

Finally the Jeep Recovery Vehicle rolls on in LEGO form! And in one of my favorite colors, and fully rigged out. Looks fantastic.

@EvilTwin said:
"I think you may be confusing Land Rover with Range Rover. Similar names but very different beasts :)"
I don't know what it's like elsewhere, but in the US, Land Rover is a brand/marque and Range Rover is one of their model lines (along with e.g. Discovery). Every Range Rover I've seen has Land Rover badges/branding.

Surprised no-ones mentioned the corny product video on lego.com...makes the teaser make a little more sense

@PurpleDave said:
" @BrickCollection:
Osprey is operated by four militaries and no one else. Land Rovers are most commonly associated with rich civilians. I’m not seeing the problem here.

@ResIpsaLoquitur:
“What are your superpowers again?”
“I’m rich.”

Sometimes green isn’t that bad, as powers go (makes more sense if you live in the US).

@fakespacesquid:
Allow me to translate that for you: “I can’t afford it, therefore it’s too expensive for the amount of stuff.” Gotta love variable-outrage metrics…

@EvilTwin:
No, here in the US, Land Rover is most associated with rich Brits. Anyone with less money would buy something that doesn’t need a constant supply of parts, and anyone outside the UK would probably pick a different brand.

@CCC:
Old ladies who live on the prairie wear bonnets."

Yes, Kind of the same thing with the V-22 Osprey which was not colored a military color, but the model LEGO released was a Rescue vehicle that was used by militaries to a different extent. I doubt they will recall it but you never know???

I like it! I will buy it. Not day one, though, that would be silly.

I think I would like it even more if it was in a more yellowish sand color. But I take this as well.

@Dylex said:
"Looks great, but it could've done without all the additional stuff on the roof rack. Feels a bit like with the Atari when there were unnecessary extras to bloat the price."

Yeah that’s probably contributes to it being $110 more than the Pickup Truck. Granted this is a little larger.

I like it, but the off road one looks way to busy and over loaded

"This vehicle has a vague connection to the military, so I want it cancelled."

Sheesh. One of these days, I'd like Lego to make an A-10 Warthog. This will never happen, but a guy can dream.

I love it. The price is a bit on the high side, but it will get more palatable when the 20% kicks in at Amazon or I factor in the VIP money back. Still, I love the design of the truck so while I don’t pick up many of the larger Creator vehicles, this one I really want.

Absolutely superb. I'm very glad that it's optionally buildable in fully loaded or plain versions, although an option to build with the originally shaped front end and no wheel arch extentions would have been a nice bonus.

A definite buy, day 1 or not will depend on British Gas prices more than Lego's!

It looks nice but I started laughing when I saw the price. That is an absurd amount of money for this product.

@Tuzi said:
"What a nice set. Does the numberplate "L316 HUE" have any hidden meaning? Lego.. 316.. and a mispelling of Huw?"

Tuzi.

HUE 166 was the registration of the very first production Landrover. L316 was the code name used when Landover were developing the Defender.

So I think the reg is a link to the very first landrover and the code name of this one.

I own zero of the previous Lego cars (Creator Expert/Icons) but I will eventually own this one.

And I am even more happy that there are some sand green brackets in this set which will eventually be available on pick-a-brick (last time brackets where available in sand green was the modular bank and, as such, are very expensive)

The Canadian price is completely ridiculous though, I will have to wait for a proper discount.

And here we go.

I like this but I have a tough time with car sets that cost the same or more than a high quality 1:18 scale diecast.

I think 95% of the car models that Lego has produced look terrible.
This though is by far the best car they’ve ever done.
Perfection.

Excellent set ! From a distance, it could even look like a model kit. I'm impressed.

@fmiskolc said:
" @guachi said:
" @tmtomh said:
"I don’t understand why so many people seem to have used Lego’s 2022 price increases as justification to declare that 10 cents per piece is an “absurd” price. It’s not an absurd price. And adjusted for inflation, most Lego sets back in the good old days of the 1980s and ‘90s cost more than that per piece, not less."

Price per part is a silly metric. It's always been a silly metric. No one should value tiny 1x1 or 1x2 pieces the same as much larger pieces.

This set is nice but too expensive. I don't care what the PPP is.
"

The attempt by all of us to come up with a best "true" metric to measure a set's value has always fascinated me. I do think that PPP is about as good as it gets - at least for me - since according to the price per weight ratio we would all love juniorized sets with giant prefab pieces that weigh the same at a fraction of piece count.

To me LEGO is about clicking pieces together and the number of pieces is generally a spot on measure for how many times during the build I can expect to do that... to me attaching a 1x2 plate to a 1x6 plate gives just as much joy as attaching a giant heavy cockpit canopy to a hinge.

(there were some exceptions of course - Liebherr ow/ the 100 blocks of stone at the end and some others)

Anyway, like I said, fascinating to discuss this topic but until someone convinces me (and yes eye-test is SUPER important too!) it will be PPP for me. :)

And yes, this set passes both my PPP and eye-test so def buy!!"

Like I said yesterday, I'm concerned with "overall" mass, not "individual brick" mass. The sum of the parts in an expensive set should equal a weighy brick--but it's fine if that brick is either a solid lump or 10,000 smaller parts, as long as it gets there.

This set is a fair representation of the paradox of parts. The wheels on this set total ten pieces: five rims, five tires. But they're *large.* The windscreens are *large.* But there's also a bunch of small parts in here as well. It's balanced. I'm betting that a weight test of this set would about comport with my "eyeball" test--that I can look at the set and it just "feels" balanced.

I didn't get that with, say, lasy year's Death Star Trash Compactor set. I know the argument was made: look at all the kibble! Yeah, but something about the eyeball review of that set told me it was set at $20 too high, Disney tax or no.

Hi. American here. I had friends in high school back in the 1990s who drove old Defenders. I had a Bronco, and a bunch of people had Jeeps, and we went off-roading pretty regularly. I’m surprised that so many folks are unfamiliar with the vehicle. I can’t wait to build this model.

@Goujon said:
"FINALLY we have a large scale off-road/overlander vehicle. So happy with this, but the price is a pretty decent turn off. If only they could do one for speed champions. Still a very nice model though. "

There was a Technic version released a few years ago that was larger and much cheaper.

@nldarklord said:
"Again a Land Rover Defender?
We just had the Technic one (42110).

Were there really no other iconic cars they could've picked?
"

This was exactly my thought., especially since this is about at the same scale. Why not make a system Bronco or another off-roader that hasn't been made yet?

When it's just the car, I guess it's OK. When the accessories it looks horrible and way too busy. Nice colour for parts collectors. Pass for me, but I'm sure car lovers will enjoy it.

@Charlie_Haak said:
" @nldarklord said:
"Again a Land Rover Defender?
We just had the Technic one (42110).

Were there really no other iconic cars they could've picked?
"

This was exactly my thought., especially since this is about at the same scale. Why not make a system Bronco or another off-roader that hasn't been made yet?"

To be fair, a number of people like myself were disappointed that the Technic version was modeled off the modern vehicle. I haven't bought that one, yet, but I will absolutely buy this classic version. Plus, I prefer System to Technic. I do agree that LEGO should do a proper Bronco next.

Ps. This will go nicely with the 7-wide first generation Bronco that I also built in sand green and white.

And, yes, @AustinPowers, that is a good comp to the G-Wagon.

I already have 42110 so this is an expensive duplicate--but if they are similar in size having both sets may help me produce a half-and-half version where one side allows you to see the complex gearboxes of the Technic version while the other side has complete bodywork and other details. I can't argue too much with the price, since the Technic model was $200 and this has all the standard Creator functions and plenty of extra equipment.

@ResIpsaLoquitur said:
" @fmiskolc said:
" @guachi said:
" @tmtomh said:
"I don’t understand why so many people seem to have used Lego’s 2022 price increases as justification to declare that 10 cents per piece is an “absurd” price. It’s not an absurd price. And adjusted for inflation, most Lego sets back in the good old days of the 1980s and ‘90s cost more than that per piece, not less."

Price per part is a silly metric. It's always been a silly metric. No one should value tiny 1x1 or 1x2 pieces the same as much larger pieces.

This set is nice but too expensive. I don't care what the PPP is.
"

The attempt by all of us to come up with a best "true" metric to measure a set's value has always fascinated me. I do think that PPP is about as good as it gets - at least for me - since according to the price per weight ratio we would all love juniorized sets with giant prefab pieces that weigh the same at a fraction of piece count.

To me LEGO is about clicking pieces together and the number of pieces is generally a spot on measure for how many times during the build I can expect to do that... to me attaching a 1x2 plate to a 1x6 plate gives just as much joy as attaching a giant heavy cockpit canopy to a hinge.

(there were some exceptions of course - Liebherr ow/ the 100 blocks of stone at the end and some others)

Anyway, like I said, fascinating to discuss this topic but until someone convinces me (and yes eye-test is SUPER important too!) it will be PPP for me. :)

And yes, this set passes both my PPP and eye-test so def buy!!"

Like I said yesterday, I'm concerned with "overall" mass, not "individual brick" mass. The sum of the parts in an expensive set should equal a weighy brick--but it's fine if that brick is either a solid lump or 10,000 smaller parts, as long as it gets there.

This set is a fair representation of the paradox of parts. The wheels on this set total ten pieces: five rims, five tires. But they're *large.* The windscreens are *large.* But there's also a bunch of small parts in here as well. It's balanced. I'm betting that a weight test of this set would about comport with my "eyeball" test--that I can look at the set and it just "feels" balanced.

I didn't get that with, say, lasy year's Death Star Trash Compactor set. I know the argument was made: look at all the kibble! Yeah, but something about the eyeball review of that set told me it was set at $20 too high, Disney tax or no."

Would a combination metric make sense or be useful? As in, PPP divided by price/weight, or the reverse? I'm no statistician so maybe not, but it would be a way to put the two measurements together (obviously).

I think it's a very nice model with a lot of details incorporated.

It's a lot of money and I can't afford it. I don't think it is expensive though, perhaps it just seems that way when compared to the other large scale vehicles?

Sand green is a really great colour choice and overall the model looks pretty close to the real defender.

If I had unlimited funds, this would be on my wishlist.

@MingusDew said:
" @ResIpsaLoquitur said:
" @fmiskolc said:
" @guachi said:
" @tmtomh said:
"I don’t understand why so many people seem to have used Lego’s 2022 price increases as justification to declare that 10 cents per piece is an “absurd” price. It’s not an absurd price. And adjusted for inflation, most Lego sets back in the good old days of the 1980s and ‘90s cost more than that per piece, not less."

Price per part is a silly metric. It's always been a silly metric. No one should value tiny 1x1 or 1x2 pieces the same as much larger pieces.

This set is nice but too expensive. I don't care what the PPP is.
"

The attempt by all of us to come up with a best "true" metric to measure a set's value has always fascinated me. I do think that PPP is about as good as it gets - at least for me - since according to the price per weight ratio we would all love juniorized sets with giant prefab pieces that weigh the same at a fraction of piece count.

To me LEGO is about clicking pieces together and the number of pieces is generally a spot on measure for how many times during the build I can expect to do that... to me attaching a 1x2 plate to a 1x6 plate gives just as much joy as attaching a giant heavy cockpit canopy to a hinge.

(there were some exceptions of course - Liebherr ow/ the 100 blocks of stone at the end and some others)

Anyway, like I said, fascinating to discuss this topic but until someone convinces me (and yes eye-test is SUPER important too!) it will be PPP for me. :)

And yes, this set passes both my PPP and eye-test so def buy!!"

Like I said yesterday, I'm concerned with "overall" mass, not "individual brick" mass. The sum of the parts in an expensive set should equal a weighy brick--but it's fine if that brick is either a solid lump or 10,000 smaller parts, as long as it gets there.

This set is a fair representation of the paradox of parts. The wheels on this set total ten pieces: five rims, five tires. But they're *large.* The windscreens are *large.* But there's also a bunch of small parts in here as well. It's balanced. I'm betting that a weight test of this set would about comport with my "eyeball" test--that I can look at the set and it just "feels" balanced.

I didn't get that with, say, lasy year's Death Star Trash Compactor set. I know the argument was made: look at all the kibble! Yeah, but something about the eyeball review of that set told me it was set at $20 too high, Disney tax or no."

Would a combination metric make sense or be useful? As in, PPP divided by price/weight, or the reverse? I'm no statistician so maybe not, but it would be a way to put the two measurements together (obviously)."

I have no idea if there's a perfect metric for this. I'd personally love to see both numbers tossed out in any given set. Look, some people are happy with "price per piece." I'm not, although I get that it has *some* utility. The Art and Dots lines really throw price-per-piece for a loop, don't they? You arguably get a lot for your money in those sets, but not everyone wants a bunch of 1x1 monochrome rounds, either.

I would give this set a pass on PPP, price-per-weight (I'm assuming this thing is heavy), and the arbitrary and capricious eyeballs test. But that's just me. I am but one commenter.

Not for me personally but looks absolutely fantastic, with and without the accessories on it.

no interest in this line, but could have some very desirable parts in Sand Green come out of it

It looks great apart from the inaccuracies in the rear of the vehicle so I might have to adjust those, and a well designed bonnet but it is missing the classic Defender shape (sides sit higher than the centre section) but not sure goes toot could do those with Lego.

Will not bother with the rollcage and whinch, they just don't look right, just needs an oil patch and a whiff of EP90 and good to go :)

Oh, and sand green closely resembles the special anniversary colour that LR use so a good choice.

price per piece made a lot more sense 10 years ago then it does now, with the % of ultra tiny pieces in a set being so much higher now. price per gram makes *some* sense, but would probably skew things too far the other way as well.

I think a blend of both is probably the right answer. or maybe come up with average part weight or something similar, which can then be factored into the metric.

minifigs just need to be assigned a flat value per fig and factored off the top before doing the PPP calc.

Can't say for sure until we can see the inventory, but this looks like another missed opportunity to bring back 1x8 bricks in Sand Green. Darn. Oh well.

The 10220 and its price. Those were the days... The Lego way of extracting money from fans is getting more, and more sophisticated. So - no, thanks.

At first glance: amazing! Main complaint would be that it isn't tan (though I wouldn't have expected Camel Trophy decoration...). I also love that it has steering and suspension. And for once all of the extra stuff seems very much appropriate, and not just unnecessary fluff to (try to) justify a certain price point.

At second glance I do note quite a number of (luckily mostly small) niggles:
- Even color variations in the official pictures. Come on Lego, you could at least try to be a quality product....
- The hood looks a bit off with those sharp edges, though not sure if it could have been done better.
- The right side of the rear door looks great (despite the gap), the left side....not so much.
- It looks like all of the decoration are stickers? Luckily it there aren't too many, not even all essential and they seem clear backed. But still, especially considering the price point that is disappointing.
- The wheels just don't look right, and what's with the axles sticking out at the front wheels? I think a set like this, again at this price point could have had some custom wheels.

And then there's the price. While the ppp seems quite okay (at least by Lego standards), €240 feels like an awful lot for something this size. I mean, just compare this to the Ecto-1, with similar parts count and (at least now) the same RRP. That's not exactly a hollow build either, but it looks like twice the set. Oh, and I paid €160 for that last year, and would have a hard time justifying more than that for this.

Nevertheless, I do still very much want this. I will wait for a substantial discount though...

It will be interesting to see how the suspension is done on this model, as the brick-built models weigh substantially more than their Technic counterparts. I wonder if a new shock with higher spring rates is required to support the load without sagging.

With all the new custom technic wheel arch pieces being released in the past few years, do we really need separate system ones as well? Like when is that huge piece ever going to be used for anything else

This feels a tad superfluous, given 42110 was released only a few years ago. That set was also quite a bit bigger, more functional, and far cheaper. That said, it's the modern Defender, and most of us (myself included) would have preferred the classic one.

It's great to see though that the 62.4x20 wheels haven't died though! There hasn't been a technic set with them since 2018, as far as I know, and they're my preferred wheel for technic trucks/road cranes.

I'll wait for the review, but I very much doubt I'll be getting this one given I have the technic set. The colour is great (better than olive green) but if there are matching problems even in the publicity photos it doesn't bode well. It does also look a bit too busy with all the kit on, although I'm impressed to see it includes suspension.

Oh and @RTS013 thanks for answering my question on the Pagani Utopia thread, I never got a chance to thank you on that one!

Vera would be happy. Her's is dark blue though. I really like the Marston mat!

I like the model, however it strikes me a lot like the model I saw in 2016 at the Birmingham Brick Live shows by Dad & Lad, who also added it to the LEGO-idea, but where rejected.
I have some pictures, but can't show them here

@BramFokke said:
"Lots of tools in case it breaks down, very realistic!"

I... I have to have my tools! I like to bind and be bound - I - I need my tools!!!

@PurpleDave said:
" @BrickCollection:
The Humvee is limited to military use, so they can’t make that..."
That may have been true with the initial rollout; however, many have taken on second lives with fire and rescue departments.

@Jotahesse1 said:
"Damn, I was hoping for a first gen Disco in a dromedary inspired livery.
Or one of those roided out Bond Rovers."

It'd be awesome if they made those Bond Rovers in Speed Champions scale instead to go with the DB5.

@PurpleDave said:
" @MingusDew:
The problem with a combined metric is price per pieces _is_ a hard metric, where “amount of stuff” is an arbitrary opinion that will change with the tides. Ask ten people, and you’ll get back a dozen answers.

I think the main reason price per piece has fallen into disfavor with some people, is when they see the new lineup for the year, and the prices add up to more than they feel like they can spend, the first thing they want to do is rail on the *Insert Whatever* Tax, which gets instantly shot down by people comparing the current average price per piece to that of 1978, or to in-house themes like City, which often cost more per piece at the time. So they need a “metric” that can’t be snuffed out by applying simple facts."

(also @ResIpsaLoquitur)

Thanks to you both for responding!

@ResIpsaLoquitur, I agree that subjectivity can and will creep in quickly, which is why non-arbitrary metrics are useful. The combined PPP + PPW measurement would be a way to capture the "sliding scale" of sets that include more pieces, but more that are smaller. Otherwise, yes, if I like something, or if it meets my "enough stuff" test - totally subjective. So it's good LEGO make a wide range to suit many tastes :)

@PurpleDave - yep, this is why I suggested weight and not "stuff". Weight is non-arbitrary, except for differences in box size, cardboard thickness, etc. And to be clear I like PPP a lot, but I agree that it doesn't really capture piece size (or really weight as a proxy for size, which is not perfect, of course)

If I were more handy with programming and statistics, and if I had more spare time, I think it would be interesting to use PPP + PPW over years and years of LEGO offerings to see what trends pop out. Increase or decrease in number of "small" parts versus price versus weight versus total parts (regardless of size). Etc.

looks like the windscreen can fold forward, but i cannot find any mention of this being a feature.

@binaryeye said:
" @EvilTwin said:
"I think you may be confusing Land Rover with Range Rover. Similar names but very different beasts :)"
I don't know what it's like elsewhere, but in the US, Land Rover is a brand/marque and Range Rover is one of their model lines (along with e.g. Discovery). Every Range Rover I've seen has Land Rover badges/branding.

"

That's correct. I think that the OP meant to compare Defender with Range Rover. He wrote Land Rover thinking of Defender.

Range Rover is for some years now the Luxury SUV par excellence that every other make is looking at, including Bentley and Rolls Royce.

@drussell:
For basic retail sets, absolutely they get a list of pricepoints and design sets to hit them. For the large stuff, I'm not so sure.

@DaBigE:
I know there was a program set up to allow municipal groups to requisition surplus military gear, but I'd only ever heard of police departments staking claims on Humvees. Given that the civilian version already weighs 10,000 pounds, I can't imagine how much it must cost to fuel the armored version. Regardless, I don't think the used car market is going to sway their decision to cancel the Osprey model.

@MingusDew:
Sure. Find the weight listing on the box.

Awesome set as expected, worthy of it's price. Yet, I'll be okey with just looking at the pictures.

Looks pretty decent, ngl! More of those cars, less of those Technic ones!

@Huw said:
" @ComfySofa doing the maths is the easy bit: collating the data for every piece and keeping it up to date not so much.

"

But all that hard work would be so rewarding when you read the user comments!

"meh"
"doesn't account for negative space"
"you should add price per manufacturing time"

Heart-warming stuff :D

Seriously though, I thought a piece's existing Value New and Value Used numbers were automatically pulled and automatically updated (apologies if that's a massive oversimplification and underappreciation of the mechanism).

This looks absolutely amazing, one of the best car replicas LEGO has ever made probably. I also love that they combine technic functionality, at least some, with system creator expert looks. It's not outrageously expensive, if you objectively compare with other sets, but it's at a price point that requires commitment from any potential buyer. If you can afford to spontaneously buy this, you have no right to complain much in life.

Looking at the measurements on the back of the box picture, at 32cm this is 10cm shorter than 42110. I think most people will find that smaller than expected. Will be interesting to hear what the early reviewers say about that.

Whatever you do, it will never be an absolute metric. And does it have to be? In the end we don't buy Lego just for the pieces, otherwise we'd only buy Classic sets. And I don't think the actual cost of the pieces is that big a factor in the price of sets, after all, other brands can offer similar quality at much lower prices and still make a profit (at least I assume as they keep staying in business). The quality of the design, instructions, packaging also play a big part, even when none of those are necessarily always better than the competition. The price is pretty much what Lego thinks they can ask for it, with no direct relation to the cost (well, as long as they make a profit...).

In the end PPP or whatever metric being used is no more than a guideline to make stuff somewhat comparable. If a set is good value will always be very much subjective.

In my earlier reaction I mentioned the Ecto-1: similar piece count and same RRP. Don't know about the weight, but wouldn't be surprised if it isn't as different as the difference in size suggests. But still, just looking at what you get and what it can do, I don't see the same value. And I don't think there's any truly objective metric for that.

One kinda ironic thing I just noticed: the windscreen. Considering the real thing has a perfectly flat windscreen, it should have been the easiest thing to replicate in Lego....yet somehow they used a piece way too complex, and some stickers to (try to) hide that....

At least with the roll cage installed it's hardly noticeable.

@ComfySofa:
Neither of these suggestions take the most critical factor into account, which is cost to produce. 1x1 plates, or 2x4 bricks, the amount of time it takes to produce and store them is fairly consistent. The amount of plastic involved is a minimal factor in cost to produce, but is heavily over-emphasized with “price per weight” or “price per ‘stuff’” valuations. All this, “Er Mer Gerd, we need more chunky parts,” whinging fails to consider the simple fact that chunky parts were prevalent during the years they posted major losses, while small detail parts had been increasingly more common by the time TLG took the title of World’s Biggest Toy Manufacturer, and even more common now as their sales by unit and profit margin continue to rise. Small detail parts certainly don’t seem to be driving away customers, or at least nowhere near as fast as they’re gaining new ones.

I don't know why people keep recharacterizing my "price per weight" as "wanting chunky parts." That's a gross distortion--frankly, a lie--and it needs to stop. PPW is advocacy for overall combined mass, not a single solid mass. So: stop it.

A pound of sand and a pound of solid gold weighs exactly the same despite having completely different consistencies.

If I wanted to engage in counter-engage in argument mischaracterization, I'd say that people opposed to PPW are really saying that they want the Land Rover's tires and windscreen to be made out of 1x1 tiles and not "chunky parts."

But that's not what they're saying, and it'd be wrong even if it would score some dunk points.

The only value is value TO ME, and that's unquantifiable by anybody else.
I see the box and I know how much I'd be willing to pay for it. I don't give a monkey's what it's piece count, dimensions or weight are!

@PurpleDave said:
" @ComfySofa:
Neither of these suggestions take the most critical factor into account, which is cost to produce."

I suppose the whole topic comes down to this; different people are motivated to buy by different factors. Personally, I have absolutely zero interest in TLG's production costs, in fact, I was making a joke about people wanting Price Per Manufacturing just a few comments back. Production cost doesn't influence me to buy, but number of pieces and the value of those pieces very much do.

The only do-able metric seems to be PPP, so it looks like we'll only have that to influence our decision making (or not as the case may be).

I'd like to see Value Per Piece, Price Per Weight, and probably anything else which can be dreamt up. Unfortunately, it looks like we just don't have the data to make any but PPP viable, but I'm OK with that.

Nice. Shame they didn't print the number plate (sticker) using the Charles Wright font

Yeah, I understand the economic factors that go into a set. The feature/bug of market economies go two ways: a buyer is never obligated to buy, and they're allowed to set their internal price point of what they want to pay.

I get people's personal preferences on whether they want to go by PPP or eyeballs or some other factor. They key issue is acknowledging that they're *personal* and not even remotely objective (which is why this preference contempt for other people's evaluations, coupled with lying about them, is so frustrating).

Very cool but only 2300 pieces for $330 Canadian!!!???

I will build one myself for a lower price with parts from Bricklink. Lego asking price is unjustified.

@WizardOfOss said:
"One kinda ironic thing I just noticed: the windscreen. Considering the real thing has a perfectly flat windscreen, it should have been the easiest thing to replicate in Lego....yet somehow they used a piece way too complex, and some stickers to (try to) hide that....

At least with the roll cage installed it's hardly noticeable."

I noticed that too and it seems really odd they didn’t brick build it! That will be my second MOD, right after making it a 110…

People should use whatever metric they choose to decide value for themselves. But unless LEGO starts giving net weight on parts (sans extras) you’re at the mercy of people who may not weigh things properly or even have a scale with precision that is properly calibrated. One thing that is known for nearly all the interlocking brick LEGO sets, their piece count. One thing people seem to miss with using price per part (what I look at but don’t really consider) and price per weight, are the other complexities which skew both those metrics. A part which is printed is going to cost more than one that is not. They are going to be about the same weight, enough so that the slight weight of the paint isn’t worth considering. Dual molded/over molded parts are going to weigh the same as their single mold counterparts but cost more. Then there’s those parts that are made from more than one type of plastic. Plus, the other intricacies that add to the cost for any one LEGO part. But AFOLs gonna AFOL. Maybe I’m weird but most of my decisions on LEGO are at the highest level binary, do I want it or do I not want it. After that it’s a matter of desire, resources, and utility.

Also… LEGO’s progress report from 2010, page 26:

"A large number of LEGO minifigures use weapons, and are – assumedly – regularly being charged by each others’ weapons as part of children’s role play.

In the LEGO Group, we acknowledge that conflict in play is especially prevalent among 4-9-year-old boys. An inner drive and a need to experiment with their own aggressive feelings in order to learn about other people’s aggressions exist in most children. This in turn enables them to handle and recognize conflict in non-play scenarios. As such, the LEGO Group sees conflict play as perfectly acceptable, and an integral part of children’s development.

We also acknowledge children’s well-proven ability to tell play from reality. However, to make sure to maintain the right balance between play and conflict, we have adhered to a set of unwritten rules for several years. In 2010, we have formalized these rules in a guideline for the use of conflict and weapons in LEGO products. The basic aim is to avoid realistic weapons and military equipment that children may recognize from hot spots around the world and to refrain from showing violent or frightening situations when communicating about LEGO products. At the same time, the purpose is for the LEGO brand not to be associated with issues that glorify conflicts and unethical or harmful behavior."

https://www.lego.com/cdn/cs/aboutus/assets/blt84b740e1347b33e0/Progress_report2010.pdf

@ResIpsaLoquitur said:
""This vehicle has a vague connection to the military, so I want it cancelled."

Sheesh. One of these days, I'd like Lego to make an A-10 Warthog. This will never happen, but a guy can dream."

COBI's got your needs covered mate:
https://cobi.pl/klocki/armed-forces/a-10-thunderbolt-ii-warthog,art,13269.html

@Tuzi said:
"What a nice set. Does the numberplate "L316 HUE" have any hidden meaning? Lego.. 316.. and a mispelling of Huw?"

BIG HUG i guess

Pretty much every LEGO set is packaged with extra parts and the piece count when shown on packaging does NOT include these extra parts, so trying to determine precise value based on either weight or number of parts is always going to be skewed because of those extra parts.

As for this set: it subjectively looks great to me, fits the traditional .10 PPP ratio of estimated value I'd expect for the number of parts listed, and has parts that I'd find useful in rebuilding other MOCs. As always, I'll wait a bit to see if it gets a discount from a seller other than LEGO.com, or use the saved VIP points I have banked to reduce the set cost by at least 15% (since that's what I consider the main purpose of VIP points are intended for).

@ResIpsaLoquitur said:
"A pound of sand and a pound of solid gold weighs exactly the same despite having completely different consistencies."

Oooh, really bad example there. A pound of sand weighs 453.59237 grams, while a pound of gold weighs 373.2417216 grams, so a pound of sand weighs over 20% more than a pound of gold. Do you know why? I'll give you a hint. The brain teaser usually compares a pound of gold against a pound of feathers, which does weigh the same as a pound of sand.

@ResIpsaLoquitur:
Here's the thing. Cost of plastic is generally regarded as the cheapest aspect of manufacturing plastic parts. Labor costs more. Transportation costs more. Tooling might be a wash, if the need to replace tools faster is balanced out against getting more parts per shot.

Several years ago, they used to allow customers to buy PAB in-store by the case. This was accomplished by ringing up something like seven large cups, as that was considered to be equivalent to the contents of a single case (they're not partcularly large). Then they shut that down, because it turned out the cost to produce a case of tiny parts was several times that to produce an equal-sized case of 2x4 bricks, but PAB cup prices were based around how many large pieces would fit. We got a glimpse at the cost difference at the time, because they did eventually allow case purchases again, but with tiered pricing. If you wanted 2x4 bricks, the price remained the same. If you wanted 1x1 tiles, I think they cost something like 4x as much. I mean, the price difference was staggering. So much that people who had sworn off buying by the cup happily switched back to cups for tiny parts (and would often then just dump the cups out into a shopping bag before leaving the empty cups behind).

So, you want more weight per price? You have two choices. One is to increase the quantity of small parts in the box, at which point the cost to produce the set goes up, and the retail price has to be raised accordingly, resulting in no net gain.

Or.

You get chunky parts.

@ComfySofa:
I don't particularly care about their costs myself (at least not beyond the most general sense), but I used to work in the industry, so it's hard not to be aware of them. And I can do the math, which says that the price per piece has remained fairly constant through four and a half decades of inflation. Even if you gauged sets by price per weight, I'm pretty sure you'd find that they've still gotten effectively cheaper since the minifig was introduced a quarter of a century ago.

Just last year, people were complaining that the Dagobah diorama was overpriced. I'd point out that it was a set that clocked in at the gold standard of ten cents per piece _before_ you added a few hundred trans-green 1x1 tiles. The response? "But I don't care about the trans-green tiles". Whether someone cares about them or not, it still costs money to put them in the box. Complain that the parts aren't interesting to you, but not that it's overpriced because you can't pick out the icky bits and pay less.

@MingusDew:
Price per piece is a hard metric. If you buy at MSRP, it doesn't change (well, unless you cross national borders and pay in a different currency). The only other metric that's easy to calculate is part-out value on sites like Bricklink, but this value fluctuates wildly, and requires at least a little input from others, where new elements are concerned (can't gauge part-out value if there's no price attached to some of the pieces). Price per weight is variable, depending on whether you take Bricklink weights for the component parts (not always accurate, especially when errors are compounded across large quantities), or you weigh MISB sets (including the box and instructions in the weight), or you debox them and weigh just the components (an expensive prospect, if you want a wide range of data).

Price per "stuff" is just a thumbnail gauge. If you hold your thumbnail up, and you can see the set peeking out, it's good value. If the set is completely hidden, it's poor value. And if you're not happy with the results you get from this, adjust your distance until the data fits your predetermined level of outrage. It's basically just a way to dress a personal opinion up in a vaguely defined metric so disinterest can be blamed on the set being "overpriced" without having to demonstrate how this determination was reached.

I have zero problem with anyone saying a set is too expensive for their blood. Someone working a low-paying job, with a couple kids in the house, is going to have a very different budget to work with than someone with two six-figure incomes under one roof, and I'm not here to judge anyone for their financial situation. But I've seen people inventing reasons to complain about prices for over half my life. It doesn't get any more entertaining with age.

@ResIpsaLoquitur said:
"Yeah, I understand the economic factors that go into a set. The feature/bug of market economies go two ways: a buyer is never obligated to buy, and they're allowed to set their internal price point of what they want to pay."

Agreed, and I have never in my life said otherwise.

"I get people's personal preferences on whether they want to go by PPP or eyeballs or some other factor. They key issue is acknowledging that they're *personal* and not even remotely objective (which is why this preference contempt for other people's evaluations, coupled with lying about them, is so frustrating)."

So don't say, "the _set_ is overpriced".

@ickis:
Prints cost more, minifigs cost more, larger pieces cost more, complex sculpted animals cost more, certain types of plastic cost more, variety of elements costs more, electronics cost more... All of this stuff does get discussed, in many of these cases quite often. For instance, the new Jurassic Park sets got unveiled, and people complained about how high the price per piece was. "But, giant dinosaurs!" And then they pointed out that the Nedry set wasn't affected. "But, tiny dinosaur!" Bigfigs get pointed out as something that throws price per piece out of whack. While I say that price per piece is a hard metric, it's not a blind metric. You do have to pay attention to what's in the set and look for things that are going to impact the final number.

Dual-molded parts, however, are a bit weird. Many dual-molded parts have no counterparts. Stuff like the Minions torsos, the bald eagle, or Dug from Pixar's Up, have _one_ mold design, which is dual-molded. Dual-molded legs have a solid core where regular legs would be hollow, so the weight should be noticably different. Dual-molded arms probably use the same amount of plastic as their regular counterparts, and so would probably require comparisons of quantities in the thousands before you'd be likely to see a measurable difference in weight.

My decisions are a smidge more complicated, because far too often these days I see sets that check the "I want it" box, but I'm not infinitely wealthy, and both the quantity and size of sets has been increasing. I do have to factor in other considerations when choosing which sets to buy. Lately, it means having to pass on a lot of sets that I'd really love to own.

Anyways, I do appreciate seeing that excerpt, as the "no military" thing has always been very vaguely defined. This shows that it really _was_ vaguely defined, even internally, at one point. It also suggests that they may be willing to give a fake Messerschmitt a pass for an Indiana Jones set, while a WWII theme is right out even if it would no longer be considered "modern". And it suggests that the Osprey may have passed a cursory smell test before it got approved, and raised some crucial flags upon reconsideration.

Yeah, is there a way to mute replies from another poster here? I'm finding the repeat games of one-upmanship from certain people in the comments frustrating and extremely negative to the Brickset experience. If there's a "block" button I'm not seeing, it'd help.

If you think this post is about you, for crying out loud, don't reply.

It’s a Land Rover, of course it costs a lot. But a Defender 110 is my dream truck, so of course I’ll buy it! Although not 2 to make it a 110, I’ll just grab extra parts from Bricklink…

So first Tehnic set then Speed Champions? I'll wait for Speed Champions set