Vintage set of the week: White Bricks
Posted by Huwbot,
This week's vintage set is 931 White Bricks, released during 1973. It's one of 12 Basic sets produced that year. It contains 45 pieces.
It's owned by 60 Brickset members. If you want to add it to your collection you might find it for sale at BrickLink or eBay.
59 likes
45 comments on this article
Some days I wonder if Lego has gone overboard with detail and small pieces, then Brickset reminds me that sets like this used to be all that was available and I feel grateful for every 1x1 tile on Rivendale’s roof
Sometimes, the VSotW's name is bland because it was a simpler time. Sometimes, it's bland because there really isn't a way to punch it up. I mean, there's not much else you can call a bulk pack of white bricks. I do like the little illustrations they did on bulk packs like this and 936.
11030 : Lots of Bricks is basicly about 20 of such sets in a single box (in 10 different colors), it's good to have some basic brick box back in the product lineup.
Today they are Yellowed Bricks
There sure were a lot of 2x10s going around back then. You don't see that piece as much in small sets as ya used to.
These supplementary kits were very useful in own creations. Even better than than these bricks were the boxes with roof slopes. They were at the upper limit of pocket money allowance but made welcomed small gifts on many occasions.
However, these basic sets are hard to remember = therefore I haven't listed any in my collection at brickset.
*Roof sold separately.
Ah the Scarface special
@Jesse_S_T said:
"Some days I wonder if Lego has gone overboard with detail and small pieces, then Brickset reminds me that sets like this used to be all that was available and I feel grateful for every 1x1 tile on Rivendale’s roof"
Yes, they have. And I'd much rather return to simpler, more blocky times. Thankfully, no one's forcing me to spend on something I don't like.
"Mm. In my day, we didn't have all these, mm, specialized pieces."
"We know, grampa. That's why your houses looked like crap."
"Kids these days! Where's my applesauce!"
Later this would be rebranded and sold as the 21050 Architecture Studio. : )
That’s one specialized piece for the roof.
I love the graphic design here. Very minimalistic and to the point. Almost modern!
@4YorkshireMen said:
"Terry Jones: But you know, we were happy in those days, though we were poor.
Michael Palin: Aye. BECAUSE we were poor. My old Dad used to say to me, 'Money doesn't buy you happiness.'
Eric Idle: 'E was right. I was happier then and I had NOTHIN'. We used to live in this tiiiny old house, with greaaaaat big holes in the roof.
Graham Chapman: House? You were lucky to have a HOUSE! We used to live in one room, all hundred and twenty-six of us, no furniture. Half the floor was missing; we were all huddled together in one corner for fear of FALLING!
TJ: You were lucky to have a ROOM! *We* used to have to live in a corridor!
MP: Ohhhh we used to DREAM of livin' in a corridor! Woulda' been a palace to us. We used to live in an old water tank on a rubbish tip. We got woken up every morning by having a load of rotting fish dumped all over us! House!? Hmph.
EI: Well when I say 'house' it was only a hole in the ground covered by a piece of tarpolin, but it was a house to US.
GC: We were evicted from *our* hole in the ground; we had to go and live in a lake!
TJ: You were lucky to have a LAKE! There were a hundred and sixty of us living in a small shoebox in the middle of the road.
MP: Cardboard box?
TJ: Aye.
MP: You were lucky. We lived for three months in a brown paper bag in a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six o'clock in the morning, clean the bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down mill for fourteen hours a day week in-week out. When we got home, our Dad would thrash us to sleep with his belt!
GC: Luxury. We used to have to get out of the lake at three o'clock in the morning, clean the lake, eat a handful of hot gravel, go to work at the mill every day for tuppence a month, come home, and Dad would beat us around the head and neck with a broken bottle, if we were LUCKY!
TJ: Well we had it tough. We used to have to get up out of the shoebox at twelve o'clock at night, and LICK the road clean with our tongues. We had half a handful of freezing cold gravel, worked twenty-four hours a day at the mill for fourpence every six years, and when we got home, our Dad would slice us in two with a bread knife.
EI: Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night, half an hour before I went to bed, (pause for laughter), drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day down mill, and pay mill owner for permission to come to work, and when we got home, our Dad and our mother would kill us, and dance about on our graves singing 'Hallelujah.'
MP: But you try and tell the young people today that... and they won't believe ya'.
ALL: Nope, nope."
Even accounting for 2x10s, I think I could probably piece this together with parts I've acquired setlessly over the years.
Do I add it to my database? :-p
@Jesse_S_T said:
"I feel grateful for every 1x1 tile on Rivendale’s roof"
Rivendale - when Archie and Jughead went to see the Elves!
What is this blasphemy of colouring the face of one wall?
@Ridgeheart, thank you, still as funny as it was 50+ years ago.
*Yellowish-white bricks.
Roof not included.
pairs well with Black bricks. And Trans Neon Green bricks, when they get around to inventing them.
just 3 numbers on from classic set 928. A bit like my premium bonds, the winning numbers are always just a few out from the ones I have.
@TheOtherMike:
21050. Although, over 10% of those parts are actually clear, so maybe it doesn’t count.
@Arnoldos said:
"And I'd much rather return to simpler, more blocky times."
So…chunky parts?
@Arnoldos said:
" @Jesse_S_T said:
"Some days I wonder if Lego has gone overboard with detail and small pieces, then Brickset reminds me that sets like this used to be all that was available and I feel grateful for every 1x1 tile on Rivendale’s roof"
Yes, they have. And I'd much rather return to simpler, more blocky times. Thankfully, no one's forcing me to spend on something I don't like."
So 11030 should be perfect for you! Or are ten colors too many? :)
Six solid colors is enough: red, blue, yellow, black, white and light gray. Actually, make that seven. But green should only be used for baseplates, plants and trees. Add brown for brooms and spears and dark gray for shovels and pickaxes. I guess now we are getting close to ten.
@Jesse_S_T said:
"Some days I wonder if Lego has gone overboard with detail and small pieces, then Brickset reminds me that sets like this used to be all that was available and I feel grateful for every 1x1 tile on Rivendale’s roof"
I think there's a time and place for both. Many of the great sets nowadays just wouldn't have worked with the variety of parts and colors Lego has. But I feel that for sets aimed at the youngest kids, they should do less colors and less specialized pieces that ar hard to use for anything other what they are designed for. Instead more old school bricks in just a few colors. Let kids learn the basics of building with Lego and use their creativity, and gradually expand from there. It's kinda weird that kids make their first building steps with Duplo which still relies heavily on just simple bricks, but then switch to Lego which uses less and less bricks...
That said, this set takes that idea a bit to the extreme....
@560heliport said:
" @Arnoldos said:
" @Jesse_S_T said:
"Some days I wonder if Lego has gone overboard with detail and small pieces, then Brickset reminds me that sets like this used to be all that was available and I feel grateful for every 1x1 tile on Rivendale’s roof"
Yes, they have. And I'd much rather return to simpler, more blocky times. Thankfully, no one's forcing me to spend on something I don't like."
So 11030 should be perfect for you! Or are ten colors too many? :)"
Yes. I only work in black. And sometimes very, very dark gray!
@WizardOfOss:
From my mid single-digit years, I was all about the specialized parts. I'm not the only one in my LUG who was like that growing up. We'd study the new pack-in catalogs, looking for new parts, and try to figure out how to get our hands on any we found interesting. Growing up, I would sometimes request, or buy, sets just for those pieces. Looking through the mail-order section of the catalog, the _only_ thing I cared about were the genre-themed accessory packs. Basic bricks never excited me because I already had basic bricks, and most new sets would add to the pile anyways.
So, let me ask you this. Do you still create MOCs, or do you exclusively build sets?
I remember the later parts packs, I had 33 & 45 roof slopes, red and white brick packs and a set with just windows and doors - a weird combo of really early and contemporary parts from about 1980. My mum used to ask 'do you want... to see a pantomime / have an Easter egg / have a birthday party / go to the cinema - or have a couple of Lego parts packs?' Strictly speaking I should be slim and friendless with the choices I made every time...
@WizardOfOss said:
" @Jesse_S_T said:
"Some days I wonder if Lego has gone overboard with detail and small pieces, then Brickset reminds me that sets like this used to be all that was available and I feel grateful for every 1x1 tile on Rivendale’s roof"
I think there's a time and place for both. Many of the great sets nowadays just wouldn't have worked with the variety of parts and colors Lego has. But I feel that for sets aimed at the youngest kids, they should do less colors and less specialized pieces that ar hard to use for anything other what they are designed for. Instead more old school bricks in just a few colors. Let kids learn the basics of building with Lego and use their creativity, and gradually expand from there. It's kinda weird that kids make their first building steps with Duplo which still relies heavily on just simple bricks, but then switch to Lego which uses less and less bricks...
That said, this set takes that idea a bit to the extreme...."
Having bought recent DUPLO sets for my youngest, I can tell you they are a lot more now than basic rectangles. They have hinge plates, curved pieces and many of the kinds of things that LEGO proper does. Not to mention the wide range of figures and animals!
@PurpleDave,
As a kid I liked the Space stuff exactly because of the many interesting parts. But still, even back then basic bricks proved very useful, and we never had enough. After all, the way it often worked was first build something big from those bricks, and then put on as many weird pieces as possible.
Now looking at the collection my brother's kids have: Many times more than I could dream to ever have. But at least 95% of it are special pieces (and I seriously doubt they have 50 basic bricks of any single color), which makes it pretty darn difficult to actually build something substantial. My youngest nephew wanted me to build a big train shed, but I had to resort to big plates mounted sideways for the walls. Didn't look great, but it did the job. I did manage to include a functional, dual motorized overhead crane mostly from Technic stuff, that looked like crap but worked fine.
And that's the thing: How did you even amass that pile of basic bricks? You probably didn't get those just from buying sets, as even Classic sets are primarily special pieces in a myriad of colors nowadays. The one exceptions seems Minecraft, the only theme that's still uses lots of bricks.
And yes, the Lego designers again and again prove you can build big stuff while barely using bricks. But can the average 4 or 5 year old do the same?
@WizardOfOss: Well, they don't go *directly* from Duplo to the hyper-detailed stuff. That's what 4+/Juniors (and before that, *shudder* Jack Stone), with their chunkier, but still System-compatible, pieces are for. And, of course, that's why Duplo is compatible with System.
@Huw said:
" @Ridgeheart, thank you, still as funny as it was 50+ years ago."
Funny, I used to consider myself quite an expert in Monty Python, but for the life of me I can't recall ever seeing that sketch. Must google where it originated.
@AustinPowers said:
" @Huw said:
" @Ridgeheart , thank you, still as funny as it was 50+ years ago."
Funny, I used to consider myself quite an expert in Monty Python, but for the life of me I can't recall ever seeing that sketch. Must google where it originated. "
It's the 'Four Yorkshiremen'-sketch. The first (known) reading was done by Tim Brooke-Taylor, Marty Feldman, John Cleese and Graham Chapman, so it actually predates Monty Python - but the MP-version is just my favourite for the sheer chemistry.
@Ridgeheart:
I have to admit, I thought you were making it up at first, but the more I read, the more I started thinking I'd actually seen it before, if only once or twice. Actually, what came to mind first is how Wade and Vanessa had a similar exchange in Deadpool.
Set of the year, 1973!
@ElephantKnight said:
"pairs well with Black bricks. And Trans Neon Green bricks, when they get around to inventing them."
Good news, friend - trans-neon green 2x4 bricks do exist:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/maxx361/5863894276
Bad news, friend - they were never made for mass production.
Worse news, friend. I'm going to need you to sit down for this, away from sharp objects and/or cliff-edges: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcOnBEpudwY
@PurpleDave said:
" @Ridgeheart :
I have to admit, I thought you were making it up at first, but the more I read, the more I started thinking I'd actually seen it before, if only once or twice. Actually, what came to mind first is how Wade and Vanessa had a similar exchange in Deadpool."
I appreciate the compliment, but I would never claim to have even a fraction of the comedic genius and timing of the Pythons.
Or Ryan Reynolds. Why fight it? The man is a delight.
@Ridgeheart said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @Huw said:
" @Ridgeheart , thank you, still as funny as it was 50+ years ago."
Funny, I used to consider myself quite an expert in Monty Python, but for the life of me I can't recall ever seeing that sketch. Must google where it originated. "
It's the 'Four Yorkshiremen'-sketch. The first (known) reading was done by Tim Brooke-Taylor, Marty Feldman, John Cleese and Graham Chapman, so it actually predates Monty Python - but the MP-version is just my favourite for the sheer chemistry."
I've just looked it up. Appears to have been from one of their live stage shows. Unfortunately that is one part of Python lore I have never seen.
@WizardOfOss: Something I forgot to mention in my last comment: One reason I like the Minecraft sets, aside from the IP, is that they have a very "old-school Lego" vibe to them, at least to my eyes.
@TheOtherMike said:
" @WizardOfOss: Well, they don't go *directly* from Duplo to the hyper-detailed stuff. That's what 4+/Juniors (and before that, *shudder* Jack Stone), with their chunkier, but still System-compatible, pieces are for. And, of course, that's why Duplo is compatible with System."
That was basically my initial point: less of those chunky, highly specialized pieces, more regular bricks. That's how kids learn the basics of building with Lego. And sure, not all 4+ sets are that bad, but with some it's more decorating than actual building, with all of the structural stuff being a single piece.
As for Minecraft, for years I honestly thought it was a Lego IP they made a game of....not the other way around. It fits Lego so perfectly....
@Ridgeheart said:
" @ElephantKnight said:
"pairs well with Black bricks. And Trans Neon Green bricks, when they get around to inventing them."
Good news, friend - trans-neon green 2x4 bricks do exist:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/maxx361/5863894276
Bad news, friend - they were never made for mass production.
Worse news, friend. I'm going to need you to sit down for this, away from sharp objects and/or cliff-edges: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcOnBEpudwY"
Thank you for the link to that YouTube video!
I really enjoyed it.
@WizardOfOss:
Minecraft is basically based on building LEGO models, so now all they need is LEGO Minecraft: The Video Game to bring full circle through a second lap.
@PurpleDave said:
" @WizardOfOss :
Minecraft is basically based on building LEGO models, so now all they need is LEGO Minecraft: The Video Game to bring full circle through a second lap."
Well, yes and no. Notch basically wanted to make a visual, voxel-based shell for a Dwarf Fortress-like project - so basically, a quick 3D level-editor. But progger-art being what it is, the best he could do for the textures at the time was emulate the art-style of the godawful 'GTA: Chinatown Wars'. However, the style worked pretty well on the voxels, and by adding gameplay-elements to the editor, his project turned out to be addictive and fun. So through a combination of luck and skill, Notch stumbled across something new and exciting, which is greatly respectable.
And then through a combination of laziness and business-acumen, he sold the rights for an ungodly amount, and presumably now sits on a golden throne and plays Borderlands 2 until the eventual heat-death of the universe.
There IS a Lego-Minecraftalike game, but when I last played it, it was... not great.
So uh... these are pure-grade, premium, uncut, white bricks, right?