LEGO Summary: woodelf | Rebrickable

(1,910 awarded)

LEGO Sets Collector

13

LEVEL

23.3% (779 points to next level)
Help Guide - Levels/Points

3,421

POINTS

505

VIEWS

USER RANKINGS

Points

#2,476

Profile Views

#1,765

User ID: 78936

Joined: June 3, 2016, 1:21 a.m.

Recent Comments by woodelf

9 months, 3 weeks ago woodelf Level 13

New-ish — it's shown up in a few other 2025 sets. https://rebrickable.com/parts/6901/plant-sunflower-2-x-2-with-16-petals/

11 months ago woodelf Level 13

Missed the poll, but I'd go with "Not bad, a few odd ones though". Maybe it's just not my cuppa, but based on reviews I'm surprised to see the Artemis on the list at all, let alone so high up.

Also a bit surprised that none of the 2024 Space sets actually made the list, especially when you mentioned the "inevitable" appearance of those sets on the top-10 list. I'd say that 60430, 60431, 42602, and 42181 all could be in the top 10 from 2024. But I also realize that if you asked me to create this list, there's no way I could keep it under 20 sets, and there were a lot of great sets in 2024, so a lot of hard decisions. But I feel like one of them should've made the cut.

The Dune ornithopter makes the cut, too, IMHO. But other than the Artemis I can't identify anything on the list that I can definitely say doesn't belong, so I don't know what I'd bump to fit it into the top 10. It's really hard to make a list like this, and this year I think y'all did a very good job overall. Only that 1 puzzling inclusion, and only 2 "obvious" candidates missed, IMHO.

11 months ago woodelf Level 13

Even within the other trans-[something] purple parts in the middle (not including the much lighter star), there are 2 distinct hues to my eyes: the small rectangle looks to match the Glitter Trans-Medium Purple part, and in any case it clearly doesn't match the two small Clikits or the separator, all of which look like they're the same hue to me.

Is that an artifact of the photography, or do they look that way in person, too?

11 months ago woodelf Level 13

I think the brand distancing was intended to go in both directions. It seems like Lego at the time thought that the brand, as well as the products, didn't appeal to young girls, so they wanted to minimize "Lego" on the Clikits products so that it wouldn't keep people from buying them.

1 year, 1 month ago woodelf Level 13

That's 2 sheep + 2 fleeces + 1 lamb, right? That's awesome! First set with more than 1 sheep or more than 1 fleece, and it's an affordable one.

1 year, 2 months ago woodelf Level 13

I understand part of what you're doing is using hyperbole to make your argument, but I don't think what you're suggesting is even applicable.

Are MOC designers referring to "parts from Amazon" or pointing people at stolen-MOC sellers by posting YouTube links that don't mention the seller?

The restriction on providing advertising/awareness for the brands that engage in this IP theft is about designs and parts that come from these brands. YouTube and Amazon don't make compatible parts and don't run a business that uses other people's MOC designs to put out commercial products. The folks who do use other's MOC designs without permission or recompense may well sell on Amazon or advertise via YouTube, but that's really not the same thing.

[color=var(--text-color)]And if your point is that some of the companies on that list don't steal MOC designs and therefore shouldn't be on the list, well, contact the admins to point this out.

But if your point is that some of the companies that are profiting off of stolen MOC designs are also selling legitimate designs, I don't expect you'll get much sympathy.

I'm also wondering what the value is to the MOC designer in being able to reference these companies as part of their MOC posting here? You won't be able to include parts that Lego doesn't make in the inventory, so what's the value in posting the design here? And if Lego does make the part, why do you want/need to reference another company as part of your MOC description/instructions? What am I missing?

1 year, 3 months ago woodelf Level 13

Love to see builds for Technic figs! And I'm impressed with how many functions you squeezed into a small vehicle like this. Definitely going to have to give this a try.

1 year, 4 months ago woodelf Level 13

These are all so cool!

...now if only someone, anyone, would stock these where I live. :-( I was really looking forward to these, but the local Walmarts and Targets have all stopped stocking the CMFs. Don't have a Lego store or dedicated toy store in the area.

1 year, 8 months ago woodelf Level 13

Rolls off the tongue: yeah, maybe. I don't have strong opinions on the matter. But that ordering of adjectives makes my brain itch because it doesn't really make sense.

These aren't transparent versions of opalescent versions of opaque colors. These are either opalescent versions of transparent versions of opaque colors, transparent versions of opaque colors that have had an opalescent treatment applied to them, transparent colors that have had an opalescent treatment applied, or opalescent versions of transparent colors. However you slice it, "opalescent" is both conceptually and grammatically a more distant modification of the root object/word. Plus, there's the linguistic complication that "opal" is a noun, but I can accept that it's a reasonable invented abbreviation for "opalescent".

So, "trans-opal purple" just doesn't make sense. "Transparent" isn't modifying "opalescent" and it isn't modifying "opalescent purple". "Opal-trans purple" is a little odd: I can read that as "opalescent {transparent purple}" (which is an accurate description) or as "{opalescent-transparent} purple" which is an odd concept, but parsable. Either way, the downside is that it sorts the opalescent colors off into their own part of the alphabet, separating them from both their transparent equivalents and their opaque equivalents. This is to me a massive bug.

"Trans-purple opal" parses easily to "transparent purple with opalescence" to me. And has the significant virtue of sorting it close to "trans-purple", keeping very similar colors together.

But "trans-opal purple" is just semantically confusing, implying that this is the transparent version of {opalescent purple}. If we had non-transparent opalescent parts, then maybe this would make sense. Especially if these were clearly closer to the opalescent opaque color than to the non-opalescent transparent color.

1 year, 8 months ago woodelf Level 13

And I love and use the opalescent colors all the time, and have been buying up great big piles of them from Pick-a-Brick and Bricklink. And precisely because I use them a lot, I think they should be grouped with their non-opalescent equivalents in the alphabetical list. I think the glitter-infused colors should be, too.

1 year, 8 months ago woodelf Level 13

How did you get from what RadicalDog said that they're not using opalescent colors?

Their point is: when you are trying to locate a color in an alphabetical list and don't know the exact name, you're more likely to (A) recognize it as some sort of transparent purple and then figure out that it's trans-purple opal because you see trans-purple, trans-purple glitter, and trans-purple opal grouped together, than you are to (B) recognize it as "some sort of opalescent" and figure out that the term of art here is "opal", but not know whether it is purple or pink or blue.

Having all the opalescent transparent colors grouped together is only really helpful if you have trouble distinguishing between them or you're spending a lot of time dealing with just those parts (and not other transparent colors). Having all the transparent blues or transparent greens grouped together is useful if you have trouble distinguishing between the various transparent blues or greens (including their opalescent variants). That, to me, is self-evidently more often going to be an issue. But one person's "self-evident" is another person's "I've never thought of that."

1 year, 8 months ago woodelf Level 13

While we’re at it, can we rename “trans-blue opal” to “trans-light blue opal” and “trans-green opal” to “trans-bright green opal” so that they match the closest non-opalescent color?

1 year, 8 months ago woodelf Level 13

Rename the glitter colors so they sort with their non-glitter versions, and keep the opalescent colors as is. I would like to see:

…
Trans-light blue
Trans-light blue glitter
Trans-light blue opal
Trans-neon green
Trans-neon green glitter
Trans-neon orange
Trans-neon yellow
Trans-orange
Trans-orange glitter
…

Etc. (apologies for any colors I left out in that sequence—working from memory).

I find it a regular annoyance that the transparent glitter colors are in a completely different part of the list when sorted alphabetically.

1 year, 8 months ago woodelf Level 13

This series knocks it out of the park for me! Space is pretty much my building theme—well, scifi more broadly, but mostly that means spaceships and alien landscapes and space stations and rovers and so on. And I was around for all of the themes this series calls back to.

So for me, the weakest figure is the realistic/modern astronaut—still good, just not as good as the others. And I got an extra to use for parts.

My favorites are definitely the alien beetlezoid, Blacktron mutant, Ice Planet penguin, Orion, and android nurse (in no particular order—I'd have real trouble choosing between those). I always preferred both the uniforms and the ships from Blacktron over Blacktron II, so the fact that the Blacktron mutant isn't easily usable as a regular Blacktron II minifig doesn't bother me. OTOH, I love the implication, if you pose them as pictured in the list, that whatever split their arm into 2 arms also split their gun into 2 guns! That's quite the alien virus. ;-)

The M:Tron powerlifter is a seriously awesome minifig, and I loved M:Tron as a kid. But for me, it was always: pros: magnets and trans-neon green; cons: red as the base color. <shrug> Tastes vary. So it doesn't give me nostalgia vibes the way the Blacktron II minifig does.

For me

1 year, 8 months ago woodelf Level 13

BTW, in case its a misunderstanding rather than a just a typo, trans-neon green and trans-neon orange have been recently discontinued, after each being in regular use for about 30 years.

Trans-neon yellow, which I personally like even more, had a tragically short run and was only used for a couple dozen parts, almost all of them Clikits. It was discontinued about 20 years ago.

I only mention this because I've recently discovered that a lot of people see the Lego color trans-neon green as a shade of yellow—enough people that I've found more Bricklink sellers with trans-neon green parts listed as trans-neon yellow than those with actual trans-neon yellow. (Personally, I don't see it—yeah, trans-neon green is a slightly yellowish green, but I'd never mistake it for any shade of yellow, and trans-neon yellow is a distinctly orangey shade of yellow, so it's on the other side of trans-yellow than trans-neon green is, in any case. But we all see colors a little differently.)

1 year, 8 months ago woodelf Level 13

Looking at these numbers, I feel like I should set up a PO Box so y'all can mail me your unwanted light gray and dark gray parts. ;-)

I'll happily take them off your hands — I pretty much only use light bley/dark bley because of parts that were released after 2003 or because I've run out of light gray/dark gray at the moment.

1 year, 8 months ago woodelf Level 13

The 6x6 dish has been produced in dark bluish gray: https://rebrickable.com/parts/44375a/dish-6-x-6-inverted-radar-with-hollow-studs/72/

Though good luck getting ahold of any: https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=44375a#T=P&C=85 :-(

1 year, 8 months ago woodelf Level 13

I'm thinking either dark bluish gray (left) and badly yellowed dark gray (right), assuming that's an off-white background.

If the background is actually white and the cast of the photo is making it look that dark, then I'd guess the parts are light gray and badly yellowed light gray.

1 year, 8 months ago woodelf Level 13

Sometimes they're really similar, sometimes they aren't. There are at least 2 distinct shades each of light gray, light bluish gray, and dark gray that TLG has produced over the years. Dark bluish gray is pretty consistent, however.

The less-yellow light gray and the less-blue light bluish gray are very close and hard to distinguish even with really good lighting, and even the more-yellow light gray and the less-blue light bluish gray are sometimes hard to distinguish. But the more-yellow light gray and the more-blue light bluish gray are pretty easy to tell apart (and really clash if mixed in a build).

The less-yellow dark gray is easy to mistake for dark bluish gray, but it appears to be a lot rarer than the more-yellow dark gray. And there's enough difference between the two shades of dark gray that if I don't have any dark bluish gray parts to compare to, I sometimes mistake the less-yellow dark gray for being dark bluish gray.

The less-yellow light gray and dark gray also don't turn as brown when exposed to sun. So even pretty old parts, if they're those shades of light gray and dark gray, still look fairly neutral with age.

The different shades also yellow differently, so if your parts get a lot of sun, the difference can become bigger.
* more-yellow light gray: yellows very visibly, turning a distinctly yellowish gray, occasionally to the point it could be confused with dark tan
* less-yellow light gray: stays a neutral gray
* less-blue light bluish gray: stays an almost-neutral gray with a subtle bluish cast
* more-blue light bluish gray: stays gray with a very obvious bluish cast
* more-yellow dark gray: turns brown, can easily be mistaken for being dark tan
* less-yellow dark gray: gets subtly yellower, but I think it at worst ends up looking like the other dark gray did when new; IME it often doesn't really change visibly at all
* less-blue dark bluish gray: doesn't seem to change shade easily? I don't have much of this shade of dark bluish gray that has had much sun exposure
* more-blue dark bluish gray: either doesn't change shade easily, or actually gets a bit bluer, maybe?

So depending on the original shade, vintage, and sun exposure of your parts, light gray and light bluish gray can either be easily distinguishable at a glance, are frustratingly indistinguishable. I'm really good at dishinguishing colors and use high-CRI lights in my Lego area, and yet any time I need to go through a whole bin of sorted grays, I almost always find a couple of the less-blue light bley in the light gray bin and occasionally find some of the less-yellow light gray I previously sorted into the light bley bin. If you're not as good with colors or have normal-quality lighting, I'm sure it's hard unless the parts are really yellowed.

1 year, 8 months ago woodelf Level 13

"light bley" and "dark bley".

Upsides: succinct and easy to say.
Downside: can be confusing to new folks, particularly if they weren't building/buying Lego before 2005. Though I'm not sure it's any more confusing than learning the various other color names, some of which are a mouthful or not super obvious ("royal blue" appears to match the color of the Danish royal flag, but to English speakers that name conveys a very dark blue, not a light blue-violet).

Resource	Value
User CPU time	140.861 msec
System CPU time	3.305 msec
Total CPU time	144.166 msec
Elapsed time	160.008 msec
Context switches	198 voluntary, 5 involuntary

COMMENTS by woodelf

woodelf

LEGO Sets Collector

13

LEVEL

3,421

POINTS

505

VIEWS

USER RANKINGS

Time

Resource usage

Browser timing

SQL queries from 1 connection

Log messages