During a recent visit to Bristol’s Cribbs Causeway shopping centre, I found myself outside the Lego shop. It was the first time I’d noticed it, to be honest.
“You go on.” I said to Mrs Wormwood. “I’ll catch you up in Waterstones.”
On stepping inside, I was greeted by a friendly young man who asked if he could help me.
“Yes.” I said, “Show me the Big Boys’ Lego kits.”
He clearly understood exactly what I meant and directed me to a number of large boxes right at the front of the shop. There was a Lego version of Ernest Shackleton’s ship, the Endurance; there was an Eiffel Tower, a Notre Dame and a Hogwarts.
I asked to see the most expensive kit and the assistant pulled out a huge box containing all nine thousand and ninety pieces of the Titanic.
I should explain: this recent enthusiasm started when helping my 10-year old grandson assemble a Lego model of the Audi RS Q e-tron, that he had been given as a Christmas present. I won’t go into all the details but the fact is, I ended up making most of it myself — not that that was a problem; far from it.
And that model of the Titanic certainly looked fascinating. 135 cm long and, as the write-up claims, ‘providing many hours of building pleasure.’ And of course, that’s the main point — the building pleasure. After all, what are you going to do with it once it’s finished? Stick it on the sideboard? I don’t think so.
No, arguably the most beautifully designed item in the Lego box is the instruction booklet. No need for language here. It’s all done with step-by-step diagrams. The Audi RS was great in this respect. In parts it was so complex that I had no idea what I was actually building. It simply took shape under my busy fingers. I’d go so far as to suggest that the perfect Lego kit would be one you could go on building for ever.
So turning away from the Titanic, I said: “Come to think of it – it’s the Lego Technic sets that interest me most.”
“Ah,” replied the assistant, approvingly. “Those are just down here.
And, indeed there were the Lego Technic sets with their gears and gimbals. This was more like it. There were a number of flashy cars, two motorbikes, a crane and a digger — all very impressive and, no doubt, extremely satisfying to construct. All the same, I had the feeling they could do so much better.
After pondering for a while, I hit upon what would be my perfect Lego Technic model — the Difference Engine, designed by Charles Babbage in the 1820s and universally acknowledged as the mother and father of all computing machines. With its 25,000 separate parts, gear-wheels, levers and shafts, it would be the crowning glory of the Lego Technic collection.
Admittedly, constructing a machine capable of doing little more than churning out tables of logarithms would have a somewhat specialist appeal. But believe me, there are enough geeks out there to make it a bestseller — and, what’s more, quite a few of them are loaded, which is useful given what would undoubtedly be the eye-watering price tag.
Great idea! But i am afraid I would prefer the precision of Meccano or Erector.
These ‘one design’ kits of Lego seem to me to go against the original point of a flexible building kit and they fall to pieces! Better off with a Revel kit and glue.
And as a contrast to Lego’s precise graphic instructions the new Technics clones come with no instructions at all! Just a big bag of parts or motors. A new challenge
How did Lego ever get a patent when Minibricks preceded them? Lego had engineering precision but rubber Minibricks worked with spit. the rival was Bayko with bakelite building parts on rods.
Who can remember Juneero where you made you own parts and riveted them? Now David that would be the challenge for constructing the Difference Engine!
Yes, I agree – putting together one of these ‘one design’ Lego kits is more of a ritualistic incantation than a creative process. They are much more profitable, of course.
As for Bayko: I used to get terribly frustrated by the tendency for the bricks to fall out. It was a wonderful lesson in the need to ‘tie-in’ masonry.
Yes, they sprang out and the geometry twisted. However, as you say, they supplied metal wall ties and complete floors which helped with the geometry, and finally various terminations and roofs which helped to hold it together.
However there was a very limited and conventional set of architectural styles. Some white features were provided as a nod to modernism and ornate roofs as a nod to other culture. But otherwise it was determinedly suburban 40s style.
Not a passion but I did have a set of Betta Bilda as a boy (anyone remember that?). Similar to Lego but with green plastic roof tiles so you could make a proper looking roof, rather than the Lego “staircase” roofs – I could never understand the popularity of Lego because of this, but it won out in the end over an obviously superior format (Betamax anybody?)
https://www.brightontoymuseum.co.uk/index/Category:Betta_Bilda
No I am afraid Betta Bilda remains a mystery to me.
As far as Lego goes, the whole concept it deeply flawed. For example, with the regular bricks you can only build in one direction.
Maybe Lego has been responsible for ‘dumbing down’ an entire generation. when it comes to spatial imagination.
You have got me going now Dave. Chad Valley toys made a superb girder bridge building set – red plastic girders and grey roadways. I built one and re-enacted Operation Market Garden with my Airfix toy soldiers and tanks. This time the Allies won of course!