Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.comAmazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Is this a new shark?

2»

Comments

  • luckyrussluckyruss UKMember Posts: 872
    Excellent, thanks for the pics @BlueTaco

    The 22R3 ref would mean produced at the end May / start June if I understand their system correctly (in line with the June date I was told above), so if you check for a production reference higher than 22 chances are more likely it will have the new version in.
    andhe
  • icey117icey117 DenmarkMember Posts: 510
    And I would hunt for the lower ref-numbers, and call Serrvice to get the new too.
  • andheandhe UKMember Posts: 3,786
    edited July 2013
    Is the new shark actually larger than the old shark body, or just closer to the camera?
  • beegeedeebeegeedee Galway, IrelandMember Posts: 380
    Looks like it is longer and also slightly wider.
  • luckyrussluckyruss UKMember Posts: 872
    ^^ You've reminded me of Father Ted... "this one is smaller, this one is farther away... smaller, far away..."
    beegeedeeBig_Blue_Winky
  • binaryeyebinaryeye USMember Posts: 1,771
    andhe said:

    Is the new shark actually larger than the old shark body, or just closer to the camera?

    Well, it's definitely closer to the camera. The question is how close the camera was to both and the degree to which that may have affected perspective. I assume this wasn't taken from a distance (e.g. five or six feet) with a telephoto lens.

    After making some measurements in Photoshop, based on the width of stud receptacles, it looks like the white shark appears ~1.25x larger because of the perspective. If that's true, then both are about the same length.
  • BlueTacoBlueTaco MarylandMember Posts: 79
    Looking at it now, the photo does make them look different in size, but they're the same length and width.
    icey117
  • skeet318skeet318 Banned Posts: 375
    edited July 2013
    ^^^ I wonder what color these lego sharks' offspring would be (grey, dummy!) or , better yet, which one is the girl???
  • piratemania7piratemania7 New EnglandMember Posts: 2,146
    A hammerhead would be cool
    icey117
  • SirBenSirBen In the Hall of the Mountain KingMember Posts: 589
    @BlueTaco Based on it's underside, it looks like the new shark could potentially fit at least the legs of a minifig in its mouth. Is this possible?
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,985
    edited July 2013
    SirBen said:

    @BlueTaco Based on it's underside, it looks like the new shark could potentially fit at least the legs of a minifig in its mouth. Is this possible?

    According to LDD, the size of the mouth cavity is the same as with the old shark. Really, the new shark is not considerably different in size. This is because the hinge that the upper jaw attaches to is, by necessity, the same size and thickness on both sharks. And that's really what defines the size of the mouth cavity.

    I posted a comparison I created on LDD to Flickr, but I guess now that the new shark is showing up in sets (much sooner than I'd have expected after seeing old sharks in some copies of 60013 from that set's first batch), it's kind of pointless. In the very least, you can more accurately compare size in this screenshot. The new shark is almost exactly the same size as the old shark, though its anti-studs are not aligned quite the same as the ones on the old shark, so it will sit slightly further forward or backward on a studded surface.
    SirBenicey117
  • andheandhe UKMember Posts: 3,786
    edited January 2014
    BlueTaco said:
    Apologies for the picture quote (I know these are usually frowned upon) but I thought it necessary after my interest was re-ignited following @kempo81's review on the front page (great review by the way, and apologies for my slight derailment of the comments).

    TLG's (and subsequently Bricket's) parts database seem to imply that this new 'gilled shark' mould can be found in 5 sets:
    http://www.brickset.com/search/?part=6044722
    despite artwork on the boxes and official images (and early purchasers of #60011) showing otherwise.

    Has anyone bought a copy of #60011 that contains the new 'gilled shark' mould?

    Bricklink don't seem to even have it as a new part (even in the listing for #60013) http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=60013-1

    Andhe
    ~ AFOLA (Adult Fan of Lego Animals).
  • kempo81kempo81 Wiltshire, UKMember Posts: 961
    Thanks for the mention in this @andhe This had passed me by in the forum somehow. And you've also saved me a trip up into my loft to dig out my old pirates sets to compare the two!!

    Glad you enjoyed the review and no worries about bringing it up in the comments, having worked on the Minifigure Year by Year book quite heavily this type of discrepancy from LEGO comes as no surprise!!

    :o)
  • OscarWRGOscarWRG Member Posts: 16
    in mi case I bought 2 60011 sets and both have the shark without gills
Sign In or Register to comment.

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Please use our links: LEGO.com Amazon

Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy Brickset.com

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.