Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
Recent discussions • Categories • Privacy Policy • Brickset.com
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.
Comments
and if they meant glow in the dark... Well that's probably a byproduct of the toxic paint they use.
Anyone seen the episode of Only Fools and Horses with the glow in the dark paint?
I wonder exactly what percentage fake LEGO is?
http://mybrickstore.blogspot.com/2015/06/counterfeit-100-exact-lego-minecraft.html
Which, according to sabermetrics and @samiam391, is a much better indicia of one's like effective rate.
Who's the moron? If the last two paragraphs made any sense to anyone, you should be a MLB General Manager.
And your point is......
But I haven't seen that Avengers Headquarters anywhere, in wondering if it is original (for LEPIN, funny they are all caps too) or if they are branching out into stealing IP from other sources now, such as buying instructions from ebay and making sets that way (like the LOTR sets that are available).
That being said, I actually like that Headquarters and want to build it (out of LEGO bricks).
I slapped my forehead too when I saw the name. What do you mean, lepins?
First time I've noticed this "Ausini" brand on Amazon... Those colours!
https://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias=toys&field-keywords=ausini
(I know there's another thread on here which mentions them, but that one got... heated).
Would never buy counterfeit, but I'd rather the counterfeiters create sets like that rather than outright clones if anything because at least it forces Lego to compete with them on design, rather than merely price as is the case with copies like the modulars above.
Sucks for Lego, but it can only benefit the consumer if TLG are forced to be more competitive in their designs.
will let you know when they come!
The factories in China are there for a simple reason - the Chinese avoid products that aren't made locally. That's something that happens in many countries across the word.
What is true is that the 'Chinese Government likes to avoid products that aren't made locally'. But not on the basis of being Sino-centric or proud of their domestic goods. Rather on the basis of economic protectionism and reciprocity for access to their market. Same as other 3rd world countries like Brazil, using ANVISA (equivalent of US FDA) to block foreign drug products from entering their country under the excuse of higher standards. While in reality, it is to protect their fledgling Pharma industry by raising anti-competition barriers of entry.
The caveat was that it depended on other aspects being equal. As the clones up their game, TLG don't have a choice - a good Chinese copy beats a Western original.
'a good Chinese copy beats a Western original'? That''s certainly a new line of thought for me, as I would never have imagined that sentence to be fathomly true until you and Jack Ma said it. Only difference is, he's already back pedaling from that crude view. Because from my personal perspective, the Chinese item would never have existed in the first place if it weren't for actual Western ingenuity and creativity that invented said item to begin with.
Here in the US, the majority of people polled would likely say they prefer to buy products that are "made in the USA", even if they have to pay more than an equivalent product made in China. Then they spend hours searching for the cheapest product they can get their hands on, regardless of where it was made.
Furthermore, if the Chinese copy everything, including attitudes to quality, there is no reason why it can't be true in a more general sense.
Neither would any of the Western clones in relation to Danish, or perhaps British ingenuity. But, whether it is right or wrong, life goes on and you deal with what you've got. TLG has chosen to do that by opening the factory in Jianxing - and even to release a set of a model of the factory.
The term "clone" seems to actually refer to the companies that make building toys from bricks similar in design to LEGO bricks. These would be companies like Megablox, Kre-O, Cobi, etc.
I think all of these particular arguments could be avoided if we clearly define the two different types of companies. I can't imagine that anyone here thinks that it is ok for a company to copy another companies IP ("copycat" companies). That being said I think we can all agree that competition from "clone" companies is ultimately good for TLG because as they get better it forces TLG to maintain their standards.
@TigerMoth, when you are referring to "clones" are you lumping "copycats" in there or are you talking about legit companies that have their own IP's and create their own sets? I really feel that hackles are being raised because some people are talking about one type of company vs a different type of company, but everyone is calling all other companies "clones".
That would clear up the confusion. they when people are talking about clones, we would all agree and know that we are talking about companies engaging in illegal (at least in the Western world) IP infringement.
Everybody seems to have their own idea of what fits into each category and there's a lot of crossover anyway. There are be companies that only reproduce TLG's products, those that only produce their own, and those that produce both. Some produce pieces of their own design; others do not. Furthermore every part of the world has different brands stretching the definitions in a variety of different directions. Some companies also emulate the packaging to some degree or another and then things start getting subjective.
And when is a product a copy and when is it just another manufacturer's version of the original. They're obviously likely to be close, but how close?
And are you talking about pieces or sets? TLG lost the battle on the humble 2 x 4, but what about that newer piece from five years ago? Two years? Ten?
In this part of the debate, I don't see that it matters.
Took some pictures as below, you can see that the bricks are pretty well clutched together, finishing is about as good as Lego, but the trans parts and panels are kinda dull and not as clear as they should be. There are around 3 of the 2x1x3 dark red slope bricks which look to be fractions of an mm shorter than the rest (guess their QC isn't as strict), other than that no major problems for me.
Almost all the bricks are used up with 2 leftover parts, unlike Lego sets which usually have extra 1x1 studs, plates, tiles etc. In my set, there is a missing 1x2 plate and one 1x4 plate which is of the wrong colour. The 2 large plates which were used as the base kinda flexed up around the edges, a problem which can be solved by replacing them with a Lego baseplate.
The minifigures are still in pieces.
Because I just recalled what my local ezbuy deliveryman told me two months ago: that he had been delivering "nothing but" these large "Lego" sets recently.
At that time I thought it was bonafide Lego sets, but now I think not.