Marie

donutboy

On the random set link that's on the main page I got this earlier. I don't know if we all get the same image for the random sets but holy smokes. That's just scary. It says it's from 2001 but looks like something out of the 1950's.

https://brickset.com/sets/2952-1/Marie

Phew, I wonder how successful these hideous things were.

bookmum

I think she is kinda cute in a 'ugly' doll kind of way. Sorry - that probably doesn't make much sense. I am quite facinated by dolls but I find some of them bit ugly and scary. Of the ugly dolls some of them are quite sweet. (this still makes no sense does it!). 

FowlerBricks

Aack! Take it away!! 

RogerKirk

There's a whole series of them. Maire, Sarah, Lisa, Anna...

LusiferSam

I'd say these look more like knock off Cabbage Patch kids (which are horrid on their own).  The 50's dolls are truly scary. 

Cyberdragon

Normally I would never wish destruction upon LEGO, but this needs the Sid from Toy Story treatment to ensure elimination.

M1J0E

Well there’s 25 people that thought it was a good idea to purchase these sets, & another 25 that claim to want them.  Now I wonder.  What the least owned, & least wanted sets are.  Still though, these appear well intentioned enough, produced in an era of desperation, and, not surprising, suitably short lived.  

LusiferSam

And we have a win, 45019.  No one owns one and no one wants one, at least here.  The queries are easy enough to run.  I selected total sets owned or wanted by everyone with less than 2 and year less than 2018 (otherwise the unreleased 2018 mess up the results). 

Charmiefcb

The bad old days when Lego was throwing mud and hoping something would stick and ignoring their customers. No wonder nothing sold.

Aanchir

I don’t quite get this reaction… at worst, it’s an extremely generic looking little girl doll. I’ve seen much creepier-looking dolls, even from other LEGO product lines like Belville.

M1J0E

Thanks Sam!  I hadn’t had success with some queries I’d tried awhile back.  So appreciate the help finding a set nobody owns & nobody wants!  But it is listed at bricklink should anyone change their mind :D

myscrnnm

It might just be the photo they used, but I've seen these in person and they're not at all creepy. Just an interesting foray for LEGO.

RogerKirk

myscrnnm said:

It might just be the photo they used, but I've seen these in person and they're not at all creepy. Just an interesting foray for LEGO.

Perhaps it is the picture. But I just showed it to my wife only saying 'have you seen this Lego?'. Here response was simply 'that's creepy'. Haha :)

donutboy

Aanchir said:

I don’t quite get this reaction… at worst, it’s an extremely generic looking little girl doll. I’ve seen much creepier-looking dolls, even from other LEGO product lines like Belville.

myscrnnm said:

It might just be the photo they used, but I've seen these in person and they're not at all creepy. Just an interesting foray for LEGO.

Well, the doll looks creepy to me, so Lego either had terrible designers back then, or terrible marketing photographers. 

MegtheCat

Annabelle has the Lego dolls beat by miles as far as creepy goes.