10278 baseplate - quality control issues?

ryderfan

As I started building my newly-purchased 10278, I was switching out the dark grey baseplate for a green one, and as I held up the grey one, I thought, "WOAH... Look at the inconsistencies with the 'anti-studs' on the back side!" While the middle of the baseplate had anti-studs the same size of what you typically see, the edges had much smaller-sized holes. When I held up the baseplate to the light, you could see, in a "T" shape, where more light was coming through/plastic material was thinner in the middle and the opposite was going on away from the "T."

The top/playing surface of the baseplate was fine, so no playability issues there, but I was taken aback by the underside. I had never seen that before.

This would give credence to the whole new-versus-old road plate system, if these issues are becoming an issue for TLG in their current road baseplates (I haven't bought a road plate since the 632X series).

Has anyone else noticed this in their baseplate?

Astrobricks

If the top side is fine, then I don’t see why it would be considered an issue.

arathemis

a picture might help your issue s understand , with a light behind the baseplate.

DeMontes

I think this is one of those times when a photograph would say a thousand words.... 😉

Paperballpark

I've said it before - baseplates are awful. The 32x32s aren't too bad, but the 48x48s are simply terrible to tile over large areas. They just don't line up properly when clipped together. 

arathemis

My god, auto-correct made a fool out of me, in the previous post. Serves me right not proof reading what I write.

What I meant was "a picture might help us understand your issue, with a light behind the base plate"

CCC

Baseplates are vacuum formed, so the final top is actually the bottom when forming it. If there is slightly more plastic in one area when formed then that area will be slightly thicker and so the underneath will appear to have smaller holes. 

ryderfan

Here are three pictures, two of which show it side-by-side an older, dark green baseplate obtained thru BandP that doesn't have an issue. Note how it looks like it has "legs" due to the variance. The orientation of the grey plate is the same in all three photos. The third photo may be "too close," but if you back up, you can see the pattern.

Astrobricks

This reminds me of a piece of advice I sometimes give people new to the astronomy hobby. They look at their telescope mirror or lens with a bright light and see all this dust on it. Then they ask how they can clean it. I point out that the dust makes no difference when they look through the telescope, and they will only drive themselves nuts by examining it so closely.

CCC

What are we meant to see in those pictures?

ryderfan

The pics were requested to show how the thickness of the grey baseplate varied and caused the anti-studs on the underside to be different sizes. The green baseplate with no issues was included as a reference. 

NateMN2020

I don’t see the point of issues with the “antistud” side of a baseplate, as it doesn’t get used at all and has no bearing in how the studs perform. If it bothers you that much, I’d call Lego and complain, maybe they can send you a new one. But they might all be that way, I’ve never inspected any of mine to this degree so mine could have the same issue and I just didn’t care.

CCC

To me it looks like the light is brighter in some regions of the light box, which will change the apparent size of the antistuds. Maybe it is something you have to see in person.

Shropshire

I didn’t realise they were vacuum formed, i’d assumed they were injection moulded but with a different plastic mix. Vacuum makes a lot of sense now, learn something every day