Brickset ForumShopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
1973 UK "Letter to Parents" gone viral on the Internet...
Istokg
Member Posts: 2,366
LEGO Letter to Parents.... this appears to have gone Viral on the Internet...
Several folks have asked me in the last 16 hours about this image going around on the internet, and whether it is legitimate or not.
Well I have come to the conclusion that this is a real item. And here is why....
-------------------------
1) The term "dolls house" is uniquely British (don't know about Australia?)... we use "doll house" in the USA.
2) The document number 97xxx does date to about 1973.
3) British LEGO Ltd. was based in Wrexham Wales.
4) LEGO brochures at that time were commonly produced in Germany, many of those for Britain, USA and Canada were.
5) The typeface does match that era in the early 1970s.
6) The LEGO logo is the 1973-1997 LEGO logo.
7) You would never find this type of message (boys play with dolls house) in a LEGO catalog where boys might read this, but it could be found in a Parents Guide type message.
8) The Homemaker Sets were introduced in 1971, so this type of message would indirectly hint about these new sets.
9) You can tell that there is writing/imagery on the back of this page. It would be common to see thru this type of paper in LEGO catalogs and documents of that era. This is something that a forgery would probably not have.
10) This is clearly the last page of a multi page stapled LEGO document. It has all the common hallmarks of a LEGO brochure, with the location/date/copyright/trademark info/printer... posted on the back page.
-------------------------
So yes... this has all the makings of a real LEGO page distributed by British LEGO Ltd. of Wrexham Wales, and printed in Germany.
Several folks have asked me in the last 16 hours about this image going around on the internet, and whether it is legitimate or not.
Well I have come to the conclusion that this is a real item. And here is why....
-------------------------
1) The term "dolls house" is uniquely British (don't know about Australia?)... we use "doll house" in the USA.
2) The document number 97xxx does date to about 1973.
3) British LEGO Ltd. was based in Wrexham Wales.
4) LEGO brochures at that time were commonly produced in Germany, many of those for Britain, USA and Canada were.
5) The typeface does match that era in the early 1970s.
6) The LEGO logo is the 1973-1997 LEGO logo.
7) You would never find this type of message (boys play with dolls house) in a LEGO catalog where boys might read this, but it could be found in a Parents Guide type message.
8) The Homemaker Sets were introduced in 1971, so this type of message would indirectly hint about these new sets.
9) You can tell that there is writing/imagery on the back of this page. It would be common to see thru this type of paper in LEGO catalogs and documents of that era. This is something that a forgery would probably not have.
10) This is clearly the last page of a multi page stapled LEGO document. It has all the common hallmarks of a LEGO brochure, with the location/date/copyright/trademark info/printer... posted on the back page.
-------------------------
So yes... this has all the makings of a real LEGO page distributed by British LEGO Ltd. of Wrexham Wales, and printed in Germany.
7
Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
Recent discussions • Categories • Privacy Policy • Brickset.com
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- All Categories
- 16.2K General
- 3 Announcements
- 3.1K Collecting
- 3.7K Everything else LEGO
- 1.7K Building and Techniques
- 2.3K Brickset
- 14 Ambassador
- 1K Introduce yourself
- 385 The Database
- 438 Brickset.com
- 316 Forum Operation
- 15 FAQs
- 13.9K Shopping
- 1.7K Shopping USA/Canada
- 337 Shopping Elsewhere
- 11K Marketplace
- 1.2K Other
- 571 Community and Events
- 262 Photography/Video
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
I have over 1000 LEGO document images in my collection, and over the years I've Photoshopped many to clear up imperfections or stains/writing. And in doing so, I have found ways to identify my own changes. ;-)
One thing that many LEGO documents such as catalogs or brochures have is what I call "bleeding from behind" images... where the backside shows thru when scanning/photographing an image. Here I took the previous image and darkened/contrasted it to show that a lot of the "bleeding" from the page behind does come thru... and this bleeding is on the upper and lower parts of this image. This would be very difficult to fake...
What is very difficult to fake is the inconsistent baseline of the text as it follows the wrinkles in the paper.
I was able to find a document number, and an example of this same text in German...
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/photo-egalitarian-instructions-1970s-lego-set-goes-viral
The document number for the English text is: 97880-Eng
The document number for the German text is: 97880-Ty
This gives me something to help pinpoint the exact mystery document. :-D
But why fake it? I haven't been following this on other sites. Why has it gone viral and what is the big deal about it?
Thanks to my good LEGO friend Russell Callendar!
This image is the cover to the 1974 UK Homemaker Catalog, also available in other languages!
So I can believe it is perfectly true that they were trying to market sets to girls via the parents, although back then there was much less an issue of political correctness. No doubt there would still be complaints today if those sets were current ones, for portraying women as house wives, even if it could equally well be that it was a working woman and a house husband, just down to interpretation.
(Edited: Agree completely CCC!!)
Does anybody know where I might find full scans of the entire catalog? It's a subject that has really piqued my interest.
Margot, thanks! I just posted the image on the LEGO FB page.
I see that Bricklink database has these listed in many continental European languages. Since they list Portuguese... I would assume that each continental European LEGO country language had this produced... as well as Australia.
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?catType=C&catString=349.85
Since Homemaker sets did not come to the USA until 1979, this 1974 catalog would not be found produced there.
That doesn't mean it's wrong for boys to play with them, or that they were somehow designed so that boys COULDN'T enjoy them. But then, neither are modern sets. I own the LEGO Friends Dolphin Cruiser myself. Fantastic set packed with detail. It truly feels "liveable", rather than just being geared towards action play like so many more boy-oriented sets. I am really excited for next year's Elves sets, and some of the Friends sets also look stunning!
I wouldn't mind if the LEGO Group introduced a girl-oriented castle playset one day. If LEGO Friends is any indication, it might even surpass the various Hogwarts Castle sets as the most liveable LEGO castle. Can you believe non-licensed castle sets have never included a banquet hall, or a library, or a keep with a four-poster bed for the king and queen? As a kid I had a Mega Bloks castle that included all of those things, as well as a horse stable and a dungeon and a blacksmith's workshop and a throne room and all that good stuff. Granted, the design and material quality were still terrible, with the entire outer structure being a giant preformed castle-shaped carry case, but it was astonishing years later to see that LEGO never really had any castle that felt quite so liveable. I'm tired of seeing LEGO castles presented just as military fortifications or seats of government. I want to see a LEGO Castle presented as a home, and as a sanctuary.
Just read the LEGO Facebook post. Somebody in the comments had the gall to say how much they preferred the Homemaker sets to the "dumbed-down" pink and purple sets today. Right, because giant Duplo-sized cabinets and plumbing fixtures are ANYTHING but "dumbed-down"... And a palette of five different colors gives girls much more creative freedom than the diverse spectrum of colors in the LEGO Friends sets...
Of course, if I were really trying to make a fake, it would be much lighter and I would have spent time making it match the shape of the page. That depends on the kind of printing. Volume printing on an offset press is still done very much like it was when the brochure was printed. The main difference is what happens before the content is sent to the printer. Back then, the art, copy, photos, etc., were all combined into a "paste-up" that was then photographed. The printer would use that photo to create plates. Now, we bypass all the messy and error-prone stuff and the printer creates plates directly from the digital files sent to them. The printing process itself is almost exactly the same; it's the pre-press stuff that has changed.
I want to comment that this is not being snide to @Aanchir but just responding to some points made.
A 'girl oriented' Castle? So a Castle? I mean that is what the people want right? I'm not sure anymore. They wanted LEGO more 'accessible' to girls, but not, in their view, 'insulting'.. So they wanted LEGO sets with a few more female characters thrown in? No, then I'm confused.,. Supposedly they do not want to be treated any differently than boys.. or do they?
I would also say that Medieval Market Village, and even Mill Village Raid, had females in it. Were they soldiers? No, but then again they seems portrayed in a good light and I am fairly certain that most females in Medieval times were not really favored well in the populous. Does this mean Castle now has to go away now, or is LEGO needing to re-write history? I'm sure there are those sadly that would suggest that. I guess they could do the Amazon's as a line and see how well it does.
As for things MB had in their castle set, when you have lesser quality than LEGO and are competing against them you better add a ton into the set; also was that set with all of its bells and whistles cheaper or the same price as the LEGO set?
LEGO Castle traditionally has not had many of those things. Occasionally you get a 'throne room' or a 'Dungeon/cell, but not both. I think a couple of LEGO's castles though have been pretty detailed though and #6090 I believe comes to mind. But for stuff missing I guess kids could.. dare I say it, imagine it and build into the Castle those things (makes money for LEGO and allows both boys and girls to add what they wish into the Castle system).
As for the facebook comment, I agree and it only re-enforces the notion that people will go to bizarre lengths to state their side of an argument.
All in all, last I checked, the Creator houses (and now the new Creator urban housing scenes) are likely played with by both boys and girls. These are essentially 'homemaker sets'. There are no swat team members raiding the meth house with bad guys in it, nor is the house on fire, nor are aliens trying to destroy it. It is just a house. Would be interesting to see the demographics on who are playing with those sets; to see if there are kids (boys and girls) that may play with a set without all of that muddying the waters.
Could LEGO finally add more females into the 'standard' theme sets? Sure and I endorse that. Why not? Add a different hair piece and torso, both minor and cheap parts, but even when they do that it would not be enough for some sadly (not referring to @Aanchir on that point either)
And "girl-oriented" doesn't just mean "more girl characters". What the LEGO Group found during the research they did leading up to the LEGO Friends theme (starting in 2007) is that girls and boys genuinely had differences in their play patterns. One of the biggest differences was that girls were more likely to act out stories in the first person (using the figures as avatars for themselves) rather than in the third person, for instance, which is part of the reason why the mini-doll was introduced — girls had an easier time identifying with a figure that was less blocky and abstract than the minifigure. Also, girls really preferred their creations to have a sense of harmony and order. And as was already sort of suspected, girls tended to prefer character-driven role-play to more mechanical action play.
I think a lot of these things have helped inform the design of recent girl-oriented sets. For instance, a lot of girl-oriented sets are designed to feel well-rounded from a role-play perspective. This is the kind of "liveable" detail I'm talking about. My #41015 Dolphin Cruiser features a small kitchen, a small bathroom, two comfortable-looking beds, and a shower. That's more than most houses in LEGO Town or LEGO City have! This kind of detail doesn't have to be so glamorous or luxurious, of course — the #41038 Jungle Rescue Base has a modest outhouse-style water closet (though it does have a slight luxury in the form of hot and cold water), and instead of large 4x6 twin beds with plush-looking comforters, it has a pair of small, simple 2x6 cots. All this at a lower price than another current "adventure base", #60036 Arctic Base Camp (of course, that set has like four vehicles, while the Jungle Rescue Base just has a boat and a zip-line).
This is the kind of detail I feel is missing from non-licensed LEGO castles. Sure, the knights are protecting the castle, and the king is sitting on the throne in the castle, but there's not a sense that anybody actually lives there. There's rarely any place for them to leave their horses, eat, or sleep when they're not on the battlefield. There's a dungeon, of course, and plenty of catapults, and usually a treasure room and a throne room, but not even the most meager "creature comforts". And I think a girl-oriented castle might be better at this kind of thing. The Disney Princess theme has dabbled in it already, though Cinderella's Romantic Castle is too small to include all the sorts of features that I think non-licensed LEGO castles are missing. The Harry Potter theme has done an even better job with the various renditions of Hogwarts — which have certainly been informed by their potential for "dollhouse play", and were often even listed with the "For Girls" tag/category back when they were still available on shop.LEGO.com. I'll let you see some pictures:
Left Side with blacksmith shop, armory, banquet hall, and storeroom
Right Side with bedroom, library/treasury, throne room, stable, and dungeon
Full instruction scans
It had 725 pieces, according to bricker.info. I don't have any clue what it cost — there aren't a lot of good resources for looking that kind of thing up for really old clone sets. Believe me, I agree! LEGO has had some great castles. And kids are totally free to add what they like to them. But I think what the LEGO Group includes in sets still matters. Obviously, 1990s Mega Bloks was generally even lower quality than what they have out today (both in terms of design and materials). But I hardly think that means the LEGO Group somehow can't afford to put out a castle with these kinds of contents, especially when they've already come close in other themes. #4842 contains a banquet hall and two common rooms. #70728 has a bed and a kitchen. Perhaps some of this stuff isn't important to a lot of LEGO Castle fans, but I still feel its absence each time we get a big new LEGO castle — despite those sets generally having all the features we've come to expect from previous big LEGO castles like dungeons and throne rooms and catapults and treasuries.
Maybe I should break out the bricks (or even just LEGO Digital Designer) and try to design a "liveable" LEGO castle for LEGO Ideas. Been a long time since I dabbled in castle building, even though it was something I loved as a kid.
There are those that will never be pleased no matter what, and those are the people to tune out.
Could LEGO do a better job? Sure, but LEGO did have blacksmith shops and other modular type sets in the 80's to make a larger castle, and is many ways was tailor made to be customized. Really that is what LEGO needs to get back to and keep doing that IMO.
But could LEGO made a 'perfect' castle? Should and be prepared to pay perfect type money for it. I think one thing LEGO wants to do, especially lately, is keep many of the them sets to around 99.99 or lower (Themes that are ot City or Mods, SW, etc), and that will hamstring many plans
Why go against society without doing anything MAJOR to change it, unless.............$$$$$$$$$$?
The point of this letter was never to encourage kids to do anything that is against their natural inclinations. On the contrary, it's to encourage parents to EMBRACE their kids' natural inclinations and imaginative spirit, even if those things seem at a glance to run counter to "conventional wisdom" about gender.
Being open to ideas outside of traditional gender roles doesn't make you any less of a man or woman than others of your gender. In fact, it's often a sign of creativity and "thinking outside the box". This article I read recently seems relevant.
Of course, yes, money is a factor. LEGO is a creative toy. By encouraging creativity, LEGO stands to make money. That doesn't make this message any less truthful or genuine.
I'm really, really, really sick of the promotion of fallacies. There's plenty fathers who choose not to be around. When companies and government have opportunities to teach kids and then choose otherwise. Well that's the definition of traitor.
A person who torments others is a bully, a person who is tormented by others is a victim of bullying. I was not trying to put words in your mouth, just assuming you had the brainpower to understand the underlying meaning of your own words. I hope that I was not assuming too much of you.
What's more, your statement assumes that things like dolls being a girls' hobby is an innate biological impulse and not just a societal bias. And societal ideas about gender roles vary with time and place. In a society where cooking is seen as feminine, should boys be discouraged from becoming chefs because other boys will pick on them? In a society where music is seen as feminine, should boys be discouraged from becoming musicians? In societies where gardening is seen as feminine, should boys be discouraged from becoming gardeners or botanists? Certainly people raised in these societies might see bullying as "inevitable" for boys who have these kinds of interests, but in fact it's anything but.
Plenty of boys already play with dolls anyway. But clever marketers made it okay by calling them "action figures". The nature of the toy was not fundamentally altered, but by cloaking it in more masculine language it was made acceptable, a perfect example of how the stigma against boys playing with dolls is a product of society, not a product of human nature.
I really wouldn't call playing with army men playing with dolls. There is a big difference.
In America, women are told that cooking, cleaning and gardening is now seen as somewhat sexist. I know very little women that willingly do that stuff. For me, I had to learn to cook for myself. It's very important to nourish yourself, especially after a good workout. I enjoy music and I enjoy botany. I don't see how when women are told not to do that stuff, men can't either. Someone has to.
And referring to bullying, it isn't boys on boys. Many girls, teachers, bosses, or whoever will bully. It's a bully society. I wasn't condoning or encouraging, just stating it's a little ignorant to assume it won't happen.
Why not teach boys masculine traits which will inevitably help them with women later instead of telling them to pickup a doll when in reality women don't chase boys that play with dolls. We only have to look at the predictions thread with the I get 27% more/less than whenever to see there is a big disconnect. It needs to change, that's all I want.
It's one thing if a boy chooses dolls, it's another to gear them towards it. I don't think it's okay to teach guys effeminate traits. Thats all.
Personally, I think it's a little bit dumb to raise boys a certain way so that girls will "chase" them. There are a lot of girls who might find a LEGO hobby an unappealing quality in a potential boyfriend, but that doesn't mean we should teach our kids not to play with LEGO at all. When and if a boy becomes interested in finding a girlfriend I think he can decide on his own what kind of girl he wants and what lifestyle changes it might take for him to win her affections.
But adolescent or adult courtship is not really even relevant to discussion of a leaflet that's about childhood play. When you try to turn playing with LEGO into some kind of training for adolescence or adulthood it takes away the inherent openness of the play experience. This leaflet is telling parents NOT to do that, and to instead keep playtime a sacred time when kids are free to be kids without adults imposing a structure or lesson plan on that experience.
If you look at the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of doll, you find
1
: a small-scale figure of a human being used especially as a child's plaything
Last I heard an army man is a small-scale figure, is human, and is used as a child's plaything.
That sure sounds like a doll. A doll does not inherently mean baby doll.
What is interesting is that when I was a kid, There were the barbie-size Star Wars dolls out. Today they are back. Not only are they back that they have the same size Marvel character dolls as well. They may not use the name 'doll', but they are dolls.
http://www.target.com/p/marvel-titan-hero-series-super-hero-collection/-/A-14528457?ref=tgt_adv_XSG10001&AFID=google_pla_df&LNM=14528457&CPNG=Toys&kpid=14528457&LID=34pgs&ci_src=17588969&ci_sku=14528457&kpid=14528457&gclid=Cj0KEQiAkdajBRCJ_7_j6sCck7wBEiQAppb2i_TYy2t-OSNjLSB2yX5ufvde3efo0yD16KVpxYNAQp8aAlrx8P8HAQ
When one moves out of baby dolls, the 12" dolls or smaller sized dolls them really become avatars for full blown pretend play.
For the record, men/women, boys/girls, sex/gender are all entirely different - as a society we're not one massive block which all thinks in the same way. You should be encouraging the children in your life to be happy, confident, well-adjusted people; not treating the way they play with toys as an avenue to dating the 'correct' sex.
Adults are generally the ones with gender issues; and unfortunately, adults push those thoughts onto children - who then attack each other when someone doesn't conform.
The leaflet also does not refer strictly to PLAYING with dolls' houses so much as BUILDING them, and I like to think that building is neither an inherently masculine or feminine activity. A kid, male or female, who builds dolls' houses today could be the next great architect of tomorrow, just as a kid who builds spaceships could be a future aerospace engineer. And building a playable dolls' house can require more critical thinking than just building a model house for display purposes, because it involves thinking intently not just about how the house looks but whether it is suitable for a person or family to live there.
#10188
Best doll house. Ever.
Dolls are for girls to pretend they have a child of their own. Army men are for guys to act out war or pretend they are in one. Promote whatever you want, just don't complain to me when your child gets bullied at school or can't find a date later in life.
I realize not all boys can be men. There would be too many bar fights. So if that is your reasoning, it's fine.
And for the record, most women think guys playing with toys is childlike too. I'm not here to change society. Apparently no else here is either.
http://www.ebay.com/bhp/my-buddy-doll
It seems to me that your doll distinctions are arbitrary based on your personal preferences.
People don't have to be on the payroll of a major company to have opinions that conflict with yours. Sometimes people's opinions are genuine, or even rooted in personal experience.
I just think this piece of paper from LEGO is just way too over analyzed, like much in life these days.
It is a statement from 1973, and there is no hidden meaning as to what LEGO was saying on it.
I saw a woman buy RI on BF morning, she seemed interested in it, I don't know really. Maybe more sets like that on a small scale and then make bigger themes around intelligent women. Society is powerful, Lego is up against a big opponent. What I was saying before wasn't ignorance, it was arrogance, I am still mostly right from a societal standpoint.
Society is not monolithic world-wide, or even across one nation.