What's everybody's experience building brick sets from non-LEGO brands like Cobi, MEGA, Xingbao, Wange, QMan, Sembo and so forth?

Do you think there's good/any investment potential in these alternative brands' sets? MEGA and Cobi have (already proven) potential for sure, but what those Chinese manufacturers?

Another point I'd like to address and hear your thoughts about here:
In Germany there's this company called Blue Brixx, whose progression and altercations with TLG I've been following very closely over the last months, mainly due to its "David vs Goliath" appeal. They are pretty serious not only about distributing alternative brands (now even being THE official main importer for Xingbao) in Europe but also about establishing their very own product lines, featuring trains (https://www.bluebrixx.com/en/bluebrixxspecials/trains), buildings, space station stuff - they also have made licensing deals (sets for "Kingdom Come Deliverance" coming up), offer their own parts packs, are starting to make their own printed parts and they'll soon be opening their 3rd B&M store. I can imagine TLG has a growing stomach ache with Blue Brixx as they are rapidly growing and gaining popularity (on the Geman market) - already having handed out one or two restraining orders to the company (very interesting topic by the way, since this case could lead to a final clarification on the question "how close" other brands' minifigures are allowed to resemble LEGO's minifigures). Do you think small companys like this can cause TLG serious trouble in the future concerning market share?

Are there companies like this in the U.S., UK or other markets as well that could enlarge the problem for TLG?

Edited August 1, 20205 yr by Frank Brickowski

8 hours ago, KShine said:

It is hard to argue/debate about a problem that doesn't really exist, and likely won't ever exist.

What horrors do you honestly believe are going to happen?

Even in your worst case scenario - if/when the reselling environment does change, resellers will simply change their selling strategies, or just stop selling LEGO.

How about millions of investors trying to drop their stuff at the same time because they're being caught by surprise by sudden events they could have known about had they just been aware about the ongoings in other markets that might also come to their home territory - instead of claiming these were "problems that don't really exist"?

8 hours ago, Darth_Raichu said:

Again, why should I who live far away from Germany should worry about it, when you who live there still invest in LEGO like nothing happens?  This alone suggests this is actually not that big of a deal.

Maybe I don't care about losing money at all. Who knows? Why even include "me" in the equation instead of simply acknowledging what's happening in the German market for everyone to see?

elmaslıefendi said:
No offense, but you might wanna stop posting about him, as I'm sure no one truly cares about him on a LEGO related forum.

At least I don't care. Someone who is trying so hard to discredit a brand that made him what he is today is a hypocrite in my eyes. Practising what you preach is not his strength exactly. Complaining about big retailers selling LEGO, therefore killing small businesses & simultaneously listing Amazon links for LEGO products in his description is ridiculous.

I think it would be best to just drop this discussion. You have hundreds of thousands of like-minded people/fanboys in his comment section, I suggest you discuss it there. 

@elmaslıefendi

Have you read the article? Obvously not, because the article is not about one YouTuber but about all the problems LEGO has gotten into on the German market, not only on YouTube.

Moreover just because you don't care doesn't mean a topic is irrelevant. Tagesspiegel's Facebook post for this has 800+ reactions and 500+ comments - many by people who clearly are/were not interested in bricks before but are now well-informed about what's going on. So to these people the theme is obvioulsy relevant.

HdS doesn't aim to discredit a brand. His haters don't stop claiming this but it's simply not true. Have you seen two of his latest videos about the HP storybook sets and the Medieval Blacksmith where HdS actually admits these are OK sets but just too expensive? That's not really the definition of "discrediting" but more of an analysis of the status quo. There is also no contradiction in criticising the big offlne retailers and linking to a big online one - he has discussed this multiple times on his channel, but if you're not ready to actually listen you will also not get it, of course. Nothing ridiculous about it altogether.

So in the end you admit there are "hundreds of thousands" of people critical of LEGO in the HdS comments. At the start of your post you seemingly were suggesting the opposite - as if people didn't really care about the topic. Would be nice to see if you would stick to ONE point of view and not ALL of them just to get the right angle against each of my arguments.

By the way HdS was a 100% LEGO-related YouTube channel only 2,5 years ago (nothing different from this forum). How things have changed by the actions of TLG themselves...

Renowned German newspaper "Welt" now also reporting:

"Brick Wars - LEGO's precarious pride"

https://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/plus226610179/Held-der-Steine-vs-Lego-Mit-Humor-und-Fangemeinde-zum-Gegenangriff.html

Discussion on "Welt" on Facebook (1 million followers):

https://www.facebook.com/welt/posts/10159840201308115

 

WhiteWalkerNL said:
Interesting story to read. I have heard of this youtuber, but its hard to follow the German videos. 

Years ago i bought a bogus bricks piece, just to check the quality myself and find out if building technic cars is something i would like. The quality was ok, but not like the Lego cars i have build later on.

@WhiteWalkerNL

Things have changed at high speed within the last 2 years. Meanwhile some alternative brands are on par with LEGO already in terms of quality. Not only COBI, but they might be the best currently. Dr. Jake does confirm by the way:

 

 

The article is moronic (and, more specifically, Thomas Panke is a moron). One of the main examples given is the 'Ferrari', which is clearly an unlicensed knock-off. The only reason it still exists is because the pissant company is too small to be noticed by Ferrari. It's no wonder Lego costs more if they actually licence their IP. This is not some 'similar' or 'evocative' product - it is quite clearly a Ferrari 488 with the badges removed. This is so obvious that it's even listed as such on the websites where it can be purchased. Trying to compare this obvious trademark infringement with generic vehicle builds is risible. The mental gymnastics required to make this false equivalence could win the Olympics.

2 hours ago, Captain_chaos said:

The article is moronic (and, more specifically, Thomas Panke is a moron). One of the main examples given is the 'Ferrari', which is clearly an unlicensed knock-off. The only reason it still exists is because the pissant company is too small to be noticed by Ferrari. It's no wonder Lego costs more if they actually licence their IP. This is not some 'similar' or 'evocative' product - it is quite clearly a Ferrari 488 with the badges removed. This is so obvious that it's even listed as such on the websites where it can be purchased. Trying to compare this obvious trademark infringement with generic vehicle builds is risible. The mental gymnastics required to make this false equivalence could win the Olympics.

The Tagesspiegel article is actually well-researched and objective. LEGO did not answer to them, of course, so only the other players in this clash are quoted. Since you obviously are not that well-informed about the whole story (since 2019) most of what you say is simply wrong.

Cadas set is an unlicensed, authentic looking car that does not need any license. Just like the dozens of unlicensed, authentic looking vehicles from LEGO that did not need a license.
 

Edited February 23, 20214 yr by Frank Brickowski

The only possible explanation for your behaviour is that you stepped too many times on lego bricks when you were a child.

 

4 hours ago, Frank Brickowski said:

The Tagesspiegel article is actually well-researched and objective. LEGO did not answer to them, of course, so only the other players in this clash are quoted. Since you obviously are not that well-informed about the whole story (since 2019) most of what you say is simply wrong.

Cadas set is an unlicensed, authentic looking car that does not need any license. Just like the dozens of unlicensed, authentic looking vehicles from LEGO that did not need a license.
 

You've made that statement previously.  Because I am not a car enthusiast, and you're making a point that each of those sets above is an exact copy of a existing vehicle, but is not licensed, could you please show me the real world example?  Follow on questions are - do you know that they are NOT licensed?  Just because something doesn't have a badge, doesn't mean it wasn't licensed (see your example of a German retailer asking if an item is licensed, and the China knock-off company in "good faith" saying it is).  Also, can you show that any of these designs are not in the public domain or in the "generic" domain that it doesn't require licensing?

Frank, what is the purpose of this thread?

As others have said, all I really see you doing is promoting non-LEGO brick sellers and at the same time bashing LEGO. 

So what is your end goal for creating this thread?  At this point I feel like this thread is going round and round while not saying anything new.

7 hours ago, exracer327 said:

Frank, what is the purpose of this thread?

As others have said, all I really see you doing is promoting non-LEGO brick sellers and at the same time bashing LEGO. 

So what is your end goal for creating this thread?  At this point I feel like this thread is going round and round while not saying anything new.

There are new newspaper articles about this being released in Germany daily this week, showing the magnitude of this is even rising and has grown to a degree where not only young people and LEGO fans have gotten to know about it, but more or less the whole population of the country. Germany is a very important market for TLG and also has a special history with LEGO, not only because the first LEGO theme park had been opened here. How's that "nothing new"?

8 hours ago, Alpinemaps said:

You've made that statement previously.  Because I am not a car enthusiast, and you're making a point that each of those sets above is an exact copy of a existing vehicle, but is not licensed, could you please show me the real world example?  Follow on questions are - do you know that they are NOT licensed?  Just because something doesn't have a badge, doesn't mean it wasn't licensed (see your example of a German retailer asking if an item is licensed, and the China knock-off company in "good faith" saying it is).  Also, can you show that any of these designs are not in the public domain or in the "generic" domain that it doesn't require licensing?

Counterquestion: How many instances have you encountered that LEGO HAD a license but did not use anything about the license on the set itself? You seriously think this ever happened?

This kind of being asked to prove every tiny piece and bit of THE OPPOSITE of what I post while everybody else is making the wildest false claims is getting ridiculous. I am supposed to research every car design LEGO has made concerning allowed use of every part of protection or non-protection, just to be presented the next "argument" afterwards? 

Do you even notice your "method of thinking" here? While for the alternative brands's unlicensed cars people say "that's all ILLEGAL unless you prove it isn't", while for LEGO you say "that's all LEGAL unless you prove it isn't". Man, that kind of one-way thinking is really tiresome.

This is how this thread has been going, by the way: People claiming I was wrong, until I proved otherwise (every single time), then people coming up with a new "argument", me again proving they are wrong, and so forth. I mean, as soon as people get I am right about something, the make the next false claim. I'd actually like to see some people thinking about what I'm trying to tell you might be right, instead of only talking against it the whole time, making one false claim after the other just to have "something to say against what has been said against LEGO"...

Moreover, I guess there a enough car enthusiasts around here to let you know about the real life cars the above LEGO vehicles were designed after. I will rather not spend the time doing it myself since nobody will believe anything I post anyway. But the F1 "Grand Prix Racer" (what cheap knockoff name by the way?) are you serious? I mean, you know what an F1 car looked like, right? Paint it red, it's a ferrari, paint it silver it's a Mercedes. LEGO should have paid ALL the teams license fees for releasing this. Except, they obvioulsy did not have to pay anyone. Why? Just because they used another color? Yeah... right... come one, man, this design is not protected, this is what I am talking about all the time and nobody listening. 

Edited February 24, 20214 yr by Frank Brickowski

13 hours ago, Frank Brickowski said:

The Tagesspiegel article is actually well-researched and objective. LEGO did not answer to them, of course, so only the other players in this clash are quoted. Since you obviously are not that well-informed about the whole story (since 2019) most of what you say is simply wrong.

Cadas set is an unlicensed, authentic looking car that does not need any license. Just like the dozens of unlicensed, authentic looking vehicles from LEGO that did not need a license.
 

Utter nonsense. If you are claiming that you can't see the conceptual difference between 'a sports car' and 'a Ferrari 488' then I can't believe that you're arguing in good faith.  The Lego models are unquestionably not representative of specific vehicles / marques. The Cada model unquestionably is. Thought experiment for you. If a car manufacturer decided - in Europe - to release a car that was visually identical to a Ferrari in every way, but with different badges on it, what do you think would happen? Now imagine the same company instead decided to release their own design of car, visually and functionally unrelated but bound by the same definition of 'car'. 

8 hours ago, Alpinemaps said:

You've made that statement previously.  Because I am not a car enthusiast, and you're making a point that each of those sets above is an exact copy of a existing vehicle, but is not licensed, could you please show me the real world example? 

I'll answer for him: no, he can't.

With regards to Cobi, I think Lego may have inflicted this problem on themselves.

The reality is whilst I think Lego is on another level to all these other brands, it has given up to other companies like Cobi the avenue to makes simplistic brick built models of war for kids and lets be fair who didn’t play with a model fighter plane, tank or warship when they were little kids?

Cobi appears to be average in design with reasonable quality bricks at fair value but possibly only has one direction albeit one that has undeniable interest.

Maybe Lego need to retract their double standard they have for war and weaponry because it’s a gap in their armour that someone will exploit.

Now I realise this comment may be unpopular and I’m not taking anyone’s side, I’m just putting out fair balanced comment.

 

Edited February 24, 20214 yr by CodySunnChilde
Wrong wording

One other thing, I’m definitely NOT a fan of Cobi minifigures!!!

1 hour ago, Captain_chaos said:

Utter nonsense. If you are claiming that you can't see the conceptual difference between 'a sports car' and 'a Ferrari 488' then I can't believe that you're arguing in good faith.  The Lego models are unquestionably not representative of specific vehicles / marques. The Cada model unquestionably is. Thought experiment for you. If a car manufacturer decided - in Europe - to release a car that was visually identical to a Ferrari in every way, but with different badges on it, what do you think would happen? Now imagine the same company instead decided to release their own design of car, visually and functionally unrelated but bound by the same definition of 'car'. 

Ok I'm going on a tangent but here's this story for laughs.

https://nextshark.com/fake-porsche-man-dumped-china/

I just like the stock, I mean, Lego.

4 hours ago, CodySunnChilde said:

With regards to Cobi, I think Lego may have inflicted this problem on themselves.

The reality is whilst I think Lego is on another level to all these other brands, it has given up to other companies like Cobi the avenue to makes simplistic brick built models of war for kids and lets be fair who didn’t play with a model fighter plane, tank or warship when they were little kids?

Cobi appears to be average in design with reasonable quality bricks at fair value but possibly only has one direction albeit one that has undeniable interest.

Maybe Lego need to retract their double standard they have for war and weaponry because it’s a gap in their armour that someone will exploit.

Now I realise this comment may be unpopular and I’m not taking anyone’s side, I’m just putting out fair balanced comment.

 

 

Sorry, but saying COBI makes simplistic models for kids and has average brick quality and design only shows you have never ever built something from them. COBI has a brick quality AT LEAST on par with LEGO, they are THE specialist for adult military models and their design is superior to any other brand releasing military verhicles, including LEGO. Over 90% of COBI sets are "pad printed, no stickers". Moreover (most of) their models are stable as hell (except the new Apache maybe, which is mainly due to the small scale). The only things bad about them is the ugly minifigures and prices higher than other brands (still lower than LEGO's, of course).

Edited February 24, 20214 yr by Frank Brickowski

 

5 hours ago, Captain_chaos said:

Utter nonsense. If you are claiming that you can't see the conceptual difference between 'a sports car' and 'a Ferrari 488' then I can't believe that you're arguing in good faith.  The Lego models are unquestionably not representative of specific vehicles / marques.

Yeah, the F1 car really looks absolutely nothing like an F1 car. Or the Le Mans car. Or the Crane, or the other 6 vehicles. I've never seen any real vehicle looking like these before. Come on, is the above statement even meant serious? You honestly don't even see the similarity to F1 cars? Oh man...
 

5 hours ago, Captain_chaos said:

The Cada model unquestionably is. Thought experiment for you. If a car manufacturer decided - in Europe - to release a car that was visually identical to a Ferrari in every way, but with different badges on it, what do you think would happen?

 Of course, all of LEGO's vehicles look nothing like any real verhicle because they're from LEGO. And all the alternatives' vehicles do look like real cars because they're not from LEGO. I totally get that logic...

This is not about releasing a real car looking like a Ferrari. It's about models. And no, this is not at all the same.

 

5 hours ago, Captain_chaos said:

I'll answer for him: no, he can't.

I simply will save the effort, because no matter what I post in response, you'll make up a new argument to disagree from a new standpoint. Look at the "Grand Prix Racer", which is enough of a proof to see you don't need a license for every authentic car you release.

Edited February 24, 20214 yr by Frank Brickowski

New newspaper reports coming up every day now - here the most recent one about LEGO vs. one of the retailers, including pictures of what LEGO ridiculously sees as "looking too similar" to their minifigures. Really funny to read such nonsense arguments from the biggest toy company in the world, give it a try:

https://www.westfalen-blatt.de/OWL/Kreis-Paderborn/Paderborn/4373155-Spielwarengigant-sieht-Markenrechte-verletzt-und-verschickt-200-Seiten-Anwaltsschreiben-Lego-mahnt-Paderborner-Haendler-ab



For an in-depth look at the minifigures topic:
 

 

Edited February 24, 20214 yr by Frank Brickowski

So again, as I haven't seen a response, why did bluebrixx take down their classic NY ambulance ( the Ghostbusters Ecto) ?

 
I simply will save the effort, because no matter what I post in response, you'll make up a new argument to disagree from a new standpoint. Look at the "Grand Prix Racer", which is enough of a proof to see you don't need a license for every authentic car you release.

I see what looks like a generic Grand Prix race car. I don’t see a specific, copywriter design.

And in a typical argument, if you are going to make claims, you need to provide proof. So, if you want to say that the Grand Prix racer YOU are claiming is a design that it stolen, then the burden to prove that lies on you.

If you’re going to make the claim that all those images are stolen, then show us that they are. Justify why they are stolen, just as we have done in the opposite.

38 minutes ago, Frank Brickowski said:

 

Yeah, the F1 car really looks absolutely nothing like an F1 car. Or the Le Mans car. Or the Crane, or the other 6 vehicles. I've never seen any real vehicle looking like these before. Come on, is the above statement even meant serious? You honestly don't even see the similarity to F1 cars? Oh man...
 

 Of course, all of LEGO's vehicles look nothing like any real verhicle because they're from LEGO. And all the alternatives' vehicles do look like real cars because they're not from LEGO. I totally get that logic...

This is not about releasing a real car looking like a Ferrari. It's about models. And no, this is not at all the same.

 

I simply will save the effort, because no matter what I post in response, you'll make up a new argument to disagree from a new standpoint. Look at the "Grand Prix Racer", which is enough of a proof to see you don't need a license for every authentic car you release.

This is why I think you're just trolling the forum. I cannot believe that anybody could be this obtuse. Are you honestly saying that you don't understand the difference between a brand and a type of object? Do you think that a can of Heineken is equivalent to an Amstel because they're both beer? Do you think that an Audi is equivalent to a BMW because they are both cars? 

The point is not that the Cada set looks like a car. The point is that it clearly IS an unlicensed representation of a specific automobile - The Ferrari 488 Pista. You have been asked to show which specific brand of vehicle the Lego examples represent, and you have failed to do so, either because you don't understand or are deliberately arguing in bad faith.

4 minutes ago, Alpinemaps said:

 

I see what looks like a generic Grand Prix race car. I don’t see a specific, copywriter design.

And in a typical argument, if you are going to make claims, you need to provide proof. So, if you want to say that the Grand Prix racer YOU are claiming is a design that it stolen, then the burden to prove that lies on you.

If you’re going to make the claim that all those images are stolen, then show us that they are. Justify why they are stolen, just as we have done in the opposite.

 

Ahm, I actually don't claim anything in the pircture to be stolen, because there is nothing to be stolen since nothing is protected. Just as with the alternatives' cars sold legally in Germany. That is my point. Nothing illegal going on for ANY brick brand selling UNLICENSED cars in Germany - not LEGO, not any alternative brand. 

Edited February 24, 20214 yr by Frank Brickowski

7 hours ago, Frank Brickowski said:

There are new newspaper articles about this being released in Germany daily this week, showing the magnitude of this is even rising and has grown to a degree where not only young people and LEGO fans have gotten to know about it, but more or less the whole population of the country. Germany is a very important market for TLG and also has a special history with LEGO, not only because the first LEGO theme park had been opened here. How's that "nothing new"?

You've already established that there is a brouhaha occurring between LEGO, a German YouTuber, and non-LEGO brick sellers.  The "nothing new" is within this thread and your answer offered nothing new.  So if awareness was your goal, then this thread can probably be closed.

However, you keep pushing, what several people have noted, appears to be an agenda.  That is my question; what is the cause you're trying to champion?  Are you trying to convince us that LEGO is a big bad corporation that everyone needs to stop buying from?  Or that all these non-LEGO brick sellers are better investments than LEGO itself?  Or are you pissed that LEGO's current miff with those they perceive as possibly damaging their reputation is possibly hurting your reselling prospects and you've become a very angry German.  Or all-the-above?

Edited February 24, 20214 yr by exracer327