text:
Looks like total number of parts and sum of them differs on bricklink
I've recently purchased the 42063 BMW R 1200 GS Adventure.  It was assembled and looked complete.  I took it apart and calculated total number of parts.  It was around 550. Then on link above I've read total is above 600. With about 10 extra still about 40 less. I rechecked individually starting with rare ones than actually went through all list.
Discovered maybe 3 small ones missing,  but again maybe I was  not attentive,  also discovered that some parts could be taken apart which I missed initially.  With extra it was about 570 finally.
Still about 30 less than expected total. My guess is that maybe total includes all stickers separately even when they are listed as 1?  Why else can be such discrepancy? Can somebody proficient with bricklink API sum up the list to check against total?

Do you still have the box/manual? There is a full list of the parts on that. e.g. page 111 in this pdf: https://www.lego.com/biassets/bi/6205673.pdf

Hmm. That part list totals to 525! That's presumably for the bike detailed in the manual. The box will contain the overall list.

After receiving answers I decided to put more of my own effort and tried to recompare to bricklink list. On the way I realized I made a mistake,  restarted again,  realized again another mistake and understood at least for now I'm uncapable of fine counting. Thank you all

Brickset says 602 elements, brickset takes its data from Lego Customer Services.
Bricklink says 603 elements, bricklink count includes a stickersheet while brickset does not. To get the bricklink total, select "Part out" on the catalog page, it will suggest to add 603 pieces to a "wanted list".
Adding the number of elements in the back of the manual I get also 602 elements.
Going through the instructions and adding all element counts I get 598, this certainly does not include any spare parts, so about 4 spare parts seems right.
Conclusion, your set is lacking elements or you miscounted.
I think easiest would be to group by element and count and see if those counts match the brickset or bricklink list or the back of the manual inventory.
Plus side will be you have everything sorted and you'll know exactly what pieces are missing.

Thank you.  Point is on second count I did count parts by type,  starting with rare,  then like yellow,  than red etc.  I honestly do not want to recount third  time. Last guess I counted from mine side,  so if inventory should have some part which I didn't have at all,  then I could have missed it.

I did comparison other way and it matched 100‰. I decided it is worth separate question on skills to check contents,  https://bricks.stackexchange.com/questions/13118/how-to-check-completeness-of-a-bought-set

US retail boxes have printed number of parts included in a set. For 42063 set this is 603 parts:

Bricklink is unofficial LEGO market place/catalog has 42063 set inventoried. This means this set has been taken apart, each part has been accounted and put accordingly into inventory of this set. It also contains 603 parts. There's sticker sheet in set's inventory, but this is something LEGO does too, probably since Part tab on Brickset states it has 602 parts (Brickset fetch data directly from LEGO, but sticker sheets are never included as a part). I'd like to note that set inventories are highly accurate on Bricklink as each web site member can submit change if there are errors (and this is done fairly often when inaccuracies are found). LEGO, sometimes, alter the model slightly and this is being noted with an alternative items inventory, like in the following model. With 42063 set there's no alternate inventory.
Counting all the parts used in each step of official building instructions got me 599 parts. I agree, there might be few parts I've missed, but this is number is closer to 603, than yours 550.
Part inventory at the very end of the same building instructions gave me 601 parts. Again, one or two must have been missed, but still closer to 603 than 550.
I found video review for this set (with speed build), and if you check it on exactly 9:36 you can see all the spare parts left, which are not accounted in total part count. It is just a few pieces, which means almost all of the parts are used to assemble the set.
Rebrickable also state 603 parts for the 42063 set. However I'm not sure what is the source of the part list.
I don't know any other more reputable sources than provided here. You must have made a mistake while calculating the parts.
Alternatively, I could suggest to disassemble the model entirely, with all pieces removed and then assembled back together following the building instructions mentioned above. This way you'll be sure you have complete model with no missing parts.

To add to the comment above, the part count is directly printed on the box itself. It can't be more official than that: https://brickset.com/sets/42063-1/BMW-R-1200-GS-Adventure

For some reason, in Europe the box art does not contain the number of pieces. It does on US version of the box... Don't know about other countries.

Yes, the default is not to show the number, however in some countries like the U.S., it is mandatory to show how many pieces are included for a disassembled product, so LEGO has to do it to follow the law.


text:
How can you make a hip holster for minifigs?
Is there a way to create a holster of some sort so you could attach a LEGO pistol to the side of a minifig, around the hips?

You could use a piece of coloured paper and some glue/tape to make one to wedge between the torso and legs, similar to these kind of skirts.

It's kinda chunky, but the best I can come up with is 42446 + 2555:
 +  =

It would leave a half-plate gap on one side if they only have 1 holster though, but at-least you keep the regular minifig legs.
NOTE: This probably wouldn't be considered a "legal" connection, due to the semi-octagonal shape of the leg connectors. It's definitely possible to put these pieces together, but it puts a bit of strain on the ring of the thin piece.

Just call the gap "the belt buckle."

Wow looks fantastic, but the neck holes might be too small to fit onto the minifigure leg studs (which are square-ish).

@Pubby Great question! I had to build it in real life to check on this. It kinda fits, but puts a bit of strain on the piece.

Three 1x1 plates, two 1x1 round bricks, and one 1x1 plate with clip.

It's also possible to do this with regular legs, even if it's not strictly "legal" - there will be an unsightly gap between the legs and holster.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
How to motorize a LEGO Pneumatic valve?
I am working on a project that requires remotely switched LEGO valves, and I tried many designs I found, and none of them worked due to the valve causing too much resistance. Does anyone have a remotely switched valve design that fulfills the conditions below?

It must be tested and work.
It must use only PF motors.
It must not use 32449.

Why the ban on 32449 (thin liftarm length 4) ?

@MichaelVerschaeve Because I do not have it and don't want to wait for one to be shipped.

I just think that your question would be more relevant to others without this restriction, see point 4 of https://meta.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask. Also, even if a presented design contained the forbidden element, you surely can replace it with an alternative element ?

I tried many designs I found

A quick Google search resulted in the following designs. Have you tried them all?
Sariel's Autovalve:
Philo's pneumatic valve:

Sariel's Servo Valve:
Tamas Juhasz's small autovalve with compressor:
Technic-Dragon's Compact Pneumatic Autovalve:

Bonus entries, not using exclusively PF motors, but could be adapted to:
Conchas' Micromotor valve:

Pneumatically controlled valve from the B model of 8868-1: Air Tech Claw Rig

I have my doubts about a couple of these designs. When under pressure, the valve switch takes quite a bit of force to turn. I think a couple of these designs don't have sufficient gearing down to work unless there's no significant pressure yet.

@MichaelVerschaeve I haven't tried any of them personally (except for the 8868), but provided links to their respective websites and forum threads, where comments might be left to indicate such problems and their solutions.

@MichaelVerschaeve The first Sariel autovalve is not super reliable - in my experience, the small liftarms can get stuck in certain positions. The servo valves definitely have more than enough torque. The micromotor valve is definitely questionable, not to mention that it requires a sensor and probably takes 5-10 seconds to flip state. Pneumatic autovalves are pretty common in air-powered creations.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
How does one identify the designers of a LEGO set?
I'm looking for tips to identify the Lego Designers that have worked on a given particular released recent set.
Ideally, I would like to find an online resource that has this information for as much sets as possible, but I'll also consider other options as answers.

Are you looking for an universal answer that can be applied to any LEGO set, or would you accept answers that would only work for some particular subset of all released sets?

@Zovits, I'll expand the question to make clear that I consider any information useful.

One resource I know of that can be considered both correct and up to date is the LEGO set designers' BrickLists.
In a few other cases (mostly for larger releases, like in the Ideas line) one might find an interview with the original submitter and the designer who finalized the product for release:

And of course exactly the set and designer I was looking for ;)


text:
Is this a real Technic cloak?
I found a cloak piece in some used LEGO I bought from a former LEGO employee. The cloak does not say LEGO on it, but it fits perfectly onto Technic figures with a satisfying pop and matches the contours of their bodies.
Is this a real LEGO piece?
I should note that the LEGO I bought had a small amount of junk mixed in from other toy brands.

None of the Technic figures had cloaks, so I would guess this is not Lego. Lots of playmobil figures have cloaks...

The way It molds around his shoulders does seem like it fits snug as a bug, but in all my youth growing up with these Large Action figures, I've never seen the "Technic Theme" waver into fantasy based comic book heroism, evil space cyborgs, yes, but never capes.  Can you list the non-LEGO brands that came with the box?

Is this an off-brand head? Since when do LEGO minifigs have noses?

@MechMK1 This is not a minifigure, but a LEGO Technic figure.

@zovits I have played with a lot of LEGO Technic as a kid, but I have never come across any of those. I am shocked that some of those were released in 1986. I wonder if they were more popular in the US than in Europe.

this is a Playmobil cape, from the Zorro figure

Yeah, what Michael Verschaeve suggested in comments.  Looks like a Playmobil cloak.

On the grey example, the part around the neck in the front looks different from the OP.


text:
Help identifying window frame with hinge pin holes
Can anyone identify this piece (picture below)?
It looks like the top half of a window frame with some 2 pin holes in it.
The size is 1 x 6 x 4, it has no model number on it but does have LEGO branding on the studs.

It looks so familiar. I'm wondering if it's not a sub-assembly of a larger part. Couldn't find a good candidate when I went looking through.

That would be 821 Garage Door Frame (Old style).
As the name implies, it was for the old garage door in these sets from the 50s and 60s.


text:
What LEGO set has the biggest box?
I know the 2017 LEGO Star Wars Millennium Falcon is the biggest set in terms of piece count, but what is the biggest box a regular set ever came in?
By regular set I mean produced for the mass markets, and not something like The ultimate battle for Chima (just an example, not saying that it is the biggest box).

"Biggest" by what measure? Volume? Front area? Length? By volume <i think the MF will win (based on wat I've seen, so clearly not an answer), but 'I've bought an old First Lego League box, that was quite a bit longer, because the mat was rolled up on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2VFD7STq_8 - Possibly useful

As far as regular sets go (ie. no furniture or big-boxes like that Chima combo), the current UCS Millennium Falcon does appear to be the largest box by total volume.
75192-1 Millennium Falcon - UCS (2nd edition)
54 x 45 x 39 cm = 94770 cm3
54 x 45 cm = 2430 cm2

The original UCS Millennium Falcon box was actually larger in 2 directions however, though the total volume is smaller.
10179-1 Millennium Falcon - UCS
64.39 x 47.63 x 19.69 cm = 60387.176333 cm3
64.39 x 47.63 cm = 3066.8957 cm2

There appear to be a number of sets that are larger in at-least one direction, see this answer for the longest one identified so-far.

The Star Destroyer 75252 comes in a box that is similar in size to the large Millennium Falcon, but I can't find dimensions for it at the moment.

Bricklink lists the box of 75252 as being 53.5 x 46 x 38.7 cm = 95240,7 cm^3.

The box for the star destroyer from way back in 2002-ish (10030) comes in at 21 x 50 x 58.5cm, so 61425cm^2, beating the first falcon box in volume. Still nowhere near the 2nd edition falcon.

According to Brickset 10294 Titanic as well as 10276 Colosseum boxes are "the same size as that of the Millennium Falcon and the Colosseum". Dimensions provided for Titanic are 58x48x38cm.

Maybe straining the definition a little (although not too much, as at-least some of them did come with LEGO pieces), LEGO has in the past sold furniture.
I think all of these items were shipped disassembled, and I can't find much information on exactly how large the box they came in was and can't be sure what I did find is accurate, but I would imagine one of these items takes the cake (depending on your definition of largest).
4509g - 3-Seat Playtable (101.5 x 74.5 x 18.5 cm)

5004063 - 3-Seat Playtable (probably about same size)

5003468 - 3-Seat Playtable Creative Play Station Center Pack (probably about same size)

5003483 - 3-Seat Playtable Creative Play Station Center Pack Duplo (probably about same size)

IF-LTW2C - Activity Table and Chair Set (67.8 x 66.8 x 27.94 cm)

Straining the definition a little less than Alexander, some of the First LEGO League challenges came in boxes with the mat folded, making the box unexceptional, but some came in boxes with the mat rolled up.
According to bricklink the 2015 challenge came in a box that was 117 cm long. That is quite a bit more than any of the dimensions of the Millenium Falcon, which according to bricklink came in a box that was 54 x 45 x 39 cm. As I haven't seen other boxes that thick I'm going to guess that takes the price according to volume. (possibly discounting the furniture).
Another regular set that has a large box is 71043 Hogwarts Castle, according to bricklink that box is 58.5 x 48.5 x 18.5 cm, that is a larger front then the Millenium Falcon, but under half the thickness.
I also believe the Millenium Falcon wins on weight, if that is what you meant by size, and can come in a "trolly box":

I'll have to go and measure my Robotics Invention System and LEGO Studios boxes, I think they're under 117cm, but would be good to confirm ;)

The 42082 all terrain crane is 57,8 x 47,8 x 19 cm. (Mine arrived earlier today.) About the same as the Hogwarts castle. I think the white Liebherr R9800 excavator model (42100) may have a slightly larger box, but I haven't seen that one for real.

I'm sure there are plenty of sets having boxes of about that size, probably even some in my piles. Hogwarts was just the first one I spotted, and going by part count it's second to the MF. Looking at the list of sets order by part count (it's trivial to get on bricklink), made me discover that the box of the original Taj Mahal is listed as 65.3 x 47.6 x 12.2 cm (the reissue is about the size of Hogwarts et.al.)

@Zhaph-BenDuguid: Thanks for adding that picture. Funny enough one of those trolley boxes was the first way I saw the MF. And that was also surrounded by other people who had been shopping LEGO, as on that picture.

Well, that was taken on my visit to the LEGO house AFOL open day so we'd all been LEGO shopping ;)

I have an older Star Destroyer, and it weighed about 20 pounds if I recall.  So much that I was worried about it warping the top of my Mitsubishi 3- tube rear projector TV at the time (it was 18-20 inches deep).  Heaviest Lego set we ever bought.


text:
Buying specific part variant on BrickLink
I've ordered a lot of pieces (at least a lot for me) on BrickLink, among them a bunch of "3794b - Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud with Groove (Jumper)". Instead of that variant, I received "15573 - Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud with Groove and Bottom Stud Holder (Jumper)".
I've checked the order again, and the description for that piece reads "Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud with Groove (Jumper) We do not differentiate between 3794, 3794a, 3794b and 15573!". I missed that part, so I know this is at least partially my fault (it's not too bad though, my MOC will still work, but if I had needed 15573 and gotten 3794b it might not have).
So my question is, is this just another thing I have to look out for, or is this a really bad practice and should not happen on BrickLink?

How does having this one version of the part make a difference in your project?

@chicks In my moc it doesn't (so it's a question for future orders), but for example this construction is only possible with part 15573: https://i.imgur.com/LgjzV69.png

I'd say this is something to look out for when dealing with a part that BrinkLink itself notes is very similar to other part numbers.  Reading the detailed notes about buying sets is more important than parts generally.  I'd read a bit more closely about the stated condition of used parts than new parts.
I've made a few dozen orders on BrickLink over the years and I haven't run into this exact situation.  Yet any issues I've had have been easily resolved by contacting the seller.  I wouldn't pester the folks that say they treat them all as the same part, but you can probably find somebody out there who will give you exactly what you want.  Find another seller, read to make sure they don't have a similar warning, and drop them a note to make sure everybody is on the same page.

Okay, I will watch out for this aswell on future orders. Thank you.

There are various cases and some shops tend to have quite relaxed rules for what they sell in terms of part variation or used brick policy (basically how much brick is used to be considered acceptable for sale by that particular shop).
In your particular case the warning you mentioned was stated in that particular shop's Terms & Conditions. You had to read it before accepting these terms. And I advise you to do so every time, as there may be specific details explained. Like, used part quality policy, additional fees, returns policy, and so on.

Actually that wasn't the case (I do read the Terms&Conditions quite thoroughly, and I would have spotted it there). The text I quoted above replaced the (default) part description in the list of parts I wanted to order. So it means on future orders I have to check the descriptions of all items to see if they are just the default or if there is something added/replaced.

Here's an image from BrickLink for the catalog item 15573:

It seems clear to me that 15573 and 3794 are different parts.
Not distinguishing between them I would consider lazy, if not bad practice.
Wouldn't bother starting an argument with that store, as they basically did warn you, but I'd blacklist the store for future purchases.

On a superficial level, the functionality is the same - two studs below with single stud in the middle. But some users find the differentiation important.
At the very least, the seller's stock should be split into Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud, Jumper (Undetermined Bottom Type) which makes it clear no differentiation has been made, and Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud with Groove and Bottom Stud Holder (Jumper), which even LEGO thinks is different.

Items for sale which do not comply with the Item Listing Policy can be reported on the Problem Item For Sale page.

You can report a problem BrickLink listing as "item is listed under the wrong catalog entry", a reason that isn't forbidden by the Item Listing Policy, but seems to be implicitly forbidden by existence on the list of problems.


text:
Compatibility between vintage (80s/90s) Technic and current parts (motors etc)
I've recently got my old Technic out for my daughter (who's a little young for her own, but her Friends now drive around in a tank).
If I start to acquire more, and more sophisticated, motors and controls, are the old ones (e.g. 6216m) still usable? Are there adaptor cables? Do modern motors even use the same voltage?

The motor you have linked is indeed quite old and as far as I know, not compatible with anything newer. Seeing that it works with simple DC current, it wouldn't be hard to construct a converter cable, but it is still some work (especially reducing the voltage from 9V to the 4.5V required by this motor).
The next generation (9V system: large motor, micromotor, mini-motor, buggy motor) has much better prospects regarding compatibility, as they can be used with the voltage regulator, the control center with the recording function, dumb battery boxes, first generation RCX controllers, cybermaster and code pilot units and there are even converter cables for the PF system. There are even light and sound elements for this system and the cables are nice and simple 2-wire ones with brick-compatible connectors, carrying anywhere between -9 and 9 volts.
The PF system has been in use for the last several years and is widely compatible even with 3rd party accessories like SBrick or BuWizz. The cables here have additional wires for controlling servo motors and the connectors are stackable, but proprietary and only partially compatible with LEGO bricks.
It is not yet clear if the even newer Control+ system will at any rate be backwards compatible at all, but knowing the LEGO community, it is only a matter of time.

If I buy new controllers I'll be able to use the old motor in that case: I've probably got a suitable voltage regulator in my electronics junk boxes (I guess I should hack it into a brick if I buy new stuff).  I've actually got a 9V battery box (4760c01, in white) with a siren and tiny flashing incandescent bulbs

Fun fact: using an antique train part is is possible to convert from 4,5v/12v connection to 9v connection via the top studs. It doesn't solve the voltage issue, but 4,5v cables make it rather easy to connect two motors in serial, this halving the voltage. This is mostly pointless, but it means there is a pure-LEGO solution to drive 4,5v motors even with aPF battery pack.

@Joubarc wow, that makes the decades of backwards compatibility broken now even longer!

That one may not have been intentional on LEGO's part though :-D

Parts are compatible, and the underlying system hasn't change, but Technic has transitioned away from using traditional studs, so you may find it a bit clunky to integrate older components.
The biggest difference for motors is electrical compatibility, as noted in another answer. Both the wire connectors and voltages used have changed a few times over the years.
The Technic axle connection has not changed, so you will be able to connect any LEGO Technic motor to modern gears without difficulty. It may be difficult to integrate older motors into studless Technic builds, as most were designed to attach using studs rather than Technic pins, but this is more of an annoyance than a hard limitation.
Another significant annoyance may be the gearing in older motors. Most older motors simply provided a Technic axle connection for a standard DC motor. Direct drive from a DC motor is too fast for most applications, so many older sets included multiple levels of gear reduction before driving axles on vehicles. Here's an example from 8054:

Newer motors are typically geared down, and may be used to drive axles directly, as seen here on the Batmobile:

You can likely work around the gearing issues, but be aware that you may need additional space and gears when using older motors.

That old example looks very familiar, and I've got a worm gear or two


text:
1 x 2 brick with square hole on top identification
Hoping somebody can help identify this part. It's a 1 x 2 brick, but has a square hole on one side.  Many a part has got me stuck, but rebrickable has helped me many times.   Can't seem to find this one.

I've never seen a brick like this, very interesting! I am wondering if it might be a non-production prototype piece.  The bricks' profile looks exactly like brick# 989, but missing the "finger top" of course.

Like @JohnnyB commented, this is the lower part of 76385 Hinge Brick 1 x 2 Locking with Single Finger On Top:

That's exactly what I commented already, 989 is one of the alternate part numbers.  I didn't see any evidence in the photo that it had been forced apart, and the scratches on the exposed surface suggest it's been this way for a long time.  What is your guess on how it came to be?

Either a manufacturing error, or breakage after purchase. The first is more probable though, as I imagine any force strong enough to break the "finger" would damage the base as well.

@JohnnyB I'm terribly sorry for this misunderstanding. I researched and wrote my answer without reading your comment and later on was in a hurry so did not consider upvoting the comment. I'll try to rectify this as far as I can.

is there a specific reason this is made out two parts?

@htmlcoderexe since the assembly of sub-parts is a complex and expensive operation, I assume the alternative was considered to be even more complex and expensive. A probable reason is the complexity of the mould halves, of which the side including the "finger" would have to have two moving sub-parts for forming the circular cavities on the sides. Forming the finger sub-part as a separate unit allows both sub-parts to be moulded by a simple two-part mould without any moving components. If it's still not clear, please ask a new question, so that pictures can be added to explain the process.

@zovits I think I understand, the "finger" piece is molded "sideways" while the brick is molded "upright" and then they're combined?

@htmlcoderexe exactly, that's what I suspect. Note however, that I don't work for Lego, have no relevant experience in injection moulding, and can only speculate based on what I have read and watched about the topic.

@zovits you think it would be a good question for this site to ask what you suggested initially? or did the topic more or less exhaust itself in the comments here?

@htmlcoderexe There is not much more that could be said about the topic, but as a top level Q&A it would be better manageable than a comment stream. IMO the question itself would be on topic, as we explicitly do allow questions about "The history of The LEGO Group or elements", even if such manufacturing practices and decisions are impossible to know with certainty for anyone not working for TLG and probably non-disclosable for anyone who does.

Well, between my comment and zovits "seconding" the idea, I think it's safe to assume we've established what this part "was".  I did a lot of searching earlier online, looking through people's collections of non-production and prototype rare parts and couldn't find this "version" of the part.  So, whatever the story of how it came to be, I would certainly consider this to be a rare keepsake.  Here is a photo of the inside of these bricks with the square insert from the "finger" easily identifiable.

I couldn't bring myself to attempt a disassembly since I apparently don't have many of these and they aren't the more common color of Black and Dark Gray.  Perhaps Rin Rio-Oki will happen upon this question and take the initiative of dissecting one?  Fingers crossed ;)


text:
What is the white building pictured in the San Francisco (21043) set?
Can someone help identify what the red-circled building is (not the cylindrical Coit Tower) in this set?  The others are obvious, but this one does not seem to be identified in any of the official literature.

jangbricks mentions 650 California Street in his review...

I believe it is 50 Fremont Center/Salesforce West Tower (it's right in front of/besides Salesforce Tower);

I acknowledge that the scale seems off. I'm guessing it is the Fremont Center based on it's location, appearance, and that Lego didn't bother labeling it, as if Salesforce West is part of Salesforce Tower. Also, if you were to look at Salesforce Tower from Coit Tower, the white buildings position is pretty much right on (if other buildings weren't blocking your view).
  Additionally, none of the landmarks or their proximity to each other are really on scale in this Lego set.  I feel like it's more of a representation than a model.

Here is a view from satellite photo:

So it's Salesforce West Tower. Or is it?

Here's the heights, according to wikipedia.

Seems like the proportions are good. Except for Salesforce West Tower. At 600 ft it should be almost half the size of Salesforce Tower. How odd.

Here's a photo from the instructions booklet.

Notice the building with the pyramid roof (yellow arrow) and the two white ones next to it.

Here's the same view from above.

Turns out that the white building is Steuart Tower, height 364 ft. That's to scale.
Steuart Tower, however, is home to the Autodesk Gallery that features an 8.5-foot, 62,500 LEGO piece dinosaur in their exhibition.
So something makes me believe that this small white building is in fact: an easter egg!
And I think it's One Market Plaza, Steuart Tower.
What do you think? Am I wrong?

If you are correct, it seems odd that they wouldn't have built more of the building since Steuart Tower is actually part of a 3 building complex, all very much connected. An easter egg is a much cooler idea, I wonder if we'll ever know?

Based on the proportions, I really think it’s the Gateway apartments.

That’s either the Embarcadero Center (one of the four in a row seen at image below)  or it is the Gateway apartments (visible in front of the row of four).

Source (Wikimedia)

To me, it looks a little like 650 Calfornia (right up the hill from the B of A building)…

Could you add a picture of the building you've mentioned? This would greatly improve the quality of your answer.


text:
What is the longest 1×x brick ever released?
Out of curiosity: How long can a 1×x brick be?
When there are differences, I can think of the following categories:

Longest brick ever included in a regular Lego set
Longest brick ever available through other channels
Longest brick produced ever and visible on exhibits or other occasions, but unavailable to the public

EDIT: I am only interested in bricks made by LEGO, clone brands do not count.

Within bricks, do you include plates and tiles?

No, this is another question to be asked.

If you mean specifically Lego bricks, I'm pretty sure the 1x16 was/is the longest one made. Outside of the 1x? sized bricks, the longest plain shaped brick that I know of is part #30072 or #47122 at 24 studs long.  I don't know about other brands though.
Interesting related post:
What is the largest single LEGO piece?

Yes, I mean LEGO specifically, I'll add this to my question.

You didn't say anything about modified 1 x bricks.

This is Item 47978 and it is actually listed as a 2x24 brick, because of the added bit in the middle.

Ah, sneaky sneaky! ;)

Still technically a 2x though :P

This technic rack is 1x20 and is exactly 1 wide, no hanging out bits

https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=2428#T=C

Ah, nice find!  I wouldn't consider it a brick though being only 2/3 the height.

And no studs, unfortunately. +1 for this nice find, anyway.


text:
Trying to identify old 2x4 plate
Another odd-ball in my endless sorting and cleaning: a basic 2x4 black plate, but with two raised hollow tubes, larger than a stud. No part number. Here's a picture of it:

This 2x4 plate belongs to the

housing of an old 4.5V train motor.

There are some scratches on the edge of your plate, most likely from an attempt to pry it off with a screwdriver.

I think you are correct @Uli, the marks you noticed appear to be from the glue that held it to the motor housing. I have a better picture of the surface but I am not sure how to add it without messing something up.


text:
Restoring valuable minifigures
I recently purchased a lot of LEGO minifigures. Included in the lot was a first issue green goblin. The figure is in great condition aside from having a permanent marker line on the torso. Is there a way that I can remove the marker without damaging the print on the figure? My son and I collect together and have been looking for the green goblin fig to go with our collection.

I have had pretty good luck in the past using isopropyl alcohol and a q-tip.

First off be very careful of the printing on the minifigure, the plastic is quite durable but the printing can wipe off rather easily. I list a few different methods to remove permanent marker all have their varying degrees of risk. They are listed in the order I'd try them in.

Dry erase marker?! Just cover over the permanent marker with a dry erase marker then wipe it off. yes it works.
Aerosol hairspray, body spray, Rubbing alcohol (Isopropyl alcohol), etc. Like JohnnyB suggested alcohol is a good cleaner for permanent marker, especially on plastic. Just be careful of the printing any alcohol biased cleaner can and will remove the printing.
Nail polish remover. Be very careful with this one, nail polish remover's active ingredient is acetone. Acetone with enough time will dissolve ABS (and rubber tires very quickly) but long before that happens it will remove the printing :( I'd only try acetone as a last resort.
Toothpaste I'd recommend skipping this social media craze, it may work (on lego) but there are better ways. On the plus side I doubt the toothpaste it will hurt the minifig, however all the scrubbing necessary to remove the marker that is another story...

Try using window cleaner spray, like this:
Such products are designed to remove nasty stains and their alcohol content should be able to loosen the permanent marker ink, since it is alcohol-based as well. To protect the underlaying print, do not use the spray head, but apply the fluid to the affected area(s) with a precision tool, like a toothpick or the corner of a sponge or tissue.
Other apolar solvents, like oils could be tried too.
Another option would be the use of a so-called "magic eraser sponge":
These work by being abrasive, so effectively scrubbing away the top layer of anything, so be careful to only touch the parts covered by the permanent marker. Optionally combine this with alcohol-based cleaning agents.
On the same page, a pencil eraser might work, especially if the surface has a sheen which the ink could not penetrate.
The gentlest possible method I have found an endorsement for is the use of water and soap, but there are others who haven't had problems using nail polish remover either. I'm a bit sceptical here, as acetone is known to solve ABS, but if used with precision, care and moderation, the collateral damage could be contained.


text:
How to buy a lot of LEGO Technic bricks?
At first, I bought 6 lbs of LEGO Technic bricks.
however it was dirty and used. Also there were only holed bricks and I can't find many gears or axles.
I want to make Technic creations or MOC's, but I don't know how to get enough bricks to make it.

Usually the most economical way to acquire LEGO elements is to just buy full sets (ideally on sale). So if you have a particular design in mind, look at the currently available - or recently retired - LEGO Technic sets and see which one would have all or most of the pieces you would like to work with.
You can also check eBay and BrickLink for used LEGO Technic sets. They are less expensive than new condition sets, but are still well taken care of by the original owner. If a few pieces are missing they are even cheaper. Building up a LEGO Technic collection this way usually works out better than just buying random lots from resellers.
In general BrickLink is the better way to go as the sellers are also dedicated LEGO fans and won't sell you something they wouldn't be happy with themselves. However eBay could be cheaper. If there are good pictures of the used set, and they are from the original owner, you can find great deals.
In summary, when you buy pre-owned, it is best to find slightly used full sets from original adult owners. The pieces will be in better condition and the selection of parts will also be better, rather than just buying random lots where you don't know the history and condition of the pieces, and the seller is not the original owner.

My preference is BrickOwl over BrickLink. I find it easier to use.

I would buy the EV3 Robot kit first, and fill in the things you find you need later on Brick Link. Besides that a full pocket of money is very helpful.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Running Power Functions Train Without IR Receiver/Remote
I recently bought 10254 Winter Holiday Train and wanted to get it running around the provided circle of track. I was wondering if there is any way to do this without incorporating the IR receiver and speed remote? My understanding is that if I were to simply connect a battery box to the motor and switch it on it would run too fast and de-rail.
I suppose my question is ultimately; is there a way to limit the speed without using the speed remote? The train will only ever go around a perfect circle of track so I have no desire to alter the speed for straights/corners. I don't have a huge knowledge of electronics but can use a soldering iron and am willing to get my hands dirty.
I also understand that the rechargeable battery box has a variable speed output (which does sound ideal) but was wondering if there is a cheaper option?

There is a fairly easy and cheap way to do this since you don't want real variable speed control. As you noted, connecting the AAA battery box directly to the PF train motor technically works, but the motor runs too fast.
The default AAA battery box provides 9v from 6 AAA cells. Lowering this voltage will lower the speed of your motor. If you'd like to get your hands dirty, you can modify the AAA battery box or buy a battery box that supplies another voltage and connect this up to the C0 and C1 lines of your motor.
However, the simplest solution I can think of is to purchase (or possibly build) AAA dummy batteries and use a few of these in the AAA battery box in conjunction with regular batteries. These look like AAA batteries, but are actually just metal conductors internally. By using a number of these in the battery box, you can have it provide 1.5v, 3v, 4.5v, 6v, 7.5v, or 9v.
Philo has a nice breakdown of speed vs voltage for PF train motors:
3V = 135 rpm (2 AAA batteries, 4 dummies)
4.5V = 468  rpm (3 AAA batteries, 3 dummies)
6V = 792 rpm (4 AAA batteries, 2 dummies)
7.5V = 1107 rpm (5 AAA batteries, 1 dummies)
9V = 1458 rpm (6 AAA batteries, 0 dummies)

You can make adjustments in 1.5 volt increments by adding or removing batteries from your setup to hopefully find a speed that works for you.
It's a bit more complicated/expensive to get proper variable speed control, but if you just want a constant speed that is slower than the default PF full speed, this is the simplest method I can think of.

This is exactly the kind of solution I was after, I've found some very cheap dummy batteries online, thanks so much for your help!

LEGO train motors get powered using a 9V cable. Philo (who also visits this site) has an excellent site with all the features and characteristics about the PowerFunctions motor system, which includes trains. This site is located at http://philohome.com/tech.htm.
The speed of the train is regulated using PWM (Pulse Width Modulation) on the inside two wires (C0 and C1) of the power functions connector. If you feel adventurous, you can cut a PF cable and put electronics in between (an Arduino perhaps) to give the train a constant speed (perhaps read the speed from a pot-meter, this is how the rechargeable battery box works).
For reference, I've done something similar in my RFID controlled train, see my video on Flickr. Just a word of warning, unless you know what you're doing you're probably spending a lot of time on this and just forking out $50 for the rechargeable battery (plus either $30 for LEGO's adapter or $10 for a generic adapter (assuming you can regulate the voltage and the polarity of the pin)) might be the easiest and most cost-effective option.

Thanks very much for your suggestion, I loved your video, looks so fun!

Easy solution.  Use 3 dead batteries, 3 new batteries.  Achieved perfect speed.
Dead batteries are easy to find in kids toys :)

That's not a bad solution - you may want to mark the "known" dead ones to help you replace the real ones when they go flat ;)

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
help identify a LEGO set from bags

Please can you help me identify from what LEGO set these parts bags came?

Pretty sure it's the 9450 Epic Dragon Battle.

it has both the Black Bionicle Foot Piraka Clawed in black and the Brick, Round 2 x 2 with Grille in white as well as other notable parts.


text:
Lego Digital Designer: Having Gears Interact with Toothed Bar
I just started using LDD, and I have been trying out a few things that I couldn't do with the limitations of my Lego collection.  One thing that has me caught up is that I can't seem to get the technic gears to interact with the Toothed Bar piece.  I know this is possible in real life, but I was wondering if it is possible to do on the computer.
In the project I have, I want the lever to be turned and the platform attached to the Toothed Bars to go up or down.  Right now, only the gears on the axle spin when rotated.

The LEGO Digital Designer software does not have the ability to simulate the interaction of gears.
There is a similar software program called SR 3D Builder that does have this capability.

Thank you for the suggestion, I'll have to check out that program.

None of the links there work: download, user manuals, forum. Is there any other location to download it from?

The author of SR 3D Builder passed away in 2014, so the software and website has not been maintained since then. https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-15315-post-15315.html#pid15315

@David You can download it from here http://www.download82.com/get/download/windows/sr-3d-builder/

LDD is a design solution for static models. It is not a functional simulation tool. The gears turn with the crank handle if they are associated to the same group, but that is only because the gears, the axle and the handle share the same rotation point. The toothed bar does not share that same rotation point (and is likely not part of your "group" that contains the handle, axle and gears) and hence does not turn. If you made it part of the group, it would rotate around the center of the axle, which is not the effect you are looking for.

I have seen some videos where people get systems of gears to work, but that does not work when I try it either.  Is there specific mode that I need to use to get something like that to work


text:
Tips for getting enough bricks to make a MOC with unified style
In the past, I made MOC's out of my LEGO Star Wars sets.  At this point in my life, I don't really want to take those apart for pieces and I'd much rather have them on display.  Recently, I have been buying sets on-sale at Walmart that from the City and Creator lines, (sets which I won't have the urge to assemble and display like Star Wars).
Now, I have a decent pile of pieces, but I'm having trouble making anything with a unified color palette and style.  I would like to make detailed real life buildings and buildings/scenes from Star Wars, but I can't seem to find sets that are not overly expensive and aren't Star Wars that contain pieces (mainly bricks) that I need.  I'm a bit apprehensive of buying LEGO lots online because the sellers rarely show what you'll actually be receiving, and the thrift store near me hardly has any toys, let alone LEGO.
Are there any sets that have a good price per piece or any other suggestions to help fill out my brick selection? (I've looked at BrickLink, but I don't want to buy individual bricks since I don't know what I am building)
This is what I have gotten so far:

10698 LEGO Classic Large Creative Brick Box
10696 LEGO Classic Medium Creative Brick Box
10692 LEGO Classic Creative Bricks
60047 LEGO City Police Station Building Set
60117 LEGO City Van & Caravan
60081 LEGO City Pickup Tow Truck
60107 LEGO City Fire Fire Ladder Truck
60118 LEGO City Garbage Truck
60119 LEGO City Ferry

Edit: I'm not really asking how to get bricks cheaply, more or less I was trying to see how I could get pieces that matched a specific style. I feel like the answers both do a good job giving both shopping and building tips for this problem.

Possible duplicate of What's the most cost effective and efficient way to buy bricks?

I was wondering if there were any newer sets people have found or places that might be trying to get rid of overstock.  Some of the sets listed in that thread are discontinued and I can't find them anywhere for a decent price.

Hi Sam, welcome. Your question is mostly answered in this post: http://bricks.stackexchange.com/questions/220/whats-the-most-cost-effective-and-efficient-way-to-buy-bricks . Also, any advice on which sets to buy would be considered Shopping advice, which is out of scope as answers would be time-sensitive (reading this back in 2-3 years from now would give you a list of sets that are no longer available at retail). Your strategy of buying sets for pieces is a good one - look at larger sets that have the key colors you are looking for, then part those out. Any excess bricks can be sold on BL.

how many bricks are generally in a pound? I am having a hard time trying to visualize that.

Walmart will likely sell another big LEGO box on Black Friday (actually, on Thanksgiving Thursday itself) which is a good way to get bricks for cheap. Last year it was 1500 pieces for $30. Still won't give you many of the same pieces, those boxes tend to have max 10-12 of the same pieces. Best bet is to find a set with a lot of the color you want, then buy many of them. E.g., WM was clearancing the all-grey Imperial Assault Carrier 75106 for $30-$60 recently - lots of grey bricks.

A 2x4 brick weighs 2.3gr - assuming that's an average brick in your lot, you do the math (a pound is 454gr :) ).

In my opinion, City sets are not very good for pieces, as they have too many ready-made pieces and not enough basic, versatile pieces for me.

Buying random LEGO sets hoping that it will have parts that will fit with what you want to build is an expensive process that can leave you with a huge number of unwanted pieces, and still not have what you want.
Having said that, it is still a good idea to buy some sets that have a good number of pieces and/or building styles that you like and fit your project. For example, if you are planning to build a Star Wars scene, narrow down what scene you would like to build, and see if LEGO has already done any sets from that setting.
LEGO actually considers all their sets as "seeds" that will hopefully inspire LEGO fans to expand on further. So, you buy that Star Wars set that fits your idea, then you start to expand on it. LEGO designers probably already worked out some of the most iconic features of that setting, so all you need to do is expand on them.
If you have a good number of parts, but they are in a rainbow of colors, you can still work on the project you want, but focus on the shapes and techniques rather than the colors. Once you are happy with the design, you can swap out the wrong colored pieces with the correct ones by purchasing them on BrickLink or at LEGO's Pick-A-Brick section.
It is sometimes difficult however to ignore a bunch of bright colors when all you want to build is a mostly gray space-station. So you can combine building with the bricks you have, and virtual building in LEGO Digital Designer. Once you are done, you can count exactly how many bricks you need to buy in which color.
In general I found that even if you are on a smaller budget or lacking space, it is a good idea to have a fairly large stack of bricks in one neutral color (grays, tans and white are the best in my experience), so you can model pretty much anything without being distracted by a rainbow of colors. This way you can work out the shape, size and design of pretty much anything, and then later switch out the pieces with the correct colors. This technique also significantly reduces the cost of projects, because you don't end up buying sets and pieces you don't want.
However if you are completely against shopping on BrickLink or at Pick-A-Brick, there are some sets that might work with your Star Wars project. I'm particularly thinking of the LEGO Minecraft sets because they contain large quantities of basic pieces in earth-tone colors (tans, browns, greens, grays, blues, white and black). They are pretty much the same as the LEGO Classic Brick Boxes that you purchased already, but with earthy tones. They are very useful for creating more realistic landscapes, buildings, etc.

I really like the idea of building off of official sets. I had assumed that was taboo in the MOC community, but I guess not.  There is this great YouTube channel called BrickBrosUK that has alternative builds for recent sets that has given me some ideas.

Nice! Looks like you are on your way and found some good resources. Happy building! :)

I never really thought about how good the Minecraft sets were in terms of parts!

While I wholeheartedly agree with all of TheBrickBlogger's advice here I would add a few suggestions:

The LEGO Architecture Studio has 1200 bricks that are mostly white with a few transparent parts.

That is a huge number and variety of bricks all in the same color.  They chose white because it is the classic color for architectural models, but it became the classic color because it blends nicely with almost everything.  Since it isn't a bright color it won't clash with whatever you're trying to do as long as it isn't Bat Man.  You have a lot of city elements already which use white alot so this should fit nicely.
Use your bright bricks for structural elements.  Many LEGO sets include red and blue bricks that you never see when the model is completed.  Having these be a nice contrasting color makes their instruction books easier to follow, but it also helps you by using your available bricks more efficiently.
If you're trying to build things that go with your starwars models check out the new Death Star.  In addition to some great minifigs you'll have tons of grey bricks to build anything with.

I had no clue that set even existed, thanks for sharing it. Also, I've been using the colorful bricks for structure as you said along with mega blocks; I know, blasphemy.

Yeah, this is a great suggestion. A very nice set with a great variety of basic parts.

authors: Константин Овчинников


text:
Where did Octan come from? Why was it chosen?
I have many sets that include the Octan logo:

Over time Octan has been the name of LEGO Cities, Oil Companies, and Big Businesses. It was chosen as a successor to Esso and Shell. It became big during the LEGO Movie too.
Why was the name Octan chosen, and what does it mean or refer to?

http://bricks.stackexchange.com/questions/2488/lego-and-fuel-company-commercial-relationship/2630#2630 already discussed this actually

Octan, is simply Octane in Danish, which is a chemical in and associated with gasoline making it a sensible name for a fictional petroleum/energy company.
The LEGO Group (under pressure by a Greenpeace campaign) stopped the previous corporate partnerships, which had featured real world oil companies logos in LEGO sets, to distance themselves from the environmental protests associated with those companies.
All this can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octan


text:
Help identifying space-themed sets
I have acquired a 20 pound bag of space-themed Lego pieces that seem to belong to some special Technic set(s). Many pieces and assemblies seem way too unusual to be  acquired from a random bulk purchase by the prior owner - the pieces are themed and uncommon. I am attaching some photos for your reference. I would love to hear if any of you can identify which set(s) these may belong to, unless the prior owner totally made these up. Thank you for your help! I have spent about 20 years of my life around LEGO bricks and have never seen any pieces like these. I am stumped!
P.S. I've realized that I have a Death Star in the bag and a Captain Rex's AT-TE, but still can't figure out what the white and the yellow ones are.

Couple of observations:

Neither of these pictures shows complete sets
The parts you show in each picture most likely do not all come from the same set

From what I can see, you have the following parts of sets in the pictures, clockwise from top left:

Parts of a Y-wing (likely 9495 Gold Leader's Y-wing Starfighter ) plus parts of 7166 Imperial Shuttle

Parts of a Naboo Starfighter (likely 7660 Naboo N-1 Starfighter and Vulture Droid) plus parts of another set (the large grey wedge with the green stickers is not from 7660).

Parts of 10188 Deathstar mixed with parts of a 8039 Venator-Class Republic Attack Cruiser

More parts from the Venator Class Attack Cruiser (the engines on the left), plus a 7675 AT-TE.

Thank you so much for your help! I greatly appreciate it. The Star Wars themed Lego sets are definitely not my expertise! I only posted photos of the partially assembled parts as they seemed easiest to identify. The photos only show a fraction of the set, there is still over half a bag of loose individual parts. Anyways, thank you again, and happy new year!

Top Left
7659-1 -  Imperial Landing Craft
Top right seems to be two sets
7930-1 - Bounty Hunter Assault Gunship
and
7877-1 - Naboo Starfighter


text:
Are these parts really LEGO?

Hello, can anyone tell me if these yellow and red items are real LEGO parts? I have a sneaky feeling that they have made it into the LEGO pile via somebody 'selling LEGO bulk' but I don't want to throw them out if I'm wrong.

Those look like the Playmobil clip-on necklace pieces. Playmobil doesn't have the same level of part listing that LEGO does, but I was able to find this picture of the yellow one being worn.

And now that picture is broken. Disappointing.


text:
Is there a website that has close-up pictures of minifigs?
I am looking for pictures of minifigs to use for my profile pictures.
Searching Google turned up lots of results but most have a bunch of minifigs in them which requires extensive Photoshopping. I am just looking for a website with a bunch of pictures of minifigs or maybe a database if there is one!

presumably you also want public domain or at least royalty-free images?

Yes. That's what I would like.

Brickset.com has minifies entries for the majority of sets. here's an example.
http://brickset.com/sets/60120-1
Click on the minifigs tab. Some are on a plain white background, some not.
There's also heaps on BrickLink.com
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogTree.asp?itemType=M

authors: 01 กฤติธี ประชารุง

authors: Антонина Племениченко


text:
I have set from Agents theme yet the database doesn't contain my set

I started to sort my LEGO when I realized that I still have most of one of the set I bought so I tried to search the net for the set name. However, the database of LEGO wiki and BrickSet didn't have anything resembling my set. I have come here to get help from any LEGO experts to identify my LEGO set. I am almost 100% sure that it's not a fake LEGO set.

Ok - welcome. Please post a pic and we can help.

wow that was fast the pictures up its really hard to find it on the net

This is part of 8631-1: Jetpack Pursuit


text:
EV3 screen stuck at "Starting..."
After I turn the device on, its screen is stuck at "starting..." for a long time. It hasn't change into the regular screen, and the light behind the button was still red (didn't become green). Is there a fix for this?

Try flashing the firmware. To get into firmware update mode, hold down the right button when turning the EV3 on. (You can also reset the EV3 without removing the battery by holding down the back and enter buttons for a few seconds.)
You can find much more detailed information on here.

I've tried flashing the firmware, but the EV3 brick gets stuck with the "Updating.." message and the Mindstorms PC application does not recognise that there is an EV3 brick attached.  More details at http://bricks.stackexchange.com/questions/8630/ev3-brick-does-not-get-past-the-starting-message-when-it-is-turned-on

It sounds like the firmware needs a factory reset. Try this:

Remove the battery for 10 seconds and then put it back
Hold the Center and Right buttons until "Updating..." pops up on the display
Connect the EV3 brick to your PC using USB
Update the firmware using "Tools" -> "Firmware Update" in the EV3 software

This did not work for me because the PC does not recognise that the EV3 brick is attached.

Have you tried another OS like LeJOS that can be installed on an SD card? Insert that into the brick and start the brick up. I don't know if this will work, as I don't have a non-functional brick to try it with.
Have you ever had your brick connected to your computer and communicating properly? Are the comm port drivers loaded for the Lego brick to be able to communicate with your computer?
Do you have a friend with a working brick that can test that you have functioning comm drivers by connecting their functional brick with your computer?
What was the scenario that led your brick to stop working properly?


text:
Does the value of LEGO increase over a period of time?
I have a couple of exclusive LEGO sets such as the 50th Anniversary set, 10184 Town Plan, as well as the LEGO Harry Potter 10217 Diagon Alley set. I was wondering if these will increase in value into the future, and if certain LEGO sets increase in value more than others?

Generally speaking, yes. But there are many factors that determine how a given set will be priced over the years. Sets that have rare, more sought after pieces tend to cost more (think monorails), so if you'd happen to have a MISB monorail set you'd be rich. On the other hand, TLG can inadvertently mess with any investment plan by launching sets with similar themes or pieces, making your collection worth just as much as new sets.
Condition is also a key factor, MISB sets are on an entirely different level than opened, used, scratched, faded sets with missing pieces.
For more information i'd suggest looking at BrickPicker. There you can see that while the Diagon Alley has been slowly but steadily gaining value, the Town plan has basically stagnated. This could be caused by the value of a Harry Potter set for collectors, the unique pieces in that set, or any other factors.
There are also other questions in this topic here:

How can I find the value of a LEGO set over several years?
Historically, what types of sets have proven to be a great investment?
How can you estimate the value of a LEGO collection?

If sets are popular amongst collectors and AFOLs and not very easy to substitute by other newer sets then yes, generally speaking they increase in value.
The increase in value depends on multiple factors as this Lego investment guide points out:

Theme and licence: these sets can not be replicated by different brick companies. The theme and licence enlarges the target group of the set significantly. Especially for Star Wars and Harry Potter.
Minifigures: There are many minifigure collectors which will pay a lot to just get the minifigure from the set.
Sets from films: fans of specific films are willing to spend more money on sets from a particular film because they associate the film with emotions.

As for both of your sets they increased a lot in value. The 10217 Diagon Alley is now worth around 560€ and the 10184 Town Plan around 360€

Generally a sets price will be a certain amount, say £60, at its release, and will then drop down over a couple of years to about £45. Then, when Lego stops making that set and it "retires", its price will shoot up within the next year, maybe to about £70, and then gradually increase from then onwards. Of course, this is not always the case, as explained in other answers, it depends on certain things, however it is a general trend that is often followed.
If you are looking for the price change or estimated price change in a certain set, I recommend using the website 'Brick Economy'.
https://www.brickeconomy.com/


text:
What year did the minicon "micro BrickCon" first appear at "BrickCon"?
It seems like minicons (a minicon is a LEGO display consisting of minilander figures looking at miniland scale tables populated by microscale MOCs) are popping up everywhere lately.
The last known sighting was in Melbourne, so the theme has officially gone global. Before it became a theme at LEGO conventions across North America, and now the world.
What year did the first micro BrickCon go on display at BrickCon in Seattle?

In the blog of Tom Aplhin he mentions regarding Microscale

Steve Oakes, a long-time LEGO builder in Seattle area started a tradition 4 years ago to re-create the BrickCon Public Convention at a smaller scale. His display is called “Micro BrickCon”

(Edit: The conversation between Tom and myself was in a loud room with lots of activity. He is correct about everything except the year.)
After building and displaying an 8.5 foot stern paddle wheel ferry boat at BrickCon 2011, I decided it would be easier to build smaller MOCs. I kicked the idea around for a while, and then came up with the concept of making a micro-con. Mariann Ansunuma, former miniland builder at Legoland, and current maker of awesome microscale Lego jewelry, liked the idea and took me under her wing. I built 2 tables, displays and minilanders to display at BrickCon 2012. I was very pleased when Mariann brought along a third table, displays, and minilanders to add to mine.
After the initial Micro BrickCon MOC was displayed, Mariann, who travels to various cons with her vendor booth, took her portion of the MOC and introduced it to cons across America. It has since become a theme featured across N. America, Canada, Germany, and Australia.
In 2012, the MOC was just a MOC. However, micro BrickCon was so well received, in 2013 it became and remains it's own theme. In 2012 7 builders contributed one thing or another to make the MOC better. In 2013 and 2014, 22 builders contributed, and this year, 2015, 29 builders joined in.
                                                                 -Major Stackings


text:
What is the quality of LEGO replicas on Aliexpress?
Aliexpress sells a lot of LEGO replicas, has anyone here bought one? I am wanting to know how the quality compares to LEGO?
Example products: https://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?catId=0&initiative_id=SB_20190815025633&SearchText=lego&switch_new_app=y
I'm sure it shouldn't be stored with regular LEGO bricks, but if these are treated as a separate product, can these replicas be used without any issues?
Edit: I have found an example of comparison in this YouTube video.

I know this is an old question, but in the time since this was posted, I think the quality of the knock off brands has vastly improved. I did a side-by-side comparison of a LEGO and LELE kit on YouTube recently, and there's very little difference in quality: https://youtu.be/CaulXj7J9CI

You might be interested in the excellent, hilarious and comprehensive Communist LEGO report. It tells you all you can expect, from the good brands to the bad brands. At a minimum, it'll get you rolling of your chair with laughter.
A summary taken from the document:

Brand List 2015
LEGO is a global brand and has been the subject of many copies over the years. The US company Tyco were the first with ‘Super Blocks’ in 1984, after LEGO’s brick patent expired in 1983. Almost every attempt at cloning has been inferior, mainly due to production costs being lower resulting in inferior grade materials and poor fitting pieces. Set design has generally varied from mediocre to rubbish. However, the recently invigorated factories of China have begun to churn out various LEGO clones. It’s worth noting that the potential Chinese domestic market is far, far larger than that of Europe and America combined. There are many Chinese companies making LEGO copies, with new ones starting up at an astounding rate. Minifig copying seems to be endemic, taking advantage of enormous demand for collectable box sets that LEGO cannot do due to contractual reasons. A brief trawl of the AliExpress export website finds a list of 50 companies making plastic building blocks, with probably at least half doing LEGO clones. Most if not all are based in Chenghai, the toy capital of China. Some companies appear to source their products from each other and subcontract, so working out exactly who makes which branded kits is not always straightforward. Many are of random quality and there is a lot of chaff and little wheat. The following is an incomplete list of some of the more actively promoted brands. By the time you read this, there will probably be more. It is interesting to note that many Far East websites list the keyword ‘Enlighten’ above ‘LEGO’.

Net: Some knock-off brands are getting really good and compare in quality with LEGO. Some are absolutely horrific. Some are complete cloners (and will likely disappear soon when the LEGO lawyers swoop in), some have found a niche that LEGO doesn't cover and will likely stay around.

Here's an updated report from 2018. Didn't see any newer ones - https://brickset.com/article/38929/a-survey-of-communist-lego-2018

I should post the answer as a comment to Phil B.'s post, but since it contains some useful content for the others, it will also be an answer.
First of all Phil B. thanks for the link, that's exactly what i was looking for and i will mark it as an accepted answer.
After reading the PDF, here is the summary of which blocks can we risk buying and which to avoid.
Best ones:
Company (average score)

Lego (99) - obviously - http://amzn.to/1NcybMJ
Gudi (99) - http://bit.ly/1hCKxCp
Star Diamond (99) - http://bit.ly/1Gd5Mq7
Lite-Up Bricks (97) - this one are interesting, bring Led lighting powered by USB port. - http://bit.ly/1GH5K4Q
Click Brick (93) - not produced anymore
Oxford Toys / Kre-o (90) - http://hasb.ro/1jodMec
Cobi (87) - http://amzn.to/1jyUFxs

Worst ones:

XQL (14)
PMS International (14)
Yixing (?) (5)
SY (0)
LELE (-79) - I don't know how did they come below 0, but they did it. - http://bit.ly/1VQOt00

Thanks for checking the list

LELE ended up in the minus because `*

Every
single
point deduced
twice
for
unfathomably
dishonourable cloning
.`. They go as far as producing sets with the name 'The LELE Movie', obviously the same logo as 'The LEGO Movie' with just the first two letters cut and pasted over the 'GO' part.

And the dangerous thing is - when I check the LELE block sets on Aliexpress, they look quite good - at the photos, but I won't risk buying.

I've bought some sci-fi military-themed sets from Gudi, and this is my opinion:

Plastic quality is almost on par with Lego, albeit a bit harder.
Minifig are slightly less good.

They seemed to have a quite good model designer in 2014-15: there are some sci-fi and military kits that actually look good. However, 2016 models marked a step backward, IMHO.
I blogged my adventures with Gudi here: http://bricks.lamboz.net/tag/gudi.html (in Italian, sorry!)

Lepin (rebranded to King) sets are very high quality, although Technic pieces can be a bit too loose or too tight. Decool is supposed to be better for Technic pieces. Bela is similar to Lepin / King. All three brands produce only clones of LEGO sets as far as I know.
XingBao is owned by the same company that produces Lepin / King sets, but all their sets are original designs. The quality is the same as that of Lepin / King sets.
Sembo is a pretty decent brand for smaller sets and sell mostly original designs. They do have some bigger sets, but those aren't the same quality, design-wise, as XingBao.
Quan Guan has some excellent military themed sets that look very similar to sets sold by Polish brand Cobi, although they aren't direct clones. Unlike aforementioned brands, however, these sets do contain some parts that don't have a LEGO equivalent.
Kazi & Englighten also produce some excellent military themed sets, although the brick quality of Kazi is not as good as that of the other brands in my experience.
Gudi's also pretty good for (original design) girly sets, similar to LEGO's "Friends" theme.
Most of the Chinese brands are pretty decent, really. There's a few bad apples here any there, but in my experience those are the exceptions rather than the rule.

My son got a LELE set and I am impressed! The quality is very good, the pieces are just like typical Lego bricks, and I believe this company is the best clone-brands company in China. The manual for assembling is perfect like LEGO, and all the pieces match perfectly. LEGO forgive me, but this LELE is a high-quality copy. And it has several languages stamped in the box, and as far as I know, they are spelled correctly (many Chinese products have lousy translations). I highly recommend it!

How are you so sure? Don't they have a weaker clutch power? Did you try getting a LELE™ version of an official Lego set and also get the Lego version and try comparing? It seems like you may have exaggerated the details, so I shall edit your post.

Actually, the quality of LELE is pretty bad in comparison with King/Queen/Jack, Mouid King and several other brands. I wouldn't recommend LELE if you can get the same set from another brand...


text:
Is there a step-by-step guide to extracting a parts list from LDD to bricklink?
I'd like to build a model I have in LDD, but i don't know how to get my parts list (I exported BOM) into bricklink. I know there is rebrickable, but I don't see an option to import either .lxf or .xlsx... A link or guide would be very helpful.

Wanted Bricks is Windows only, anything for OS X?

Here's a great program that takes an LDD file and makes it an .xml file:
http://www.nolberger.se/lego/wantedbricks/
From there you can copy the text and paste it into your bricklink wanted list.


text:
Why are LEGO sets put in such big boxes?
I am wondering why LEGO puts sets in big packages. All bricks are put in small plastic bags and from my experience the packaging could be at least half of what it is.
There is so much told these days about ecology (especially in the EU, where LEGO has its seat), the smaller boxes would lead to better use of containers, so less CO2 during transportation and so on.
I understand that larger box "promises" something BIG inside, but could also lead to some disappointment.
When I was a kid and had my own sets, I'm sure they were relatively smaller.

Good point. The box for the Technic Unimog is really big and they could have likely got away with a box that was 25% smaller.

I think you're just discovered a "downsizing". This word has many explanations and definitions depending on aspect of life, where used. But in influence and manipulation the meaning is clear and partially explained by Josh. Your brain assumes the bigger package is, the bigger value it has or the bigger contents you're getting.
The general idea of downsizing in influence and manipulation is that you're getting the same amount as in case of competitive product, but you think you're getting more because of bigger package. An alternative version of downsizing assumes that you're getting less than competitive company offers, but you think you're getting the same, because of the same packaging. And — of course — the price is the same as that of the competing company. Thanks to packaging, it does not have to be adjusted to lower amount customer is getting.
The key to the success is that in most cases, the differences between reduced and competitive products are so slight that customers don't realize they've bought less paying the same (not adjusted price). But since the not noticeable difference is multiplied by thousands or even millions of sold products, customers see no difference and the company saves or earns extra millions of dollars.
This works in every or nearly every aspect of shopping. If you'll see two milk shakes, two washing powders, cakes, butters, milks, anything and one of them will be in a bigger package than the other, you'll most likely automatically pick up the bigger one. Your brain assumes that this is better for you. LEGO is no exception here and I'm pretty sure that if they wouldn't receive negative response and push from eco-oriented organisations (what RegDwight explained) they'd continue their politics.
This works brilliantly (for the manipulator, not for you, of course), especially if you're doing quick shopping in a large mall and you reserve seconds or even split seconds for the process of selecting a particular product over another one. You're often fouled by manipulators using downsizing — bigger packaging does not necessary mean higher volume. I saw (too) many examples where the customer selecting a bigger package was in fact getting a smaller volume. But due to the very limited time for decision, they only checked the size or weight at home, or [erhaps never.
Some sources claim that a big pinch in the bottom of each or nearly each wine bottle is in fact another example of downsizing, not a handy catchpoint allowing the bartender to hold the bottle in one hand. If you pinch-up the bottom of the bottle that much, you can produce a bigger (wider) bottle, that contains the same amount of wine a competitive company offers. But since your bottle is wider (thanks to pinch-up) your customer will most likely choose your bottle, not the competing one.
Downsizing in influence is sometimes called "A British Airways olives example" after the first documented use of this mechanism. Which, at the same time, explains why it is so common and so often used to foul us. Many years ago, British Airways managers calculated that removing two olives from drinks served on board all their planes would reduce the overall costs of flights by millions of pounds in a year's time. They went ahead and thus downsizing was born. Customers were getting less than competitive flight companies offered, but the difference was not noticeable, so nobody complained. When this small difference was multiplied by a number of flights British Airways serves on each routers during entire year, company savings were at level of tens of millions pounds.

Sorry, this is hogwash. You take one buzzword, downsizing, and then you exaggerate everything about it out of all proportion. The bottles example is utter nonsense, and the "tens of millions pounds" is probably the most striking instance of something you only just invented on the spot, but it's by far not the only one. The whole answer reads like pure speculation assembled out of thin air as you go along. I'd suggest to drastically tone it down, providing references for all the egregious claims, and going away with the claims you cannot prove.

More to the point, though, downsizing is not a term that applies in the first place. Downsizing, by (any) definition, does not describe a status quo; it only describes a change. Like, taking the Town Hall that has 2800 parts, and then silently reducing it to 2300 parts, without changing the package size. That simply does not happen with LEGO. Also, upon closer examination you will find that all the typical reasons for downsizing listed in your answer do not actually apply to LEGO as much as you make it sound, and some do not apply at all, in point of fact.

Interesting answer, but this is bricks.se, psychology.se is a different site.

@RegDwight: Everything I wrote in this answer are true facts, based on verifiable sources, mostly books and articles on influence and manipulation. My only mistake was, that (since I'm Pole) I used a word "downsizing", we use in Poland to describe mentioned mechanism. Since it has clearly English-based meaning, I assumed, that it exists also in English. Turned out I was wrong. As I checked right know, this word is not used in English in the same meaning as in Polish. I can't find proper English word for this meaning of "downsizing" in Polish. A "cut-off", "reduction"?

@RegDwight: I'm not talking about reducing number of elements from 2800 to 2300 parts without changing the package size. I'm talking exactly about OP's question and what is presented on image in following answer -- packages much bigger than should be, according to contents. I have only Polish references (here and here), which are pretty useless here. However first has, on second picture, an exact example -- contents of "Kret" are only 40% of bottle size.

@RegDwight: About mentioned "British Airways olives". I was writing from memory about event that took place nearly thirty years ago. So my mistake was that I highly overestimated "the effect amount". It was only £350,000/year in case of British Airways (here) and only $40,000 in case of American Airlines (here and here).

I think that trejder's point of view is ok (not because I'm a Pole too :-) ), but in Josh's answer in fact there is the same thing, but less about this "manipulation stuff". I think TLG is not "the only honest (big) company in the world" and is manipulating its customers as any other.

Actually TLG are listening, and in fact are replacing boxes with smaller ones right now as we speak.

These new boxes will have a FSC (Forest Stewardship Council) certification “which lowers the CO2 impact of its packaging by about 10%.” You will be able to start seeing the smaller boxes this year and by 2015, all of the products will be in smaller boxes. With this change, LEGO will save about 4000 tons of cardboard which is about 18% of their current consumption. These new boxes will come from sustainable forest so less trees will have to be taken down.
[...]  LEGO is also involved in other plans to lower their carbon footprint. About 25% of the emissions are from manufacturing of the bricks themselves so they’ve made plans to mold the bricks more efficiently. The company also has invested in wind energy to improve their energy consumption.

Emphasis mine.
Now, as to why the boxes were huge in the first place, I can't tell. I heard all kinds of theories over the years, from "so the parts have room to move and don't get damaged" to "it looks more impressive on the shelves". But as this recent move demonstrates, all these reasons could either be worked around, or were negligible to begin with.

Thanks for the info, +1 for you. As you've written, this problem is seen by the Lego Group. I think making the parts move is making them "work" in worse conditions, normally it is solved by some foam or any other flexible material.

This is terrific. On top of saving the environment, this will also save many of us a lot of closet space.

The reason I heard most about big packaging is more in the line of "more impressive on shelves", but with a twist: the idea would be that the image of the model on the box should be as big as the model itself - which can lead to the problems you can imagine, especially with Technic. Looking at your sample, I feel the box on the left looks "better". Also, there's a marketing angle: customers may feel they get more for their money if the box is bigger, especially if there's another brand on the shelf which has lower prices...

That's the reasonable answer, but when I open the box and see just two small bags of parts... Disappointing! But maybe I am not the typical customer :)

@Joubarc that is an interesting twist, and originally that may well have been the case, but right now that reason is as bogus as any other. The Town Hall is actually smaller than its picture on the package. Same for the VW Camper Van. And the R2-D2 on the package is almost twice its actual size — in one direction, but we are talking about a 3D model, so you are led to believe it would be 8 times larger overall. I lost count of how many people were underwhelmed by my R2-D2 after having seen the package. And these are not the only sets like that, the list goes on.

When I asked a LEGO employee this, I was told, "Because the retailers tell us to". They went on to tell me that consumers' perceived value of $200 toy is influenced by the size of the box it's in.  If some other random toy is on the shelves next to $100 LEGO sets, and the random toy is in a huge box and is only $9, the reptilian part of your brain goes wild and wants the $9 bargain.  Look at LEGO sets on the shelves and you'll see there is a strong relationship between price and box size, but not so much with the volume of plastic parts inside. My understanding is that they've been able to talk their way into slightly smaller packaging, but there's still a huge amount of air in there.

That's reasonable, I was thinking about this, too.


text:
What different types of LEGO train tracks exist?
I would like to purchase some used LEGO train tracks off of ebay. I am not, however, very familiar with the different choices of track systems are out there that I might come across. So I would like to learn more about the existing types of track systems. What kinds has LEGO used at various eras in their history? Are they inter-changable? If I'd like train tracks that are compatible with the currently available new LEGO city train sets, what types of tracks should I consider?
If possible, I'd love to see photos of a basic piece of each kind side by side to see the differences.

The main LEGO train systems are all roughly compatible. They all use a 6 stud gauge, so with a bit of fiddling, you can use all of the systems together. If you want to be most compatible with the current track offerings, you're better off with 9V and RC/PF track. This question discusses the specific compatibility issues in more detail.
There are several other train systems that have been used that are not compatible (DUPLO trains, 4 guage rails, etc), but I'll just cover the common 6 gauge systems here.
The different types of train track can be divided into a few main eras.
Blue Era (1966 - 1980)
A track section consisted of 2 rails connected by regular 2x8 plates. The rails themselves were blue.

Trains could be either pushed by hand along the track, powered via 3 batteries (4.5V system), or powered via a third conducting rail added to the center of the track (12V system). Here are what the conducting rails for the 12V system look like:

Some people still prefer the 12V system because it included more remote controlled components than the later 9V or RC/PF systems. With later systems, the only thing that is easily remote controlled is the train itself, whereas the 12V system included remote controlled points, light, and decouplers.
Each era included straight track, curved track, switches, and cross track.

Gray Era (1980 - 1991)
These rails are generally the same as the blue rails aside from the new gray color.

The sleepers were moved closer together (3 per section rather than 2), and they were changed to a specialized part to improve the strength of the connection. Here's what the sleepers look like:

The trains of this era were still either powered by 4.5V batteries or the 12V conducting rails.
9V Era (1991 - 2006)
The 9V era completely changed the track components, and did away with the old 4.5V and 12V voltages. Rails sections were a single piece, and they were all conducting.

The 9v system included straight, curved, switch, and cross track.

RC / Power Functions / Powered Up Era (2007-)
In 2006, LEGO switched back to non-conducting rails with roughly the same mold as the 9V track. Trains are now all battery-powered under either the RC or currently the Power Functions and Powered UP systems.

This era included the first and only crossover switch (7996) :

It also introduced flexible track:

Switches are also available, but a cross track has not yet been released for PF track.

they should bring back the 9v track, would make trains way easier to build


text:
How can I tell if minifigures are custom-made or LEGO Originals?
I see that on Amazon you can find a lot of minifigures but I can't tell if they are cheap knock-offs or not.

China is making tons of the knockoffs. They have created the Marvel minifigures (Ironman, etc), also made the Knights series. They are even copying items from 3rd party custom accessories companies like Modern Brick Warfare that sell custom molded parts for lego minifigures. Amazon and eBay are flooded with these cheap off brands. Don't support them!

If you can't hold them in your hand and inspect them closely for the usual LEGO production marks, as it would be the case with buying from Amazon, your best bet would be asking the seller and checking whether the individual parts exist as official LEGO pieces. A custom piece that doesn't appear in any official sets or catalogues clearly indicates a third-party make. Note however that the inverse is not true, if all parts of the figure can be found in official sets, they still could be custom-made. At this point it all comes down to the honesty (well-informedness?) of the seller and your trust in her/him.

Also, I would suspect that Amazon has a "buyer protection" that protects you in case you "get taken" by a fake or sub-par quality figure. If the product description says, "Lego..." then I'm sure you're protected in the event that the product that reaches your house isn't "Lego".


text:
What does 191767 mean in "Paper, Cardboard for Set 4336 #1, Scala Cat (191767)"
In BL http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=4336cdb01
This cardboard's name is "Paper, Cardboard for Set 4336 #1, Scala Cat (191767)"
What does "(191767)" mean here in the description?

It's an number printed on the piece of paper, so it's easy to identify and to search (if you look at the picture of the "part" you will see it).
If you were asking about the actual (internal) meeaning of the number then I don't know for sure, sorry. I assume it's just an identification code.

Thank you for your answer. Normally (like on brick parts) the number on it represents the parts' lego item ID. But the paper's item ID is not the number print on it, so its kind of strange.

My guess would be that it is the LEGO element ID (6-7 digits as far as my observation goes). This is different from the item number which is shown on the bricks or on BrickLink. The item number usually contains (or is equal to) the design number.
Example: I have a 2x6 plate in tan. This shows the number 3795. As this is a common piece I looked it up on the LEGO website (search by design number) and this reveals that the element ID (which also contains color information) is 4113993. Some element IDs contain the design number as well, e.g. 379501 is the very same plate in white.
Unfortunately the piece in question seems to be rather old, so I could not find any information about it online. (And to find element IDs is a challange by itself as they seem to be "LEGO internal".)

Thanks for sharing, and welcome to Bricks.SE!


text:
How is this brick attached to the pregnant minifig?
While Google-image-searching pregnant minifigs (don't ask) I came across this fig, and other variations on it, but I can't figure out how the 2x2 round brick is attached.

I'd hazard a guess at glue or Blu Tack...

They used an adhesive of some sort. You can see from the side that the piece is attached flush to the body of the minifig, and there is no additional gap between the torso and legs pieces to account for any sort of bracket.

Could be done with 2 brackets I guess (part# 42446).

holes over the leg-studs.

I don't have a huge quantity of those parts, but the ones I have, of various ages, do not fit on any of my minifig's hips. The studs on the hips are thicker than the regular studs.

I don't have these brackets at all so I'm not able to check it out. A standard 2x1 brick will fit over the studs on the hips. But you did check it with brackets right?

I tried several brackets on my newest and oldest (30 years old) minifigs at hand. None fit.

Ah, I see. Well, we remain in mystery then at least for now.

@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 How close are they to fitting?  Would a small amount of modification allow them to fit?  That might be what we're looking at.

@Nick2253 On my older minifig they fit slightly better; I can jam the bracket down about 1mm. If the leg studs or the bracket were shaved a bit, it could be made to work, but I'm not willing to test that.

What about putting the lady in a dress by using a slope instead of legs? It does restrict movement, but the brackets would then work.

You would be able to see those brackets, both from the side as well as the front in the corners of the dome. That's clearly not what is being used here.


text:
When did LEGO decide that it was okay to put a stud into a Technic hole?
At one point, LEGO didn't really support putting a stud into a Technic hole, stating that it caused too much stress on the bricks.  And for a while, there were no sets where that's the case.  However, lately, I've been seeing several sets that do put the studs into Technic holes; and I'm curious when that started.
There's an example of the technique here.  You can see it with the trans-orange 1x1 round plate on the side and top that's attached with the stud in the Technic beam.

I would have sworn it was still forbidden. IMHO this may be an exeption limited to such round plates.

FYI For those of us no living in the US that link may or may not work. The set is Bucket Truck 8071 http://brickset.com/detail/?Set=8071-1

I'm not seeing that construction anymore in the most recent (we own) sets. It looks like it has been replaced by half-pin inserted into technic holes, and the end of the half-pin is used as a stud.

That's interesting.  I don't think that would be as strong a connection, and it inverts the direction of the stud - the stud would face away from the hole, instead of in the hole.

2006
LEGO's official position on this technique was explained at Brickfest 2006. Jamie Berard, then a relatively new designer in Billund gave an excellent presentation on why certain techniques are considered "illegal" in official sets. The basics message is that building techniques should:

not stress the bricks
be suitable for the target audience of the set

He described in some detail the ways that Technic beams and regular system bricks can and cannot be combined in official sets. The main problem areas occur because:

Technic holes don't exactly line up with the studs on the sides of system bricks
the holes in Technic beams are slightly smaller than the ones in system bricks

The implications are:

Although system brick studs can be inserted in the holes in Technic beams, this should be avoided where it would be difficult for children to take apart. Jamie gives an example where a brick has a single stud inserted into a beam, and describes it as "technically legal" (but not recommended). This is the situation in your example.
Where the combination of Technic and system bricks results in an assembly where components interfere with each other, this can stress the parts. However, this is not the case in the example you cited.

According to these rules, then, the example you give is not illegal. Clearly, it can be a problem under some circumstances, but is acceptable under others.
Unfortunately, none of this actually answers your original question, as there remain two possibilities:

Your assertion that "at one point, LEGO didn't really support putting a stud into a Technic hole, stating that it caused too much stress on the bricks" may not be correct. The misapprehension may have arisen because Lego emphasized the illegal uses of the technique, but down-played legal ones. In that case, we may assume that set designers simply chose not to use the technique (or were unaware that they could because they, too, were misguided).

The alternative explanation is that LEGO did make a sweeping statement to this effect, but later realized that it needed clarification. In which case, Jamie's presentation in 2006 seems to be the first clear public statement of the more detailed rules (of course, internal designers might well have been aware of the policy tweak much earlier, but still chosen not to use the technique). If there was such a policy adjustment, this would establish why the technique was not used until recently.

Without the text of LEGO's earlier communications on the subject, it is difficult to know which explanation is the correct one. Either way, I'd urge you to look at the slides for Jamie's presentation. It is available online in powerpoint format and as a pdf. Apart from being an interesting read in their own right, they also make it clear that this single stud-in-a-hole has been legal since at least 2006.

Wow. Great answer.  I had not seen the slides before.  You are correct, the slides explicitly state that the use we're now seeing is legal.

1977
When Technic was first introduced.
Check out this alternative build of set 850:

Nice find, Niels.

Oh, I wanted to show off with the "ancient" 8480 Shuttle from 1996... http://lego.brickinstructions.com/08000/8480/056.jpg

This seems to be a case of "Legal then, illegal now" as per pages 27-29 of the earlier mentioned presentation. The deck mentions that single stud in hole connections are allowed, but not multiple studs (slide 11-12 of the same deck) - BTW, your picture immediately took me back to my childhood - I built that roadgrader several times as a child. Amazing how one's memory works :)

@zovits, the 1682 Shuttle from 1990 pre-dates it by a bit.

Seems to have really come into use this year. The Winter Village Post Office (pages 65-66) set also uses it for a larger piece with a SNOT block holding the window roofs on:

I hadn't seen that yet.  It looks like they are keeping the technique to just a single stud in a single hole.  That's interesting!

The technique isn't new this year: the The Emerald Night (which appeared in 2009) uses the single stud-in-a-hole technique for the details on its carriage.

See pages 11-12 of Jamie's presentation in Kramii's answer - you'll see that 1 stud in 1 Technic hole is OK, provided a few other rules are respected; more studs isn't as it would be too hard for children to pry apart.

Good question, but I think the example shown demonstrates where Lego currently accepts this kind of construction; i.e. only for small, decorative components and not for major structural interfaces.

Yes, but it seems to be a technique that is fairly recent for the company.  My question isn't about how Lego uses this technique, but about when they started using it.  I don't know of any definitive set when they began using this technique (it's been used by AFOLs for a long while).


text:
How many copies of each set are produced?
Is there any way to find out how many copies of a set were produced? I would like to know how rare some of my older sets actually are.

There is an indication of the rarity of a set in the LEGO Collector's Guide.
I assume it's the same in the second edition as well, as this is what the two reviews of it on Brickset have to say:

Rarity Rating. This would be more useful if it represented actual production or sales figures instead of market trends.

The rating system is the same, and unfortunately the explanation (do you still remember? "This rating evaluates the rareness of the certain item (and not its value!) considering a complete item in very good condition including building instruction, all stickers AND box (if applicable). Markets like eBay, BrickLink and other sources have been considered for this evaluation - on a global level."[copied from my feedback to the 2008 edition review]) has not been extended, highlighted or moved to a place where it will be less ignored. Additionally, this rating will always give room for discussion, especially as it would require continuous updates.

So you can see both reviews consider this rating system to be pretty much useless (and the reviews of first editions weren't better) and it doesn't indeed compare to actual figures. However, the fact that they weren't able to secure any is probably a fairly good indication that these figures are not available to the general public. (And knowing LEGO, there's a chance that they haven't kept figures themselves from the distant past anyway.)
So while this is far from an actual answer to your question, the rarity rating of the Collector's Guide is probably the closest you'll ever get. Maybe a future edition will have more, but I wouldn't count on it.

Sadly, this is probably the best answer we'll get. However, if anyone has numbers (or even informed estimates) for any specific mainstream sets, I'd be interested.

I feel the same way.