back
27 comments
So much nostalgia in those logos! One thing that struck me looking through those old sets is just how timeless Legos really are. I inherited many of the 70s-80s sets from an older cousin in the 90s, that were subsequently used by my younger siblings and I all the way through the early 2000s. And they're still there at my parents house ready for another generation! I honestly can't think of another toy with such staying power.
At least here in Scandinavia, BRIO trains come close. They're utterly indestructible (like most Lego), and to the best of my knowledge any BRIO thingamajig ever made is compatible with any other; I had a hand-me-down set around 1980; today, I buy new kit for my kids to go along with the stuff I had. It all fits perfectly.
I remember those! Here in the US in the 80's they used to be at the "educational" toy stores in shopping malls across the country. I always thought they were really cool, but my parents never bought me one.
It's worth noting that Lego didn't invent locking bricks, though they did refine them. Similar bricks made of rubber had apparently been around for a while, but the first plastic versions were made by a Brit named Hilary Fisher Page under the brand name "Kiddicraft".

Lego discovered that Page hadn't patented his bricks in Denmark, copied them more or less exactly (though they'd improve the design later), and the rest is history. Page killed himself in 1957, apparently without ever hearing of Lego's success. Lego bought Kiddicraft in 1981 to solidify their legal claim before suing Tyco for copying their bricks.

Yeah here are a few reports on this:

http://www.cracked.com/article_20025_5-world-famous-products...

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2014/02/06/kiddicraft-the-compan...

They say the plastic blocks WERE patented, but Lego (allegedly) didn't care or perhaps as you mentioned the patent didn't apply in Denmark according to some commenters as well.

As the article notes, Lego has been very aggressive pursuing perceived design violations.

Tyco? Google brings up nothing

Edit: Nevermind, just had to search Tyco Toys

I just love Legos. I spend countless hours in my childhood building whole cities in my room... I was so excited when we got our baby boy that I bought a brand new Lego police station right away, which I've stored in the basement of ourhoise. He's now 2... we'll get there.

That said, I have the feeling that when I was a kid there was a bigger variety of "joinable" toy systems. Lego has gotten so big that all of them vanished by now. However, that's just ust based on my gut feeling, I don't have real data for that

I assume you have duplos already?

Our oldest got a couple of the small proper-Lego Easy-To-Build sets when she was 2 1/2. That worked out very well.

Obviously we had to play together with her the entire time, and assist with the smallest pieces, but we quickly developed our own vocabulary for orienting parts along the different axes ("rotate" is around global z-axis, while "turn" is around global x- or y-axis, etc.) I'm positive it did wonders for her spatial cognitive abilities.

Especially the digger was a big hit, we must've built and rebuilt it dozens of times. Unfortunately it's no longer for sale:

https://shop.lego.com/en-US/Digger-10666

Nowadays she's does a lot of freeplay with the bunnies and Elsa and stuff, but we still regularly do the teardown and rebuild of e.g. her Arctic Helicopter set:

https://shop.lego.com/en-CA/Arctic-Helicrane-60034

FWIW, most of the Lego City series has that "join all the sets together" vibe going.

> Legos

Lego. They are Lego bricks not Legos.

I had a ton of legos growing up, and it was always that—legos. Though the "proper" pronunciation may be singular with a plural noun (e.g., bricks, pieces, sets, etc.), the vernacular has most certainly evolved to include the general "legos".
Please. Do not buy into the way the brands want to impose us how we use their trademarks. It's our decision, not theirs.
Didn't you know that "Legos" is a portmanteau of Lego and bricks? :-)
In that same vein it's LEGO, not Lego. :)
Lego is always an inspiring story. Another one from bookmarks https://blog.hubspot.com/agency/history-lego-marketing
Your linked article has the one thing that TFA is missing, one image with all the logos on it. Thank you
Yes. (With an aspergers boy and Lego became a necessity during his kindergarden. It has done and is still doing wonders to improve his attention)
Remarkable similarity between the '39/'40 logo and the logo of the Swedish wooden toy company BRIO used until quite recently: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_BRIO.svg
Cool piece of history, but I notice that a number of photos are more recent than the years in their caption. The 1970 product line photo shows products from 1980 (1978 perhaps), and while the first space men may have appeared in 1978, the yellow, blue and black ones are from the 1980s.
I had hoped this traced the history of programmable Lego (the first product was "LEGO LOGO")
I was in the flagship (?) store in Copenhagen a few weeks back, and they have a selection of these up on the wall as you walk in. Not so many of the earlier (arguably uglier) ones, but it was interesting to see.
Pretty interesting article but I had to laugh at this:

> A subtle refinement (a “graphic tightening” in LEGO’s words) of the 1973 logo for better digital (i.e. internet) reproduction.

Digital/internet reproduction in 1973? The web wasn't invented until 1990 and didn't really catch on until around 1997. In fact computers didn't exist in the home and the computers that did exist were text based. The personal computer revolution really happened after the IBM PC was released in 1981.

Rephrased:

> Given the 1973 logo ( http://www.logodesignlove.com/images/evolution/lego-logo-12.... ), in 1998 the image was tightened to make it easier to print digitally ( http://www.logodesignlove.com/images/evolution/lego-logo-13.... )

As far as the changes go... look at the removal of white space in the area between the 'L' and 'E' and within the 'O'. Furthermore, the middle bar of the E was made more pronounced, and the upper terminal of the 'G' was made more regular.

Oh woops. I guess I misread that.
The refined logo ("graphic tightening" for better digital reproduction) was introduced in 1998.
I see they closed the O, widened spacing of the gaps in the prongs of the E, opened the gap in the G, closed the space between the L+E (filled it with outline colour instead of background). Did they also narrow the letters a little (flatten horizontally)?

Anything I missed.

I can see what would reduce file size, remove some jaggies on colour boundaries of highly compressed images but it seems more likely to be effective with logoed merchandise (like dye-sub t-shirts, etc.). Is there any good analysis somewhere of what the redesign achieved digitally?

The new logo thickens the yellow border, and removes fine details such as the yellow line between L and E, and the yellow line within the O.

I think in the print world you can assume decent quality like 300 DPI. Whereas the new logo, with its thickening or removal of fine details, is more friendly toward low-resolution computer displays. Look at what happens when those two logos are resized to 60×60 pixels, for example.

That logo is from 1998.