42168 John Deere 9700 Forage Harvester

[Maaboo the Witch]

I think one of the problems here is the curved shells on the back end. Angled panels (7x3) would have looked more accurate and allowed for additional detailing.

[Outdoors02]

16 minutes ago, Jundis said:

Sry @Outdoors02 but I just found a side pic showing what I mean :-/

Please don't get me wrong, I am really not the "hater" person, but from an IP, I expect more...

Looking at this through the eyes of an adult, I see what you mean. But as Racing Bricks and Bartybum have said, this set is meant to be looked at through the eyes of a child. I'm 21, so that's easy for me to do. I remember getting the 9390 Mini Tow Truck at the age of 10 and despite its size, I was thrilled to get a toy vehicle that had steerable wheels. Compared to sets I had before, it was obviously more playable. I didn't give the slightest attention to how it looked because I had so much fun playing with it. Also, steering was one of its only 2 functions, the other being the tow cable, but that one is so obvious and expected in a tow truck that many don't even consider it a "function". All that to say that in my opinion, the target audience of this set (children who like Technic are often naturally curious and interested by everything around them) will most likely be so intrigued by its functions all they'll want to do is play with it (with a minifigure inside) and not give the slightest attention to anything else, including, but not limited to, how this set looks relative to an actual John Deere 9700. Once again, if this were a set meant for display, I'd agree with you.

[Oh_Hi_Mao]

2 minutes ago, Outdoors02 said:

Looking at this through the eyes of an adult, I see what you mean. But as Racing Bricks and Bartybum have said, this set is meant to be looked at through the eyes of a child. I'm 21, so that's easy for me to do. I remember getting the 9390 Mini Tow Truck at the age of 10 and despite its size, I was thrilled to get a toy vehicle that had steerable wheels. Compared to sets I had before, it was obviously more playable. I didn't give the slightest attention to how it looked because I had so much fun playing with it. Also, steering was one of its only 2 functions, the other being the tow cable, but that one is so obvious and expected in a tow truck that many don't even consider it a "function". All that to say that in my opinion, the target audience of this set (children who like Technic are often naturally curious and interested by everything around them) will most likely be so intrigued by its functions all they'll want to do is play with it (with a minifigure inside) and not give the slightest attention to anything else, including, but not limited to, how this set looks relative to an actual John Deere 9700. Once again, if this were a set meant for display, I'd agree with you.

Do kids care if it is Jonh Deere or they care that it is LEGO vehicle in general? Why to license then if kids don't care about the looks?

[Outdoors02]

5 minutes ago, Oh_Hi_Mao said:

Do kids care if it is Jonh Deere or they care that it is LEGO vehicle in general? Why to license then if kids don't care about the looks?

Most kids might care about looks enough to notice that it's the same color and general shape as the real machine, but I doubt that they'll start to compare it side by side with the actual machine and start bashing it for every detail that's off. That's because even children know that this is a small toy, so it's normal that it's not identical and what's more, as a Technic set, this toy is meant to be playable more than to be displayable. This discussion may go on, but frankly I think that it's immature (from all of us) to have such a prolonged and animated discussion about a toy that's marketed to children and that unlike Creator/Icons sets, is meant to be played with.

[Oh_Hi_Mao]

2 hours ago, Outdoors02 said:

Most kids might care about looks enough to notice that it's the same color and general shape as the real machine, but I doubt that they'll start to compare it side by side with the actual machine and start bashing it for every detail that's off. That's because even children know that this is a small toy, so it's normal that it's not identical and what's more, as a Technic set, this toy is meant to be playable more than to be displayable. This discussion may go on, but frankly I think that it's immature (from all of us) to have such a prolonged and animated discussion about a toy that's marketed to children and that unlike Creator/Icons sets, is meant to be played with.

We can discuss if discussion is polite and reasonable. Forum is meant for that so why to stop? It is interesting to hear other opinions about the set. You may notice that there are no such discussions on off road buggy, space sets and other topics with about non licensed sets. It is absolutely obvious that this set is licensed and some things are really off. If it is a toy it is still legit to rise questions why it does have such design. For example we have answer about the selection of tyres thanks to this discussion.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Oh_Hi_Mao

[Outdoors02]

14 minutes ago, Oh_Hi_Mao said:

We can discuss if discussion is polite and reasonable. Forum is meant for that so why to stop? It is interesting to hear other opinions about the set. You may notice that there are no such discussions on off road buggy, space sets and other topics with about non licensed sets. It is absolutely obvious that this set is licensed and some things are really off. If it is a toy it is still legit to rise questions why it does have such design. For example we have answer about the selection of tyres thanks to this discussion.

Thank you for taking more time to explain and for writing a (seemingly) calmer response than some of your earlier posts. In this case, yes, the discussion may continue. On the topic of design decisions, I'd honestly recommend you reach out to Lego. I have friends who have noticed interesting or unusual design decisions in sets before and by writing to them, they actually got to hear from the designers themselves and were given (often) surprising answers. In my opinion it is worth the try.

[mpj]

Sometimes the final design is not as good as we may expect, and that could be for many reasons we don't know. But the question here is: with the same amount of parts, with the same production cost, could have it been done better? Better shapes, better proportions, better resemblance to the real one? Yes and yes and yes, it could.

[Outdoors02]

12 minutes ago, mpj said:

Sometimes the final design is not as good as we may expect, and that could be for many reasons we don't know. But the question here is: with the same amount of parts, with the same production cost, could have it been done better? Better shapes, better proportions, better resemblance to the real one? Yes and yes and yes, it could.

You're correct, but knowing Lego I know that they have their reasons as to why it looks that way. That's why I said that if you're interested, don't hesitate to contact them.

[howitzer]

I believe the main problem here is the license. It's obviously very different from its supposed real life counterpart, which kinda begs the question: why have license in the first place if the thing doesn't resemble much the thing it's supposedly modelled after? Well, I guess they had a licence agreement and the folks at John Deere aren't very nitpicky about details...

[gyenesvi]

4 hours ago, Oh_Hi_Mao said:

Do kids care if it is Jonh Deere or they care that it is LEGO vehicle in general? Why to license then if kids don't care about the looks?

This. Wonder how many small kids even know the brand? It does not seem too meaningful to license such a model to me. I don't think that's a selling point for the parents of such kids either..

27 minutes ago, howitzer said:

I believe the main problem here is the license. It's obviously very different from its supposed real life counterpart, which kinda begs the question: why have license in the first place if the thing doesn't resemble much the thing it's supposedly modelled after? Well, I guess they had a licence agreement and the folks at John Deere aren't very nitpicky about details...

But this might be an explanation, though not sure I get how such license agreements would work. Would they agree that Lego has to release a certain number of licensed sets, or what?

[Moz]

15 hours ago, Maaboo the Witch said:

Said minifigure will really have to reach for that steering wheel...

Just like the real thing. These days farmers sit there supervising the computer that's operating the vehicle way more often than they actually steer it. I'm kind of amused at the number of youtube channels where "flying the drone" seems to occupy a great deal of cockpit time.

I'm mostly excited because we have something other than cars in the mid-size technic sets again. I suspect I'm going to buy several of them next year.

Edited December 5, 2023 by Moz

[2GodBDGlory]

Another thing I've wondered about in relation to licenses is who pays whom. If Lego is paying John Deere for permission to use their branding, then it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense for them to bother with it. On the other hand, though, I don't see why that's the way the cash would have to be flowing. I don't see anything unreasonable in the idea that John Deere is paying Lego for the advertising aspect, in which case Lego would profit from including the license. I don't know which way it is in reality, though!

[deehtha]

9 hours ago, Oh_Hi_Mao said:

Do kids care if it is Jonh Deere or they care that it is LEGO vehicle in general? Why to license then if kids don't care about the looks?

John Deere has a very large portfolio of children's toys across many brands. I think it is about more about getting kids to link green with tractors and and green with John Deere. Living in the Midwest of USA, its entirely possibly for a child to grow up only playing with John Deere toys.

And quite a few share the same accuracy issues with the source model as this one does.

[Oh_Hi_Mao]

5 hours ago, 2GodBDGlory said:

Another thing I've wondered about in relation to licenses is who pays whom. If Lego is paying John Deere for permission to use their branding, then it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense for them to bother with it. On the other hand, though, I don't see why that's the way the cash would have to be flowing. I don't see anything unreasonable in the idea that John Deere is paying Lego for the advertising aspect, in which case Lego would profit from including the license. I don't know which way it is in reality, though!

I am pretty convinced that John Deere is paying for Lego. They can use Lego shelves as an andvertising platform worldwide. Benefit for LEGO: maybe adults tend to buy licensed tractors for kids more/easier than non-licensed ones. 

Edited December 5, 2023 by Oh_Hi_Mao

[msk6003]

7 hours ago, 2GodBDGlory said:

Another thing I've wondered about in relation to licenses is who pays whom. If Lego is paying John Deere for permission to use their branding, then it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense for them to bother with it. On the other hand, though, I don't see why that's the way the cash would have to be flowing. I don't see anything unreasonable in the idea that John Deere is paying Lego for the advertising aspect, in which case Lego would profit from including the license. I don't know which way it is in reality, though!

Is it possible to have a scenario where no one pays because both parties benefit?

[Maaboo the Witch]

The lack of authenticity is disappointing given how accurate 42136 and 42157 are. The latter is practically photorealistic.

[Bartybum]

11 hours ago, gyenesvi said:

But this might be an explanation, though not sure I get how such license agreements would work. Would they agree that Lego has to release a certain number of licensed sets, or what?

Both John Deere and TLC are companies that can sign contracts to whatever terms they like. I bet that every single licensing deal that TLC has with companies has its own unique set of terms.

1 hour ago, msk6003 said:

Is it possible to have a scenario where no one pays because both parties benefit?

If both TLC and the other party agree, then there's absolutely no reason it couldn't happen.

[Outdoors02]

7 hours ago, deehtha said:

John Deere has a very large portfolio of children's toys across many brands. I think it is about more about getting kids to link green with tractors and and green with John Deere. Living in the Midwest of USA, its entirely possibly for a child to grow up only playing with John Deere toys.

And quite a few share the same accuracy issues with the source model as this one does.

Everything you're saying makes sense. Basically any toy that isn't a die-cast model will be off to some extent, and even some of those lack details.

On the topic of who pays who, I also think that JD pays Lego as a partnership with them (with Lego) is an excellent source of advertising. That's what Fender said when they partnered with Lego to create the Lego Ideas Stratocaster (set 21329) (I'm only speculating though, my statement may be false). 

[pleegwat]

9 hours ago, msk6003 said:

Is it possible to have a scenario where no one pays because both parties benefit?

Naturally it would depend on who they are licensing with. For example, lego is likely paying for supercar licenses, while the Volvo and Liebherr ones are more likely to be 'closed wallet'.

[R0Sch]

To be honest, it shoudn't matter to us consumers what deals big companies make. The end product and price has to match the individual expectations of each consumer and that alone is very subjective.
For this set we'd probably have to ask some random kids on the street what they think of this "green tractor", but since adults buy the product it's not relevant either. So we reach a conundrum. 

[Lego Tom]

1 hour ago, R0Sch said:

To be honest, it shoudn't matter to us consumers what deals big companies make. The end product and price has to match the individual expectations of each consumer and that alone is very subjective.
 

Those sentences are at odds with each other if/when the deals do affect the price. Maybe it shouldn't matter, but if a deal negatively affects the price of the product, then it obviously DOES matter.

[R0Sch]

17 minutes ago, Lego Tom said:

Those sentences are at odds with each other if/when the deals do affect the price. Maybe it shouldn't matter, but if a deal negatively affects the price of the product, then it obviously DOES matter.

I don't want to continue this endless philosophical discussion, which makes more sense in the General Discussion thread, but I guess no one here has inside knowledge of the exact cost breakdown of a LEGO set. Based on the totally random prices we have seen so far we cannot say that a license makes a set automatically more expensive or which license costs more. It could be anything from material cost to how much the lowest wage employee in the chain has to get.

[Timorzelorzworz]

It's interesting that all other licensed small models from this wave shows the real model at the back of the box, instead this one. Box says John Deere 9700 with absolutely zero information about the real thing. Wait, is this due the fact that it does not look like the real thing.. Of course it is and TLG knows that. Its truely a shame that each generic model becomes a license for nothing 

[Maaboo the Witch]

2 hours ago, Timorzelorzworz said:

It's interesting that all other licensed small models from this wave shows the real model at the back of the box, instead this one. Box says John Deere 9700 with absolutely zero information about the real thing. Wait, is this due the fact that it does not look like the real thing.. Of course it is and TLG knows that. Its truely a shame that each generic model becomes a license for nothing 

I also like how the product description contains blatant lies, emphasis mine:

"Forage header tool – Kids can learn how a real John Deere harvester works as they raise, lower and spin the forage header tool to replicate the actions of a real corn-cutting machine"

"Engineering insights – LEGO® Technic™ buildable model sets (sold separately) feature realistic movement and mechanisms that introduce young LEGO builders to the universe of engineering"

Lawl.

Edited December 11, 2023 by Maaboo the Witch

[N-4K0]

I like the model and I'll probably get it to go with my 42136, but I do think it should have been in a bigger scale. Maybe not Claas Xerion, but both sets would benefit from being bigger, especially this one.