Review: 10331 Kingfisher
Posted by MeganL,
Following up on the enormously popular Botanical series which brought more fans to the hobby, LEGO is branching out to the animal world with 10331 Kingfisher. This bright, colourful bird that has been captured in many eye-catching photographs is an interesting choice.
Will animals prove to be as popular as the plants? I'll take a detailed look at the model from every angle after the break.
Summary
10331 Kingfisher, 834 pieces.
£44.99 / $49.99 / €49.99 | 5.4p/6.0c/6.0c per piece.
Buy at LEGO.com »
An attractive display piece that should attract more fans to the hobby
- Nice parts usage
- Eye-catching display model
- Feet are the wrong colour
The set was provided for review by LEGO. All opinions expressed are those of the author.
There are over 100 species of kingfisher. This set is portraying Ceyx azureus, or Azure Kingfisher, found mostly in Australia and Tasmania. The bird has striking colouring in azure (fittingly) with a rust coloured breast and white accents on the sides of the neck and throat.
(photo credit: JJ Harrison)
As befitting its name, the bird is often photographed while in the midst of gaining a meal - mostly small fish and prawns - and it's this pose that forms the basis for the model.
(photo credit: Lightman Photography)
The completed model
Inside the box there are six numbered bags and an instruction book. The instruction book devotes several pages to information on the kingfisher as well as some pictures of the bird, plus some thoughts by the set's designer, Sven Franic.
The build starts, appropriately, at the base. There's a good amount of transparent blue 1x2 pieces included to show the water's surface. Splashes of water are shown through strategic use of trans-clear 1x2 plates, cheese slopes and 2x2 curved plates (new here). The Technic base includes two support beams that are used to keep the bird aloft to give the illusion of flight.
The two-toed feet are accurate, but the colour of them is not; as seen in the pictures above, the kingfisher's feet are an orange/red hue.
After building the body, the wings are a key feature of the model. While the builds are virtually the same for each wing, it doesn't feel like an overly repetitive process, mostly because every part of the wing is different in size and shape.
The head is the last part of the bird to be built. It's structured to be tilted - there's some movement to rotate the head a bit if you don't like the angle, but not much. The eyes are indeed microphone pieces, as many speculated when the set was announced. I like how the designer has managed to include the white and rust colour accents on the face and throat. We can see that the kingfisher's most recent dive was successful, with a silver fish in its beak.
There are some bulrushes (Typha) and other greenery included to show the appropriate habitat for the kingfisher. This angle also shows some of the detail in the wings.
It's not an unattractive model from the rear view. I like that most of the greenery detail is in the back, as well as additional water splashes.
The model is built with the bird's head tilted to one side. From this angle, the model's pose looks a little awkward, but does show the nice wing plumage and the bird's white throat.
Overall thoughts
I thought at first that the model was larger than the actual bird, but searching around various resources on the web, it seems that it's life-sized. Still, it isn't a huge model, and as such doesn't pose the problem of "Where are I going to put it?" once finished. I have the model currently on a table in my family room, and I suspect that it will stay there.
It's not an elementary build, but it's not a particularly difficult one, either. I built most of the model in a couple of hours while actively participating on a LEGO social Zoom call. It's a good starter set for an adult who doesn't have much experience with LEGO. It can be finished in a few hours, and there's a nice display piece at the end.
I'm quite impressed that the model is supported by two Technic beams. They aren't very noticeable, and the whole model is quite sturdy, while showing the bird in midflight.
The only minor disappointment for me with this set is the colouring - the darker blue seems a little too dark for this azure kingfisher. I wonder if a more vibrant blue (dark azur maybe?) in LEGO's palette would have been a better choice, though the contrast between the different blues would not be as striking. I think the colour used for the bird's breast is pretty close, and it's unfortunate that the feet are the wrong colour, though clearly there are limitations based on parts/colours available.
At this price point (834 pieces, £44.99 / $49.99 / €49.99), I think it represents decent value for money. I'll be looking forward to seeing what creatures LEGO captures in brick form next.
157 likes
56 comments on this article
Nice review, and a great set!
Regarding the coloring, it looks to me like Lego decided to sacrifice a little accuracy for more visual impact of the model. A more accurate color palette probably would have made the front of the chest tan, shifting to that dark orange towards the outside of chest, and then probably using regular aka bright orange for the feet.
The issue there, I imagine, is that the dark orange and regular/bright orange would probably clash, and the tan-dark orange transition on the chest would look strange. In other words, the available Lego colors would not allow for the subtle and harmonious color transitions and contrasts one sees on the real bird.
At any rate, I think it's great that Lego is doing these animal models!
I cant get past it's eyes, just too far up.
A great set otherwise.
Are you sure this is supposed to be an azure kingfisher (as in the first photo)? It looks considerably more like a common kingfisher (Alcedo atthis) (second photo).
Given Lego have taken to calling this a "kingfisher bird" (and having a natural history museum filled with exhibits that have nothing to do with natural history), it wouldn't surprise me if their grasp of the natural world isn't quite up to scratch.
The colours are way off for either, anyway. It's ain't just the feet.
its cool. I still don't like the eyes though. They should be bigger
Thank you for the review. I’m still on the fence, though.
On the one hand, Hogwarts Icons (76391) is one of my absolute favorite Lego sets. On the other, this set just doesn’t “speak to me.”
I can’t get past the fact that in some pictures and from some angles it’s not actually obvious that it’s even a bird or what it’s meant to be.
I really want to like it, but I can’t.
It looks much more like a common kingfisher to me too.
My mantis would eat your bird.
Hadn't thought about different types of kingfishers before. The common kingfisher as we (rarely) see it here is a bit more bright blue.
My dad, a birdwatcher hobbyist who also works for my local parks conservancy, is pretty interested in this one.
The action pose just doesn't look good for display, in my opinion. I wish it were a 2-in-1 set with a regular perching alternate model, even if that drove up the piece count and price. As is, it's a pass for me, and I say this as an idiot that buys nearly everything.
I think it looks pretty fantastic. It would be nice to see it in person so I can truly decide if this is a worthy purchase.
I like the pose, and I don't mind the colors. That all looks fine to me. It's just the head.....that's so far off, and I just can't unsee that.
Huh, today I learned what "bulrush" means. In America we typically call them "cattails".
Wow, that's one of the worst cases of failing the source I've seen. What were they thinking with those feet? Clearly orange, why was tan chosen? Color differences between the sexes?
@Lyichir said:
"Huh, today I learned what "bulrush" means. In America we typically call them "cattails"."
In Dutch, it's sometimes called Sigar (Sigaar), because there's already another plant named Cat's Tail (Kattenstaart) , not native to North America (Purple Loosestrife / Lythrum) but seen as an invasive plant there.
The feet are probably the wrong color because they were working off of the concept art. You know how tight-lipped the nature corporation can be with spoilers.
@thom1414 said:
"I cant get past it's eyes, just too far up.
A great set otherwise."
Agreed! They just look odd. I'm sure it's an easy fix but really something that should've been picked up before the set was finalised?
It's definitely supposed to be a common kingfisher (Alcedo atthis). Look at the orange patch on its head, between the eye and the white patch.
The chest and back are off to me. The chest just looks like a wall of orange that doesn’t integrate with the rest of the body. And doing the back with a single piece isn’t very attractive.
But the base, plants, wings, and pose are all very nice imo.
@WOLKsite said:
"The feet are probably the wrong color because they were working off of the concept art. You know how tight-lipped the nature corporation can be with spoilers."
You made my day, thanks.
What in God's name is that price point
The feet of the real bird is exactly the new reddish orange they introduced this year for the Space sets. Why they didn't used it? Bizarre.
This set should be one I’m rushing out to buy - I tend to buy all the Lego animals and I love the Lego flowers range, but there’s just something about this kingfisher that doesn’t grab me… Shame.
As with the original pictures, this looks great from certain angles, not so great from others.
One for the 'when it's 30% under RRP' rather than the 'must get immediately' list!
Learned something new today in that there are so many different species of Kingfisher birds. It never occurred to me that there could be more than one.
But that also explains why this version looked wrong to me somehow - since it doesn't quite capture the essence of what the Kingfisher birds we see around here look like.
Having read this review and watched Tiago's video I have to say this looks a lot better than I initially gave it credit for based on official images. Not my cup of tea, but a cool set nonetheless.
Always nice to see @MeganL review a non-Friends set.
@Sea said:
"This set should be one I’m rushing out to buy..."
Shouldn't that be "bulrushing" out?
Beautiful color scheme and beautifully sculpted.
A social Lego zoom call?
Great review. ‘…found mainly in Australia and Tasmania’. Way to make mainland Australians laugh and upset Tasmanians.
The eyes are just wrong...
I'm sure I'd be just as bad if I was into birds but it's a Lego version of a bird. It doesn't have to anatomically perfect as long as it resembles the real thing. Which, to me, it does.
I still think it looks terrible. Its passable as a cheap 3in1 Creator set as that’s all it is in my eyes.
I, too, think this depicts the common kingfisher, which would make sense given it's extensive range (that includes much of Europe). The lighter blue back coloring is more pronounced and the toes (sometimes) tend to be lighter in coloring than on the azure kingfisher. As far as the feet go, sweeping the toes back (nearly 180 degrees from what the instructions say) would go a long way to correct a glaring error...I'd like to see what that looks like.
https://base-prod.rspb-prod.magnolia-platform.com/dam/jcr:542411e9-8047-450b-829d-7995048ac27e/1680461044-Species-Kingfisher-perched-on-reed-bullrush.jpg
I wonder, if lego named this set just 'bird', would that eliminate those eyes comments? Or would that still be a problem? When I look at this build all I see is a great brick rendition of a dynamic bird scene and I have zero nitpicks.
I have to agree with the comments about the chest and back - to me it looks like the wings are anchored in the front of the chest and it has a humped back.
@anthony_davies said:
"Great review. ‘…found mainly in Australia and Tasmania’. Way to make mainland Australians laugh and upset Tasmanians. "
We can blame LEGO for that! The instruction book says: "Native mainly to Australia and Tasmania, the azure kingfisher...."
@thor96 said:
"I wonder, if lego named this set just 'bird', would that eliminate those eyes comments? Or would that still be a problem? When I look at this build all I see is a great brick rendition of a dynamic bird scene and I have zero nitpicks. "
If you're a birder the type of bird is pretty unmistakable.
Are those feathers the new palm leaves in light blue?
@anthony_davies said:
"Great review. ‘…found mainly in Australia and Tasmania’. Way to make mainland Australians laugh and upset Tasmanians. "
Please explain. I assumed that sentence was referring to the geographic distinctions of Australia and Tasmania, not the political. What am I missing?
@MeganL said:
" @anthony_davies said:
"Great review. ‘…found mainly in Australia and Tasmania’. Way to make mainland Australians laugh and upset Tasmanians. "
We can blame LEGO for that! The instruction book says: "Native mainly to Australia and Tasmania, the azure kingfisher....""
Lego really doesn't like Australia. They never sold Outback sets in Australia (???), our Australian animal moulds consist of...a koala. (you could maybe count a crocodile?), and our sets are always ridiculously overpriced.
I'm very happy that they've made an animal native to Australia. But as other comments have said, Lego really needs to work on their geography.
When Andre Rieu introduces tenor Gary Bennett as 'from Tasmania', it's funny. But when an official instruction book makes out Australia and Tasmania are two different countries, that's just plain wrong. (especially when the misspellings of city names in Orient Express are also recalled).
Isn't this sort of thing what the World Wide Web was invented for?? (or Lego could just use an encyclopaedia). Lego's decreasing quality standards really need to be called out, this is super basic spelling and geography that shouldn't even need to be thought twice about.
@Brickchap said:
" @MeganL said:
" @anthony_davies said:
"Great review. ‘…found mainly in Australia and Tasmania’. Way to make mainland Australians laugh and upset Tasmanians. "
We can blame LEGO for that! The instruction book says: "Native mainly to Australia and Tasmania, the azure kingfisher....""
Lego really doesn't like Australia. They never sold Outback sets in Australia (???), our Australian animal moulds consist of...a koala. (you could maybe count a crocodile?), and our sets are always ridiculously overpriced.
I'm very happy that they've made an animal native to Australia. But as other comments have said, Lego really needs to work on their geography.
When Andre Rieu introduces tenor Gary Bennett as 'from Tasmania', it's funny. But when an official instruction book makes out Australia and Tasmania are two different countries, that's just plain wrong. (especially when the misspellings of city names in Orient Express are also recalled).
Isn't this sort of thing what the World Wide Web was invented for?? (or Lego could just use an encyclopaedia). Lego's decreasing quality standards really need to be called out, this is super basic spelling and geography that shouldn't even need to be thought twice about."
Maybe they get their geography info from old Loony Tunes cartoons? (Think Taz the Tasmanian Devil and how he sometimes arrives in a box marked 'from Tasmania')
Is Lego actually trying to call this an Azure Kingfisher?
As everyone is saying, and as far as I can find, the Azure doesn't have that orange patch on its face, the Common/Eurasion Kingfisher does though however, and I can't help but feel that that species would be a bit less niche to emortalise in this set.
I suspect that either the design changed and the graphic designers didn't get the memo, or the product design team really need to get a zoologist on team before they do anymore fauna sets XD
@J_Bricks said:
"Is Lego actually trying to call this an Azure Kingfisher?"
As @MeganL says above, yes.
I think it looks awesome. And it’s full of SPACE parts. That’s an all around win.
@560heliport said:
" @anthony_davies said:
"Great review. ‘…found mainly in Australia and Tasmania’. Way to make mainland Australians laugh and upset Tasmanians. "
Please explain. I assumed that sentence was referring to the geographic distinctions of Australia and Tasmania, not the political. What am I missing?"
It is a bit of a running joke in Australia that Tasmanians are sensitive to the notion that Tasmania is not really part of Australia, but some strange other place.
@anthony_davies said:
" @560heliport said:
" @anthony_davies said:
"Great review. ‘…found mainly in Australia and Tasmania’. Way to make mainland Australians laugh and upset Tasmanians. "
Please explain. I assumed that sentence was referring to the geographic distinctions of Australia and Tasmania, not the political. What am I missing?"
It is a bit of a running joke in Australia that Tasmanians are sensitive to the notion that Tasmania is not really part of Australia, but some strange other place. "
Ah, thanks.
@peterlmorris said:
"I think it looks awesome. And it’s full of SPACE parts. That’s an all around win. "
Every set is full of Space parts.
Sometimes when you build with smooth curved slopes, it has the effect of making the straight sides appear too straight. I think the head suffers from this and could benefit from being more brick-built. That said I think this set has some clever construction techniques, and it could well be the start of a new series that many will find appealing. Personally I don’t feel the urge to buy this, but I’m really glad it’s been produced.
@CDM said:
" @thor96 said:
"I wonder, if lego named this set just 'bird', would that eliminate those eyes comments? Or would that still be a problem? When I look at this build all I see is a great brick rendition of a dynamic bird scene and I have zero nitpicks. "
If you're a birder the type of bird is pretty unmistakable. "
I never realized how much overlap there is between 'birders' and afols, interesting :)
Being a keen birdwatcher, this sounded like a brilliant set but unfortunately there seem to be a lot of accuracy issues and compromises in the build that unfortunately make it far less appealing.
The orange on the chest joining the wings looks very odd and makes the bird appear to have a strange 'shield' across the front. The wings are far too thick and bulky looking and could maybe use more paler blue to give an impression of light through the feathers to give some elegance. As others have said, the eye is placed to high and is not in line with the bill. Could the eye position easily be moved down? It looks like there could be a few plates below that may be able to be switched?
As many have noted, this model does not accurately represent the azure kingfisher (Ceyx azureus), it is much closer to being the far more widespread and well-known common kingfisher (Alcedo atthis), with the orange on the cheeks being an obvious difference between the species. It seems like Lego realised that the blue used was too dark for the common kingfisher and so tried to make sense of it by calling the model an azure kingfisher, even though they then failed to change the head colours or make accurate vivid red legs. Speaking of the legs, they should also be red for the adult common kingfisher, only the juvenile has grey/black legs. None has tan!
@thor96 said:
" @CDM said:
" @thor96 said:
"I wonder, if lego named this set just 'bird', would that eliminate those eyes comments? Or would that still be a problem? When I look at this build all I see is a great brick rendition of a dynamic bird scene and I have zero nitpicks. "
If you're a birder the type of bird is pretty unmistakable. "
I never realized how much overlap there is between 'birders' and afols, interesting :)"
The bigger overlap seems to be between AFOLs and people with OCD given the nitpicking of something that's barely a legitimate complaint since if the eyes were one space down then it'd look so weird that even non-nitpicky AFOLs would take notice.
@crawlerbot said:
"Are those feathers the new palm leaves in light blue?"
Yes, they are the new palm leaves from Donkey Kong.
After seeing the first reference photo, it feels like a big missed opportunity that they didn’t utilize the new reddish orange color for the feet. It’s still a great looking build for what it it though.
The cattails (Typha) depicted look wrong. In my part of the world at least, they are all straight, not curved. These look ill.