Review: 10276 Colosseum
Posted by CapnRex101,
The spectacular Amphitheatrum Flavium, more popularly known as the Colosseum, remains an incredible representation of Roman culture and architecture. Faithfully recreating this imposing structure has necessitated more elements than any previous LEGO model!
10276 Colosseum appears suitably gargantuan based upon official images and includes extraordinary detail, closely resembling the original amphitheatre which has stood for nearly two thousand years. Some interesting construction techniques are therefore present, although the source material requires inevitable repetition.
Box and Contents
75192 Millennium Falcon introduced unique packaging during 2017 and that distinctive shape returned with 75252 Imperial Star Destroyer. The box for 10276 Colosseum is similar in shape, albeit slightly less deep. The model certainly looks wonderful here, featuring dramatic shadows and a glossy finish that differentiates the Colosseum from its black background, consistent with other 18+ sets.
Four smaller boxes are found inside, containing 68 bags which are numbered between one and forty! Four bags without numbers are also provided and these include the larger elements. The artwork on the front of each box displays which section of the model is assembled using those elements and I like the Roman numerals in the corners, although the format of 'IIII' is unusual.
Each box contains a separate instruction manual, focusing upon different sections of the Colosseum. These are also decorated with Roman numerals and the instruction manuals include extensive information about both the Colosseum and its design process. There are numerous reference photos and attractive plans, enabling immediate comparison between those images and the LEGO Colosseum.
The comments from the set designer, Rok Zgalin Kobe, are particularly interesting and these focus substantially upon the exaggerated proportions of this structure. Those familiar with the Colosseum will recognise that its LEGO equivalent is notably tall, improving its appearance for display. Rok also asserts that he had not envisaged creating the largest LEGO set ever, instead establishing its scale when constructing the curved wall.
Construction
The absolute enormity of 10276 Colosseum becomes immediately apparent upon beginning construction. The base is assembled around ten 16x16 Technic plates which are joined using Technic pins. The resultant structure is reasonably sturdy and becomes completely rigid when another layer of Technic bricks is attached around the edges, as demonstrated below.
Nearly two hundred brackets encircle the base, providing connection points for various slopes and tiles which form a smooth edge. They also reinforce the structure, most notably where the external slopes are positioned across multiple brackets that are attached in different directions. White, red, blue and yellow parts are hidden within the base, assisting during the next stage of construction.
Dark bluish grey tiles encircle the arena, contrasting against the tan walls and the intricate Hypogeum at the centre of the Colosseum. This elaborate network of passageways features several hinges and bricks which are connected using single studs, thereby recreating the oval shape of the original building. Two segments of the external wall are then mounted on the base, with exposed ball joints to attach neighbouring sections.
The rounded Southern wall comprises twenty linked segments. Their designs are extremely consistent, varying only in the arrangement of arch bricks around the lower tiers. Such subtle variation corresponds with the source material and assembling these wall sections is therefore inevitably repetitive, although they only occupy approximately fifteen minutes each.
Certain sections include three ball joints, with two situated towards the outermost edge while another is located near the arena floor. However, multiple sections only include two ball joints around the edges, allowing those sections to nestle closer to their neighbours and creating an attractive curve which becomes increasingly sharp towards the narrower ends of the structure.
Exactly the same combination of ball joints appears across the Northern wall, which is much larger than its Southern counterpart. Once more, construction becomes inevitably repetitious here based upon the rounded shape of the Colosseum and each section requires about thirty minutes to assemble, as one would anticipate given their increased size.
I constructed the Colosseum across several days and would recommend this to avoid the process becoming tedious. Fortunately, some enjoyable building techniques emerge during assembly. I was particularly impressed with the gradually increasing width of each section as they expand towards the outermost edge, relying significantly upon jumper plates.
Slotting each segment into position feels remarkably satisfying, especially towards the end because the gaps become smaller. Furthermore, the variation improves as constructing the angled ends of the outer wall represents a welcome departure from the previous sections. A series of windows around the top of the inner wall complete the monumental building process, along with the miniature trees outside.
The Completed Model
10272 Old Trafford - Manchester United provoked some criticism based upon its exaggerated height and 10276 Colosseum employs the same technique. This may prove controversial but I think the design is successful. Increasing the height certainly improves the display value of this model and was necessary to accommodate arches with appropriate proportions. This rendition of the Colosseum appears accordingly magnificent, befitting its Roman inspiration.
The model consists overwhelmingly of tan and dark tan elements, hence the green trees and colourful cars positioned outside really stand out. Their designs are fairly simple but they look nice against this majestic backdrop. The bright light yellow car is especially charming, making reference to 10271 Fiat 500 which was released during March and contained a painting of the Colosseum!
Eighty archways surround each level of the Colosseum, originally accommodating entrances around the ground level and decorative statues within the upper arcades. This model instead incorporates forty arches at each floor which may disappoint some people, although that was probably sensible because smaller 1x3 arches would create inaccurate external proportions. I think the shapes of the individual arches are more important than including the correct number.
Light bluish grey 1x3 jumper plates are visible around the wall. They appear slightly awkward but the colour combination of tan and dark tan is otherwise appealing, especially because the narrow gaps between segments of the amphitheatre generate beautiful shadows. Additionally, considerable detail continues between the inner and outer walls, making wonderful use of the aforementioned 1x3 arches and recreating their internal profile with incredible fidelity.
Masonry bricks are employed across the exterior. These textured bricks are vastly oversized when compared with the original structure, although they create brilliant texture. Furthermore, the filled arches exhibit superb attention to detail. Only one column of filled arches is included, rather than two, because the total number of arches has been halved. Nevertheless, they look marvellous in my opinion.
The arches across the outer wall look absolutely spectacular, particularly in combination with dark tan columns and round plates which yield marvellous texture. This becomes most visible towards the top of the wall, where damage to the original building is also the most extensive. I love the clips near the top as well, depicting corbels which once supported an awning to cover spectators inside.
Subtler detail becomes visible when viewing the columns more closely, including the variation between those on different levels. While the lowest tier includes basic Doric columns, the next level displays Ionic volutes which are ingeniously designed using dark tan roller skates! Those on the third tier incorporate 1x1 round plates with holes to recreate the ornate Corinthian style, faithfully replicating the external columns on the original Colosseum.
Several dark bluish grey and light bluish grey ball joints remain exposed which is somewhat disappointing, although the Colosseum was constructed using iron clamps that secure stone blocks so some inconsistencies are excusable. These joints alone give adequate support but the designer has also included multiple hinge plates around the top, interrupted only by ruined sections which appear remarkably realistic.
While one end of the ruined Northern wall terminates with a smooth slope, the other appears more uneven. The graduated shaping appears absolutely authentic here and I like the abrupt cessation of certain repeated shapes. The collapsed column on the third tier looks impressive and the exposed arches between the inner and outer walls are superb too, ensuring continued accuracy.
Extraordinary detail continues inside the Colosseum, where rows of ancient seating are built using tan and dark tan slopes. This colour combination seeks to recreate the unique textures which are present today, where certain areas of every tier remain relatively intact while others have collapsed and leave only the supporting walls below. Exactly the correct number of these walls is included.
Seats throughout the Colosseum were strictly segregated in accordance with class and sex. Senatores and equites therefore occupied the lower levels, providing the best view of action inside the arena. Tiers are separated by circular walkways and these are represented by 1x3 panels here, resembling railings on the actual Colosseum. The collapsed arches nearest the arena floor appear extremely realistic as well.
Plebeians, slaves and foreign visitors watched from the uppermost levels of the Colosseum, where little evidence of their environment remains. Nevertheless, the model features brilliant detail as varying combinations of bricks and slopes depict the remains of internal walls. They correspond precisely with the source material, although this part of the amphitheatre requires constant maintenance so is frequently hidden behind scaffolding.
Numerous alterations were made to the Colosseum during the Roman period, including the addition of the Hypogeum beneath the arena floor. This network of passageways and rooms provided accommodation for prisoners and wild animals before their emergence and I think it looks fantastic. The repeated use of inverted bricks with studs on the side is splendid and this entire assembly is accurately positioned below the dark bluish grey tiles outside, recreating its subterranean location!
The labyrinthine Hypogeum was originally covered with a wooden arena floor. Inevitably, that has decomposed during the last two millennia but a modern recreation now covers part of the arena, supported by several columns underneath. This integral detail has been recreated here and looks marvellous. Its smooth surface contrasts with the uneven remains of the Hypogeum and the surrounding seats.
Compared with the Northern stand, the Southern stand appears simple. This section lacks dramatic variation in colours or textures, reflecting the original building where every seating structure has collapsed. Vertical walls therefore remain and the magnificent detail continues, most notably towards either end of the Colosseum where archways are no longer intact.
Several 1x2 bricks with Technic pin holes are situated around the lowest tier, forming narrow arches where larger ones cannot be accommodated. The difference in height between these small arches and their larger neighbours is not entirely authentic, although that variation from the original building is hardly noticeable because of its ruined state.
Overall
10276 Colosseum looks absolutely outstanding on display, as one would anticipate for a set which contains 9036 pieces! Wonderful detail covers every available surface and exhaustive attention has evidently been paid to accuracy, compromising only where the proportions may necessitate variation from the original structure. The scale is impressive too, measuring 59cm across, 52cm deep and 27cm in height.
The building experience is undoubtedly repetitive though and other sets provide superior visual impact. Nevertheless, anybody interested in the Classical period or Roman and Greek cultures, such as myself, will enjoy this model. Furthermore, the price of £449.99 or $549.99 represents appealing value given the size of the Colosseum and the unprecedented number of elements, hence my satisfaction with this monumental creation!
This set was provided for review by The LEGO Group but the review represents an expression of my own opinions.
227 likes
134 comments on this article
Thank you for such a detailed review.
It will be difficult to display given the size of the footprint, but my word it will be worth it. Can't for the GWP either! Thank you TLG.
Building the same segment 80 times over? No thanks
need to see some pictures of it alongside the Taj, Bridge, and/or opera house for scale.
Reminds me of the Coliseum Ruins from TLoZ: Breath of the Wild (minus the lynel and malice).
Remarkable detail, but WAAAAAAAAAY too expensive.
Also comments, please don't start up again with the...
^No comment, moving swiftly on. (Non-comment on now deleted post!)
It's an incredible model and looks fantastic, but I know that the repetition would kill me. I started getting twitchy when building the four legs of the recent AT-AT Walker and always have to mix things around when doing any repetitive builds, but I don't think any of my strategies would work with this one!
One small complaint: I'm very surprised that it doesn't have a name plaque attached to the side of the black base. It's only a small thing, but you kind of expect something like that on a model of this kind.
I doubt I'll ever own this set, unfortunately, but I'm definitely looking forward to seeing it in a Lego Shop sometime soon!
Comments questioning the suitability of the Colosseum for a LEGO model are being deleted. The subject has been done to death in the comments on the other articles.
@Gedrolgt said:
"This will likely be an unpopular opinion, but in times were once untouchable monuments are questioned for their historical role, I find it unbelievable that the LEGO Group decided to pay tribute to a loathsome relic of a bloodthirsty culture that had the ignominious audacity to call itself a civilisation, I'm sorry but I think of it absolutly distasteful. Especially since LEGO has used similiar reason in a variety of cases (Breaking their partnership with Shell and the cancellation of the V-22 Osprey)."
I do not agree. No civilisation supports comparison with current values. They must be judged in their historical context.
Looks unfinished to me - Why not get 2 and make an undamaged one?
;)
@Jackthenipper said:
"Looks unfinished to me - Why not get 2 and make an undamaged one?
;)"
Get 3 and add a retractable roof. With Power Functions and a rain sensor.
@Slithus_Venom said:
"Reminds me of the Coliseum Ruins from TLoZ: Breath of the Wild (minus the lynel and malice)."
You don’t know how many times I died in there... RIP Link
IIII is a disturbing oversight... Or stupid to do in general.
Thanks for this brilliant review. I am impressed at how well documented you are on the topic.
Well at least this is better than the new Ecto
Thanks Cap'n for the fantastic and thorough review! This definitely raised my interest in the set even higher!
I don't want to draw an unfair comparison, since I realize the two are very different; that said... any chance we could get a picture of it next to the UCS Millenium Falcon, @CapnRex101? And if someone was looking for a continued quarantine project, how would you recommend choosing between the two?
"although the format of 'IIII' is unusual"
The Romans used both 'iiii' and 'IV' to denote 4. 'IIII' actually came earlier, so that may be why it was chosen.
Great review! It looks fantastic, but it is probably the one set I prefer to have someone else build!
Wow! I can't believe LEGO has finally made a JoJo's Bizarre Adventure set.
This is an impressive design. I hope those that get it enjoy the building process.
@DonnaxNL said:
"IIII is a disturbing oversight... Or stupid to do in general."
Not entirely true, "IIII" was used as well as "IV" for "4" and, I believe, there is an instance of "IIII" being used on the Collosseum itself.
Wow! This looks amazing and stunning!
I found this interesting tidbit:
The Colosseum’s gates had several cases of where the subtractive notation was not applied. Instead of IV, IIII was the much preferred option. In retrospect, the ancient Romans did not stick to this rule much often. Historians attribute this to a number of reasons. Firstly, it was because of the IV symbol resembling the Roman’s supreme deity’s name, Jupiter. In Latin, Jupiter is spelt as IVPPITER. The Romans did not want to commit heresy by putting a symbol that was similar to their god of the sky and king of the gods, Jupiter.
The second reason has to do with the slight mathematical calculation that comes with “IV”. With IIII not obeying the subtractive notation, the common folks and less educated Romans could easily have read it. An even in the Middle ages, the clocks that were mounted atop churches or in town centers would have factored in the average non-educated folk. Therefore, IIII was a much easier option to read or even write than IV.
https://www.worldhistoryedu.com/history-of-the-roman-numerals/
Learned a new word: hypogeum
Must own. What is the release date?
I could see all these tan parts being useful for MOCS!
^ November 27
@Romans122 said:
""although the format of 'IIII' is unusual"
The Romans used both 'iiii' and 'IV' to denote 4. 'IIII' actually came earlier, so that may be why it was chosen.
Great review! It looks fantastic, but it is probably the one set I prefer to have someone else build! "
I imagine LEGO chose to use 'IIII' because that is easier to read. Even someone completely unfamiliar with Roman numerals would immediately understand it.
With regard to the use of both 'IIII' and 'IV', I believe the variation can be attributed to stylistic necessity and sometimes the skills of the stonemason. Longer forms of Roman numerals appear where they might look better than the shortened form and using 'IIII' theoretically exhibited greater wealth because that required more carved strokes.
I don't think @CapnRex101 gets enough credit for the amount of research and knowledge he shares with us about architecture, engineering, and design. I have learned many things about buildings and boats and aircraft from his reviews.
Bravo, Chris!
I can't imagine where I'd put such a massive thing.
I'm now looking forward to next year's release of the 12,438-piece Stonehenge set, complete with a brick-built grazing cow and A303 road plate.
This Colosseum looks good in my opinion, but I'm prioritising other sets.
Waiting for the 22,873-piece Great Pyramid of Giza set now.
Jokes apart, it looks fantastic.
Love how they got the 3 column styles in there.
@CapnRex101 said:
" @Romans122 said:
""although the format of 'IIII' is unusual"
The Romans used both 'iiii' and 'IV' to denote 4. 'IIII' actually came earlier, so that may be why it was chosen.
Great review! It looks fantastic, but it is probably the one set I prefer to have someone else build! "
I imagine LEGO chose to use 'IIII' because that is easier to read. Even someone completely unfamiliar with Roman numerals would immediately understand it.
With regard to the use of both 'IIII' and 'IV', I believe the variation can be attributed to stylistic necessity and sometimes the skills of the stonemason. Longer forms of Roman numerals appear where they might look better than the shortened form and using 'IIII' theoretically exhibited greater wealth because that required more carved strokes."
That's a possible explanation; however TLG might also have used IIII instead of IV because that's how it's used on the (remaining) entrances of the actual Colosseum.
So in this case, using IIII instead of IV is simply more accurate instead of "an oversight" or "stupid" as other posters have commented.
For decades now, I've dreamed of LEGO sets based on the Greco-Roman world. Granted, my fantasy was for something mini-figure scale, but that was in a time long before LEGO made such grandiose models for public consumption. Since 2010, we've gotten the tiniest of drops from the CMF line. I myself got three of the Spartans before they disappeared for good, but it wasn't enough. Now, at last, LEGO has arrived in a big way with this magnificent model! I can't wait to get it since it will complement the decorations in my reading/library room, which are mainly Greco-Roman inspired.
Great review, and thanks comment section for providing education on the presence of "IIII" instead of "IV" for Roman numerals. I was about to hold off on getting this set on account of the "typo"!
@Snazzy_Bricks said:
"Remarkable detail, but WAAAAAAAAAY too expensive.
Also comments, please don't start up again with the..."
As I've said before, it's important to differentiate between a large price and a bad price. Is the tag big? Absolutely. Is it worth it for what you get? I'd say without question. It's not in my wheelhouse, so I'm not even thinking about getting it, but I think we can all agree that you're not getting shortchanged here
Well done on staying awake to build it then review it. Wow, what an achievement! Hope that’s not too negative. Horses for courses I guess.
Thanks for such an entertaining review and, "Are you not entertained?"
@TerryWright said:
"
I'm now looking forward to next year's release of the 12,438-piece Stonehenge set, complete with a brick-built grazing cow and A303 road plate."
I realise your comment was meant tongue-in-cheek, but in all seriousness, plans to bury the A303 in a tunnel where it passes Stonehenge have just been approved. So maybe the section of the A-road should be underground as part of LEGO’s set ;~)
>I like the Roman numerals in the corners, although the format of 'IIII' is unusual.
It's straight up wrong and made for idiots lol
We must rebuild it. Plebs are needed!
Given my experience with the Taj Mahal, I think I could handle this one.
@TerryWright said:
"
I'm now looking forward to next year's release of the 12,438-piece Stonehenge set, complete with a brick-built grazing cow and A303 road plate.
This Colosseum looks good in my opinion, but I'm prioritising other sets."
We should start a pool on what we think will be the first set to crack the 10K piece benchmark
@lynels said:
"Waiting for the 22,873-piece Great Pyramid of Giza set now.
Jokes apart, it looks fantastic."
Sign me up. I've always had a soft spot for Egypt an would love to the Pyramid(s) and Sphinx in Lego form. Although like this set the build would be pretty monotonous.
The real question is: How many Cantinas can one build from it? Maybe Lego should market it as a "Mos Eisley Expansion" pack? :D
Love the picture of the top-down view into the middle, the olive green really pops there. It looks very good for what it is but what it is just does not interest me. It's more interesting and detailed than my first impressions suggested but I still just see a big roundish pile of tan arches... still perplexed as to how this contains 9063 parts but $550 is not an unreasonable price for that much stuff. I would like to see how big it is in relation to other LEGO sets though!
although the sheer size of the model and number of parts is very attractive, and the end result is phenomenal, I won't be buying it. I had my doubts, but reading this review with the inevitable repetitive building, this is a no for me. The building process is the part I enjoy most and when that gets annoying due to a tedious effort: thanks but no.
Thanks for your - again - excellent review though!
What an impressive model! There's certainly something nice about a non-licensed set once again taking the lead for most parts in a set for the first time since 2017, when the redesigned UCS Millennium Falcon usurped the Taj Mahal. It's impressive how effectively the designer achieved a shape that is not just rounded, but elliptical—quite a difficult feat with largely rectangular bricks!
Hard to tell at this point whether I'll ever get this set. It's certainly impressive, but I don't really know where I'd put it. I still have large sets like the Tower Bridge yet unbuilt! Luckily, I expect at this price point this set will remain available for at least a couple years.
@Merlict said:
">I like the Roman numerals in the corners, although the format of 'IIII' is unusual.
It's straight up wrong and made for idiots lol"
Wow, that’s very insulting and ignorant of you.
I find even the smaller architecture sets a bit monotonous, so this is not for me, but it's a magnificent set! Really happy to see Lego turn out another large unique set!
Only just bought and built the Taj this year. It was my lockdown build. This one may have wait. Shame you can't buy the 4 sub-boxes separately, buying each box as you can afford to. Or as a mini subscription where you receive one box each month. Would be easier on the finances.
For each his own, but were there "Expert" sets that this site didn't like and didn't recommend ?
Why does box 4 have IIII on it?
@beanjo68 You might want to do some reading of the rest of this thread above. You’ll find an answer to your question there :-)
I crown this set the king of repetition, with 10258 in a close second.
@MartyMcFly said:
"Only just bought and built the Taj this year. It was my lockdown build. This one may have wait. Shame you can't buy the 4 sub-boxes separately, buying each box as you can afford to. Or as a mini subscription where you receive one box each month. Would be easier on the finances."
thats great ideal subscription... other option wouldnt work some boxes sold out
Thanks for the great review Chris, very informative of both the building experience and the subject matter.
Just curious on the weight of the box when it arrived? There's nothing that I could find on the Lego listing for the weight. I remember you talking about how much the UCS MF and UCS ISD weighed in the shipping box, it was about the same. Gives an idea on value for volume of plastic. The price for the apparent size of this (Jaybricks in Australia has a pic of himself holding the set to give an idea of size) on paper looks very good.
Am disappointed that the set does not come apart though. That first picture showing the base as two sections coming together with technic pins gave me hope. Just built Old Trafford and found both the building and portability of the set fantastic. Given the size of this just having the space to build it will be hard, then the weight of moving it, that's going to be fun lol!
Thanks again for the fantastic review, looking forward to hopefully getting this at some point in the future.
So, it's big, it has only one color and it offers a very repetitive building experience. No, thank you.
Wow, i have paid less for a car with road tax and mot! looks impressive and is probably good value for the number of pieces but i cant justify the spends on a tan bowl. i imagine the build would not satisfy, so this one is not for me. i am realising that i am being priced out of this hobby too.
@Delatron said:
"Wow, i have paid less for a car with road tax and mot! looks impressive and is probably good value for the number of pieces but i cant justify the spends on a tan bowl. i imagine the build would not satisfy, so this one is not for me. i am realising that i am being priced out of this hobby too. "
Lego offers plenty of smaller sets that are cheaper. Sets like these are justifiably a lot of money.
Thanks for the thorough review. It's good to know that it is a satisfying build and an impressive display piece in person.
Question is, how does a Lego emperor express approval or condemnation? He’s got no thumbs.
IIII instead of IV is a joke, right? :O
I think my favourite part is how the hypogeum is constructed, it looks absolutely wonderful down there in the middle! The rest of the model doesn't interest me much; though it surely looks spectacular... oof, I cannot even *imagine* how tedious the process must be.
Especially when... am I interpreting right, and the Southern wall alone took five hours to build? That's longer than the whole last set I built, and I found *that* starting to feel repetitive by the end; so I rightly can't imagine building a set that needs as much time to as this does!
Still, the result is certainly impressive. Thanks for the incredibly detailed look at it :D
Re. the Roman numerals discussion, my grandmother had a clock with IIII for four, so it's not that unusual ^^ (Though who else here first learned Roman numerals from the Star Wars movie episode numbers? It's why, for the longest time, I couldn't count above VI in said numerals! xD)
I don’t think I could handle the repetition but it looks impressive
@Zander said:
" @TerryWright said:
"
I'm now looking forward to next year's release of the 12,438-piece Stonehenge set, complete with a brick-built grazing cow and A303 road plate."
I realise your comment was meant tongue-in-cheek, but in all seriousness, plans to bury the A303 in a tunnel where it passes Stonehenge have just been approved. So maybe the section of the A-road should be underground as part of LEGO’s set ;~)
"
I did wonder about including that . . . :)
@LegoRobo said:
" @elangab said:
"For each his own, but were there "Expert" sets that this site didn't like and didn't recommend ?"
Not exactly an expert set, but have you tried reading their review of Assault on Hoth? The thing is most sets generally are a good value and look good on display, especially the “Expert” sets."
The thing with lego sets is, their value is harder to judge. It’s not like a car where, if it doesn’t work, it doesn’t work. With Lego, it’s not as easy to review like that. This depicts the subject matter extremely well, and has decent value considering what you get (not saying it’s cheap). So reviews tend to be favorable for Lego. And this is a Lego fan site, so it inherently leans towards the positive.
All that said, a great review. Thank you once again.
@Delatron said:
"Wow, i have paid less for a car with road tax and mot! looks impressive and is probably good value for the number of pieces but i cant justify the spends on a tan bowl. i imagine the build would not satisfy, so this one is not for me. i am realising that i am being priced out of this hobby too. "
There have been 131 sets this year (when I counted two months ago so likely more now) that are $20 or less (not counting Dots, polybags, cmfs, or gwps). Are you being priced out of this hobby?
@kinggregus said:
"Thanks for this brilliant review. I am impressed at how well documented you are on the topic."
I do have a Classics and Archaeology degree, along with several years of Latin and Ancient Greek before that, so the Colosseum certainly falls within my comfort zone! Unfortunately, there is no Latin to translate here.
To my shame, I still feel more comfortable with Star Wars though :o)
@elangab said:
"For each his own, but were there "Expert" sets that this site didn't like and didn't recommend ?"
Creator Expert, or 18+, sets generally represent the pinnacle of LEGO design so one would probably expect the vast majority of them to be enjoyable. Nevertheless, we level criticisms where they seem deserved and the most recent example which did not particularly impress me is 10273 Haunted House. I do not necessarily dislike the model but believe it could have been significantly improved.
@beanjo68 said:
"Why does box 4 have IIII on it?"
Well if you count the sticks one after another you wind up with four.
CapnRex, thank you for your review, spot-on as usual.
The amount of comments on this review mentioning the IIII and IV debate is ridiculous. It's got nothing to do with the actual build, although nearly every point that can be made about the build has been discussed . . . well, the base is interesting! I would've preferred it to be entirely in black with no other details- similar to the Architecture sets- but the scale and build style is more in line with the Old Trafford stadium, so the base design does have precedent.
Nice set indeed.
As for the next gargantuan set, I'd suggest a 15,000 piece Castle Neuschwanstein...
Wouldn't be as repetitive either.
@AustinPowers said:
"Nice set indeed.
As for the next gargantuan set, I'd suggest a 15,000 piece Castle Neuschwanstein...
Wouldn't be as repetitive either. "
A 15K (or similarly massive) castle has been my LEGO dream for as long as I have been a fan. I just hope that if they do it, it's not monochrome like this.
So apparently IV for 4 is the modern version of Roman numerals when it used to be IIII.
https://greenwichmeantime.com/articles/clocks/roman/
Fantastic review as always Cap'n. This gives me hope that Lego will return to the LOTR & Hobbit themes and create epic representations of Barad dur, Minas Tirith, Moria & Erebor - I can see the grandeur of these sets attracting 18+ fans from around the world!
Beautiful looking set that I'd love to own one day, but it's low on my priority list. I've been priced out of being an expert set 'completionist', but that's perfectly okay given the choices we get these days.
I have a feeling seeing this thing in person really sells it.
@DonnaxNL said: "IIII is a disturbing oversight... Or stupid to do in general."
No, I really don't quite get that myself, either.
18+ for a set that's hundreds and hundreds of dollars ... but also for people who are too stupid to know what "IV" means.
@Spartan_Ghost said:
"Regarding the IIII vs. IV debate: it’s worth mentioning that Call of Duty: Black Ops 4 uses the IIII format. Which IIRC sparked a mild nontroversy when that was revealed. Sound familiar?"
IIRC is not a valid roman numeral format ;)
^ I'm holding out for the Great Wall Of China at minifig scale.
@dougts said:
"need to see some pictures of it alongside the Taj, Bridge, and/or opera house for scale."
Taj footprint is 64x64 studs, this set looks fairly comparable but elliptical instead of square. Taj spires make that set technically taller.
@The_Byzantine_Knight said:
"MOST IMPRESSIVE!
The Parthenon next please?
Or St. Basil's Cathedral?
or Notre Dame de Paris?
or Hagia Sophia?
"
The Parthenon is a definite possibility. Perhaps the GWP can be a micro-build of the British Museum to represent the Elgin Marbles.
@DonnaxNL said:
"IIII is a disturbing oversight... Or stupid to do in general."
Since the actual Colosseum itself uses "IIII," LEGO did its research better than everyone complaining about it here. ;)
See the first pic in https://threesixty360.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/roman-numerals-not-quite-so-simple/
@DonnaxNL said:
"IIII is a disturbing oversight... Or stupid to do in general."
No, that award goes to misspelling Milwaukee on the H-D Fat Boy 10269
I'll enjoy all the reviews & pictures.
Still waiting for the rumoured Ninjago City Gardens.
@CapnRex101 said:
"Unfortunately, there is no Latin to translate here."
I believe that "SPQR" on the box refers to a Latin phrase.
@AustinPowers said:
"Nice set indeed.
As for the next gargantuan set, I'd suggest a 15,000 piece Castle Neuschwanstein...
Wouldn't be as repetitive either. "
Count me in!
And for a 20,000 piece colourful non repetitive gigantic, Palacio da Pena!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLGCiHeIriU
Great review and I really like it !
No one has addressed the real challenge with this set. How to incorporate it into your modular city...
@Patrik78 said:
"IIII instead of IV is a joke, right? :O"
It's actually used on the real Colosseum. Lego kept it as a homage to it.
This is from the 54th entryway to the Colosseum in Rome, when Roman numerals didn’t always use the subtraction property that we where taught.
See the link below about it.
https://threesixty360.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/roman-numerals-not-quite-so-simple/
The abbreviation SPQR means, in English, the Senate and the Roman people (or the Senate and the people of Rome).
Senatus Populusque Romanus
As always a great review. The set, aaah not so much. Too repetetive for me, but undoubtedly beautyful when finished.
Although, on second thougt, I think I'll make a Hello Kitty / Friends version of it.....
Just wondering, how hard is it to move? It has some downwards slopes at the ends of the base, seemingly indicating that you're supposed to grip it there. I have a feeling this is comparable to a 28" CRT TV, not *very* heavy but just large enough that you can't get a good hold on the thing.
So this set is less expensive than the Falcon but Contains 2000 more pieces. The Colosseum’s dimensions also appear to be smaller than the Falcon’s. To decide for good which one is the biggest, how much does each one weigh? I think the Falcon was about 35 pounds or something like that.
:) the real reason why it is IIII instead of IV is:
Lego wanted to troll the nitpickers and know-it-alls. Mission accomplished.
IIII is totally legitimate in regard to the colosseum, that uses IIII all over.
(but they have XLIIII for 44, not XXXXIIII, so they are not ignoring subtraction completely, just for 4.)
@grimlock_king said:
"So this set is less expensive than the Falcon but Contains 2000 more pieces. The Colosseum’s dimensions also appear to be smaller than the Falcon’s. To decide for good which one is the biggest, how much does each one weigh? I think the Falcon was about 35 pounds or something like that."
rebrickable says:
Weight avarage per piece of 0.89gr for the Falcon, and a 0.69 for the Colosseum.
that would be 6.71kg for the Falcon, and 6.23kg for the Colosseum.
Well, as a Lego afficionado and trained historian specializing in the Classics, this is pretty much a 'must buy', but I will probably look for somewhat of a discount.
And I already have soooo many sets on my wishlist.
Thank you for taking the time and patience to build and review. I was hoping for a mini-fig scale version but realize that would be too large for mass production, and only doing one wall would be like a castle set. I can see the designers spent a lot of time on the accurate detail which is difficult at this scale, but I will be happy enough to see this one day in a Lego shop or museum. As others have suggested maybe TLG should do a poll on historic or modern buildings that fans would like, I would go for Neuschwanstein Castle, Germany and the Great Wall of China.
Lots of negative comments about it being too repetitive, and that it based on the ruins as it today and not the original complete building as it used to be. However I would say that because it is ruins that puts variation into the build, and if they decided on building on model on how it used to be, then it would be even more repetitive.
It’s amazing the number of people that can’t understand the use of “IIII” despite it being explained several times here, and is quite easily researchable... ??
@morvit said:
"Well at least this is better than the new Ecto"
Bite your tongue!
Needs a tiny Lara Croft.
More and more I find Lego creating sets like this one that I wouldn't take even if it were free. I'd never build it.
Lego means "play well" and there's nothing about this repetitive build that says "play" let alone "play well".
The use of IIII instead of IV is pretty simple: not all people know Roman numerals
@CapnRex101 said:
" @elangab said:
"For each his own, but were there "Expert" sets that this site didn't like and didn't recommend ?"
Creator Expert, or 18+, sets generally represent the pinnacle of LEGO design so one would probably expect the vast majority of them to be enjoyable. Nevertheless, we level criticisms where they seem deserved and the most recent example which did not particularly impress me is 10273 Haunted House. I do not necessarily dislike the model but believe it could have been significantly improved."
18+ doesn't automatically means it's a good model. It feels like they're getting scored down and not up, as is - "it's starting 5/5, unless we find faults" Would you purchase this set yourself, and display it ? How would you say it's going against other 18+ sets released this holiday season ?
@guachi said:
"I wouldn't take even if it were free. I'd never build it."
Whitest lie in history
@axeleng said:
"Just wondering, how hard is it to move? It has some downwards slopes at the ends of the base, seemingly indicating that you're supposed to grip it there. I have a feeling this is comparable to a 28" CRT TV, not *very* heavy but just large enough that you can't get a good hold on the thing."
Saw the designer video and it's pretty easy to move.
Just grab the large base-plate, both hands and the Colosseum flexes ever so slightly inward on itself for more stability and not to worry about moving around.
@guachi
If you have some whimsy in your heart and imagination, all types of Lego kits become great building experiences.
The IIII marking irritates me slightly.. oversight or are they going for simplicity...? Apart from that, I think it looks great! The box/packaging looks incredible.
@tom_1494 said:
"The IIII marking irritates me slightly.. oversight or are they going for simplicity...? Apart from that, I think it looks great! The box/packaging looks incredible. "
It's actually used on the real Colosseum. Lego kept it as a homage to it.
This is from the 54th entryway to the Colosseum in Rome, when Roman numerals didn’t always use the subtraction property that we where taught.
See the link below about it.
https://threesixty360.wordpress.com/2011/01/01/roman-numerals-not-quite-so-simple/
Thing is I already built a colosseum. Straight out of the pages of BRICK CITY by Warren Elsmore. It even had the instructions and, for my money is every bit as good as this one. I even took it to Lego shows last year and everyone liked it. No point in me buying this.
Scaffolding is always present because tax rates are more beneficial when a structure is under construction, restoration or renovation.
looks like really old castle sets or polybags 30 year old model? GWP...
@Elenoe said:
"Thing is I already built a colosseum. Straight out of the pages of BRICK CITY by Warren Elsmore. It even had the instructions and, for my money is every bit as good as this one. I even took it to Lego shows last year and everyone liked it. No point in me buying this."
That book is great but this official LEGO one is WAY better than the one in the Brick City book.
Very, very impressive. Doesn't have to be built all at once, which should reduce the pain of repetition, and IMO a superb display piece. I suspect I won't buy both this and Mos Eisley, which means I'll probably get the earlier of the two that is available to order in the US, and then download the instructions for the other one.
Thanks for a wonderful review, CapnRex!
This is another huge monstrosity from Lego.
TLG totally does not understand what afols want.
@Huw said:
"Comments questioning the suitability of the Colosseum for a LEGO model are being deleted. The subject has been done to death in the comments on the other articles."
I don't understand why this is even a thing.
Rome is my most favourite city that I've ever been to, and people may talk about the St. Peter all they want, for me the Colosseum is THE building that defines Rome (number 2 is the Pantheon, 3 is the Trevi fountain, and yes I bought that set).
The LEGO Architecture series has been a thing for what, a decade now? The question shouldn't be why LEGO made a Colosseum, the question should be "What took you so long?"
Amazing set and I'm glad I held out on buying the Razor Crest and other Star Wars sets, that makes it easier for me to say HELL YES to this set.
@shaase said:
" @TerryWright said:
"
I'm now looking forward to next year's release of the 12,438-piece Stonehenge set, complete with a brick-built grazing cow and A303 road plate.
This Colosseum looks good in my opinion, but I'm prioritising other sets."
We should start a pool on what we think will be the first set to crack the 10K piece benchmark"
Wanna bet it's Star Wars related?
@Matt_Saderson said:
"This is another huge monstrosity from Lego.
TLG totally does not understand what afols want."
There's a consensus? I must've missed the questionnaire you sent.
Do feel free to enlighten me about what I want from LEGO.
As with everything LEGO sells this is not designed to appeal to everyone. Yes this is more niche than Duplo or Technic, but as a D2C set it does not have to be made in mass-market quantities, and definitely does not have to sell in mass-market quantities in order to be deemed a success.
If you don't like it, that's fine. Move on. But don't pretend that your opinion holds any weight beyond your self.
@Matt_Saderson said:
"This is another huge monstrosity from Lego.
TLG totally does not understand what afols want."
Interestingly enough, there are people in the world who aren’t Afols. In fact, I’d wager that the vast majority of the world is not Afols. If Lego was going to direct every single set at such a tiny population, they’d collapse within a year.
Also, it kind of seems like you’re ignoring all of the Italian/history fan Afols in this exact comment section that have expressed nothing but good thoughts about this set. Obviously this is what some Afols want.
Also, Lego hasn’t stopped making sets that Afols want. They haven’t even slowed down. I’d even point you towards this article https://brickset.com/article/53640/has-lego-released-too-many-direct-to-consumer-sets-during-2020 where people are saying Lego is making TOO MANY sets that Afols want. I’m just really curious as to where your perspective is coming from here
@DonnaxNL said:
"IIII is a disturbing oversight... Or stupid to do in general."
Actually no... Both forms were accepted, and it is only late in Roman history that the "IV" became the preferred form... "IIII" remained in use, especially on coinage. And it has also been used on old clocks, I happen to own one of these !
@TerryWright said:
"
I'm now looking forward to next year's release of the 12,438-piece Stonehenge set, complete with a brick-built grazing cow and A303 road plate.
This Colosseum looks good in my opinion, but I'm prioritising other sets."
I agree....and this from a 4 year Latin student in high school. Just not enough space to display it yet (and slowly running out of storage space pre-build too!). Hoping I can wrangle enough space for a bigger cabinet when I move next year, barring any COVID issues. If I can, then I will pick this up, even if I miss the GWP (who knows, they may wind up adding that to their website later on anyway!).
I want the full Lego figure scale elements shown in the preview image that made it look like the Colosseum set might be done in that scale. The little vendor stalls and such. Maybe a gladiator hall underneath. That would have been way more interesting than this Architecture scale set.
Nice review. Would have liked a couple pics of the model next to something to get an idea the scale, but oh well.
I think this set is just for people who live in Rome. And maybe some visitors (who've happened to see it in real).
I just realized it is cheaper for me to actually travel to the colosseum, and have a week vacation in Italy (once the corona madness is over) then it is to buy this set.
This set is mostly for fans of history architecture, less for AFOLs.
how are your fingers after building it Captain Rex?
Reading the comments from Rok Kobe about the scale of the model, I wonder if the set was initially planned for the Architecture line (set 10253 maybe?) , but evolved into something bigger.
@Matt_Saderson said:
"This is another huge monstrosity from Lego.
TLG totally does not understand what afols want."
Speak for yourself. ;-)
For that money I could visit the real thing lol.
@miskox said:
"I think this set is just for people who live in Rome. And maybe some visitors (who've happened to see it in real). "
Yes, hardly any tourist has ever visited Rome :-S
Aside from the expense
Dark packaging - not for me
Black instructions manuals - is it just me or are they harder to read/follow. Case in point Elf House manuals love the elf house model. Hated the manuals
@OttoT said:
"For that money I could visit the real thing lol."
But you don't get to take it home with you to look at in your own house.
Can you only get one gwp per order?
Also, on the use of "IIII", IV wasn't used commonly in the past, there's a lot of theories why but it's all conjecture.
I do hope someday LEGO will wake up and realize the black boxes are boring, lifeless, and everything the toy is trying NOT to be.
Looks boring to build (doing the same multiple times) and not that great a permanent display item. It really lacks Lego creativity, (minifigures or action scene). I was expecting much more....
The repetitive build is fine with me. What I don't understand is why steps couldn't be combined into one big step of building all repetitive parts. Instead, steps 12 and 13 (as an example) are exactly the same.
WHY?