[no-name-here]

Very interesting article, but not very well written. A handful of examples from the first half:

1. Suddenly in the 7th paragraph: “We know for a fact that from 1967 and until 2003 the main supplier of drawing building steps for the LEGO Group was a company called Palle…”. That’s a super odd thing to preface with “We know for a fact” - are all other claims/items in the article actually not known if they aren't similarly prefaced?

2. They jump around a little in time, such as mentioning the 60s but then going back to the 50s in the next section.

3. Some photos don't show what year or decade the set or instructions are from.

4. They start by mentioning the 50s, but it would be helpful to also mention how long the bricks were made before then to quickly understand the length of the pre-instruction era - it appears 49, or 39 for wood versions, per some quick googling.

[bulder]

There's a bunch of lines before the 7th paragraph that say stuff like "suggests" and immediately before the line you quoted, "Although the material is scarce on the subject,". That's just the nature of history, sometimes you just don't have the full documentation even when you're talking about your own company.

[petepete]

> mention how long the bricks were made before then to quickly understand the length of the pre-instruction era

Worth mentioning that Lego lifted the idea from Kiddicraft. Hilary Page patented Self-Locking Building Bricks in 1939 but had committed suicide by the time Lego brought their product to the UK.

https://www.hilarypagetoys.com/Home/Products/39/0

[bonzini]

True, but adding the hollow tube to the bottom side greatly improved how much the bricks stuck together, compared to Kiddicraft. It's not a small change.

Lego also tried other designs like crosses on the bottom but then kept the tube (and later the filled small tube that you can see on 1xN bricks and plates).