Why not just 4+?

Is there really any difference in the frailty or mental capability of a 99 year old over a 101 year old? I just cannot think of any reason why they feel it is necessary to stipulate a maximum age.

It's supposed to be funny. Not an actual age restriction.

Do you know that for sure, or just making a guess? Because LEGO doesn't strike me as the sort of company to make jokes. Nowhere else do they do this.

This is some serious business

Algren do you love LEGO?

Rev not particularly.

I used to see this exact thing on countless board games, with varying numbers (often based on the actually recommended minimum age, e.g. 8-88 or 4-104). It seems to be some in-joke/quirk in the games/toys industry.

Lego was founded 1932.......100 years later would be 2032.

The Lego founders believed that they would pollute Earth with plastic particles within less than 100 years to destroy it. The 99 is a reference to it.

I mean turn around 99------66 ad another 6 ------- 666 THE DEVIL!!!!!

My guess is it's saying you're never too old to play with Lego

Unless you're 100 or 101 or 102 or 103...

When I used to work at a Renaissance Faire, I'd announce to all passing by that the costumes sold in the shop were "for ages 8 to 80, and then from 84 to 92."

Blatant discrimination of the 81-83 age group, but at least they have something to look forward to. The 93+ group on the other hand..