 | | | | | |
Hey folks, I told you about what could happen in July didn't I? :)
Oh man, there were so many times I just wanted to blurt it out, but didn't.
At first I thought people were going to form a lynching party when everybody
realized that I couldn't tell them what it was. But I hope it was all worth
the wait. And yes, Richard, the surprise was *big* and there was no way you
could miss it! BTW, Richard, there is still something from your wishlist
that may be still on its way (about 50%) chance.
Now my only regret is that I didn't pester them about which *Pirate* sets
they should have redone! ;)
Jimmy
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
First off, I'd like to thank Mr. Park for giving the community the
heads-up a few months back. If not for him, I do believe that this info
would have thrown countless individuals into cardio-pulmonary trauma. I for
one really appreciated his insider info.
> BTW, Richard, there is still something from your wishlist
> that may be still on its way (about 50%) chance.
> > Although, I'm still hoping for castle walls, castle minifig accessories, or
> > a new minifig pack.
I'd bet that the 50% odds fall upon either the castle walls or the minifig
accessories.
Were you talkin’ about my ‘wish-list’ post from 1 year ago about body armor?
http://news.lugnet.com/castle/org/cw/?n=117
Or,
The Castle Armor Accessory Pack from a few weeks ago?
http://news.lugnet.com/castle/?n=9146
Sincerely,
--==Richard==--
You can reach me @
Shroud_of_Kung_Fu@Hotmail.com
. -Lego good, Canada great-®
P.S. The greatest part about the upcoming 6067 offer is that its part of a
continuing Tri-annual line of sets. I can easily see myself purchasing ALL
the Legends sets offered for the next 10 years!
In lugnet.castle, Jimmy Park writes:
> Hey folks, I told you about what could happen in July didn't I? :)
>
> Oh man, there were so many times I just wanted to blurt it out, but didn't.
> At first I thought people were going to form a lynching party when everybody
> realized that I couldn't tell them what it was. But I hope it was all worth
> the wait. And yes, Richard, the surprise was *big* and there was no way you
> could miss it! BTW, Richard, there is still something from your wishlist
> that may be still on its way (about 50%) chance.
>
> Now my only regret is that I didn't pester them about which *Pirate* sets
> they should have redone! ;)
>
> Jimmy
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Richard Noeckel writes:
> First off, I'd like to thank Mr. Park for giving the community the
> heads-up a few months back. If not for him, I do believe that this info
> would have thrown countless individuals into cardio-pulmonary trauma.
Really? You truly believe that there would have been scads of folks going
into cardiac arrest over the announcement that a toy is being re-released?
Come on - it's not like we're talking about beanie babies or Star Wars
action figures.
On the other hand, not to wish ill on folks but now I'm bummed that Mr. Park
did give us the "insider info" (though I think "info" is probably not the
correct term for what was shared). Just think of the news headlines
"COUNTLESS INDIVIDUALS KILLED AT THEIR COMPUTERS BY LEGO!". Now that's
publicity!
I'd really have some tales of nuttiness to share with my non-LEGO obsessed
friends and family. They thought the orgasms over green hair was funny.
Just imagine what outsiders would think of people who actually drop dead
after reading about LEGO.
Oh well, I guess Mr. Park needs to be congratulated and thanked for saving
so many lives (does TLC have some kind of medal that can be awarded?) - at
the same time it's hard to not begrudge him ruining what would have been the
greatest "LEGO Fans Sure Are Wacky" story of all times.
G.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Jimmy Park wrote:
>
> Hey folks, I told you about what could happen in July didn't I? :)
>
> Oh man, there were so many times I just wanted to blurt it out, but
> didn't.[...]
:-)
well, talk about painful silence.. I knew in November of last year!
(I was asked not to tell) So, phew! I'm with you, Jimmy - glad that wait
is over. But more importantly, very happy to see it come true. I have
always *loved* this set.
-Suz
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.castle, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> well, talk about painful silence.. I knew in November of last year!
> (I was asked not to tell) So, phew!
Hey Suz - where was your "I Know Something That You Don't Know But I Can't
Tell You So You'll Just Have to Wait But I Can Promise It Will Really Be
Good But In the Meantime Please Don't Talk About It" posting?
I don't remember seeing that one.
G.
(who isn't familiar enough with emoticons to know which one is supposed to
indicate a "slightly sarcastic elbow-in-the-ribs kind of joke")
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Greg Perry wrote:
>
> In lugnet.castle, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> > well, talk about painful silence.. I knew in November of last year!
> > (I was asked not to tell) So, phew!
>
> Hey Suz - where was your "I Know Something That You Don't Know But I Can't
> Tell You So You'll Just Have to Wait But I Can Promise It Will Really Be
> Good But In the Meantime Please Don't Talk About It" posting?
>
> I don't remember seeing that one.
lol.
well, I didn't sign an NDA, so it wouldn't have sounded very impressive.
;-)
-Suz
> G.
> (who isn't familiar enough with emoticons to know which one is supposed to
> indicate a "slightly sarcastic elbow-in-the-ribs kind of joke")
:-D
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.castle, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> Greg Perry wrote:
> >
> > In lugnet.castle, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> > > well, talk about painful silence.. I knew in November of last year!
> > > (I was asked not to tell) So, phew!
> >
> > Hey Suz - where was your "I Know Something That You Don't Know But I Can't
> > Tell You So You'll Just Have to Wait But I Can Promise It Will Really Be
> > Good But In the Meantime Please Don't Talk About It" posting?
> >
> > I don't remember seeing that one.
>
> lol.
> well, I didn't sign an NDA, so it wouldn't have sounded very impressive.
Right. Because if you had, barring any explicit release, you'd have to
continue not saying whether you knew in advance or not.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
I see the set is in the database... So how long has this page been waiting
to be activated? :-)
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/10000
Bryan
"Suzanne D. Rich" <suz@baseplate.com> wrote in message
news:3B207648.F4638140@baseplate.com...
> well, talk about painful silence.. I knew in November of last year!
> (I was asked not to tell) So, phew! I'm with you, Jimmy - glad that wait
> is over. But more importantly, very happy to see it come true. I have
> always *loved* this set.
>
> -Suz
>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Heh heh
Actually, you have Jen Boger to thank for her speedy response to the
news today. (She just made the page)
-Suz
Bryan Kinkel wrote:
>
> I see the set is in the database... So how long has this page been waiting
> to be activated? :-)
>
> http://guide.lugnet.com/set/10000
>
> Bryan
>
> "Suzanne D. Rich" <suz@baseplate.com> wrote in message
> news:3B207648.F4638140@baseplate.com...
> > well, talk about painful silence.. I knew in November of last year!
> > (I was asked not to tell) So, phew! I'm with you, Jimmy - glad that wait
> > is over. But more importantly, very happy to see it come true. I have
> > always *loved* this set.
> >
> > -Suz
> >
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I know I shall be the only one with this opinion, but frankly I am saddened by
the re-release of the Guarded Inn.
Yes, I will buy one or two, I'm not saying it's a bad set. I've always wanted
one. HOWEVER I see no redeemable feature that would make the original set sell
for $100, $200 off ebay. You hypocritic castle heads complaining about the
worthlessness of castle walls, now all excited about red tudor versions...
I am glad that the evil ebay oppressors will be shot down, the rarity of this
set has become next to common. Hurrah! Death to those who try to pass lego
off as a collectable!
But you see, I would have rather seen a castle be reintroduced. The King's
Castle, the Knight's Castle, the Black Falcon's Fortress, THOSE are the things
of LEGEND! The Guarded Inn, in my opinion, is a dinky little set with little
value except for parts, parts that I really don't need too many of. I cannot
fathom why someone would value the Guarded Inn at $300! (Which I once saw on
ebay)
Granted, Lego will introduce several more legends each year. But we will
probably see a new castle set rereleased once a year, or every other year, to
make room for other sets. I say this is unfair. Even to the pirate fans I say
this is unfair. Pirates had it done mercifully. Castle has been beaten down
with worthless series after series after series. Lego has trashed the good
name of castle with Dragon Masters, Fright Knights, Ninja, and to a lesser
extent Knight's Kingdom. Pirates were discontinued before they became too
worthless to buy. Space? Technic? Town? They have not been given too many
totally worthless series to play with in my opinion.
The Guarded Inn a Lego Legend? Hardly. It is only named so because of the
missguided paying too much on Ebay for them. The set was hardly rare, anyone
who at the time, had a S@H catelog could buy one. I myself have four different
catelogs with it advertised, though as a child I didn't want it. As an adult
I'm only buying one for the sake of owning one and perhaps a second just for
the minifigs. Now if they reintroduced the King's Castle! I'd be buying a
couple of those. Rerelease the Yellow Castle? I'd be a lot. Rerelease
action sets like the Battering Ram or the Seige Tower or Knight's Challenge?
I'd buy a lot of those too.
And that's just my unpopular two cents.
--Anthony
http://www.geocities.com/savatheaggie/legohome.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Anthony Sava writes:
> The King's Castle, the Knight's Castle, the Black Falcon's Fortress, THOSE
> are the things of LEGEND! The Guarded Inn, in my opinion, is a dinky little
> set with little value except for parts, parts that I really don't need too
> many of. I cannot fathom why someone would value the Guarded Inn at $300!
> (Which I once saw on ebay)
Value is what the market will bear. As for your preferred LEGEND sets,
all I can say (as one who is not privy to the NDA info) is wait and see.
For all we know, they might be releasing exactly the sets you'd most like to
buy. As a brand new (and, for LEGO, innovative) product program, the
Legends line is well worth the wait, even if some of the sets do or don't
qualify in my opinion as legendary. Perhaps the market researchers at TLC
reviewed the sales history on eBay and determined that this was one of the
most coveted sets. Who knows? For that matter, who cares? Even if it's
not currently all some of us hoped it would be, it's a great move in the
right direction, and we can hope a harbinger of things still to come.
> And that's just my unpopular two cents.
Unpopular, perhaps, but not "wrong" or unfounded.
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Anthony Sava writes:
> I know I shall be the only one with this opinion, but frankly I am saddened by
> the re-release of the Guarded Inn.
>
> Yes, I will buy one or two, I'm not saying it's a bad set. I've always wanted
> one. HOWEVER I see no redeemable feature that would make the original set
> sell for $100, $200 off ebay. You hypocritic castle heads complaining about
> the worthlessness of castle walls, now all excited about red tudor versions...
Almost certainly being one of the "hypocritical castle heads" referenced, I
should point out that I never called castle walls worthless, just said I
don't need more, and would rather see other things first.
> But you see, I would have rather seen a castle be reintroduced. The King's
> Castle, the Knight's Castle, the Black Falcon's Fortress, THOSE are the things
> of LEGEND! The Guarded Inn, in my opinion, is a dinky little set with little
> value except for parts, parts that I really don't need too many of. I cannot
> fathom why someone would value the Guarded Inn at $300! (Which I once saw on
> ebay)
IMHO? It's not a $300 set. But it is a great set, and worth being called a
Legend. It's got an excellent selection of parts (even if you don't like
castle walls <grin>) and is a good, solid design with lots of play value.
James
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, James Brown writes:
> I should point out that I never called castle walls worthless, just said I
> don't need more, and would rather see other things first.
I don't love or hate castle walls -- but I'd probably use the faceted bricks
instead of the corner wall piece if I had ready access to them. [note: The
Castle Expander pack has 4 of these in grey -- I'd like to see them sold in
more colors and by themselves in larger quantities.]
The castle wall types like those found in Guarded Inn are cool inasmuch as
they are printed in a unique manner -- with the tudor/timbered wall pattern
-- and you wouldn't be able to do that easily across multiple bricks with a
sticker and have the whole remain very modular. My problem with the Guarded
Inn walls is that they are red -- and that is a fairly strange color for a
timbered wall. Normally, one sees white -- even the yellow tudor walls are
better than the red ones in terms of color choice.
If you want to see GI done right, see:
http://members.aol.com/blueofnoon/lego/gi/givariant.html
-- Hop-Frog
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Anthony Sava writes:
> I know I shall be the only one with this opinion, but frankly I am saddened by
> the re-release of the Guarded Inn.
I guess the question is, are you SADDENED by it or just dissappointed?
Sounds more like you just wish they started elsewhere...
> Yes, I will buy one or two, I'm not saying it's a bad set. I've always wanted
> one. HOWEVER I see no redeemable feature that would make the original set
> sell for $100, $200 off ebay. You hypocritic castle heads complaining about
> the worthlessness of castle walls, now all excited about red tudor versions...
Personally, I like it for a few different reasons-- It's just got lots of
cool pieces that I like:
-The red tudor walls (unique to this set alone)
-The tavern flag (also unique to this set)
-The blue 1x4x5? door (unique to this set? not sure)
-The maiden hat (available in red in only 3 sets)
-The maiden torso (hard to come by now)
-Flowers & stems (I love these, even though they used to be common-- they're
becoming harder to find)
-Black slopes (2x8's & odd gable wedge, & roof caps)
And of course the other pieces you can't get anymore, like Crusader torsos &
shields, the breastplate torso, a Black Falcon shield, and light grey castle
walls. And of course it's got a nice little bunch of grey bricks and plates. :)
And other than that, it was indeed rare in the US. It never got put on store
shelves, so the only people that did know about it were people with S@H
catalogs (I only acquired one from my friend in 1987 when he didn't want one
anymore-- and yes, I wanted one even then, although not as much as a 6080 or
6074 or something). So for collectors and builders alike it's a great set--
worth $300? Not to me. Worth $25 MISB? Definitely. Heck, I paid $150 for a
complete one (not MISB) and was happy-- probably wouldn't have done it AGAIN
(Probably only up to $100 if I could've ever found them that cheap)
> I am glad that the evil ebay oppressors will be shot down, the rarity of this
> set has become next to common. Hurrah! Death to those who try to pass lego
> off as a collectable!
Hear, hear!
> But you see, I would have rather seen a castle be reintroduced. The King's
> Castle, the Knight's Castle, the Black Falcon's Fortress, THOSE are the things
> of LEGEND! The Guarded Inn, in my opinion, is a dinky little set with little
> value except for parts, parts that I really don't need too many of.
Well, I's certainly agree that 6080,6073, and 6074 are legendary-- starting
this series with any of these sets would be most welcome indeed. But then
again 6067 is a fine way to start it off too... Actually, if it were up to
me I would've picked either 6067 or 6080 to kick it off. And from a
marketing standpoint, I'd probably go with 6067, just so anyone buying them
for the figs will buy more of this set rather than hold out for 6080's,
6074's, etc, which they'll later buy ANYWAY. Kinda like releasing SW
stormtroopers in big sets first (and Leia & C3PO & Chewie) and little sets
later... But then again that really only applies for people trying to buy
Crusaders
> I cannot fathom why someone would value the Guarded Inn at $300! (Which I
> once saw on ebay)
Yeah, MISB they might do that. I wouldn't've bought one for that, but
hopefully it'll drag the price down for both collectors and builders alike :)
> Granted, Lego will introduce several more legends each year. But we will
> probably see a new castle set rereleased once a year, or every other year, to
> make room for other sets. I say this is unfair.
Unfair? To castle fans? Or do you mean too long to wait?
> Space? Technic? Town? They have not been given too
> many totally worthless series to play with in my opinion.
Well-- I'll have to disagree here-- but only with space & town. Both have
been swamped with worthlessness since 1997 IMHO-- technic's gone downhill
too, but the odd part was that 1996 was almost (if not THE) pinnacle of
technic...
> The Guarded Inn a Lego Legend? Hardly. It is only named so because of the
> missguided paying too much on Ebay for them. The set was hardly rare, anyone
> who at the time, had a S@H catelog could buy one. I myself have four
> different catelogs with it advertised, though as a child I didn't want it.
> As an adult I'm only buying one for the sake of owning one and perhaps a
> second just for the minifigs. Now if they reintroduced the King's Castle!
> I'd be buying a couple of those.
Sign me up for at least 4 6080's. Probably more. That's definitely another
set of legend. If another castle legend comes out, I'm betting that'll be up
next. I'd bet 6080, 6074, 6086, 6085 and 6066 would be the top 5 likely
castle legends (next to 6067), although I never cared much for 6085... I'd
much rather see 6073 in its place!
> Rerelease the Yellow Castle? I'd be a lot.
Eh. I'd probably buy one, but I never was filled with an overwhelming desire
for one-- plus that'd be even harder for TLC to reproduce since it uses the
old style space helmets (last seen in 1987?), plumes (last seen in
1982-83?), the old flag (dunno if that's still around), and the old 1x1x1
windows. I'd buy one just to have it, but I doubt I'd buy more.
> Rerelease action sets like the Battering Ram or the Seige Tower or
> Knight's Challenge? I'd buy a lot of those too.
Yeah, you could sign me up for LOTS of these, but I doubt TLC will call them
"legends". But hopefully if this "theme" is a success, it'll encourage other
sets like these to be on the list to be brought back! :)
DaveE
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.castle, Anthony Sava writes:
> I know I shall be the only one with this opinion, but frankly I am saddened by
> the re-release of the Guarded Inn. • (snipped)
> The Guarded Inn a Lego Legend? Hardly. It is only named so because of the
> missguided paying too much on Ebay for them. The set was hardly rare, anyone
> who at the time, had a S@H catelog could buy one. • (snipped)
> And that's just my unpopular two cents.
> --Anthony
Looks like I didn't pick the complaint winner (see my first post)
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=2707
Legend Set status is given to this set primarily because it is one of only
two castle sets that is centered around village life, and not warfare (yes I
know warfare was a part of village life). It's rarity is in it's purpose,
not it it's original availability. It's recent ,until now, unavailability
has only added to the legend. Jon
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Anthony Sava writes:
> I know I shall be the only one with this opinion, but frankly I am saddened by
> the re-release of the Guarded Inn.
>
> Yes, I will buy one or two, I'm not saying it's a bad set. I've always wanted
> one. HOWEVER I see no redeemable feature that would make the original set sell
> for $100, $200 off ebay. You hypocritic castle heads complaining about the
> worthlessness of castle walls, now all excited about red tudor versions...
I agree in that they are just Lego pieces and beyond the rare red tudor
walls (white walls, spray paint 'em red, apply black tape, viola! saved
myself over $100) I just can't justify the extreme expense. Simply put, for
that kind of money, I can a lot of Lego and build something quite frankly
better.
But that's the point - Lego is making accessible a kit that is normally out
of reach due to inflated prices.
>
> I am glad that the evil ebay oppressors will be shot down, the rarity of this
> set has become next to common. Hurrah! Death to those who try to pass lego
> off as a collectable!
There is nothing oppressive about eBay. I just don't get this - the obvious
thing that is happening is that people are flushing out their stored Lego so
people who want to actually use it can buy it.
>
> But you see, I would have rather seen a castle be reintroduced. The King's
> Castle, the Knight's Castle, the Black Falcon's Fortress, THOSE are the things
> of LEGEND! The Guarded Inn, in my opinion, is a dinky little set with little
> value except for parts, parts that I really don't need too many of. I cannot
> fathom why someone would value the Guarded Inn at $300! (Which I once saw on
> ebay)
I'd VERY much like to see the Black Falcon's Fortress brought back. My bet
is it eventually will. Just be patient.
As to the Guarded Inn being a dinky set....so? Execution counts for a lot.
Part of the high price is the concept that clearly many people support that
there should be more to Castle than castles. The concept of a medieval
village is ignored except for a few rare exceptions such as this.
>
> Granted, Lego will introduce several more legends each year. But we will
> probably see a new castle set rereleased once a year, or every other year, to
> make room for other sets. I say this is unfair. Even to the pirate fans I say
> this is unfair. Pirates had it done mercifully. Castle has been beaten down
> with worthless series after series after series. Lego has trashed the good
> name of castle with Dragon Masters, Fright Knights, Ninja, and to a lesser
> extent Knight's Kingdom. Pirates were discontinued before they became too
> worthless to buy. Space? Technic? Town? They have not been given too many
> totally worthless series to play with in my opinion.
Hey, hey! Us Kurosawa fans *really* apreciate the Ninja series. :-)
>
> The Guarded Inn a Lego Legend? Hardly. It is only named so because of the
> missguided paying too much on Ebay for them. The set was hardly rare, anyone
> who at the time, had a S@H catelog could buy one. I myself have four different
> catelogs with it advertised, though as a child I didn't want it. As an adult
> I'm only buying one for the sake of owning one and perhaps a second just for
> the minifigs. Now if they reintroduced the King's Castle! I'd be buying a
> couple of those. Rerelease the Yellow Castle? I'd be a lot. Rerelease
> action sets like the Battering Ram or the Seige Tower or Knight's Challenge?
> I'd buy a lot of those too.
You are confusing "available for purchase" with "not rare".
The Yellow Castle is still yellow. Yuck. Maybe if they changed the brick
color...
:-P
>
> And that's just my unpopular two cents.
> --Anthony
> http://www.geocities.com/savatheaggie/legohome.html
I have a differing opinion, but I don't think your opinion is invalid. Not
everyone values the same things - I'm sure sticking my tongue out at what is
undoubtedly a Lego Legend in the Yellow Castle will have a lot of people
disagreeing with me (even though my only real objection is the Van Gogh yellow).
Bruce
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Anthony Sava writes:
> I know I shall be the only one with this opinion, but frankly I am saddened by
> the re-release of the Guarded Inn.
>
> Yes, I will buy one or two, I'm not saying it's a bad set. I've always wanted
> one. HOWEVER I see no redeemable feature that would make the original set sell
> for $100, $200 off ebay. You hypocritic castle heads complaining about the
> worthlessness of castle walls, now all excited about red tudor versions...
> I am glad that the evil ebay oppressors will be shot down, the rarity of this
> set has become next to common. Hurrah! Death to those who try to pass lego
> off as a collectable!
>
> But you see, I would have rather seen a castle be reintroduced. The King's
> Castle, the Knight's Castle, the Black Falcon's Fortress, THOSE are the things
> of LEGEND! The Guarded Inn, in my opinion, is a dinky little set with little
> value except for parts, parts that I really don't need too many of. I cannot
> fathom why someone would value the Guarded Inn at $300! (Which I once saw on
> ebay)
Remember that this is the first Legends set they may be testing the waters
sure Lugnet AFOL's will go out in droves and purchase this kit. (I prordered
a few today) but if others buy it when it sells, well then they might
deciede to release a larger (and More expensive) set.
> Granted, Lego will introduce several more legends each year. But we will
> probably see a new castle set rereleased once a year, or every other year, to
> make room for other sets. I say this is unfair. Even to the pirate fans I say
> this is unfair. Pirates had it done mercifully. Castle has been beaten down
> with worthless series after series after series. Lego has trashed the good
> name of castle with Dragon Masters, Fright Knights, Ninja, and to a lesser
> extent Knight's Kingdom. Pirates were discontinued before they became too
> worthless to buy. Space? Technic? Town? They have not been given too many
> totally worthless series to play with in my opinion.
>
> The Guarded Inn a Lego Legend? Hardly. It is only named so because of the
> missguided paying too much on Ebay for them. The set was hardly rare, anyone
> who at the time, had a S@H catelog could buy one. I myself have four different
> catelogs with it advertised, though as a child I didn't want it. As an adult
> I'm only buying one for the sake of owning one and perhaps a second just for
> the minifigs. Now if they reintroduced the King's Castle! I'd be buying a
> couple of those. Rerelease the Yellow Castle? I'd be a lot. Rerelease
> action sets like the Battering Ram or the Seige Tower or Knight's Challenge?
> I'd buy a lot of those too.
When I was in grade school and buying lego in 198-7 I didn't know about S@H.
I had seen a picture of the guarded inn and I wanted it. I had a seige tower
that I got as a gift and a blacksmith shop and armor shop that I saved up
for with my allowence probablly some other small sets. I couldn't afford
the larger sets that I saw at Hills department store. I don't think that
there are any early classic sets that would make poor choices for legends.
John
>
> And that's just my unpopular two cents.
> --Anthony
> http://www.geocities.com/savatheaggie/legohome.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Anthony Sava writes:
> I know I shall be the only one with this opinion, but frankly I am saddened by
> the re-release of the Guarded Inn.
>
> Yes, I will buy one or two, I'm not saying it's a bad set. I've always wanted
> one. HOWEVER I see no redeemable feature that would make the original set
> sell for $100, $200 off ebay. You hypocritic castle heads complaining about
> the worthlessness of castle walls, now all excited about red tudor versions...
> But you see, I would have rather seen a castle be reintroduced. The King's
> Castle, the Knight's Castle, the Black Falcon's Fortress, THOSE are the things
> of LEGEND! The Guarded Inn, in my opinion, is a dinky little set with little
> value except for parts, parts that I really don't need too many of. I cannot
> fathom why someone would value the Guarded Inn at $300! (Which I once saw on
> ebay)
> The Guarded Inn a Lego Legend? Hardly. It is only named so because of the
> missguided paying too much on Ebay for them. The set was hardly rare, anyone
> who at the time, had a S@H catelog could buy one. I myself have four different
> catelogs with it advertised, though as a child I didn't want it. As an adult
> I'm only buying one for the sake of owning one and perhaps a second just for
> the minifigs. Now if they reintroduced the King's Castle! I'd be buying a
> couple of those. Rerelease the Yellow Castle? I'd be a lot. Rerelease
> action sets like the Battering Ram or the Seige Tower or Knight's Challenge?
> I'd buy a lot of those too.
While I agree with much of what you say, here's what I see:
Set size is important. I went to the first inflation calculator that Google
could find for me, and it said that the 2000$ cost of 6080 would be about $90.
It also said that the 2000$ cost of 6067 would be about $30. . .so if we grant
that LD is keeping the price down to a bit over $0.10/piece, perhaps they would
offer 6080 for $70. That's a lot more money than $25. So much more that I
suspect many people (especially people who don't collect classic Castle[1])
would be scared off. Besides, this is a small run set, and proof of concept; I
imagine that LD cares much more about number of sets sold than the gross they
take in. Getting two people to buy 6067s (or getting one person to buy two or
three) is much better for them than selling one 6080. So a big set is
impractical at this point. On the other hand, a small set like the Maiden's
Cart or 6103, no matter how desirable to obsessed Lugnetters, would look really
wimpy as the lead product for a bold new line. So I think a midsized set was
the way to go, and I think something as "flashy" (colorful? offbeat? unusual?)
as 6067 or the Knight's Challenge would be the obvious choice.
And yes, 6067 *is* rare. Sure, I have two or three S@H catalogs with it, but I
don't think I ever actually ordered anything from S@H until last year[2]. I've
been trying to cut back my Lego purchases, and I doubt I'd pay full price for a
6080 or 6085 or 6060, even though I like them, because I already have them. .
.but I think I might be willing to shell out for a 10000.
TWS Garrison
[1] By the way, did everyone notice the subliminal message on the Knight's
Kingdom pages of last fall's S@H catalog? ;)
[2] Mike Petrucelli has some insights into catalog ordering that have
apparently escaped TLC for the past few decades, although they have always
seemed obvious to me:
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=2661
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Anthony Sava writes:
> I know I shall be the only one with this opinion, but frankly I am saddened by
> the re-release of the Guarded Inn.
Would you prefer yet another juniorized castle set?
> Yes, I will buy one or two, I'm not saying it's a bad set. I've always wanted
> one. HOWEVER I see no redeemable feature that would make the original set sell
> for $100, $200 off ebay.
No one forces those people to pay those prices. And the whole point of the
Legends line is now we don't have to.
> I am glad that the evil ebay oppressors will be shot down, the rarity of this
> set has become next to common. Hurrah! Death to those who try to pass lego
> off as a collectable!
Ok. Personally I'm more disgusted by those AFOLs that ask people to pick up
discounted/hard-to-find sets for them at cost, only to turn around and sell
them for a profit. But different pet peeves is all.
> But you see, I would have rather seen a castle be reintroduced. The King's
> Castle, the Knight's Castle, the Black Falcon's Fortress, THOSE are the things
> of LEGEND! The Guarded Inn, in my opinion, is a dinky little set with little
> value except for parts, parts that I really don't need too many of. I cannot
> fathom why someone would value the Guarded Inn at $300! (Which I once saw on
> ebay)
Hey I can't understand Fabuland at all, but different strokes. . . :)
I think this is the crux of your post. You seem to have funneled your
disappointment over the particular choice of the 6067 instead of a large
castle, into a rant over all sorts of things. Which of course of fine, as
long as you realize, that the Guarded Inn is *the best choice* LD could make
in regards to Castle. No other castle set increased 25x it's original
value. No other castle set was ranked higher on Lugnet. And if it were put
to a vote, I'd say 6067 would win hands down.
> Granted, Lego will introduce several more legends each year. But we will
> probably see a new castle set rereleased once a year, or every other year, to
> make room for other sets. I say this is unfair. Even to the pirate fans I say
> this is unfair. Pirates had it done mercifully.
I have no idea why you think re-releasing sets is unfair. Almost everybody
is happy-ecstatic about this. You even point out how lame the new sets are,
and now you're complaining about the best of the old ones coming back? Am I
missing something here? Maybe you could please explain what you mean by this?
Castle has been beaten down
> with worthless series after series after series. Lego has trashed the good
> name of castle with Dragon Masters, Fright Knights, Ninja, and to a lesser
> extent Knight's Kingdom. Pirates were discontinued before they became too
> worthless to buy. Space? Technic? Town? They have not been given too many
> totally worthless series to play with in my opinion.
FYI, KK has been fairly successful for them. No other large set was as in
demand than King Leo's Castle this past Christmas. I'd argue that Ninja was
no worse and possibly much better than KK in terms of design.
> The Guarded Inn a Lego Legend? Hardly. It is only named so because of the
> missguided paying too much on Ebay for them. The set was hardly rare, anyone
> who at the time, had a S@H catelog could buy one. I myself have four differ
"Hardly rare?" I disagree. By your logic, there's almost nothing that is
rare, since at one point in time you could get almost every set. Take that
line of reasoning out further and it's like saying the 1929 Bugatti is not
rare since 72 years ago, anybody could order one.
> catelogs with it advertised, though as a child I didn't want it. As an adult
> I'm only buying one for the sake of owning one and perhaps a second just for
> the minifigs. Now if they reintroduced the King's Castle! I'd be buying a
> couple of those. Rerelease the Yellow Castle? I'd be a lot.
The King's Castle is my personal favorite Castle set. Bought mine used for
$20 about 5 years ago. Today, I can still find it used for about the old
retail price. It can go for 1x-2x retail and the Yellow Castle goes for
2x-4x retail value. Can you say the same about 6067? Which would I want
re-released to get the most for my money? 6067 - I'm getting 15 of them.
> Rerelease
> action sets like the Battering Ram or the Seige Tower or Knight's Challenge?
> I'd buy a lot of those too.
Lemme see, AFOLs moan and groan about the lack of non-war-related castle
sets for how many years? ;) Honestly people! It's like whatever Lego
does, somebody is going to complain about it! Sometimes I really feel for
those people at LD.
Stepping off my soapbox now,
Jimmy
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
[warning, non-Castlehead posting]
> I think this is the crux of your post. You seem to have funneled your
> disappointment over the particular choice of the 6067 instead of a large
> castle, into a rant over all sorts of things. Which of course of fine, as
> long as you realize, that the Guarded Inn is *the best choice* LD could make
> in regards to Castle. No other castle set increased 25x it's original
> value. No other castle set was ranked higher on Lugnet. And if it were put
> to a vote, I'd say 6067 would win hands down.
I agree. This was the best Castle set LD could have released as a Legend.
Its price point makes it attainable to all LEGO buyers and it was ranked
highest on Lugnet.
> I have no idea why you think re-releasing sets is unfair. Almost everybody
> is happy-ecstatic about this. You even point out how lame the new sets are,
> and now you're complaining about the best of the old ones coming back? Am I
> missing something here? Maybe you could please explain what you mean by this?
At the risk of this sounding like a 'me too' post (I was going to post a
direct reply until I read this message), I agree again. You seem like a
person who will complain about anything just to complain. The new sets
aren't good enough for you, and now the old ones aren't.
> Castle has been beaten down
> > with worthless series after series after series. Lego has trashed the good
> > name of castle with Dragon Masters, Fright Knights, Ninja, and to a lesser
> > extent Knight's Kingdom. Pirates were discontinued before they became too
> > worthless to buy. Space? Technic? Town? They have not been given too many
> > totally worthless series to play with in my opinion.
So, LEGO *owes* it to Castle to give them something better? Whatever. Its
a product, get over it.
> > The Guarded Inn a Lego Legend? Hardly. It is only named so because of the
> > missguided paying too much on Ebay for them. The set was hardly rare, anyone
> > who at the time, had a S@H catelog could buy one. I myself have four differ
*You* don't care about that set, but the people paying the high prices off
of Ebay do. So, just because you don't care about it, they're wrong and
misguided for paying that much? Collectibles only get their value if a
collector is willing to pay that amount for them. So, because there are
people willing to pay that much, I'd say its a collectible, regardless of
whether or not *you* value that set that much.
And afterall, if I were LEGO, I would do something that would serve the most
number of collectors possible, not just you.
> "Hardly rare?" I disagree. By your logic, there's almost nothing that is
> rare, since at one point in time you could get almost every set. Take that
> line of reasoning out further and it's like saying the 1929 Bugatti is not
> rare since 72 years ago, anybody could order one.
Exactly.
Here the guys at LEGO do something we've been begging them for for YEARS -
re-releasing classic sets. Like it or not, Anthony, that set is a classic.
The majority of Castleheads and LEGO collectors have determined that - its
not up to you. But, all you can do to this is complain. You can't even
bring yourself to say, 'this is great, and even though its not what I want,
maybe I'll get something I want next time.'
*shrug*
-Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Tim Courtney writes:
> [warning, non-Castlehead posting]
>
> > I think this is the crux of your post. You seem to have funneled your
> > disappointment over the particular choice of the 6067 instead of a large
> > castle, into a rant over all sorts of things. Which of course of fine, as
> > long as you realize, that the Guarded Inn is *the best choice* LD could make
> > in regards to Castle. No other castle set increased 25x it's original
> > value. No other castle set was ranked higher on Lugnet. And if it were put
> > to a vote, I'd say 6067 would win hands down.
>
> I agree. This was the best Castle set LD could have released as a Legend.
> Its price point makes it attainable to all LEGO buyers and it was ranked
> highest on Lugnet.
>
> > I have no idea why you think re-releasing sets is unfair. Almost everybody
> > is happy-ecstatic about this. You even point out how lame the new sets are,
> > and now you're complaining about the best of the old ones coming back? Am I
> > missing something here? Maybe you could please explain what you mean by • this?
>
> At the risk of this sounding like a 'me too' post (I was going to post a
> direct reply until I read this message), I agree again. You seem like a
> person who will complain about anything just to complain. The new sets
> aren't good enough for you, and now the old ones aren't.
Sigh... No one reads posts anymore. Since you didn't read it, I'll explain.
The re-releasing of non-castle sets is unfair, since Castle has been beaten
down so much. I complain about the Guarded Inn coming back because unlike John
Q. Public, I don't see anything incredibly special about the Guarded Inn, and
would much rather see something else be released in it's place. Please forgive
me, oh gods of Lego for thinking that your unquestionable reasonings could
possibly be wrong. Oh what have I done, oh the humanity, I'm thinking against
the flow of the whole, I'm different, whatever shall I do?
> > Castle has been beaten down
> > > with worthless series after series after series. Lego has trashed the good
> > > name of castle with Dragon Masters, Fright Knights, Ninja, and to a lesser
> > > extent Knight's Kingdom. Pirates were discontinued before they became too
> > > worthless to buy. Space? Technic? Town? They have not been given too • many
> > > totally worthless series to play with in my opinion.
>
> So, LEGO *owes* it to Castle to give them something better? Whatever. Its
> a product, get over it.
>
> > > The Guarded Inn a Lego Legend? Hardly. It is only named so because of the
> > > missguided paying too much on Ebay for them. The set was hardly rare, • anyone
> > > who at the time, had a S@H catelog could buy one. I myself have four differ
>
> *You* don't care about that set, but the people paying the high prices off
> of Ebay do. So, just because you don't care about it, they're wrong and
> misguided for paying that much?
So because others pay so much for the Guarded inn, does that mean I have to
value it that highly as well?
> Collectibles only get their value if a
> collector is willing to pay that amount for them. So, because there are
> people willing to pay that much, I'd say its a collectible, regardless of
> whether or not *you* value that set that much.
Lego is a toy. Always has been a toy. Always will be a toy. In my opinion,
no toy should be labled a collectible, and Lego is no different. There are
people who pay $200 for old PEZ dispensors, are YOU going to pay $200 for an
old PEZ dispensor because someone else has?
> And afterall, if I were LEGO, I would do something that would serve the most
> number of collectors possible, not just you.
If I were lego, I would release sets that appealed to my audience. If I were
lego, I'd go after a profit. If I were lego, I'd say screw the collectors
because collectors drag down profits.
> > "Hardly rare?" I disagree. By your logic, there's almost nothing that is
> > rare, since at one point in time you could get almost every set. Take that
> > line of reasoning out further and it's like saying the 1929 Bugatti is not
> > rare since 72 years ago, anybody could order one.
>
> Exactly.
>
> Here the guys at LEGO do something we've been begging them for for YEARS -
> re-releasing classic sets. Like it or not, Anthony, that set is a classic.
> The majority of Castleheads and LEGO collectors have determined that - its
> not up to you. But, all you can do to this is complain. You can't even
> bring yourself to say, 'this is great, and even though its not what I want,
> maybe I'll get something I want next time.'
>
> *shrug*
>
> -Tim
And you cannot say 'wow, this person has a different opinion than myself, but
that's ok, cause he's entitled to it.' Too bad you cannot read posts either.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Anthony Sava writes:
> If I were lego, I'd say screw the collectors because collectors drag down >profits.
That's a very good point, Anthony. And the only way TLC will triumph over
collector's is to re-release a lot of stuff they are not now producing.
Perhaps it's in the works. Who knows...? If they produced enough quantity
of the rarer elements that make people go to eBay, that market could well
dry up rather than making eBay richer as it currently does! I'd love to see
that. I'd much prefer to be buying pristine, mint condition white maiden
hats from TLC than be buying old, scratched, chewed ones on eBay at a
premium -- money that goes towards such purchases, certainly doesn't go to
TLC, and it could. And as inconsequential as everyone always says it all is
-- let's not forget that eBay is a site that became wealthy starting out as
a business devised to help the founder's wife score those rarer Pez
dispensers. I have noticed that the lego pages go on forever these days too.
And if I am on eBay buying old Blacktron I figures, I sure ain't at Lego.com
buying from Lego Direct/Shop@Home.
BTW, all of this stuff about reading or not reading posts is lost on me. I
read your initial post and didn't follow some of your reasoning either. I
am not saying I made myself crazy meticulously going over each and every
word searching it for meaning -- but I am saying that I am generally a
pretty good reader (I have a degree in English) and I didn't get it.
Nobody's perfect, but I am thinking that more of us Lugnuts missed your
point than got it. Perhaps it wasn't expressed as well as you might have
thought...?
I am hoping for more and better from TLC all the time, and am often
disappointed -- just like you. But for once, I think even someone as
critical as yourself can see that some major steps are being taken to at
least mollify the audience we Lugnuts represent. As the Angriest Lego
Collector in the World, I hardly think that TLC is incapable of making
*misteaks* -- I think they have been making terrible, HUGE mistakes for
years! But maybe that is beginning to change. Maybe they have seen the light
at last. I think we can keep the pressure on to good effect, but I am not
sure there is any point to being staunchly opposed to the re-release of
Guarded Inn. Others got theirs this time. Perhaps you'll get yours next
time. I am not losing sleep over not having purchased one until now, but I
am now very pleased to buy some of these sets at an excellent price. If you
don't like the set -- perhaps you could buy one or two, add in parts from
your existing collection, and build something far cooler with these Guarded
Inn parts packs! This thing is a far better value than the largest KK set
in my view. Yes or no?
After the notice about the Classics sets, and now the Legend series, I think
we finally may owe Lego Direct at least a simple "Atta Boy!" Can you really
disagree with that? You can get right back on TLC's case about whatever
tickles your fancy after agreeing to at least that one, small point...
=)
-- Hop-Frog (licking my back will give you glorious JUJU dreams)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Mostly haven't been in this thread, short on time earlier this week. Here's
my take overall.
Anthony: go ahead and feel that Guarded Inn wasn't the best first release
item. Not everyone agrees, I think it *WAS* a great first release but you
gave good reasons for your feeling, which people do respect.
However saying it is unfair, etc. may be stretching the point too far. The
fact that people disagree with you is just the way open discussion goes.
That's no reason to decide not to participate, in and of itself. But do what
you gotta do.
I'm in the camp that is delighted that LD did this. I plan to order a number
of these sets, they have great parts.
I'm in the camp that hopes that more sets are coming, both castle sets you
named off, and ones that are more up my alley like 4558 and 7740.
I'm in the camp that feels there are those on LUGNET who find fault with
just about everything that LEGO does. And that's too bad.
I'm also in the camp that feels that there are those on LUGNET that feel
LEGO can do almost no wrong. And that's too bad too.
That's a lot of camps to be in. That's OK. These views are not conflicting.
I'm a *happy* camper, though. And that's what matters. Relax, kick back,
enjoy your bricks, and don't worry what everyone else thinks or says so much.
OK, now for some specific fun...
In lugnet.castle, Richard Marchetti writes:
> As the Angriest Lego
> Collector in the World
missing a (tm) ??
Do you have any stats to back that assertion up? I saw that picture and yes,
you're pretty angry but how do you know there isn't an angrier one somewhere?
<grin>
> After the notice about the Classics sets, and now the Legend series, I think
> we finally may owe Lego Direct at least a simple "Atta Boy!"
Clearly "aliens have taken over Richard's brain!". Alert the National Enquirer!
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Anthony Sava writes:
> Sigh... No one reads posts anymore. Since you didn't read it, I'll explain.
I certainly did read it, which prompted my reply.
> The re-releasing of non-castle sets is unfair, since Castle has been beaten
> down so much.
Well cry me a river. Sorry but I don't buy your idea of 'fairness.' LEGO
has no obligation to treat a theme with favored or non favored status on the
basis that they have 'beaten it down' some in the past, according to
anyone's POV.
I suppose that in all fairness, us spaceheads should not see classic (not
Classic, just old) Space sets re-released, because it wouldn't be fair to
Castle.
> I complain about the Guarded Inn coming back because unlike John
> Q. Public, I don't see anything incredibly special about the Guarded Inn, and
> would much rather see something else be released in it's place. Please forgive
> me, oh gods of Lego for thinking that your unquestionable reasonings could
> possibly be wrong. Oh what have I done, oh the humanity, I'm thinking against
> the flow of the whole, I'm different, whatever shall I do?
Oh geez...grow up. In your original post, you complained about others
paying high prices for the GI, you ranted against 'evil ebay oppressors,'
said the re-release of several legends per year was 'unfair,' called others
'misguided' for spending money on a set they love, then turned around and
said that you'd buy some GI's anyways for the sake of having them.
What gives?
Hate to call your bluff, but I think your post was sour grapes from the
beginning.
> > *You* don't care about that set, but the people paying the high prices off
> > of Ebay do. So, just because you don't care about it, they're wrong and
> > misguided for paying that much?
>
> So because others pay so much for the Guarded inn, does that mean I have to
> value it that highly as well?
No, no one said you do. But don't consider it misguided for others to value
the set that much. If that's where they want to spend their money, let
them. To them, its not misguided.
Heck, I don't value the set that higly. And I'd have rather seen a space
set re-released first - but, I didn't whine about it. Why whine when LEGO
is doing a good thing?
> Lego is a toy. Always has been a toy. Always will be a toy. In my opinion,
> no toy should be labled a collectible, and Lego is no different.
So because you think LEGO should not be labeled a collectible, does that
mean others cannot label it as such?
> There are
> people who pay $200 for old PEZ dispensors, are YOU going to pay $200 for an
> old PEZ dispensor because someone else has?
No, because I don't value PEZ dispensors that highly, and I don't have to.
But that doesn't mean I can say that others cannot - let them do as they please.
> > And afterall, if I were LEGO, I would do something that would serve the most
> > number of collectors possible, not just you.
>
> If I were lego, I would release sets that appealed to my audience.
I think that from the responses here, the Guarded Inn does appeal to their
audience.
> If I were
> lego, I'd go after a profit.
Do you think that the Guarded Inn will not be a profitable venture for them?
Think again. Before LEGO would do anything of the sort, they would make
sure of it (remember, they've been losing a lot of money in recent years).
I'm sure they calculated this release very well, and its a good thing,
beacuse its success will most likely ensure a future line of legend sets for
collectors who wish to have other older (and dare I say it) possibly
non-Castle sets.
> If I were lego, I'd say screw the collectors
> because collectors drag down profits.
And how do you know that? Perhaps they know otherwise. I happen to know
that a few collectors work for LEGO Direct.
> And you cannot say 'wow, this person has a different opinion than myself, but
> that's ok, cause he's entitled to it.' Too bad you cannot read posts either.
Aren't I another person with a differing opinion, and am I not entitled to
it? I read your post, and I saw what I thought was whining and sour grapes.
But that's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it.
-Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Tim Courtney writes:
> Hate to call your bluff, but I think your post was sour grapes from the
> beginning.
Tim, I think the term "sour grapes" doesn't actually work in this context --
or at least I'm not sure how you mean it.
> So because you think LEGO should not be labeled a collectible, does that
> mean others cannot label it as such?
Others can always do as they please. But there are several REALLY good
reasons why Lego doesn't fit into the "collectible" category as easily as
others things may. I have a complete grading system that I am working on,
so I won't go into too many details right now. But Lego is "properly"
collectible in only two states (in my view): as single elements, and as MISB
sets. In all other states, Lego is foolishly thought of as collectible
(again, in my view), there are just WAY too many variables to consider and a
collectibel scheme falls apart pretty quickly.
Plus, I will throw in a teeny analogy to another plastic toy -- Pez
dispensers. Once upon a time the Psychedelic Eye dispenser would fetch as
much as $500 USD each in excellent condition, but I think the price is
dropping on them. After all, Pez re-released newer versions that were
identical to the original in all major details, and even in several
variations that were never available before -- and all for $18 each (which
is a crazy price too, BTW). To me, people have to be PSYCHO to throw their
money away on an "original" of these dispensers
(http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1147193941 lists one
at $385 USD). I mean, I REALLY can't see the point of it. Can they do it?
Sure. Should they do it? Probably not...
I mean, people will collect anything -- some people collect old bottles and
old rusty nails. To each his/her own, I guess. But some of these items are
pretty darn easy to forge -- and I would be very suspect of many of these
type of items because when the price goes up to a certain point it becomes
worth forging and selling even if its one at a time -- comic books have been
forged for this very reason. Sometimes one has to beware the comic book that
is in "too good" of condition. [Actually, I don't really collect comic
books, but I did once read them avidly -- which sometimes seems like the
same thing because other collectors force the issue on one by buying up only
special issues because of "perceived" collectible value. It's all just
"tulip mania" to me...and very similar to the way some people collect Lego.]
> Aren't I another person with a differing opinion, and am I not entitled to
> it? I read your post, and I saw what I thought was whining and sour grapes.
> But that's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it.
Fine. And I realize some of this is getting personal for the participants,
but the difference is that Anthony's first post on this subject was a series
of opinions about the GI set, TLC's marketing moves, and what coulda/shoulda
been instead of the GI set whereas your opinions are a LOT more to do with
the nature of your perceptions of Anthony's behavior. Why is it whining
from Anthony, when Gary Istok expressed a similar sentiment elsewhere? Or
is it whining from him too? Even so, I didn't see anyone jump down Istok's
throat. I, myself, whined similarly...so what? You didn't attack me either.
Why not?
C'mon, Tim --Let's go, Baby! You and me, k? And the fight doesn't end
until a K.O.!
=oP
Not getting what you want is not sour grapes. I don't see Anthony denying
the desirability of the things he wants just because he cannot currently
obtain them. I see him saying that he doesn't particularly want an item
that is currently available and was supposed to be some HUGE surprise for
EVERYONE (including him). You and I were pleased to varying degrees,
Anthony was not (this means he doesn't feel included in TLC's
considerations). I would hope that he could see that this move on the part
of TLC portends more and better in the future (and maybe even for him), but
for today Anthony seems disappointed. Okay, it will just have to be that way.
Y'all should take a deep breath or two and then come back more reasonable
and less ready to fight. I've been there, I know exactly how you
feel...makes me feel like calling Larry P out for some fun -- but, feh...
(and we all know that Frank Filz just ain't taking the bait -- damn him!).
-- Hop-Frog (turning the heat up more slowly these days...)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Tim Courtney writes:
> > So because you think LEGO should not be labeled a collectible, does that
> > mean others cannot label it as such?
>
> Others can always do as they please. But there are several REALLY good
> reasons why Lego doesn't fit into the "collectible" category as easily as
> others things may. I have a complete grading system that I am working on,
> so I won't go into too many details right now. But Lego is "properly"
> collectible in only two states (in my view): as single elements, and as MISB
> sets. In all other states, Lego is foolishly thought of as collectible
> (again, in my view), there are just WAY too many variables to consider and a
> collectibel scheme falls apart pretty quickly.
Now there's a resonable counter to my statement :)
Actually, I find what you wrote there quite interesting, and would be
interested in seeing your grading system when it is finished as well.
> Plus, I will throw in a teeny analogy to another plastic toy -- Pez
> dispensers. Once upon a time the Psychedelic Eye dispenser would fetch as
> much as $500 USD each in excellent condition, but I think the price is
> dropping on them. After all, Pez re-released newer versions that were
> identical to the original in all major details, and even in several
> variations that were never available before -- and all for $18 each (which
> is a crazy price too, BTW). To me, people have to be PSYCHO to throw their
> money away on an "original" of these dispensers
> (http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1147193941 lists one
> at $385 USD). I mean, I REALLY can't see the point of it. Can they do it?
> Sure. Should they do it? Probably not...
Well, it would probably be in their own economic best interest (unless
they're already loaded) not to do it, but its what they want to do. Silly
as it may seem to us, it isn't so silly to them. That doesn't mean all have
to value such a product that highly, or that all have to pay that much if
they want that product.
Still - those high bidders give that item its value, that's the way it is
anywhere.
> > Aren't I another person with a differing opinion, and am I not entitled to
> > it? I read your post, and I saw what I thought was whining and sour grapes.
> > But that's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it.
>
> Fine. And I realize some of this is getting personal for the participants,
> but the difference is that Anthony's first post on this subject was a series
> of opinions about the GI set, TLC's marketing moves, and what coulda/shoulda
> been instead of the GI set whereas your opinions are a LOT more to do with
> the nature of your perceptions of Anthony's behavior. Why is it whining
> from Anthony, when Gary Istok expressed a similar sentiment elsewhere? Or
> is it whining from him too? Even so, I didn't see anyone jump down Istok's
> throat. I, myself, whined similarly...so what? You didn't attack me either.
> Why not?
>
> C'mon, Tim --Let's go, Baby! You and me, k? And the fight doesn't end
> until a K.O.!
Lol. Well, just for the sake of it, I looked back trying to find posts of
yours and of Gary's. Neither of you were whining - you might have been
offering constructive criticism, but you weren't whining.
So, yeah, it was perceptions of behavior - and some viewpoints (ie -
re-releasing anything other than castle is unfair to castle) - that caused
me to reply. Anyways, I've said my piece about how I think he was behaving,
so I'll drop that part now.
> Not getting what you want is not sour grapes.
But I felt other parts of his post was. I won't beat it into the ground
here though - if you want to know what I thought was sour grapes, email me.
> You and I were pleased to varying degrees,
> Anthony was not (this means he doesn't feel included in TLC's
> considerations).
Well, I could feel not included in TLC's considerations because they didn't
release a Space set first. Instead, I applauded the release, realizing that
Brad and the gang plan on releasing many classics from different lines -
probably resulting in a Space release sooner or later.
For Anthony's case, simply put, he wasn't a part of the majority opinion on
the GI - so, he's left out this go round because most people love that set,
while he doesn't see the value.
> I would hope that he could see that this move on the part
> of TLC portends more and better in the future (and maybe even for him), but
> for today Anthony seems disappointed. Okay, it will just have to be that way.
*shrug*
> Y'all should take a deep breath or two and then come back more reasonable
> and less ready to fight. I've been there, I know exactly how you
> feel...makes me feel like calling Larry P out for some fun -- but, feh...
> (and we all know that Frank Filz just ain't taking the bait -- damn him!).
Ya, I'm cooled down now, I suppose.
> -- Hop-Frog (turning the heat up more slowly these days...)
You know the whole frog-in-boiling-water phenomenon, right? Put a frog in
boiling water, he'll jump out. Turn up the heat slowly, he'll just sit
there and roast.
-Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I have no idea why I locked onto this, but I just did.
In lugnet.castle, Tim Courtney writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Richard Marchetti writes:
>
> > -- Hop-Frog (turning the heat up more slowly these days...)
>
> You know the whole frog-in-boiling-water phenomenon, right? Put a frog in
> boiling water, he'll jump out. Turn up the heat slowly, he'll just sit
> there and roast.
This is not in actual fact true. It's only true if you
have an anesthetized frog. My experience is that a frog
will try to jump out of *anything* a human puts it into.
It's one of those infamous urban legends. At least, a
lengthy digging session didn't turn up a single actual
citation of an experiment--just stories from speakers and
various religious tracts. It survives because very few
of us would ever be so nasty as to try boiling a living
animal, and it's a nifty allegory besides.
And before you ask, they *do* try to jump out of the
microwave, too. No, I didn't actually turn it on--it
was just a convenient (if disturbing) holding tank
while I cleaned the aquarium.
best
LFB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> This is not in actual fact true. It's only true if you
> have an anesthetized frog. My experience is that a frog
> will try to jump out of *anything* a human puts it into.
> It's one of those infamous urban legends. At least, a
> lengthy digging session didn't turn up a single actual
> citation of an experiment--just stories from speakers and
> various religious tracts. It survives because very few
> of us would ever be so nasty as to try boiling a living
> animal, and it's a nifty allegory besides.
Hah! Really? That's too bad, it *is* a nifty allegory. I hate it when one of
those great sentences has no reality-base. Boo.
> And before you ask, they *do* try to jump out of the
> microwave, too. No, I didn't actually turn it on--it
> was just a convenient (if disturbing) holding tank
> while I cleaned the aquarium.
Hah! I know someone who *did* turn it on. Ewww. And amazingly, he's my best
friend. ;-) I shudder at the thought. ;-)
-Shiri
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
"Shiri Dori" <shirid@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GEoLtx.HpA@lugnet.com...
> > And before you ask, they *do* try to jump out of the
> > microwave, too. No, I didn't actually turn it on--it
> > was just a convenient (if disturbing) holding tank
> > while I cleaned the aquarium.
>
> Hah! I know someone who *did* turn it on. Ewww. And amazingly, he's my best
> friend. ;-) I shudder at the thought. ;-)
>
> -Shiri
That wouldn't be any corn-fed Lugnet readin' Iowan we happen to know, would it?
Or is that your best friend, who isn't an SO?
-Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Tim Courtney writes:
> "Shiri Dori" <shirid@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:GEoLtx.HpA@lugnet.com...
>
> > > And before you ask, they *do* try to jump out of the
> > > microwave, too. No, I didn't actually turn it on--it
> > > was just a convenient (if disturbing) holding tank
> > > while I cleaned the aquarium.
> >
> > Hah! I know someone who *did* turn it on. Ewww. And amazingly, he's my best
> > friend. ;-) I shudder at the thought. ;-)
> >
> > -Shiri
>
> That wouldn't be any corn-fed Lugnet readin' Iowan we happen to know, would it?
> Or is that your best friend, who isn't an SO?
>
> -Tim
Yep, that'd be me. Back in my younger days, y'know... but it was all my
cousin's idea, I swear! I was an innocent bystander. :-)
-Chris
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
richard marchetti wrote:
> Y'all should take a deep breath or two and then come back more reasonable
> and less ready to fight. I've been there, I know exactly how you
> feel...makes me feel like calling Larry P out for some fun -- but, feh...
> (and we all know that Frank Filz just ain't taking the bait -- damn him!).
I'm not sure what bait I should be taking. I'm just a mild mannered
LEGOManiac...
Frank
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> richard marchetti wrote:
> > Y'all should take a deep breath or two and then come back more reasonable
> > and less ready to fight. I've been there, I know exactly how you
> > feel...makes me feel like calling Larry P out for some fun -- but, feh...
> > (and we all know that Frank Filz just ain't taking the bait -- damn him!).
>
> I'm not sure what bait I should be taking. I'm just a mild mannered
> LEGOManiac...
Until Danger(tm) rears its ugly head. Then you're an intrepid Cave Explorer,
Pirate King, and Menace to Bad Drivers everywhere. Just shine the LEGO(tm)
Logo into the sky and you'll come!
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.castle, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > richard marchetti wrote:
> > > Y'all should take a deep breath or two and then come back more reasonable
> > > and less ready to fight. I've been there, I know exactly how you
> > > feel...makes me feel like calling Larry P out for some fun -- but, feh...
> > > (and we all know that Frank Filz just ain't taking the bait -- damn him!).
> >
> > I'm not sure what bait I should be taking. I'm just a mild mannered
> > LEGOManiac...
>
> Until Danger(tm) rears its ugly head.
Danger(tm) must be a Lego-themed bad guy. They're the only ones with ugly
heads. <GD&R>
Then you're an intrepid Cave Explorer,
> Pirate King, and Menace to Bad Drivers everywhere. Just shine the LEGO(tm)
> Logo into the sky and you'll come!
Unless it's a sunny day.
James
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.castle, Frank Filz writes:
> richard marchetti wrote:
> > Y'all should take a deep breath or two and then come back more reasonable
> > and less ready to fight. I've been there, I know exactly how you
> > feel...makes me feel like calling Larry P out for some fun -- but, feh...
> > (and we all know that Frank Filz just ain't taking the bait -- damn him!).
>
> I'm not sure what bait I should be taking. I'm just a mild mannered
> LEGOManiac...
"...for a great metropolitan newspaper..." Is that a phone
booth?
:)
LFB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
It's too bad no one reads posts anymore, they just reply for the sake of
replying. Maybe I should return your favor Jimmy and just reply without
reading what you've written.
In lugnet.castle, Jimmy Park writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Anthony Sava writes:
>
> > I know I shall be the only one with this opinion, but frankly I am saddened • by
> > the re-release of the Guarded Inn.
>
> Would you prefer yet another juniorized castle set?
>
> > Yes, I will buy one or two, I'm not saying it's a bad set. I've always • wanted
> > one. HOWEVER I see no redeemable feature that would make the original set • sell
> > for $100, $200 off ebay.
>
> No one forces those people to pay those prices. And the whole point of the
> Legends line is now we don't have to.
>
> > I am glad that the evil ebay oppressors will be shot down, the rarity of this
> > set has become next to common. Hurrah! Death to those who try to pass lego
> > off as a collectable!
>
> Ok. Personally I'm more disgusted by those AFOLs that ask people to pick up
> discounted/hard-to-find sets for them at cost, only to turn around and sell
> them for a profit. But different pet peeves is all.
>
> > But you see, I would have rather seen a castle be reintroduced. The King's
> > Castle, the Knight's Castle, the Black Falcon's Fortress, THOSE are the • things
> > of LEGEND! The Guarded Inn, in my opinion, is a dinky little set with little
> > value except for parts, parts that I really don't need too many of. I cannot
> > fathom why someone would value the Guarded Inn at $300! (Which I once saw on
> > ebay)
>
> Hey I can't understand Fabuland at all, but different strokes. . . :)
>
> I think this is the crux of your post. You seem to have funneled your
> disappointment over the particular choice of the 6067 instead of a large
> castle, into a rant over all sorts of things. Which of course of fine, as
> long as you realize, that the Guarded Inn is *the best choice* LD could make
> in regards to Castle. No other castle set increased 25x it's original
> value. No other castle set was ranked higher on Lugnet. And if it were put
> to a vote, I'd say 6067 would win hands down.
>
> > Granted, Lego will introduce several more legends each year. But we will
> > probably see a new castle set rereleased once a year, or every other year, to
> > make room for other sets. I say this is unfair. Even to the pirate fans I • say
> > this is unfair. Pirates had it done mercifully.
>
> I have no idea why you think re-releasing sets is unfair. Almost everybody
> is happy-ecstatic about this. You even point out how lame the new sets are,
> and now you're complaining about the best of the old ones coming back? Am I
> missing something here? Maybe you could please explain what you mean by this?
>
> Castle has been beaten down
> > with worthless series after series after series. Lego has trashed the good
> > name of castle with Dragon Masters, Fright Knights, Ninja, and to a lesser
> > extent Knight's Kingdom. Pirates were discontinued before they became too
> > worthless to buy. Space? Technic? Town? They have not been given too many
> > totally worthless series to play with in my opinion.
>
> FYI, KK has been fairly successful for them. No other large set was as in
> demand than King Leo's Castle this past Christmas. I'd argue that Ninja was
> no worse and possibly much better than KK in terms of design.
>
> > The Guarded Inn a Lego Legend? Hardly. It is only named so because of the
> > missguided paying too much on Ebay for them. The set was hardly rare, anyone
> > who at the time, had a S@H catelog could buy one. I myself have four differ
>
> "Hardly rare?" I disagree. By your logic, there's almost nothing that is
> rare, since at one point in time you could get almost every set. Take that
> line of reasoning out further and it's like saying the 1929 Bugatti is not
> rare since 72 years ago, anybody could order one.
>
> > catelogs with it advertised, though as a child I didn't want it. As an adult
> > I'm only buying one for the sake of owning one and perhaps a second just for
> > the minifigs. Now if they reintroduced the King's Castle! I'd be buying a
> > couple of those. Rerelease the Yellow Castle? I'd be a lot.
>
> The King's Castle is my personal favorite Castle set. Bought mine used for
> $20 about 5 years ago. Today, I can still find it used for about the old
> retail price. It can go for 1x-2x retail and the Yellow Castle goes for
> 2x-4x retail value. Can you say the same about 6067? Which would I want
> re-released to get the most for my money? 6067 - I'm getting 15 of them.
>
> > Rerelease
> > action sets like the Battering Ram or the Seige Tower or Knight's Challenge?
> > I'd buy a lot of those too.
>
> Lemme see, AFOLs moan and groan about the lack of non-war-related castle
> sets for how many years? ;) Honestly people! It's like whatever Lego
> does, somebody is going to complain about it! Sometimes I really feel for
> those people at LD.
>
> Stepping off my soapbox now,
>
> Jimmy
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 00:15:56 GMT, "Anthony Sava"
<savatheaggie@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It's too bad no one reads posts anymore, they just reply for the sake of
> replying. Maybe I should return your favor Jimmy and just reply without
> reading what you've written.
Obviously you have already mastered this style.
(top posted too, how.... inconsiderate)
<MASSIVE SNIPPAGE TO FOLLOW>
the previous players,
>
> > In lugnet.castle, Jimmy Park writes:
> > > In lugnet.castle, Anthony Sava writes:
> > > But you see, I would have rather seen a castle be reintroduced. The King's
> > > Castle, the Knight's Castle, the Black Falcon's Fortress, THOSE are the • things
> > > of LEGEND! The Guarded Inn, in my opinion, is a dinky little set with little
> > > value except for parts, parts that I really don't need too many of. I cannot
> > > fathom why someone would value the Guarded Inn at $300! (Which I once saw on
> > > ebay)
This 'Dinky little set' is something I wish I'd known about in the
times before my dark ages. I only found out about it about emerging
from my dark ages. I have wanted one ever since, now I have already
pre-ordered four.
> > I think this is the crux of your post. You seem to have funneled your
> > disappointment over the particular choice of the 6067 instead of a large
> > castle, into a rant over all sorts of things. Which of course of fine, as
> > long as you realize, that the Guarded Inn is *the best choice* LD could make
> > in regards to Castle. No other castle set increased 25x it's original
> > value. No other castle set was ranked higher on Lugnet. And if it were put
> > to a vote, I'd say 6067 would win hands down.
> >
> > > Granted, Lego will introduce several more legends each year. But we will
> > > probably see a new castle set rereleased once a year, or every other year, to
> > > make room for other sets. I say this is unfair. Even to the pirate fans I • say
> > > this is unfair. Pirates had it done mercifully.
I hope they release MANY Castle sets as Legends, I am sure I will buy
a number of them (in more ways than one)
When most themes get killed it's NEVER merciful to it's fans, I am NOT
a pirat-head but I appreciate the theme.
> >
> > I have no idea why you think re-releasing sets is unfair. Almost everybody
> > is happy-ecstatic about this. You even point out how lame the new sets are,
> > and now you're complaining about the best of the old ones coming back? Am I
> > missing something here? Maybe you could please explain what you mean by this?
> >
> > Castle has been beaten down
> > > with worthless series after series after series. Lego has trashed the good
> > > name of castle with Dragon Masters, Fright Knights, Ninja, and to a lesser
> > > extent Knight's Kingdom. Pirates were discontinued before they became too
> > > worthless to buy. Space? Technic? Town? They have not been given too many
> > > totally worthless series to play with in my opinion.
Beaten down? the FK series was not very good in and of it self (IMHO)
but was still alright for parts (especially on clearance! :^)
> > > The Guarded Inn a Lego Legend? Hardly. It is only named so because of the
> > > missguided paying too much on Ebay for them. The set was hardly rare, anyone
> > > who at the time, had a S@H catelog could buy one. I myself have four differ
It probably *THE* best set they could have picked for a variety of
reasons given elsewhere in this thread, I'll not repeat them here,
read the thread.
> > > Rerelease
> > > action sets like the Battering Ram or the Seige Tower or Knight's Challenge?
> > > I'd buy a lot of those too.
You want to build your army ranks? buy the 4811 Defense Archer it a
great deal (as are/were any of the Castle polybagged sets).
> > >
> > Lemme see, AFOLs moan and groan about the lack of non-war-related castle
> > sets for how many years? ;) Honestly people! It's like whatever Lego
> > does, somebody is going to complain about it! Sometimes I really feel for
> > those people at LD.
> >
> > Stepping off my soapbox now,
> >
> > Jimmy
Exactly, Jimmy, exactly!
I made my first S@H order because of these sets, and biggest reason is
BECAUSE of exactly which set it is, the price point, the whole works.
Hurrah for LEGO Direct.
Anthony, if you want to rain on someone's parade take it elsewhere,
please. This is a momentous occasion for LEGO fans, AFOL's especially
I think but that's mostly because that's what I am at this point. I
LOVE the Guarded Inn selection as the lead set for the Legends line,
if you don't like it or it's position as the lead set, don't buy it.
(it just means more for the rest of us :^)
(I tried to leave enough text in for context)
As always,
Mike
--
All other themes are just spare parts for Castle! :^)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Mike Timm writes:
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 00:15:56 GMT, "Anthony Sava"
> <savatheaggie@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > It's too bad no one reads posts anymore, they just reply for the sake of
> > replying. Maybe I should return your favor Jimmy and just reply without
> > reading what you've written.
>
> Obviously you have already mastered this style.
> (top posted too, how.... inconsiderate)
>
> <MASSIVE SNIPPAGE TO FOLLOW>
>
> the previous players,
> >
> > > In lugnet.castle, Jimmy Park writes:
> > > > In lugnet.castle, Anthony Sava writes:
>
> > > > But you see, I would have rather seen a castle be reintroduced. The King's
> > > > Castle, the Knight's Castle, the Black Falcon's Fortress, THOSE are the • things
> > > > of LEGEND! The Guarded Inn, in my opinion, is a dinky little set with • little
> > > > value except for parts, parts that I really don't need too many of. I • cannot
> > > > fathom why someone would value the Guarded Inn at $300! (Which I once saw • on
> > > > ebay)
>
>
> This 'Dinky little set' is something I wish I'd known about in the
> times before my dark ages. I only found out about it about emerging
> from my dark ages. I have wanted one ever since, now I have already
> pre-ordered four.
>
>
> > > I think this is the crux of your post. You seem to have funneled your
> > > disappointment over the particular choice of the 6067 instead of a large
> > > castle, into a rant over all sorts of things. Which of course of fine, as
> > > long as you realize, that the Guarded Inn is *the best choice* LD could make
> > > in regards to Castle. No other castle set increased 25x it's original
> > > value. No other castle set was ranked higher on Lugnet. And if it were put
> > > to a vote, I'd say 6067 would win hands down.
> > >
> > > > Granted, Lego will introduce several more legends each year. But we will
> > > > probably see a new castle set rereleased once a year, or every other year, • to
> > > > make room for other sets. I say this is unfair. Even to the pirate fans I • say
> > > > this is unfair. Pirates had it done mercifully.
>
> I hope they release MANY Castle sets as Legends, I am sure I will buy
> a number of them (in more ways than one)
> When most themes get killed it's NEVER merciful to it's fans, I am NOT
> a pirat-head but I appreciate the theme.
>
> > >
> > > I have no idea why you think re-releasing sets is unfair. Almost everybody
> > > is happy-ecstatic about this. You even point out how lame the new sets are,
> > > and now you're complaining about the best of the old ones coming back? Am I
> > > missing something here? Maybe you could please explain what you mean by • this?
> > >
> > > Castle has been beaten down
> > > > with worthless series after series after series. Lego has trashed the • good
> > > > name of castle with Dragon Masters, Fright Knights, Ninja, and to a lesser
> > > > extent Knight's Kingdom. Pirates were discontinued before they became too
> > > > worthless to buy. Space? Technic? Town? They have not been given too • many
> > > > totally worthless series to play with in my opinion.
>
> Beaten down? the FK series was not very good in and of it self (IMHO)
> but was still alright for parts (especially on clearance! :^)
Yes, it might be good for parts, terrible for sales. You may not be aware, but
for a company, having a product line go into thrift shops in such a large
quantity is a BAD thing for the company. FKs must have killed Lego's profit
margin.
>
>
> > > > The Guarded Inn a Lego Legend? Hardly. It is only named so because of the
> > > > missguided paying too much on Ebay for them. The set was hardly rare, • anyone
> > > > who at the time, had a S@H catelog could buy one. I myself have four • differ
>
> It probably *THE* best set they could have picked for a variety of
> reasons given elsewhere in this thread, I'll not repeat them here,
> read the thread.
>
> > > > Rerelease
> > > > action sets like the Battering Ram or the Seige Tower or Knight's • Challenge?
> > > > I'd buy a lot of those too.
>
> You want to build your army ranks? buy the 4811 Defense Archer it a
> great deal (as are/were any of the Castle polybagged sets).
Yes, I do believe I was the first person on all of Lugnet to mention the great
deal 4811 was.
> > > >
> > > Lemme see, AFOLs moan and groan about the lack of non-war-related castle
> > > sets for how many years? ;) Honestly people! It's like whatever Lego
> > > does, somebody is going to complain about it! Sometimes I really feel for
> > > those people at LD.
> > >
> > > Stepping off my soapbox now,
> > >
> > > Jimmy
> Exactly, Jimmy, exactly!
>
> I made my first S@H order because of these sets, and biggest reason is
> BECAUSE of exactly which set it is, the price point, the whole works.
>
> Hurrah for LEGO Direct.
>
> Anthony, if you want to rain on someone's parade take it elsewhere,
> please.
Ahh, so here on Lugnet I am not welcome to express my own opinion. This is a
incredibly fast growing problem here on Lugnet. Any and all negitive critisism
is automatically attacked as being a 'rain on someone's parade.' You, sir, are
merely close minded to the idea someone does not worship the guarded inn.
> This is a momentous occasion for LEGO fans, AFOL's especially
> I think but that's mostly because that's what I am at this point. I
> LOVE the Guarded Inn selection as the lead set for the Legends line,
> if you don't like it or it's position as the lead set, don't buy it.
Will SOMEONE PLEASE READ MY POST. Second thing I said in my post is that I
plan to buy the darned set, and that it wasn't a bad set. My God you people
just don't care what other people think.
> (it just means more for the rest of us :^)
>
> (I tried to leave enough text in for context)
>
> As always,
> Mike
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> > This is a momentous occasion for LEGO fans, AFOL's especially
> > I think but that's mostly because that's what I am at this point. I
> > LOVE the Guarded Inn selection as the lead set for the Legends line,
> > if you don't like it or it's position as the lead set, don't buy it.
>
> Will SOMEONE PLEASE READ MY POST. Second thing I said in my post is that I
> plan to buy the darned set, and that it wasn't a bad set. My God you people
> just don't care what other people think.
>
> > (it just means more for the rest of us :^)
> >
> > (I tried to leave enough text in for context)
> >
> > As always,
> > Mike
Well, I've been on vacation for the last week and was excited to get back to
reading some good Castle posts. Instead, I end up spending an hour reading
about personal attacks all around. with that being said, I will add my
opinion to this long series of rants, personal feelings/beliefs and would
like to have's'.
There are 2-3 points of interest with Lego's new actions.
1. Re-releasing old sets can be profitable, but to what extent?
a. People argue that it de-values existing sets.
b. People argue it gives people a 'second' chance at older sets no longer
produced. But, if Lego is looking to make a profit, then why only release
it to S@H? This will inflame places like Ebay who don't have a clue about
S@H. Collectors will buy them up and throw them on Ebay to turn even more
profit. You doubt this, think again. Look what happened with the 'supposed
old stock being found' in Europe of castle accessory sets. I still think
this was a ploy on Lego's behalf as a 'test the waters' before we fully
commit to the Legends. Anyway, look at all that stuff that is out on Ebay
going for big bucks. (Hey, even I bought the rare white dragon plumes from
someone in Germany). So, to say that this will relieve the market is
ridiculous.
c. Collectors will still pay larger amounts for the 'original.'
2. Is Lego really a collectible antique/secure investment?
a. Someone mentioned that only in 2 states it could be considered a
collectible. I agree with this statement. One of the biggest reasons I
feel it is not a collectible is that I can never go to a flea market or
antique sale and find any in a consistent manner. (People that have please
post!) I feel this is because very few sets stay intact including the box,
which is the only way people can be sure of it's origin. Individual Lego
pieces have no dates on them! So, you can't guaranty that a piece was
produced in 1960 or yesterday.
3. Lego's move to re-release sets in my opinion is a cop-out. Instead of
producing sets people will like so that they don't lose a profit, they
release sets that were already popular. (I will qualify this as this, Lego
started several new ventures, so they may not have lost any money or little
on the sale of actual Lego sets. I don't need to start another tug-o-war on
this issue). Don't start on me too, I am glad they did this and will line
up to, to buy one (all I can afford, though 10 would be more to my liking).
There have been posts in the past about this very issue. Why doesn't Lego
just put out sets that were just as high of quality and have the ability to
be modular? I have been reading more about that in the last few months then
anything else. Again, I am not condemning Lego, I am not 'against' Lego nor
do I say that they should not have done this. I am glad they are trying to
appease the collectors. What I am saying is, "Where's the new sets that make
us want to buy more!?!" (than one copy) I have 2 boys and I will tell you
what they like, Adventures. They are modular; they have cool animals, lots
of mini-figs and some cool parts that allow them to use their imagination.
Again, I like Lego being innovative, but get real, re-releasing existing
sets is not innovative, it is not a huge profit making venture (else it
would be released to mass market) and it is not 'adding' to the
expandability of my "Castle Kingdom." I can still get this set off of Ebay
(though I would never pay that price, may find it in a garage sale...) or
other locations. I can't get new sets though if Lego doesn't create them!
You can believe if you like that I am saying 'boo-hoo' to this line, but
it's not true. I just want to see new sets that are cool. Come-on, a cloth
sheet for the back of a castle surely is not an easily defended stronghold.
Get back to great designs Lego!
BK>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I see a lot of your point Brian, Though there's another side to this..
If this helps Lego to make some money, it will help them keep more
people on the payroll. Which hopefully will help them see that we are
willing to buy sets with more than 20 pieces to create a building.
Right now what they need is to get out of the red.. They didn't have
to do more than check a few molds, check on some printing for torso's,
walls and flag, adjust production schedules, check if the instructions
were still available and print a new box.. all the rest of the design
time and lead time has been paid for already. I think it's a good move
for them. When they originally sold these sets, it made them money...
Right now any money is good money for them.
I'm glad to be able to get this set, wish I could afford more than 1..
(I hate being a poor student) At the same time there are a lot of other
sets I hope they do this with also. I've always wanted a BSB or SES or
Metroliner and Club Car, or the Croc engine, how about some old technic
sets with real beams! There's a lot they can offer if they just get
their heads outta their butt and do it!!! Granted, I'd love new sets
too, though not the crap they've been putting out... (don't hate me
castle people, I do like other themes, just not as much!)
Maybe, just maybe, Brad can get them to see the error of their ways with
this... it's worth a shot!
Tamy
Brian Kasprzyk wrote:
>
> > > This is a momentous occasion for LEGO fans, AFOL's especially
> > > I think but that's mostly because that's what I am at this point. I
> > > LOVE the Guarded Inn selection as the lead set for the Legends line,
> > > if you don't like it or it's position as the lead set, don't buy it.
> >
> > Will SOMEONE PLEASE READ MY POST. Second thing I said in my post is that I
> > plan to buy the darned set, and that it wasn't a bad set. My God you people
> > just don't care what other people think.
> >
> > > (it just means more for the rest of us :^)
> > >
> > > (I tried to leave enough text in for context)
> > >
> > > As always,
> > > Mike
>
> Well, I've been on vacation for the last week and was excited to get back to
> reading some good Castle posts. Instead, I end up spending an hour reading
> about personal attacks all around. with that being said, I will add my
> opinion to this long series of rants, personal feelings/beliefs and would
> like to have's'.
>
> There are 2-3 points of interest with Lego's new actions.
> 1. Re-releasing old sets can be profitable, but to what extent?
> a. People argue that it de-values existing sets.
> b. People argue it gives people a 'second' chance at older sets no longer
> produced. But, if Lego is looking to make a profit, then why only release
> it to S@H? This will inflame places like Ebay who don't have a clue about
> S@H. Collectors will buy them up and throw them on Ebay to turn even more
> profit. You doubt this, think again. Look what happened with the 'supposed
> old stock being found' in Europe of castle accessory sets. I still think
> this was a ploy on Lego's behalf as a 'test the waters' before we fully
> commit to the Legends. Anyway, look at all that stuff that is out on Ebay
> going for big bucks. (Hey, even I bought the rare white dragon plumes from
> someone in Germany). So, to say that this will relieve the market is
> ridiculous.
> c. Collectors will still pay larger amounts for the 'original.'
>
> 2. Is Lego really a collectible antique/secure investment?
> a. Someone mentioned that only in 2 states it could be considered a
> collectible. I agree with this statement. One of the biggest reasons I
> feel it is not a collectible is that I can never go to a flea market or
> antique sale and find any in a consistent manner. (People that have please
> post!) I feel this is because very few sets stay intact including the box,
> which is the only way people can be sure of it's origin. Individual Lego
> pieces have no dates on them! So, you can't guaranty that a piece was
> produced in 1960 or yesterday.
>
> 3. Lego's move to re-release sets in my opinion is a cop-out. Instead of
> producing sets people will like so that they don't lose a profit, they
> release sets that were already popular. (I will qualify this as this, Lego
> started several new ventures, so they may not have lost any money or little
> on the sale of actual Lego sets. I don't need to start another tug-o-war on
> this issue). Don't start on me too, I am glad they did this and will line
> up to, to buy one (all I can afford, though 10 would be more to my liking).
> There have been posts in the past about this very issue. Why doesn't Lego
> just put out sets that were just as high of quality and have the ability to
> be modular? I have been reading more about that in the last few months then
> anything else. Again, I am not condemning Lego, I am not 'against' Lego nor
> do I say that they should not have done this. I am glad they are trying to
> appease the collectors. What I am saying is, "Where's the new sets that make
> us want to buy more!?!" (than one copy) I have 2 boys and I will tell you
> what they like, Adventures. They are modular; they have cool animals, lots
> of mini-figs and some cool parts that allow them to use their imagination.
>
> Again, I like Lego being innovative, but get real, re-releasing existing
> sets is not innovative, it is not a huge profit making venture (else it
> would be released to mass market) and it is not 'adding' to the
> expandability of my "Castle Kingdom." I can still get this set off of Ebay
> (though I would never pay that price, may find it in a garage sale...) or
> other locations. I can't get new sets though if Lego doesn't create them!
>
> You can believe if you like that I am saying 'boo-hoo' to this line, but
> it's not true. I just want to see new sets that are cool. Come-on, a cloth
> sheet for the back of a castle surely is not an easily defended stronghold.
> Get back to great designs Lego!
>
> BK>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Brian Kasprzyk writes:
> There are 2-3 points of interest with Lego's new actions.
> 1. Re-releasing old sets can be profitable, but to what extent?
There's only one way to find out. This might be more a testing of the
waters on their direction, or perhaps a test of the lego adult fanatic
market, or just simply a way to make some money and make the hardcore happy
- I'm not at all convinced this is because Lego feels it is the most
profitable use of their capital.
> a. People argue that it de-values existing sets.
It isn't marketed as a limited edition collectable, so I don' think people
complainers have much of a leg to stand on. Speculating involves risk.
> b. People argue it gives people a 'second' chance at older sets no longer
> produced. But, if Lego is looking to make a profit, then why only release
> it to S@H? This will inflame places like Ebay who don't have a clue about
> S@H. Collectors will buy them up and throw them on Ebay to turn even more
> profit. You doubt this, think again. Look what happened with the 'supposed
> old stock being found' in Europe of castle accessory sets. I still think
> this was a ploy on Lego's behalf as a 'test the waters' before we fully
> commit to the Legends. Anyway, look at all that stuff that is out on Ebay
> going for big bucks. (Hey, even I bought the rare white dragon plumes from
> someone in Germany). So, to say that this will relieve the market is
> ridiculous.
Marketing a one-shot special rather than an entire line through the retail
route might not be the most cost effective way to go. Remember, they have
cut out the middlemen.
And if people throw the sets at eBay....so?
> c. Collectors will still pay larger amounts for the 'original.'
That's their perogative. The parts will look the same in my parts bin, so I
can't say I'll be one of them.
>
> 2. Is Lego really a collectible antique/secure investment?
> a. Someone mentioned that only in 2 states it could be considered a
> collectible. I agree with this statement. One of the biggest reasons I
> feel it is not a collectible is that I can never go to a flea market or
> antique sale and find any in a consistent manner. (People that have please
> post!) I feel this is because very few sets stay intact including the box,
> which is the only way people can be sure of it's origin. Individual Lego
> pieces have no dates on them! So, you can't guaranty that a piece was
> produced in 1960 or yesterday.
They are just a collection of parts - unless there is some unique part (red
tudor style walls in the case of the Guarded Inn), Lego is simply a poor
collector's medium.
>
> 3. Lego's move to re-release sets in my opinion is a cop-out. Instead of
> producing sets people will like so that they don't lose a profit, they
> release sets that were already popular. (I will qualify this as this, Lego
> started several new ventures, so they may not have lost any money or little
> on the sale of actual Lego sets. I don't need to start another tug-o-war on
> this issue). Don't start on me too, I am glad they did this and will line
> up to, to buy one (all I can afford, though 10 would be more to my liking).
> There have been posts in the past about this very issue. Why doesn't Lego
> just put out sets that were just as high of quality and have the ability to
> be modular? I have been reading more about that in the last few months then
> anything else. Again, I am not condemning Lego, I am not 'against' Lego nor
> do I say that they should not have done this. I am glad they are trying to
> appease the collectors. What I am saying is, "Where's the new sets that make
> us want to buy more!?!" (than one copy) I have 2 boys and I will tell you
> what they like, Adventures. They are modular; they have cool animals, lots
> of mini-figs and some cool parts that allow them to use their imagination.
I don't regard it as a cop-out because I don't see the issues as mutually
exclusive. How does one prevent the other?
>
> Again, I like Lego being innovative, but get real, re-releasing existing
> sets is not innovative, it is not a huge profit making venture (else it
> would be released to mass market) and it is not 'adding' to the
> expandability of my "Castle Kingdom." I can still get this set off of Ebay
> (though I would never pay that price, may find it in a garage sale...) or
> other locations. I can't get new sets though if Lego doesn't create them!
You can get this off eBay but you can only afford one of the new ones? Then
I would argue that you can't get it off eBay (realistically speaking,
despite it's "availablity").
As to huge profit making - little advertising and mechandising costs, pent
up demand, low tooling and design costs, oh, I think they'll make a profit
on this. Huge profit? Probably not, but then, the risk factor is extremely
low.
Not innovative? Not everything has to be innovative - quite honestly, I'm
seeing the same bricks I saw when I was a kid in the 60's. Innovative in
Lego is usually another way of saying "gimmick".
It will add to the expandability of my Castle Kingdom - perhaps I'm not so
jaded as others. :-)
Lego seems to be creating new sets, so I'm not sure how this is harming you.
>
> You can believe if you like that I am saying 'boo-hoo' to this line, but
> it's not true. I just want to see new sets that are cool. Come-on, a cloth
> sheet for the back of a castle surely is not an easily defended stronghold.
> Get back to great designs Lego!
I agree that I would like to see new cool sets. Other than liking the
minifigs, the "Knights Kingdom" line is junk. But you can make this
argument without ever mentioning the re-release of the Guarded Inn.
Bruce
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> > 3. Lego's move to re-release sets in my opinion is a cop-out. Instead of
> > producing sets people will like so that they don't lose a profit, they
> > release sets that were already popular. Why doesn't Lego
> > just put out sets that were just as high of quality and have the ability to
> > be modular? I have been reading more about that in the last few months then
> > anything else. Again, I am not condemning Lego, I am not 'against' Lego nor
> > do I say that they should not have done this. I am glad they are trying to
> > appease the collectors. What I am saying is, "Where's the new sets that make
> > us want to buy more!?!" (than one copy) I have 2 boys and I will tell you
> > what they like, Adventures. They are modular; they have cool animals, lots
> > of mini-figs and some cool parts that allow them to use their imagination.
>
> I don't regard it as a cop-out because I don't see the issues as mutually
> exclusive. How does one prevent the other?
Thanks for responding! I can clarify this as such: In order to produce a
set, they have to schedule it, run it, package it and all the other things
that go into it. While this occurs, they can't run 'x' set now. They can
only do 1 or the other, not both. The production line doesn't allow for it.
I have been told by someone that used to work for Lego that Lego only has
funds for so many molds. If this is so, then that reduces money for tooling
new molds for new sets. The person also said they usually run a mold until
it is no longer usable and the extras are stored for parts replacement and
other such needs (master model building, etc).
> > You can believe if you like that I am saying 'boo-hoo' to this line, but
> > it's not true. I just want to see new sets that are cool. Come-on, a cloth
> > sheet for the back of a castle surely is not an easily defended stronghold.
> > Get back to great designs Lego!
>
> I agree that I would like to see new cool sets. Other than liking the
> minifigs, the "Knights Kingdom" line is junk. But you can make this
> argument without ever mentioning the re-release of the Guarded Inn.
>
> Bruce
You are right. I did not need to combine the issues. They are 2 seperate
issues. But, (sorry, everyone knows a 'but' comes) I am addressing an issue
that has come up in this thread about quality of sets and it ability to be
used in several ways. The older style sets could easily be made into
several different designs. I don't know who said it, but it was great,
something to the effect, "why have a building made out of 21 pieces!" Lego
just needs to start creating more sets like the classic sets! I think
people would be happier if they came out with a mini-fig scale Inn, done in
red tudor walls then just reproducing an old set. What I mean by minifig
scale is larger with bedrooms, a common room, chairs, a bar and stools, etc...
Last comment. I don't see cost being an issue. If they re-released it at
$30-35, I bet people would still have bought just as many, considering all
the comments about them costing $80+ on auction sites. $35 for a brand
spanking new one is still a great deal!! I would be curious to know how
they did on the Expert Builders Star Wars sets. I picked up my Millinium,
The Tie-Bomber and the X-wing all for under $50 each. This would really
help us understand why they don't build full scale Lego buildings. (Making
my earlier point moot).
BK>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Brian Kasprzyk writes:
> Thanks for responding! I can clarify this as such: In order to produce a
> set, they have to schedule it, run it, package it and all the other things
> that go into it. While this occurs, they can't run 'x' set now. They can
> only do 1 or the other, not both. The production line doesn't allow for it.
> I have been told by someone that used to work for Lego that Lego only has
> funds for so many molds. If this is so, then that reduces money for tooling
> new molds for new sets. The person also said they usually run a mold until
> it is no longer usable and the extras are stored for parts replacement and
> other such needs (master model building, etc).
Yes, there are always production costs - my bet is that this cost them
considerably less to put back into production than designing a new set.
As to production logjam - this is only significant if they are currently at
their maximum production. I rather suspect they aren't at that point or
they wouldn't have scheduled this.
> You are right. I did not need to combine the issues. They are 2 seperate
> issues. But, (sorry, everyone knows a 'but' comes) I am addressing an issue
> that has come up in this thread about quality of sets and it ability to be
> used in several ways. The older style sets could easily be made into
> several different designs. I don't know who said it, but it was great,
> something to the effect, "why have a building made out of 21 pieces!" Lego
> just needs to start creating more sets like the classic sets! I think
> people would be happier if they came out with a mini-fig scale Inn, done in
> red tudor walls then just reproducing an old set. What I mean by minifig
> scale is larger with bedrooms, a common room, chairs, a bar and stools, etc...
Look at my first response up at the top and I think you have your answer.
They have something that fits the bill, that the fans want to see
re-released, and has a low production cost. Why re-invent the wheel?
You want everything to go back to the old school design philosophy? So do
I. The only way that is going to happen is if the Power That Be at Lego
decide they can make more money with old school design rather than new
school ("juniorized"). That is more likely to happen if they put some Old
School designs on the market.
You want to skip the intermediary step. Can't blame you, but: 1) Lego may
be right that the mass market wants juniorization (as much as that may be
upsetting to Lugnet members); 2) this may be political internal
game-playing/butt-covering (sometimes known as test marketing); 3) best to
have a bone rather than nothing; 4) The divisions in Lego may be autonomous
to the point that one area is listening to us, and another isn't.
I rather suspect #4. Brad (or whomever - I'm crediting Brad for convenience
sake rather than endlessly speculating)) may not be able to directly affect
the design philosophy, but does have the pull to reissue an old set. This
may lead to greater influence by Brad, but then again, this may be the
extent of what he wanted (throw us the bone that he could). I'll happily
take the bone, even if I sniff around for more. :-)
>
> Last comment. I don't see cost being an issue. If they re-released it at
> $30-35, I bet people would still have bought just as many, considering all
> the comments about them costing $80+ on auction sites. $35 for a brand
> spanking new one is still a great deal!! I would be curious to know how
> they did on the Expert Builders Star Wars sets. I picked up my Millinium,
> The Tie-Bomber and the X-wing all for under $50 each. This would really
> help us understand why they don't build full scale Lego buildings. (Making
> my earlier point moot).
>
> BK>
I suspect that Lego is passing along the lack of design costs and middlemen
costs to us. Thank you, Lego! How classy! Yes, you are probably right
that they could have asked more for the Guarded Inn and not been thought
less of for doing such.
Bruce
(hmmmm, no specific castle stuff, so let me fill in that request followups
to lugnet.general)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.castle, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> have a bone rather than nothing; 4) The divisions in Lego may be autonomous
> to the point that one area is listening to us, and another isn't.
>
> I rather suspect #4. Brad (or whomever - I'm crediting Brad for convenience
> sake rather than endlessly speculating)) may not be able to directly affect
> the design philosophy, but does have the pull to reissue an old set.
#4 is correct Bruce.
As Brad pointed out to me, what people don't seem to realize is that when
Lego Direct started a year or so ago, LD consisted of Brad and just Brad.
He had to come up with a business plan and figure out a way to implement it.
Personally I think he is doing a great job so far and I hope he gets more
influence in the future. But as of right now, he has to financially justify
everything he does and so far I think he's been right on the mark!
Jimmy
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> #4 is correct Bruce.
>
> As Brad pointed out to me, what people don't seem to realize is that when
> Lego Direct started a year or so ago, LD consisted of Brad and just Brad.
> He had to come up with a business plan and figure out a way to implement it.
> Personally I think he is doing a great job so far and I hope he gets more
> influence in the future. But as of right now, he has to financially justify
> everything he does and so far I think he's been right on the mark!
>
> Jimmy
I have to ask (others may be wondering too), how you can know all this
stuff. I recall about a month ago you stated that you do not work for Lego,
but here, you are listing, what I would consider, company organization
processes. You even refer to "As Brad pointed out to me,..." leading me to
wonder even more, why Brad is telling you such things, yet when an employee
at Target posted some set names, Lugnet (and Lego Corp) went ballistic and
pulled all the related posts off the site. This is not a personal attack by
any means, I am just trying to figure out who you are and why you seem to
know so much all the time related to Lego's future endeavors and current
ventures?
BK>
P.S. One must wonder if Brad is overstepping his bounds by confiding in you...
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Brian Kasprzyk writes:
>
> > Thanks for responding! I can clarify this as such: In order to produce a
> > set, they have to schedule it, run it, package it and all the other things
> > that go into it. While this occurs, they can't run 'x' set now. They can
> > only do 1 or the other, not both. The production line doesn't allow for it.
> > I have been told by someone that used to work for Lego that Lego only has
> > funds for so many molds. If this is so, then that reduces money for tooling
> > new molds for new sets. The person also said they usually run a mold until
> > it is no longer usable and the extras are stored for parts replacement and
> > other such needs (master model building, etc).
>
> Yes, there are always production costs - my bet is that this cost them
> considerably less to put back into production than designing a new set.
>
> As to production logjam - this is only significant if they are currently at
> their maximum production. I rather suspect they aren't at that point or
> they wouldn't have scheduled this.
>
>
> > You are right. I did not need to combine the issues. They are 2 seperate
> > issues. But, (sorry, everyone knows a 'but' comes) I am addressing an issue
> > that has come up in this thread about quality of sets and it ability to be
> > used in several ways. The older style sets could easily be made into
> > several different designs. I don't know who said it, but it was great,
> > something to the effect, "why have a building made out of 21 pieces!" Lego
> > just needs to start creating more sets like the classic sets! I think
> > people would be happier if they came out with a mini-fig scale Inn, done in
> > red tudor walls then just reproducing an old set. What I mean by minifig
> > scale is larger with bedrooms, a common room, chairs, a bar and stools, etc...
>
> Look at my first response up at the top and I think you have your answer.
> They have something that fits the bill, that the fans want to see
> re-released, and has a low production cost. Why re-invent the wheel?
>
> You want everything to go back to the old school design philosophy? So do
> I. The only way that is going to happen is if the Power That Be at Lego
> decide they can make more money with old school design rather than new
> school ("juniorized"). That is more likely to happen if they put some Old
> School designs on the market.
>
> You want to skip the intermediary step. Can't blame you, but: 1) Lego may
> be right that the mass market wants juniorization (as much as that may be
> upsetting to Lugnet members); 2) this may be political internal
> game-playing/butt-covering (sometimes known as test marketing); 3) best to
> have a bone rather than nothing; 4) The divisions in Lego may be autonomous
> to the point that one area is listening to us, and another isn't.
>
> I rather suspect #4. Brad (or whomever - I'm crediting Brad for convenience
> sake rather than endlessly speculating)) may not be able to directly affect
> the design philosophy, but does have the pull to reissue an old set. This
> may lead to greater influence by Brad, but then again, this may be the
> extent of what he wanted (throw us the bone that he could). I'll happily
> take the bone, even if I sniff around for more. :-)
>
> >
> > Last comment. I don't see cost being an issue. If they re-released it at
> > $30-35, I bet people would still have bought just as many, considering all
> > the comments about them costing $80+ on auction sites. $35 for a brand
> > spanking new one is still a great deal!! I would be curious to know how
> > they did on the Expert Builders Star Wars sets. I picked up my Millinium,
> > The Tie-Bomber and the X-wing all for under $50 each. This would really
> > help us understand why they don't build full scale Lego buildings. (Making
> > my earlier point moot).
> >
> > BK>
>
> I suspect that Lego is passing along the lack of design costs and middlemen
> costs to us. Thank you, Lego! How classy! Yes, you are probably right
> that they could have asked more for the Guarded Inn and not been thought
> less of for doing such.
>
>
> Bruce
>
> (hmmmm, no specific castle stuff, so let me fill in that request followups
> to lugnet.general)
I agree with you on all points above. My problem is, I have no money!!!
Releasing classic sets for original price, plus inflation (and not all of
it) is great. I am afraid they are going to produce more classic sets I
don't have and then I have to debate buy old, newly released sets or the new
line stuff (like the Camel Airplane). Too many desisions to make. As I
said earlier too, my children, 5 and 6 DO like the juniorized stuff better,
the slammers, the technic throwbots and Bionicle... They see this stuff as
much more fun then basic brick. I can understand why. They want something
built and built now. They play with constructs a lot too because they can
build a huge building quickly and then play with their Lego figures and
space ships they build on the constructs buildings. So, Lego going to
juniorization is/was well founded. It's just us "collectors" still like the
basic old style bricks. So, I think they will stick to releasing older sets
under the Legends guise. I don't forsee them going backwards in their
design because, as I listed before, childern don't get into that as much
(more basic brick, less juniorization) For those living in America, we did
this to ourselves. We make our lives so busy, it is reflecting in the youth
of our nation. They see, do things quickly so you have more time to do more
things! Don't laze away the afternoon building a house 6 1/2 inches tall,
use this prefabbed wall sections and be done in 15 minutes. It's the way of
life in America. Don't take time to do your yard, Chem Lawn (or other
places) can do it for you. Don't water your grass, put in an automatic
system. Don't even go to the grocery store anymore, Simon Delivers! Ah,
'tis the American dream sit back (huh?!) and let everything be done by
someone else for you so you can do the "important" stuff in life.
BK>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Brian Kasprzyk writes:
> I have to ask (others may be wondering too), how you can know all this
> stuff. I recall about a month ago you stated that you do not work for Lego,
> but here, you are listing, what I would consider, company organization
> processes. You even refer to "As Brad pointed out to me,..." leading me to
> wonder even more, why Brad is telling you such things, yet when an employee
> at Target posted some set names, Lugnet (and Lego Corp) went ballistic and
> pulled all the related posts off the site. This is not a personal attack by
> any means, I am just trying to figure out who you are and why you seem to
> know so much all the time related to Lego's future endeavors and current
> ventures?
That reminds of the story of Tom Clancy. After releasing one of his books
(the Hunt for Red October I think), the U.S. Navy started investigating him
for military leaks. Seem that they felt he knew too much about their subs.
Then he showed him all the books he researched through at the local library
where he got his info.
Similarly, I'm just another Lego maniac like you guys. I'm really
interested in what they do, and try to keep my ears and eyes open. As for
talking to Brad, I got that honor at the last LUGOLA meeting. I asked him
what questions I had on my mind, and I don't think any of his answers were
confidental, at least not anything I've posted about.
Jimmy
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Brian Kasprzyk writes:
> > I don't regard it as a cop-out because I don't see the issues as mutually
> > exclusive. How does one prevent the other?
>
> Thanks for responding! I can clarify this as such: In order to produce a
> set, they have to schedule it, run it, package it and all the other things
> that go into it. While this occurs, they can't run 'x' set now. They can
> only do 1 or the other, not both. The production line doesn't allow for it.
> I have been told by someone that used to work for Lego that Lego only has
> funds for so many molds. If this is so, then that reduces money for tooling
> new molds for new sets. The person also said they usually run a mold until
> it is no longer usable and the extras are stored for parts replacement and
> other such needs (master model building, etc).
Lemme clarify something: the Lego Classics and Legends line are separate
entities that do not hamper new sets whatsoever.
Here's a grossly simplified outline of what happened:
1. After several years of pleading, Lego Direct (a new division of Lego)
decides to take a chance with reissuing some old sets.
2. LD first decides on the Guarded Inn, so it checks to see if all the
molds are still available in and decent condition. AFAIK, no new molds
needed to be made. Next LD checks with the Castle division in Denmark to
get permission to redo it.
3. Permission is granted, so LD checks the production schedule to look for
any tiny openings that would allow production of this set.
Thus, all the plans for releasing new castle sets when KK has run its course
are still unaffected and we get a few bonus sets to tide us over till then.
It's a win-win situation folks!
Jimmy
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Jimmy Park writes:
> Lemme clarify something: the Lego Classics and Legends line are separate
> entities that do not hamper new sets whatsoever.
>
> Here's a grossly simplified outline of what happened:
>
> 1. After several years of pleading, Lego Direct (a new division of Lego)
> decides to take a chance with reissuing some old sets.
Which pretty much confirms my guess - complaining about re-issueing old sets
instead of coming up with old-style-but-new-designs is tilting at windmills.
The forces that got us the one are effectively removed from the process of
getting the other.
>
> 2. LD first decides on the Guarded Inn, so it checks to see if all the
> molds are still available in and decent condition. AFAIK, no new molds
> needed to be made. Next LD checks with the Castle division in Denmark to
> get permission to redo it.
Yup, reduced production cost.
>
> 3. Permission is granted, so LD checks the production schedule to look for
> any tiny openings that would allow production of this set.
I'm clairvoyant! Okay, so I understand a little about production...
>
> Thus, all the plans for releasing new castle sets when KK has run its course
> are still unaffected and we get a few bonus sets to tide us over till then.
>
> It's a win-win situation folks!
>
> Jimmy
That's the way I view it. It's just not what would be considered ideal by
most here. Me? The Guarded Inn was a set that I wanted, but wouldn't pay
outrageous prices for, so I'm happy. For the moment. :-)
Bruce
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
On Mon, 11 Jun 2001 16:51:05 GMT, "brian Kasprzyk"
<brian.kasprzyk@westgroup.com> wrote:
> > > 3. Lego's move to re-release sets in my opinion is a cop-out. Instead of
> > > producing sets people will like so that they don't lose a profit, they
> > > release sets that were already popular. Why doesn't Lego
> > > just put out sets that were just as high of quality and have the ability to
> > > be modular? I have been reading more about that in the last few months then
> > > anything else. Again, I am not condemning Lego, I am not 'against' Lego nor
> > > do I say that they should not have done this. I am glad they are trying to
> > > appease the collectors. What I am saying is, "Where's the new sets that make
> > > us want to buy more!?!" (than one copy) I have 2 boys and I will tell you
> > > what they like, Adventures. They are modular; they have cool animals, lots
> > > of mini-figs and some cool parts that allow them to use their imagination.
> >
> > I don't regard it as a cop-out because I don't see the issues as mutually
> > exclusive. How does one prevent the other?
>
> Thanks for responding! I can clarify this as such: In order to produce a
> set, they have to schedule it, run it, package it and all the other things
> that go into it. While this occurs, they can't run 'x' set now. They can
> only do 1 or the other, not both. The production line doesn't allow for it.
> I have been told by someone that used to work for Lego that Lego only has
> funds for so many molds. If this is so, then that reduces money for tooling
> new molds for new sets. The person also said they usually run a mold until
> it is no longer usable and the extras are stored for parts replacement and
> other such needs (master model building, etc).
If it's current molds then they would most likely be used for a set
anyways, if its a stored mold, they don't seem to be making money from
it unless they use it :^), if it is a new mold (for old parts) then
maybe what you are saying is true.
In regards to the 'time/space/schedule' spots that the reissued
Guarded Inn takes up, oh you'd rather have another Juniorized City
Center set? It's now like its displacing a castle set seeing as we
have no new ones this year. It also is certainly taking the 'space'
of a whole new Castle line.....
>
> > > You can believe if you like that I am saying 'boo-hoo' to this line, but
> > > it's not true. I just want to see new sets that are cool. Come-on, a cloth
> > > sheet for the back of a castle surely is not an easily defended stronghold.
> > > Get back to great designs Lego!
> >
> > I agree that I would like to see new cool sets. Other than liking the
> > minifigs, the "Knights Kingdom" line is junk. But you can make this
> > argument without ever mentioning the re-release of the Guarded Inn.
> >
> > Bruce
>
> You are right. I did not need to combine the issues. They are 2 seperate
> issues. But, (sorry, everyone knows a 'but' comes) I am addressing an issue
> that has come up in this thread about quality of sets and it ability to be
> used in several ways. The older style sets could easily be made into
> several different designs. I don't know who said it, but it was great,
> something to the effect, "why have a building made out of 21 pieces!" Lego
> just needs to start creating more sets like the classic sets! I think
> people would be happier if they came out with a mini-fig scale Inn, done in
> red tudor walls then just reproducing an old set. What I mean by minifig
> scale is larger with bedrooms, a common room, chairs, a bar and stools, etc...
>
> Last comment. I don't see cost being an issue. If they re-released it at
> $30-35, I bet people would still have bought just as many, considering all
> the comments about them costing $80+ on auction sites. $35 for a brand
> spanking new one is still a great deal!! I would be curious to know how
> they did on the Expert Builders Star Wars sets. I picked up my Millinium,
> The Tie-Bomber and the X-wing all for under $50 each. This would really
> help us understand why they don't build full scale Lego buildings. (Making
> my earlier point moot).
>
> BK>
But cost IS a issue, just not the biggest, piece availability is.
Also at $30-35 I would be buying MANY less and I suspect others would
also.... I would think that because it IS a reissue they cut their
development research cost by a large factor, if not entirely. THAT
would be one of the reasons they can offer it for the price they are.
Mike
--
All other themes are just spare parts for Castle! :^)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Brian Kasprzyk writes:
> > > This is a momentous occasion for LEGO fans, AFOL's especially
> > > I think but that's mostly because that's what I am at this point. I
> > > LOVE the Guarded Inn selection as the lead set for the Legends line,
> > > if you don't like it or it's position as the lead set, don't buy it.
> >
> > Will SOMEONE PLEASE READ MY POST. Second thing I said in my post is that I
> > plan to buy the darned set, and that it wasn't a bad set. My God you people
> > just don't care what other people think.
> >
> > > (it just means more for the rest of us :^)
> > >
> > > (I tried to leave enough text in for context)
> > >
> > > As always,
> > > Mike
>
> Well, I've been on vacation for the last week and was excited to get back to
> reading some good Castle posts. Instead, I end up spending an hour reading
> about personal attacks all around. with that being said, I will add my
> opinion to this long series of rants, personal feelings/beliefs and would
> like to have's'.
>
> There are 2-3 points of interest with Lego's new actions.
> 1. Re-releasing old sets can be profitable, but to what extent?
> a. People argue that it de-values existing sets.
> b. People argue it gives people a 'second' chance at older sets no longer
> produced. But, if Lego is looking to make a profit, then why only release
> it to S@H? This will inflame places like Ebay who don't have a clue about
> S@H. Collectors will buy them up and throw them on Ebay to turn even more
> profit. You doubt this, think again. Look what happened with the 'supposed
> old stock being found' in Europe of castle accessory sets. I still think
> this was a ploy on Lego's behalf as a 'test the waters' before we fully
> commit to the Legends. Anyway, look at all that stuff that is out on Ebay
> going for big bucks. (Hey, even I bought the rare white dragon plumes from
> someone in Germany). So, to say that this will relieve the market is
> ridiculous.
> c. Collectors will still pay larger amounts for the 'original.'
>
> 2. Is Lego really a collectible antique/secure investment?
> a. Someone mentioned that only in 2 states it could be considered a
> collectible. I agree with this statement. One of the biggest reasons I
> feel it is not a collectible is that I can never go to a flea market or
> antique sale and find any in a consistent manner. (People that have please
> post!) I feel this is because very few sets stay intact including the box,
> which is the only way people can be sure of it's origin. Individual Lego
> pieces have no dates on them! So, you can't guaranty that a piece was
> produced in 1960 or yesterday.
>
> 3. Lego's move to re-release sets in my opinion is a cop-out. Instead of
> producing sets people will like so that they don't lose a profit, they
> release sets that were already popular. (I will qualify this as this, Lego
> started several new ventures, so they may not have lost any money or little
> on the sale of actual Lego sets. I don't need to start another tug-o-war on
> this issue). Don't start on me too, I am glad they did this and will line
> up to, to buy one (all I can afford, though 10 would be more to my liking).
> There have been posts in the past about this very issue. Why doesn't Lego
> just put out sets that were just as high of quality and have the ability to
> be modular? I have been reading more about that in the last few months then
> anything else. Again, I am not condemning Lego, I am not 'against' Lego nor
> do I say that they should not have done this. I am glad they are trying to
> appease the collectors. What I am saying is, "Where's the new sets that make
> us want to buy more!?!" (than one copy) I have 2 boys and I will tell you
> what they like, Adventures. They are modular; they have cool animals, lots
> of mini-figs and some cool parts that allow them to use their imagination.
>
> Again, I like Lego being innovative, but get real, re-releasing existing
> sets is not innovative, it is not a huge profit making venture (else it
> would be released to mass market) and it is not 'adding' to the
> expandability of my "Castle Kingdom." I can still get this set off of Ebay
> (though I would never pay that price, may find it in a garage sale...) or
> other locations. I can't get new sets though if Lego doesn't create them!
>
> You can believe if you like that I am saying 'boo-hoo' to this line, but
> it's not true. I just want to see new sets that are cool. Come-on, a cloth
> sheet for the back of a castle surely is not an easily defended stronghold.
> Get back to great designs Lego!
I think the rerelease of old sets can be a step towards better new sets. One
of the reasons I always wished LEGO would put out old sets is that it would
raise the bar for current sets. I like to think that once people are exposed
to older, high-quality sets they will be less willing to accept today's
pathetic offerings.
The only problem with this theory is that the Guarded Inn is only available
from S@H, so it won't be sitting on the shelves next to current sets, making
them look like the garbage they mostly are. But maybe if the Guarded Inn
does well, LEGO will start putting the Legends line in stores.
-Marc Nelson Jr.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I for one appreciate Anthony’s comments.
Even though I too am among the countless who are enamored at its arrival.
We write in a medium that presents itself as an open forum. Therefore, it is
to be expected that some opinion will differ from the norm. I welcome this
unique perspective from Anthony, he simple stated his personal qualms with
this particular set. Just because his remarks diverged from the ubiquity of
positive statements, I still respect it.
And for those of you who felt the need to tell Anthony that he’s ‘rainin’ on
the parade,’ well your just as guilty for responding in a critical manner.
The future stocks of TLG have just increased in value due to this dynamic
Tri-annual reintroduction. IMO
And to keep this thread of discussion within the confines of .castles walls
I'll post the old and new pictures of the Guarded Inn back-to-back.
Two different perspective both coexisting within one line.
(Kinda like the way it should be with our conversations…) ;)
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/6067
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/10000
Sincerely,
--==Richard==--
You can reach me @
Shroud_of_Kung_Fu@Hotmail.com
. -Lego good, Canada great-®
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.castle, Anthony Sava writes:
> It's too bad no one reads posts anymore, they just reply for the sake of
> replying. Maybe I should return your favor Jimmy and just reply without
> reading what you've written.
I'm glad that Jimmy said exactly what I was thinking. It seems to me that
no matter what LEGO does, everyone complains anyway. Also, it would seem to
me that Jimmy did read your post considering that almost your entire post
was contained in his reply.
But since you are a man of influence, Jimmy, maybe in your future
discussions with LEGO you could tell them that unless they release a Yellow
Castle-Black Seas Barracuda-Main Street-(insert other popular choices here)
Super Pack, they may as well release nothing at all because no matter what
the next installment in the LEGENDS series might be, it will no doubt be met
with complaints and dissatisfaction.
Jason
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.castle, Anthony Sava writes:
> I know I shall be the only one with this opinion, but frankly I am saddened by
> the re-release of the Guarded Inn.
>
> Yes, I will buy one or two, I'm not saying it's a bad set. I've always wanted
> one. • <much snippage>
> Now if they reintroduced the King's Castle! I'd be buying a
> couple of those. Rerelease the Yellow Castle? I'd be a lot. Rerelease
> action sets like the Battering Ram or the Seige Tower or Knight's Challenge?
> I'd buy a lot of those too.
>
> And that's just my unpopular two cents.
> --Anthony
> http://www.geocities.com/savatheaggie/legohome.html
Anthony, I must disagree - at least some. I think the Guarded Inn is a nice
set, at a good price, and I hope LEGO sells a zillion of them. Because if they
do, that will give them reason to bring out MORE Castle sets - and hopefully
some of the very ones you listed. (Castle is what brought me out of my 'dark
ages', and I'll be forever grateful!)
This is just a first step, and this is mostly new territory for LEGO. Give them
a break, and hopefully they can continue to do things better and better (and
maybe, more often! <grin>)
Keep posting - the more different viewpoints we see, the better we all are.
JohnG, GMLTC
| | | | | | |
