The LEGO Company : 2879


LEGO Company / 2879

10152 Update —

Jake McKee

All, As the saying goes... I have some good news and some bad news about the 10152 Maersk ship. I'm sorry it's taken me so long to post an update. We've been working on a number of things surrounding this set. As you certainly recall, the situation (...) (19 years ago, 18-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.lego.announce, FTX) !!

Re: 10152 Update —Scott E. Sanburn

Jake & All, (...) Right. (...) It is a very cool set, no doubt. (...) Excellent. (...) Well, I for one am glad to here it will be out again in the blue, even if it is a limited run. Maybe Maersk will be able to help make some more sets, like, oh, I (...) (19 years ago, 18-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Henrik Thrane

Like this one ;-) Maersk train (URL) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Scott E. Sanburn

Henrick & All, (...) Sweet! Yes, indeed, that would be cool to have a set like that come out. I have that bookmarked now, do I even have enough of that blue to build it? Hmmm..... Scott S. (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Nathan Wells

(...) Hey Jake, thanks for updating us on what's going on. I hope and pray that you will be able to release the Dark Blue version, personally I think it looks better that the Maersk blue! -- Nathan (19 years ago, 18-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Ronald Borchert

(...) For all collectors who trusted your words of a "Limited Edition" of this set and bought it by thinking having a real rare and collectible set with the ever last bricks in maersk blue this announcement is a kick in their ass. One more fact not (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —Benjamin Medinets

<snip> (...) <more snippage> I agree somewhat, yes another run does "flood" the market more with sets, however, if you are truly diligent with your MISB sets, I'm sure in 25 to 30 years, a Maersk Sealand will reach a fine price in the after-market, (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —Mark de Kock

In lugnet.lego, Ronald Borchert wrote: [snip] (...) When I first read your comment, I was shocked. Then awed, then disgusted. Your reaction is exactly the kind that makes me sick. Buying up large quantities of a "rare" set just to make money on them (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego) !

Re: 10152 Update —Ronald Borchert

In lugnet.lego, Mark de Kock wrote: Hi! Your last sentence first: (...) You don't have to excuse yourself for that, it's your right if you feel like that. But I wonder about your comment: (...) I indeed didn't talk about making money and it's not my (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —Mark de Kock

(...) Thanks. I'm glad that this isn't turning into a flame war between afols :-) (...) ... (...) Okay, my mistake. Indeed, you didn't mention that you would loose money and such. It seems we are the same kind of collector: we either enjoy the sets (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —Kyle D. Jackson

(...) I'm being a little facetious here, but a truth you may want to consider is that some people are really gullible---they'll believe pretty much anything. And if someone is able to wrestle money out of them, hey, more power to them! ;] But (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —Jonathan Wilson

TLC never said that this was a "limited edition" set. What they said is that they used all their maresk blue up to make the first run of however many sets and that once they were gone, al;l the maresk blue would be gone and they wouldnt be able to (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —Gerhard R. Istok

(...) I agree with you Jonathan. Anyone who buys Lego as an investment should look elsewhere to invest. I own 10 copies of 6390 Main Street. Then 20 years later they re-release it. Was I mad? No, TLG never said that old sets would not be (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —James Powell

(...) Gary, the problem is that from Jake's mouth: Quote: I do know, however, that there will be 5 set limit per customer on this set (Troy,are you listening? J). Why you ask? This set uses …drum roll please… Maersk blue! In fact, the run of this (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —David Eaton

(...) Wait... Other than the arguable "limit of 5-per-customer" thing, what Jake said in that quote turned out to be perfectly accurate! - The run that they did used up all of their Maersk blue. It did. True fact. - Litterally no Maersk blue ABS (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —William R. Ward

(...) I think it's incredible that LEGO gives any attention to AFOL's at all. Now you want them to give special attention to the minority who are collectors? You don't ask much, do you? It's great that LEGO has made this set available again. And (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —Steven D. Weiser

(...) Amen, And thank you William, Another voice of reason. Let the collectors cry all they want. As I said, Kudos to TLC for taking Mearsk's money and making a profit. Oh, the collectors don't want that happening. WELL TO DAMN BAD. Steven Weiser (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —Fredrik Nyman

"Bill Ward" <bill@wards.net> wrote in message news:I91w7E.1yL8@lugnet.com... (...) Now you (...) You (...) Why is it incredible? If LEGO was an airline, AFOLs would be the first class and business class frequent flyers, who bring in the most money (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —Anders Isaksson

(...) I sincerely doubt that. I think the AFOLs are much more price-aware that the casual Lego buyer. Even though the posts about FOTW:s (and FOTM:s and FOTY:s) have dwindled here on lugnet, I do believe that the 'typical' AFOL is giving TLC *less* (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —Fredrik Nyman

Yes, I'm sure AFOLs are more aware of sales and hot deals and pay less per brick than a casual LEGO shopper (exception: those who just pick up 4496's at Wal-Mart; $14.88 for 1000 bricks is hard to beat). On the other hand, AFOLs but orders of (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —William R. Ward

(...) That would be true if the airplane sat 100,000 people and had 1 first class and 2 business class seats. Your numbers are all wrong. (19 years ago, 22-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —Johannes Koehler

Hello! (...) You'd certainly be well advised not to. Everything you promise (in good faith, no doubt) is in danger to be turned into a lie by TLC themselves. (...) Limited. Sure. Like the "limited" run that made us buy out the first run, huh? How (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Chris Leach

(...) Sad..whatever happened to just buying a set because it looks like a great set! or fun to build play with! For those of you who bought this set just so you could make a profit later and took those sets away from people or kids who would have (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Johannes Koehler

Hello! (...) You totally missed the point, Chris. The ship was already announced to be re-released in dark blue which would have made it in no respect a less great set for kids and anybody who simply enjoys building it. While on the other hand (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Chris Leach

(...) Hey JoJo ..Yes I know it was going to be rereleased in the dk blue(I voted for green I think) but there were plenty of folks who bought it not because it was limited and wanted a collectors item but with the intention to make a profit off of (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —William R. Ward

In lugnet.lego, Johannes Koehler wrote: ... While on the other (...) I applaud any effort by TLC to spoil the efforts of speculators to profit from the scarcity of a set. I wish they would rerelease monorail, Classic Space, and a bunch of other (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Fredrik Nyman

Why can't LEGO do both, and keep almost everyone happy? That is, LEGO gets to re-release any set, as long as the box is physically different from the original. That way, sets remain collectible, but bricks don't. "Bill Ward" <bill@wards.net> wrote (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —Larry Pieniazek

(...) How many of those "collectors" went out and said they had hundreds at 200 USD each for sale? Personally I'm not sure I have a lot of sympathy for collectors that want to buy up multiple copies of a new set and thus make it harder for others to (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX) !!

Re: 10152 Update —Justin Pankey

(...) Larry I can recall only one...Precious Princess in particular, and having more than the limit of 5 is what I find disturbing about that. I think Johannes is right...many people probably WERE hooked by the prospect of getting a Rare and Limited (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Larry Pieniazek

(...) No. I've never said that. In fact I myself have sold sets above MSRP. Just not while they were still on sale from S@H, while hiding that fact from my ebay buyers, or while trying to corner the market, or while giving the false impression that (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.market.theory, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Larry Pieniazek

Sorry for two replies here to the same post. (...) Maybe. Wouldn't bother me too much. (...) I have more sympathy for wanting multiple copies of the set for parts than I do for those that want to buy it up, not caring about it as a set, and resell (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Justin Pankey

(...) I thought I made it clear I don't condone the practice as you are putting it here. I'm not talking about cornering the current market, I'm talking about resale years down the road. (...) You said it..."everyone that wanted some had their (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —John Neal

(...) Irrelevant. TLC made a promise. They are willfully breaking that promise. (...) Perhaps, but that still doesn't change the fact that TLC is purposefully breaking their word. And unnecessarily so. Why not use the extra Maersk blue pellets for a (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Um, because their big and important customer asked them to do so, and paid for the pellets specifically to produce this particular set, not so you, John Neal can have your fantasy GP38s in a color scheme never seen on a GP38 in the wild(and (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Ronald Borchert

(...) Hi, very poor try of irony, Larry, you normaly write better ones ;-) To make a serious theme out of this: It's for sure a good deal for TLC when Mearsk wanted them to re-release the ship. But that they now decided to make the same model again (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —Kyle D. Jackson

(...) That would be an incredibly stupid business decision. (...) Number 1 isn't correct as Maersk wouldn't get their set now. They would have to wait while TLC developed a new set and got approval for it from Maersk, developed new instruction (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —Johannes Koehler

Hello! (...) For me (for me) Maersk blue was always quite useless, in terms of building. Before 10152 this colour was virtually not available at all, and through 10152 we got only a small range of parts that was also declared never to be enhanced in (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Tim David

(...) I'm not bothered either way how many Maersk blue 10152s are made and for how long (I might even get one this time round, its a cool set and I was flat broke last time!). However Its the DARK blue one I was waiting for, it not regular blue. Tim (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —Terry Prosper

(...) I fear the end of the wrld is coming my friends, because I actually agree 100% with John here. But I think it's not surprising coming from TLC that they broke their promise. We've seen a change of corporate attitude in the last years that aint (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —J. Spencer Rezkalla

(...) Wait, I'm lost here. Can someone please point me to where Lego promised (in writing) that they would never reintroduce this set? Or did they simply say (at the time) that there wasn't a business case to produce more 10152 once their original (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Steven D. Weiser

(...) Well put Spencer. I want to see that as well. By the way, I posted a message to .off-topic but forgot to FTX it. If you have time go read it. It concerns my take on collectibles and collecting in general. "What Makes A Collectible" Steven (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) Agreed 100%. I don't wander out of the woodwork too often these days (and this is liable to change very soon--glory of glories, I get my collection back in MI close to New Years', and will have all 1400lb. in one place again), but the (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —Paulo Renato

(...) Hey Larry. Just to say that it is not just you. 100% agreed. Thanks for putting my feelings in so well written words. Best regards, Paulo Renato (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —John Neal

In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) Well, this has nothing to do with Jake and AFAIK you are the only one who has made that connection. Ironic? JOHN (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Larry Pieniazek

(...) Um, no, there was some and is some bashing elsethread. But maybe I pre-empted some or most of it, which would be nice, with my prediction. (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Alfred Speredelozzi

(...) All this attitude does is tell Lego that when they make a cool set for a corporate client, they are better off not offering it to the general public. Luckily for the sane amongst us, the public in general doesn't have this attitude. So the (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Patrick S. O'Donnell

(...) And it appears that many a Lego fan has requested the grays to remain the same. Of course there was no choice. Perhaps all those in favor of keeping the old grays have less pull than Maersk. Seems there's no problem producing Maersk blue again (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Marc Nelson, Jr.

(...) This is good news! All we have to is find a shipping company whose trademark color is old light or dark gray, and convince them to subsidize a run of old-gray 10152s. Simple. Marc Nelson Jr. (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Mark Neumann

OMG, just about everything off the first post in this thread is so lame. First, Jake, thank you for the update. I'd been kind of wondering actually. Also, thank you for telling us the story in detail. Where so many other official releases would just (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX) !

Re: 10152 Update —Jan Katanek

In lugnet.lego, Mark Neumann wrote: (snip) (...) In general, you're right. But not in this case. (...) ...and so do most of the other AFOLs I know, for sure. (...) plus, what tools TLC uses to sell those specific sets we're talking about. (...) (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Mark Neumann

moving thread to lugnet.market.theory (...) (attn: spite what the following text reads, it isn't sarcasm. You'd be right in saying that I'm not primarily a collector. So help me out.(and others who don't understand this either) So instead of having (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.market.theory, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Patrick S. O'Donnell

In lugnet.lego, Mark Neumann wrote: Snippage (...) Doesn't Lego have huge vaults with sets from the past that any of us would kill to get our hands on - NOW! Why are they saving so many sets? They must be collectors too! -Patrick (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Mark Neumann

(...) moving thread, probably doesn't belong in .lego. Market.theory I think should be better. Insomuch as magazine and newspaper companies are collectors as well. They also keep one (or more) copies of their product for future reference. I believe (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.market.theory, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Johannes Koehler

Hello! (...) TLC keeps their vault for their lawyers. So when, for example, MegaBloks produces a set that's tooo similiar to any LEGO set they walk into their catacombs, take the respective set and show the world: We have done this first! On this (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.market.theory)

comme toujours —Hendrik Bergmann

(...) Good news would be if the second run was only for Maersk and not for selling them again. What do you now mean with "limited"? Each limited set, TLC sold in the last years, got a second, third..... production run. Can you imagine that most of (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Marc Nelson, Jr.

(...) Wow, an excellent business move by TLC! These come once in a Maersk blue moon, so let's enjoy it. Yeah, yeah, the 10152 was supposed to be the last run of Maersk blue. But isn't this good news? - "Hey, we got some other company to subsidize (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Burkhard Schloemer

Nice try on putting some icing on it. Unfortunately, production re-runs of a supposedly limited item generally is a No-No, Mr. McKee! You now have folks at TLG HQ write that down a hundred times for easier learning. And all the others here too who (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —John Cooper

(...) Someone simply needs to convince Maersk to change their corporate color from Maersk blue to dark blue! (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Tim David

D***, I was really looking foward to that set to get some dark blue bricks. I may be being selfish but I don't really care about the Maersk blue parts, there isn't enough variety of pieces and its not that different to Medium blue but Dark blue (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Reinhard "Ben" Beneke

In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote: Hahaha! Yes I am laughing out loud about this..... I am not trusting in any word out of the LEGO Company as I mentioned a while ago. Now I am not surprised nor dissapointed as I would have been, if there still would (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Kelly McKiernan

(...) Thanks for the update, Jake! After reading the various whining about "broken promises" in this thread, remember this: circumstances changed as they often do in life. Maersk wanted more of that set. They were willing to pony up to get it. Side (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX) !

Re: 10152 Update —Tim Courtney

(...) Every time I seriously wonder to myself 'why do I torture myself with reading LUGNET anyways? [1]' it seems a gem like this pops up from someone like Kelly. He's not the only one who does 'em, but I just love how he puts stuff in perspective. (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —Tim David

(...) I'm sorry Kelly, I have to admit I always thought you were female! Is Kelly a common male name in the US? Tim (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.people)

Re: 10152 Update —Kelly McKiernan

(...) :) Common misconception, no worries. There are a number of other boy Kellys around, but they're few and far between. I need a sigfig with a beard, although that wouldn't work as well on LUGNET... (URL) the handsome one in the top right. - (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.people)

Re: 10152 Update —Tim David

(...) *** checks picture, hmmm definatly male! Tim (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.people)

Re: 10152 Update —Kyle D. Jackson

(...) Well put, Kelly! Their considering AFOL input is a huge privilege for us. They're not going to just sit on their hands and do everything AFOLs tell them to do. It seems there are too many people here who believe that when LEGO does things (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —John Neal

(...) But you ignore the fact that part of the reason that that set may have been such a good seller in the first place was that people may have purchased them as collectibles. I know I purchased a few extra with that thought in mind. (...) I don't (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Mark Jordan

(...) I agree. They should make one with the containers in the old light grey. Maersk wouldn't know the difference, the AFOL collectors would be happy and TLG would get rid of those extra unsold old greys. (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Paulo Renato

Hey Mark, (...) Make it so TLC and I promise to buy my 5 this time (against 0 on the first time). Best, Paulo-Renato FUT --> lugnet.color (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Kelly McKiernan

(...) Yes, I understand - but did LEGO position it as a collectible? Officially, on their web site? I never read it that way. Jake's post (I could dig it up if it matters) clearly laid out that they were running the last of the existing Maersk blue (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —John Neal

In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote: <various snippaging> (...) (URL) From the above post by Jake: "This set uses …drum roll please… Maersk blue! In fact, the run of this new set uses all the Maersk blue ABS pellets we have left. That means that (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Kelly McKiernan

(...) That's a fair assertion. Being somebody who collects sets to build them, I don't have the mindset that "limited quantities" = "collectible". Again, though, at the time that was written, that was accurate. (...) At the risk of belaboring a (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: Multiple numbers for same set (was: 10152 Update) —Ross Crawford

(...) Well I guess they have an example they can use as a test case now: [LEGOSet 8460] [LEGOSet 8431] [LEGOSet 8438] As far as I know, there is no difference between these sets except the number. I don't own 8438 so can't say definitively. ROSCO (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: Multiple numbers for same set (was: 10152 Update) —Kelly McKiernan

(...) They do look identical. Wonder why they have three numbers? Might be a good question for Jake at some point. Thanks for correcting that, Ross. I'll stick by my other assertions about the set, though! Kelly (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: Multiple numbers for same set —Jonathan Wilson

(...) There are definatly differences between the origonal set (the 8460) and the re-releases (the 8431\8438). For example, the 8460 used 2 of part Technic Connector Toggle Joint Toothed whereas the 8431 uses a single Technic Angle Connector #6 for (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: Multiple numbers for same set —Johannes Koehler

Hello! (...) I do not know the reason why the most recent crane got a new number, but I suspect it's not due to the new packaging. Because: The new Millennium Falcon 4504 came in its first run in a blue standard box, the second run has a black, more (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —John Neal

In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote: <snip> (...) No, it was exhausted. They are mixing up more (at the expense of Maersk). (...) This has nothing to do with marketing per se. If it had never been mentioned that this was the end of the line for (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Johannes Koehler

Hi John! (...) This, In my not at all humbly opinion, is the core-question in this entire thread. Unfortunately it seems the answer is "It is." (Not only in respect of TLC but in respect of every public statement/promise/warranty/ect. these days, (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —Kelly McKiernan

(...) Actually, the core question is more directly this: Should LEGO customers feel entitled to tell LEGO how to conduct their business? Unfortunately, several people here believe they do feel so entitled, by doing LEGO the favor of purchasing their (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —Burkhard Schloemer

(...) Oh dear. You are really stubborn, Kelly, as well as persistent in seeing things from upside down. Imagine, just for a moment, somebody tells you one thing, then does the exact opposite. You're following so far? Great. So, wouldn't you be (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —David Koudys

(...) The issue is not TLC did 'exactly the opposite' of what they said, they made sound business decisions based on all available information at the time. So, in my humble opinion, it's your flawed analysis of the situation that's cause for (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I agree that some here are stubborn and some here are seeing things all topsy turvy, yes. Where I differ with you, though, is in the identification of which group of people that appelation belongs to, and which group it doesn't belong to. We (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —John M. Rudy

(...) Thank You, Larry. I hate to add one more post to this thread, but feel the need. I totally agree with what you say about everyone just stopping. But, I think this thread is a real eye-opener as to the nature of this community. Is this really (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.general, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Burkhard Schloemer

(...) Oh come on now! What's wrong with a civilized, lively debate? That's what Lugnet is for, beside listening to wonderful news coming to us occasionally from THE MOUTH OF LEGO (imagine raving orcish minifig hordes in the background ...)* Agreed, (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) MAJOR SNIPAGE (...) The problem doesn't lie within the community it lies within the company. Proof of this is that they are dumbfounded as to why with all of their efforts they are still loosing money. I missed The whole Marsk debate but let's (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Kelly McKiernan

(...) I promised myself I wouldn't continue fanning the flames here, but I couldn't resist one more... The gist of the complaints against TLC I'm hearing is they've made a business decision that "changed" from an earlier "promise" (neither of which (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —John Neal

In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote: <snip> (...) I just want to make one thing clear. Merely because I have a gripe about a particular decision made by TLC, that doesn't mean I am throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. I love LEGO (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Scott Lyttle

(...) John, You're a business owner, we all know you do much of the shirts for the clubs and Brickfest. Let me pose a question. What if you made a "special edition" Lego-based T-shirt for some club or big event. Say the group wanting the shirts told (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —John Neal

In lugnet.lego, Scott Lyttle wrote: <snip> (...) I would only ever make as many shirts as a customer would want:-) (...) Well, at this point, I, as the producer for the group would be totally out of the loop. (...) I'm not sure a situation involving (...) (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ross Crawford

(...) You know what, at this point if I was head of marketting at TLC I would pull the new run from S@H and only supply them to Maersk. That'd make money for the company AND save their integrity (1). ROSCO (1) As percieved by a small number of AFOLs (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Koudys

(...) And I would agree with that assessment wholeheartedly, John. That said, if you said, "I can only produce 200 of these printed shirts because I only have 200 shirts of this colour, and I don't have the opportunity to get more shirts of this (...) (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Kelly McKiernan

(...) Hi John, I wasn't actually referring to you personally... more the continuous TLC-bashing I've seen from some people, and not just on this subject. Makes you wonder why some people bother frequenting LUGNET, or buying LEGO, at all, if they (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ray Sanders

(...) Indeed. I have wondered why the same names keep popping up over and over with respect to TLC negativity. Almost feels a bit like a psy-ops campaign. Free speech is one thing. Excess indulgence is another. fut to .off-topic.debate ( shame we (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) I'm pretty sure the duck wasn't marketed as a "limited edition of 10,000". It really matters not what their excuss is if they changed their mind they could have changed the model. Their move was compleatly unethical and problably leaves them (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I'm pretty sure that the 10152 wasn't either. This whole thing seems to turn on a mistranslation more than anything else. That's pretty funny at one level, actually. Most of the rest of the difference appears to be cultural, we seem to have a (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) It was in Jake Mckee's own words as well as press releases and marketing through SHO (...) SNIP I too however it strikes directly at fundemental honesty and respect for the consumer that Lego would do this. SNIP (...) Not really I'd welcome it (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Kelly McKiernan

(...) Hmm. More sweeping statements, with absolutely nothing to back it up. Again. (...) If you're aware of the ratio between LEGO soliciting opinions and acting on opinions, then you must have some data to back it up. Show it. Put up or shut up. My (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) Well I haven't financed a study however the financial news is rife with news on how Lego continues to loose money and market share while it's competitors continue to grow. Not even Lego argues this point. Every day I cross paths with kids who (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —J. Spencer Rezkalla

(...) Perhaps there are different connotations of the term "limited"? "Limited" in that we will purposefully limit production to X number of units to create collector demand, and will never produce them again, thus protecting their collector's (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) SNIP (...) SNIP (...) No confussion here. They said through Jake M., SHO, and press releases that it was LIMITED TO 10,000. I don't care about collectability. I bought two the first time one for myself and another for a nephew. I may get (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Koudys

(...) Can we please stop with the spin on the situation? There were no lies At the time, no contract with Maersk to make future sets and LEGO had these pellets to get rid of. Come out with nifty set and use up pellets--limited 'cause, as stated by (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) I don't care what happened as far as set numbers. What I do care about is that this was presented as a "Limited Edition of 10,000". They then proceded to break that promiss. What is your word worth?-Ken (19 years ago, 22-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Koudys

(...) Spin. Stop it. 'They' did no such thing as 'break a promise'. Fact--TLC had a limited quantity of Maersk Blue pellets and, with no contract with Maersk at the time, as stated, they were not going to get anymore Maersk Blue pellets to make more (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) I don't need anything to be interpreted. Anyone who knows me knows I am a man of my word. How about you?-Ken (19 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Koudys

(...) You may be a man of your word but you have 'selective interpretation' down to a science. If you want to debate the facts, I'm all for it. If you continue to ignore what actually happened, then we're done here. Take care, Dave K (19 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) And by "Selective Interpretation" you mean anything short of the way you see it?-Ken (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Dave Schuler

(...) Hey now, there's no need for that. Dave K can speak for himself, but what the heck--I can speak for himself, too. Regardless of his national origins, I have always found Dave K to be honest and forthright. He is willing to admit when he is (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) The above is not just the DMAS (Dave Mutual Admiration Society) speaking, there are a lot of other people on LUGNET that feel the very same way, myself included. (...) I totally agree with this, well said, Dave! (19 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Mike Walsh

"Larry Pieniazek" <larry.(mylastname)@...e.DOT.com> wrote in message news:I96Ln0.1GsL@lugnet.com... (...) [ ... snipped ... ] (...) there (...) hardly (...) I too agree with Dave Schuler and Larry. I really applaud Dave Koudys for continuing to be (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Koudys

(...) <snip> (...) Really, thanks guys. I appreciate the support. This is the LEGO User Group NETwork, and this is why I'm here. Beyond that, for the 3+ (almost 4) decades of fun that TLC has provided by their product I had to say something. Here's (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Scott Lyttle

snippage (...) Dave, If you don't get a LEGO set for Christmas, e-mail me. I'll send you one for Christmas. No charge for set or shipping. Consider it a gift for all your efforts. Hell...send me your address..I'll send you something regardless of (...) (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Koudys

(...) Thanks for the very generous offer, Scott--it was appreciated. I was lucky this year--I received the Technic Mars Rover, a Harry Potter set, and the little World City fireboat--that's a really cute little set. So I'm pretty happy--it's my (...) (19 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) I didn't impugn anything. I asked a simple question wich is quite relevant given that this is at it's essence a moral question.-Ken (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) It may be a moral question, but more importantly it's a "have you stopped beating your wife?" question too. I tend not to go around claiming I'm a man of my word. Why would I need to? If I have to make a big deal about it, maybe I'm not. So (...) (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Missed opportunities (was: A Community Problem) —Ross Crawford

(...) Wow Larry, you missed a perfect opportunity for a footnote! (...) And a sub-footnote opportunity missed no less! That's not like you at all! Wink. ROSCO (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) Exactly I am trying to draw him out so he can see the point. If someone did something like this to him on a more personal level he'd problably be outraged. (...) Funny that the only people I've met that want to put on their brown shirts and (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Kelly McKiernan

(...) You've crossed the line again, Ken. You need to remember that LUGNET is a privately-owned resource and not a pulpit for you to denigrate and demean people you disagree with. Larry, as a LUGNET staff member, has the right and responsibility to (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) First off I've said nothing about anyone personal. For some reason my asking a simple question hits home personaly with some. Not my fault though. Second I only stated a fact as I've experienced it. There are those on the company can do no (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —J. Spencer Rezkalla

(...) In fact, the run of this new set uses all the Maersk blue ABS pellets we have left. That means that there is literally no Maersk blue ABS left. Even the parks can no longer get Maersk blue. This is a small run too – only 14,000 total, with (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) I fully understand what Lego said. I fully understand they broke that promiss. When I say I will do something you can trust me to do it. How about you? -Ken (19 years ago, 22-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Eaton

(...) It kinda doesn't sound like you do. In the above quote they said: 1) they used up their existing supply of Maersk blue pellets. They did. It's true. Other than Jan's comment on the German site (which translated roughly to "this is your last (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote: SNIP (...) QUOTH JAKE MCKEE: "Then it’s time for another new adventure! It measures 69cm long and is your last chance to buy Maersk bricks! AND:This is a small run too – only 14,000 total, with 10,000 coming to (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Eaton

(...) I stand corrected! I skimmed right over that bit in Jake's post ((URL) repeatedly because I figured it was the S@H description. (...) The first quote I'll give you. That one by no means. It was true, still is true. No promises on possible (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) And on the other side of the coin many want to defend the company no matter what they do. This is not bley or click hinges. This is basic morality.I'm with the "nay-sayers" because the company is on a destructive path and if they go down so (...) (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Eaton

(...) Ha! Clearly you haven't been reading all my posts. I think I get the most annoyed with people who leap to conclusions about things they shouldn't. They said that ONE phrase that was incorrect, and you and others jump down Lego's throat. They (...) (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) SNIP (...) The end justifies the means? (...) If their intent wasn't so then why did they present it as so? (...) If this wasn't part of a trend I have nothing to say. I find the color a curiosity, nothing I love. Nor am I an investor. The (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Eaton

(...) How did you get "ends justify the means" out of that? Wouldn't "ends justify the means" imply that it was their intent all along to lie to us? Isn't that precisely NOT what I said? (...) They didn't. You seem to think they did, though. I admit (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) SNIP (...) They also said there would only be 10,000 availible publicly. They said it through Jake, SHO, and press releases. Kind'a hard to misread that statment. (...) If it ws just a matter of forgiving a simple mistake and not part of a (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Eaton

(...) I don't see why you keep going back to this. What they said was true. There WERE 10,000 available publically. Or, 10,000 via S@H. It's possible Maersk made some available to the public, I guess. But again, *IF* they had had more Maersk blue, I (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) SNIP (...) Because that is what they said and words mean things. (...) "If" doesn't much matter as "if" wasn't true so they chose to market it as a limited set. The new color (that they took back) doesn't matter as that was to be a diffrent (...) (19 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Mike Walsh

"Ken Nagel" <knandjn@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:I9GHGE.1z3u@lugnet.com... [ ... snipped ... ] (...) be (...) [ ... snipped ... ] Where is this press release you refer to? I looked for a copy of the press release on LEGO.com was unable to (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Eaton

(...) I'm not sure it qualifies as an actual "press release", but what I think we've been referring to is Jake's post on Lugnet: (URL) the post on 1000steine, which supposedly had very similar content: (URL) almost vaugely remember this set being on (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Mike Walsh

"David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> wrote in message news:I9GuDD.nKo@lugnet.com... [ ... snipped ... ] (...) we've (...) [ ... snipped ... ] Neither of these posts by LEGO employees is a Press Release. If these posts are what Ken is referring to as (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) Obviously at this point the press release has been pulled. I was virtuly identical as the post Jake put up acting as a representitive of TLC. It was also marketed so by SHO and the "limited" aspect was played up there more than anywhere. (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Mike Walsh

(...) This is laughable. It would be near impossible for a company to make a press release disappear. When comapnies issue press releases they go out over the wire and news sources pick them up. So if LEGO did remove a copy of a press release form (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) SNIP (...) Laughable that their web sit periodicaly changes? You'll note that the link you provided does not cover every press realease ever released. That does not mean that it did not exist. -Ken (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Eaton

(...) Yeah, but what they said was true. "This is a small run too – only 14,000 total, with 10,000 coming to Shop At Home." It *WAS* a small run, and it *WAS* limited to 14K, and 10K *DID* go to S@H. Please point out the exact error in the phrase, (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Koudys

In lugnet.lego, David Eaton wrote: <snip> (...) I forgot all about this ine--TLC can't win one way or the other. Nice catch Larry and Dave. (...) As Dave just stated--there was no 'word' given--just the statement of facts that at the time were (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Eaton

(...) You've put up a good fight-- I don't expect Lego or others would believe that there's a majority negative opinion at this point, whereas had none of us spoken up, that might have been a possible interpretation. I don't think anyone (excluding (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) Unfortunatly your definitin of open minded means I have to agree with you. I don't and you left out of your quote that this was touted as the "LAST CHANCE" (...) Carful now your getting personal... Intent is not relevent. The did what hey did. (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Koudys

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ken Nagel wrote: <snip> (...) TLC's failings are directly related to this issue? TO their 'poor decision making?' Nothing to do with the fact that the competitors are consitently making a poorer quality product and (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Two Questions and a Comment (was Re: A Community Problem) —Dave Schuler

(...) I'd like to mention that legitimate competitors such as BTR and MegaBloks do not engage in the illegal duplication of TLC's protected intellectual property, so these two companies (at least) should be considered separate from those less (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Two Questions and a Comment (was Re: A Community Problem) —David Koudys

(...) I was referring to the direct kock-offs of TLC sets, and I apologize for inadvertently lumping all 'building brick' competitors into the same mold. (...) The issue for me is that they may have to take, or already have taken, this course of (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Two Questions and a Comment (was Re: A Community Problem) —David Eaton

(...) That's generally accurate, although IIRC there have been lawsuits eating up time and money from both TLC and MB. And I expect this is primarily "Comapny X" against Lego, like the Lego against the China knock-off, or Lego against Best-Lock. I (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Two Questions and a Comment (was Re: A Community Problem) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) I thought we already HAD an AFOL who was a lawyer... but he quit and went on to be a LLCA model builder. :-) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: Two Questions and a Comment (was Re: A Community Problem) —Dave Schuler

(...) That's true. Of course, the LEGO v MegaBloks suits are somewhat different from LEGO v Shifty/Brick, since LEGO's beef with MegaBloks involves the specific design of the studs-n-tubes interlocking system and the "look" of the 2x4 brick, whereas (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) No as I said this is only part of the puzzel. This decision on it's own would mean nothing (...) Absolutly. You have to be making a lot of poor decisions to be loosing money for as long as they have been. (...) While this is the view of the (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Richie Dulin

(...) Lego is by definition a failure as a company? An interesting assertion. (...) I think it might be... (...) No... a company exists to pool resources and to protect shareholders. A company will often (but not always) seek to give a return to (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) SNIP (...) Except Lego is not publicly owned. It is owned by people with increasingly less wealth. -Ken (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Richie Dulin

(...) You are correct in saying that it is not publically owned, but why do you say 'except'? It makes no difference. There are plenty of non publically owned companies that do not exist to make a profit. (...) Is it? How do you know? Cheers Richie (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ross Crawford

(URL) (...) "privately owned" (...) "decreasing wealth" ROSCO (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —C. L. GunningCook

(...) Geesh Ross, put the ruler away, someone might get hurt. Bad memories of overly strict teachers with nasty looks on their faces. Janey "C- Red Brick" (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Eaton

(...) Shouldn't that be "Here come the grammar police"? :) DaveE (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Who polices the grammar police? (was Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)) —Richie Dulin

(...) And since when is 'watchout' a word? ;-) Cheers Richie Dulin (19 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Richie Dulin

(...) Privately owned is not the same as non publicly owned. (Though Lego is both non publicly owned and privately owned.) I'm not sure why I spelled it 'publically', though. Must be that speech to text software acting up again. ;-) (...) It would (...) (19 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) SNIP (...) Thanks for defending the "non Public part" As for "increasingly less wealth" it was exactly choosen to make the point. Lego has been loosing money for years and the family/owners have been increasingly worried about maintaining the (...) (19 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Richie Dulin

(...) No worries. However, you did make the claim that "A company exists to make a profit". The fact that Lego is a private company is neither here to there, a company does not exist to make a profit. And yet that's what you claimed. You didn't lie, (...) (19 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) SNIP (...) we're splitting hairs a bit however my statement about their wealth is based upon suppositon. One can only afford to loose so much and if it were not an issue they would not be worried about maintaining control.-Ken (19 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) SNIP (...) SNIP (...) 230 proves that it's not as cut and dry as you'd like it to be. This is another bad decision that will alienate more customers and financialy they can not afford to be doing so. With a little thought a new supply of (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) I'd say "LAST CHANCE" pretty much locks that up. SNIP "If" there were a way to stop Bin Laden from causing (...) I really don't get all of these u-turns in the name of whatever but since you bring it up "IF" Bill Clinton had taken Bin Laden (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Koudys

(...) <snip> (...) Why did reps form TLC state that it was 'the last chance'? Did they do it because they were marketing a limited set as a collector item (a la numbered Santa Fe), or was the 'last chance' only due to a limitation of coloured Maersk (...) (19 years ago, 29-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) My deletions are needed as A) it's part of the TOU & B)The server wont let you repost anything as long as your replies are getting with out snipping. As for coherent & cohesive there's pleny of people who agree with me. Your twisting things (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Koudys

(...) It is you who are twisting the facts to suit your flawed opinion. In my country, as well as the US of A, by law a party is onnocent until proven guilty. You have as yet to prove TLC's guilt in this case. Since you have continuously deleted all (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Reinhard "Ben" Beneke

(...) Dave, as you write yourself, you have stated things over and over again. But you have not convinced me. And I have not seen a single pro-TLC posting within the German AFOL community. They are obviously tending towards Ken's opinion as I do. (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Koudys

(...) Hey Ben, I have, and he has, and we all have stated our POV over and over again. The thing is, the points that Ken made were refuted by others, as well as myself, in this very thread. These points were not addressed but summarily deleted, and (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) SNIP (...) SNIP (...) A debate is an exchange of FACTS in order to prusuade the other party to your point of view. The facts that you seem to be dissapointed that I stick to are Lego said this was the "last chance" to buy Maersk blue and there (...) (19 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Kelly McKiernan

(...) Yes, LEGO said that. But some people are confusing a "statement of fact" with a "promise". They are different. You are of course welcome to continue to fervently believe LEGO lied to you, and to continue to believe that all statements by the (...) (19 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) SNIP (...) We are not talking about a business decision. Bley was a business decision. In this case they chose the words "Last chance" and "Very limited production run" as part of their adveritizing. Since this is how they choose to present (...) (19 years ago, 31-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

SNIP (...) SNIP (...) I don't know about your country but here that only applies in a court of law. I am certainlt alowed to come to a decision based on the facts at any time I wish. (...) Ok so it's not in the terms of use but I've read it (...) (19 years ago, 30-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Kyle D. Jackson

(...) And that, right there, probably best sums up why you are meeting with so much disagreement. You believe that without TLC, your hobby ends, despite the collection of LEGO I assume you must already have, and despite a very extensive after-market (...) (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Koudys

(...) rtlToronto has beed doing hobby shows for the past few years, and the Meccano guys are there displaying their creations. If anyone ever wants to see what happens when the company providing their 'work material' for their chosen hobby (...) (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego) !!

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Tim Courtney

(...) I've stayed out of this stupid, drawn-out thread so far. But, Dave, I do appreciate your efforts at holding the fort. Let it be known that I agree with what Dave says above. TLC, there are some people in the community who *do* appreciate your (...) (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Brett Patterson

Well said Tim. Many people in TLC ARE trying hard, but despite whatever some people do, it will never be good enough. This will always be a problem for every company all the time, it is not alone to just LEGO. Anyways, I always am having differences (...) (19 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Joe Meno

(...) snip (...) Dave, Your comments here are well taken, and I agree with them. While I have disagreed about some decisions from TLC, I make my position known with what I choose to buy. I bought the Maersk ship for me (and another as a gift) to (...) (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote: SNIP (...) God bless that. Unfortunatly they are on a down hill path. This is undeniable, even TLC knows it. Nothing they have done so far has been able to turn it around. Possibly because they have failed to see (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Kelly McKiernan

(...) Ken, I don't see how fair-weather AFOL posts like the above do anything to help TLC or improve the hobby for anyone. Kicking someone when they're down is impolite at best; and I'm sure you've heard the phrase "part of the solution or part of (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) Fair weather? We are not talking about a sports team who lost one game and may win tomorrow. The company is in crissis. Ignoring this is foolish. They have yet to see or admit to the problem(s) at hand. TLC's stated goal for fisal year '05 was (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Tobbe Arnesson

(...) Yep. Turner Suspension Bicycles ( (URL) ) does just that in this forum: (URL) good luck finding anyone whining about the constant colour changes there ;) Some might think it's sad some colours go away or change but none is raving about it. (...) (19 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) First off if you look around some more you'll find there's a lot of people who agree with me as to Lego's actions. Second my view of the hobby isn't so ego-centric. Half the joy comes from sharing the hobby especilly with those who have years (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Koudys

(...) There was no promise! Stop saying that! Stop spinning this! At the time Jake said what he said, that's *exactly* what was going on--TLC had some leftover Maersk Blue pellets and no contract with Maersk Blue to warrant making more. Those are (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) Crying is very unbecomming.... (...) Can I use this defense on my wedding vows? "Honest dear I meant what I was saying at the time but circumstances changed...." SNIP (...) The facts are that Lego Promised this to be a limited run. A new (...) (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ka-On Lee

(...) <roll eyes> How about "Well dear I did say no more buying Lego this month, but you see they have 30% off this week..." Seriously, vows? (...) Well Dave it looks like you can end this. I must say your display of patient is just as impressive as (...) (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) SNIP (...) SNIP Exactly If I made a promiss not to buy anymore Lego for the month the latest sale would be a pretty poor excuse for breaking that promiss. -Ken (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Reinhard "Ben" Beneke

(...) Thanks Ken, for being that patient in explaining your point (which is mine at the same time). A lie is a lie and a broken promise is a broken promise. And Lego is having no finacial success while Playmobil (in Europe) and Megabloks (in (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —David Koudys

(...) One more time from the top--if you want to misinterpret what happened, by all means. But, let's look at Ken's very example, which is completely inaccurate to the actual situation. (...) LEGO made no such promise and there was no going back on (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Larry Pieniazek

Snipped most of it to focus on one point (...) Note that saying that you think a discussion is over, does anyone have anything NEW to add, is not censorship. If no one adds anything new, asking that people not repeat the same points except LOUDER is (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) Ditto (...) Censorship does come into play when you say "LUGNET doesn't (yet) have threadlocking. But I personally (and this is not a statement of policy, I am not wearing my hat) wish we did. Because if we did, I'd lock this thread so fast it (...) (19 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) I have no need to misinterpert anything. I can read what jake posted on these boards and words mean things. I read what Lego chose to publicly post. (...) They should have found a diffrent way to satisfy Maersk and keep their word to the (...) (19 years ago, 28-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) Thanks for the support. Unfortunatly while I could go back and point out the posts where I have been personally called a liar, my asking of a simple moral question has been labeled a detriment to the site and some how it it said to "impune" (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Bryan Wong

(...) You're comparing this situation to wedding vows? Ok that's just ridiculous. (...) <snip> (...) Dave K, if you're still reading this, it's clear that Ken here really believes that LEGO has/had made some sort of special "promise" with him - (...) (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) SNIP (...) Jake Mckee posted on these very boards “Then it’s time for another new adventure! It measures 69cm long and is your last chance to buy Maersk bricks! AND:"This is a small run too – only 14,000 total, with 10,000 coming to Shop At (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Timothy Gould

Dear Ken, I propose a very simple solution. If you don't buy the new Maersk set because of your moral convictions that it is wrong then Jake's original statement, and any other TLC 'implications' becomes true. It will be your last chance to buy the (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Kyle D. Jackson

(...) LOL!! Thanx, Dave, that's my laugh for the week! :] KDJ ___...___ LUGNETer #203 (19 years ago, 24-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Tony Kilaras

What makes you think that Lego would deign to expend the effort it would take to lie to a bunch of insignificant moqsuitoes like us? The contribution margin on the entire load of Maersk ships probably amounts to what we accountants call a rounding (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Ken Nagel

(...) Snip I don't think this is part of a plot or deliberately cooked up. If it was only this problem there would be no problem. There's a patern of poor decisions, misreading the consumer (AFOL and not) and inability to see when a mistake has been (...) (19 years ago, 27-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Kyle D. Jackson

(...) For your amusement: (URL) #203 (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Larry Pieniazek

(...) around the Transition Team a few months back. Not sure what effect it had or how to "fix" some of the things (one of his theories is that some things are fundamentally unfixable)... (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update) —Kyle D. Jackson

(...) That's a theory I buy into..., and until a "solution" is demonstrated, it's a safely self-satisfied theory. Conflict is human nature, and until the day we're all lobotomized, or extinct, it won't change. Keeps things interesting I s'pose. :] (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 10152 Update —Burkhard Schloemer

(...) Ooooh, you'd be surprised, Larry! Actually I would happily share your point of view - if I had a perfectly sound reason to do so. Say, about 80 bucks burning a hole in my pocket and an empty shelf that would perfectly fit a Maersk ship? That (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —Kelly McKiernan

(...) You're right Larry, this is a perfect point to stop, as the thread has devolved from relatively restrained (albeit heated) to snotty. The reaction of the community to this issue is certainly something to think about. I'll bow out now and move (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Kyle D. Jackson

(...) To clarify: "collectibility", by your explanations, is based purely on your own *speculation* (and others who share your thinking). TLC's "assertion" (as you call it) had nothing whatsoever to do with making the set "collectible", since, as (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —Kyle D. Jackson

(...) [snip] (...) John, I really don't understand this point. I mean that literally, I don't understand. You may very well be right within this odd-sounding (to me) corner of the collector world. But personally, I fail to see how a simple set (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —Ray Sanders

(...) If you purchase something at full retail, as a collectable, then someone's P&L statement is going to look pretty good. If enough people do that, then there has been created a 'demand' that had more to do with the profit motive than the desire (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —John Neal

(...) I think that I didn't make myself clear. All I am asking for is that the new run of 10152s be numbered "10153" or something. This simple change preserves the collectiblity of the 10052s. I wasn't suggesting any more radical change than that. (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —John Barnes

Thanks for the update Jake, and for yet again braving the criticism of those who only ever seem to see the negative side of things. I think in this instance, TLG were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. If they'd never said that the set (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Paulo Renato

(...) Hey Jake, Though I didn't buy the first time and probabily will not buy it once more, I find these really good news for all the people who missed the first chance. And for me that's all that maters: getting the set because it is so great. As (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Jason Hull

(...) cool! please let us know when you find out how many more sets will be available as well as if the dark blue version will/will not be produced. i appreciate your letting us know! jason (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Paul S. D'Urbano

In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote: SNIP (...) Jake, Thanks for the update. I really appreciate being able to get info on special sets like this. I wouldn't even know this set existed if it wasn't for TLC sharing info like this on LUGNET. I know I'm (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Burkhard Schloemer

Selling items, suggesting a last-time chance and indicating there will only be a limited quantity availible, then make more of exactly the same items later is no acceptable way of conducting business, regardless of circumstances. Customers (!) are (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —René Hoffmeister

Hi all, 1) I would like to mention a fact to this issue, which might help to understand the annoyance of nearly all German AFOLs (here on LUGNET and on 1000steine.de (see: (URL)). In Germany, the set was actually announced as limited. The official (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX) !

Interesting point of view, Rene! —Christian Treczoks

Well, the combination of non-adherence to advertised values of the product and the legal endowment to return an item for refund if it does not match previously promised core properties could really lead to a case here (IMHO, IANAL). At the end of (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —David Koudys

(...) I wonder if the car companies go thru this when they released the PT Cruiser or the (hopefully upcoming) Dodge Charger "You promised me that this was the last model year of this vehicle!! I invested all my money into it and now, 20+ years (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —Burkhard Schloemer

(...) David, what you're telling us with so many words is that you're happy with your existing collection so that you actually don't have to care what TLG does or does not. That's ok. Nothing wrong with being a happy AFOL dwelling in the past. 37 (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —Mark de Kock

In lugnet.lego, Burkhard Schloemer wrote: [snippage] (...) are saying is so "George Double-You" that it is almost too good :-) So either we complain about every single thing TLC does or we don't CARE? How about all the fans that are happy with this (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —Burkhard Schloemer

(...) I'm glad I could be of service. ;) But I'm afraid you're mixing up so many things I really don't wish to sort it out for you. And better never, ever mention George Doubble-You to "Old Europeans" like me ... (...) Try something stronger than (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —David Koudys

(...) know he's doing a great job at being a liason. I care so much that I'm spending more now on LEGO products than I did before. I care to the point where I do shows and displays to show off what can be done with LEGO bricks to get otehr people (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —John Neal

In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote: <snip> (...) If they indeed said, "we will never produce this vehicle again" and they went ahead any way, you are okay with that??? Maybe this is a Liberal thing. It reminds me of a college professor who ran for a (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —Ka-On Lee

(...) I got to 0 already because I keep getting this picture in my head: [comic book guy] Oh my gosh! The release will reduce the collectibility of my sets from 5 of 14000 to 5 of 2x000! I must go to the internet and complain! [/comic book guy] (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —Christian Treczoks

(...) Wrong end of the line. Imagine what car (or other companies) go through when they promise something in their advertising, and don't keep it. E.g. if the any car company advertises a car to run 100km with 3 litres (The task of calculating the (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —Scott Lyttle

(...) I seem to recall General Motors making a promise that they were going to release the new Camaro by "x" date....well, turns out that they didn't make it. The result? An advertising campaign featuring the "human caring factor" of a manager who (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —David Eaton

(...) What constitutes actual advertising versus an employee stating something incorrectly? Was the phrasing of the post on 1000steine run by Lego's legal department, just as a paid advertisement would be? If they had instead said "This MIGHT be (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —John Neal

(...) It was correct, until TLC decided to make it incorrect by consciously changing their mind. (...) I think so. Then we would have recognized it as the typical BS advert hype which we all know to ignore. (...) Are you by chance a lawyer, Dave? If (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —Steve Bliss

(...) Uh, John. That *is* what Jake said. Well, he certainly didn't say claim anything *stronger* than that -- actually, what he said was more low key, if anything. (URL) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —John Neal

(...) That's not how I took it. But look at the way it was explained to the Germans via their liason (thanks to Rene's post): (URL) Doesn't get more clear than that IMO. JOHN (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —David Koudys

(...) What is even more clear is that, at the time, TLC stated 'we have such-n-such quantity of Maersk Blue in stock and want to do something with it. Since, at htis time, we don't have a contract with Maersk for anything, we'll get rid of our stock (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —David Eaton

(...) Perhaps I just read all statements from Lego as possibles, whereas others read them as 100% definites. Let's look at Jake's post: (URL) As many of you have seen from the leaked pictures online, we have released a > (...) Interpretation: Fact. (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: Interesting point of view, Rene! —Scott Lyttle

snippage (...) more snippage (...) John, I hate to be nitpicky here (oh, wait, half the posts on this thread are about being nitpicky), but I thought the color of set 10052 was yellow.. (URL) a different story... Scott (19 years ago, 22-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —John Neal

(...) Guten Tag, Rene! Hope fatherhood is treating you well:^D Thanks for bringing this into the discussion. It seems this information makes the case a little stronger against TLC. It's simply reckless and dishonest to advertise in this manner, IMO. (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Anders Isaksson

(...) What's the use of integrity, if they go broke? Lego is a company, companies must generate profit or they will disappear, sales (mostly) generate profit ==> Lego should sell things. As many as they can. Not create artificial 'limited editions'. (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —John Neal

(...) Are you implying that profitability and integrity are mutually exclusive? I hope not. JOHN (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Anders Isaksson

(...) No, I'm implying that listening to the groans from a minute part of a minor part of the customer base is not sound business. Making money is. (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them? —Reinhard "Ben" Beneke

In lugnet.lego, René Hoffmeister wrote: Dear René, thanks for bringing these postings into the debate. Facts are: LEGO gave a promise and broke it (because they think they can generate profit out of this decision). Fact number 2 is: lots of people (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them? —Orion Pobursky

(...) To be honest, I could care less about what the company does. This is a hobby for me. What this means is that I refuse to let anything LEGO stress me out. In other words, I'll praise the company when they do something I like and ignore (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them? —Steven D. Weiser

(...) Fact # 1: I have yet to see anyone produce the "PROMISE" that TLC gave. Fact # 2: I am one of those who IS very upset with the change to the colors. I have not spent one penny on new sets, nor will I any time soon. Old sets and parts will be (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them? —Christian Treczoks

(...) Rene presented them in his post, just one level above Bens posting: (URL) Quotes: “The edition of this set is likewise limited, there is a total of 14,000 copies” “This is your last chance to buy Maersk blue bricks” Yours, Christian (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them? —David Koudys

(...) At the time, it was. Does that negate new contracts with Maersk? Dave K (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them? —Ronald Borchert

In lugnet.lego, Steven D. Weiser wrote: snipped some text to reduce it to something I'am confused about (...) Hi, in this discussion on lugnet.com almost everybody who wrote about collectors wrote in a very negative way. It seems as if in the (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them? —Steven D. Weiser

(...) Not what I intended to bring across. I am saying that any type of investment, wether it be the stock market, or the toy market, is risky business. You take your chances on making or losing money. I have purchased shares in companys that were (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them? —Ka-On Lee

(...) Because they are the only one that would be negatively affected by this so called "collectibility" of this set, now that it is not so rare. (...) I know tons of those, generally from the anime toy fandom. Some of them buy two of each action (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them? —David Koudys

(...) Wrong. TLC stated that they had old Maersk Blue pellets and 'wouldn't it be nice to give the AFOL a really cool set and use up the pellets at the same time'. Why should that negate future contracts? It was a business decision made at the time (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them? —Reinhard "Ben" Beneke

(...) Sorry to correct you, Dave, but they did. Go read Renes posting. They called the set limited. And they announced it to be the very last chance to buy Mearsk blue. There are not 2 last chances in life. (...) If I call a product limited and give (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them? —Tim David

(...) surely 0.8 cm is as metric as 1cm? Tim (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek)

Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them? —Paulo Renato

(...) Hey Ben, I think you know my feelings about crap bley and all of those silly excuses surrounding it. As you might have read elsewhere I didn't buy any new sets this year (except for bulk bricks at S@H), so you may have a clue of how I feel. In (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them? —Reinhard "Ben" Beneke

(...) [SNIP] (...) Dear Paulo! Thanks for your posting now! -And I remember you once answered in a very friendly way, when I explained, that I feel nearly expelled out of my hobby due to the bleys. It was possible your posting which kept me here at (...) (19 years ago, 22-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them? —Ka-On Lee

(...) Nothing new. Already debunked by others. (...) Ha ha! Remember all those gambling toys a.k.a. bionical masks? Can they just honestly label their product instead of enouraging kids to play lottery? (...) Why do I keep hearing this ignorant (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them? —Paulo Renato

Hi Ka-On, <snipped> (...) Got me curious about this. It is really true what you are saying? Or are you talking about the average middle/high class? Isn't it true that overthere you have a lot of children labour? I saw a documentary in Discovery (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them? —Tony Kilaras

Your thought process, as enumerated below, is flabergasting in the scope of its naivete. You realize that Lego is fighting for its very survival, no? Maybe you're right. Better to have those kindly Danes keep making the brick until the company is (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them? —Paulo Renato

(...) <snip a bit of my stuff> (...) Dear Ben, I'm very glad that you noticed it and I'm really touched to see that you even recall it! I really think that you are (besides a {greatest} MOCcer, mind you!) one of the few persons that keep me hanging (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them? —Kevin Salm

(...) Since LEGO is a private company, they can do anything they want. If LEGO decided to now make automotive parts or kitchen utensils or print newspapers there is nothing we can say as fans of the brick to make them change their mind. The LEGO (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —Jason Spears

(...) Cool. I may have to squirrel away some cash to buy a few more. (...) While I think more Maersk blue is good, I'm bummed at the news that the dark blue may not happen. Even though I voted for the dark green, I still was looking forward to (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Jacob Davies

(...) Excellent, I look forward to getting a copy of this set (I hadn't heard about it until this posting). (Speaking, I guess, as a Lego collector: I don't collect based on whether something is rare or not, but on whether I like the model. My (...) (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —David Koudys

In lugnet.lego, Jacob Davies wrote: <snip> (...) Second this sentiment Dave K (19 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —Rob Hendrix

"Jake McKee" <jacob.mckee@america.lego.com> wrote in message news:I8xw3s.KoJ@lugnet.com... (...) Thanks Jake. Thanks for bringing us this news in person so we can be prepared before the actual event occurs. As for the rest of you, hmm, let's see (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —David Koudys

In lugnet.lego, Rob Hendrix wrote: <snip> (...) Yeah, as soon as I saw those, I thought of the pain you'd be feeling. After checking yout your wonderful work at BF this past summer, this one from TLC has got to suck. Well, don't forget you got the (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —Tim David

(...) yeah, what sort of sicko would want one of those? ;-P Seriously this happens a lot in the model railway world, you scratch build a model of something not avaialable as a kit or RTR from the trade and just when you finish someone releases it. (...) (19 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)

Re: 10152 Update —Mike Petrucelli

(...) Well if it still sells very well I hope it is produced in dark blue as well. Only because I think a set this well designed deserves a large production run and a spot in the S@H cataloge, and thus further increase its sales. I am just glad to (...) (19 years ago, 23-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

Re: 10152 Update —Ed Andrews

In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote: ... (...) ... (...) Okay LEGO, Now the cat's out of the bag. How much do we have to chip in for two train car hopper loads of Classic Grey and Dark Grey ABS? Ed (19 years ago, 20-Jan-05, to lugnet.lego, FTX) !