 | | | | | | |
| |
|
"J. Irvine" <irvinej@accuvera.com> wrote in message
news:GuGM3J.6po@lugnet.com...
> I have to jump in and add my agreement to this post. Speaking as someone • who
> did not have the opportunity to get the Battrax when I was younger, I am
> thrilled to have another chance at getting it now that I have the • purchasing
> power to do so. I couldn't care less if it's "not the original" - it's • close
> enough for me.
I agree here with this - when I was younger I had a couple of small Classic
Space sets but they disappeared a long time ago. With the release of the
Star Wars sets my LEGO interest has been renewed, although I've also started
looking at Space sets for sale. While the Battrax looks dated I think that
adds to the appeal - I would love to get my hands on one of these to remind
me of what I missed in my "dark ages". I wouldn't keep it in the box, it'd
get put together and displayed in my LEGO room (yep, I have a whole room
available to set out my LEGO although my computer shares it too) and
probably let my daughter play with it (and it'd reduce the chance of her
wanting to play with my 8448, although she seems to have taken a liking to
the Snowspeeder at the moment, quite scary for a 2 1/2 year old when she
even makes the sounds of the lasers and the noise of the AT-ATs!). In my
opinion LEGO isn't for stacking away in the hope it'll be worth something
one day, I enjoy building the sets and watching the sparks of creativity my
daughter shows with her Duplo and my LEGO.
Dan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Daniel Crichton writes:
> "J. Irvine" <irvinej@accuvera.com> wrote in message
> news:GuGM3J.6po@lugnet.com...
>
> > I have to jump in and add my agreement to this post. Speaking as someone • who
> > did not have the opportunity to get the Battrax when I was younger, I am
> > thrilled to have another chance at getting it now that I have the • purchasing
> > power to do so. I couldn't care less if it's "not the original" - it's • close
> > enough for me.
>
> I agree here with this - when I was younger I had a couple of small Classic
> Space sets but they disappeared a long time ago. With the release of the
> Star Wars sets my LEGO interest has been renewed, although I've also started
> looking at Space sets for sale. While the Battrax looks dated I think that
> adds to the appeal - I would love to get my hands on one of these to remind
> me of what I missed in my "dark ages". I wouldn't keep it in the box, it'd
> get put together and displayed in my LEGO room (yep, I have a whole room
> available to set out my LEGO although my computer shares it too) and
> probably let my daughter play with it (and it'd reduce the chance of her
> wanting to play with my 8448, although she seems to have taken a liking to
> the Snowspeeder at the moment, quite scary for a 2 1/2 year old when she
> even makes the sounds of the lasers and the noise of the AT-ATs!). In my
> opinion LEGO isn't for stacking away in the hope it'll be worth something
> one day, I enjoy building the sets and watching the sparks of creativity my
> daughter shows with her Duplo and my LEGO.
>
> Dan
I tried to not to be too much of a "me too" person around Lugnet, but I
thought I would have to throw in my agrument here too. On Beneke's opinion.
When I was younger, I never had a chance to get my hands on a Battrax,
Yellow Castle or even a Black Falcon's fortress. Instead, the only sets I
had a chance to get were exploriens, unitron and royal knights, not the best
items, but still great sets. However, I never got a chance to get my hands
on the
real sets" such as classic castle and space sets.
I never collected Lego for value, no way! I took up the brick solely because
I wanted to build something awesome. But what Beneke wrote about turning
Legends into "faked up sets" I firmly disagree with. If you re-release a
set, most likely you will see changes (i.g old parts thet no longer can be made)
Even though some parts have changed, and the sets are now a current product,
does that really change the set? I think not!
Legends were made for a reason, they were popular sets with a wide appeal to
a variety of collectors, adult and kid alike. Even though the cash value of
the set has been lost, think of it in a good term, now Lego fans of all ages
can get an equal chance to get their hands on something they couldn't get
before. Lego isn't about value. Adult collectors shouldn't be the only
people to get thair hands on a particular set. Unfortunately, some people
seem to think so.
Remember, Lego wasn't made to be stacked brick by brick locked in a safe.
Lego was meant to be built.
Anyway, J. Irvine's opinion pretty much sums it up, but I thought I had
to add my two cents to this deal. You see, well...that's my nature...
Just my two brickz...
<<_Matt Hein_>>
Lugnet No. 1112
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Matt Hein writes:
>
> I tried to not to be too much of a "me too" person around Lugnet, but I
> thought I would have to throw in my agrument here too. On Beneke's opinion.
>
> When I was younger, I never had a chance to get my hands on a Battrax,
> Yellow Castle or even a Black Falcon's fortress. Instead, the only sets I
> had a chance to get were exploriens, unitron and royal knights, not the best
> items, but still great sets. However, I never got a chance to get my hands
> on the
> real sets" such as classic castle and space sets.
>
> I never collected Lego for value, no way! I took up the brick solely because
> I wanted to build something awesome. But what Beneke wrote about turning
> Legends into "faked up sets" I firmly disagree with. If you re-release a
> set, most likely you will see changes (i.g old parts thet no longer can be made)
> Even though some parts have changed, and the sets are now a current product,
> does that really change the set? I think not!
>
> Legends were made for a reason, they were popular sets with a wide appeal to
> a variety of collectors, adult and kid alike. Even though the cash value of
> the set has been lost, think of it in a good term, now Lego fans of all ages
> can get an equal chance to get their hands on something they couldn't get
> before. Lego isn't about value. Adult collectors shouldn't be the only
> people to get thair hands on a particular set. Unfortunately, some people
> seem to think so.
> Remember, Lego wasn't made to be stacked brick by brick locked in a safe.
> Lego was meant to be built.
>
> Anyway, J. Irvine's opinion pretty much sums it up, but I thought I had
> to add my two cents to this deal. You see, well...that's my nature...
>
> Just my two brickz...
>
> <<_Matt Hein_>>
> Lugnet No. 1112
Amen!
I have to agree. And I, for one, have grown up with UFO, town JR, and
Insectoids, and believe me, I ain't happy with it!
:-)
Lego Legends are supposed to be that: legends. I think that if you don't
count a set as a legend just because its equally avaliable and dosn't go for
absurdly high prices, you are doing something wrong.
John Kruer
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, John Henry Kruer writes:
> Amen!
>
> I have to agree. And I, for one, have grown up with UFO, town JR, and
> Insectoids, and believe me, I ain't happy with it!
>
> :-)
Yeah. I was stuck with excuses for space for quite a while until Star Wars
hit the market. (and I joined Lugnet)
> Lego Legends are supposed to be that: legends. I think that if you don't
> count a set as a legend just because its equally avaliable and dosn't go for
> absurdly high prices, you are doing something wrong.
Yeah. For months I wanted a Guarded Inn before it became a legend, and there
was *no way* I would blow one hundred dollars on a 6067. Luckily, that model
is now available at the cheap cost of $25. I think Lego should definitely
release ALL of the candidates for Legend (although I *know* they won't in
the first place). I just say that they should make a set universally
available. That's all I ask as a consumer. :)
Now, I'm stuck between voting for a battrax or a yellow castle, OR a BFF.
It's giving me a headache, but oh well, I *really* need a battrax, then I'll
be helfway BT1 complete!
Just my two brickz...
<<_Matt Hein_>>
Lugnet No. 1112
> John Kruer
| | | | | | |
