 | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> > Just to repeat some of my statements:
> > - Legends are legends, because they have been desireable sets: good design +
> > often rare sets because they have been discontinued since years.
> > - a re-released legend is no longer a legend, because it is just a mass
> > product (you have not to desire it any longer - just buy it). If a legend is
> > re-released it becomes a dead legend in my eyes: might be a cool set, but it
> > is by far less desireable. (You alway desire most, what is hard to get.)
>
> Spoken like a collector without regard for what others may or may not have in
> their collections. I see this as a kind of greed on your part, pure and
> simple.
Just turn the medal and I tell you: it is greed that makes people wanting to
have these legends...
(Stupid argument of mine? Agree - but is yours the better one?)
> Others, who for reasons of youth or having made different spending
> choices in the past, now have an opportunity to pick up something they have
> had to do without in the meanwhile. And while the Yellow Castle (more
> below) is not my first choice as a rerelease given some of the details, many
> others may well want to have one and not have to pay $300 or whatever for
> what is in the end mostly just a pile of yellow bricks...! You would deny
> them this for what reason? Your elite ownership of the previous release?
I do not own one that deserves the name 375. So your argument is
completely hollow.
> I have said it before and I will say it again: lego is not a great choice
> for collectors for numerous reasons.
Why not? Because you dislike collectors? I tell you: there are not much more
better items to be found than MISB Lego sets. Take a look into ebay and you see
these items are collectors items. But I am not a collector and I do not own any
MISB set. I trow away boxes and I give away these needless instructions
(except from train theme)....
I am building MOC. That is, what I have my bricks for.
> > I would wish, TLC could bring out more new and good designs like the 10020
> > Santa Fe or the 3451 Sopwith Camel. And if they had a lack of own ideas they
> > should bring more MOC-sets like the 3739 Blacksmith Shop. But legends in the
> > way they are released now are not very helpful for lots of fans.
> And consider the cost per set savings if TLC sells older sets it has already
> developed many years ago -- they save in many ways, and hopefully pass the
> savings on to consumers. I think that's the whole driving force behind the
> Legends line right there...
Agree - but the costs would be the same for a changed design: Lego made new
instructions anyway and the costs are the same if 10001 is grey or dark gray:
they had to take for e.g. the nose piece mould back into production anyway.
> > If TLC wanted to do us a favour, they would do major changes to the new
> > legends. For example the 375 castle:
> > It has been a great set in 1978. I loved that set and will always love it. • But
> > do I need a "faked" 375 set today? Really not!! A re-release has not the
> > charme of the original set from 1978. And I do not need yellow bricks for own
> > designs does anybody else? I cannot imagine.
> Well, that one didn't get my highest vote because it will lack the original
> knight's headgear -- in my view, this failing makes its rerelease less than
> interesting.
Tell me why? The building of the set is the same challenge. Why do you need a
copy of 375 that is as near to the real one as possible?
> Given that, the only unique elements that will be offered in the
> rerelease will be the yellow steep corner slopes -- which should really be a
> parts pack available in most colors. I think the 1x1 "lantern" elements which
> may have been the "squared" type originally, will now just be the basic round
> one that have been around for years. For those reasons, your precious
> original set remains undiminished. Be happy yourself and let others have
> their fun.
??
> As to the tan and dark grey variant arguments you raise, I have no arguments
> with that either -- just a caveat that the same thing could/should be
> addressed by a proper handling of brick bulk/accessory packs.
If so - why rerelease 375 if bulk could do the same?
> Anyway, I think I voted for the Black Knight set for the black steep corner
> slopes. But I wouldn't care if the rerelease of the Battrax made my 4-5
> copies of the original obsolete -- and I am quite sure the elements are such
> that they could duplicate this set almost perfectly, I can't think of a
> reason that would hex it -- all of the elements have been made until
> recently. So great, I have my 4-5 already -- I should care that others pick
> theirs up now?
No idea why you should - I do not care about it either.
> Lego is about playing. There is room in my sandbox for others to have all
> of the same stuff I do. I have no sense of competition about it. Why should
> you?
You are argueing against me as a collector: I am not. So none of your agruments
hit me.
If you are interested in my point of view, read this posting of mine, please:
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=36495
Kind Regards
Ben
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Ben writes:
> Just turn the medal and I tell you: it is greed that makes people wanting to
> have these legends...(Stupid argument of mine? Agree - but is yours the >better one?)
Well, perhaps -- there is certainly desire for certain elements. I think we
would all be served better by more selection in the accessory packs, but if
the only way to get some things are going to be the Legend and Classics
lines, then so be it. TLC and LD makes these decisions, I just try to guage
how clever the decisions happen to be and whether it is worth it to me as a
builder to buy certain sets.
> Why not? Because you dislike collectors?
Not really. It's just that except for MISB condition sets (which still
doesn't appeal to me collector-wise), paying top dollar for any lego is
wildly foolish -- with an open box, there are simply too many variables to
account for.
I feel differently about individual elements, but then I do not personally
acquire them for collector purposes, but rather for building purposes.
> Agree - but the costs would be the same for a changed design: Lego made new
> instructions anyway and the costs are the same if 10001 is grey or dark gray:
> they had to take for e.g. the nose piece mould back into production anyway.
My understanding of the situation is that LD isn't making new molds, so I am
not sure I follow the argument here. Plus, I feel pretty sure that they are
using the same old instructions reprinted, so again there is a presumed
savings on not having to do as much work for the manual that comes with the
sets.
> Tell me why? The building of the set is the same challenge. Why do you need a
> copy of 375 that is as near to the real one as possible?
Building challenge? It comes with instructions and even if it did not, it
doesn't look like brain surgery anyway.
The point of a near perfect reproduction is to get the elements that are
desireable from the set, like the visors, steep corner slopes, and the 1x1x1
windows.
> If so - why rerelease 375 if bulk could do the same?
No arguments again. If we had all the elements we needed as builders
available as accessory packs or in other easily obtainable sets, I wouldn't
give a fig for the Legends or Classics lines. The reality is that TLC/LD
wants to release certain things this way -- I presume there is a profit
motive that prevents them from releasing the accessory packs of our dreams.
So that's where we are.
But BTW, while you claim not to be a collector you do make pointedly
hilarious statements elsewhere like: "Because a reprint of Mona Lisa is not
the Mona Lisa even if you buy the poster in the Louvre. A fake is a fake."
What precisely is the motive for such a statement? I agree that quality
control is an issue for TLC/LD, but the issue is not that severe - esp. when
it comes to plain elements without printing.
But to pursue your terrible analogy a little further, I ask which is the
original "one and only" of any lego design such that we can compare it to
the Mona Lisa? There is none, all lego products are mass produced. So
again, to follow your limping analogy a little further, we are comparing the
first run of a thing to the second run of a thing for which there is no
original. And frankly, who cares which one you get if all you want are the
unique elements of a particular color from a specific set?
Clever and fun toy? -- yes. Works of art? -- no.
-- Hop-Frog
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> it is greed that makes people wanting to have these legends...
Greed?
GREED??
G R E E D?!?!?!
Whoa… maybe you look @ the hobby in a different manner that I.
But ‘Greed’ isn’t a term I'd apply to my ‘yearning’ for a 375.
~Perhaps your word usage is flawed?
I don’t see anything gluttonous, or insatiable about my desire for a 375!
But those are just the first few words that popped-up in my thesaurus.
(These words that are synonymous with greed appear repellent in nature.)
Mayhaps t’would be more aptly put if you were to imply ‘greed’ in terms
of desire, craving, and longing that do not possess a negative connotation.
> : it is greed that makes people wanting to have these legends...
> (Stupid argument of mine? Agree - but is yours the better one?)
I do believe my argument is better.
I ‘desire’ a 375 not for reasons of ‘greed’ but for the shear pleasure of
building and playing with a set that I've longed for since I was a child.
Now that the opportunity has arisen to purchase a Legend I buy it to add
soldiers to my collection, expand my Lego landscape, and appreciate an
astatically beautiful model.
~And I don’t think I'm alone…
I believe most of us have reasons of virtue rather than vice.
Call me childish, but I'm in the hobby for the fun it.
I really meant it when I said:
> “if ever I should get my hands on a 6075 I swear I'd hug the box…for a
> . long time… telling it: “Your home, your finally home!” ”
http://news.lugnet.com/castle/?n=12857
For I love playing, building, and creating, with my collection.
Because I believe Lego is “an intellectualists pursuit of creativity
through the exploration of play.” ® -RN 2001.
I see no ‘greed’ in my ways, nor of those who share the hobby with me.
Pure fun with toys that are as adaptable and advanced as the individual
that creates with them.
Sorry, no ‘greed’ here,
--==RïçhårÐ==--
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Noeckel writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> > it is greed that makes people wanting to have these legends...
>
> Greed?
> GREED??
> G R E E D?!?!?!
>
> Whoa… maybe you look @ the hobby in a different manner that I.
> But ‘Greed’ isn’t a term I'd apply to my ‘yearning’ for a 375.
>
> ~Perhaps your word usage is flawed?
> I don’t see anything gluttonous, or insatiable about my desire for a 375!
> But those are just the first few words that popped-up in my thesaurus.
> (These words that are synonymous with greed appear repellent in nature.)
Nah, I could easily see myself buying one for the sheer desire to
actually get my hands on something so phenominal I never had a chance to
acquire. I think desire is a better word.
> Mayhaps t’would be more aptly put if you were to imply ‘greed’ in terms
> of desire, craving, and longing that do not possess a negative connotation.
I've never seen anyone who hordes yelloe castle parts, so I don't normally
associate greed to legos :)
> > : it is greed that makes people wanting to have these legends...
> > (Stupid argument of mine? Agree - but is yours the better one?)
No, I think it is the collector's wish to get a hold of these, and a smart
company move at that. In one way, it's more of a two way deal, than a double
edged sword...
> I do believe my argument is better.
> I ‘desire’ a 375 not for reasons of ‘greed’ but for the shear pleasure of
> building and playing with a set that I've longed for since I was a child.
> Now that the opportunity has arisen to purchase a Legend I buy it to add
> soldiers to my collection, expand my Lego landscape, and appreciate an
> astatically beautiful model.
And I need a 375 just for the sole purpose of getting a load
of yellow bricks! :)
>
> ~And I don’t think I'm alone…
> I believe most of us have reasons of virtue rather than vice.
>
> Call me childish, but I'm in the hobby for the fun it.
> I really meant it when I said:
> > “if ever I should get my hands on a 6075 I swear I'd hug the box…for a
> > . long time… telling it: “Your home, your finally home!” ”
> http://news.lugnet.com/castle/?n=12857
Ah, I wouldn't go as far as that, but, alas, I would spend quite a lot
oftime building with it. That's for sure!
> For I love playing, building, and creating, with my collection.
> Because I believe Lego is “an intellectualists pursuit of creativity
> through the exploration of play.” ® -RN 2001.
>
> I see no ‘greed’ in my ways, nor of those who share the hobby with me.
> Pure fun with toys that are as adaptable and advanced as the individual
> that creates with them.
>
>
If the individual possesses "I have it and you can't" attitude, than
that takes all of the fun out of Lego. I say, equal opportunity!
> Sorry, no ‘greed’ here,
>
> --==RïçhårÐ==--
Just my two brickz...
<<_Matt Hein_>>
Lugnet No. 1112
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Noeckel writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> > it is greed that makes people wanting to have these legends...
>
> Greed?
> GREED??
> G R E E D?!?!?!
>
> Whoa… maybe you look @ the hobby in a different manner that I.
> But ‘Greed’ isn’t a term I'd apply to my ‘yearning’ for a 375.
>
> ~Perhaps your word usage is flawed?
Yes, perhaps it is. Ben is E2L(1), please keep that in mind, and sometimes
that causes misunderstanding. Reading over your words and his, I don't find
that much disagreement, believe it or not.
(I'm in the camp that's glad any time Lego, in any shape or form,
(re)releases a good set, in any shape or form... would I rather that the set
was way different than any released before, but still good? Sure. But I'll
take it (the good set, whatever the source(2)) either way)
Hope that helps.
1 - old IBMTEXT shorthand for (E)nglish as a (2)nd (L)anguage...
2 - More MOC sets please, and hurry!!!! And that's all I am going to say
about that.
++Lar
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Noeckel writes:
> > ~Perhaps your word usage is flawed?
> Larry Pieniazek writes:
> Yes, perhaps it is. Ben is E2L
Thanks for elaborating on that!
I too knew that English was his 2nd Language and therefore
I endeavored to point out that the discrepancy may exist in translation.
> Ben is E2L(1), (E)nglish as a (2)nd (L)anguage...
> please keep that in mind, and sometimes that causes misunderstanding.
I tried too…
I hope I didn’t come across as impolite.
I like Ben and respect what he has to say, that’s why I wanted to clarify.
> I'm in the camp that's glad any time Lego, in
> any shape or form, (re)releases a good set,
Ah, ‘tis a fine camp to be in!
(Any good Lego is great Lego)
> 2 - More MOC sets please, and hurry!!!!
> And that's all I am going to say about that.
WoW, Yah…
What’s up wit da?
I'd almost forgot!
Is the MOC line more infrequent than the Legends?
Are we only to expect 2 a year?
Till then,
--==RïçhårÐ==--
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Noeckel writes:
> I like Ben and respect what he has to say, that’s why I wanted to clarify.
and thanks for that. Sorry if I used your post as a periodic reminder to
folks that not everyone is E1L and to keep it in mind....
>
> > I'm in the camp that's glad any time Lego, in
> > any shape or form, (re)releases a good set,
>
> Ah, ‘tis a fine camp to be in!
> (Any good Lego is great Lego)
Roger that! Got any marshmallows for the campfire?
> > 2 - More MOC sets please, and hurry!!!!
> > And that's all I am going to say about that.
>
> WoW, Yah…
> What’s up wit da?
> I'd almost forgot!
> Is the MOC line more infrequent than the Legends?
> Are we only to expect 2 a year?
> > And that's all I am going to say about that.
:-)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
"richard noeckel" <shroud_of_kung_fu@hotmail.com> writes:
> > Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > 2 - More MOC sets please, and hurry!!!!
> > And that's all I am going to say about that.
>
> WoW, Yah…
> What’s up wit da?
> I'd almost forgot!
> Is the MOC line more infrequent than the Legends?
> Are we only to expect 2 a year?
My guess is that LD was waiting to see how well the first one did
before committing to doing any more. I'm sure there is a large
lead-time for new sets like this, and since it was kept secret until
its release, we have no way of knowing how long that takes.
After the success of the Blacksmith Shop, I suspect LD contacted other
MOC-makers and as we speak are working on the new sets which will be
out when the marketing astrologers declare it to be an auspicious
time... But I predict that the "pace" of MOC sets will increase,
assuming that the program is continued.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Noeckel writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> > it is greed that makes people wanting to have these legends...
>
> Greed?
> GREED??
> G R E E D?!?!?!
>
> Whoa… maybe you look @ the hobby in a different manner that I.
> But ‘Greed’ isn’t a term I'd apply to my ‘yearning’ for a 375.
>
> ~Perhaps your word usage is flawed?
> I don’t see anything gluttonous, or insatiable about my desire for a 375!
> But those are just the first few words that popped-up in my thesaurus.
> (These words that are synonymous with greed appear repellent in nature.)
>
> Mayhaps t’would be more aptly put if you were to imply ‘greed’ in terms
> of desire, craving, and longing that do not possess a negative connotation.
Sorry Richard,
English is not my mother tongue. So why did I use the word greed here? As a
matter of fact I have not used that word since ever - I had to look into my
dictionary to cheack the meaning of "greed".
I only have used this word, because in the posting before this word has been
used by YOU (and against me)! You told me to have feelings of greed. So your
arguing now is a little unfair in my eyes...
> > : it is greed that makes people wanting to have these legends...
> > (Stupid argument of mine? Agree - but is yours the better one?)
>
> I do believe my argument is better.
> I ‘desire’ a 375 not for reasons of ‘greed’ but for the shear pleasure of
> building and playing with a set that I've longed for since I was a child.
And if you want to "play" with it: what would be wrong with a modified Legend
set? that is all, what I desire. I want Lego to do modified sets - best with
evidently changed colours (like 4554 / 2150).
> Now that the opportunity has arisen to purchase a Legend I buy it to add
> soldiers to my collection, expand my Lego landscape, and appreciate an
> astatically beautiful model.
>
> ~And I don’t think I'm alone…
> I believe most of us have reasons of virtue rather than vice.
>
> Call me childish, but I'm in the hobby for the fun it.
> I really meant it when I said:
> > “if ever I should get my hands on a 6075 I swear I'd hug the box…for a
> > . long time… telling it: “Your home, your finally home!” ”
> http://news.lugnet.com/castle/?n=12857
>
> For I love playing, building, and creating, with my collection.
> Because I believe Lego is “an intellectualists pursuit of creativity
> through the exploration of play.” ® -RN 2001.
>
> I see no ‘greed’ in my ways, nor of those who share the hobby with me.
And you think I do not share your hobby?! You tell me I am greedy... :-(
Leg Godt!
Ben
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Ben writes:
> I only have used this word, because in the posting before this word has been
> used by YOU (and against me)! You told me to have feelings of greed. So your
> arguing now is a little unfair in my eyes...
Actually, Ben, I think you mean me -- I used the word first.
There are two Richards underfoot at this point -- the best way to tell the
difference between us is that the other Richard is younger and better
looking than I am.
=oP
-- Hop-Frog
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> Ben writes:
> > I only have used this word, because in the posting before this word has been
> > used by YOU (and against me)! You told me to have feelings of greed. So your
> > arguing now is a little unfair in my eyes...
>
> Actually, Ben, I think you mean me -- I used the word first.
>
> There are two Richards underfoot at this point -- the best way to tell the
> difference between us is that the other Richard is younger and better
> looking than I am.
Thanks for jumping in, HopFrog.
And sorry to Richard Noeckel. My fault - I mixed up the two names....
Kind Regards,
Ben
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> There are two Richards underfoot at this point
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> And sorry to Richard Noeckel. My fault - I mixed up the two names....
Man, do I ever feel despondent…
I've been here for over 2 years and I'm
still second-string to the ‘other’ Richard…
(no matter how much he likes me) ;)
~After all, we’ve got two totally different signatures:
Mr. Marchetti has the clever, witty, yet sarcastic -- Hop-Frog as his sign.
While I possess the characterful, dynamic, original --==RïçhårÐ==-- as mine.
*You’d think I'd be easily picked out with my use of:
#1. Lively ACII characters; ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ ~ Æ Å 2¢ ¥ £ € $ § ‹± ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸
#2. The way I artfully lop-off the end of a ‘G.’
(For example:)
Havin’
Thinkin’
Tryin’
Cryin’
#3. The way I throw in archaic forms of old-speak to infer a measure
of flavor/dialect.
(For example:)
Mayhaps t’would
‘tis betwixt
Thou hast
Prithee
Durst
Wilt
And all this is seamlessly intertwined into a majikal potpourri of flowing
verse…
<Sarcasm On>
But I guess once you’ve spoken to one ‘Richard’ you’ve spoken to ‘em all,
I Have No Identity,
Product classification 7 of 12 tuchiarea adjuction of uni-matrix 01
--==RïçhårÐ==--
7 of 9: "Do not engage us in further irrelevant discourse"
__ ____ ____ ___
( ) ( __) / __)_ / \
| |__ | E__ ( (_ / _) ( O )
(_____) (____) \____/ \___/
Y’know I'm just playin’ … right?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.people, Richard Noeckel writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > There are two Richards underfoot at this point
>
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> > And sorry to Richard Noeckel. My fault - I mixed up the two names....
>
> Man, do I ever feel despondent…
> I've been here for over 2 years and I'm
> still second-string to the ‘other’ Richard…
> (no matter how much he likes me) ;)
You've been here for two years already? Good Lord am I old.
> ~After all, we’ve got two totally different signatures:
>
> Mr. Marchetti has the clever, witty, yet sarcastic -- Hop-Frog as his sign.
> While I possess the characterful, dynamic, original --==RïçhårÐ==-- as mine.
That may be why you're second-fiddle. Too many people keep
trying to pronounce that...thing.
> *You’d think I'd be easily picked out with my use of:
>
> #1. Lively ACII characters; ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ ~ Æ Å 2¢ ¥ £ € $ § ‹± ¤º°`°º¤ø,¸
>
> #2. The way I artfully lop-off the end of a ‘G.’
> (For example:)
> Havin’
> Thinkin’
> Tryin’
> Cryin’
>
> #3. The way I throw in archaic forms of old-speak to infer a measure
> of flavor/dialect.
> (For example:)
> Mayhaps t’would
> ‘tis betwixt
> Thou hast
> Prithee
> Durst
> Wilt
Durst is supposedly musical, and Wilt is worth ten thousand....
nevermind.fnord
> And all this is seamlessly intertwined into a majikal potpourri of flowing
> verse…
>
> <Sarcasm On>
> But I guess once you’ve spoken to one ‘Richard’ you’ve spoken to ‘em all,
You forgot about eyeball-biting monkeys™, Stubbies™, and head-stepping.
Or is it bad form to admit that's what I identify you most closely with?
Also, your rants are markedly different from the other Richards' (yes,
there are more Richards beneath you as well). Have no fear--some kinds
of notoriety you may not, in fact, will.
best
LFB
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> Sorry Richard,
> English is not my mother tongue.
Your English usage is still quite excellent nevertheless! :)
> So your arguing now is a little unfair in my eyes...
Different individual.
(But that’s already been clarified.)
Usually when I make a point I endeavor to debate
the issues and not the character of the individual.
> And if you want to "play" with it: what would be wrong with a modified
> Legend set? that is all, what I desire. I want Lego to do modified sets
> - best with evidently changed colours (like 4554 / 2150).
I do believe this would be an outstanding idea!
One that I've posed in the past myself.
But a Legends return is still quite nice.
I like both ideas,
--==RïçhårÐ==--
| | | | | | |
