| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> <snip>
> But legends in the way they are released now are not very helpful for lots
> of fans.
> <snip>
I don't agree at all. Most of us would rather buy a rereleased legend (if it
was the theme they liked) than any of the sets available on the shelves right
now. The legends available are 10 times better than most of the sets that are
now on the shelves.
I for one am VERY happy for the legends.
Play well.
Tim Strutt 8^)
|
|
| |
Yes, I would agree...the legends and re-issues are all super. They are the
ONLY new sets (other than a few Star Wars and Harry Potter sets) that I have
purchased since '97.
LEGO, are you listening? Like many others, I have spent thousands of $$ in
the last 5 years on LEGO and only, I'd say, 5% of that has gone to LEGO.
That's because what we have to choose from is mostly junk.
And this is a pet peeve with me...please go back to the flap-and-tray boxes
for larger sets!!! The current boxes are awful. That horrid thick corrguated
cardboard with punchtabs is about the worst possible container for LEGO sets.
I would *gladly* pay a couple extra dollars for a better box. What would the
extra cost be for the next Legend...say either Main Street or the Yellow
Castle or whatever...to be in a flap-and-tray box instead of these lame
thick corrugated boxes? $2.00 extra? $3.00 extra? It would be more than
worth it to me.
Similarly the smaller sets should go back to being released in the
double-flap-and-tab design of the early '80s. Those were the only small set
boxes in which you could effectively store the pieces without using a
zip-lock baggie or something similar. Again, the extra cost for a MUCH
better box would be well worth it.
I know that there will be people who will say "LEGO is already too
expensive" but those people ALWAYS complain about price and probably
wouldn't be happy unless every set cost a dollar. :)
Lou
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tim Strutt writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> > <snip>
> > But legends in the way they are released now are not very helpful for lots
> > of fans.
> > <snip>
>
> I don't agree at all. Most of us would rather buy a rereleased legend (if it
> was the theme they liked) than any of the sets available on the shelves right
> now. The legends available are 10 times better than most of the sets that are
> now on the shelves.
> I for one am VERY happy for the legends.
> Play well.
>
> Tim Strutt 8^)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Lou Zucaro writes:
<snip>
> And this is a pet peeve with me...please go back to the flap-and-tray boxes
> for larger sets!!! The current boxes are awful. That horrid thick corrguated
> cardboard with punchtabs is about the worst possible container for LEGO sets.
Actually I like it. Now if someone has returned the set after opening it, or
worse yet, opened and plundered it at the store, there is no question about it.
Also those heavy duty cardboard boxes take abuse better than the old boxes
ever did. Look at the USC stuff, and how those boxes are always beat.
> I would *gladly* pay a couple extra dollars for a better box. What would the
> extra cost be for the next Legend...say either Main Street or the Yellow
> Castle or whatever...to be in a flap-and-tray box instead of these lame
> thick corrugated boxes? $2.00 extra? $3.00 extra? It would be more than
> worth it to me.
AgagaghHH! No! I buy Lego sets for the little plastic bricks not for the
cardboard packaging. I would be really bumbed if I had to pay more for a
packaging style that some would describe as worse. I throw away the boxes on
all the sets I buy, so I am not helped by a flap and tray style box.
>
> Similarly the smaller sets should go back to being released in the
> double-flap-and-tab design of the early '80s. Those were the only small set
> boxes in which you could effectively store the pieces without using a
> zip-lock baggie or something similar. Again, the extra cost for a MUCH
> better box would be well worth it.
Ok so you want to use these old box styles for storage. I think I can
understand your point of view. But lets say, going by your pricing, that each
small set costs $1 more, and the big sets $2 & $3 more. With that same amount
of money you could buy a 100count box of ziplock baggies (which you can see
through, something I have never managed to do through cardboard) and a shoebox
sized plastic container(1). Futhermore, plastic containers are far more robust
than old Lego boxes ever could be and stackable.
>
> I know that there will be people who will say "LEGO is already too
> expensive" but those people ALWAYS complain about price and probably
> wouldn't be happy unless every set cost a dollar. :)
I do think Lego is too expensive (on some of their items, ie bulk packs) but I
am happy with a number of their items, and I don't think they should make
"every set cost a dollar" This would be fun for a while, but after Lego went
out of business, I would have to buy all my bricks second hand.
>
> Lou
So to recap my point, I don't want to pay more for different packaging, I don't
want Lego deciding my storage system. I can find my own system and with the
amount of sets I buy(2), it is cheaper this way anyhow.
-Jason
(1) See the clear plastic containers with the white lids in this picture. Only
89cents at my local hardware store (Lowes).
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=63407
(2) http://guide.lugnet.com/set/mlist.cgi?m=478
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
Jason Spears
MichLUG - http://www.michlug.org/
Lego Page - http://www.ozbricks.com/brickcentral/
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jason Spears writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Lou Zucaro writes:
> <snip>
> > And this is a pet peeve with me...please go back to the flap-and-tray boxes
> > for larger sets!!! The current boxes are awful. That horrid thick corrguated
> > cardboard with punchtabs is about the worst possible container for LEGO sets.
>
> Actually I like it. Now if someone has returned the set after opening it, or
> worse yet, opened and plundered it at the store, there is no question about it.
> Also those heavy duty cardboard boxes take abuse better than the old boxes
> ever did. Look at the USC stuff, and how those boxes are always beat.
USC? I don't think I'm up on my acronyms.
It's not the cardboard itself that I mind, but the fact that the box can't
be re-closed to contain the pieces inside.
> > I would *gladly* pay a couple extra dollars for a better box. What would the
> > extra cost be for the next Legend...say either Main Street or the Yellow
> > Castle or whatever...to be in a flap-and-tray box instead of these lame
> > thick corrugated boxes? $2.00 extra? $3.00 extra? It would be more than
> > worth it to me.
>
> AgagaghHH! No! I buy Lego sets for the little plastic bricks not for the
> cardboard packaging. I would be really bumbed if I had to pay more for a
> packaging style that some would describe as worse. I throw away the boxes on
> all the sets I buy, so I am not helped by a flap and tray style box.
Well, LEGO started it with the whole "Use this box for storage" deal on the
older sets. It's obviously a point of view issue. If you're buying sets just
to build, then you probably don't care about the boxes. If you're buying to
build an collect (or just to collect) you probably do.
> > Similarly the smaller sets should go back to being released in the
> > double-flap-and-tab design of the early '80s. Those were the only small set
> > boxes in which you could effectively store the pieces without using a
> > zip-lock baggie or something similar. Again, the extra cost for a MUCH
> > better box would be well worth it.
>
> Ok so you want to use these old box styles for storage. I think I can
> understand your point of view. But lets say, going by your pricing, that each
> small set costs $1 more, and the big sets $2 & $3 more. With that same amount
> of money you could buy a 100count box of ziplock baggies (which you can see
> through, something I have never managed to do through cardboard) and a shoebox
> sized plastic container(1). Futhermore, plastic containers are far more robust
> than old Lego boxes ever could be and stackable.
Again, for the sets I collect (rather than ones I buy for the pieces to
build), I am much more interested in preserving the original than I am with
finding the cheapest way to store stuff.
Also, I obviously made up the dollar amounts in terms of the difference in
cost between how things used to be done and how they're done now. I have no
idea if it would actually cost $1 more for a small set...or if it would be
more than that or less than that.
> (1) See the clear plastic containers with the white lids in this picture. Only
> 89cents at my local hardware store (Lowes).
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=63407
I have a lot of other storage methods for pieces themselves...I'm really
addressing storage as it pertains to using the original packaging.
Lou
|
|
| |
Jason Spears wrote:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Lou Zucaro writes:
> <snip>
> > And this is a pet peeve with me...please go back to the flap-and-tray boxes
> > for larger sets!!! The current boxes are awful. That horrid thick corrguated
> > cardboard with punchtabs is about the worst possible container for LEGO sets.
>
> Actually I like it. Now if someone has returned the set after opening it, or
> worse yet, opened and plundered it at the store, there is no question about it.
> Also those heavy duty cardboard boxes take abuse better than the old boxes
> ever did. Look at the USC stuff, and how those boxes are always beat.
The UCS sets are a rotten example. Whoever designed the UCS Tie and X-Wing boxes
should be strangled, hanged, and SHOT. Those are the flimsiest, most useless boxes
I've seen out of Lego. They are double the size they need to be (and at half the
size they'd still have a commanding shelf presence), yet not large enough to store
the models partially disassembled - the X-Wing fuselage is taller in any one
direction that the box.
I've NEVER seen a UCS box in a store that wasn't beat to heck thanks to the flimsy
cardboard and huge size, leading to dents/tears just from picking it up from an
end.
Now, if the UCS boxes had plastic trays in them, they would probably have held up
much better, but they'd still be too danged BIG.
--
Tom Stangl
***http://www.vfaq.com/
***DSM Visual FAQ home
***http://ba.dsm.org/
***SF Bay Area DSMs
|
|
| |
The subject tells all. I ask this in light of 10018 and 19 being sent to
stores.
In lugnet.lego.direct, Thomas Stangl writes:
> Jason Spears wrote:
>
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Lou Zucaro writes:
> > <snip>
> > > And this is a pet peeve with me...please go back to the flap-and-tray boxes
> > > for larger sets!!! The current boxes are awful. That horrid thick corrguated
> > > cardboard with punchtabs is about the worst possible container for LEGO sets.
> >
> > Actually I like it. Now if someone has returned the set after opening it, or
> > worse yet, opened and plundered it at the store, there is no question about it.
> > Also those heavy duty cardboard boxes take abuse better than the old boxes
> > ever did. Look at the USC stuff, and how those boxes are always beat.
>
> The UCS sets are a rotten example. Whoever designed the UCS Tie and X-Wing boxes
> should be strangled, hanged, and SHOT. Those are the flimsiest, most useless boxes
> I've seen out of Lego. They are double the size they need to be (and at half the
> size they'd still have a commanding shelf presence), yet not large enough to store
> the models partially disassembled - the X-Wing fuselage is taller in any one
> direction that the box.
>
> I've NEVER seen a UCS box in a store that wasn't beat to heck thanks to the >flimsy cardboard and huge size, leading to dents/tears just from picking it >up from an end.
|
|
| |
"Jeremy Scott" <Copyright@cox.net> wrote in message
news:GutMwL.BGv@lugnet.com...
> The subject tells all. I ask this in light of 10018 and 19 being sent to
> stores.
The RBR from S@H is in the same style large flimsy box as the UCS sets. I
doubt they'd change much going to retail. Does the retail version have a
coloured picture on the box, or black & white like the one from S@H?
Dan
|
|
|
