Subject:
|
Re: Packaging Style (was:You get to choose!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Tue, 16 Apr 2002 12:33:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4764 times
|
| |
|
|
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/
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Packaging Style (was:You get to choose!)
|
| (...) 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. (...) Well, LEGO started it with the whole "Use this box for storage" deal on the (...) (22 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
| | | Re: Packaging Style (was:You get to choose!)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (22 years ago, 19-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: You get to choose! (first none-"Wow"-answer)
|
| 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 (...) (22 years ago, 15-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
89 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
