| |
In lugnet.castle, Mike Timm writes:
> > 2) LEGO is still not cheap.
>
> I'd say it is still not inexpensive, it is not and never has been
> 'cheap'.. With some things you pay for the quality.
This twigged my memory, and reminded me of something I wanted to post, but
never got around to. I had a very interesting conversation with a mom at a
train show recently. She had been asking about the track & how much the
costs were, and I mentioned that it was about $10 US for 8 sections, so a
bit on the expensive side, but most Lego was. She looked at me a bit oddly
(maybe she just expected someone with so much Lego to "know" this) and said:
"Lego isn't expensive."
"The $50 robot dog that my son plays with for a week, and ignores - that's
expensive. Video games are expensive. Toys with play value, that my kids
keep using? They're as cheap as dirt!"
It made me feel better about my spending habits, and re-evaluate how much my
collections costs compared to what I get out of it - and she's right. It's
not expensive.
James
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: The cold, hard reality of Lego Renaissance
|
| On Fri, 16 Mar 2001 05:54:53 GMT, Mike Rosulek <mjr@powersurge.net.nospam> wrote: Welcome to .castle (...) Hmm, have you checked out the Lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands group? (think Battleship and Aircraft Carrier). /me keeps a wary eye out for (...) (26 years ago, 16-Mar-01, to lugnet.castle)
|
10 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
