 | | Re: Why Not...?
|
| (...) Great suggestion. I would go farther and suggest not only a minimum piece count, but also an incremental piece count. Example: 2x4 bricks - can only be purchased in intervals of 40 pieces (40, 80, 160, 2,000 etc.). Other piece types could have (...) (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Why Not...?
|
| Oddly, I was always thinking about buying parts by the pound (or kilogram or whatever). TLC could tell us the *approx* number of each part per pound, then just weigh them out. We would know that we were getting an aproximation. Sorta like buying (...) (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Why Not...?
|
| (...) Um, I know that a lot of us here are addicted to the brick, but when Lego starts advertising the "dime bag" of 1x1 bricks, that may be too far. ;) Ben Roller (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Why Not...?
|
| The easiest way to do it is to simply order an element, and receive some arbitrary quantity (i.e. a "box" or "bag" full). That quantity might vary from part to part but would be consistent on a per part basis. That would be by far the most efficient (...) (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Why Not...?
|
| I can see it now... all of the S@H operators will get used to AFOLs calling and saying, "Come on, man... I know my VISA is maxed out, but you know I'm good for a bag of red slopes... I GOTTA HAVE THOSE BRICKS!! GIVE ME THE BRICKS!... I'm sorry I (...) (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: Why Not...?
|
| (...) Crocodials, like in Peter Pan? ;-) (...) I would think that by the pound, with an understood margin of error, would be the most efficient, since they use scales to verify set contents right now. -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape (...) (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | | | Re: Why Not...?
|
| (...) When I went out to Portland OR last summer to trade some windshields with Steve Barile (1), we joked about that (especially since we could also talk about the clarity of the parts). (1) the real reason for the trip was to go to a week long (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| |
