Subject:
|
Re: Why Not...?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Wed, 2 Feb 2000 21:42:00 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
rsanders@/stopspam/gate.net
|
Viewed:
|
2183 times
|
| |
|
|
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 nails at the hardware store.
Ray
Wayne R Hussey wrote:
>
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Gene C. Weissinger writes:
> > Why not have a 'minimum piece order'? This would be where you could order
> > individual pieces but had to order a certain number (total $$ amount or
> > piece count). Maybe this has been touched upon in the past with all of the
> > LEGO Direct stuff...
> > I thought it would be a great idea... ;)
> > Just think of the catalog.
> >
> > EC
>
> 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 different piece count lots. They (TLC) could then make up
> packets of the various pieces and the "picking" for an order would be easy.
>
> Maybe they could make piece lots in dollar blocks instead - 40 2x4 bricks (as
> used in the example above) could be a $1 (US) baggie. Other pieces could be $2
> or $3 (or whatever) to get a reasonable piece count/cost ratio.
>
> Wayne
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
