Subject:
|
Re: TLG investigation
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Wed, 17 Feb 1999 16:45:49 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
cjc@newsguy.{NoSpam}com
|
Viewed:
|
1597 times
|
| |
|
|
Mark Tarrabain <markt@lynx.bc.ca> wrote:
> Actually, it doesn't matter to me personally either. I was merely attempting to be
> sensitive to the needs of people that I would imagine are actually out there. I would
> have guessed, however, contrarary to what you are saying, that many people with
> vintage sets value the sets *because* they cannot be obtained any more. It's not
> about making a profit, it's just about having something that not everybody else can go
> out and get themselves. I don't know any other AFOL personally, though, so I could be
> wrong.
I guess that's the difference between someone who "collects" Lego
stuff for the sake of collecting it and someone who wants to amass a
collection of Lego stuff for the sake of having cool stuff, if that
makes sense.
My 6067 is valuable to me because it is cool and one of the best small
sets Lego has ever produced. It is not cool because it is rare (to
me, anyway). It would be just as cool and just as awesome if I had a
hundred of them and if everyone else had a thousand.
I guess maybe some people are petty enough to take pleasure in having
something that nobody else can, but even if there are some AFOL's who
think their rare classic sets are slightly more valuable because of
that factor, I can't think that any of us value them solely because of
that.
I also don't know anyone in our community who wouldn't rather give up
the "rare" status of their favorite sets in order to have 10 more of
them for parts purposes.
--
Unofficial listing of weekly US Lego Shop at Home phone specials
http://www.lugnet.com/lsahs/
800-835-4386 (S@H USA) / 800-267-5346 (S@H Canada)
www.lugnet.com/news/ - Meet more LEGO fans in your area through LUGNET
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: TLG investigation
|
| (...) Yes! In fact, if this were an externally measurable thing and if we ever had a need to sort the AFOLs from the speculators, it would be a pretty good criteria. But it's not externally measurable, and we don't have a need to do any sorting, I (...) (26 years ago, 17-Feb-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
| | | Re: TLG investigation
|
| (...) I agree with this attitude. And this is exactly why I see little reason for re- releasing archaic sets. Let me give an example: My 8 year-old brother and his friends seem to have similar criteria for selecting lego sets. They like new or rare (...) (26 years ago, 17-Feb-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: TLG investigation
|
| (...) Actually, it doesn't matter to me personally either. I was merely attempting to be sensitive to the needs of people that I would imagine are actually out there. I would have guessed, however, contrarary to what you are saying, that many people (...) (26 years ago, 17-Feb-99, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
46 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
|
|
|
|
