 | | What is a set, philosophically —Remy Evard
|
| | | I'm in the middle of a massive set rebuilding effort, something I might post more about later as I finish it up. One of my goals is to figure out what sets I have. This is not quite as easy as it sounds, because I have a few tons of lego that I (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: What is a set, philosophically —Sybrand Bonsma
|
| | | | | (...) In my, personal, opinion I own a set if I have the pieces for it, without the same pieces being used for other sets. If I have bought, say set number 1 and set number 2, and with ttheir combined pieces, then either I own set 1 and set 2 OR I (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: What is a set, philosophically —Jonathan Little
|
| | | | | | (...) Obviously, if legos ever become as valuable as collector's pieces as say Barbie and GI Joe from the 50's and 60's, it would help if they were still in an unopened box, with everything complete. Other than that, I agree with Sybrand, that as (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: What is a set, philosophically —Gary R. Istok
|
| | | | | | (...) I always have fun when I buy a set from EBAY. Many times the seller isn't LEGO knowledgeable, and they may have assembled a set. I recently won a few auctions where the sets were 1970's sets. Among them I sometimes find Cellulose Acetate (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: What is a set, philosophically —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) About a year or so ago I wrote a pseudo-serious, long-winded post on RTL on this very subject (for the terminally curious, I'll try and find it on DejaNews). In essence, the "setness" of a set is contained in its unique pieces, such as the (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What is a set, philosophically —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | I would say that the status of your having a set or not depends on the purpose of making the claim. For the ultimate in collectibility, every set must be in the condition it arrived at the retailers when first released. For the purposes of having (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: What is a set, philosophically —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) In terms of collectability, I agree with you completely; I should have been more specific. Here's that aforementioned DejaNews link: (URL) Not to be taken too seriously! Dave! (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: What is a set, philosophically —Aaron West
|
| | | | | | (...) Hellooo LEGOnauts, I have to say that a set does consist of unique pieces and the common pieces that make up a model. These can come from any source, such as *the storage box* or the original package. The original box is not necessary for this (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What is a set, philosophically —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) For the newbies, and those who don't recall trivia well, this was in response to my posing a thought question. Dave's answer was well written, I agreed with it then, and still do. Very worth rereading if you're interested in the zen of sets. (...) (25 years ago, 9-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
