Subject:
|
Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 19 Nov 2002 22:32:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2248 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.general, Richie Dulin writes:
> > My first measure is the price/piece - whether on ebay or new. I have an
> > upper limit, beyond which I will not purchase (although I'm always prepared
> > to reassess my upper limit), and I have a working limit, beyond which I will
> > not purchase, unless the set contains particular parts/figs (eg I'll pay no
> > more than 15c/part for a used pirate set, but if it contains a blue coated
> > soldier or two (or certain other elements), then the purchasing limit will
> > be raised).
>
> I always figured that no matter how good a set is, if I could by three other
> poorer sets for the same price and could come up with something much
> grander, then why the heck buy the overpriced set?
>
> And getting blue-coated soldiers (red are harder, actually) for the right
> price was simply a matter of patience.
Indeed. Patience can save a lot of money.
(Also, be aware that my 15c/part limit is Australian cents. 15 US cents way
too much:-))
Richie
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why sets receive a ZERO?
|
| (...) I always figured that no matter how good a set is, if I could by three other poorer sets for the same price and could come up with something much grander, then why the heck buy the overpriced set? And getting blue-coated soldiers (red are (...) (24 years ago, 19-Nov-02, to lugnet.general)
|
48 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
