 | | Bricklink frustration
|
|
Here is my situation I want a large quantity of a single part type. I have found the one BrickLink seller who has the part in quantity, in the right colour. Even worse his price is ridiculously cheap (Especially compared to other sellers). But (...) (19 years ago, 13-Jul-05, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bricklink frustration
|
|
This is a pretty interesting idea. Here's a variation that might be slightly more likely to happen: A group of sellers could get together and form a company to sell new/used LEGO parts over the internet, in a network like you describe. Their online (...) (19 years ago, 13-Jul-05, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bricklink frustration
|
|
(...) The biggest issue as I see it is probably the fact that it's not worth the primary seller's time in this example. The point of them instigating a minimum order is so that they don't have to deal with stuff that's "not worth their time". But (...) (19 years ago, 13-Jul-05, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bricklink frustration
|
|
Quoting David Eaton <deaton@intdata.com>: (...) The largest issue I've always seen with this was that the amalgamated carriage fees would very quickly pile up. Not only would the buyer pay for the first shipping fee to the middleman, but then the (...) (19 years ago, 13-Jul-05, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bricklink frustration
|
|
(...) Bam. (...) Yep. In my experience, AFOLs are generally interested in saving more, not spending more. There are a bunch out there who *will* pay more, but in general, I think your average AFOL would much rather spend the time doing it themselves (...) (19 years ago, 13-Jul-05, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bricklink frustration
|
|
Quoting David Eaton <deaton@intdata.com>: (...) Ok, so now we've also got the issue of near zero demand. *IF* demand was higher, costs could be split through multiple orders from the same original sellers, potentially. I would say that your average (...) (19 years ago, 13-Jul-05, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bricklink frustration
|
|
(...) and that is the understatement of the century. Transport costs are already a goodly portion of the gross order billing. One year I calculated that 28% of remittances were for shipping/transport. Parts (unless the part is rare/desirable/low (...) (19 years ago, 13-Jul-05, to lugnet.general, lugnet.market.theory)
|
| |
| | Re: Bricklink frustration
|
|
(...) Since I posted I've been thinking about that. I doubt he'd let two rules slide, but If I could bump up the order to $10 he might consider shipping to England. At least we speak the same language. I've been scouring his inventory for the type (...) (19 years ago, 13-Jul-05, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| |
| | Re: Bricklink frustration
|
|
There is another solution that could help you. A system connected buyers who will order your item from the seller in their home country and then ship to you. Id like this because many sellers in foreign countries want cash, bank transfers, etc in (...) (19 years ago, 14-Jul-05, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bricklink frustration
|
|
(...) Here is a solution that doesn't put any strain on Bricklink. 1. Bricklink adds a field for sellers who will amalgamate/consolidate their items with parts from other sellers, before shipping an order to a customer. Perhaps the sellers would (...) (19 years ago, 14-Jul-05, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Bricklink frustration
|
|
(...) snip (...) You want X to verify orders from Y, Z, Y', Z', et al for a $1 handling fee ? What exactly do you mean by 'verify' ? Are you expecting X to open all the bags and recount the parts to see if the proper quantites are present ? For a $1 (...) (19 years ago, 14-Jul-05, to lugnet.general)
|
