 | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| Nice try on putting some icing on it. Unfortunately, production re-runs of a supposedly limited item generally is a No-No, Mr. McKee! You now have folks at TLG HQ write that down a hundred times for easier learning. And all the others here too who (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) Thanks. I'm glad that this isn't turning into a flame war between afols :-) (...) ... (...) Okay, my mistake. Indeed, you didn't mention that you would loose money and such. It seems we are the same kind of collector: we either enjoy the sets (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| In lugnet.lego, Mark Neumann wrote: Snippage (...) Doesn't Lego have huge vaults with sets from the past that any of us would kill to get our hands on - NOW! Why are they saving so many sets? They must be collectors too! -Patrick (22 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) That would be an incredibly stupid business decision. (...) Number 1 isn't correct as Maersk wouldn't get their set now. They would have to wait while TLC developed a new set and got approval for it from Maersk, developed new instruction (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| Like this one ;-) Maersk train (URL) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
|
