 | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) But you ignore the fact that part of the reason that that set may have been such a good seller in the first place was that people may have purchased them as collectibles. I know I purchased a few extra with that thought in mind. (...) I don't (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) Well put Spencer. I want to see that as well. By the way, I posted a message to .off-topic but forgot to FTX it. If you have time go read it. It concerns my take on collectibles and collecting in general. "What Makes A Collectible" Steven (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) Wait, I'm lost here. Can someone please point me to where Lego promised (in writing) that they would never reintroduce this set? Or did they simply say (at the time) that there wasn't a business case to produce more 10152 once their original (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) Well put, Kelly! Their considering AFOL input is a huge privilege for us. They're not going to just sit on their hands and do everything AFOLs tell them to do. It seems there are too many people here who believe that when LEGO does things (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) I fear the end of the wrld is coming my friends, because I actually agree 100% with John here. But I think it's not surprising coming from TLC that they broke their promise. We've seen a change of corporate attitude in the last years that aint (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) Agreed 100%. I don't wander out of the woodwork too often these days (and this is liable to change very soon--glory of glories, I get my collection back in MI close to New Years', and will have all 1400lb. in one place again), but the (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| Thanks for the update Jake, and for yet again braving the criticism of those who only ever seem to see the negative side of things. I think in this instance, TLG were damned if they did and damned if they didn't. If they'd never said that the set (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) Every time I seriously wonder to myself 'why do I torture myself with reading LUGNET anyways? [1]' it seems a gem like this pops up from someone like Kelly. He's not the only one who does 'em, but I just love how he puts stuff in perspective. (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) Thanks for the update, Jake! After reading the various whining about "broken promises" in this thread, remember this: circumstances changed as they often do in life. Maersk wanted more of that set. They were willing to pony up to get it. Side (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX) !
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote: Hahaha! Yes I am laughing out loud about this..... I am not trusting in any word out of the LEGO Company as I mentioned a while ago. Now I am not surprised nor dissapointed as I would have been, if there still would (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
|
