 | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) I think that I didn't make myself clear. All I am asking for is that the new run of 10152s be numbered "10153" or something. This simple change preserves the collectiblity of the 10052s. I wasn't suggesting any more radical change than that. (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) I thought I made it clear I don't condone the practice as you are putting it here. I'm not talking about cornering the current market, I'm talking about resale years down the road. (...) You said it..."everyone that wanted some had their (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) Well, this has nothing to do with Jake and AFAIK you are the only one who has made that connection. Ironic? JOHN (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) If you purchase something at full retail, as a collectable, then someone's P&L statement is going to look pretty good. If enough people do that, then there has been created a 'demand' that had more to do with the profit motive than the desire (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote: <various snippaging> (...) (URL) From the above post by Jake: "This set uses …drum roll please… Maersk blue! In fact, the run of this new set uses all the Maersk blue ABS pellets we have left. That means that (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
|
