 | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| Selling items, suggesting a last-time chance and indicating there will only be a limited quantity availible, then make more of exactly the same items later is no acceptable way of conducting business, regardless of circumstances. Customers (!) are (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
| | | | | Re: Multiple numbers for same set
|
| (...) There are definatly differences between the origonal set (the 8460) and the re-releases (the 8431\8438). For example, the 8460 used 2 of part Technic Connector Toggle Joint Toothed whereas the 8431 uses a single Technic Angle Connector #6 for (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| In lugnet.lego, Kelly McKiernan wrote: <snip> (...) No, it was exhausted. They are mixing up more (at the expense of Maersk). (...) This has nothing to do with marketing per se. If it had never been mentioned that this was the end of the line for (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Multiple numbers for same set (was: 10152 Update)
|
| (...) They do look identical. Wonder why they have three numbers? Might be a good question for Jake at some point. Thanks for correcting that, Ross. I'll stick by my other assertions about the set, though! Kelly (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Multiple numbers for same set (was: 10152 Update)
|
| (...) Well I guess they have an example they can use as a test case now: [LEGOSet 8460] [LEGOSet 8431] [LEGOSet 8438] As far as I know, there is no difference between these sets except the number. I don't own 8438 so can't say definitively. ROSCO (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote: SNIP (...) Jake, Thanks for the update. I really appreciate being able to get info on special sets like this. I wouldn't even know this set existed if it wasn't for TLC sharing info like this on LUGNET. I know I'm (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) That's a fair assertion. Being somebody who collects sets to build them, I don't have the mindset that "limited quantities" = "collectible". Again, though, at the time that was written, that was accurate. (...) At the risk of belaboring a (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) cool! please let us know when you find out how many more sets will be available as well as if the dark blue version will/will not be produced. i appreciate your letting us know! jason (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) Um, no, there was some and is some bashing elsethread. But maybe I pre-empted some or most of it, which would be nice, with my prediction. (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| TLC never said that this was a "limited edition" set. What they said is that they used all their maresk blue up to make the first run of however many sets and that once they were gone, al;l the maresk blue would be gone and they wouldnt be able to (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
| | | | | 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)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| Hey Mark, (...) Make it so TLC and I promise to buy my 5 this time (against 0 on the first time). Best, Paulo-Renato FUT --> lugnet.color (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) Hey Jake, Though I didn't buy the first time and probabily will not buy it once more, I find these really good news for all the people who missed the first chance. And for me that's all that maters: getting the set because it is so great. As (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) Hey Larry. Just to say that it is not just you. 100% agreed. Thanks for putting my feelings in so well written words. Best regards, Paulo Renato (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) Yes, I understand - but did LEGO position it as a collectible? Officially, on their web site? I never read it that way. Jake's post (I could dig it up if it matters) clearly laid out that they were running the last of the existing Maersk blue (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) I agree. They should make one with the containers in the old light grey. Maersk wouldn't know the difference, the AFOL collectors would be happy and TLG would get rid of those extra unsold old greys. (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
|
