 | | Re: 10152 Update
|
|
(...) Cool. I may have to squirrel away some cash to buy a few more. (...) While I think more Maersk blue is good, I'm bummed at the news that the dark blue may not happen. Even though I voted for the dark green, I still was looking forward to (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
|
(...) What's the use of integrity, if they go broke? Lego is a company, companies must generate profit or they will disappear, sales (mostly) generate profit ==> Lego should sell things. As many as they can. Not create artificial 'limited editions'. (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
|
(...) It was correct, until TLC decided to make it incorrect by consciously changing their mind. (...) I think so. Then we would have recognized it as the typical BS advert hype which we all know to ignore. (...) Are you by chance a lawyer, Dave? If (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
|
In lugnet.lego, David Koudys wrote: <snip> (...) If they indeed said, "we will never produce this vehicle again" and they went ahead any way, you are okay with that??? Maybe this is a Liberal thing. It reminds me of a college professor who ran for a (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
|
(...) What constitutes actual advertising versus an employee stating something incorrectly? Was the phrasing of the post on 1000steine run by Lego's legal department, just as a paid advertisement would be? If they had instead said "This MIGHT be (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
|
(...) David, what you're telling us with so many words is that you're happy with your existing collection so that you actually don't have to care what TLG does or does not. That's ok. Nothing wrong with being a happy AFOL dwelling in the past. 37 (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
|
(...) Guten Tag, Rene! Hope fatherhood is treating you well:^D Thanks for bringing this into the discussion. It seems this information makes the case a little stronger against TLC. It's simply reckless and dishonest to advertise in this manner, IMO. (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
|
(...) I wonder if the car companies go thru this when they released the PT Cruiser or the (hopefully upcoming) Dodge Charger "You promised me that this was the last model year of this vehicle!! I invested all my money into it and now, 20+ years (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
|
Well, the combination of non-adherence to advertised values of the product and the legal endowment to return an item for refund if it does not match previously promised core properties could really lead to a case here (IMHO, IANAL). At the end of (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Grey zone debate wanted! (was: Lego in subdomains, legal or not?)
|
|
Judging by the reactions (or lack of) to my suggestion to move the page to a subdomain called l3go, I guess it'll be ok... Or is it? Last chance to complain before I commence the moveingprocess. Cheers NB (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
|
Hi John! (...) This, In my not at all humbly opinion, is the core-question in this entire thread. Unfortunately it seems the answer is "It is." (Not only in respect of TLC but in respect of every public statement/promise/warranty/ect. these days, (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
|
Henrick & All, (...) Sweet! Yes, indeed, that would be cool to have a set like that come out. I have that bookmarked now, do I even have enough of that blue to build it? Hmmm..... Scott S. (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Multiple numbers for same set
|
|
Hello! (...) I do not know the reason why the most recent crane got a new number, but I suspect it's not due to the new packaging. Because: The new Millennium Falcon 4504 came in its first run in a blue standard box, the second run has a black, more (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: false advertising on shop.lego.com?
|
|
(...) "Not Available In Any Store (except the official Lego stores don't count)" -Scott Lyttle (22 years ago, 15-Dec-04, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.lego.direct)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
|
Hi all, 1) I would like to mention a fact to this issue, which might help to understand the annoyance of nearly all German AFOLs (here on LUGNET and on 1000steine.de (see: (URL)). In Germany, the set was actually announced as limited. The official (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX) !
|
| |
| | 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)
|
