 | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) I promised myself I wouldn't continue fanning the flames here, but I couldn't resist one more... The gist of the complaints against TLC I'm hearing is they've made a business decision that "changed" from an earlier "promise" (neither of which (...) (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
|
(...) Gary, the problem is that from Jake's mouth: Quote: I do know, however, that there will be 5 set limit per customer on this set (Troy,are you listening? J). Why you ask? This set uses …drum roll please… Maersk blue! In fact, the run of this (...) (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) MAJOR SNIPAGE (...) The problem doesn't lie within the community it lies within the company. Proof of this is that they are dumbfounded as to why with all of their efforts they are still loosing money. I missed The whole Marsk debate but let's (...) (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) For your amusement: (URL) #203 (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
|
(...) To clarify: "collectibility", by your explanations, is based purely on your own *speculation* (and others who share your thinking). TLC's "assertion" (as you call it) had nothing whatsoever to do with making the set "collectible", since, as (...) (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) John, I really don't understand this point. I mean that literally, I don't understand. You may very well be right within this odd-sounding (to me) corner of the collector world. But personally, I fail to see how a simple set (...) (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
|
(...) All this attitude does is tell Lego that when they make a cool set for a corporate client, they are better off not offering it to the general public. Luckily for the sane amongst us, the public in general doesn't have this attitude. So the (...) (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
|
(...) Amen, And thank you William, Another voice of reason. Let the collectors cry all they want. As I said, Kudos to TLC for taking Mearsk's money and making a profit. Oh, the collectors don't want that happening. WELL TO DAMN BAD. Steven Weiser (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: One last Spring Cleaning set
|
|
(...) Is that what you get when you cross Tuesday and Thursday? (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.market.shopping)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
|
In lugnet.lego, Johannes Koehler wrote: ... While on the other (...) I applaud any effort by TLC to spoil the efforts of speculators to profit from the scarcity of a set. I wish they would rerelease monorail, Classic Space, and a bunch of other (...) (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
|
(...) I think it's incredible that LEGO gives any attention to AFOL's at all. Now you want them to give special attention to the minority who are collectors? You don't ask much, do you? It's great that LEGO has made this set available again. And (...) (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them?
|
|
(...) Fact # 1: I have yet to see anyone produce the "PROMISE" that TLC gave. Fact # 2: I am one of those who IS very upset with the change to the colors. I have not spent one penny on new sets, nor will I any time soon. Old sets and parts will be (...) (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
|
(...) I agree with you Jonathan. Anyone who buys Lego as an investment should look elsewhere to invest. I own 10 copies of 6390 Main Street. Then 20 years later they re-release it. Was I mad? No, TLG never said that old sets would not be (...) (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them?
|
|
(...) To be honest, I could care less about what the company does. This is a hobby for me. What this means is that I refuse to let anything LEGO stress me out. In other words, I'll praise the company when they do something I like and ignore (...) (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them?
|
|
In lugnet.lego, René Hoffmeister wrote: Dear René, thanks for bringing these postings into the debate. Facts are: LEGO gave a promise and broke it (because they think they can generate profit out of this decision). Fact number 2 is: lots of people (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) Oh come on now! What's wrong with a civilized, lively debate? That's what Lugnet is for, beside listening to wonderful news coming to us occasionally from THE MOUTH OF LEGO (imagine raving orcish minifig hordes in the background ...)* Agreed, (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
|
(...) No, I'm implying that listening to the groans from a minute part of a minor part of the customer base is not sound business. Making money is. (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
|
(...) You're right Larry, this is a perfect point to stop, as the thread has devolved from relatively restrained (albeit heated) to snotty. The reaction of the community to this issue is certainly something to think about. I'll bow out now and move (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Interesting point of view, Rene!
|
|
(...) Perhaps I just read all statements from Lego as possibles, whereas others read them as 100% definites. Let's look at Jake's post: (URL) As many of you have seen from the leaked pictures online, we have released a > (...) Interpretation: Fact. (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
|
(...) Ooooh, you'd be surprised, Larry! Actually I would happily share your point of view - if I had a perfectly sound reason to do so. Say, about 80 bucks burning a hole in my pocket and an empty shelf that would perfectly fit a Maersk ship? That (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
