 | | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) Perhaps there are different connotations of the term "limited"? "Limited" in that we will purposefully limit production to X number of units to create collector demand, and will never produce them again, thus protecting their collector's (...) (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them?
|
|
(...) At the time, it was. Does that negate new contracts with Maersk? Dave K (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) I'm pretty sure that the 10152 wasn't either. This whole thing seems to turn on a mistranslation more than anything else. That's pretty funny at one level, actually. Most of the rest of the difference appears to be cultural, we seem to have a (...) (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them?
|
|
(...) Wrong. TLC stated that they had old Maersk Blue pellets and 'wouldn't it be nice to give the AFOL a really cool set and use up the pellets at the same time'. Why should that negate future contracts? It was a business decision made at the time (...) (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: A Community Problem (Was: Re: 10152 Update)
|
|
(...) I'm pretty sure the duck wasn't marketed as a "limited edition of 10,000". It really matters not what their excuss is if they changed their mind they could have changed the model. Their move was compleatly unethical and problably leaves them (...) (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
