 | | Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them?
|
|
(...) Hey Ben, I think you know my feelings about crap bley and all of those silly excuses surrounding it. As you might have read elsewhere I didn't buy any new sets this year (except for bulk bricks at S@H), so you may have a clue of how I feel. In (...) (22 years ago, 22-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them?
|
|
(...) Because they are the only one that would be negatively affected by this so called "collectibility" of this set, now that it is not so rare. (...) I know tons of those, generally from the anime toy fandom. Some of them buy two of each action (...) (22 years ago, 22-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them?
|
|
(...) Not what I intended to bring across. I am saying that any type of investment, wether it be the stock market, or the toy market, is risky business. You take your chances on making or losing money. I have purchased shares in companys that were (...) (22 years ago, 22-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update: What has TLC to do to bring YOU up against them?
|
|
In lugnet.lego, Steven D. Weiser wrote: snipped some text to reduce it to something I'am confused about (...) Hi, in this discussion on lugnet.com almost everybody who wrote about collectors wrote in a very negative way. It seems as if in the (...) (22 years ago, 22-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
| |
| | Re: 10152 Update
|
|
Why can't LEGO do both, and keep almost everyone happy? That is, LEGO gets to re-release any set, as long as the box is physically different from the original. That way, sets remain collectible, but bricks don't. "Bill Ward" <bill@wards.net> wrote (...) (22 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
