To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.legoOpen lugnet.lego in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 LEGO Company / 2931
2930  |  2932
Subject: 
Re: 10152 Update
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.lego
Date: 
Mon, 20 Dec 2004 02:55:02 GMT
Viewed: 
7674 times
  
In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
   Sorry for two replies here to the same post.

In lugnet.lego, Justin Pankey wrote:
   In lugnet.lego, Larry Pieniazek wrote:

Maybe Lego should re-release the numbered Santa Fe Super Chiefs starting with the number “1” again ;o)

Maybe. Wouldn’t bother me too much.

  
   Personally I’m not sure I have a lot of sympathy for collectors that want to buy up multiple copies of a new set and thus make it harder for others to get copies. (Precious Princess, call your office!) Or for collectors that make decisions about what they collect based on percieved scarcity. Collect because you like the set!

So no set should should ever be sold above it’s MSRP?? I agree with Lego’s policy limiting 5 to each buyer. I don’t agree that a few people should be able to corner the market and leave other AFOL’s and kids alike wanting. That said, the fact of the matter is anybody who wanted one of these during the first run could have purchased one (or 5). Everyone knew about them and they where available for at least a month. Is it somehow o.k. that you purchased more than 5 simply because they were for your own personal use?

I have more sympathy for wanting multiple copies of the set for parts than I do for those that want to buy it up, not caring about it as a set, and resell it to suckers that didn’t know better while it was still available, yes.

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.
  
Yes, I know it is the duty of all good capitalists to ensure that fools and their money are soon parted.

   Didn’t you also make it harder for others to get more copies?

Well, not really, because I waited for the mad rush to subside, and only then, after everyone that wanted some had plenty of time to order some, did I canvass and get more. After I got all I wanted, S@H still had some left, for quite some time, in fact. I’d say everyone that wanted some had their chance. Also, since I offered to pay, and in some cases, paid more than MSRP for the ones I bought from my friends, how is that different than just buying them from a reseller, which you seem to be OK with?

You said it...“everyone that wanted some had their chance.” So enter the speculator (limited to buying 5) ready to make a purchase....I just don’t see how you can say there’s any wrong in that. Precious Princess Palace having 20 or 200 YES.
  
   Like it or not, Lego is NOT just a toy anymore it is a Collectable. This is obvious to anyone taking even a cursory look at the current Brickink prices of the original Star Wars sets, old used Town/Space sets, etc. This is a free capitalistic society and if somebody out there wants to make a purely financially based decision to buy a set that Lego swears it will never make again, God love ‘em and shame on Lego for changing it’s mind.

I don’t see this as an arbitrary or capricious change on LEGO’s part. I see it as a significant change in circumstances, as Jake explained So I’d say, shame on THEM for deciding that LEGO saying that it was not likely they would get more ABS in Maersk blue meaning that *nothing* would or could possibly change that, *nothing* would cause it to be a good thing to bring out another run, even after Maersk asked them to and agreed to fund the ABS needed.

Agreed as I explained...but Lego didn’t say it was “unlikely.” They said “we are using the last of the Maersk Blue.”

  
Saying you have sympathy for those speculators is somewhat like saying you have sympathy for the people that bought Enron at 120 and rode it down to 0.25.. it sounds nice but it’s not sound economic policy.

That’s a ridicilous comparison. Furthermore, It’s not a sympathy issue, it’s a keeping your word issue. I used to collect coins. If the U.S. Mint promised to make a limited run of 1 million pieces and then later that year ran a million more, The buyers of the first million would be rightly outraged. Simple as that.
  
   It is not a reason to celebrate for the many who were counting on having this set produced in a different color. I was looking forward to having more than Maersk Blue ships in my Harbor.

That I’ll buy. But maybe LEGO will change their mind. And also you can build a number of different hull colors already. (just not the dark green or dark blue we were hoping for)

  
   But that’s just me, I guess. This is going to be another “bash Jake” string, I just know it. I blanch at the very thought. Why? Why must we go there every time Jake brings us news?

Agreed! Jake shouldn’t get a bad rap for being the messenger. And even though I STRONGLY believe Lego should keep it’s promises when it says “Final Limited Edition,” I understand their desire for profit and the need to respond to Maersk’s request for more sets...they just shouldn’t release anymore to the public IN PLACE of what we all voted on!

That too I’ll buy. But maybe LEGO will change their mind.
That’s really the only point I was trying to make...so maybe we’re on the same page after all :o)



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: 10152 Update
 
Sorry for two replies here to the same post. (...) Maybe. Wouldn't bother me too much. (...) I have more sympathy for wanting multiple copies of the set for parts than I do for those that want to buy it up, not caring about it as a set, and resell (...) (19 years ago, 19-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)

257 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR