 | | 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)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote: SNIP (...) Jake, Thanks for the update. I really appreciate being able to get info on special sets like this. I wouldn't even know this set existed if it wasn't for TLC sharing info like this on LUGNET. I know I'm (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
| | | | | Re: 10152 Update
|
| (...) That's a fair assertion. Being somebody who collects sets to build them, I don't have the mindset that "limited quantities" = "collectible". Again, though, at the time that was written, that was accurate. (...) At the risk of belaboring a (...) (22 years ago, 20-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego, FTX)
|
|
