Subject:
|
Re: 10152 Update
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Tue, 21 Dec 2004 07:16:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7793 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego, James Powell wrote:
> 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 new
> set uses all the Maersk blue ABS pellets we have left. That means that there
> is literally no Maersk blue ABS left. Even the parks can no longer get Maersk
> blue.
>
> End Quote
> http://news.lugnet.com/lego/?n=1801
>
> So, they said one thing, and are doing another.
Wait... Other than the arguable "limit of 5-per-customer" thing, what Jake said
in that quote turned out to be perfectly accurate!
- The run that they did used up all of their Maersk blue. It did. True fact.
- Litterally no Maersk blue ABS left. I guess technically this is wrong since
people owned Maersk blue and it didn't disappear magically. But the implication
was Maersk blue ABS pellets. Also true.
- The parks can no longer get Maersk blue. Again, true. Parks could NOT get
Maersk blue. And since Maersk is shelling out for ABS just for this run, chances
are that'll still be true.
Maybe if Jake had said "There will never, ever, be Maersk blue Lego pieces
produced ever again by the Lego company", then I would agree that it was
incorrect.
Now, what we heard from the German forum WAS factually incorrect:
> The set was sold at SaH Germany saying “Dieses ist deine letzte Chance Maersk
> blaue Steine zu kaufen”. Translation: “This is your last chance to buy Maersk
> blue bricks”
But so far, that seems to be the only example I can find of Lego saying
something that later changed due to the decsion to reproduce the Maersk blue.
And I agree that Jan probably shouldn't have said it. It should have been more
like "This MAY be your last chance to buy Maersk Blue", or something completely
different, yet still equally accurate: "There are currently no plans to produce
Maersk blue bricks ever again". But that's just semantics. I'd hope that people
would understand the intent BEHIND those words.
> It disappoints me, because as someone who has 2 copies left unopened of the
> original set, I am disapointed that they would go back on their word.
?
How does the fact that you own 2 unopened copies change anything, unless you
purchased these to intentionally sell them at an inflated cost in the future?
How would you feel if you owned none?
> Perhaps my view of someones word is different than the rest of the world, but
> when someone says something, and does something else, it is like a slap in
> the face to me.
Let's hope terrorists don't bomb Billund, forcing Lego not to produce the ship
in Maersk blue again, or else you'd blame Lego for not carrying through on their
word!
I assume that you wouldn't really fault Lego in the above situation, but where
does the line get drawn? What if thanks to poor Christmas sales TLC loses a
kajillion dollars and couldn't afford to produce the "promised" Maersk or
dark-blue ships? How about if the production of Maersk blue ABS was incorrectly
mixed and neither Maersk nor Lego were willing to shell out for a new batch?
Would you still blame Lego?
> I didn't buy it as a great big lego investment, but as a way of offsetting my
> costs. At some point, my sets would have appeared on bricklink. The money I
> get usually goes right back into bricklink, or other lego purchases. But it
> helps me offset the cost of my hobby.
So... you DID buy it as an investment. Sympathy points earned: zero.
Don't get me wrong, I fully support your buying sets and re-selling them later.
That's fine. In fact, I'm glad you do it, because it gives people who never got
a chance to buy the set initially a chance to own one later. But by doing so,
you're effectively gambling on the price. You take a certain amount of risk by
hoping to sell the set later. What if nobody buys your set? What if they'll only
buy it at less than the cost you bought it for? What if the cost only increases
at the rate of inflation? It's YOUR risk, not Lego's.
Your point shouldn't be that your sets are going to sell for less money-- why
even bring it up? The only point you should be making (which I also don't agree
with) is that Lego went back on its "word".
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | 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 (...) (20 years ago, 21-Dec-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
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
|
|
|
|
