Subject:
|
Re: Packaging Style (was:You get to choose!)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego.direct
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Apr 2002 21:24:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5359 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jason Spears writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Lou Zucaro writes:
> <snip>
> > And this is a pet peeve with me...please go back to the flap-and-tray boxes
> > for larger sets!!! The current boxes are awful. That horrid thick corrguated
> > cardboard with punchtabs is about the worst possible container for LEGO sets.
>
> Actually I like it. Now if someone has returned the set after opening it, or
> worse yet, opened and plundered it at the store, there is no question about it.
> Also those heavy duty cardboard boxes take abuse better than the old boxes
> ever did. Look at the USC stuff, and how those boxes are always beat.
USC? I don't think I'm up on my acronyms.
It's not the cardboard itself that I mind, but the fact that the box can't
be re-closed to contain the pieces inside.
> > I would *gladly* pay a couple extra dollars for a better box. What would the
> > extra cost be for the next Legend...say either Main Street or the Yellow
> > Castle or whatever...to be in a flap-and-tray box instead of these lame
> > thick corrugated boxes? $2.00 extra? $3.00 extra? It would be more than
> > worth it to me.
>
> AgagaghHH! No! I buy Lego sets for the little plastic bricks not for the
> cardboard packaging. I would be really bumbed if I had to pay more for a
> packaging style that some would describe as worse. I throw away the boxes on
> all the sets I buy, so I am not helped by a flap and tray style box.
Well, LEGO started it with the whole "Use this box for storage" deal on the
older sets. It's obviously a point of view issue. If you're buying sets just
to build, then you probably don't care about the boxes. If you're buying to
build an collect (or just to collect) you probably do.
> > Similarly the smaller sets should go back to being released in the
> > double-flap-and-tab design of the early '80s. Those were the only small set
> > boxes in which you could effectively store the pieces without using a
> > zip-lock baggie or something similar. Again, the extra cost for a MUCH
> > better box would be well worth it.
>
> Ok so you want to use these old box styles for storage. I think I can
> understand your point of view. But lets say, going by your pricing, that each
> small set costs $1 more, and the big sets $2 & $3 more. With that same amount
> of money you could buy a 100count box of ziplock baggies (which you can see
> through, something I have never managed to do through cardboard) and a shoebox
> sized plastic container(1). Futhermore, plastic containers are far more robust
> than old Lego boxes ever could be and stackable.
Again, for the sets I collect (rather than ones I buy for the pieces to
build), I am much more interested in preserving the original than I am with
finding the cheapest way to store stuff.
Also, I obviously made up the dollar amounts in terms of the difference in
cost between how things used to be done and how they're done now. I have no
idea if it would actually cost $1 more for a small set...or if it would be
more than that or less than that.
> (1) See the clear plastic containers with the white lids in this picture. Only
> 89cents at my local hardware store (Lowes).
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=63407
I have a lot of other storage methods for pieces themselves...I'm really
addressing storage as it pertains to using the original packaging.
Lou
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Packaging Style (was:You get to choose!)
|
| In lugnet.lego.direct, Lou Zucaro writes: <snip> (...) Actually I like it. Now if someone has returned the set after opening it, or worse yet, opened and plundered it at the store, there is no question about it. Also those heavy duty cardboard boxes (...) (23 years ago, 16-Apr-02, to lugnet.lego.direct)
|
89 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
