Subject:
|
Re: When is Lego actually considered old?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.loc.au
|
Date:
|
Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:04:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
491 times
|
| |
|
|
> What you should do is focus on dates (the year a Lego set was in
production).
While it's true that we can put a date on sets, it's presumably a lot harder
to put a date on pieces.
Would it be possible to distinguish between a box of assorted bricks from
the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, or 00s?
Obviously some pieces had a limited production life, and the range of
colours seems to increase over the years. But the bricks were a mixture of
"ordinary" colours (e.g. red) and of "ordinary" shapes (e.g. 2x4 bricks),
would anyone really know?
My second question is "is age relevant to the value or appeal of Lego"?
Would you pay more for Lego just because it was old (as distinct from being
rare)?
Would you pay less for Lego just because it was old (as distinct from being
damaged or in poor condition)?
Kerry
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: When is Lego actually considered old?
|
| (...) When I look at a bunch of older pieces, I can see subtle differences. The older pieces don't hold together as strongly, although I'm not sure if that's an effect of age or just better design and tighter manufacturing tolerances of the newer (...) (24 years ago, 20-Sep-00, to lugnet.loc.au)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: When is Lego actually considered old?
|
| (...) It's not possible to answer your question because the term "old" is a subjective term -- entirely dependent upon your frame of reference. To you maybe ten years ago is old, to me it might mean something from before I was born (say from the (...) (24 years ago, 20-Sep-00, to lugnet.loc.au)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
