Subject:
|
Re: When is Lego actually considered old?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.loc.au
|
Date:
|
Wed, 20 Sep 2000 22:22:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
516 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.loc.au, Kerry Raymond writes:
> 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?
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 pieces. The composition of the plastic has also changed a few times
over the years. Sometimes the shape of a piece has been improved over time.
I'm sure that somebody who studied the history of LEGO could easily tell you
the rough age of a piece plucked out of a bin to within a decade. And I'm
certain that there are a few LUGNET readers who could do a lot better if you
tested them...
> 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)?
To me, there are three things that make old LEGO exciting:
1. Rare pieces that have gone out of production, or that are difficult to
get in current sets. (Clear, non-slope bricks are a good example of this
right now.)
2. Old pieces whose design has changed over the years, which are
interesting to compare to newer pieces. (For example, the old plates which
have a weird square "waffle" pattern on their underside instead of the current
design.)
3. The outside possibility that I'll find somebody's old 50,000 piece LEGO
collection in a big box at a yard sale for $5.
There are also two things that makes me avoid using old LEGO if I have
comparable newer pieces on hand:
1. Old pieces don't grip as strongly as new pieces, so the models are
weaker.
2. The scratches on well-played bricks dull the finished models and can
make them look dingy and dirty.
In other words, it's not the age of the LEGO that makes it interesting or not
interesting, but the rarity of the part. And there are times where "new" LEGO
is better than "old" LEGO.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: When is Lego actually considered old?
|
| (...) The best person to ask, of course, would be Gary Istok, but some things I've noticed as differences: - older bricks are made from Cellulose Acetate (sp?), newer ones are ABS - the injection point for a lego brick used to be on the side (...) (24 years ago, 21-Sep-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: When is Lego actually considered old?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
