Subject:
|
Re: When is Lego actually considered old?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.loc.au
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Sep 2000 08:30:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
571 times
|
| |
|
|
Hey,
Thanks for your help, I will do so in the future!
Later,
James
In lugnet.loc.au, Kerry Raymond writes:
> > 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 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
|
|
|
|
