| |
In lugnet.castle, Jimmy Park writes:
> I would just like to clarify a point here: we are all Lego collectors. Lego
> refers to us that way, we behave like classic collectors, and there is
> nothing wrong with being a Lego collector! Look at all the catalogs and
> Lego Mania magazines. They are geared for "collectors." The mini-heroes
> are called "collectable mini-figures," we are constantly asked to "collect
> them all," Bionicles are all about collecting all the masks, etc.
> Now, what most people seem to be objecting to are speculators AKA scalpers.
> These are people who really don't care about what they are selling so much
> as the profit involved. Fortunately, by releasing the Classics and Legends
> lines, Lego is gutting the scalper market before it takes off. This is
> great for us collectors in the long run since the chances of a scalper
> driven market are reduced.
> Just wanted to make sure the terminology is correct and we don't stigmatize
> the term collector,
Absract.
There are different words we apply to different approaches to LEGO(products).
Builders and collectors. Builders might feel that collectors have an
unproductive/unhelpful view of LEGO(products). Builders don't care about
scalpers and aren't impressed by LEGO(company)'s latest move and want to
either ignore or refocus the debate surrounding it.
PLEASE NOTE WELL. Follow-ups set to .general because of the ideological
issues discussed here. However, some replies might not belong in general,
choose an appropriate F.U.T ,thank you.
Essay.
Perhaps we understand the term differently. A reference...
1. somebody who collects objects: somebody who collects objects of a
particular type for their interest, value, or beauty a stamp collector
2. somebody who collects something: somebody whose job is to collect
something, for example, money owed, tickets, or garbage
3. container where things collect: something in which things are collected
intentionally or where unwanted things collect
From Encarta on-line (hence an American dictionary, because Macquarie was down)
In this case the relevant entry is 1. with the particular type being
LEGO(insert noun here). There may be those who collect LEGOs but since there
are no such things we will ignore them. Beyond that there are those who have
collections of catalogues, some who collect the other small insert that goes
in every set (they use the word 'flubber'). Some people collect boxes, some
collect sets and some who collect just plain elements, the stuff to build
with. In that last catagory there are those who collect to have particular
elements for no other reason other than they don't have one and some who
collect specific peices for specific projects.
Now as to the last clause in the definition, interest, value and beauty. I
would argue that because of it's mass-produced, form injected nature bricks
by themselves are not particularly beautiful (feel free to disagree here and
post references of beautiful bricks, but remember aesthetics is not yet a
science, don't expect everyone else to agree). Beauty comes in at a higher
level, those of sets and promotional materials. On the whole though, I would
be surprised if beauty is the main motivation for more than a small handful
of people.
This leaves a major dichotomy between the two other motivations for
collecting. Now, I'm not claiming that everyone falls neatly and completly
into one camp or another but for the most part there is a large behavioural
difference between the two kinds.
As an example I see myself firmly in the interest catagory. I have little
idea about the price of my collection as a whole (outside a vague figure for
insurance) and most importantly NO CONCEPT OF THE WORTH OF INDIVIDUAL SETS
OR BRICKS. (also I don't have unopened sets, keep many boxes or value the
flubber) I've stressed this point because it is the main divide between the
two camps.
The oppposite view is one who knows these things about thier collection and
their chief motivation is increasing the "value" of it. By completing sets,
themes and just plain buying more. Agreed everyone participates in aspects
of this last sentence, I've met precious few people who have enough
LEGOwhatevers. But I'd like to pick on a difference of approach to the issue.
I make little use of the word rare in relation to my collection, it is term
used almost exclusivly by those who "value" things. This is why I couldn't
give a toss about the re-release of the Guarded Inn, I don't feel a desire
to complete a theme (or even complete my set with an odd missing bit or two)
and as for aquiring it to increase the size of my collection, there are
other sets I like as much that are out now ON SHELVES. Someone might
interject here and mention beauty as a motivation for buying the set.
As people have opinioned before, it's not that great a set. I don't need to
justify my opinion here because it's mine. I'm not saying I expect others to
agree and I know others think the set is beautiful, more power to 'em, and
yay as well.
Where is this all going? The rerelase of the Guarded Inn has turned up the
knob on the differences between two kinds of LEGO people. And dispite, as
Jimmy points out, collector applying to both kinds we've (and I've) used it
differently, calling those who are interested in the "value" aspects as
collectors. This probably isn't a bad use of the term, most of us know what
kind of people we mean when we say collector and some of us (and I think
with some justification) find a value-collector objectionable. After all, we
(that is interest-collectors) think LEGO(bricks) are meant to be played with
and if one doesn;t have a particular brick (in a particular colour) oh well,
get over it thinks the interest-collector, go build something
diferently/something else. This is what we call the interest collector in
preference to collector, BUILDER. Someone who creates something using the
resources they have at hand. Think for two seconds about how society as a
whole values those who create over those who amass (well most societies
anyway, there are exceptions in greater and lesser degreees).
This difference is not really about scalpers or speculators, as a builder I
have very little interest in the (non)existance of a "scalper's market". The
best way to sell something is to know a lot about it, i.e. be interested in
it, hence the crossover between interest-collectors and value-collectors.
However, LEGO(company) knows where the money is and it's not with the
builders. And since they're a company who wants to collect money, they need
to go where it is, generating hype, imposing value and rerelasing sets which
go for overinflated E-bay prices.
Yay for them, I'll be in the corner building something with my collection.
James (who has more to say than two cents)
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Misnomer: we are all Lego collectors!
|
| I would just like to clarify a point here: we are all Lego collectors. Lego refers to us that way, we behave like classic collectors, and there is nothing wrong with being a Lego collector! Look at all the catalogs and Lego Mania magazines. They are (...) (23 years ago, 11-Jun-01, to lugnet.castle)
|
65 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
|
|
|
|
