Subject:
|
Re: Is LEGO considered a 'collectable' for insurance claims ?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.shipping
|
Date:
|
Tue, 24 Aug 2004 16:11:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3324 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.market.shipping, Ray Sanders wrote:
> I am currently pursuing a claim for a LEGO set (a 7127) which was (somewhat)
> crushed during international shipping. This question was asked of me by the
> postmaster where I am attempting to file a claim. I was left with the impression
> that being a 'collectable' might make the claim more likely to be paid, but I
> have no idea. How and when is something considered 'a collectable' ? And how do
> I go about explaining to the Post Office why a LEGO set in a sealed good box is
> worth more than a LEGO set in a sealed but crushed box ?
If the answer to the second question is "it is worth more", then, in my view,
the item in question is a collectible. If it is "no difference" then the item
isn't.
LEGO is not fungible this way. Some LEGO items ARE collectible... an Airport
Shuttle Mint in a Sealed Mint Box is quite collectible. A Sith Infiltrator in a
banged up box, or loose out of its box, is not very collectible. (and a random
bag of 100 new white 2x4s is even less so)
So is a 7127 MISMB worth more than a 7127 MIS(but crushed)B? I guess you could
go to various selling sites and determine the relative pricing.
If it in fact is NOT worth more, then you have no basis for a claim because no
economic damage was done, right?
The LUGNET Guide shows this was a 10 MSRP set, and fairly recent, so it may be
not much of a difference in value at all.
Hope that helps.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
