| |
In lugnet.market.shipping, David Laswell wrote:
> 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.
>
> Sounds reasonable to me. If it's a collectible, the packaging affects its
> value, based both on condition and rarity. If it's not a collectible, the
> packaging is just meant to contain and protect the product until you're
> ready to remove the product for personal use, and it can still do that if
> it's somewhat crushed. If the bricks themselves were damaged, you'd have a
> clear claim regardless of whether it was a collectible or not.
Which kinda goes back to my basic question... What makes one LEGO set
'collectable' and another not ? Is it age ? Is it appreciation above MSRP ? Is
it availability ? Is it box condition ? Is it desireability ? Other than age,
most of those are intangiables which may change from day to day.
> > 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 ?
>
> Did you pay more than MSRP for it?
Probably not. Like most BL resellers, I get stuff when its on clearance, then
retained it until such time as it sold at a fair markup.
> If so, show them proof of the MSRP and proof
> of your purchase price, and that should go a long way to proving your point.
> Also, you can point them to Bricklink's pricing history for that set, as well as
> providing the release year (it's more than 2-3 years old, so you couldn't
> reasonably expect to find another copy locally at MSRP, and it's no longer
> listed on S@H in the US).
> Just keep in mind that full reimbursement might
> require you to surrender the damaged goods.
Oddly in this case it does not. This being a 'partial claim' (approx 20% of the
insured cost of the original shipped package, the other items survived). The
USPS IMM[1] says that for a 'partial claim' the office accepting the claim
should inspect the item and then return it to the person making the claim. My
comment to them was "if they make a full payment, either of us could just donate
the crushed set to Toys for Tots at christmas time".
> I mean, if you were going to rip
> open the box and throw it away, why should they pay you full cost for it if
> the box is the only thing that was actually damaged, but still let you keep
> the rest of the set?
Understood, and thats a small part of the dilemma here. Once you open it up to
see what happened inside, then its no longer MIS(but crushed)B. A box in good
physical shape gives you a reasonable expectation that the contents inside are
in good shape. A Box like this does not. IMO, that would have a negative effect
on the (resale or otherwise) value.
There are several different themes floating around my head in this discussion.
What should a reseller reasonably (and ethically) expect when something like
this happens ? I bought it at one price, it retailed at a different price ($10),
the average BL sale price is higher still (~$21), the average BL offer
price(~$28) and the price I actually sold it for. Which one counts for more ?
Also keep in mind, that the buyer may have decided to purchase mine at a
slightly higher price, because I could supply the combination of items he wanted
in one order.
Once upon a time, 7140's were going for astronomical prices until LEGO reissued
it as 7142. That caused the market to drop out. Is a 7140 worth more than a 7142
?
I wonder if the issues I am encountering here are also the same issues as those
involved with valuing an AFOLs personal collection. Especially if the AFOL has
MISB sets in the collection. Valuing loose parts is a whole different animal.
At the end of the day, I now have to substitute a good 7127 (from my dwindling
stock) for the crushed one to make good on the order. So I have one less to sell
at an appreciated price. From my perspective, and since the package was insured,
I would think that I am due restitution (for my percieved loss). If they fail to
do so, then my only recourse is to part out the set and see what I can get for
the contents. Like many sets (which are becoming HTF), I doubt that the contents
are worth as much as the MISB set was.
Ray
[1] USPS International Mail Manual, sect 925
.fut added appraisal
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
5 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
|
|
|
|
