Subject:
|
Re: Tired of Paying for Dirty, Discolored and Damaged LEGO
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.shopping
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Apr 2002 19:38:43 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
293 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.market.shopping, Richard Marchetti writes:
> As the person that wrote this:
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/~174/grading
I remember your original postings and discussions on this topic and
appreciated your attempt to provide a standard for everyone to use.
> I can tell you that I have certainly come across dirty, already been
> chewed, bubble gum encrusted, snot caked, putty filled, milk spattered,
> larvae infested, and otherwise disgusting elements in my time.
LARVAE INFESTED!?! If this ever happened to me I'd probably abandon my LEGO
buying completely. Snot I can handle but creepy crawly things...YECCH!
> It is annoying to pay, then wait, only to receive reject elements. But you
> must first give the seller a chance to make good on the deal. Whereas some
> people do this full time, others do it merely to get rid of the things they
> will not use and to support their hobby -- as Kevin stated elsewhere, this
> might mean late night sorting sessions, bad lighting, what have you. Some
> people may also be working with certain disabilities, like colorblindness --
> which matters a lot when trying to sort elements of similar (well, similar
> to those unable to distinguish between them) colors like trans-yellow and
> trans-antifreeze.
As I pointed out, I really haven't given sellers (up until the Kahuka
incident this week) an opportunity to rectify the situation but believe that
when I do so in the future that I'll be able to be reasonable and patient as
long as it appears that seller is going to "do the right thing."
> If the seller does turn out to be a jerk; some kind of terse, carefully on
> point, negative feedback is in order. You could even explain how you gave
> the seller a chance to make things right and how and why they did not. As
> long as you report the truth and stay on point, the seller can have nothing
> to complain of in return. Admittedly, there is always the potential for
> retaliatory negative feedback (which I think should be disallowed but is
> instead generally allowed on most feedback systems), so you should certainly
> pick and choose your battles.
Thanks to you and the others for the encouragement regarding using the
Feedback systems. I'm going to try and conjure up the backbone to start
doing this in the future.
> It's too bad that you may have thrown away some of those white elements
> because both white and grey elements can actually be bleached free of most
> stains. Simply soak the element in some mixture of water and bleach -- not
> too strong a mixture, mind you -- and let time do the work for you, usually
> no more than a single week. Other kinds of grime AND printing can be
> removed with a mild abrasive solvent like toothpaste or "Brasso." Simply
> scrub at the effected spot with a soft cloth and your abrasive goop -- the
> soft cloth helps get into the tiniest areas. If you don't want to use, or
> don't have, a soft cloth you can use a cotton ball or even a cotton swab.
> The cotton swab allows for considerable control on detailed areas.
Actually, I haven't thrown any LEGO parts away (except for a couple of
smaller plates and some palm leaves that literally were broken in half). I
have a Discard Box that I throw "useless" parts into. I call them useless
but have found that they do come in handy for buidling up hidden support or
for other uses where they're ultimately not seen from the outside of the
MOC. My other idea for saving damaged/discolored pieces is as "garbage" for
filling up the dumpsters that we have in RichLUG train/town display.
> I wrote the "grading" thing as an attempt to arrive at a universally
> accepted set of standards within the hobby, but I fear that the criteria
> proved perhaps too exacting for many. In fairness, there is no reason why
> elements freshly removed from set bags cannot simply be referred to as "new"
> or "new except for sorting." And in the case of the more generic elements
> -- such as basic bricks, plates, etc. -- it's hard to imagine that someone
> is going to spend the time to grade each element individually, esp. if one
> is buying hundreds of them. The purpose of a grading standard comes in
> handy when one is paying upwards of $1 an element. At that point one REALLY
> wants to know that the unique element sought is in a satisfactory and usable
> condition -- and absolutely worth every penny of it's price, shipping, and
> handling.
Sometimes I look at a particular piece or a mini-fig and ask myself "Did I
really just pay $X for this tiny piece of plastic? Am I insane?" Well of
course I am - but as Wally from "Dilbert" would say, "at least it's the good
kind of insanity." And you're right, it's the more unique elements or figs
showing up in less-than-acceptable condition that really cuts like (plastic)
knife.
> So anyway, this is my long-winded way of telling you that you are not alone.
> I have been there and had that happen to me also, more times than I care to
> contemplate. That's why it's so great that TLC is re-releasing the Classic
> and Legend lines -- if at all possible, I much prefer to buy MISB if only to
> assure myself of quality bricks!
>
> -- Hop-Frog (The Scariest Commentator on Lugnet)
Thanks H-F!
Greg
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Tired of Paying for Dirty, Discolored and Damaged LEGO
|
| Greg: As the person that wrote this: (URL) can tell you that I have certainly come across dirty, already been chewed, bubble gum encrusted, snot caked, putty filled, milk spattered, larvae infested, and otherwise disgusting elements in my time. It (...) (23 years ago, 18-Apr-02, to lugnet.market.shopping)
|
21 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
|
|
|
|
