Subject:
|
Re: Is it OK to use new parts for old sets?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.market.theory
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Feb 2000 03:26:56 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
(icestorm@inwave.com)Spamless()
|
Viewed:
|
585 times
|
| |
|
|
Kevin Loch wrote:
>
> In lugnet.trains, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > Kevin Loch wrote:
> > > Isn't it rare for an old set to have exactly the pieces that came in
> > > the original box?
> >
> > Right, unless it's shrinkwrapped. But the question is, should it have
> > pieces that are from the same era? That is, pieces that COULD have been,
> > but for the luck of the draw, in the box originally?
> >
> > The most purist among us will admit it's impossible to verify that a
> > used set has exactly the pieces it left Billund with, but Gary Istok,
> > for example, could spot anachronistic pieces with not too much trouble.
There haven't been many changes in common pieces, but they are there.
Recently sold some of my "old" legos. 1x? pieces had no posts inside. Just
because they are recognizably old, I'm not sure that that would increase
their value.
> > And I would argue that the most purist among us would in fact want the
> > set to be reconstructed from correct era pieces. Not me, I don't care, I
> > just want all the pieces to be there.
>
>
> Well put. I agree that you would expect (but not necesseraly require)
> parts from the same era. This brings up an interesting question.
> I got an 8860 real cheap from ebay, with many common parts missing.
> I rebuilt it with the parts provided plus brand new parts from my collection.
> Most of the parts provided were in poor shape. Would it be better
> to build the 8860 from all new parts except for the rare ones? It would
> certainly run and display better. Has anyone done this? Do you feel guilty?
>
> KL
Only problem with swapping in a few new parts may make all the old parts
look old. If all the rare/unique/specialty pieces are there, I have no
problem with new common pieces being part of a set. A yellow castle is
determined to be a yellow castle by the tall slopes and a few other bricks.
As long as the rare pieces are there, the common pieces could have just come
out of a 3033 tub for all I care. I wouldn't feel guilty at all. However,
even with the rare bricks in hand, you still need a original manual to serve
as a pedigree for a set, regardless of the % of original content.
I have two concerns with sets from ebay: first is that all the pieces are
there. Second, I have to look at at least one stud on every piece to make
sure they are lego. Anyone else find some clone bricks in sets that seemed
to be complete with genuine parts?
Mark
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Is it OK to use new parts for old sets?
|
| (...) I am now the proud owner of 14 pounds of clones.... My latest additions to the clone pile came from an aquazone Crystal expolerer sub and an Imperial Flagship I picked up off of ebay. These Tyco blocks came in the guise of yellow 1x2s on the (...) (25 years ago, 23-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Is it OK to use new parts for old sets?
|
| (...) Well put. I agree that you would expect (but not necesseraly require) parts from the same era. This brings up an interesting question. I got an 8860 real cheap from ebay, with many common parts missing. I rebuilt it with the parts provided (...) (25 years ago, 22-Feb-00, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
15 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
|
|
|
|
