| |
Ack! That is indeed a whole friggin' mess of LEGO!
> > In lugnet.general, Aaron Gershon writes:
> > > Seller states that there really is over 2000 lb of Lego. He will rent a
> > > U-Haul and deliver in USA or Canada. Search 'Lego Collection:'item
> > > 553020871. Current bid was over $3000 but he wants probably 20x that! Let me
> > > know what you think!
I think that unless he breaks it up, nobody's going to fork
over the amount he's hoping for. It requires too much free
cash in one place--maybe before the dot-com crash someone might
have gone for it, but I know a lot of the high-rollers (granted,
most of the ones I know are LUGNETters, which aren't necessarily
the majority) lost a lot of paper profits and are more circum-
spect in their spending. Then again, I could be wrong, because
a target-of-opportunity like this is, as the seller says, rare
at best and probably unique. Time to sell the house!
However, broken up I really do agree that $50K is a conservative
estimate of its value. If it's really a full ton, with older sets
and complete instructions for some of those sets (I saw that Yellow
Castle, yessirree) it could easily be worth six figures as parts.
Of course, such a collection broken up would certainly flood the
eBay market, with attendant price drops I'd reckon--if not by the
sheer volume, but because eBay buyers have only a limited amount
of money per capita to spend. (I know, I know, this part of the
observation is the dead horse we've kicked around in .theory since
Day 58 or so.)
> In lugnet.general, Adam Murtha writes:
> > Holy freakin' cow! That would be SWEET but I just spent $10,000 on Lego
> > LAST week, so I can't afford this one. Maybe next time.
Last week alone? I'd love to know how that was distributed, but
naturally 'tis none of my business. I'm just nosy. :)
> > Ok, but if everyone here on LUGNET pools there money...
> > ;-)
I couldn't commit more than $1000, and even that would be rough
this year. I do wish I could shoulder the time and money burden,
I could simply leave school and sort 'n' sell for a few years...
anyone up for building a consortium? We've got a whole week left!
:)
In lugnet.general, Mark Papenfuss writes:
> My jaw is STILL on the floor! I spent about $200 in the last month, and I
> *thought* that was alot!!
That person's got a bit more than twice as much as I do, and as far
as having older sets--well, there's no way we're even on the same
*planet* of comparison. I'd give a kidney for this guy's
collection. Heck, I'd consider both kidneys, if dialysis weren't
so darn time-intensive (takes away that valuable sorting time,
you know).
I did note that the stack of unopened sets is recent--post-1996.
From the looks of the entire post, it seems that this fellow's
ambition overtook his available time, something with which I am
*extremely* sympathetic after my "Fire Sale" last summer. I do
wonder sometimes if I could or should take the leap to becoming
a full-time part/set seller. I know it's possible, and that some
of us have done it quite well...but is it as reliable as it seems?
Anyways, that's just $.02 from this wistful end of the pond.
Oh, and XFUT-> .market.theory. :)
best
Lindsay
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: LARGEST LEGO LOT ON EBAY EVER!! (???)
|
| (...) Possibly, possibly not. I did some quick calculations. A month or so back, I posted the results of my 'how many 2x4 bricks are in a pound' experiment. My answer was 202-203 (or 101/8-oz to be precise). 2x4 bricks are, at least to me, a (...) (23 years ago, 3-Feb-01, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
Message is in Reply To:
88 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
|
|
|
|
