 | | Sets vs. Parts
|
| I've recently bought a huge collection (600+ sets, 100,000+ parts), and I'm planning to sell 90+% of it off. I'm curious about people's opinions of how old a set has to be in order for it to be worth more as a whole set than as parts. As Todd has (...) (25 years ago, 1-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| Bill Katz wrote in message ... (...) Small sets that don't have much more than 1 or 2 special parts (counting a mini-fig as 1 part here), probably will net close to the same amount of money either as a set or as pieces. One thing which might help (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| (...) I'd guess that used LEGO gets a higher price when sold as a set, rather than being sold for parts. Especially if the instructions are included. But I'm sure there are many exceptions to this generalization. I'd say the problem of sorting makes (...) (25 years ago, 2-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| (...) When considered with the above consider these two questions: 1) are those 1 or 2 special parts no longer made? 2) are the rest of the parts fairly uncommon? (include color as a rareness factor) (...) Percentage-wise per set, sometimes the (...) (25 years ago, 9-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| (...) Hey, by the 10 cents per piece rule, thats... a lot. (...) In the case of 6011 and 6023, which sell for high prices as sets, they would do nearly as well, possibly better, broken down. I think a record price for 6023 was $175 (with others (...) (25 years ago, 12-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| (...) Ouch! That certainly wasn't me, and I'd be willing to bet a red 2x4 it wasn't Mike Stanley either ;) (...) Yes, Todd has an amazing patience and thought-out methodology. One concern of mine is that I'll finally get to meet the Lehman's and (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| (...) Aww shucks, Tom, I couldn't fill your shoes.(1) James (URL) possibly with spamcake. ;-) (25 years ago, 14-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| (...) Out of all us Larritarians, Tom, I think *you're* the most brain-washed. I half-expect you to write "Mega-dittos from the West Coast, Lar" after each of his posts;-) -John "I'm too sexy for humor" Neal (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| (...) Thanks, Tom, but you of all people should know that looks aren't everything... :-, Cheers, - jsproat (25 years ago, 14-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| (...) Good advice. (25 years ago, 15-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| Tom McDonald wrote in message ... (...) rumors (...) wasn't (...) No, and not me either, must've been a scalper. (...) of (...) Yeah, probably, imagine how much time he must spend on his PC (or MAC). But perusing his collection couldn't be boring, (...) (25 years ago, 15-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| (...) That makes two of us. If you include John, it might make three. ;) (...) But that's a *very* important thing. It's the first step in that 12-step program known as, "I could have my own TV show-aholics". You'd be surprised how many people in (...) (25 years ago, 15-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| (...) You can stop worrying on that account. They're not. Either that or I'm boring too and don't know it. But boringness is a fault, so that can't be it. :-) (...) Sounds like sour grape flavored spamcakes to me.... (25 years ago, 15-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| (...) That's OK, neither does he. (25 years ago, 15-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| (...) Yeah, I'm just spouting off. It's just that it's amazing and rare to find someone who's so very computer literate with a projectable personality. It's nice to know they exist in greater numbers than I previously thought. But I ain't sayin (...) (25 years ago, 15-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| John DiRienzo (jdiri14897@email.msn.com) wrote: : >The /inv part of lugnet is very cool for verifying completeness. I need to : >contribute as I get new sets. : I should do that, too. Maybe I will send him ALL the Castle inventories, : except for (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| Bill Katz wrote in message ... (...) to (...) inventories, (...) format. (...) No, no instructions to that as yet. Why, do you?? Want to trade? I guess I could look at the /inv site again, its been awhile and it was not very complete at the time. I (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| (...) Just twitting you... no appy-polly-logies needed, me droog. (1) 1 - Kubrik's second best movie, IMNSHO (25 years ago, 16-Jun-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts
|
| (...) One problem I see with some of the inventories out there is that part numbers are not used when available. Also, there is not yet a good standard set of part descriptions. The result is that it may not be easy for someone who has a box of (...) (25 years ago, 16-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
| |
