 | | Re: Sets vs. Parts —Frank Filz
|
| | | 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 (...) (26 years ago, 2-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts —Tom McDonald
|
| | | | (...) 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 —John DiRienzo
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Tom McDonald
|
| | | | (...) 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 —James Brown
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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 —Jeremy H. Sproat
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | | (...) Good advice. (25 years ago, 15-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts —John DiRienzo
|
| | | | | 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 —Tom McDonald
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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 —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | (...) That's OK, neither does he. (25 years ago, 15-Jun-99, to lugnet.market.theory, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts —Bill Katz
|
| | | | | | 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 —John DiRienzo
|
| | | | | | | 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 —Frank Filz
|
| | | | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Sets vs. Parts —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Tom McDonald
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
