| |
In lugnet.castle, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.castle, Tim Courtney writes:
> > So because you think LEGO should not be labeled a collectible, does that
> > mean others cannot label it as such?
>
> Others can always do as they please. But there are several REALLY good
> reasons why Lego doesn't fit into the "collectible" category as easily as
> others things may. I have a complete grading system that I am working on,
> so I won't go into too many details right now. But Lego is "properly"
> collectible in only two states (in my view): as single elements, and as MISB
> sets. In all other states, Lego is foolishly thought of as collectible
> (again, in my view), there are just WAY too many variables to consider and a
> collectibel scheme falls apart pretty quickly.
Now there's a resonable counter to my statement :)
Actually, I find what you wrote there quite interesting, and would be
interested in seeing your grading system when it is finished as well.
> Plus, I will throw in a teeny analogy to another plastic toy -- Pez
> dispensers. Once upon a time the Psychedelic Eye dispenser would fetch as
> much as $500 USD each in excellent condition, but I think the price is
> dropping on them. After all, Pez re-released newer versions that were
> identical to the original in all major details, and even in several
> variations that were never available before -- and all for $18 each (which
> is a crazy price too, BTW). To me, people have to be PSYCHO to throw their
> money away on an "original" of these dispensers
> (http://cgi.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1147193941 lists one
> at $385 USD). I mean, I REALLY can't see the point of it. Can they do it?
> Sure. Should they do it? Probably not...
Well, it would probably be in their own economic best interest (unless
they're already loaded) not to do it, but its what they want to do. Silly
as it may seem to us, it isn't so silly to them. That doesn't mean all have
to value such a product that highly, or that all have to pay that much if
they want that product.
Still - those high bidders give that item its value, that's the way it is
anywhere.
> > Aren't I another person with a differing opinion, and am I not entitled to
> > it? I read your post, and I saw what I thought was whining and sour grapes.
> > But that's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it.
>
> Fine. And I realize some of this is getting personal for the participants,
> but the difference is that Anthony's first post on this subject was a series
> of opinions about the GI set, TLC's marketing moves, and what coulda/shoulda
> been instead of the GI set whereas your opinions are a LOT more to do with
> the nature of your perceptions of Anthony's behavior. Why is it whining
> from Anthony, when Gary Istok expressed a similar sentiment elsewhere? Or
> is it whining from him too? Even so, I didn't see anyone jump down Istok's
> throat. I, myself, whined similarly...so what? You didn't attack me either.
> Why not?
>
> C'mon, Tim --Let's go, Baby! You and me, k? And the fight doesn't end
> until a K.O.!
Lol. Well, just for the sake of it, I looked back trying to find posts of
yours and of Gary's. Neither of you were whining - you might have been
offering constructive criticism, but you weren't whining.
So, yeah, it was perceptions of behavior - and some viewpoints (ie -
re-releasing anything other than castle is unfair to castle) - that caused
me to reply. Anyways, I've said my piece about how I think he was behaving,
so I'll drop that part now.
> Not getting what you want is not sour grapes.
But I felt other parts of his post was. I won't beat it into the ground
here though - if you want to know what I thought was sour grapes, email me.
> You and I were pleased to varying degrees,
> Anthony was not (this means he doesn't feel included in TLC's
> considerations).
Well, I could feel not included in TLC's considerations because they didn't
release a Space set first. Instead, I applauded the release, realizing that
Brad and the gang plan on releasing many classics from different lines -
probably resulting in a Space release sooner or later.
For Anthony's case, simply put, he wasn't a part of the majority opinion on
the GI - so, he's left out this go round because most people love that set,
while he doesn't see the value.
> I would hope that he could see that this move on the part
> of TLC portends more and better in the future (and maybe even for him), but
> for today Anthony seems disappointed. Okay, it will just have to be that way.
*shrug*
> Y'all should take a deep breath or two and then come back more reasonable
> and less ready to fight. I've been there, I know exactly how you
> feel...makes me feel like calling Larry P out for some fun -- but, feh...
> (and we all know that Frank Filz just ain't taking the bait -- damn him!).
Ya, I'm cooled down now, I suppose.
> -- Hop-Frog (turning the heat up more slowly these days...)
You know the whole frog-in-boiling-water phenomenon, right? Put a frog in
boiling water, he'll jump out. Turn up the heat slowly, he'll just sit
there and roast.
-Tim
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Worth the wait? (NO!)
|
| I have no idea why I locked onto this, but I just did. (...) This is not in actual fact true. It's only true if you have an anesthetized frog. My experience is that a frog will try to jump out of *anything* a human puts it into. It's one of those (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jun-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Worth the wait? (NO!)
|
| (...) Tim, I think the term "sour grapes" doesn't actually work in this context -- or at least I'm not sure how you mean it. (...) Others can always do as they please. But there are several REALLY good reasons why Lego doesn't fit into the (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jun-01, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
53 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
|
|
|
|
