Subject:
|
Re: The difference between hobbyists and collectors...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Mon, 8 Jan 2007 21:16:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1637 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Chris Magno wrote:
> Tedward wrote:
> > In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, Brian Davis wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > > ... a things worth is established by what someone will pay for it.
> > > Not for its utility. Just ask DeBeers.
> >
> >
> > And that of course makes it right or moral or in any way a positive thing?
>
>
> it dont matter one hoot wheater it is right, or moral or good or whatever.
>
> it is what it IS!!
>
> technicaly, that MISB supercar is just some plastic. those structured
> carbon molocules are just really really HARD but nicely cut diamonds.
> their worth is based on what someone will PAY for it.
>
> im sorry dave. as one of those set horders, im not going to get mad at
> the guy selling his set for any price he names.
>
> how does it harm you or calum? if you dont want it... dont buy it.
>
> if he is hording a rare set/part. its his to hoard. if as you say, the
> set can be built from comon parts; then any argument about rare and
> hording is mute.
>
> tell me dave. define a piscaso, or a monalisa? just some oil, and ink,
> slapped on some old canvas. why are THEY worth what they are?
>
> Chris
Again, if someone gets the 400 dollars for an old set--hey, all teh power to
him.
However, my personal opinion--jackass. As you say--it's not a matter of 'right
or wrong' or morals, because it is, indeed, a matter of opinion. My opinion is
that it hurts the hobby and hurts us all. It's the 'Ebenezer Scrooge' single
person hoarding to the loss of the community.
I've seen it before--John Doe has an excellent idea for designing something new
and great. 'Ahh, but I need part 'x' and only Richard Roe has part 'x' and he
wants a gazillion dollars for it.'
There goes the idea.
Of course, the flip side is that necessity is the mother of invention--many
times I'll be building something and not have part 'x' and will have to make due
with the parts I do have, and that's another good thing about LEGO.
Maybe it's the more socialist aspect of my personal belief system--the 'good of
the community'. But again, everything in moderation. i also don't tihnk that
we can redistribute *everything* to *everyone*, and that there has to be some
capitalistic endeavours.
So I guess it's back to moderation. Supposing I bought a Galaxy Exporer back in
1979 for 50 bucks at Zellers.
Now supposing it's almost 30 years later and someone wants a Galaxy Exploerer
(for any reason whatsoever--the reason to *buy* someothing should not affect the
sellers reason for *selling* something.
I would have no problem if I sold that thing, if it's still mint and unused, for
some sort of value that keeps in mind storage and protection for those years and
for some reasonable profit.
However, 400ish dollar profit on what probably was a 10-20 dollar set in the
first place--again, with most pieces readily avialable today--is absurd.
But again, as I always say about people who yap about disliking the radio
station they heard--stop listening to it. I won't put in an offer on the set.
However, I will use the freedom to post regarding what, in my opinion, is a
ludicrous situation in the hopes that someone out there may think better of the
community in general and offer their LEGO wares for a more reasonable ammount
(at least, reasonable in my eyes).
In the interests of full disclosure, I did buy the original LEGO motor from 1965
for 40 bucks. Again, I worked out in my mind what a reasonable amount was for
said set and put my bid in. I won, and I'm happy for it.
So I guess the final words for me on this matter are --be reasonable.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
33 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
|
|
|
|
