Subject:
|
Re: The difference between hobbyists and collectors...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 Jan 2007 17:27:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1727 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, David Koudys wrote:
> > I guess the thing I'd point out is that collectors really do value their
> > pieces and their sets as more than just the sum of their parts.
>
> I value the LEGO parts as more than the sets they comes in. That's why I
> build with LEGO bricks--if I didn't care about the parts, then I certainly
> would save lots of money by not buying the sets.
I'm not sure I followed you there-- you said you think the set is worth more
than just the pieces... but... your argument is that a set should just be sold
at the value of the pieces (plus the price of the box and the instructions if
applicable?)
> LEGO is about the pieces and what you do with them. LEGO was never about
> 'the box' or 'the set'.
Well, for you maybe :) I tend to find that for collectors, there's value in the
set as a complete toy. Sort of like buying a vintage Superman comic. I see a
bunch of them right now for over $1000 on ebay. Technically, you could get a
photocopy of it, and what's the difference? Who the hell cares if it's an
original? Well, collectors do.
> So what's the difference between the Galaxy Explorer built out of the pieces
> in my basement and the Galaxy Explorer 'still in box' being sold on eBay for
> aome astronomical value? A cardboard box? Non-used pieces??
>
> That's not good enough for me. As River would say, "I understand it, I don't
> comprehend it". It goes against common sense. It goes against 'fair'. It
> goes against my personal thoughts of what LEGO and the community are all
> about--LEGO pieces are the important bit--and using them in creations moreso.
I see why you'd think it was against common sense. But I don't understand what's
not "fair" about it? "Fair" implies, what? That all parties are treated equally
without bias? And this guy is selling his set for anyone willing to buy it for
$400. It's not like he's setting the price high just for *you* and low for
someone else. That'd be unfair.
I think the best logical reason you can give is that the pieces are unused. As I
said, if LL928 bricks were a dime-a-dozen, it would be nigh on IMPOSSIBLE to
find one in good condition. But set the price to $20 per brick, and suddenly
people aren't scooping them up so fast. And they're taking better care of them,
because, well, they cost a lot! And they're valuable!
But it's also more than just the fact that the pieces are "unused", obviously,
and that's the whole nostalgia and "perfect" value that people place on things.
And yes, that's not common sense, that's a bizarre human trait that manifests
itself in collectors. People want "the real thing". Forget that you can make a
duplicate copy for 1/10 the price, they want it to be *genuine*.
Not to get overly philosophical, but I think part of it stems out of our
mortality. We want a sense that things are static, and that they'll "stay like
this forever". In the case of Lego, it's like preserving our childhood. We want
to see things *exactly* how they were, perhaps in the hopes that our own
memories will be preserved when we're gone. (Man, I should be writing a
philosophy paper!)
In another sense, it's about connecting to something larger or better. Valuing
something like, say, an autograph is a way of connecting to whoever's autograph
it is. "This pair of socks was worn by Bill Clinton! Wow!" Or maybe "I went and
ran the exact path that Paul Revere took! I stood where he stood!" That sort of
thing. It's a less rational desire to connect with something more than
ourselves.
I think most people probably have that desire, but in collectors, it's probably
just stronger. $370 stronger or so :)
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
33 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
