 | | Re: 10020 Registry opinion
|
|
(...) Sounds good. (...) Maybe just a comment field... one could comment on the intended "fate" of the set when one registers it. If for some reason one felt the need to change it, an email to you?? Hopefully not that high volume of changes. This (...) (23 years ago, 25-Feb-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Is the word out? (Was Re: 10020 Registry opinion)
|
|
I agree with the rest of the people that have posted that the registry is a good idea but I wonder how many sets are NOT going to get 'registered' because a) people don't know about it (parent's who buy it for the kids, non-lego train collectors, (...) (23 years ago, 25-Feb-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Is the word out? (Was Re: 10020 Registry opinion)
|
|
(...) In hindsight: Too bad LEGO(R) didn't include a "registration card" in the Super Chief box to be sent back to LEGO for such a documentation record. But, perhaps LEGO already thought of this and deemed it too much work to keep track of (...) (23 years ago, 25-Feb-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Is the word out? (Was Re: 10020 Registry opinion)
|
|
(...) Well if anything the SF registry will show us that we ("LUGNET members") are quite the minority in the LEGO market. I doubt we'd ever come close to having all 10,000 listed. I'd be surprised if we ever broke 2,000. And like you stated, a lot (...) (23 years ago, 25-Feb-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
| |
| | Re: Is the word out? (Was Re: 10020 Registry opinion)
|
|
"James J. Trobaugh" <james@ngltc.org> wrote in message > (...) are (...) I think that the registry was a great idea for the following reasons; 1. See how many are purchased through LUGNET and RTL people. 2.. Track the distribution of numbers. There (...) (23 years ago, 26-Feb-02, to lugnet.trains)
|
