Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.comAmazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

New "buy parts" in replacement parts on LEGO site

13»

Comments

  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas Member Posts: 8,404
    CCC said:

    No set has 200 parts exactly the same - and surely no-one can lose 200 of the same part. So is the 200 down to sloppy programming or down to them knowing people are going to use it as a store?

    Tower Bridge has 550+ Tan Cheese Slices :)
  • CCCCCC Member Posts: 20,526
    ^ Yeah, that's true. But you've got to be going some to lose them all.
  • prof1515prof1515 Member Posts: 1,550
    CCC said:

    Either way, they now know they are being used as a store rather than for replacement parts. Just as they have used consumers to find out which parts are licensed (and hence popular).

    Licensed does not mean popular. Licensed parts have more to do with specific molds and prints which are unique to a license theme or parts which appear only in licensed theme sets. They have made some exceptions such as the gladius from the Collectible Minifigures falling under "licensed parts" due to its inclusion in the LOTR sets but they seem to exclude the collectible figure parts probably due to the random nature of their distribution (ie. selecting parts for randomly packaged sets would defeat the random element).

    Yes, Lego knows that some are abusing the system as a means of purchasing parts but complaints by those abusing it that the system isn't designed for them is sort of like a thief complaining that the burglar alarm is too shrill and the combination on the safe is too difficult to crack.
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas Member Posts: 8,404
    prof1515 said:

    the combination on the safe is too difficult to crack.

    You haven't watched enough Mythbusters! :) You just need some water!!!
  • Si_UKNZSi_UKNZ Member Posts: 4,179
    Im sorry but comparing people to thieves is downright derogatory.
    Is this a flame?
  • goshe7goshe7 Member Posts: 515
    ^ No. It was an analogy that used thieves, not an example.
  • prof1515prof1515 Member Posts: 1,550
    edited November 2012

    Im sorry but comparing people to thieves is downright derogatory.
    Is this a flame?

    No it's not derogatory or a flame but if you want another analogy, it's like hikers complaining that the terrain off the park trail is too rough and dangerous or chefs complaining that the bath soap doesn't give their food a better taste.

    You haven't watched enough Mythbusters! :) You just need some water!!!

    I've watched a lot of Mythbusters but I have to admit that I've never seen that episode. Love the show though!
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas Member Posts: 8,404
    They used water to blow open a safe, using the fact that water is not compressable, putting a small explosive charge in a water filled safe.

    It was impressive, to say the least, but the truth is that it isn't a very reasonable or practical way to open a safe. :)
  • madforLEGOmadforLEGO Member Posts: 10,787
    Lets face facts, PaB is woeful with its part selection at times it borders on being ridiculous.
    I like the idea of being able to get loads of brick that is not standard from this new system in place. even if it isn't how some people see it is intended for.
  • prof1515prof1515 Member Posts: 1,550
    edited November 2012

    Lets face facts, PaB is woeful with its part selection at times it borders on being ridiculous.
    I like the idea of being able to get loads of brick that is not standard from this new system in place. even if it isn't how some people see it is intended for.

    That's not a fact, that's an opinion. The fact is that Lego offers hundreds of bricks for individual or bulk sale via Pick-A-Brick. Another fact is that Lego offers a service for replacing parts that has a wider selection.
  • meyerc13meyerc13 Member Posts: 227
    Pick-a-brick is great if you want standard bricks, but I've never understood who would buy a bunch of 2x or 1x in common colors that way. It is usually far cheaper to buy a Bricks and More set to get a bunch of standard bricks in common colors.

    What Pick-a-brick doesn't have enough of is the unusual parts, the very ones that you can't find in many sets. If you want one of the car roof/hood pieces, either 4 wide or 6 wide, your choice from Pick a Brick is white or black. No other colors available. Same with the various car doors, can't get those via Pick-a-brick. Same with many sizes of wheels and tires. These are the very parts you would want if you build a lot of vehicles, and the very parts you can't get through pick-a-brick. It's frustrating, and I'm sure other builders experience similar problems with their preferred theme (i.e. space parts for example).
  • prof1515prof1515 Member Posts: 1,550
    meyerc13 said:

    What Pick-a-brick doesn't have enough of is the unusual parts, the very ones that you can't find in many sets. If you want one of the car roof/hood pieces, either 4 wide or 6 wide, your choice from Pick a Brick is white or black. No other colors available. Same with the various car doors, can't get those via Pick-a-brick. Same with many sizes of wheels and tires. These are the very parts you would want if you build a lot of vehicles, and the very parts you can't get through pick-a-brick. It's frustrating, and I'm sure other builders experience similar problems with their preferred theme (i.e. space parts for example).

    Lego can't produce a large quantity of bricks for general sale if they aren't also using them for products, ie. sets, or without the guarantee of sale. Every piece they produce represents another piece that they didn't. Their first and foremost concern (as well as revenue generator) is the sets that they offer and the pieces necessary for those sets will always receive priority. If you want specific parts from a set, buy that set in the quantity that will give you what you need. Can't afford to? That's where sites like Bricklink come in handy, to fill the void via individual offerings that meet the needs of a minority of consumers. Lego is ultimately a business that produces children's toys and children have far fewer of the concerns that adult fans do, something that the latter often fail to realize. :-)


  • georgebjonesgeorgebjones Member Posts: 224
    I will chime in with my 2 cents(or pence, I suppose, for those across the pond :).

    First of all, the concerns about LEGO not selling sets because of this, or selling fewer sets because of this service. I wouldn't worry about it. This has come up before in other conversations, and it may be difficult, but step outside of your AFOL bubble. Go into a Toys r us, Target, even a Lego Brand Retail store, 95% of the people in there don't know the difference between Lego and Mega Blocks or think they are the same, have no clue what different LEGO themes are available, are buying sets for their kids, don't even realize LEGO has a website, or all of the above.

    AFOL's are the ones going to be taking advantage of this service. They will see a surge of replacement parts orders, and then it will taper off. They will work out the kinks. There will be people who take advantage of the system, and LEGO will make adjustments. It happens. Just like we can't go buy 32 in one pop of the series 9 minifigures next month. We as consumers adjust.

    How much do you spend on LEGO a year $1000, $10000, $100000? According to their press release (http://aboutus.lego.com/en-us/news-room/2012/march/annual-result-2011/) they saw profits of $776 Million last year, with this year projected to be higher. Even if you spend $100000 a year, you don't even register on their financials. LEGO caters to parents buying sets for their kids.
  • dougtsdougts Member Posts: 4,110
    edited November 2012
    Here's how you get to this section:
    -> www.lego.com
    -> Customer Service
    -> Missing Parts

    You then get 4 choices:
    1. Piece is missing
    2. piece was broken
    3. Piece broke when using
    4. "Buy a piece"

    "Buy a piece" then gives you 2 options:
    1) Pick a Brick
    2) can't find it in PAB? We will send you a quote.

    when you select the second option, you then get a robust catalog, sorted by set for easy filtering, with the ability to add up to 200 of any item to your cart.

    If LEGO didn't want people using this option to source large quantities of parts for purposes other than "replacement", then they would not have included option to "buy a piece", and certainly not sub-option 2 "let us send you a quote for items not found in pab". LEGO clearly contemplated the thought that some people would want to order up to 200 of any specific piece, regardless of piece count within a set, and built the UI and added options and language for users to do just that.

    Is the primary use of this new feature as an extended PAB option? obviously not. however, to say this is an abuse of this new feature is not a fair or accurate statement in the least. LEGO is simply extending in an online format what they have long been doing over the phone already. Yes, they've kept it well-buried in the site, but they clearly considered the bulk buy scenario and went out of their way to accomodate it.
    Si_UKNZ
  • prof1515prof1515 Member Posts: 1,550
    Sorted by set and not by part type which indicates its intention as a replacement service. If I'm building a model and need specific parts, it's easier for the listing to be done in the format of part type than by sets that they're found in. However, if I'm replacing a part from a set I already own it is easier to locate that part via a listing by set.

    The reason they give the option on Pick-A-Brick is because buying from their bulk service is cheaper than their replacement service. They even mention that.

    I don't deny that they play a little loose with their system knowing that people will use it for bulk purchases. My point is that those complaining that the system is not set up well for bulk purchases are ignoring the fact that they system is not meant and set up for such. It is designed to accomodate its purpose: to make finding replacement parts easy. Hence the difficulties some are having with finding parts for bulk purchases are because they're relying on a system that first and foremost was not designed for such a use.

    Trying to use the system to buy licensed parts, which Lego has long maintained are not for sale, is abuse of that system. Lego will replace individual licensed parts on occassion but not in bulk.
  • HardradaHardrada Member Posts: 439
    So it's live only in the UK as of now, right? At other countries you don't get to see the prices and you can only order as many of a part as there was in the selected set.

    Also this implementation seems a bit weird. I mean this new extended alternate PAB system is being hacked into the replacement part service which doesn't seem like the wisest idea. Bulk buyers will simply clear out all the sought after parts (or accelerate that process a lot) which will decrease the quality of Lego's replacement service. I understand that this was already happening with phoning in but it will surely grow in scale a lot.
  • korkor Member Posts: 392
    I just placed an order from some dark orange bricks. It will be interesting to see what they are charging since those are pricey as heck on BL. Guess I'll know in a few days.
  • DiggydoesDiggydoes Member Posts: 1,079
    ^^it's also live in germany!so i guess right now it's available in all european [email protected]!
  • HardradaHardrada Member Posts: 439
    Guys, if you don't see the prices under the parts then it's not as live as in the UK. Here in Hungary it definitely is not working as in the UK.
  • AanchirAanchir Member Posts: 3,037
    meyerc13 said:

    Pick-a-brick is great if you want standard bricks, but I've never understood who would buy a bunch of 2x or 1x in common colors that way. It is usually far cheaper to buy a Bricks and More set to get a bunch of standard bricks in common colors.

    What Pick-a-brick doesn't have enough of is the unusual parts, the very ones that you can't find in many sets. If you want one of the car roof/hood pieces, either 4 wide or 6 wide, your choice from Pick a Brick is white or black. No other colors available. Same with the various car doors, can't get those via Pick-a-brick. Same with many sizes of wheels and tires. These are the very parts you would want if you build a lot of vehicles, and the very parts you can't get through pick-a-brick. It's frustrating, and I'm sure other builders experience similar problems with their preferred theme (i.e. space parts for example).

    Perhaps some unusual parts aren't available on Pick-a-Brick, but it's great for Hero Factory parts. Those can be found for cheaper on Bricklink, but usually not in large quantities unless they're from large sets that resellers consider good parts packs or find on clearance. Plus, PaB gets you VIP points and gets you all the parts you need from one seller. I've been a huge fan of the introduction of HF to the online PaB, and have made one sizable order so far.
  • CCCCCC Member Posts: 20,526

    Go into a Toys r us, Target, even a Lego Brand Retail store, 95% of the people in there don't know the difference between Lego and Mega Blocks or think they are the same, have no clue what different LEGO themes are available, are buying sets for their kids, don't even realize LEGO has a website, or all of the above.

    Although for TRU that goes down to about 80% when you include their customers. :-)
  • CCCCCC Member Posts: 20,526
    prof1515 said:

    CCC said:

    Either way, they now know they are being used as a store rather than for replacement parts. Just as they have used consumers to find out which parts are licensed (and hence popular).

    Licensed does not mean popular. Licensed parts have more to do with specific molds and prints which are unique to a license theme or parts which appear only in licensed theme sets.
    I beg to differ. Licensed normally means expensive. And when lego says they are available at minimal cost, then they are going to be popular. I reckon licensed parts have been ordered in larger quantities in recent days than unlicensed parts. Hence they have been popular.

    I don't care if anyone thinks I am abusing the system by ordering parts that I have not bought the sets for. I "abuse" my lego anyway, since I don't often build the sets I buy following the official instructions. At least 50% of the sets I buy are for parts rather than to build as lego specify in the instructions. I abuse the lego website by downloading instuctions for sets I don't own, and I sometimes build those sets using existing parts. If I don't own that set, and I am missing the part, I see no problem with ordering it from lego. At no stage do they ask me to sign a declaration that I have bought that set. I am missing the part. Isn't the point of lego that bricks from different sets can be used together? I am not going to buy new sets where I already have the majority of the parts I need. Now, if they insisted that you signed a declaration that you were only ordering parts for sets that you have already bought, then it would be abuse if I ticked the box.

    I don't even care that their ordering system is clunky. Having to state the set, having to wait a few days before they give me permission to buy, etc. I don't even care that they exclude licensed parts. What is important to me is customer service, and lego have seriously let themselves down here. They either did not test this system before going live or if they did, then they did a bad job. Advertising parts for sale that they refuse to sell is just plain wrong. It may be an oversight, but they need to take the system down and fix it. They are still advertising for example, the heads from 6868. I know they are licensed parts since they refused to sell these to me on thursday. Yet they are still advertising them for sale. That is wrong. It does reflect badly on the company - why bother to use them if you have to wait a few days, you have no idea whether they will honour either the prices shown or the parts that you order that they say they sell. If they remove too many parts too many times, people will not bother to use the service. And they will get a bad impression of lego.com, the website they ordered from.

    There is such a simple algorithm they could have used.

    1) Is this set licensed? If no, list all parts as available to order (if in stock).

    2) For each part in the set, loop over all sets that the part appears in. Are any of these sets unlicensed? If yes, then list the part as availble to buy (subject to stock).

    There is also a simple algorithm to stop people buying too many of one part.

    3) List the maximum quantity that someone can buy as the number of pieces of that part in the set for which they say they are missing pieces.

    Anyway, my hope is that this will push down prices of for example, minifig torsos, on bricklink. I'd continue to use bricklink then. If lego charge £2 postage plus 50p or so for a (non-licensed) torso, then bricklink sellers will have to go down to those prices for the parts that lego decide they will sell to be able to compete. That is good for the consumer (that wants those pieces, other pieces' prices will probably go up). In that scenario, I would buy from bricklink rather than lego. Remarkably, bricklink has added value compared to buying from lego. If I order from bricklink, then I almost certainly know I will get the parts, I know what the sellers have in stock, and I can also order licensed parts at the same time and I will know relatively quickly that I will get the parts. Whereas history has told me that if I order from lego, then I do not know if they will have the part in stock, I do not know that they will honour the price they originally said, I cannot order any licensed parts at the same time, and I have to wait a few days to even know if they will give me permission to order. It also means I stay off lego.com. I reckon I visit bricklink at least 4-5 times per week. I rarely visit lego.com these days. I only go if I read (on brickset or elsewhere) that there is a sale or promotion or if I want to download instructions. Even then, I usually bypass the front page so don't look in their shop. This could have been another way to help drive more traffic through their store, but for me, it won't do that.

    dougtsSi_UKNZ
  • prof1515prof1515 Member Posts: 1,550
    CCC said:

    I beg to differ. Licensed normally means expensive.

    Licensed parts may be popular but that doesn't make popular parts licensed. They cancel licensed parts from orders and extend that definition to include parts which are unique (tried it myself with parts which have no identifiable correlation to a license or which are only found in a licensed set and they flag them as licensed). That doesn't mean those parts are popular though.
    CCC said:

    I don't care if anyone thinks I am abusing the system by ordering parts that I have not bought the sets for. I "abuse" my lego anyway, since I don't often build the sets I buy following the official instructions. At least 50% of the sets I buy are for parts rather than to build as lego specify in the instructions. I abuse the lego website by downloading instuctions for sets I don't own, and I sometimes build those sets using existing parts.

    Unless Lego specified "replacement instructions", it's not abuse to download them. It's not abuse to build something other than the "official" model either. They're building toys after all.
    CCC said:

    If I don't own that set, and I am missing the part, I see no problem with ordering it from lego. At no stage do they ask me to sign a declaration that I have bought that set. I am missing the part. Isn't the point of lego that bricks from different sets can be used together? I am not going to buy new sets where I already have the majority of the parts I need. Now, if they insisted that you signed a declaration that you were only ordering parts for sets that you have already bought, then it would be abuse if I ticked the box.

    No, it wouldn't just be abuse it would also be fraud since you'd be lying as part of a contract of sale. Abuse isn't necessarily illegal but it is unethical. It's not necessarily a reflection of criminal activity so much as a reflection of a lack of character and integrity of the person engaged in such behavior.

  • prof1515prof1515 Member Posts: 1,550
    CCC said:

    What is important to me is customer service, and lego have seriously let themselves down here. They either did not test this system before going live or if they did, then they did a bad job. Advertising parts for sale that they refuse to sell is just plain wrong. It may be an oversight, but they need to take the system down and fix it. They are still advertising for example, the heads from 6868. I know they are licensed parts since they refused to sell these to me on thursday. Yet they are still advertising them for sale. That is wrong. It does reflect badly on the company - why bother to use them if you have to wait a few days, you have no idea whether they will honour either the prices shown or the parts that you order that they say they sell. If they remove too many parts too many times, people will not bother to use the service. And they will get a bad impression of lego.com, the website they ordered from.

    It's the same system they used before for similar orders of replacement parts only they've substituted a self-serve web option for what used to be handled via email. It works much better now since you have a confirmation that they've received your parts request and you can look up multiple parts via the same place you're putting in the request (as opposed to having to pull out the instructions and turn to the parts inventory at the back, then go to your computer and type out the information). This helps eliminate error that can occur via the old method (like typing a number incorrect as part of the part ID). Via the old email method, you still had no idea if a part was available. The ones they've excluded from the new system gives you at least an idea about some unavailable parts. This is an infinitely better system than what they used to have.
    CCC said:

    I reckon I visit bricklink at least 4-5 times per week. I rarely visit lego.com these days.

    If you're ordering from Bricklink then they're still getting your money only it's going through a third party first. If you think you're sticking it to Lego by going to Bricklink, you're deluding yourself. Ultimately someone went to Lego in some manner for every part that is on Bricklink whether it was a customer via Shop-At-Home or a retailer buying stock for their store.

    If a part is hard-to-find but not licensed and Lego is stocking it via their replacement service, they may not continue to produce stock of it. I came across a couple pieces in Lego's replacement service which were not licensed but which were only found in a single non-licensed set and no where else. As that set is long out of production, I wasn't surprised that Lego did not have stock of that piece. They didn't apparently create a huge stock of them to begin with In the end, Bricklink sellers need not lower their prices.

    All of the problems you've listed are also possible from Bricklink. I have a relatively poor track record of satisfaction with Bricklink seeing as 67% of the orders I've placed were not filled properly and had color substitutions that they "hoped I wouldn't mind" (I do mind).

    Your post brought to mind an interesting issue in the Lego community that a friend who is a philosophy/theology major and I were discussing. Here on the forums there are some who hate resellers and claim that they turn Lego into something other than a toy. However this is true of adult consumers as well. The thing is though that resellers are merely consumers as well; they simply don't continue through the consumer process to the end by using their purchase and instead resell the product to someone who will. They don't circumvent Lego's profit margin or services since they're still engaging on some level with Lego's intended process. There's nothing unethical about that and yet many here have a problem with it. However, then there are those who view Lego as their personal resource, who proudly admit to unethically abusing Lego's replacement service to circumvent Lego's marketing strategies. Yes, parts distribution in sets is a form of marketing because if they wanted a particular part or figure to be readily available they would stick it in every set; instead, they use them to encourage purchases of particular sets. These consumers whine about costs even as they fail to realize that their demand is what drives cost. Lego is a business and their business model is a rather smart one that also contains a very reasonable and excellent customer service element. By comparison, a segment of their consumer base, and sadly despite acting like children it's not the children, exhibit the immature and selfishly unethical attributes that have a far more negative impact than resellers ever do.
  • prof1515prof1515 Member Posts: 1,550
    Before someone gets all huffy about it, my above posts are not meant as attacks nor accusations against anyone in particular. In fact, the observations in the last part, while I agree, were also made by my friend in regard to the philosophical aspects of community behavior.
  • forumreaderforumreader Member Posts: 97
    prof1515 said:

    Before someone gets all huffy about it, my above posts are not meant as attacks nor accusations against anyone in particular. In fact, the observations in the last part, while I agree, were also made by my friend in regard to the philosophical aspects of community behavior.

    I don't see how this disclaimer at all excuses your continued flamebaiting in this thread. Lego has a service for replacement parts; disparaging people who use it to Lego's satisfaction is unwarranted.
    Si_UKNZ
  • prof1515prof1515 Member Posts: 1,550
    edited December 2012

    prof1515 said:

    Before someone gets all huffy about it, my above posts are not meant as attacks nor accusations against anyone in particular. In fact, the observations in the last part, while I agree, were also made by my friend in regard to the philosophical aspects of community behavior.

    I don't see how this disclaimer at all excuses your continued flamebaiting in this thread. Lego has a service for replacement parts; disparaging people who use it to Lego's satisfaction is unwarranted.
    It's not flamebaiting. It's just honesty and I am a brutally honest person. If a person lies to someone and the person they lied to doesn't mind it still doesn't change the fact that first person is a liar. If someone abuses the replacement parts service and Lego takes no action other than to remove the licensed parts from their it doesn't change the fact that the person was abusing the service, especially when they then complain that the service they were abusing isn't doing what they want it to do as opposed to what it was designed to do.

    It's not flamebaiting which is why I specifically noted that I am not attempting to be disparing to any individual. In fact, the closest thing to flamebaiting in this thread is your post since it made no contribution to the discussion and was directed solely at criticism of an individual.


  • prof1515prof1515 Member Posts: 1,550
    That should read "Disparaging" and not "disparing". I need to proofread my typing before the 6 minute edit window closes.
  • Si_UKNZSi_UKNZ Member Posts: 4,179
    edited December 2012
    prof1515 said:

    there are those who view Lego as their personal resource, who proudly admit to unethically abusing Lego's replacement service to circumvent Lego's marketing strategies.

    Just to pull out one very small example from that rant....

    This is a flamebait, in case you were wondering, since it's full of inflammatory language, is intended to put other people's behaviour down, implies that your own ethics are superior, and assigns attributes to other people such as 'proud' and 'abuse' in a way that is clearly intended to be derogatory.
    dougtsmathew
  • drdavewatforddrdavewatford Administrator Posts: 6,754
    This thread has degenerated into pointless nonsense.

    Pull it back on track, people, or I'm closing it.
    andheSi_UKNZ
  • CCCCCC Member Posts: 20,526
    edited December 2012
    prof1515 said:


    No, it wouldn't just be abuse it would also be fraud since you'd be lying as part of a contract of sale. Abuse isn't necessarily illegal but it is unethical. It's not necessarily a reflection of criminal activity so much as a reflection of a lack of character and integrity of the person engaged in such behavior.

    In the UK we obviously have a different legal definition of fraud to the one you use. If I don't have a part and I want / need it to build something, then it is missing to me. I place an order for the missing part with lego to buy it from them. They can chose to accept or deny my request to pay for the item I want. I pay for the item, they send it. At no point has fraud occurred. They have not asked me to categorically state that I have previously purchased the set I click on which contains the part I am missing.

    You are right that you can build different models out of a building toy such as lego. Which is why the replacement parts section is useful. If I own 99% of a model from parts in other sets, then why buy the whole set if I want to build the model. I just purchase the missing parts direct from lego and I can build it. I am fairly sure that is not fraud in any jurisdiction.

    madforLEGO
  • CCCCCC Member Posts: 20,526
    I have also been a little surprised by some of the parts removed from orders. I thought lego owned the ninjago and lava dragon (game) themes - yet they are removing some parts from those themes from orders.
  • leemcgleemcg Member Posts: 607
    @CCC did they tell you why? I got an email saying they couldn't sell certain parts that were licences because of their licence conditions. I presume that was somewhat of a stock reply. Did they use the same language for the Ninjago parts?
  • CCCCCC Member Posts: 20,526
    edited December 2012
    ^ down to licensing. They have used exactly the same words on every email, so I guess it is a standard template.

    We’d like to help restore your old sets back to new, but due to strict licensing
    agreements we are unable to sell you some of the pieces you requested. I have
    removed the following parts from your request, 4556007.


    Note that it says parts, and only one part is removed - and I only asked for one. Again pointing at a template.

    It is from #3838-1: Lava Dragon. That was available in the UK, so it is not a regional license problem.

    I have also got some emails saying that parts have been discontinued or are out of stock - so they do use different words if it is a stock issue.

    I also tried to get a Master Builders Academy torso in a different order, but they also say they cannot sell that one for the same licensing reason. At least this one is more understandable, given that it is not available in the UK.


  • madforLEGOmadforLEGO Member Posts: 10,787
    It will make it a lot easier to get harder to find parts for a lot of sets, such as wheelbarrows, and parts normally not found in PaB.
    For example. I think PaB only has the wheelbarrow body, but (at least at the last time I checked) did not have the wheel or tire for that wheelbarrow. BUT in this section you can get all of those parts in one 'bag'.
    I just find this infinitely more useful than having to call LEGO replacement parts number and have them hunt down parts I want.
  • HardradaHardrada Member Posts: 439
    Hmm, while the collector in me says it's a nice upgrade, my rational self thinks that TLG might decrease the quality of their replacement service with this move. Sure, it will be easier to use but there will be less hard to replace parts on offer as those will be cleaned out by AFOLs. (Whether to resell, to BL together an expensive retired set or for simply wanting said part in bigger quantities for personal use.) It was already being done with the phone-in method and now it gets a lot more easier and the opportunity a lot more visible.

    Even now it tells a whole lot that from the super-expensive sets it's the rare parts that are not available for replacement any more. My prediction is that this trend will intensify a lot in the future. So little Timmy better be careful in the future which part he loses or breaks.
  • prof1515prof1515 Member Posts: 1,550
    CCC said:

    prof1515 said:

    In the UK we obviously have a different legal definition of fraud to the one you use. If I don't have a part and I want / need it to build something, then it is missing to me. I place an order for the missing part with lego to buy it from them.

    I'm not going to delve into law but we both speak the same language, English, and in that language what you're describing is fraud. Fraud simply is, according to my good friends at Merriam-Webster, "deceit, trickery; specifically: intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right".

    You're not placing the order through their sales department, ie. Pick-A-Brick. You're placing the order for a *replacement* part through Customer Service. "Replacement" does not mean acquiring in the first place but regaining or restoring something to its previous or intended state. Ordering a part that was lost or which was not in the box when you purchased the set is replacing. Getting a part from a set that you never actually purchased or acquired but which you simply want is not replacing or restoring.
    CCC said:

    They can chose to accept or deny my request to pay for the item I want. I pay for the item, they send it. At no point has fraud occurred. They have not asked me to categorically state that I have previously purchased the set I click on which contains the part I am missing.

    You are misrepresenting your need since you're using a replacement service to acquire that which you are aware that you are not replacing. You can try to rationalize it by saying that Lego has "not asked me to categorically state" anything but that's the same sort of thing people do all the time when they engage in unethical, immoral or illegal behavior. It's no different than believing "It's not really stealing since he didn't expressly say I couldn't take it" or "It's not really cheating because there was no intercourse, just kissing".
    CCC said:

    If I own 99% of a model from parts in other sets, then why buy the whole set if I want to build the model. I just purchase the missing parts direct from lego and I can build it. I am fairly sure that is not fraud in any jurisdiction.

    REPLACING means you had it or had a legal right to it, ie. via purchase of something in which it was supposed to be present. If you didn't own it or the sets in which it was present in the quantities it's supposed to be there then you're not replacing, you're making an original acquisition.

    This isn't that hard to understand. My young nieces understand this. I certainly understood it at their age as well. My friend, also a Lego fan, who wants to become a minister understands this. Plenty of people understand this. It's a simple concept that some parents teach their children: lying, or simply omitting the truth, to get something you want is ethically no different than stealing. Does Lego need to specifically make it more clear? Perhaps, from a legal standpoint, they do. But that doesn't change the ethics and morality of the situation and my original point was that using a system for purposes other than it's intended, even if you can get away with it without having to expressly lie, is abuse and that abuse is unethical.
    Hardrada said:

    ...my rational self thinks that TLG might decrease the quality of their replacement service with this move. Sure, it will be easier to use but there will be less hard to replace parts on offer as those will be cleaned out by AFOLs. (Whether to resell, to BL together an expensive retired set or for simply wanting said part in bigger quantities for personal use.) It was already being done with the phone-in method and now it gets a lot more easier and the opportunity a lot more visible.

    Even now it tells a whole lot that from the super-expensive sets it's the rare parts that are not available for replacement any more. My prediction is that this trend will intensify a lot in the future. So little Timmy better be careful in the future which part he loses or breaks.

    I completely agree and that's a shame and exactly why the Lego community should condemn and not support the abuse of this system. Lego has made a great effort to provide a service to us, one which any of us might at some point require. The possibility that this service might not be there when we need it because of someone's unethical greed is something that we should take issue with as a community. In the end we can't stop an unethical person from engaging in abuse of the system but we certainly can shame those with a shred of decency from thinking of doing so.
  • drdavewatforddrdavewatford Administrator Posts: 6,754
    edited December 2012
    prof1515 said:


    I'm not going to delve into law but we both speak the same language, English, and in that language what you're describing is fraud. Fraud simply is, according to my good friends at Merriam-Webster, "deceit, trickery; specifically: intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right"......[SNIP]

    Please consult your friends at Merriam-Webster once again and tell me which bit of "Pull it back on track, people" you didn't understand ? The thread was thankfully veering back on course again until you dived in again with both barrels.

    If you want to debate the ethics and legal aspects of using the parts replacement service with specific individuals then feel free to take it on to PM, but not on here please.
  • CCCCCC Member Posts: 20,526
    prof1515 said:



    I'm not going to delve into law but we both speak the same language, English, and in that language what you're describing is fraud. Fraud simply is, according to my good friends at Merriam-Webster, "deceit, trickery; specifically: intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right".

    You're not placing the order through their sales department, ie. Pick-A-Brick. You're placing the order for a *replacement* part through Customer Service. "Replacement" does not mean acquiring in the first place but regaining or restoring something to its previous or intended state. Ordering a part that was lost or which was not in the box when you purchased the set is replacing. Getting a part from a set that you never actually purchased or acquired but which you simply want is not replacing or restoring.

    I never go through replacement parts. I go through missing parts. The links I click are:

    1 Missing parts

    2 Select age and location for "Bricks and Pieces"

    3 Buy a piece

    4 Bricks and Pieces (The Pick a brick site has 1600 different bricks and is the cheapest way for you to buy individual pieces. However, some pieces can only be found here in Bricks & Pieces as we have an even larger variety. Choose what works for you below.)

    5 Tell us the set number of the set you need bricks for - so we can show you all the bricks in that set.

    At no stage does it tell me anything about replacement parts. It is missing parts. If I want to build, for example, a 4208 and I have 95% of the parts already then I am missing the other 5%. I go through the missing pieces links to find them. They are not replacement parts - they are ones I am missing.

    And you know what? I just phoned through an order confirmation and I asked - is it ok to purchase parts for a model I do not yet own as I want to build it and have most of the parts already. The answer? It is fine. And can I purchase multiple quantities for a MOC? Yes, so long as we have decent stock levels.
  • Si_UKNZSi_UKNZ Member Posts: 4,179
    edited December 2012
    @CCC and @prof1515 can we knock this on the head please and if you two want to argue can you take it to PM, like @Drdave asked?

    This thread does have potential to be interesting, but this constant derailment is utterly pointless and going nowhere fast.
  • CCCCCC Member Posts: 20,526
    edited December 2012
    ^ It is important to know if this service is only for replacing parts that you have previously purchased and are lost, or for buying parts you want and are currently missing in your collection. That is why I updated.

    I'm not that bothered if someone thinks I am committing fraud by asking a company if I can purchase something from them, and them agreeing to sell me what I want.
  • drdavewatforddrdavewatford Administrator Posts: 6,754
    CCC said:

    ^ It is important to know if this service is only for replacing parts that you have previously purchased and are lost, or for buying parts you want and are currently missing in your collection.

    Perhaps, but given the high likelihood that nobody on this thread actually knows LEGOs actual intentions in this regard, it's just a load of tedious hot air and argument for the sake of it.

    I actually think we can close this thread now anyway - people have been made aware that replacement parts can be bought online, and we've heard the opposing views (none of which are fact however strongly people believe otherwise) about how the service can and should be used, so the discussion has run its course.
This discussion has been closed.

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Please use our links: LEGO.com Amazon

Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy Brickset.com

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.