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

The Community Perspective on Reselling

1202123252658

Comments

  • prof1515prof1515 EarthMember Posts: 1,561
    edited August 2013
    CCC said:

    So discussing investment is perfectly fine. The reseller wants to get the best they can for themselves, without doing anything illegal, and it is perfectly fine. It doesn't matter if they beat other people to deals, that is their problem not the reseller's.

    So if someone asks a question then they should not get replies like ...

    Frankly, I believe that ... to be unethical

    as the reader should move along and let the person asking the question discuss this (so long as there is nothing illegal). They may be playing the game to suit themselves, but that is up to them.


    Yet ...

    http://www.bricksetforum.com/discussion/comment/209712#Comment_209712

    Note who the first two people are to say / imply it is unethical.



    First off, to address the link you used, I was addressing someone claiming that buying them in the store or buying a case and selecting what you want while returning the rest are the same thing. They are not.

    Secondly, your argument is flawed. Here's why.
    So discussing investment is perfectly fine. The reseller wants to get the best they can for themselves, without doing anything illegal, and it is perfectly fine.
    Yes.
    It doesn't matter if they beat other people to deals, that is their problem not the reseller's.

    So if someone asks a question then they should not get replies like ...

    Frankly, I believe that ... to be unethical

    as the reader should move along and let the person asking the question discuss this (so long as there is nothing illegal).
    They asked a question and hence they have opened themselves up for replies across the spectrum including criticisms and rebuttal of rationalizations. People who don't like the business side of Lego interjecting their opinion into discussions of the business side of Lego aren't doing so in response to questions but rather out of their distaste for a side of Lego.

    But now, let us turn our attention to the thread you attempted to use to claim hypocrisy. The person in question did not "beat other people to deals" because they didn't feel out the bags. They removed the product from the market because they were talking about purchasing goods and then returning the ones that they had no intention of buying. They did not keep a level playing field and it was unethical because they were making a purchase of 60 when they had no intention of keeping nor desire to have the 60 whether for their own use or resale. Additionally, returning them to the store wouldn't constitute "resale" because the store is not buying, they're refunding. Stores allow refunds for broken or erroneous purchases and this person knew going in that buying 60 figures was not giving them what they wanted.

    Now, circumventing purchase limits is unethical as well and I didn't claim otherwise. In fact, I stated earlier in this thread that it's neither illegal nor immoral though it is possibly unethical.

    So, to answer your probably rhetorical question...
    So if someone asks a question then they should not get replies like ...

    Frankly, I believe that ... to be unethical

    as the reader should move along and let the person asking the question discuss this (so long as there is nothing illegal).
    No, such replies are acceptable. There is no investing being discussed.
  • vitreolumvitreolum RomaniaMember Posts: 1,406
    edited August 2013
    @rocao

    Ignore me, I misread you there.
  • dr_tengdr_teng Member Posts: 101
    I haven't even posted in this thread previously but I gotta say, the above is the most hilariously stretched and sheltered understanding of persecution I've ever seen in my life.
    pillpodcaperberrycheshirecat
  • prof1515prof1515 EarthMember Posts: 1,561
    edited August 2013
    tedward said:

    Actually you need to work on your reading comprehension as clearly this meets the very criteria you have quoted.

    tedward said:

    LFT is being harrassed: witness the prolonged and repeated attacks on his character in this seemingly endless thread. He has answered his critics multiple times and yet they keep pestering him with the same accusations persistently refusing to simply accept that he believes differently than they do.

    The specific post I replied to advocated punishment in the form of posting his picture in LEGO stores and banishing him from said premises.

    As someone who earns a living from reselling LEGO products he would be injured by further restrictions on his livelihood.

    His belief, backed up by the very same poster who advocated persecution, is that he did nothing illegal nor, in fact, against the rules. Of course it is not to the same scale as religious or political persecution. I never suggested any such thing and if you cannot see the distinction then clearly it is you who needs to gain some perspective.

    The "attacks" and "pestering" were responses to something he posted of questionable ethical content.

    He has also stated that he does *NOT* earn his living via selling Lego nor is the alleged "attacks" interfering with his sale of Lego as he does not carry out the bulk of it via this website.

    So, yes, I have perspective and a decent vocabulary. I'm simply not resorting to hyperbole.
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    While i agree with the content, theres no need,to be abusive.
    Yellowcastletedward
  • doriansdaddoriansdad CTCMember Posts: 1,337
    Maybe TLG should have just put all 20k up for bid and let the market determine what they are worth...clearly it was more than the $199 they were asking.
    wagnerml2vitreolumLegoFanTexasYellowcastlePitfall69Lootefiskkhmellymelpharmjod
  • CrowkillersCrowkillers Member Posts: 757
    edited August 2013


    Maybe TLG should have just put all 20k up for bid and let the market determine what they are worth...clearly it was more than the $199 they were asking.

    It actually was.. There was more labor involved in the packing and over 200 more parts than the 9398 Crawler at the same price...
    That actually wouldn't have been all that bad of an idea and donating all of the money to a charity of some sorts..

  • pillpodpillpod Member Posts: 273
    Prof, maybe sit the next couple plays out and calm down.
    tedward
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    True, even without being limited its worth 199, given that #9398 can be got discounted.
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 19,910
    edited August 2013
    prof1515 said:

    CCC said:

    So discussing investment is perfectly fine. The reseller wants to get the best they can for themselves, without doing anything illegal, and it is perfectly fine. It doesn't matter if they beat other people to deals, that is their problem not the reseller's.

    So if someone asks a question then they should not get replies like ...

    Frankly, I believe that ... to be unethical

    as the reader should move along and let the person asking the question discuss this (so long as there is nothing illegal). They may be playing the game to suit themselves, but that is up to them.


    Yet ...

    http://www.bricksetforum.com/discussion/comment/209712#Comment_209712

    Note who the first two people are to say / imply it is unethical.

    Wow, talk about all sorts of stupid in one post.

    First off, to address the link you used, I was addressing someone claiming that buying them in the store or buying a case and selecting what you want while returning the rest are the same thing. They are not.

    Secondly, your argument is flawed. Here's why.
    So discussing investment is perfectly fine. The reseller wants to get the best they can for themselves, without doing anything illegal, and it is perfectly fine.
    Yes.
    It doesn't matter if they beat other people to deals, that is their problem not the reseller's.

    So if someone asks a question then they should not get replies like ...

    Frankly, I believe that ... to be unethical

    as the reader should move along and let the person asking the question discuss this (so long as there is nothing illegal).
    They asked a question and hence they have opened themselves up for replies across the spectrum including criticisms and rebuttal of rationalizations. People who don't like the business side of Lego interjecting their opinion into discussions of the business side of Lego aren't doing so in response to questions but rather out of their distaste for a side of Lego.

    But now, let us turn our attention to the thread you attempted to use to claim hypocrisy. The person in question did not "beat other people to deals" because they didn't feel out the bags. They removed the product from the market because they were talking about purchasing goods and then returning the ones that they had no intention of buying. They did not keep a level playing field and it was unethical because they were making a purchase of 60 when they had no intention of keeping nor desire to have the 60 whether for their own use or resale. Additionally, returning them to the store wouldn't constitute "resale" because the store is not buying, they're refunding. Stores allow refunds for broken or erroneous purchases and this person knew going in that buying 60 figures was not giving them what they wanted.

    Now, circumventing purchase limits is unethical as well and I didn't claim otherwise. In fact, I stated earlier in this thread that it's neither illegal nor immoral though it is possibly unethical.

    So, to answer your probably rhetorical question...
    So if someone asks a question then they should not get replies like ...

    Frankly, I believe that ... to be unethical

    as the reader should move along and let the person asking the question discuss this (so long as there is nothing illegal).
    No, such replies are acceptable. There is no investing being discussed.


    There is no difference to other consumers between someone putting a whole box into a basket and then feeling them out before purchasing the ones wanted, and purchasing the entire box and taking them home and returning the unwanted ones. They beat other consumers, if they get the box into their basket first. They can then cherry pick instore without being interrupted by others. Or they take them home and do it. At least here, many stores allow returns for any reason so no wanting the item is fine, if it is accompanied by the receipt. In fact, by law many stores have to allow unwanted items to be returned as they state this as part of the contract on the receipt. Presumably, in the US it is up to the store to decide whether they want to accept returns. If they allow it, then it is THEIR fault, and they are driving the problem (much like lego drives the distribution of #41999 problem).

    And there is investing going on. There is investment of time and knowledge of a store's policy.

    As I noted above, the next limited edition is a no-brainer, since anyone can buy it and return it to lego if the price doesn't increase enough. It is no less ethical than getting something not wanted to block someone else buying it that does want it and increasing the price. It is just using knowledge of how lego (the company) works, after all.

  • wagnerml2wagnerml2 Belleville, IllinoisMember Posts: 1,376
    edited August 2013
    **Wagnerml2 calls on of his 3 allotted timeouts** - Calm down people. We are getting way off topic here....
    LegoFanTexas
  • prof1515prof1515 EarthMember Posts: 1,561
    I don't claim that removing a box and putting it in your cart is any more ethical. Anything more than feeling the packages one-by-one there in the store is probably unethical.

    But it's completely unrelated to buying for resale. And claiming it's investing is disingenous at best as the context and hence the meaning is not the same.
  • drdavewatforddrdavewatford Hertfordshire, UKAdministrator Posts: 6,686
    edited August 2013

    When the whole Mr Gold thing started, you could see right from the start that Lego's intention was just to sell more figures because they knew people were going to sell the limited Mr Gold figures for several 100 dollars... Did they really care about collectors who really wanted Mr Gold, but are now stuck with 20 bumblebee girls..?

    LEGO's ridiculous and contradictory attitude to reselling - cracking down with one hand while pumping out limited edition collectibles (41999, SDCC minifigures, Mr. Gold) with the other - is a whole topic on its own.

    I really don't see what it has to do with this thread, however....
    dougtsYellowcastlePitfall69Lootefisk
  • prof1515prof1515 EarthMember Posts: 1,561
    edited August 2013

    While i agree with the content, theres no need,to be abusive.

    I'm no more abusive than others; just less inclined to veil it. Funny thing is, I find it ironic that in the two consecutive posts above mine, I was basically being painted on both extremes of a debate. They say when both extremes dislike what you're saying it's probably a pretty good indicator that you're spot on. It is irritating though. :-)
    LegoFanTexas
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    As both posts have been edited my comment is redundant now, so carry on!

    But I still agree, it's clearly not persecution.
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 19,910
    prof1515 said:

    I don't claim that removing a box and putting it in your cart is any more ethical. Anything more than feeling the packages one-by-one there in the store is probably unethical.

    But it's completely unrelated to buying for resale. And claiming it's investing is disingenous at best as the context and hence the meaning is not the same.

    I didn't say it was related to buying for resale. I said it was related to investing. There is more to investing than just money. Isn't knowledge part of the added value that resellers supposedly bring to the game? Knowledge of when to buy, knowledge of what to stock up on, knowledge of where to buy. This is also using knowledge - of store policy - to your own advantage to get what you want.

    No one else is disadvantaged. They can get to look through the box once it is returned, just as they could have done if the person had looked through them in the store.

    I thought it was unethical at first. But if buying as much as you can to stop others from getting it, just to charge the same people more than they would have paid is ethical (and a good use of knowledge) then using knowledge to get what you want with as minimal effort as possible is also ethical.
    cheshirecat
  • CupIsHalfEmptyCupIsHalfEmpty CanadaMember Posts: 547
    edited August 2013
    If there is a shortage of a product and that causes the prices to increase, that's the fault of the supplier. They needed to create more product to fill demand.

    If the shortage is because it's produced in limited number, the supplier knew there would be demand after the product sold out and that the price would increase. This is done on purpose probably for marketing.

    If the shortage is because of demand outstripping supply, then they should have predicted the the demand and produced accordingly. The supply will be replenished, so it's the buyers that need to decide if they want to pay more, or wait for supply to catch up.

    So in summary, I have nothing against resellers. But I despise things produced in limited numbers for the sole purpose of creating scarcity.

    *********************************************************************

    The only anger towards resellers is when a topic not related to selling get's thread jacked. I think that the topic of reselling has little to do with "Lego" as a medium, and needs to stay in it's proper threads.
  • prof1515prof1515 EarthMember Posts: 1,561
    CCC said:

    I didn't say it was related to buying for resale. I said it was related to investing. There is more to investing than just money.

    CCC said:

    Isn't knowledge part of the added value that resellers supposedly bring to the game? Knowledge of when to buy, knowledge of what to stock up on, knowledge of where to buy. This is also using knowledge - of store policy - to your own advantage to get what you want.

    I personally never trust resellers because good advice is rarely free. I've sat back and watched far too many people offer advice that I had doubts about
    CCC said:

    No one else is disadvantaged. They can get to look through the box once it is returned, just as they could have done if the person had looked through them in the store.

    Unless a person can simultaneously scan all 60 in a case in the store, they have a distinct advantage doing so at home. Let me break it down.

    Buyer 1 feels bag.
    Buyer 1 feels bag.
    Buyer 2 feels bag.
    Buyer 1 feels bag.
    Buyer 3 feels bag.
    Buyer 2 feels bag.
    Buyer 1 feels bag.
    Buyer 3 feels bag.
    Buyer 2 feels bag.
    Buyer 4 feels bag.
    Buyer 1 feels bag.
    Buyer 3 feels bag and finds Mr. Gold.

    Now, Buyer 3 accomplished it on an even playing field. But let's look at what happens if Buyer 1 just took the whole case with him.

    Buyer 1 feels bag.
    Buyer 1 feels bag.
    Buyer 1 feels bag.
    Buyer 1 feels bag.
    Buyer 1 feels bag.
    Buyer 1 feels bag.
    Buyer 1 feels bag.
    Buyer 1 feels bag.
    Buyer 1 feels bag.
    Buyer 1 feels bag.
    Buyer 1 feels bag.
    Buyer 1 feels bag and finds Mr. Gold.

    Buyer 2, 3 and 4 did not have an equal chance or any chance for that matter. Nor did Buyer 1 want the 11 that he bought, felt at home and returned (or possibly the other 48 in the box).

    It wouldn't be unethical if Buyer 1 bought the case and kept the 60 or resold them on Bricklink, here or wherever. But by purchasing something he clearly had no desire to have is an unethical abuse of a return policy because of his intent. Intent is everything.

  • jasorjasor United StatesMember Posts: 839
    edited August 2013

    CCC said:

    ^ Haven't you missed out the line where you had previously told the meal seller that you would not buy their meals to resell.

    And that you took your family's details along in case they imposed per person limits.

    Ahh, I see the problem.

    You seem pretty stuck on that one point. I did comply with the limits and they banned me anyway. Do you believe the prior agreement to stick with the purchase limits holds at that point?

    Perhaps you think I shouldn't purchase any LEGO from them since they told me my business wasn't welcome?

    -----------

    Consider it from another point of view. I used to use my account and my wife's account to buy LEGO from Amazon. About 6 months ago I received an e-mail from Amazon asking me not to do this, that using another account to circumvent purchase limits was against their policy.

    I have never done it since then and Amazon continues to allow me to purchase the stated weekly limit on my one account. So we have an agreement and I've upheld it.

    [email protected] e-mailed me and asked me to stick to limits, I did, and then got banned anyway.

    There is a very important difference between the [email protected] and Amazon situations, from my point of view. Do you agree or disagree?
    ^ I thought about this way way way back before the weird minifig case buying quandry came about. If I HAD adhered to the rules, once warned....and they cut me off anyway, what loyalty do I owe TLG on limit purchasing?

    Being that we have no other details than speculation or existing information from one source, we'll never know if it's true or not. I tend to think it probably is true. Maybe I'm an optimist. I would love to say that I wouldnt circumvent buying limits, even after I was warned/adhered/then banned....I'm not 100% certain I would, if put in the same space.

    That's the real rub with people, it seems...but no one walks in the same shoes.
    I dont agree with the exclusiveness of the set, the over limit buys, or fans paying through the nose for the set...I cant effectively judge that position though.

    TheLoneTensor
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    edited August 2013
    rocao said:

    For the limited edition SDCC giveaways, after a fuss was made about their distribution method, LEGO issued this as part of a statement:

    "Our goal is to offer a limited edition collectible to as many fans as possible in a fair and equitable manner. Given the nature of a limited edition giveaway, we understand that fans may be disappointed with the results. We are equally disappointed that there is an audience who receive limited edition figures and then sell them at a premium online; this is not in our interest, nor is it the intention of our activity at SDCC"
    That is a cheap cop out by TLG to try and please their fans, while knowing exactly what is happening, and you're drinking the coolaid.

    These are not rare and precious jems, it is not rare gold, they are plastic building toys. It is entirely within TLG's power to make 10,000 copies of the SDCC editions, if TLG chooses to make 100 or 200 copies of each, then they are well aware of what is going to happen to them.

    Anything they say otherwise is just a PR attempt to make the casual consumer feel better about it.
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    rocao said:

    #2: I know there are pirates in the waters. TLG knows there are resellers.
    If TLG's goal is to get this into the hands of end-users from #1, then resellers are unintended, undesirable interceptors, just as pirates are. They are not other people at the dock and they were not supposed to be in the line. TLG are to blame for not protecting their product better and producing too little extra to account for the inevitable siphoning, but resellers also should have accountability for their actions.

    Ok, serious question... what do you think that "accountability for their actions" looks like in the real world?

    Clearly I could just keep quiet and never post again about reselling and just carry on the same way thousands of other people do.

    When you say things like "accountability", it comes across as if you want the police to show up and arrest me, or something... maybe you don't mean that, but it sounds like it sometimes.

    Open question to everyone here who doesn't like what I do... if you are against it, what actions on your part, other than my no longer posting about reselling, do you think fit the situation?
  • pvancil27pvancil27 Member Posts: 588
    @legofantexas

    I said I never had an issue with you personally. Until two days ago, that was true, but your complete unwillingness to accept any blame and continued using of the “I could have done worse” reasoning to justify breaking the rules has changed that a little. So I am going to outline some things here, let people judge you, me or whomever and move on. I am choosing to use you and specific incidents because last time when I tried to be reasonable and not call anyone specific out, I got blasted for it. So here we go.

    First, in general, Lego put limits to try and stop re-sellers from buying to much. Honest truth, I HATE limits. Because that father with three boys can't buy one for each kid if he is honest. There is an old saying locks only keep out honest people. Limits are the same, Limits only keep honest people from buying to much. If someone wants to break those limits, they will find a way. The fact Lego has to put limits in place is because of re-sellers and others who can't follow rules. I do think Lego carries some blame, but to try and put the entire blame on them is like an alcoholic blaming a bar for their DUI. “The Bartender should have cut me off after 5 drinks.” Yea, they should have, but you made the choice to A) Drink (Re-sell) B) Drink in excess (Re-Sell large quantities) and C) Drive (Talk about it publicly). Don't be pissed off when the cops arrest you, then don't be surprised when your community (Bricksetforums) gets pissed at you, especially since you just got done talking about how the cops were giving you unfair warnings.

    We use the speeding thing, but stop with the “It's unfair I am getting picked on” speech. By letter of the law, speeding 31 in a 30 is still breaking the law plain and simple. Most people wouldnt think much about it, and those are not the speeders we are talking about. But the truth is you normally speed 50 on a 30, and got caught doing 38. You excuse is but I could have been driving 80. Try getting pulled over for speeding 10 over, when the cop asks why try telling him It's no biggie, you could have been doing 50 over. See how fast he finishes writing that ticket. The limit was two. You circumvented the limit. Go ahead and argue that you actually didn't because you physically yourself only bought two. I figure thats the next logical step.

    “At the end of the day, we are probably not good trading partners because we both know too well the value of our items. “

    I hope that quote looks familiar, its what you said to me when I first came here and was trying to work a trade. You were the first to approach me, and offered me what was a pretty horrid deal. You offered me one opened large set you valued at 200 for 5 sets I got on clearance (and yes, I bought multiples at a clearance to trade so I am a giant hypocrite Crowkillers) that you valued at 205, but who's retail values were about 280. I ended up buying that same loose set for about 125 a few months later. Basically you agreed I would be a bad trade partner because I knew enough to not get screwed over. Thats where my argument that re-sellers are bad on collectors forums because they can sour people on the hobby came from. If I took that deal, and look back 6 months from then and went “wow, I got screwed” it might cause someone new to the hobby (or this forum) to walk away. I knew to avoid getting screwed because I've been in hobbies for years. But someone coming out of their dark ages might not, this might be the first real hobby for the post college guy. And just to show you were not alone, the first four trade offers I had were all from re-sellers similarly offering their stuff at a premium and mine at low value. And in one case they just used the concept of a trade to start a discussion to get me to buy their product.

    You keep saying you're a collector and a re-seller, and can wear both hats. But the truth is the re-seller hat overrides the collector hat almost every time. I've seen it happen in countless hobbies, and I saw it with you. You bought that UCS Falcon for 1250 I think it was, great price. You were happy, everyone was happy for you. You built it and seemingly were joyed. Then the re-seller inside decided “I cant justify having it in my collection because it's worth too much profit” and you sold it. Fair enough, your right, but it re-enforced my statement that if I offered you a set for a good price, eventually you'd sell it for a profit. And that kind of stuff bothers people, and its why a lot of people are not willing to make deals with others. Then when it comes to @41999 you say you'd love to have one, but cant justify keeping one for 400 bucks. But the problem is you shouldnt have to justify collecting something at 400 bucks, you should have to justify the 199 you paid for it.

    You also stated that you don't run the LFT fan club, but the honest truth is you worry more about what others think of you then anyone else here.

    I'm probably going to get called out for this post, but the fact is it's designed to point out one simple fact: Almost every single issue people have with you is of your own doing. Own up to it.
    Brinstar85
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290

    That is a cheap cop out by TLG to try and please their fans, while knowing exactly what is happening, and you're drinking the coolaid.

    These are not rare and precious jems, it is not rare gold, they are plastic building toys. It is entirely within TLG's power to make 10,000 copies of the SDCC editions, if TLG chooses to make 100 or 200 copies of each, then they are well aware of what is going to happen to them.

    Anything they say otherwise is just a PR attempt to make the casual consumer feel better about it.

    If the claims are true that the distribution method favored kids, it wasn't just a copout and, however flawed, the actions are consistent with the statement. I think there is conflict and opposing views within TLG about their stance on resellers. The PR team that decides these promotions is probably focused on creating buzz above all else. Conversely, if you asked Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen what he thought about so much of their product ending up on the secondary market instead of directly into the hand of consumers, I think you'd be met with a frown. If you asked the head of LBR, you might get even more than a frown, and it would be for different reasons than KKK.

    Anyhow, that was an official statement -- one of a few different examples I cited. I also mentioned the banning of resellers from [email protected] That seems like a real action and not lip service. And then there is the explicit statement about the goal of the Co-Creation program being intended for the fans. Do you have anything concrete and not a matter of inference that refutes this and says that their intent was to have these on the secondary market?
  • tedwardtedward CanadaMember Posts: 163

    But I still agree, it's clearly not persecution.

    At least you and I do not make false accusations of "abuse" over differences of opinion.
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    edited August 2013

    Ok, serious question... what do you think that "accountability for their actions" looks like in the real world?

    Clearly I could just keep quiet and never post again about reselling and just carry on the same way thousands of other people do.

    When you say things like "accountability", it comes across as if you want the police to show up and arrest me, or something... maybe you don't mean that, but it sounds like it sometimes.

    Open question to everyone here who doesn't like what I do... if you are against it, what actions on your part, other than my no longer posting about reselling, do you think fit the situation?

    accountability: the quality or state of being accountable; especially : an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for one's actions
    That means saying something like: "Yes, I bought sets to resell. I bought more than two, which I understand is the limit, but the posted text is sufficiently vague that I can sleep well at night. I understand that in buying more sets than the limit, that meant there would be less available from the supply for MSRP. In this case, I am responsible for taking 4 sets off the market."

    Rather than saying something like: "TLG is completely to blame because they didn't produce enough, creating a profit situation from which I am helpless to refrain. Further, TLG is completely to blame because, though they state a limit, they were silly enough to trust me to abide by it."

    What I don't mean by accountability is the police arresting someone. I never said this was illegal and people should be prosecuted.
  • YellowcastleYellowcastle Northern VirginiaAdministrator, Moderator Posts: 5,233
    I think the consensus just for the forum is for reseller fans to simply try and adhere to the following 'guidelines'...cough @augen :o)

    -Keep the reselling aspects to the appropriate Buying/Selling threads

    -Reduce (where applicable/possible) the amount of boasting with pictures, hauls or lengths taken to circumvent imposed buying limits

    All of the other gripes are, IMO, very debatable (i.e. discussions on clearance raiding, exclusive hoarding within limits, etc.) and/or unenforceable (i.e. anything done in the real world).

    So long as its not publicized, we'll be none the wiser. I think we all realize that, at the end of the day, people are going to do what they want.
    CupIsHalfEmptySirKevbagsdougts
  • DadDad UKMember Posts: 816

    Dad said:

    I just can't see where the animosity comes from towards resellers. The haters talk about it as though it is a license to print money. Resellers will experience many lows. Bad judgement causing them to have money tied up in sets that don't retire, or sets that don't increase in value. Late night trips to clear the clearance isle to find someone got there before you or there was never anything to be had in the first place. Damaged stock, unscrupulous buyers etc.

    Do people really expect them to leave the golden goose sat on the shelf just so anyone who wants one won't miss out?

    take 41999 as an example, unless we assume that all those buying them on ebay are resellers investing then there are people being made to pay well over rrp for a set that would almost certainly still be in stock if not for resellers, and quite likely if not for resellers breaking the two limit. further dont cry and whine if lego ban you and then turn around and break the limit at the first opportunity. Buy as many FBs or DSs as you like, theres enough to go around, minecraft sets at christmas? if you cant see why some might see that as distateful then i genuinely pity you.

    Then also dont spoil the hobby for others by turning every thread about a new set being released into a simple comodity, thats an exageration but with 41999 it certainly felt like that. This is a fan\collectors site and just like some like to collect sealed boxes, many have a real passion for the product opened or sealed and seeing it portrayed as just a means to make money withun hours of it being released will and does upset/annoy some people.

    i think kevs point earlier about the response that ticket touts would get on a music fans site is spot on, some of us may seem like haters but compared to what that respinse would be were probably angels. to be clear im not a hater, my view has been modified by discussions like these.
    @ Cheshirecat, Ok I see the relationship to the ticket touts and you have your opinion and others theirs but please don't pity me... My issue is that some of the people and if I am honest I am looking at you here, but am not meaning to single you out, think that it is quite acceptable to buy multiples of a set that are on offer with the intention of trading them with others. And I really cannot see how that is any difference whatsoever to buying for resale.

    The outcome is still the same. Someone, somewhere does not get the chance to obtain that item because you bought multiples for your personal gain. The sets you are trading them for are not available on offer so you have bought them to enable you to get the sets you wanted 'on offer' You are indirectly making money from buying multiples by saving money. Would you agree?

    And for the record I have no problem with either, I just find it hypocritical when people draw the line just in front of where they consider themselves to stand.

    indigobox
  • prof1515prof1515 EarthMember Posts: 1,561
    tedward said:

    But I still agree, it's clearly not persecution.

    At least you and I do not make false accusations of "abuse" over differences of opinion.
    The abuse is the statement below which was followed by one of the most convoluted attempts at rationalizing the inappropriate use of a word, ie. persecution, that I've seen in a while.
    tedward said:

    Actually you need to work on your reading comprehension as clearly this meets the very criteria you have quoted.

  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    Ok, I started a poll on whether we should keep this discussion going or shut it down. Please let me know if you aren't able to vote, since I've just implemented it without testing.
    http://www.bricksetforum.com/discussion/11879/should-we-continue-the-discussion-about-reselling
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    edited August 2013
    This particular point has gotten lost in the shuffle, and @jasor beat me to it (doh), but something to remember is this. Assuming all is true, that is.

    1) LFT broke guidelines, both known and hidden
    2) Lego said "don't break those guidelines or we'll ban you"
    3) LFT stopped breaking guidelines
    4) Lego banned him
    5) LFT appealed (a couple times)
    6) Lego said "sorry, no can do" (a couple times)

    If the string had stopped at 3, then you have every right to swarm him for being a hypocrite for buying 6. However, it didn't stop at 3, which means he was unfairly barbequed*, and now he's supposed to have continued loyalty to the company that barbequed* him? I know if someone barbequed* me, I'd be much less likely to respect anything they had to tell me.

    I'm not judging, but his actions are far from what I'd call evil, and even perhaps understandable. He didn't go for 50 of these things with the intent to say "Ha! Screw you Lego, see what I can do anyway?" He went for 6. It's still four more than I would have, but then again, I haven't been barbequed* by Lego...yet.

    *Used because for some reason, "persecuted" is wildly undecipherable around here. Now I'm hungry.
    Pitfall69jasorwagnerml2pharmjod
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,444
    I don't feel as I'm wrong to go "off topic" a tad here, with all the hungry counties and pirates ;)

    I think there is a difference between buying a case of minifigures knowing you are going to return the ones you don't need and buying 6 or more #41999's to sell, build and keep mint...or all of the above. Once you buy from a retailer, unless there is a problem with the product, the retailer assumes you won't return the product. When you return an item, it costs the retailer (no matter whether it will sell ) money to restock the item. Retailers had a huge problem with this during major sporting events. People would buy big screen TV's with no intention of keeping them to watch said sporting event and then return the TV's. This is not illegal, but unethical. Retailers then placed a restocking fee on all their TV's.
  • CrowkillersCrowkillers Member Posts: 757

    When the whole Mr Gold thing started, you could see right from the start that Lego's intention was just to sell more figures because they knew people were going to sell the limited Mr Gold figures for several 100 dollars... Did they really care about collectors who really wanted Mr Gold, but are now stuck with 20 bumblebee girls..?

    LEGO's ridiculous and contradictory attitude to reselling - cracking down with one hand while pumping out limited edition collectibles (41999, SDCC minifigures, Mr. Gold) with the other - is a whole topic on its own.

    I really don't see what it has to do with this thread, however....
    My statement was made in reply to the other one made before it about TLC caring about it's customers...
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    pvancil27 said:

    So here we go.

    Oh boy, can I get the popcorn! :)
    pvancil27 said:

    First, in general, Lego put limits to try and stop re-sellers from buying to much. Honest truth, I HATE limits. Because that father with three boys can't buy one for each kid if he is honest. There is an old saying locks only keep out honest people. Limits are the same, Limits only keep honest people from buying to much. If someone wants to break those limits, they will find a way.

    Actually, I support limits. That might shock you, but I have no problem with them enforcing limits.

    Why? Because otherwise the person standing in line for 8 hours on May 4th would have bought all 50-100 copies of the B-Wing and left none for anyone else (including me, since I won't sit there for 8 hours).

    Also, I fully understand the damage it does to the brand, if I was TLG, I'd have much stricter limits in place, but I'd also do business with resellers, because it would give me a measure of control over them.

    A stick doesn't work without a carrot, and TLG is only offering resellers a stick, they offer no carrot in return for following their wishes or rules.
    pvancil27 said:

    I do think Lego carries some blame, but to try and put the entire blame on them is like an alcoholic blaming a bar for their DUI. “The Bartender should have cut me off after 5 drinks.” Yea, they should have, but you made the choice to A) Drink (Re-sell) B) Drink in excess (Re-Sell large quantities) and C) Drive (Talk about it publicly).

    Don't be shocked when the police also go back and arrest the bartender. It is illegal in many places (including Texas) to knowingly continue to serve someone who is drunk, knowing they may drive. Some bartenders will ask for the keys in return for more drinks, then call the customer a cab.
    pvancil27 said:

    We use the speeding thing, but stop with the “It's unfair I am getting picked on” speech. By letter of the law, speeding 31 in a 30 is still breaking the law plain and simple.

    All true, but keep in mind that speeding is illegal, buying too much LEGO is not.

    At no point, even if I buy 50 copies of #41999, am I at any risk of being arrested.
    pvancil27 said:

    “At the end of the day, we are probably not good trading partners because we both know too well the value of our items. “

    I hope that quote looks familiar, its what you said to me when I first came here and was trying to work a trade. You were the first to approach me, and offered me what was a pretty horrid deal.

    Yes, that was very early on... I've since done quite a few deals here, on better terms, since no one was going to take the deal I offered you back then. :)

    After all, my most recent offer was to trade FB and DS at retail price for retired sets for their current Bricklink value, same condition.

    That is a pretty darn fair deal if you ask me, no fees and full current value trade. :)
    pvancil27 said:

    You keep saying you're a collector and a re-seller, and can wear both hats. But the truth is the re-seller hat overrides the collector hat almost every time. I've seen it happen in countless hobbies, and I saw it with you. You bought that UCS Falcon for 1250 I think it was, great price. You were happy, everyone was happy for you. You built it and seemingly were joyed. Then the re-seller inside decided “I cant justify having it in my collection because it's worth too much profit” and you sold it.

    The situation changed, everything I own is for sale at the right price, other than my wife and kids.

    If it was still worth just $1,250, I would still own it, but at some higher price, my opinion changes.

    I bought it, I built it, and displayed it for about a year. Clearly I didn't buy that one to flip. :)
    pvancil27 said:

    But the problem is you shouldnt have to justify collecting something at 400 bucks, you should have to justify the 199 you paid for it.

    Actually, you are mistaken. What I pay for something means nothing. What it is worth means everything.

    Maybe I was given a UCS Falcon for free, maybe I paid $10,000 for it. Doesn't mean a thing... What can I sell it for? That is all that counts. Everything else is just emotional justification, which is fine, but call a spade a spade if that is what you're doing.
    pvancil27 said:

    I'm probably going to get called out for this post, but the fact is it's designed to point out one simple fact: Almost every single issue people have with you is of your own doing. Own up to it.

    No, I don't agree.

    I think a lot of the complainers here have their own issues, as has been pointed out several times.

    But clearly we won't agree on that, so we'll just have to live and let live.
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    tensor said:

    This particular point has gotten lost in the shuffle, and @jasor beat me to it (doh), but something to remember is this. Assuming all is true, that is.

    1) LFT broke guidelines, both known and hidden
    2) Lego said "don't break those guidelines or we'll ban you"
    3) LFT stopped breaking guidelines
    4) Lego banned him
    5) LFT appealed (a couple times)
    6) Lego said "sorry, no can do" (a couple times)

    If the string had stopped at 3, then you have every right to swarm him for being a hypocrite for buying 6. However, it didn't stop at 3, which means he was unfairly barbequed*, and now he's supposed to have continued loyalty to the company that barbequed* him? I know if someone barbequed* me, I'd be much less likely to respect anything they had to tell me.

    Funny, I meant to respond to this, too, but was trying to right a sinking ship.

    I said this at the time, and I think it bears repeating.

    Purchasing from [email protected] is not a right, it is a privilege. It is a privilege extended by LEGO and they can terminate it at will if it is justified. A retailer banning a reseller has been ruled as legal and justified countless times in court. The information is available if you do a websearch. Examples of unjustified revocation are instances of prejudice such as race, religion, sex.

    Because LegoFanTexas fell in line to observe the guidelines, does not mean that [email protected] was obligated to continue the relationship. They had previously identified him as a reseller, obtained verification from him, and at a later time decided that they no longer wanted to accept his business. This is their right.
  • CrowkillersCrowkillers Member Posts: 757
    I agree 100% with LFT about the limits. I was very surprised(and somewhat shocked) that there was a limit of 2 per person... In the threads that I posted in over the months on other forums about this upcoming set, the majority of us thought that Lego would have handled the distribution process much differently...
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    rocao said:

    If the claims are true that the distribution method favored kids, it wasn't just a copout and, however flawed, the actions are consistent with the statement.

    I'm sorry, but you're still drinking the coolaid. You're being lied to and defending it.

    I'm quite serious, they say what they say for PR reasons, but they would have to be fools to believe it.

    It takes only a casual awareness of the collector market and 5 minutes on eBay to know exactly what happens in real life, all the pretty words and "official press releases" mean nothing.
    rocao said:

    I think there is conflict and opposing views within TLG about their stance on resellers. The PR team that decides these promotions is probably focused on creating buzz above all else. Conversely, if you asked Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen what he thought about so much of their product ending up on the secondary market instead of directly into the hand of consumers, I think you'd be met with a frown. If you asked the head of LBR, you might get even more than a frown, and it would be for different reasons than KKK.

    That is probably all very true, but KKK almost ran the company into the ground. He was quite wise to step down and hand the company over to a CEO who runs it like a business.
    rocao said:

    And then there is the explicit statement about the goal of the Co-Creation program being intended for the fans. Do you have anything concrete and not a matter of inference that refutes this and says that their intent was to have these on the secondary market?

    Serious question... do you believe everything you read and everything you're told? You say the "explicit statement about the goal of the Co-Creation program"... you believe that? Really?

    Just because they say it doesn't make it true.

    They announced they would make only 20K of #41999, numbered them, gave it months of pre-release buzz... are you implying that they were not aware of exactly what would happen?

    As for my "anything concrete", the listings on eBay would seem to be all the proof I require. This set doubled in price less than 15 days after it went on sale, that has to be a record for a set released at retail worldwide, even more so for a $200 set.

    If it was for the fans, it would be limit 1 per VIP account, registration required, and they would have made a lot more than 20K of them.
    vitreolum
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,444
    This thread got resurrected for a reason and I'm sure it will get resurrected again the next time Lego puts out another exclusive or any popular limited edition set.

    The problem I have with the thread is the attacks on people. Warranted or not, this doesn't add to a constructive conversation. I guess neither does my humor or lack thereof.

    I think the majority of us does not have a problem with resellers, but certain behaviors that maybe doesn't belong in a community. The behavior is going to happen, no matter how much we all bitch about, I just ask that the behavior can be kept at a minimum and not spill into other threads where it is not welcome.

    With that said, I would like the thread to stay open for further discussion in the future. As long as it is civil.
    caperberry
  • pvancil27pvancil27 Member Posts: 588
    edited August 2013
    And you still want to say you are faultless, so I wont waste the time.

    Again, I fully agree lego gets SOME blame, but the truth is even if they enforced a strict limit of 1, LFT would have still gotten three with the method he used. If they enforced a strict limit of 1, I order one online using my VIP card, buy one at each local Lego store for cash and not use my VIP card and buy whatever TRU lets me. Limits only stop the person who follows the rules to start with. If someone wants to break the rules, they will. Short of Lego only offering it only as an online sale and limit it to one per shipping address, there is not a lot they can do. And even then LFT could have his mother order one to her house, and brother, neighbor ect ect. A limit will NEVER stop someone who plans to break it.

    THAT is why the people who abuse and break limits share some of the blame.
    cheshirecat
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    Pitfall69 said:

    With that said, I would like the thread to stay open for further discussion in the future. As long as it is civil.

    I'm soooo tempted to make a Jar Jar joke here... but in the interests of being civil...

    Mesa won't do sa that...
    Yellowcastle
  • CrowkillersCrowkillers Member Posts: 757
    A strict limit will not stop it entirely, but it will most certainly help it...
    LegoFanTexas
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409

    A strict limit will not stop it entirely, but it will most certainly help it...

    This is true... what would stop it... not to beat a red doodad horse... is to make a whole lot more than 20,000 of them...
  • vitreolumvitreolum RomaniaMember Posts: 1,406
    Such a limit would also make it impossible to get for people that can't order from Lego since they are not in their shipping list, opening just another issue...
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    Dad said:



    Dad said:

    I just can't see where the animosity comes from towards resellers. The haters talk about it as though it is a license to print money. Resellers will experience many lows. Bad judgement causing them to have money tied up in sets that don't retire, or sets that don't increase in value. Late night trips to clear the clearance isle to find someone got there before you or there was never anything to be had in the first place. Damaged stock, unscrupulous buyers etc.

    Do people really expect them to leave the golden goose sat on the shelf just so anyone who wants one won't miss out?

    take 41999 as an example, unless we assume that all those buying them on ebay are resellers investing then there are people being made to pay well over rrp for a set that would almost certainly still be in stock if not for resellers, and quite likely if not for resellers breaking the two limit. further dont cry and whine if lego ban you and then turn around and break the limit at the first opportunity. Buy as many FBs or DSs as you like, theres enough to go around, minecraft sets at christmas? if you cant see why some might see that as distateful then i genuinely pity you.

    Then also dont spoil the hobby for others by turning every thread about a new set being released into a simple comodity, thats an exageration but with 41999 it certainly felt like that. This is a fan\collectors site and just like some like to collect sealed boxes, many have a real passion for the product opened or sealed and seeing it portrayed as just a means to make money withun hours of it being released will and does upset/annoy some people.

    i think kevs point earlier about the response that ticket touts would get on a music fans site is spot on, some of us may seem like haters but compared to what that respinse would be were probably angels. to be clear im not a hater, my view has been modified by discussions like these.
    @ Cheshirecat, Ok I see the relationship to the ticket touts and you have your opinion and others theirs but please don't pity me... My issue is that some of the people and if I am honest I am looking at you here, but am not meaning to single you out, think that it is quite acceptable to buy multiples of a set that are on offer with the intention of trading them with others. And I really cannot see how that is any difference whatsoever to buying for resale.

    The outcome is still the same. Someone, somewhere does not get the chance to obtain that item because you bought multiples for your personal gain. The sets you are trading them for are not available on offer so you have bought them to enable you to get the sets you wanted 'on offer' You are indirectly making money from buying multiples by saving money. Would you agree?

    And for the record I have no problem with either, I just find it hypocritical when people draw the line just in front of where they consider themselves to stand.

    This might shock you but I wholeheartedly agree with you. I was wrong before and can now accept that there is even sone good in resellers doing that. There is a service, there is value added and there is also risk on the resellers part. If it's discounted it's been widely available so those that want it should have it already.
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    I have said for a very long time... if TLG really wanted to shut down resellers, they can.

    All they have to do is pick the top 3-5 sets that retire in any given year and 12-24 months later, release another batch of them.

    Imagine if they put out a VIP only copy of Cafe Corner and Green Grocer, in 1 box, order it only from LEGO stores or [email protected], for $399 for the pair.

    That would completely crush the aftermarket value of CC and GG and send a message to resellers to watch out, TLG has them in their sights.

    Do you really think I'd ignore such moves? It would change the way I do business completely, it might push me out completely.

    All the rest of the things they do? Complete noise, mostly meant to make the casual fan and collector happy while doing nothing to stop resellers.
  • pvancil27pvancil27 Member Posts: 588
    So you are advocating they change their entire business model to change the behaviors of a fringe minority.
  • doriansdaddoriansdad CTCMember Posts: 1,337


    That actually wouldn't have been all that bad of an idea and donating all of the money to a charity of some sorts..

    That is precisely how I got my Nike Air Mags....well worth the $$$ and proceeds went to Michael's foundation.

  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,444
    edited August 2013
    Possibly, but other toy manufacturers do this to some point and it really doesn't affect the market that much for the older sets.

    Didn't Lego do this with the Maersk Container Ship? Didn't affect my value of the fist release. I sold mine within 2 days of putting it on EBay.
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    edited August 2013

    Serious question... do you believe everything you read and everything you're told? You say the "explicit statement about the goal of the Co-Creation program"... you believe that? Really?

    No, I don't believe everything I read and everything I'm told. For instance, I don't believe that was a serious question.

    I could ask you: "Serious question... do you always disregard what you're told when it suits you?" But that's insulting, so I won't.

    They announced they would make only 20K of #41999, numbered them, gave it months of pre-release buzz... are you implying that they were not aware of exactly what would happen?

    Did you read my analysis on the indicators for what number would be sufficient, and the additional constraints that might have resulted in the 20k production? It's more thorough than anything else I've seen presented. Feel free to counter it, but please at least have something to support it other than just saying they should have known it was not enough.

    As for my "anything concrete", the listings on eBay would seem to be all the proof I require. This set doubled in price less than 15 days after it went on sale, that has to be a record for a set released at retail worldwide, even more so for a $200 set.

    You can't point to how the set is performing after its release and say that is a concrete statement by TLG that they want the sets to go to resellers. Likewise, if this set flopped and nobody wanted it after-the-fact, does that change whom TLG was targeting for the set?

    You can say "They should have known better", but that doesn't mean their stated intent is a ruse, and they are acting in an opposite manner. What it means is that they failed in achieving their intent.

    If it was for the fans, it would be limit 1 per VIP account, registration required, and they would have made a lot more than 20K of them.

    1 per VIP account doesn't ensure it reaches a fan. A reseller can have a VIP account. What you're saying is they could better enforce the limit. But how they enforce it doesn't change the fact that they did have a limit.
  • CrowkillersCrowkillers Member Posts: 757
    pvancil27 said:

    So you are advocating they change their entire business model to change the behaviors of a fringe minority.

    Is it really a minority though..? I know quite a few people that have sets stockpiled in waiting...
  • mathewmathew Member Posts: 2,098
    prof1515 said:

    The philosophy for buying and selling and just plain observing is simple. I'll just say it again with an addendum to cover potential conflict.

    Buy early. Buy online. Shut the f up.

    No problems if everyone followed this formula.

    What happens when the box isn't mint?
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.