Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
Recent discussions • Categories • Privacy Policy • Brickset.com
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.
Comments
Last year, my TIE fighter box from TRU when it first was released was a punchout, but I saw others on the shelves since then that were taped
TRU is putting anti-theft tags on every Lego set now. Impossible to remove without skinning the box. It's practical for the retailer, bad for the collector.
Btw, this won't stop people from doing a break-reseal-return scam.
I'm sure people do actually get stopped sometimes, but I haven't seen it yet.
Once, a security guard got me before exiting the building. I showed him my receipt, and said "what?" Good times, good times.
Having picked up several for a bargainous price I'm more amused than anything else (why refill with actual Lego when you clearly have MB knocking around?!) but this is the first time I've seen this happen in the UK to my knowledge. Came from Asda in Watford. Be careful out there!
Can't blame them though.
Having said that, if a strip of antitheft tape was placed over the glued cardboard edges as well as the opening parts then yes, that would work.....or at least help.
I picked up two 7938s from a TRU during a BOGO and found turbo tank parts in both.
Mercifully, TRU took the return and allowed me to order two new one from online via the B&M store.
After this I refuse to buy any kind of set from Brick and mortar stores, unless they have those punch seals (which apparently do not stop these scumbags either now) or its a LEGO store, only because they check the boxes pretty well when they get returns, at least by the one by me.
I have occasionally broke my own rule with sets at Target (but usually because I have a set I got from someplace like Amazon or LEGO.com that I can compare the weight on-and it helps to have a mail scale).
I solely blame LEGO for this, if they would do better to seal their boxes (with theft proof, and larger, tape and or shrinkwrap with LEGO emblazoned on it) then this type of crap would not occur or at least would not occur as easily as it can now.
it is sad that we have a thread asking what the strangest thing you have found in a LEGO for it to have become that commonplace.
As you cannot really blame a store for taking returns, especially when these boxes go to a service counter looking like they came off of the shelf.
So Yes I blame LEGO for allowing it to be easier to occur. Especially when LEGO could obviously do a better job, but appear to choose not too.
I see they could do 3 things:
-Theftproof tape and covering a larger portion of the box
-shrinkwrap the boxes
-windows into the package to see the contents
Now I understand the whole 'window' thing may be pricey, but the better tape and shrink-wrapping with the LEGO logo cannot be that hard to do.
Could stores try to tighten up their return policy by documenting into a database to try to thwart the same group of people constantly returning boxes? Sure, but then there are legality issues I believe to this, especially in Europe if I am not mistaken.
I believe this is more the responsibility of the manufacturer to tighten up their boxing practices. Yeah TRU usually is pretty understanding, as they offered the same to me, but they did not have any of the trains in stock at the time.
If Lego put something like this on boxes then it'd be pretty foolproof. Determined thieves could still make convincing looking ones, but I suspect if they had to go to that effort there'd be easier things to do than steal Lego out of boxes.
The problem right now with the punch boxes is that you can still split the seal where the box meets so the solution is to protect the seal itself.
Though I'm not sure I'd agree it's necessarily Lego's fault, I think only the thieves and Toys R Us can be blamed - why don't Toys R Us check these things before re-attaching a security seal?
It is in the MANUFACTURERS best interest to stop the scumbags that obviously are not going to stop themselves.
Are the scumbags taking advantage of the situation? Yes, they are breaking the law and stealing and they should be dealt with appropriately. However, if LEGO is going to use shoddy protection on their packaging that they know is inferior then they are just as to blame for those who open a box and find dog food.
I think they asked the scumbags to stop, and they will not (cause they are scumbags), so it falls on the manufacturer to install some confidence in their product packaging to know that what you are getting is really what is supposed to be there.
(some) people are scumbags. How is this any different than stealing? Lego could put sets in Titanium lockboxes. Still their fault if a scumbag steals the lockbox?
Back in 1982 there was a scare over Tylenol.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Tylenol_murders
At the time, over the counter medication in the US wasn't tamper-proof and it was easy to do what was done.
That wasn't J&J's fault, but it would have been had they not changed their packaging in the future. Given the huge amount of money they spent to correct the problem and the efforts they went to, very publicly, I personally can give them a pass on that one.
I'd crucify them 10 times over if they had tried to cover it up and made no changes to their packaging.
TLG has a similar problem. So it has happened, ok, fair enough. What are they doing to make it harder to tamper with their products?
Nothing? Then they do carry some fault for future tampering because the solution is theirs to control.
At the end of the day, if a customer opens up a "sealed" LEGO set and it has been tampered with, that is TLG's problem to own and to solve.
Did I ever say it was different than stealing? Hmmm, I do not believe so.. as a matter of fact I believe I mention it is stealing in previous comments, and have always agreed this is theft pure and simple. Bu I am trying to figure out why you are so against a company trying to stop said theft and failure of confidence in receiving the product people are paying for?
Especially when it would cost the sum of cents a box?
I guess you are saying that everyone should just rip open the box before buying it to see if the contents are present in the box and that it is the consumer whose fault it is for not doing this?
Apparently you think you can stop these people just with pleasant thoughts. So go ahead, I'll wait.. hmmm, nothing yet, they still seem to be scumbags, oh and by the way, again hard to catch. Partly due to poor efforts by LEGO to try to make it harder to allow this to occur.
I get that if someone tries hard enough they can take something, but it is a matter of making it harder to stop the majority doing it.
It is clear this is becoming a bigger and bigger issue, but apparently LEGO is still not doing anything about it.
Maybe the manufacturer of said 'sought after through ill gotten gains' objects (Stolen) should try to make it harder to steal said objects.
Or do you believe that cars should not have ignition keys? I mean it is up to people NOT to steal the car. So why have a key tumbler system in place to thwart car thieves.. or even locking mechanisms for the door? I mean it is up to people to NOT do these things, or cops to always catch them, right?
It is all about having the confidence to go buy a box of LEGO and get the LEGO that is on the box, not dog food, not other LEGO bricks or old LEGO brick.. It is a confidence, and in the companies best interest to project that confidence (and again LEGO also sees these return as 'defect's which means, I'm guessing here, that they take a loss on those sets)
Is it LEGO's fault for making it easy for the scumbags to do their scummy deeds? Absolutely
If I leave a highly desirable item (lets say a gold IPhone5 S) on the dashboard of my car and some scumbag breaks my window and steals it. Can I honestly say I am not at fault for what subsequently transpired?