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
do US shops even give a damn? oO here, they would go check, even if other customers in the line have to wait for 10 min while they do so. well, actually more like sethro's story
I don't think I would have been impressed with some other Dracula iteration.
A Freddy Krueger, Michael Myers or Jason would have been fantastic instead of two rather pedestrian zombies. Is there an iconic zombie cheerleader or zombie pirate? I think not.
'Guy with a chainsaw' would also probably have been one step too far with Lego.
One too many zombies for me. 12.5% would have been ideal...
But I agree as far as too many zombies. The Zombie buisnes suit guy has been done before. A zombie clown or zombie nurse would have been better. Maybe I will have to make one with a spare.
maybe vampire cheerleaders. though I doubt they would be iconic. when it comes to iconic zombi pirates, PotC comes to mind.
two steps too far would probably have been zombis nazis XD
demons could have fit the theme too
as I understand it, mythology and pop culture are ok. But straight religious themes are out.
I wanted 1, to surprise my sick kid.
Maybe don't buy every single one the store has, eh.
Although I think the larger retailers should get sufficient stock to begin with. How can a Lego Retail Store only have five cases? How can TRU send once case per store?
I don't even see the point in that.
As I was recently applauding a cashier for telling a complete jackass that his five cases of beer, ten bags of chips, 20+ 2-liter bottles of pop AND 20+ cans of soup along with a loaf of bread and dozen eggs was MORE than ten items and that he couldn't use the express line (after he had been rebuffed from the self-checkout area, which had a similar item limit), I was shocked that a store manager started scolding the cashier.
The manager forgot that the point of the express line was to literally express patrons out of the store quicker, so their experience would be better. Me being a vocal patron directly in front of said jackass.
You'd think there is an easier way to buy a case of CMFs without revolving-door Target or TRU to defeat a purchase limit. That's just dumb on the store and consumer. Why bother with the unecessary pagentry?
Then you have those that buy the box, take it home to clear out all of the rares to sell, or all of the sets, and return the common and uncommons. These really should be 'non-returnable' everywhere, which I think would stop this business of abusing good faith return policies. Plus, it is a 3.99 USD package, there should be no need to return them once purchased IMO (unless again you wanted to take home and felt that it was not the figure you wanted, which you could do in the store).
However, in the end I think if this is like series 13, or 12 (where a Target by me had about 6 boxes-with rares still in them- sitting there forever) you will eventually see them all over, at least enough to not have to rush from store to store to find your set or even a pack. People are finding them now in Walgreens so I'm sure they are not far from appearing in Five Below stores either.
Yeah, if they have a policy and they as the store manager know the person are trying to circumvent it, they should stop them. Even if by the letter of the rule they came back in and are not buying them all in one move. I mean if it is obvious as to what they are doing the manager should stop them in their tracks. The problem is that managers are no longer those that take care of issues sometimes with a hard line stance, and disappoint someone. They are now there to appease everyone and avoid conflict at all costs, which is sad IMO.
(Had another nice fight with my Android auto-correct that was insisten that 'ediquette' was correct. Which may be correct, if your name is Edward or Edwin.)
BTW, I've seen plenty at the Targets in California.
Well, If there was no limit then I would say you are right and agree, it sucks but if there is no limit there is no limit. They can sell to whomever. However, in the post above (as I understood it) it sounds like they (the store) have imposed the the limit themselves.
If the store imposes a limit that someone can only buy x of something, then they should enforce that hard line regardless of any tactics someone is using.
So basically, either limit the purchase, and enforce that limit regardless of what the person tries to do to avoid it, or do not limit and let them buy all at once.
I am most proud that we bought no duplicates!
I'm all for capitalism, but the guy buying case after case at TRU should stop buying things in bulk at retail and figure out how to setup his own company and buy at wholesale prices...
Lego is really limiting their wholesale channel to major retailers (and even some retailers have issues getting product) and their own retail stores.
Although... if that's an option I'd be happy to offer my services.
Once we start placing restrictions that are at the discretion of human interpretation, we get situations of bias, and eventually that goes awry--ask Arby's how that's going in Miami. If it's a hard limit, make it a hard limit policy corporate wide.
IMHO, like the fairest policy I've seen for Brick and Motor is Limit x on day or release--to allow for most people with the gumption enough to get out of bed for it to obtain. Then after day or lease, let capitalism ride. If one has a problem with supply curves in this market economy, bring it up with the manufacturer. Funny thing is I never hear complaints about items going on clearance and paying lower prices or limits on those--market economy cuts both ways.
Even in 2013ish it sounds like there was an 8k-10k minimum buy, and now it sounds like it may be even more restrictive.
Honestly, giving resellers a fighting chance with potential minimum sales each quarter (to thwart a large buy-and-hold of one item) might help cut back on some of the "bigger resellers" (ie folks that buys and hold from retail chains). Would, at the very least, keep a little stock on the shelves for folks to browse...
Sorry for for making the assumption that it was easy....you know what assume means :)
Also, whether anyone likes it or not, a store has a right to limit if they choose (that is why you see ads, at least in the US, 'limit one' of these or those. It is to stop those from ensuring others cannot buy at that good price, or in this case if they know there is demand for the product just released). The poster of the situation implied the store did have a limit already. However, the poster also implied that the store then let the person buying move to circumvent their own placed restriction. What I said, which I repeated later, if you impose a limit then stick to it, not go against yourself because of some tactic the person was trying to use to obviously try to avoid the limitation. If there is no limit then everyone have at it. Just saying 'pick a lane'.
If this is directed at me, to be fair, I did not say everyone. Re-read what I put, I said 'many' and then 'there are those'. This is not based on my speculation either. I hear many folks doing one of these two activities. I did not place everyone in it by saying 'all' though.