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

Would re-releases be such a bad thing?

123457

Comments

  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    edited October 2016

    But like Pitfall69 said, even those that claim they are soley in group 2, they are still plenty aware how much money they have tied up in the hobby
    Nope.

    They might be aware of how much they've spent, although quite possibly not, but any value beyond that can be a mystery.

    There's nothing special about LEGO sets in this regard. I know the value of any investments I have fairly accurately because they are investments. Other than the fact I looked it up last week, I had no real idea of the value of the property in which I live (I was out by 50%), quite simply because it has the purpose. That purpose overrides any monetary value - which is irrelevant because I have I have no intention of selling.

    I do not have this constant obsession with how much everything is worth.
    MattDawsoncatwrangler
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,444
    I was recently at a garage sale and an older gentleman was selling a box of older Lego for $50. I looked into the box and I offered him $25; he angrily said "There's about $300 of Lego in that box because I bought it myself!!!" My point is that everyone is aware of how much they spent for their Lego and for Lego enthusiasts...even moreso. Everyone that owns a UCS MF knows how much.it is worth and if you tell me different,  you are just blowing smoke up my ass. Yeah, that's right, I am calling anyone out on that crap. If you needed the money, there is no way that you wouldn't try to get top dollar. Anyone that tells me different is full of it. 
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    Pitfall69 said:

    My point is that everyone is aware of how much they spent for their Lego and for Lego enthusiasts...even moreso.
    But you're absolutely wrong. Pure and simple.
    Everyone that owns a UCS MF knows how much.it is worth and if you tell me different, you are just blowing smoke up my ass.
    Star Wars isn't my thing, but I can't tell you how much, say, Cafe Corner is worth without looking it up. I know it's worth considerably more than I paid, but I have no idea whether it's three times (I'd guess twice was a bit low) as much or ten times as much. I have no idea whether it's increasing or decreasing. It is totally irrelevant to me.
    If you needed the money, there is no way that you wouldn't try to get top dollar.
    If I needed money, I would indeed try to get a good price, but I'd look it up.
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,444
    edited October 2016
    I understand that you may or may not care what your collection is worth, but there are many people that do...even if they did not care before, it is hard to avoid the exposure Lego has gotten in the press. I know that the "Lego is better than gold" articles are crap, but that doesn't dismiss how popular Lego has become.
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    Pitfall69 said:

    I understand that you may or may not care what your collection is worth
    You previously said that everyone was aware of what they'd paid and what they were worth. That's not true. Indeed, I suspect most people aren't, simply because that's not why they made the purchase in the first place. AFOLs may, but it is only "may", and others will guess.
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 19,929
    I guess what I meant by my previous post is there are 3 kinda of AFOL's. 

    1. Those that are in it strictly for financial gain
    2. Those that are in it purely for the love of Lego.
    3. Those that Love Lego, but wouldn't be mad if their collection became valuable.

    But like Pitfall69 said, even those that claim they are soley in group 2, they are still plenty aware how much money they have tied up in the hobby, and I doubt would give away ANYTHING for less than it's value. So perhaps only 2 real groups exist.
    There are as many types are of AFOL as there are AFOLs. I don't see any difference between 2 and 3. But then there are also AFOLs that collect and sell in different proportions, some that like sealed boxes, some that buy everything they can whether they like it or not, some that buy because they like it...
    datsunrobbiedougtscatwrangler
  • datsunrobbiedatsunrobbie West Haven , CTMember Posts: 1,711
    What about the folks who keep dropping off LEGO at the Goodwill and other charity shops? They either bought LEGO themselves or had it bought for them, built the sets, and then lost interest. Rather than trying to get their money back or make a profit, they donated it and maybe got a tax write-off. Others put their LEGO up on Craigslist in a big tub for a fraction of the "market" price.

    As CCC said, "There are as many types are of AFOL as there are AFOLs." There are no doubt a few that collect solely as an investment, others who give no thought to resale value. There are some who only by new sets in a given theme, others who buy sets from all the themes. There are probably folks who collect LEGO keychains solely because they collect keychains, and have no interest in LEGO otherwise. There are purists who will only buy LEGO, and there are fans who will buy other brands. There are fans who care what other people buy, fans who don't care what others buy, and fans who don't care that others don't care :)

    Legogramcatwrangler
  • AustinPowersAustinPowers GermanyMember Posts: 278
    edited October 2016
    ericb said:
    @AustinPowers

    Apparently, you've missed out on some desirable sets.  Accept it.  It's not LEGO's fault, nor is it any fault of proud collectors or greedy resellers.  There's no one to blame but yourself.

    At least you've found an alternative in buying clone sets at what you feel is a more "proper" price.  Sure, they'll never be the real thing, but you seem to be happy with them.  Which brings me to the following question:  If you're happy buying clones of retired sets and are satisfied with their quality, why do you feel there's a need for LEGO to re-release them?
    First off, I don't blame other collectors for my not having gotten certain sets when they were available from Lego. Nor do I blame resellers for it. Why should I anyway? Most of those resellers weren't even around when those sets were available in stores or via [email protected]
    I don't like resellers because they imho greatly inflate the prices of EOL sets and I would indeed call that more than greedy. But as long as there are people willing to pay these prices, I personally might not like the situation, but I accept it nonetheless.

    As for why I am happy buing cloned sets versus why I think it would be a good idea if Lego rereleased them: because I would always prefer to support Lego versus some shady Chinese clone manufacturer who is dancing the fine line between legal and illegal. Period. It's not about the quality, because that is for all intents and purposes almost identical. I am an AFOL after all, and as I have said before, I would happily pay retail to TLG for a rerelease of a favorite set of mine like 10228 as a prime example. I have now ordered the Lepin version. A "greedy" reseller will now lose my business, which I have no problem with. But had TLG rereleased that set for example for Halloween this year, they would currently be processing my [email protected] order, instead of some AliExpress Seller in Hong Kong or wherever.
    Jern92
  • pharmjodpharmjod 1,170 miles to Wall Drug, USAMember Posts: 2,916
    edited October 2016
    It has been beaten into the ground, but you would likely see even higher prices on EOL sets if there weren't so many resellers out there. It is the competition for sales that keeps prices down EOL. Less sellers = less competition = higher prices. You should hug a reseller today =)
    Pitfall69SumoLegobuildalotBrickDancerdatsunrobbiestlux
  • madforLEGOmadforLEGO Chicagoland USMember Posts: 10,230

    ericb said:
    @AustinPowers

    Apparently, you've missed out on some desirable sets.  Accept it.  It's not LEGO's fault, nor is it any fault of proud collectors or greedy resellers.  There's no one to blame but yourself.

    At least you've found an alternative in buying clone sets at what you feel is a more "proper" price.  Sure, they'll never be the real thing, but you seem to be happy with them.  Which brings me to the following question:  If you're happy buying clones of retired sets and are satisfied with their quality, why do you feel there's a need for LEGO to re-release them?
    First off, I don't blame other collectors for my not having gotten certain sets when they were available from Lego. Nor do I blame resellers for it. Why should I anyway? Most of those resellers weren't even around when those sets were available in stores or via [email protected]
    I don't like resellers because they imho greatly inflate the prices of EOL sets and I would indeed call that more than greedy. But as long as there are people willing to pay these prices, I personally might not like the situation, but I accept it nonetheless.

    As for why I am happy buing cloned sets versus why I think it would be a good idea if Lego rereleased them: because I would always prefer to support Lego versus some shady Chinese clone manufacturer who is dancing the fine line between legal and illegal. Period. It's not about the quality, because that is for all intents and purposes almost identical. I am an AFOL after all, and as I have said before, I would happily pay retail to TLG for a rerelease of a favorite set of mine like 10228 as a prime example. I have now ordered the Lepin version. A "greedy" reseller will now lose my business, which I have no problem with. But had TLG rereleased that set for example for Halloween this year, they would currently be processing my [email protected] order, instead of some AliExpress Seller in Hong Kong or wherever.

    If you buy a knockoff of a Legit LEGO set- for whatever reason- you are condoning such activity (which appears to be illegal). This does hurt LEGO, even if only a 'paper cut'. This argument of 'well if LEGO would just remake the set there would be no problem' is a hogwash argument. A illegal copy is an illegal copy.

    As for the question: is it illegal? Well it must be enough to drive LEGO to sue LEPIN.
    If LEPIN was making other sets not in any way related to old LEGO designs and specifically licenses it likely would not be an issue as LEGO may be upset with LEPINs quality but not much they can do about that. However, seeing as LEPIN is getting a lot of, unfortunately, positive attention (and profits) for doing something wrong it just strikes me as a company that should be held accountable for such actions.
    Heck, I'm most surprised that Disney has not gone after them for the SW license infringement; my guess is Lucas was running the show still they would be.
    People can try to explain buying an illegal knockoff all away to make themselves feel better, but it is wrong to do. By paying said company you are reinforcing to them that it is OK to do so.

    Also, knock it off with the 'greedy reseller' stuff. I'll let you in on a little secret (actually not so little or secret): There are no 'greedy resellers'. The item sells by law of supply and demand, not by what a reseller charges.. A reseller can ask for 10K for UCS falcon, and likely will be sitting on it for a while. So, by your reasoning of greedy resellers, where does that end exactly? Do you go into toy stores and tell the store that the price for that LEGO Town Square should be a quarter of what the RRP is?

    I'm not sure how you can make such comments, but then lambast others opinions you do not agree with as 'idiotic'.
    BrikingTkattBrickDancerstlux
  • ericbericb Member Posts: 92
    If LEGO were to re-release a retired set like 10228 Haunted House, it would have to be worth their while.  Maybe they re-release it, but with an increased price between $300 and $350.  This would be less than current aftermarket prices for a new set.  Would enough people still be willing to buy an official set over a clone?
    madforLEGO
  • AustinPowersAustinPowers GermanyMember Posts: 278
    Academic, as Lego will not rerelease it anyway. And even if they did, they certainly wouldn't charge much more than the original RRP, because they could be certain it would not sell. Current aftermarket prices on ebay are of no interest to TLG, because they represent what a small minority of hardcore collectors are willing to pay, not what the demographic they would be aiming at with a rerelease would pay.
    dougts
  • AustinPowersAustinPowers GermanyMember Posts: 278

    If you buy a knockoff of a Legit LEGO set- for whatever reason- you are condoning such activity (which appears to be illegal). This does hurt LEGO, even if only a 'paper cut'. This argument of 'well if LEGO would just remake the set there would be no problem' is a hogwash argument. A illegal copy is an illegal copy.
    Why is it a hogwash argument? If they remade the set officially, and sold it at a reasonable price, i.e. their usual pricing for sets, which means a little under 10 cents per piece on comparable sets like the Modulars, etc., then Lepin would perhaps not even have made that set.

    And as for illegal or not, it has been discussed in the other thread, not everything Lepin does seems to be illegal. Making clones of EOL'ed and especially non-licenced sets might not be illegal. I thought Lego was going after Lepin for their cloning of licenced sets like their Star Wnrs line or the Porsche, Disney Castle, etc.
    I would wager that when it comes to those old Modulars, etc., Lepin will be quite safe from TLG's actions.
    Jern92
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 19,929
    Academic, as Lego will not rerelease it anyway. And even if they did, they certainly wouldn't charge much more than the original RRP, because they could be certain it would not sell. Current aftermarket prices on ebay are of no interest to TLG, because they represent what a small minority of hardcore collectors are willing to pay, not what the demographic they would be aiming at with a rerelease would pay.
    I disagree with your pricing argument. Look at what they did to the price of DS remake. 
  • madforLEGOmadforLEGO Chicagoland USMember Posts: 10,230

    If you buy a knockoff of a Legit LEGO set- for whatever reason- you are condoning such activity (which appears to be illegal). This does hurt LEGO, even if only a 'paper cut'. This argument of 'well if LEGO would just remake the set there would be no problem' is a hogwash argument. A illegal copy is an illegal copy.
    Why is it a hogwash argument? If they remade the set officially, and sold it at a reasonable price, i.e. their usual pricing for sets, which means a little under 10 cents per piece on comparable sets like the Modulars, etc., then Lepin would perhaps not even have made that set.

    And as for illegal or not, it has been discussed in the other thread, not everything Lepin does seems to be illegal. Making clones of EOL'ed and especially non-licenced sets might not be illegal. I thought Lego was going after Lepin for their cloning of licenced sets like their Star Wnrs line or the Porsche, Disney Castle, etc.
    I would wager that when it comes to those old Modulars, etc., Lepin will be quite safe from TLG's actions.
    I think it is hogwash because its a rationalization; one you know likely would not come true because of LEGOs stance on redoing sets (which you admit in a previous message about the Haunted House). Also, if LEGO had no ground to stand on with going after LEPIN they likely would not be spending the time and energy, especially with other knockoffs out there, to go after them. So it would appear that LEGO's legal dept must think there is some merit to go after this company.
    Also, the main topic here, like I mention in my previous message was the knockoffs of sets. I know that LEPIN does not do every set like this, but since you are the one keen on saying 'well since LEGO does not make it anymore it is Ok for me to buy a knockoff of a LEGO set' is really what we are talking about isn't it? Especially when the company is likely getting the majority of their revenue right now, and attention, for making knockoffs of LEGO designs?
    As for sets like modulars. Modular buildings are designs, and presumably owned by LEGO. Now, I'm no legal expert here, but I'm guessing LEGO does have a leg to stand on. How do I think this? I'm guessing companies like MB would be churning out all sorts of old LEGO set designs instead of paying their designers if they could get away with it and would like have done the Cafe Corner themselves and charged less and gotten attention and revenue form doing that more than almost anything else they have done.

    As for LEPIN would not make it if LEGO redid the set: How do you know what LEPIN would not make? Like @ericb said, if LEGO redid it, it still would be pricey (more than its original retail, which people bristled at when it was produced by LEGO) and then people would whine 'ohhh, if LEGO would just make it cheaper' to rationalize making such a purchase.
    Brikingstlux
  • AustinPowersAustinPowers GermanyMember Posts: 278
    edited October 2016
    CCC said:
    Academic, as Lego will not rerelease it anyway. And even if they did, they certainly wouldn't charge much more than the original RRP, because they could be certain it would not sell. Current aftermarket prices on ebay are of no interest to TLG, because they represent what a small minority of hardcore collectors are willing to pay, not what the demographic they would be aiming at with a rerelease would pay.
    I disagree with your pricing argument. Look at what they did to the price of DS remake. 
    But that was a licenced set - with a huge amount of minifigs. Such sets are always far more expensive per piece than non-licenced large sets like the Modulars, Tower Bridge, Haunted House etc.
    Aanchir
  • AustinPowersAustinPowers GermanyMember Posts: 278
    edited October 2016
    @madforLEGO: Lego hasn't openly stated what they accuse Lepin of. For all we know it could be only the copying of licenced sets. Then again, could be the clone argument in general. Perhaps we will see. The thing you have to understand though is that Lepin basically made sets for the Asian market. Only when they started cloning the first EOL'd Lego sets they got the attention from Westerners. Suddenly they bring out one highly sought-after EOL set after another. Coincidence? I don't think so.
    Anyway, the main problem for TLG is that when it comes to Lepin, Pandora is out of the box. Buyers in the West now know of Lepin, their quality, and their pricing. They have gained a foothold in the market that TLG can only get rid of if they manage to shut down Lepin. And even if they manage to do so, there will be another clone manufacturer on the horizon who does what Lepin does now, only perhaps a little more subtle.
    You can say what you like, but I am absolutely certain that Lepin wouldn't be known and bought in the West, had Lego not that stance on rereleasing popular old sets.
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,927
    You can say what you like, but I am absolutely certain that Lepin wouldn't be known and bought in the West, had Lego not that stance on rereleasing popular old sets.
    Probably true for the most part (it'd still surely be known and bought by some people, but no more so than other knock-offs).

    However, if LEGO did re-release older, popular sets, then Lepin might just as easily have just gone after whatever older, popular sets LEGO didn't have available, and still have gotten a similar amount of attention. For instance, Black Seas Barracuda is still one of the most beloved LEGO pirate ships, even after being re-released as part of the failed LEGO Legends series. Same with Metroliner among LEGO passenger trains. There's no reason to think LEGO would ever try re-releasing either set again when even more of their molds are retired/obsolete than were in the early naughts! But a smaller company like Lepin might still be able to profit and gain attention by re-releasing it, since both sets are extremely valuable in the LEGO aftermarket. Enlighten DID in fact get a decent amount of AFOL attention for their BSB knock-off, they just didn't attract as much attention as Lepin due to their more obvious quality defects.

    Obviously it's silly to think LEGO could or should re-release EVERY beloved older set. Particularly sets like BSB and Metroliner that they've re-released unsuccessfully in the past, or sets like the old monorail sets that require dozens of defunct molds and were never profitable even when they were current. So I can't think of any scenario where a company like Lepin couldn't make an impression with the AFOL community by re-releasing the sets LEGO has perfectly sound reasons for keeping retired, for lower prices than LEGO could ever hope to offer. There will always be things that the LEGO Group doesn't do, and there will always be competitors looking for some way to exploit that.
  • BrikingBriking Dorset, UKMember Posts: 762
    edited October 2016
    ^^ What a sense of entitlement!  As Lego won't do what you want, it is perfectly fine for you to buy knock-offs.  As this is a Lego forum, perhaps you're in the wrong place?

    The people and attitudes I absolutley hate...!
  • ericbericb Member Posts: 92
    You can say what you like, but I am absolutely certain that Lepin wouldn't be known and bought in the West, had Lego not that stance on rereleasing popular old sets.
    I disagree, as Lepin clones many LEGO sets which are currently in production.
    monkeyhanger
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,444
    I honestly don't know why Lego doesn't release a redesigned Haunted House. They released a Scooby Doo castle that looks very similar to the Monster Fighters Vampyre Castle. 
    catwrangler
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 14,364
    Pitfall69 said:
    I honestly don't know why Lego doesn't release a redesigned Haunted House. They released a Scooby Doo castle that looks very similar to the Monster Fighters Vampyre Castle. 
    A Mayor's Mansion sounds good to me.  
    Pitfall69Legogram
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    madforLEGO said:

    As for the question: is it illegal? Well it must be enough to drive LEGO to sue LEPIN.
    TLG have a long history of suing a variety of companies, in both Eastern and Western courts, and losing. Most victories they have had have been somewhat pyrrhic.

    As yet, and as has been pointed out, we don't know the basis of TLG's lawsuit. However, LEPIN's change of their logo, within just a few days, might be a  hint.

    Various people think the Chinese legal process is lacking in comparison with that in the West. If the latter consists of deciding guilt without even knowing the charges, that conjecture seems highly suspect.
    There are no 'greedy resellers'. The item sells by law of supply and demand, not by what a reseller charges.
    Stripping store shelves bare has little to do with the law of supply and demand. There are many aspects to reselling - some are beneficial; others are not. It is essentially why the arguments can continue without coming to any conclusion.
    Do you go into toy stores and tell the store that the price for that LEGO Town Square should be a quarter of what the RRP is?
    Most people do something very similar. They walk into a store, look at the price, and if they don't think it's reasonable, they walk back out again.
    I'm guessing companies like MB would be churning out all sorts of old LEGO set designs instead of paying their designers
    I strongly suspect that they haven't done it because it's something they either wouldn't have thought of, or because it seemed "wrong" - much in the same way that it seems "wrong" to many people here. At the moment, we don't know where that will go, but it could easily end up with Mega Bloks producing older LEGO sets that took their fancy.
    As for LEPIN would not make it if LEGO redid the set: How do you know what LEPIN would not make?
    We don't. But the primary difference between a LEGO set and a LEPIN set, for the average punter, is price. It's not an absolute in that people would automatically select the cheapest option, but a re-release stands to be significantly cheaper than the other alternative of buying the original from a reseller. That swings the balance away from people selecting LEPIN - whether it would've been enough to make a difference is a different matter.
    Aanchir said:

    However, if LEGO did re-release older, popular sets, then Lepin might just as easily have just gone after whatever older, popular sets LEGO didn't have available, and still have gotten a similar amount of attention.
    That's more problematic for many reasons. Older sets aren't so sophisticated - people even use that as a reason to not re-release Cafe Corner. The further back you go, the more that's the case. There's also less of a link - older modulars are popular because there are current ones. Go back too far and it's only nostalgia driving the interest, not the merits of the sets themselves. That's not going to drive sales enough to be worth while.
  • madforLEGOmadforLEGO Chicagoland USMember Posts: 10,230
    TigerMoth said:
    madforLEGO said:

    As for the question: is it illegal? Well it must be enough to drive LEGO to sue LEPIN.
    TLG have a long history of suing a variety of companies, in both Eastern and Western courts, and losing. Most victories they have had have been somewhat pyrrhic.

    As yet, and as has been pointed out, we don't know the basis of TLG's lawsuit. However, LEPIN's change of their logo, within just a few days, might be a  hint.

    Various people think the Chinese legal process is lacking in comparison with that in the West. If the latter consists of deciding guilt without even knowing the charges, that conjecture seems highly suspect.
    There are no 'greedy resellers'. The item sells by law of supply and demand, not by what a reseller charges.
    Stripping store shelves bare has little to do with the law of supply and demand. There are many aspects to reselling - some are beneficial; others are not. It is essentially why the arguments can continue without coming to any conclusion.
    Do you go into toy stores and tell the store that the price for that LEGO Town Square should be a quarter of what the RRP is?
    Most people do something very similar. They walk into a store, look at the price, and if they don't think it's reasonable, they walk back out again.
    I'm guessing companies like MB would be churning out all sorts of old LEGO set designs instead of paying their designers
    I strongly suspect that they haven't done it because it's something they either wouldn't have thought of, or because it seemed "wrong" - much in the same way that it seems "wrong" to many people here. At the moment, we don't know where that will go, but it could easily end up with Mega Bloks producing older LEGO sets that took their fancy.
    As for LEPIN would not make it if LEGO redid the set: How do you know what LEPIN would not make?
    We don't. But the primary difference between a LEGO set and a LEPIN set, for the average punter, is price. It's not an absolute in that people would automatically select the cheapest option, but a re-release stands to be significantly cheaper than the other alternative of buying the original from a reseller. That swings the balance away from people selecting LEPIN - whether it would've been enough to make a difference is a different matter.
    Aanchir said:

    However, if LEGO did re-release older, popular sets, then Lepin might just as easily have just gone after whatever older, popular sets LEGO didn't have available, and still have gotten a similar amount of attention.
    That's more problematic for many reasons. Older sets aren't so sophisticated - people even use that as a reason to not re-release Cafe Corner. The further back you go, the more that's the case. There's also less of a link - older modulars are popular because there are current ones. Go back too far and it's only nostalgia driving the interest, not the merits of the sets themselves. That's not going to drive sales enough to be worth while.
    -You do not sue someone without having good enough grounds to spend time, and money, on a suit. Otherwise LEGO's legal team would likely have far more lawsuits out there (specifically with the superhero ripoffs out there). If it is only the logo and not the design then it is likely because China's laws would not allow for the suit. Again, just because China may not allow such suits to have merit in their courts does not make it right.

    -Stripping store shelves is more 'profiteering' than what people are implying 'greedy resellers' are doing in selling old, out of production sets, for profit. I know when I wrote that, and could not change it when I realized I left that open to interpretation, someone pedantic enough would try to use that to make a point. But really who's fault is it that profiteers can do what they do? The guy doing it, or stores who refuse to enforce limits for hard to find items? Amazon imposes limits and does it effectively and if you are caught trying to circumvent them they suspend or ban you, so why not other stores then? Especially ones that say 'limit 1' but yet let folks keep submitting new orders to get a deal or a special promo? Heck regular brick and mortars do it all the time for BF with certain items 'limit 1' in their adverts, so why not do that for other items? I do not like profiteering but the stores could do far more to try to stop it.

    -As for the vote with your feet: There is a far cry between leaving a store if an item is too much and going to the counter to demand a price be decreased under retail because you think it should be that. Stop being so pedantic and you would see that it was an example of what appeared to be the ideal of the poster I was responding to.

    -IMO MB have not remade old LEGO set designs because, at least in the US, it is likely wrong to do so and I believe there could be legal precedent in the process; much less likely because they are lazy. US intellectual property laws are MUCH tighter than anything in China, so I'm guessing that is what it is, and not MB being 'too stupid' to figure it out until now.

    -As for the argument that more people would buy a set from LEGO that was redone (at much greater cost) than a cheaper knockoff because it is not a reseller seems a bit ludicrous to me. Even IF that were true it would be the minority of a minority of folks interested in buying these old sets to 'stick it to a reseller'. People not buying a set post run are doing so due to the price. Period. It is not like LEPINs quality is light years beyond LEGO, nor would the average 'punter' know this. They want cheap stuff and the LEGO sets redone would not be cheap. People complain (admittedly me included) that LEGO is expensive at its cost now. Well, discontinued sets from 10 years ago would likely give those sticker shock when they realized it is not the same cost as back when they recall. So what is this difference you speak of? It would like make very little difference, and I doubt that is enough for LEGO to justify resurrecting an old set.
  • buildalotbuildalot Pennsylvania, USAMember Posts: 31
    edited October 2016
    Well, will jump in and say this. Here's what I am seeing in this thread: some LEGO fans who feel guilty about giving money to Lepin are trying to convince themselves and others that LEGO is in part to blame on account of their "refusal" to release these old sets. I sympathize, but trying to assign blame to those who we know deep down we wronged is a trick that our mind often plays on us. 
    (Urrmm... I sound haughty. Sorry about that.) 
    ericbBrickDancerstlux
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,444
    ^Nostalgia was the main reason why I bought most of the "Legends" and "Re-Releases", but as I said before, after the nostalgia wears off, the sets aren't as impressive as the newer sets. I have sold or traded most of those sets to Bricksetters. I am not going to get into the reseller argument in this thread, but those sets have found good homes :)

    I agree, there are arguments in this thread that will never have a conclusion, especially the reseller argument. This doesn't mean that there shouldn't be a discussion , but this is not the thread for it.
    pharmjodmadforLEGOcatwranglerBumblepants
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    madforLEGO said:

    You do not sue someone without having good enough grounds to spend time, and money, on a suit.
    TLG had to do something to stem the accusations of doing nothing. That doesn't really reflect their chances of winning. If history is anything is to go by, they'll probably win a few points, lose a few, and none it will make much difference - and not actually have been worth pursuing!
    But really who's fault is it that profiteers can do what they do? The guy doing it, or stores who refuse to enforce limits for hard to find items?
    Please. Let's shoot somebody - it'll obviously be the gun manufacturer's fault and we can walk away scot-free.
    Especially ones that say 'limit 1' but yet let folks keep submitting new orders to get a deal or a special promo?
    Some people still hope they can say "you're not allowed to do that" and that people will take notice. Believe it or not, some do.
    As for the vote with your feet: There is a far cry between leaving a store if an item is too much and going to the counter to demand a price be decreased under retail because you think it should be that. Stop being so pedantic and you would see that it was an example of what appeared to be the ideal of the poster I was responding to.
    It's not pedantry; it's what happens. You're not going to get very far with it in a big chain but it happens all the time. In big business it's called negotiation; on a street marker it's called haggling. But it all comes down to buyers telling sellers what they are prepared to pay. In some areas, it's the only way things are done.
    and not MB being 'too stupid' to figure it out until now.
    It's not about being stupid but about being culturally alien. LEPIN came along with a different mindset, realised that the case was arguable and tried it. It was much the same in the early days of (Western) clones. A few companies scratched at the door until one came along and tried to kicked it off its hinges. The rest, as they say, is history.
    As for the argument that more people would buy a set from LEGO that was redone (at much greater cost) than a cheaper knockoff because it is not a reseller seems a bit ludicrous to me.
    If someone has a choice between an original (from a reseller) for $500 or a copy for $100, the copy is very attractive. If, however, you also have the choice of the original (or something very close) from the original manufacturer, it's not so clear-cut. Clearly, some will still make the choice based on price and pick the cheapest, but some will be prepared to pay more for the new version from the manufacturer. Fewer copies of the copy are sold and its viability becomes more questionable. It's not so much that the purchaser wants it at it's cheapest but just they're not prepared to pay the reseller what they see as being far too much.
    Even IF that were true it would be the minority of a minority of folks interested in buying these old sets to 'stick it to a reseller'.
    You've got hold of the wrong end of the, er, stick somewhere. It's got nothing to do with "sticking it to a reseller". A re-released set is simply the original at a more reasonable price than the reseller would previously have offered.
    It would like make very little difference, and I doubt that is enough for LEGO to justify resurrecting an old set.
    In isolation that may or may not be true - it doesn't matter. It's not about the sets. The importance to TLG is that LEPIN would not have gained the same reputation if they had competed directly. If they'd managed to halve their sales, there would be half as many people singing their praises. In the West, that may only be a drop in the ocean, but in Asia, where TLG see most of their growth, they've now got an established and respected competitor who wasn't there a year ago
    buildalot said:

    Here's what I am seeing in this thread: some LEGO fans who feel guilty about giving money to Lepin are trying to convince themselves and others that LEGO is in part to blame on account of their "refusal" to release these old sets.
    I haven't spent a penny on LEPIN sets. TLG allowed a situation to develop where many
    people have had their heads turned and are now happy with buying the products of a competitor. Re-releasing the sets that LEPIN was obviously going to target next would probably have limited that - perhaps a little; perhaps a lot.
  • Wookie2Wookie2 Leeds, UKMember Posts: 218
    The Winter Village sets (Bakery, Post Office, Cottage, Market) would be tempting for me personally if re-released as I never had the opportunity to buy them when they were initially brought out. I already own the Santa's Workshop, Toy Shop, & plan to buy the Winter Train set later this month/next month so they would be a welcome addition to my collection. Their release also usually coincides with the Christmas promo offers and double VIP points which makes them much more appealing. As with any re-release however they would ultimately have a much more limited audience than the first releases did as it wouldn't be a totally new creation/set so many will already own them in one form or another. 
  • madforLEGOmadforLEGO Chicagoland USMember Posts: 10,230
    edited October 2016
    @TigerMoth: seeing you bring guns into this discussion, and then having me have to  explain how guns are not toys, and how selling an item at a store vs trying to haggle at a swap meet (or even a car dealership) are two different things, and how someone having the option to buy a set at 500, vs buying a set and 250 vs buying a set for 50 that people will all go to the 250 LEGO set, tells me you are willing to go to extreme lengths to try to show your point of view, but IMO it just makes your response look a bit ridiculous.


  • madforLEGOmadforLEGO Chicagoland USMember Posts: 10,230
    @TigerMoth: seeing you bring guns into this discussion, and then having me have to  explain how guns are not toys, and how selling an item at a store vs trying to haggle at a swap meet (or even a car dealership) are two different things, and how someone having the option to buy a set at 500, vs buying a set and 250 vs buying a set for 50 that people will all go to the 250 LEGO set, tells me you are willing to go to extreme lengths to try to show your point of view, but IMO it just makes your response look a bit ridiculous.


    Quoting my own post as it is too late to edit it.
    I know you did not say 'all people' would buy the LEGO produced set, so I want to correct that comment. But I think most average people are going to look on eBay and see the cheaper set and not necessarily care it is a knockoff, as I'm guessing that is how many of the knockoff superhero figures are sold. The problem with that is the buyer then complains that 'LEGO' has poor quality, or whatever, even though LEGO does not make the set or figure. As for stores and haggling, most stores are not going to haggle on a price unless you are speaking about price matching, which I am not. I'm talking about going up to a counter with a brand new perfect in box item and saying I do not want to pay this amount (without any kind of price matching, etc). Most retail stores are not going to do this, at least not in the US.
  • TigerMothTigerMoth Member Posts: 2,343
    you are willing to go to extreme lengths to try to show your point of view, but IMO it just makes your response look a bit ridiculous.


    Why is it that everything seems to be hogwash and ridiculous to you? You patently don't understand other people's views and come back with misinterpretations like "sticking it to resellers". Trying to explain it all in a different way is then also wrong. They're not extreme lengths, just examples, all of which you ignore because they don't precisely match the circumstances in question.
    But I think most average people are going to look on eBay and see the cheaper set and not necessarily care it is a knockoff, as I'm guessing that is how many of the knockoff superhero figures are sold.
    Now you're talking about two different things. Somebody who wants a new set won't be looking on eBay - or rather, one of the many Asian equivalents; they'll be looking in shops. They'll only resort to "eBay" when they can't find what they want at a price that suits them. If they see a set from LEPIN and the equivalent LEGO re-release in shops, they'll have a choice, and make their own judgement as to which to buy. Some will be familiar with LEGO as a brand and make that choice; some will go for LEPIN because it's cheaper. Without the re-release, they're more likely to just buy the LEPIN version, who then have another customer - LEPIN's position is bolstered by the lack of that re-release.
    Most retail stores are not going to do this, at least not in the US.
    We're not talking about the US. The poster you originally replied to about pricing is in Germany; I'm talking about LEPIN's status in a whole series of Far Eastern markets. Every country is different and, frequently, so are different areas within a single country.
  • 12651265 The Great State of TexasMember Posts: 1,031
    An original is better than re-release.  Why the fuss. 
  • AustinPowersAustinPowers GermanyMember Posts: 278
    edited October 2016
    When it comes to the WV Toy Shop, there are quite a few who argue that the re-release is better than the original in some aspects ;-)
    SumoLegoCircleK
  • AustinPowersAustinPowers GermanyMember Posts: 278
    edited October 2016
    Briking said:
    ^^ What a sense of entitlement!  As Lego won't do what you want, it is perfectly fine for you to buy knock-offs.  As this is a Lego forum, perhaps you're in the wrong place?
    You really have a way of twisting my words to suit your needs. No, it is not perfectly fine, I never said that. Had Lepin not come along and released their Haunted House clone, I would never have gotten that set. I had already accepted the fact that I had had bad luck when it came to that specific set because I missed it the first time around.
    But then Lepin did in fact offer that set, and I thought, what a stroke of luck. But you know what: if Lego ever decides to rerelease the Haunted House in the future after all, I will get that one and immediately get rid of the Lepin version without hesitation.
    Oh and for everyone who thinks people like me who buy Lepin clones of EOL'd Lego sets would look for some justification for their actions: we don't need to justify ourselves at all! We have decided to buy sets from Lepin, for whatever reason. And at least I still buy as much Lego as I did before I bought those Lepin sets, so I neither feel guilty or bad or whatever. I would indeed have preferred to buy the sets I bought from Lepin from Lego originally (or as a possible rerelease), but I don't feel any sense of entitlement to them. I just took an opportunity when it came along. Peace!
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 14,364
    Usually with updated building techniques, etc. a re-release or newer version of a familiar set is normally better.

    Build-wise, but necessarily in set value or nostalgia.  The first release of the X-Wing is nowhere near the sophistication of the most recent.  There is no comparison between the various iterations of the Millenium Falcon.
  • nhyonenhyone Member Posts: 145
    edited October 2016
    Also, knock it off with the 'greedy reseller' stuff. I'll let you in on a little secret (actually not so little or secret): There are no 'greedy resellers'. The item sells by law of supply and demand, not by what a reseller charges.. A reseller can ask for 10K for UCS falcon, and likely will be sitting on it for a while. So, by your reasoning of greedy resellers, where does that end exactly? Do you go into toy stores and tell the store that the price for that LEGO Town Square should be a quarter of what the RRP is?
    The supply-and-demand graph is the same one that shows that in general, the fewer available units, the higher price they can be sold at.

    Resellers have a finite supply (mostly :-D). Suppose a reseller has 10 sets, he needs to get the best price for them. He doesn't care about the 11th buyer. Thus, he will price as high as he possibly can for them -- perhaps waiting for the market to reach that level. This is unlike a regular business where volume can make up for minute profit.
  • datsunrobbiedatsunrobbie West Haven , CTMember Posts: 1,711
    @TigerMoth: seeing you bring guns into this discussion, and then having me have to  explain how guns are not toys, and how selling an item at a store vs trying to haggle at a swap meet (or even a car dealership) are two different things, and how someone having the option to buy a set at 500, vs buying a set and 250 vs buying a set for 50 that people will all go to the 250 LEGO set, tells me you are willing to go to extreme lengths to try to show your point of view, but IMO it just makes your response look a bit ridiculous.


    Quoting my own post as it is too late to edit it.
    I know you did not say 'all people' would buy the LEGO produced set, so I want to correct that comment. But I think most average people are going to look on eBay and see the cheaper set and not necessarily care it is a knockoff, as I'm guessing that is how many of the knockoff superhero figures are sold. The problem with that is the buyer then complains that 'LEGO' has poor quality, or whatever, even though LEGO does not make the set or figure. As for stores and haggling, most stores are not going to haggle on a price unless you are speaking about price matching, which I am not. I'm talking about going up to a counter with a brand new perfect in box item and saying I do not want to pay this amount (without any kind of price matching, etc). Most retail stores are not going to do this, at least not in the US.
    Most retail stores in the US are engaging in haggling over price of LEGO, they are simply not as direct about it as in the secondary market. There are some buyers who will buy sets at full retail, or even a bit above MSRP, when a set is released. Many retailers run sales to allow customers to buy sets below MSRP, or offer promotions like loyalty points that can be used on future purchases. This is haggling, just on a larger scale than most of of think of it. With the level of data tracking going on in retail, the retailers know how many people buy a set at each promotion - and often know exactly who these people are. Target does not know how many times I looked at #60134, but they know I bought it when they offered at 20% off. They know how many times people look at a set on their website, and what the price is each time they sell the set, including what promotions were used. 

    Price-matching is a store's way of letting their competitors do the haggling for them, with the advantage for the retailer that a customer has to track down the lower price at another retailer in order to cash in. People are less likely to use a price match than they are to take advantage of a sale in the same store. For example, Toys 'r Us ran a promo on CMFs for $2.50 each while Series 15 was in stores. I bought a bunch there, and price-matched several at Target. I'd wager a lot of people who bought them at Target were unaware  Toys 'r Us promo and paid full price at Target. Target tracks the data on every sale, so they know how many people price-matched and how many paid full price, and can use that information to decide whether or not to haggle by running their own promotions.

  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,444
    SumoLego said:
    Usually with updated building techniques, etc. a re-release or newer version of a familiar set is normally better.

    Build-wise, but necessarily in set value or nostalgia.  The first release of the X-Wing is nowhere near the sophistication of the most recent.  There is no comparison between the various iterations of the Millenium Falcon.
    I don't think that you can use the X-wing as an example because the newer Red Five X-wing is a "rehash" not a "re-release".  
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,927
    Pitfall69 said:
    I honestly don't know why Lego doesn't release a redesigned Haunted House. They released a Scooby Doo castle that looks very similar to the Monster Fighters Vampyre Castle. 
    I wouldn't be surprised to see a new set like the Haunted House in the future, to be honest, whether it's a slight redesign of the original like the Winter Toy Shop and Death Star redesigns, or a totally new haunted house design. Haunted houses seem like a pretty enduring concept.

    Of course, I don't know what the ideal conditions for such a set might be. The original Haunted House set tied in with a current theme (Monster Fighters), so it could be that the best chances of seeing another haunted house would be the next time there's a "spooky" theme like that. Even so, I think the ideal conditions for revisiting a concept are a lot less constraining than the ideal conditions for an actual re-release.
    catwranglerdougtsPitfall69Bumblepantsstlux
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 19,929
    @TigerMoth: seeing you bring guns into this discussion, and then having me have to  explain how guns are not toys, and how selling an item at a store vs trying to haggle at a swap meet (or even a car dealership) are two different things, and how someone having the option to buy a set at 500, vs buying a set and 250 vs buying a set for 50 that people will all go to the 250 LEGO set, tells me you are willing to go to extreme lengths to try to show your point of view, but IMO it just makes your response look a bit ridiculous.


    Quoting my own post as it is too late to edit it.
    I know you did not say 'all people' would buy the LEGO produced set, so I want to correct that comment. But I think most average people are going to look on eBay and see the cheaper set and not necessarily care it is a knockoff, as I'm guessing that is how many of the knockoff superhero figures are sold. The problem with that is the buyer then complains that 'LEGO' has poor quality, or whatever, even though LEGO does not make the set or figure. As for stores and haggling, most stores are not going to haggle on a price unless you are speaking about price matching, which I am not. I'm talking about going up to a counter with a brand new perfect in box item and saying I do not want to pay this amount (without any kind of price matching, etc). Most retail stores are not going to do this, at least not in the US.
    Most retail stores in the US are engaging in haggling over price of LEGO, they are simply not as direct about it as in the secondary market. There are some buyers who will buy sets at full retail, or even a bit above MSRP, when a set is released. Many retailers run sales to allow customers to buy sets below MSRP, or offer promotions like loyalty points that can be used on future purchases. This is haggling, just on a larger scale than most of of think of it. With the level of data tracking going on in retail, the retailers know how many people buy a set at each promotion - and often know exactly who these people are. Target does not know how many times I looked at #60134, but they know I bought it when they offered at 20% off. They know how many times people look at a set on their website, and what the price is each time they sell the set, including what promotions were used. 

    Price-matching is a store's way of letting their competitors do the haggling for them, with the advantage for the retailer that a customer has to track down the lower price at another retailer in order to cash in. People are less likely to use a price match than they are to take advantage of a sale in the same store. For example, Toys 'r Us ran a promo on CMFs for $2.50 each while Series 15 was in stores. I bought a bunch there, and price-matched several at Target. I'd wager a lot of people who bought them at Target were unaware  Toys 'r Us promo and paid full price at Target. Target tracks the data on every sale, so they know how many people price-matched and how many paid full price, and can use that information to decide whether or not to haggle by running their own promotions.

    And I don't think I've ever spent £50+ in a Lego store and not left with a freebie, whether there was a promo on or not. If you umm and err a bit, it is amazing what they might find under the desk.
    starwars4ever
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,444
    CCC said:

    And I don't think I've ever spent £50+ in a Lego store and not left with a freebie, whether there was a promo on or not. If you umm and err a bit, it is amazing what they might find under the desk.

    pa.jpg 44.3K
    adiemcTheOriginalSimonBJudgeChuckSumoLegoGothamConstructionCopharmjodToc13
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 19,929
    I've never had that in a Lego store. :-)
    Pitfall69JudgeChuckBrikingGothamConstructionCopharmjod
  • MattDawsonMattDawson Solihull, UKMember Posts: 1,308
    I personally think re-releases fall into three categories: 
    A. Popularility 
    B. Nostalgia
    C. Restrictions

    Star Wars has had re-releases of almost every set they've done one way or another, and there aren't many complaints made about that - the only exception has been the Death Star which had fallen $50 behind the current value of the set and a $50 increase was seen as a $100 rise for a set with little difference to the original.

    The 'Legends' range, whilst not exactly a financial success for Lego (so I've read), it enabled people to buy some older sets that they may have missed out on. It looks to have never been repeated, nor will be likely to be repeated. (Metroliner 30th anniversary release for 2021? I can but dream...)

    As for restrictions, we were told that the re-release of the Winter Toy Shop was only way we'd get a Winter Village set due to production/designer time restrictions. 

    IMHO, maybe Lego should offer a 'poll' of sets (say more than 3 years old) they'd consider to be able to update & re-release and the highest 3 or so would get re-releases?
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 19,929

    IMHO, maybe Lego should offer a 'poll' of sets (say more than 3 years old) they'd consider to be able to update & re-release and the highest 3 or so would get re-releases?
    In my opinion, they should never base any re-releases on what fans vote for. Polls are too easily skewed by big fan bases now (as seen on ideas), and if it is not what lego wants then they just ignore the votes anyway.

    Remember this?

    http://bricksetforum.com/discussion/1153/vip-minifig-set

    "Fans" voting for their favourite figures, and eventually they all came from the last series available and lots of fan favourites from S1 and S2 were missing.


    Pitfall69catwranglerRedbullgivesuwind
  • blogzillyblogzilly Columbus, OhioMember Posts: 598
    blogzilly said:
    But i gave your post from yesterday some thought about prejudging the quality...and I was pondering it enough that I bought a Lepin set so that I can have a personal first hand experience with it. Will it actually get here? I don't know. But I will at least be able to see it for myself and settle it in my own mind.
    Wow, given some of your previous posts regarding the subject matter, I am truly amazed by this turn of events.
    Good luck with your Lepin set. May I ask which one you bought?
    Thanks, I was trying to have an open mind and hope to always be willing to admit if I'm making incorrect assumptions or on the wrong path. Sorry for the late reply I've been a bit preoccupied with some family issues this month (my son is severely disabled and for reasons unknown to me Fall is especially difficult for him). To answer your question I got Green Grocer and built it and have some thoughts about it, not sure where to share them and the photos. Had to use about 40+ LEGO pieces to finish the set either due to omission or defect. 

    Since I only got back into LEGO around 20 months ago, here is an interesting tidbit. I had never built a modular. A few Expert sets, one UCS, and probably 130-150 of the 400+ sets I've bought in that time. My experiences are therefore a bit odd, at least to me, so I want to do a more complete "review" after I build the earliest modular I have from LEGO, which would be I think Grand Emporium? I plan to do that after we get settled after we move (mid November). 

    Though I did have some issues with the GG set from Lepin, and I gave it a 60% of LEGO grade (based on factors like clutch power issues, missing parts, cleanliness of parts, broken parts, manual printing, etc.) I will say that the pieces that were good were pretty good. But the lack of consistency in a product that relies on engineering precision is something that has to be addressed. But to me 60% isn't a terrible grade for what it is...I'm grading it hard but it still passes. And it could have gone higher had it not been missing so many parts. I believe that to NOT be a standard for the product. Based on my experience with receiving packages like this back when I was working in the industry and how the product was sent to me I think this was a factory direct shipment, but I am guessing that there are multiple factories doing it and all shipments are going to look different. Guessing. The only way to know that is if community compares arrival photography. 

    Honestly though, since I do not own Fire Brigade, Cafe Corner or Town Hall (or Market Street) the product was good enough to start making me question whether I want to spend secondary market money on sets I would be augmenting ANYWAY, with interiors etc, as I build a setup with more permanence. Definitely something to think about. 
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,444
    ^I think that is all fine if you are just going to build the sets anyway. Although, I still have a problem with Lepin copying the Lego Minifigure because it is a violation of their trademark. I wouldn't have that much of an issue if Lepin didn't include Minifigures. The Minifigures are easy enough to source and many people are replacing Lepin's baseplate with a Lego one.
  • Jern92Jern92 MalaysiaMember Posts: 862
    blogzilly said:

    Though I did have some issues with the GG set from Lepin, and I gave it a 60% of LEGO grade (based on factors like clutch power issues, missing parts, cleanliness of parts, broken parts, manual printing, etc.) I will say that the pieces that were good were pretty good. But the lack of consistency in a product that relies on engineering precision is something that has to be addressed. But to me 60% isn't a terrible grade for what it is...I'm grading it hard but it still passes. And it could have gone higher had it not been missing so many parts. I believe that to NOT be a standard for the product. Based on my experience with receiving packages like this back when I was working in the industry and how the product was sent to me I think this was a factory direct shipment, but I am guessing that there are multiple factories doing it and all shipments are going to look different. Guessing. The only way to know that is if community compares arrival photography. 
    I've also recently finished my Lepin Green Grocer, and I would agree with your assessment of it. Though I only had a 1x2 dark bluish grey plate missing, which was easily replaced with one from my Lego stash. No broken parts for me, but some of the parts were loose (window grilles and flower petals, I'm looking at you!) Overall, it was a good experience, and I'm contemplating getting Cafe Corner, since I'm still missing that and Market Street from my LEGO modular buildings collection. 
  • Jern92Jern92 MalaysiaMember Posts: 862
    Pitfall69 said:
    ^I think that is all fine if you are just going to build the sets anyway. Although, I still have a problem with Lepin copying the Lego Minifigure because it is a violation of their trademark. I wouldn't have that much of an issue if Lepin didn't include Minifigures. The Minifigures are easy enough to source and many people are replacing Lepin's baseplate with a Lego one.
    Not disregarding the issue, but I doubt anyone buys Lepin for the minifigs; those creatures are hideous and slightly creepy with the overly thick facial lines. I ditched mine alongside the baseplate and replaced them with LEGO ones. Even if Lepin didn't sell minifigs with their sets, I doubt anyone would really mind. 
  • blogzillyblogzilly Columbus, OhioMember Posts: 598
    Agreed on the minifigs being poor. Forgot to mention that. Brain has been scattered lately. I had loose flowers, shutters, hinges, etc. as well. My clear panels were mostly scratched and murky. 

    Based on some other reviews Ive been seeing I may have received a lower than average collection of parts.
  • BobflipBobflip Member Posts: 637
    My Millennium Falcon arrived last week, in a massive box of parts. Bought from an eBay seller that was based in UK rather than from AliExpress because I was wary of customs seizing it. Turns out it was shipped from China anyway, and though I paid extra on eBay, thankfully no customs fees were levied. I can't wait to build it, but I totally have to, because I have higher-priority tasks that need completing first!
Sign In or Register to comment.

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.