But that's the whole joke of the article ? I don't think it is intended to be that serious. It is kind of those "weird"/rare crime that newspaper have fun reporting on
if they got extracted from unopened Lego sets (e.g. to "launder" stolen Lego sets through the 2nd hand part market) they didn't even need to "take them off" (at least in the past) they did ship as separate parts.
Dramatic beginning of the article. It's plastic figures designed so the head can come of, they talk about it like it's the most gruesome crime scene ever found.
I dunno, the original Lego movie had people's personalities permanently removed by using acetate to wipe off their faces. I don't see how headless Legos could be more disturbing than that...
When I was into LEGO a few years back, I noticed there were a lot of bulk items available in Eastern Europe. I always wondered if they were either counterfeits or just grey. I couldn’t distinguish them so I just assumed they were grey because these items were not available in bulk directly from LEGO via bricks and pieces. When LEGO bought bricklink I thought they were going after fake vendors.
Bricklink seems like a pretty lousy place to sell counterfeit Lego bricks. Sellers get reviewed by the buyers (and vice versa), and the buyers there are pretty much committed to genuine Lego bricks (and vocal of sellers not keeping up their end of the bargain). I doubt if there is much counterfeit stuff on there.
The economy for sellers lies more in picking up unopened new sets for bargain prices from local shops, both on and off-line, and reselling the individual bricks. New Lego sets just are cheaper in Eastern Europe. Part of this economy is that some bricks are much more sought after, which is reflected in the piece prices. This also means that more common pieces will be sold cheaper. It seems to balance out.
Personally, I rarely need to look beyond the Netherlands for bricks I buy for MOCs on Bricklink. Sometimes Germany or Belgium. The prices just are competitive.
not all eastern bulk vendors are fake/involved in some form a illegal action
there is some (small) money into taking Lego sets apart and selling the parts (1), but only if the sorting and for used sets taking apart, cleaning, damage/quality assessment are cheap enough. So countries with lower wages(2) are better suited. At the same parts people from less-wage countries have more motivation for "clever"/unusual business ventures weather legal or not.
(1): Naturally not for all sets, but every session there are some badly selling sets you might be able to buy both with large Rabatt and in bulk and have enough "good" parts to be worth it. "mini figure only" collectors and sometimes being able to buy for retail prices can help, too.
You can legally produce lego compatible bricks and many reputable companies like Cobi do so. There is nothing grey about it. Some of these companies offer better quality than Lego these days. Lego isn't the only game in town anymore.
It’s incredibly expensive to produce at LEGO’s tolerance levels. No manufacturer would do it unless you can sell it at such a high margin which, to my knowledge, is basically LEGO and certain high precision aeronautic parts makers.
I inherited a rare vintage LEGO advent calendar set, unopened and still in its plastic sleeve. I tried to 'cash in' on this find but there was a surprising lack of interest and we ended up keeping it in the family. Maybe I was just trying to sell at the wrong time of the year.
Regardless, this made me wonder about how strong the secondary marketplace for LEGO actually is. How much of it is people buying LEGO for their kids and how much is it adults buying for their inner nine year old selves?
Nonetheless, LEGO definitely is attractive to thieves when there are these secondary marketplaces. With stolen goods the goal is to get rid as quickly as possible to get cash as quickly as possible. With the price of LEGO being what it is, with $1000 sets, the thief only has to undercut legitimate retailers. For the likes of myself with a rare and collectable set to find a buyer for, I want the premium and I am not going to sell cheap, hence I might have been understandably disappointed by the secondary market for LEGO.
The secondary market for LEGO is pretty healthy, meaning the prices are kept relatively sane.
And unless you’re specifically collecting unopened sets, what you really have to pay for is rare pieces in rare colors, which LEGO actually monitors and releases again from time-to-time.
> Lego bought brick link to keep it alive after the founders family tired of running it after he died.
that makes a nice story but was not at all Legos core motivation
taking control over the main secondary market is a grate way to
- gain positive sentiment through things like the creator program
- bolster you product prices by making sure the prices of 2nd hand sells stay high (which is both good and bed for the consumer, it's good as part of it is about consumer protection and reseller quality, but it's bad because there is a lot of insensitive to drive prices up beyond that)
- systematically exclude all brick competition from the most dominant 2nd hand market, a typical consumer hostile marked power abuse move which by the removal of competition allows artificial higher part resell prices which then can be used to reason for higher prices of new products and also allows better enforcement of other abuse strategies, like how they systematically abuse trade mark law wrt. mini figures
- by subtle support for one particular 2nd hand store and supple opposition(1) to others they can further enhance their monopoly position. (1: Or for anything reselling non Lego brick often not at all subtle legal harassment)
- some degree of influence on information flowing through the market place, they can't abuse it that much but it's still a factor
so they have a lot of money reasons which sadly most likely won't be good for the consumer to buy it, any story about "saving it" (weather real or not) is a bonus on top which by itself is unlikely to have made them buy it.
Readit News
Dead Comment
The economy for sellers lies more in picking up unopened new sets for bargain prices from local shops, both on and off-line, and reselling the individual bricks. New Lego sets just are cheaper in Eastern Europe. Part of this economy is that some bricks are much more sought after, which is reflected in the piece prices. This also means that more common pieces will be sold cheaper. It seems to balance out.
Personally, I rarely need to look beyond the Netherlands for bricks I buy for MOCs on Bricklink. Sometimes Germany or Belgium. The prices just are competitive.
there is some (small) money into taking Lego sets apart and selling the parts (1), but only if the sorting and for used sets taking apart, cleaning, damage/quality assessment are cheap enough. So countries with lower wages(2) are better suited. At the same parts people from less-wage countries have more motivation for "clever"/unusual business ventures weather legal or not.
(1): Naturally not for all sets, but every session there are some badly selling sets you might be able to buy both with large Rabatt and in bulk and have enough "good" parts to be worth it. "mini figure only" collectors and sometimes being able to buy for retail prices can help, too.
(2): While especially Poland has been catching up Europe in general still has the lowest wages in Europe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_European_countries_by_...
That would have surprised me a lot ... and is also not supported by your link. Poland is rather average by now.
You can legally produce lego compatible bricks and many reputable companies like Cobi do so. There is nothing grey about it. Some of these companies offer better quality than Lego these days. Lego isn't the only game in town anymore.
Regardless, this made me wonder about how strong the secondary marketplace for LEGO actually is. How much of it is people buying LEGO for their kids and how much is it adults buying for their inner nine year old selves?
Nonetheless, LEGO definitely is attractive to thieves when there are these secondary marketplaces. With stolen goods the goal is to get rid as quickly as possible to get cash as quickly as possible. With the price of LEGO being what it is, with $1000 sets, the thief only has to undercut legitimate retailers. For the likes of myself with a rare and collectable set to find a buyer for, I want the premium and I am not going to sell cheap, hence I might have been understandably disappointed by the secondary market for LEGO.
And unless you’re specifically collecting unopened sets, what you really have to pay for is rare pieces in rare colors, which LEGO actually monitors and releases again from time-to-time.
Lego bought brick link to keep it alive after the founders family tired of running it after he died.
that makes a nice story but was not at all Legos core motivation
taking control over the main secondary market is a grate way to
- gain positive sentiment through things like the creator program
- bolster you product prices by making sure the prices of 2nd hand sells stay high (which is both good and bed for the consumer, it's good as part of it is about consumer protection and reseller quality, but it's bad because there is a lot of insensitive to drive prices up beyond that)
- systematically exclude all brick competition from the most dominant 2nd hand market, a typical consumer hostile marked power abuse move which by the removal of competition allows artificial higher part resell prices which then can be used to reason for higher prices of new products and also allows better enforcement of other abuse strategies, like how they systematically abuse trade mark law wrt. mini figures
- by subtle support for one particular 2nd hand store and supple opposition(1) to others they can further enhance their monopoly position. (1: Or for anything reselling non Lego brick often not at all subtle legal harassment)
- some degree of influence on information flowing through the market place, they can't abuse it that much but it's still a factor
so they have a lot of money reasons which sadly most likely won't be good for the consumer to buy it, any story about "saving it" (weather real or not) is a bonus on top which by itself is unlikely to have made them buy it.
The headline is so over the top that it's actually good again.
Deleted Comment