TLG canceled my P&B order and future orders placed through S@H

[GregoryBrick]

I don't see why [bNP would be intended for replacement bricks] when you could get replacement bricks for free.

Whether BNP is actually intended for this or not, it's not an unreasonable interpretation. If a new set is missing an element or if an element is faulty, then TLG would replace it for free. If you lost some bricks down the drain or when moving, then BNP would give you the option to buy those (I wouldn't expect TLG to foot the bill for that). In neither case would someone need to buy a dozen of Rare Element X, so a system could flag such attempts.

[Boettner Builds]

I have used the broken option quite a few times for scratched or really badly printed pieces. I just wish that they would pack some sets a little better. I can understand the posters grief, but if that happened to me I would call and talk to a human.

[MAB]

Are you guys completely sure that Bricks and Pieces in the same way you would Pick a Brick?, because these are the options under BnP:

Missing Bricks - Tell us if there is something missing from your new set

Broken Bricks - Let us know if a brick has broken

Buy Bricks - Buy replacement bricks here

Replacement being the keyword, which makes it sound they don't want have people buying any brick, in any quantity, unless you already had it and maybe lost/damaged it. If LEGO is changing the primary purpose of BnP, this may be why people are being flagged more frequently lately, especially if they see you've made multiple Missing Brick claims. It doesn't sound like a money issue to them, unless they suspect the buyer reselling the bricks for profit.

37 orders over the past year totalling about £3K says not.

They have a limit of 200 on all parts. They know exactly how many are in the set, since they restrict you to that number if you want replacements for free. They would use the same system (just paid for) if this was only for replacing lost parts, restricting it to the number per set. They don't do this though, they allow you to buy 200. I regularly buy 200 of a single part. Sometimes multiple orders in a day ordering 200 in each order. So long as you are not buying 200 licensed torsos, they don't seem to care.

[Markalus]

As others have mentioned I think the key words you used are "unique" and licenced pieces. Everyone knows Sabine's helmet is highly desirable as it wasn't included in Ezra's speeder bike, the more affordable set she has appeared in. If you are trying to order licensed pieces in quantity it would red-flag you as a reseller. For MOCs large quantities of relatively uncommon pieces are often required. Like rollermonkey, I've found contacting TLG first and telling them what you require the parts for then they are actually very supportive as MOCs are at the heart of TLG's ethos. It sucks that you got blanket banned though, you should get a warning before it come to that!

[anothergol]

If you are trying to order licensed pieces in quantity it would red-flag you as a reseller.

Just wondering, why would Lego have a problem with resellers being ready to buy 100x 1.5eur torsos that cost 2 cents to produce? I know I'd unroll the red carpet for them.

(& why wouldn't Lego place a limit on such parts? It's pretty easy to do)

As a consummer, I find it a good thing that someone managed to buy 300 of the same rare part, so that it lowers the BrickLink prices a little.

Proper resellers sell boxes, to kids, it's not their market to sell parts, I can't imagine this being a problem for them.

I find this situation a bit weird, either this section of Bricks&Pieces is there to sell parts, just like PaB, OR it's only there to help those who have lost parts of their old sets. But everyone seems to say that "it's a LITTLE there to sell, and shouldn't be abused". And I agree that how Bricks&Pieces is presented doesn't make it very clear.

Edited February 6, 2016 by anothergol

[MAB]

What do you mean by proper reseller? Walmart and Amazon?

[retrotaco]

What do you mean by proper reseller? Walmart and Amazon?

I imagine they're talking about people who sell old and retired sets on eBay and such at inflated rates, that's probably what they mean by 'proper'.

[Markalus]

As a consummer, I find it a good thing that someone managed to buy 300 of the same rare part, so that it lowers the BrickLink prices a little

Your logic is little off there. I think you will find people who have a large inventory of rare parts on bricklink sell them at highly inflated prices compared to market value, knowing that there will always be people who filter by quantity and are prepared to pay a premium because they require x number of the same part.

[Robianco]

I think he was meaning that the more parts there are out there then the better chance of that lowering the price... but of course that's down to competition.

The more SELLERS that have those parts means the price may drop although actually having some things out in the open like this when they haven't just been parted out from an expensive set can also bring the price down.

The tyres for the Tumbler is a good example of this. They were VERY expensive before they became available one B&P... then the price dropped considerably.

[anothergol]

Your logic is little off there. I think you will find people who have a large inventory of rare parts on bricklink sell them at highly inflated prices compared to market value, knowing that there will always be people who filter by quantity and are prepared to pay a premium because they require x number of the same part.

mmh no, some are trying to sell stuff at inflated prices, it doesn't mean anyone is buying it. Sure there are several BL sellers who stock stuff at 50x the price, they don't intend to sell anything right now, only if the part ever gets sold out everywhere else.

in any case, having a part available in more quantities just can't inflate prices, that would make no sense, in any economy system

Edited February 6, 2016 by anothergol

[Sven F]

I don't see how it's any concern of TLG how high the prices on bricklink are. The lego store online or in-store only wants to sell to end consumers. I seriously doubt the logistics of running b&p is a very profitable segment, if at all. TLG is protecting their loyal fans and customers, why would they wish to jeopardise that by allowing people to make quick profit on their backs.

[Markalus]

mmh no, some are trying to sell stuff at inflated prices, it doesn't mean anyone is buying it. Sure there are several BL sellers who stock stuff at 50x the price, they don't intend to sell anything right now, only if the part ever gets sold out everywhere else.

in any case, having a part available in more quantities just can't inflate prices, that would make no sense, in any economy system

If many people have the part available in quantity then of course competition keeps the price low. I'm aware of basic economics. My point was if one (as you indicated), or very few, have a particular part in larger quantities then it inflates the price. I think this is the situation in which TLG are concerned about; individuals exploiting the PaB system for greed. Let me give you an example. Orange plate half round 3 x 6 with 1 x 2 cutout. It's a piece that is commonly used for BB-8 droid MOCs but is quite rare in released sets. It was available pre-Christmas from PaB for ~$0.35-0.40 USD and bricklink prices reflected this. PaB shut down mid Dec until end of January, The Force Awakens was released and demand for the piece increased. Suddenly bricklink prices are ~$10+ USD per piece and some did actually sell. One clown is even selling it with the tagline " make the droid of your dreams" and has the exact number of pieces needed for BB-8. Now if that's not exploitation, I don't know what is. TLG are happy to support people who need large quantities of a certain piece for their MOCs and they do place (rather generous) limits on quantities, even for rare and/or licenced ones. But surely you can see why they would want to avoid situations like the one I just described above?

[rollermonkey]

Resellers and scalpers never see anything wrong with buying up all the inventory of something, then jacking the price up. Their brains aren't wired to understand how that could be considered an unfair practice. I don't even try to convince them any more. Same goes for the guys who call TLG for free 'replacement parts' from sets they never bought in the first place, then complain when they get cut off, blaming TLG, not their own malfeasance.

[MAB]

Resellers and scalpers never see anything wrong with buying up all the inventory of something, then jacking the price up. Their brains aren't wired to understand how that could be considered an unfair practice. I don't even try to convince them any more. Same goes for the guys who call TLG for free 'replacement parts' from sets they never bought in the first place, then complain when they get cut off, blaming TLG, not their own malfeasance.

The second is wrong. But why is the first? If everyone has the same chance to buy anything, and a company agrees to sell to ine person (whatever they do with it), then it has nothing to do with a second person that misses out. Whether it is BAP, exclusives or sales at Walmart. Is buying everything and selling it worse than buying everything and not selling it?

[x105Black]

I believe that the first exemplifies greed. I also feel that those who charge a ridiculous markup for pieces and sets are taking advantage of and exploiting their fellow man. I feel that this is demonstrative of a lack of compassion for others. I see all of these things as negative. I don't think that this is any better or worse than buying and not selling (hoarding?). Maybe a little better, since the sets and pieces are making it to an end user, but they are doing so in a way that extorts others.

Much of the blame could be placed on the companies, who fail to produce in a sufficient quantity.

Edited February 7, 2016 by x105Black

[anothergol]

My point was if one (as you indicated), or very few, have a particular part in larger quantities then it inflates the price.

That still makes no sense.

That only makes sense if someone buys all the parts -from the others-, and then becomes the only source available, then he does whatever he wants with the prices. But no, we're talking about someone adding 300 parts to BL, while the other sellers are still there. If the guy with 300 parts really wants to sell them, he's gonna make them cheaper than the other sellers (who will then have to adjust, etc).

Let me give you an example. Orange plate half round 3 x 6 with 1 x 2 cutout. It's a piece that is commonly used for BB-8 droid MOCs but is quite rare in released sets. It was available pre-Christmas from PaB for ~$0.35-0.40 USD and bricklink prices reflected this. PaB shut down mid Dec until end of January, The Force Awakens was released and demand for the piece increased. Suddenly bricklink prices are ~$10+ USD per piece and some did actually sell. One clown is even selling it with the tagline " make the droid of your dreams" and has the exact number of pieces needed for BB-8. Now if that's not exploitation, I don't know what is.

So if that guy hadn't owned large quantities of that orange plate, the others would have been cheaper? Why?

And remember that since (because BrickLink) the rarity of a part on the market equals the rarity of a part in Lego sets, the ultimate reason for a part's rarity is Lego. Thus if you have to blame someone for inflated prices, it's Lego who chose not to produce enough for the demand (maybe a low demand that they don't care for, that is, adults).

The best example are technic parts in sober colors. Lego produces them in dumb color to help kids. So who's responsible for a 2.5eur black pin/axle, while its blue counterpart is 2 cents? Lego, not sellers. IF sellers were offering those parts for 2 cents because they're generous, instead of having a few hundreds of those parts at 2.5eur on the market, there would be absolutely none left. Again, because Lego does not produce them anymore, and doesn't wanna aknowledge that blue pin/axles make things ugly.

Much of the blame could be placed on the companies, who fail to produce in a sufficient quantity.

I would say all of the blame. And let me explain why Lego actually likes those who sell an old SW set for 10x its original price:

Unlike other companies, it wouldn't be a problem at all for Lego to produce new boxes of the UCS Millenium Falcon. Afterall, it's only a matter of printing boxes, all of the parts are recent & are still produced. And they still own the license.

But imagine Lego really did that, a re-release of the UCS MF, without changing anything. That would piss off ALL collectors out there, and not just the owners of UCS MF who'd now see the value of their box plummet, but ALL collectors would now not trust Lego anymore and think that their stock might not keep its value anymore. Suddenly Lego wouldn't be the good investment it is now.

And this is what happens in the high-price collectible market, which I come from (I never sold anything but I own many statues that costed the price of the Ghostbusters HQ set). Many people collect & resell SideShow statues, and are pretty pissed off when SideShow produces more than what they originally claimed (as variants or whatever), because they don't care about the statue itself, only its value.

They're normally safer here because a resin mold wears off more quickly & those statues are produced in very limited quantities. But still, countless times I've seen statue collectors being pissed when they realize that what they bought wasn't as limited as they thought.

Edited February 7, 2016 by anothergol

[x105Black]

I would say all of the blame. And let me explain why Lego actually likes those who sell an old SW set for 10x its original price:

Unlike other companies, it wouldn't be a problem at all for Lego to produce new boxes of the UCS Millenium Falcon. Afterall, it's only a matter of printing boxes, all of the parts are recent & are still produced. And they still own the license.

But imagine Lego really did that, a re-release of the UCS MF, without changing anything. That would piss off ALL collectors out there, and not just the owners of UCS MF who'd now see the value of their box plummet, but ALL collectors would now not trust Lego anymore and think that their stock might not keep its value anymore. Suddenly Lego wouldn't be the good investment it is now.

There is a difference between collectors, traders, and investors. I have no problem with collectors, end users with large collections. I have no problem with most traders, who sell things at a reasonable market value.

It's the investors that irk me, often because they exemplify the greed in capitalism to an extreme, milking others for every cent to maximize their profits. But that's the way it is, and that will never change.

"Collectors" (actually investors) getting upset about the value of their sets dropping don't bother me. I feel that this is the nature of investing in any market. Some things increase value, while others fall, and they are always in motion. But I do understand that many irate investors suddenly deciding that LEGO is not a good investment can hurt the business that LEGO does.

I still think that LEGO and their end users are better off with small purchase limits in place, This helps to ensure that some investor isn't able to buy out the entire stock, leaving some available for the end users at retail.

[Markalus]

That still makes no sense.

That only makes sense if someone buys all the parts -from the others-, and then becomes the only source available, then he does whatever he wants with the prices. But no, we're talking about someone adding 300 parts to BL, while the other sellers are still there. If the guy with 300 parts really wants to sell them, he's gonna make them cheaper than the other sellers (who will then have to adjust, etc).

So if that guy hadn't owned large quantities of that orange plate, the others would have been cheaper? Why?

And remember that since (because BrickLink) the rarity of a part on the market equals the rarity of a part in Lego sets, the ultimate reason for a part's rarity is Lego. Thus if you have to blame someone for inflated prices, it's Lego who chose not to produce enough for the demand (maybe a low demand that they don't care for, that is, adults).

The best example are technic parts in sober colors. Lego produces them in dumb color to help kids. So who's responsible for a 2.5eur black pin/axle, while its blue counterpart is 2 cents? Lego, not sellers. IF sellers were offering those parts for 2 cents because they're generous, instead of having a few hundreds of those parts at 2.5eur on the market, there would be absolutely none left. Again, because Lego does not produce them anymore, and doesn't wanna aknowledge that blue pin/axles make things ugly.

I would say all of the blame. And let me explain why Lego actually likes those who sell an old SW set for 10x its original price:

Unlike other companies, it wouldn't be a problem at all for Lego to produce new boxes of the UCS Millenium Falcon. Afterall, it's only a matter of printing boxes, all of the parts are recent & are still produced. And they still own the license.

But imagine Lego really did that, a re-release of the UCS MF, without changing anything. That would piss off ALL collectors out there, and not just the owners of UCS MF who'd now see the value of their box plummet, but ALL collectors would now not trust Lego anymore and think that their stock might not keep its value anymore. Suddenly Lego wouldn't be the good investment it is now.

And this is what happens in the high-price collectible market, which I come from (I never sold anything but I own many statues that costed the price of the Ghostbusters HQ set). Many people collect & resell SideShow statues, and are pretty pissed off when SideShow produces more than what they originally claimed (as variants or whatever), because they don't care about the statue itself, only its value.

They're normally safer here because a resin mold wears off more quickly & those statues are produced in very limited quantities. But still, countless times I've seen statue collectors being pissed when they realize that what they bought wasn't as limited as they thought.

Yep. Enough said.

[Sven F]

Resellers and scalpers never see anything wrong with buying up all the inventory of something, then jacking the price up. Their brains aren't wired to understand how that could be considered an unfair practice. I don't even try to convince them any more. Same goes for the guys who call TLG for free 'replacement parts' from sets they never bought in the first place, then complain when they get cut off, blaming TLG, not their own malfeasance.

Exactly. Even though I don't blame resellers to the extent some people do, They only tend to see the numbers and simple logic. TLG involves a bit more than figures into the equation of business. For example like one of your Targets decided to limit CMF purchases because for such small items it works better if they can create as many happy customers instead of only 1 or a few that buy everything at once and leave everyone else dry.

How would a reseller explain the replacement parts service? It's perfectly legal for a company to put a disclaimer on the box and just ignore if anything breaks or is missing. It makes no money for TLG, so why do it by that logic?

Unhappy customers cost money too, all that customer service has to be paid and you risk loosing loyalty. I still think B&P works as more of a convenience service than anything that aims to turn a profit.

[wgemini]

There is a difference between collectors, traders, and investors. I have no problem with collectors, end users with large collections. I have no problem with most traders, who sell things at a reasonable market value.

It's the investors that irk me, often because they exemplify the greed in capitalism to an extreme, milking others for every cent to maximize their profits. But that's the way it is, and that will never change.

"Collectors" (actually investors) getting upset about the value of their sets dropping don't bother me. I feel that this is the nature of investing in any market. Some things increase value, while others fall, and they are always in motion. But I do understand that many irate investors suddenly deciding that LEGO is not a good investment can hurt the business that LEGO does.

I still think that LEGO and their end users are better off with small purchase limits in place, This helps to ensure that some investor isn't able to buy out the entire stock, leaving some available for the end users at retail.

But what's "reasonable market price"?

[anothergol]

Unhappy customers cost money too, all that customer service has to be paid and you risk loosing loyalty. I still think B&P works as more of a convenience service than anything that aims to turn a profit.

But it's simple to make everyone happy, the ones who buy 1000 parts like the ones who buy 2, Lego just has to produce more.

Of course there are 2 problems with that, one which I won't buy ("Lego can't produce enough", it's not something a company can claim for years), & the other being that those who buy 1000 parts to resell them, after they realize that there is still plenty for everyone, won't buy as much anymore.

[MAB]

There is a difference between collectors, traders, and investors. I have no problem with collectors, end users with large collections. I have no problem with most traders, who sell things at a reasonable market value.

It's the investors that irk me, often because they exemplify the greed in capitalism to an extreme, milking others for every cent to maximize their profits. But that's the way it is, and that will never change.

"Collectors" (actually investors) getting upset about the value of their sets dropping don't bother me. I feel that this is the nature of investing in any market. Some things increase value, while others fall, and they are always in motion. But I do understand that many irate investors suddenly deciding that LEGO is not a good investment can hurt the business that LEGO does.

I still think that LEGO and their end users are better off with small purchase limits in place, This helps to ensure that some investor isn't able to buy out the entire stock, leaving some available for the end users at retail.

I'm also interested how you define reasonable. If twice (for example) is reasonable, why is 3x greed? For me, reasonable is what a buyer will pay, as it is reasonable enough for both sides to lead to a sale/purchase.

[Sven F]

It might not be a matter of not being able to produce enough bricks as much as it's uneconomical to do so. Lego elements are produced in batches, after a batch quota is done, the molds are switched to make another element, this takes up time in which that machine is idle. Also when colors are switched, the first few injections are discarded untill the pipes clear. Planning ahead to produce 1000's of a piece and then having to do another batch that isn't needed for supplying a set anymore doesn't make much sense.

[x105Black]

I'm also interested how you define reasonable. If twice (for example) is reasonable, why is 3x greed? For me, reasonable is what a buyer will pay, as it is reasonable enough for both sides to lead to a sale/purchase.

Reasonable creates a profit to make the sale worthwhile to the seller without milking the buyer. Percentages don't work for everything. A 500% increase on a $0.25 part is much more reasonable than a 300% increase on a $200 set. It's relative.

I understand that if a buyer is willing to pay, it seems reasonable. That's the capitalist spirit. But at what point do you believe you're taking advantage of someone? A capitalist would say never, but that's just not true.

Anyways, this is bringing ethics into economics, and most capitalists would rather not combine the two. And we've veered way off track from the discussion.

[anothergol]

Reasonable creates a profit to make the sale worthwhile to the seller without milking the buyer. Percentages don't work for everything. A 500% increase on a $0.25 part is much more reasonable than a 300% increase on a $200 set. It's relative.

But again, take this part. It's a great example, because you'll find it for 1 cents (& this is why BL is also great, the prices have nothing to do with the manufacturing costs, only with rarity, so parts like this are very cheap).

But in black, prices start at 2eur (up to 10eur, haha). That's a 20000% increase. Yet, imagine that BL sellers were considering it no different because it's black, and it only costed a little more, like 5 cents (that would be reasonable). The result would be that if you really needed one of these in black today, you wouldn't find any anywhere, instead of being asked 2eur for it.

Personally, I'll never buy one of these for 2eur, because I don't wanna encourage prices like this, but I understand the reason, that it's not entirely a bad thing and that it's ultimately Lego that's guilty for not producing more of these, instead of another random Chima minifig accessory.

Edited February 8, 2016 by anothergol