Jeff's Castle LEGO Listing

Jeffrey T. Crites

unread,

Aug 8, 1994, 2:33:32 PM8/8/94

to

Jeff's Castle LEGO Listing
==========================
Last Updated: 8 August, 1994
|>>> |>>>
| |>>> |>>> |
* | | *
/ \ * Castle LEGO * / \
/___\ _/ \ / \_ /___\
[ ] |/ \_________/ \| [ ]
[ I ] / \ / \ [ I ]
[ ]_ _ _ / \ / \ _ _ _[ ]
[ ] U U | {#########} {#########} | U U [ ]
[ ]====/ \=======/ \=======/ \====[ ]
[ ] | | I |_ _ _ _| I | | [ ]
[___] |_ _ _ _ _ _| | U U U | |_ _ _ _ _ _| [___]
\===/ I | U U U U U | |=======| | U U U U U | I \===/
\=/ |===========| I | + W + | I |===========| \=/
| I | | |_______| | | I |
| | | ||||||||| | | |
| | | I ||vvvvv|| I | | |
_-_-|______|-----------|_____|| ||_____|-----------|______|-_-_
/________\ /______|| ||______\ /________\
|__________|-------|________\_____/________|-------|__________|

Disclaimer: Jeff's Castle LEGO Listing is in no way connected with
LEGO Systems, Inc. or their parent company. Jeff's Castle LEGO
Listing makes no actual claims as to the specific number or value
of specific sets of Castle LEGO. The information contained within
my be altered to fit another Castle LEGO Collection.

This is how I keep track of my Castle LEGO Collection. Individuals
who copy this list are welcome to change the information to reflect their
own collections. If anyone has any extra information that might be handy
to add to this listing, please let me know. I do all I can to keep this
as current as possible and any added information is greatly appreciated.
Also, if you use this list and give a copy out, please let everyone know
where you got it from. It took considerable hours to compile this list...
Thank you and enjoy,

Jeffrey T. Crites
Discription of Columns:
__________________________________________________________________________
| (Item #) is the set number that LEGO has given to the product. (Year |
| Intro) is the first year that the set was released for sale in the U.S. |
| (Set Name) is the name of the set when it was first released by LEGO. |
| (OWN) is whether or not I own the set. (#) is how many of that particular|
| set I own. (Pieces) is how many pieces are in the set. (U.S.$ Suggest |
| Retail) is the suggested retail price in U.S. dollars given by LEGO when |
| the set first came out. (U.S.$ Price Paid) is the U.S. dollar price I |
| actually paid for the set. (U.S.$ Est. Worth) is the current estimated |
| worth of the set based on garage sales, internet auctions, talks with |
| friends, and discussions with LEGO Systems, Inc. |
|__________________________________________________________________________|

I. Actual Listing:
==============
______________________________________________________________________________
| | | |O| | |U.S.$ | U.S.$ | U.S.$ |
| Item | Year | |W| | |Suggest| Price | Est. |
| #: |Intro:| Set Name: |N|#|Pieces|Retail:| Paid: | Worth: |
|======|======|========================|=|=|======|=======|=========|========|
| 6075 | 1981 | Castle (375) |n| | 752 | | | |
| 6077 | 1981 | Knight's Procession |n| | 40 | 6.52 | | |
| 6083 | 1981 | Knights Tournament(399)|n| | 202 | 12.17 | | |
|------+------+------------------------+-+-+------+-------+---------+--------|
| 6022 | 1984 | Horse Cart |n| | 39 | | | |
| 6030 | 1984 | Catapult |n| | 80 | 6.52 | | |
| 6040 | 1984 | Blacksmith Shop |n| | 89 | 10.00 | | |
| 6061 | 1984 | Siege Tower |n| | 211 | | | |
| 6073 | 1984 | Knight's Castle |n| | 408 | | | |
|+6080 | 1984 | King's Castle |n| | 664 | 58.70 | | 120.00 |
|------+------+------------------------+-+-+------+-------+---------+--------|
| 6010 | 1985 | Supply Wagon |n| | 33 | | | |
| 6011 | 1985 | Black Knights Treasure |n| | 28 | | | |
| 6023 | 1985 | Damsel's Coach |n| | 42 | | | |
| 6055 | 1985 | Prisoner Convoy |n| | 112 | 13.04 | | |
|------+------+------------------------+-+-+------+-------+---------+--------|
| 6012 | 1986 | Siege Cart |n| | 51 | | | 100.00 |
| 6021 | 1986 | Jousting Knights |n| | 33 | | | |
| 6041 | 1986 | Armor Shop |n| | 109 | 9.00 | | |
| 6074 | 1986 | Black Falcon's Fortress|y|1| 437 | 35.00 | 150.00 | 150.00 |
| 6102 | 1986 | Castle Mini-Figures |n| | 30 | 6.00 | | |
|------+------+------------------------+-+-+------+-------+---------+--------|
| 6017 | 1987 | King's Oarsmen |n| | 42 | 2.99 | | |
| 6023 | 1987 | Maidens Cart |n| | 42 | 5.50 | | |
| 6035 | 1987 | Castle Guard |n| | 49 | 4.99 | | |
| 6049 | 1987 | Viking Voyager |n| | 94 | 8.99 | | |
|+6062 | 1987 | Battering Ram |n| | 233 | 16.49 | | 35.00 |
| 6066 | 1987 | Camouflaged Outpost |n| | 211 | 18.99 | | |
| 6067 | 1987 | Guarded Inn |n| | 246 | 22.00 | | 30.00 |
|------+------+------------------------+-+-+------+-------+---------+--------|
| 6016 | 1988 | Knight's Arsenal |n| | 36 | 6.00 | | |
|+6039 | 1988 | Twin Armed Launcher |n| | 73 | | | 22.00 |
| 6054 | 1988 | Forestmen's Hideout |n| | 198 | | | |
| 6085 | 1988 | Black Monarch's Castle |n| | 665 | | | |
| 6103 | 1988 | Castle Mini Figures |y|2| 32 | 6.75 | 6.75 | 8.00 |
|------+------+------------------------+-+-+------+-------+---------+--------|
| 1974 | 1989 | Smugglers Hayride(1974)|y|1| 40 | | 32.00 | 35.00 |
| 5059 | 1989 | Castle Epuipment |y|1| 32 | 2.75 | 2.75 | 5.00 |
| 6060 | 1989 | Knight's Challange |n| | 160 | 17.49 | | 21.00 |
|*6077 | 1989 | Forestmen's River Fortr|y|1| 348 | 27.99 | 37.50 | 40.00 |
|------+------+------------------------+-+-+------+-------+---------+--------|
|*1877 | 1990 | Crusader's Cart(vp1675)|y|1| 56 | 12.00 | 32.00 | 32.00 |
|*6018 | 1990 | Battle Dragon |y|1| 49 | 3.49 | 4.50 | 5.00 |
|*6034 | 1990 | Black Monarch's Ghost |y|1| 43 | 5.49 | 6.75 | 7.00 |
| 6042 | 1990 | Dungeon Hunters |y|1| 105 | 9.69 | 9.99 | 22.00 |
|*6059 | 1990 | Knight's Stronghold |y|3| 222 | 17.99 | 22.00 | 25.00 |
| 6071 | 1990 | Forestmen's Crossing |n| | 203 | 21.99 | | 30.00 |
|*6081 | 1990 | Kings Mountain Fortress|y|1| 429 | 44.99 | 58.00 | 60.00 |
|------+------+------------------------+-+-+------+-------+---------+--------|
| 1480 | 1991 | Kings Catapault(vp1476)|y|1| 20 | | 20.00 | 20.00 |
|------+------+------------------------+-+-+------|-------+---------+--------|
| 1463 | 1992 | Treasure Cart |y|2| 21 | 2.19 | 2.35 | 3.00 |
| 1491 | 1992 | Dual Defender |y|2| 45 | 3.50 | 3.25 | 4.00 |
|*1888 | 1992 | B/K Guardshack (vp1891)|y|3| 25 | | 10.00 | 10.00 |
|*6009 | 1992 | Black Knight |y|1| 19 | 2.59 | 2.78 | 4.00 |
|*6038 | 1992 | Wolfpack Renegades |y|1| 93 | 7.79 | 8.38 | 10.00 |
|*6057 | 1992 | Sea Serpent |y|2| 117 | 13.99 | 14.99 | 20.00 |
|*6075 | 1992 | Wolfpack Tower |y|1| 232 | 24.99 | 28.50 | 30.00 |
|*6086 | 1992 | Black Knight's Castle |y|1| 569 | 72.99 | 69.99 | 85.00 |
|------+------+------------------------+-+-+------|-------+---------+--------|
|*1547 | 1993 | B/Knights Boat (vp1597)|y|3| 55 | 2.86 | 2.86 | 3.00 |
|*1590 | 1993 | Ghostly Hideout(vp1597)|y|3| 34 | 2.86 | 2.86 | 3.00 |
|*1624 | 1993 | Kings Archer (vp1597)|y|3| 21 | 2.86 | 2.86 | 3.00 |
| 1712 | 1993 | (Crossbow Cart) |y|2| 22 | | 2.27 | 5.00 |
|*1971 | 1993 | BlackKnights Ram(v1967)|y|2| 25 | | 10.00 | 10.00 |
|*6048 | 1993 | Majestos Magic Workshop|y|1| 183 | 22.99 | 24.99 | 30.00 |
|*6056 | 1993 | Dragon Wagon |y|1| 103 | 17.99 | 18.99 | 20.00 |
|*6076 | 1993 | Dark Dragons Den |y|1| 211 | 37.99 | 39.50 | 40.00 |
|*6082 | 1993 | Fire Breathing Fortress|y|1| 398 | 57.99 | 47.99 | 65.00 |
|------+------+------------------------+-+-+------+-------+---------+--------|
|*1794 | 1994 | D/MasterChariot(vp1723)|y|1| 34 | 3.45 | 2.79 | 3.00 |
|*1906 | 1994 | Majisto's Tower |y|1| 190 | 19.99 | 22.00 | 25.00 |
|*1917 | 1994 | Castle Catapult(vp9205)|y|1| 22 | 1.50 | 1.50 | 2.00 |
|*5138 | 1994 | CastleEquipment(vp9205)|y|1| 34 | 1.50 | 1.50 | 2.00 |
| 5184 | 1994 | Castle Equipment |y|1| 30 | 3.25 | gift | 5.00 |
|*6020 | 1994 | Magic Shop |y|1| 45 | 4.19 | 3.19 | 4.00 |
|*6043 | 1994 | Dragon Defender |y|1| 151 | 11.99 | gift | 15.00 |
|*6105 | 1994 | Medieval Knights |y|2| 32 | 6.39 | 5.19 | 7.00 |
|------+------+------------------------+-+-+------+-------+---------+--------|
"*" In front of the Item # indicates that the set is still available as of
the date the listing was last updated from the LEGO Shop at Home Service (USA).
"+" These items may be in or are in an auction over the Internet at this
time. Contact Todd Lehman (leh...@geom.umn.edu) for more information.

II. Collection Figures:
==================
____________________________________________________________________________
| |
| Total Number of Pieces in my Castle LEGO Collection....... = 5,532 pieces |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Total Amount Spent on my Castle LEGO Collection........... = $ 836.93 (US)|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Total Amount Spent Per Piece on my Castle LEGO Colletion.. = $ .1513 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Total Estimated Current Value of my Castle LEGO Collection = $ 962.00 (US)|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Total Estimated Profit on my Castle LEGO Collection....... = $ 125.07 (US)|
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Percent Change in Value/Spent on my Castle LEGO Collection = 14.94 % |
|____________________________________________________________________________|

III. Sources of Information:
======================

For a list of places to look for more information about Castle LEGO
see the LEGO Newsgroup FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions):

e-mail t...@fokus.gmd.de & include in the subject line:
>> Subject: send lego faq-G
-or-
anonymous FTP site rtfm.mit.edu and grab the LEGO_freguently_asked_
questions file in the /pub/usenet/alt.toys.lego directory.

IV. Castle LEGO Talk:
================

For this Castle LEGO information, facts and other interesting stuff
about Castle LEGO just e-mail me and I'll send you a copy of the file.
This file is were all the great information about Castle LEGO is kept
so that others can read it. It will be updated as more information
becomes available. I basically grab this information from the following
sources: internet, LEGO Consumer Affairs, individual conversations, etc.

V. Margo's Castle Piece List: {Info. from: Margo Kubiak;mm...@ihpubj.att.com}
=========================

For a piece listing of a specific set you may e-mail Margo Kubiak
at: mm...@ihpubj.att.com She has almost all the sets documented
at this time. Soon these piece listings of Castle sets will be offered
via the internet in the same place the LEGO Newsgroup FAQ can be found.

VI. My Current Projects List:
========================

1. Obtain all Castle LEGO Sets since their inception into the U.S.
This is an on-going task, not expected to be accomplished in the
near future.

2. Maintain accurate and detailed records of my Castle LEGO collection.
This is done and updated constantly via "Jeff's Castle LEGO Listing."

3. Create and Build a very large, interactive, automated, & computer
controlled Castle within my Castle LEGO collection. This will be
accomplished by utilizing a 486 Computer, and the following sets
from LEGO DACTA, in conjunction with various normal castle building
techniques: Set #9609 (Technology Resource Set), Set #977 (Control
System Starter Pack), and numerous EXTRA PARTS from LEGO DACTA.
This is a current project and expected to be completed reasonably
soon. Even though the castle created may be added on to there after.

4. Construct a Building where people may come and enjoy my, and others,
Castle LEGO collections. Not only would they be able to see the
collections, but they would be able to interact with them via computer
and various other control medians. Visitors could also construct
their own models, watch videos about Castle LEGO, compete in Castle
LEGO games, etc. This project is definitely in the future.

* If you have any deletions, additions, or changes to make to this list
please e-mail me at the below address. I could use some more input if any-
one has something. Also, if you use this list and give copies out, please
let everyone know where you got it from. It took considerable hours to
compile this list. This list is also on the LEGO WWW.

__<>__ Jeffrey T. Crites __<>__
(______) cri...@cc.purdue.edu (______)
| |_______________________________________________________________| |
| // | | // |
| | "Too low they build, who build beneath the stars." | |
| // | Edward Young / Night Thoughts | // |
| | "Particularly they who do not build with LEGO." | |
| // | Jeff Crites / Synopsis of Oneself | // |
| |_______________________________________________________________| |
|____| |____|
(__ __) (__ __)
<> <>

Todd Lehman

unread,

Aug 10, 1994, 2:59:47 AM8/10/94

to

In article <crites.7...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>,
Jeffrey T. Crites <cri...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> writes:
>
> [...] (U.S.$ Est. Worth) is the current estimated |

>| worth of the set based on garage sales, internet auctions, talks with |
>| friends, and discussions with LEGO Systems, Inc. |

In other words, it is completely unscientific, unreliable, haphazzard, and --
worst of all -- subjective.

It would be far better for everyone if you posted what you are willing to pay
rather than what you feel the sets are "worth."

It would also be far less harmful to the other Castle collectors out there
if you didn't keep quoting these crazy high prices which might prevent someone
from actually getting a decent deal.

>| | | |O| | |U.S.$ | U.S.$ | U.S.$ |
>| Item | Year | |W| | |Suggest| Price | Est. |
>| #: |Intro:| Set Name: |N|#|Pieces|Retail:| Paid: | Worth: |
>|======|======|========================|=|=|======|=======|=========|========|

>|+6080 | 1984 | King's Castle |n| | 664 | 58.70 | | 120.00 |

>|+6062 | 1987 | Battering Ram |n| | 233 | 16.49 | | 35.00 |

>|+6039 | 1988 | Twin Armed Launcher |n| | 73 | | | 22.00 |

Jeff, as I pointed out in a private e-mail the other day, these prices are
likely to confuse people. These three sets I'm auctioning are without box,
without original instructions, and even missing a few pieces. The estimated
worth column here is nonsense without a condition rating.

Why don't you eliminate the "estimated worth" column and put down what YOU
personally would pay for a pristine set in a never-opened pristine box?

>| 6074 | 1986 | Black Falcon's Fortress|y|1| 437 | 35.00 | 150.00 | 150.00 |

How do you know this is not worth more than $150? The reason this one didn't
go higher than $150 in the April auction was because you contacted the last
remaining bidder and convinced her that there was no point in her bidding any
higher since you were going to end up out-bidding anyone anyway. Had she been
stubborn enough, you may have found yourself offering $175 or more for it.

Why don't you value it at $200 so you can say you got a $50 break? See what
I'm getting at? The value of THAT set -- the one I sold you -- was MORE than
$150. You GOT it for $150, but its VALUE is higher than that since you said
you would have gone higher.

>| 6012 | 1986 | Siege Cart |n| | 51 | | | 100.00 |

$100.00 is silly. This was an item in the February/March auction, and the
bidding history is important here. It started at $15, then over the course of
four weeks went to $20, $22, $27, $28, $30, $31, $35, $36, $38, $40, $42, $43,
$45, $50, $52, then to $55, and finally, in a gallant bid "just to get this
over with," leaped straight to $101 where it was sold.

It is important that you realize the impact you may be making when you quote
prices publicly like this. In addition to virtually assuring that you will
not ever be able to buy a 6012 for yourself a reasonable price, you may also
be making it very difficult for others to find a decent price.

Now, you also need to realize that this set is not necessarily worth $100. It
simply sold for $101 in one instance. The circumstances of that instance may
never reoccur. The major factor in the jump from $55 to $101 was bidder
fatigue. If you want to put a value on the set based on the February auction,
but down $25 since this is where bidding changed from 3 bidders to 2 bidders.

>| 1974 | 1989 | Smugglers Hayride(1974)|y|1| 40 | | 32.00 | 35.00 |

>| 1480 | 1991 | Kings Catapault(vp1476)|y|1| 20 | | 20.00 | 20.00 |

Again, these are based on what specific individuals paid for specific
instances of these sets under specific unique circumstances. I believe one
or two of these was sold still in the original plastic packaging bags, so
that may have affected its sale price (although it's always difficult to pin
down any one factor in particular).

>|*1877 | 1990 | Crusader's Cart(vp1675)|y|1| 56 | 12.00 | 32.00 | 32.00 |

>|*1888 | 1992 | B/K Guardshack (vp1891)|y|3| 25 | | 10.00 | 10.00 |

>|*1971 | 1993 | BlackKnights Ram(v1967)|y|2| 25 | | 10.00 | 10.00 |

>[...]

> "*" In front of the Item # indicates that the set is still available as of
>the date the listing was last updated from the LEGO Shop at Home Service (USA).

Are you saying you paid more than the Shop-at-Home price for these when they
are/were still available through Shop-at-Home? If so, how could 1877 possibly
be worth $32.00?

> "+" These items may be in or are in an auction over the Internet at this
>time. Contact Todd Lehman (leh...@geom.umn.edu) for more information.

This auction plug doesn't make sense. You have top bids on 3 sets, at insane
prices, with almost no bidding competition, and you invite other people to
join in on the bidding.

--Todd

Todd Lehman

unread,

Aug 11, 1994, 3:08:23 AM8/11/94

to

> Well, somewhat, but not exactly. I gather all the "facts" that are
> available and make an informed judgement and put that in my listing. There
> is no more scientific and more reliable way of compiling what the actual
> value of these sets are, that I am aware of.

Normally you would take a sampling of several data points over the past few
months and make some kind of weighted average.

> The best way, as far as I'm
> concerned, is to gather all the information that I can and then make an
> informed decision based on that information. Any better ideas?...

Yes. Leave the estimated worth blank if there are fewer than 3 data points for
a given set. The numbers I take issue at are based on a single circumstantial
data point, and I am really worried that you are creating a bad situation for
folks on the net hoping to find a good deal.

People like me who hold auctions from time to time don't help this situation
either, but I don't [normally] disclose sale prices because I don't want to
tamper with prices. Imagine how many people would be pissed if the results of
every auction were posted publicly. "Oh great, now I'm never gonna get that
set, and the guy who was going to sell it to me for $15 now wants $150. Damn."

>> It would be far better for everyone if you posted what you are willing to
>> pay rather than what you feel the sets are "worth."
>

> Now, just putting down what I feel they are worth would be even more
> "unscientific, unreliable, haphazzard, and worst of all -- subjective."

Jeff, I didn't say you should put down what you felt they were worth, I said
you should put down what you are willing to pay. This would be useful,
tangible information.

> That is true, somewhat. What am I supposed to do? I would like to list
> what the current value is of these sets. There are others that have expressed
> an interest in knowing, or at least getting an approximation of, the current
> value of these sets.

How do you define the value of a set?

You have to realize that calculating the value of a set involves selling a set,
and selling a set alters the demand for that set, which in turn lowers the
value of the set the next time someone sells another copy of that set. If you
sold something for $100 to the highest bidder, and the next two lower bidders
were only willing to go to $75, then the next time you sold an identical item,
it would go for $75, not $100. What is the value of the two items?

If you held an auction where you sold three identical copies of some set, and
there were three bidders, and each bidder only wanted one copy of the set,
there would be no bidding war and you would not see high prices. If, on the
other hand, you auctioned only one of these sets, you'd have a bidding war
between the three bidders. How do you assign a value to the set? You only
know what THAT set sold for at THAT time.

> The estimated worth column is exactly that, "estimated worth." I do
> mention in my listing that anyone can feel free to change the information
> as they see fit.

Well, let's change it then! :-)

Did you miss the point, or did you just eschew it? The "estimated worth"
column gives no rating of set condition. What good is it? How can it possibly
not be misleading?

> Eliminating the column every time I go to post it would be fruitless and
> take too much time.

I'd be happy to write you a spiffy little C or AWK program to do this if your
editor doesn't have a column-delete function.

>> Why don't you value it at $200 so you can say you got a $50 break? See what
>> I'm getting at? The value of THAT set -- the one I sold you -- was MORE than
>> $150. You GOT it for $150, but its VALUE is higher than that since you said
>> you would have gone higher.
>

> True, I would have gone higher. But, the facts are, I didn't. No one
> has gave me any information that this set has sold for any higher price
> anywhere else. Just because you feel that it is worth more, isn't good
> enough. Give me facts and I'll change the figure.

Ahem. If Joe Blow were to hold an auction today with a 6074, he may get $250
for it, or he may only get $125 for it. Who knows?

I didn't say 6074's were worth more than $150, I said the one I sold you was
worth more than $150.

>> [6012 Siege Cart bidding history]

>>
>> $100.00 is silly. This was an item in the February/March auction, and the
>> bidding history is important here. It started at $15, then over the course
>> of four weeks went to $20, $22, $27, $28, $30, $31, $35, $36, $38, $40, $42,
>> $43, $45, $50, $52, then to $55, and finally, in a gallant bid "just to get
>> this over with," leaped straight to $101 where it was sold.
>

> This is true also. I was aware of this. But, the facts again, are that
> this is what the set sold for. I'm just printing in "my" listing what
> actually happened.

What the set sold for in one little auction in March is COMPLETELY irrelevant
to its current worth.

In auctions with priceless items like, say, the Mona Lisa, numbers like that
mean something. In auctions with replaceable items like LEGO sets, these
numbers are meaningless unless you have a bunch of them to average together.

>> It is important that you realize the impact you may be making when you quote
>> prices publicly like this. In addition to virtually assuring that you will
>> not ever be able to buy a 6012 for yourself a reasonable price, you may also
>> be making it very difficult for others to find a decent price.
>

> This is just not true. This is how you feel. I am aware of the "impact"
> that I have publicly on this matter. It is because of that precisely that
> I have choosen to just quote the facts in my listing.

Okay. I see this could easily degenerate into an "am not, am not; are too, are
too" argument. I'm not above that :) but since I'm chewing up public bandwidth
here I'll try to steer away from it.

I screwed up last week when I included insanely high minimum bids in my public
post announcing the new auction. It was dumb of me, I didn't think it through,
and maybe I'm taking my own regret out on you a little. Everyone knows now
(thanks to your last Castle Listing post) that the asking prices were eagerly
met and that Castle stuff can command quite a high price. What do you think
this does to help all the starving Castle collectors out there who can't afford
crazy auction prices?

> I'm glad their are
> others out there that feel that the sets that I have should be worth more.
> I too feel that way. I'm also glad that there are those out there that feel
> that the sets that I don't have should be worth less. I feel that way too.

There are a lot of folks who would say the value of their LEGO collection is
judged not by money but by sentiment. I fall into this category and have no
desire to estimate the worth of my collection in US dollars. I respect your
need to do this, but feel obliged to point out that even though you value your
collection at US$962 (August 8 JCLL), I'll bet you a million dollars that you
wouldn't sell your collection for $2000. So what's the real value of your
collection? Does the number $962 make any sense to anyone but an insurance
company?

Hypothetically speaking, if I have a mint condition Galaxy Explorer that I
won't sell for less than $500, then THAT particular Galaxy Explorer is worth
$500. If someone else has one that they'd sell for $200, then theirs is worth
$200. Old LEGO is in such short supply, public Internet sales number less
than two dozen per year, and there is no blue book...how can one person hope to
bring order to the pricing issue with such sparse information?

> But, I want a more realistic way of keeping track of my collection, and
> that means I print just the facts... Just becuase I print the facts in my
> listing doesn't mean that someone won't find a good deal out there.
> Quite the reverse is true. They'll know it's a good deal when they find it.

So you're saying Joe LEGO Maniac is too dumb to know a good deal when he sees
it, unless he has your "Castle LEGO Listing" to help him spot a good price.

(ROTFL)

>> Now, you also need to realize that this set is not necessarily worth $100.
>> It simply sold for $101 in one instance. The circumstances of that instance
>> may never reoccur.
>

> "The circumstances of that instance may never reoccur." And then again,
> they may. Who are we to say. I just print what I know is the facts, or an
> estimate thereof.

Let's be realistic, okay?

This was a 51-piece set (with one piece missing -- a white 1x1 cone -- and no
box) that ended up going for $101.00. That's $2.00 *per piece*. A lot of
people would have a hard time believing this kind of sale actually happened.
But it did, and it's really hard to fathom it happening the same way ever
again. Sure, it COULD happen, but come on...

A couple three months back someone auctioned off a 6802 Space Probe with box
and original instructions. The last I heard it was going for $80. (This is a
small 18-20 piece set.) That was then, and that was a complete set. A couple
weeks ago someone privately sold the same set without box for $6. If he had
auctioned it, he probably could have obtained at least $30 easily. With
knowledge of only these two sales, how could anyone dare to guess at the
"worth" of the set???

Don't you see, the circumstances of a sale as well as the condition of the set
are -fundamental- to the sale price?

I can bore you with numerous other examples if you haven't gotten the point
yet.

>> Are you saying you paid more than the Shop-at-Home price for these when they
>> are/were still available through Shop-at-Home? If so, how could 1877
>> possibly be worth $32.00?
>

> I asked myself that too. Good question. That's what I paid for it
> before I knew that it was still available. I believe I got it from you?...

Yes, you got it from me. And a couple months later when I saw it was still
available through S@H, I wished I'd had two of 'em. ;-)

> A mistake on my part, but that won't change it's estimated value on my list.

Heh. You're kidding...right? What is its current cost through S@H? Are you
saying something that anyone can get NEW for $12 to $15 is worth *$32*? Surely
I am missing something here.

>> This auction plug doesn't make sense. You have top bids on 3 sets, at
>> insane prices, with almost no bidding competition, and you invite other
>> people to join in on the bidding.
>

> It's good for the others on the internet to know what sets are available
> via the internet, when, and from whom. I added this information for their
> benefit. Of course it may bring in competition, but I believe that's what
> auctions, free market interprise, etc. is all about.

Interesting. Your intimidation tactics in the last Castle auction suggested
that you dislike competition.

--Todd

Paul Gyugyi

unread,

Aug 10, 1994, 11:55:48 AM8/10/94

to

In article <CuB4I...@news.cis.umn.edu> leh...@geom.umn.edu (Todd Lehman) writes:
In article <crites.7...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>,
Jeffrey T. Crites <cri...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> writes:
...

bidding history is important here. It started at $15, then over the course of
four weeks went to $20, $22, $27, $28, $30, $31, $35, $36, $38, $40, $42, $43,
$45, $50, $52, then to $55, and finally, in a gallant bid "just to get this
over with," leaped straight to $101 where it was sold.

That was a pretty cool move. It showed a lot of style and class...
Much better than the "I'm going to outbid you so why don't you quit"
email that got sent around by some.
--
=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=
| Paul Gyugyi scrabble...click...snap... |
| gyu...@earthsea.stanford.edu Paul_...@smtp.esl.com |
=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=--=

Jeffrey T. Crites

unread,

Aug 10, 1994, 11:00:13 AM8/10/94

to crites

Ok, Castle LEGO enthusiasts,

I would have replied to this via personal e-mail, but I thought it
important for everyone to know how I feel and where I stand on a personal
level on this particular matter, since it was brought out in the open
in this manner...

First before I start a reply, here's some more information:
----------------------------------------------------------
"Jeff's Castle LEGO Listing" is a listing that I put on the internet
periodically that shows all the Castle LEGO sets, numbers, names, piece
counts, suggested retail, what I paid for them, and an estimated current
value of the sets. This is a good way for the Castle LEGO enthusiasts
on the internet to keep abreast with Castle LEGO and I will continue the
listing in it's current form, as long as I have the resources to do so.

I've recently included a short disclaimer which clearly states and explains
where all the information is gotten. I also state that anyone can change
the listing for their own collection, as they see fit. If you don't like
what I have written on my listing -- change it! I don't care. Either way,
it's my listing, and I'll put it out how I see fit... :)

leh...@geom.umn.edu (Todd Lehman) writes:
----------------------------------------

>Jeffrey T. Crites <cri...@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> writes:
>> [...] (U.S.$ Est. Worth) is the current estimated |
>>| worth of the set based on garage sales, internet auctions, talks with |
>>| friends, and discussions with LEGO Systems, Inc. |
>In other words, it is completely unscientific, unreliable, haphazzard, and --
>worst of all -- subjective.

Well, somewhat, but not exactly. I gather all the "facts" that are

available and make an informed judgement and put that in my listing. There
is no more scientific and more reliable way of compiling what the actual

value of these sets are, that I am aware of. The best way, as far as I'm

concerned, is to gather all the information that I can and then make an
informed decision based on that information. Any better ideas?...

>It would be far better for everyone if you posted what you are willing to pay

>rather than what you feel the sets are "worth."

Now, just putting down what I feel they are worth would be even more
"unscientific, unreliable, haphazzard, and worst of all -- subjective."
I may as well just say the earth is flat because I "feel" that's the way
it is. Even worse would be to put down what I am willing to pay, or what
someone else is "willing" to pay. Anyone could be willing to do anything.
But, in the end it's action and reaction that decide the true outcome, the
true value.

>It would also be far less harmful to the other Castle collectors out there
>if you didn't keep quoting these crazy high prices which might prevent someone
>from actually getting a decent deal.

That is true, somewhat. What am I supposed to do? I would like to list

what the current value is of these sets. There are others that have expressed
an interest in knowing, or at least getting an approximation of, the current

value of these sets. Therefore, I collect all the information I can and make
an informed estimate. I tell everyone this in the beginning of my listing.
Therefore, there are no suprises.

>>| | | |O| | |U.S.$ | U.S.$ | U.S.$ |
>>| Item | Year | |W| | |Suggest| Price | Est. |
>>| #: |Intro:| Set Name: |N|#|Pieces|Retail:| Paid: | Worth: |
>>|======|======|========================|=|=|======|=======|=========|========|
>>|+6080 | 1984 | King's Castle |n| | 664 | 58.70 | | 120.00 |
>>|+6062 | 1987 | Battering Ram |n| | 233 | 16.49 | | 35.00 |
>>|+6039 | 1988 | Twin Armed Launcher |n| | 73 | | | 22.00 |

>Jeff, as I pointed out in a private e-mail the other day, these prices are
>likely to confuse people. These three sets I'm auctioning are without box,
>without original instructions, and even missing a few pieces. The estimated
>worth column here is nonsense without a condition rating.

The estimated worth column is exactly that, "estimated worth." I do

mention in my listing that anyone can feel free to change the information
as they see fit.

>Why don't you eliminate the "estimated worth" column and put down what YOU

>personally would pay for a pristine set in a never-opened pristine box?

Eliminating the column every time I go to post it would be fruitless and
take too much time. And, again, keeping track of what I "personally would
pay for a pristine set in a never-opened pristine box" would only be me
making up figures and there would be no factual basis for those figures. I
will not do that! Everyone always has the option to change the figures...

>>| 6074 | 1986 | Black Falcon's Fortress|y|1| 437 | 35.00 | 150.00 | 150.00 |

>How do you know this is not worth more than $150?

I don't. That figure is based on the information that I have. If
someone else contacts me with more information then, more-then-likely, that
figure would change. But, none-the-less, that figure is based on facts.

> The reason this one didn't
>go higher than $150 in the April auction was because you contacted the last
>remaining bidder and convinced her that there was no point in her bidding any
>higher since you were going to end up out-bidding anyone anyway. Had she been
>stubborn enough, you may have found yourself offering $175 or more for it.

This is true. But, that is how auctions, sales, capitalism, etc. works.

>Why don't you value it at $200 so you can say you got a $50 break? See what
>I'm getting at? The value of THAT set -- the one I sold you -- was MORE than
>$150. You GOT it for $150, but its VALUE is higher than that since you said
>you would have gone higher.

True, I would have gone higher. But, the facts are, I didn't. No one

has gave me any information that this set has sold for any higher price
anywhere else. Just because you feel that it is worth more, isn't good
enough. Give me facts and I'll change the figure.

>>| 6012 | 1986 | Siege Cart |n| | 51 | | | 100.00 |

>$100.00 is silly. This was an item in the February/March auction, and the
>bidding history is important here. It started at $15, then over the course of
>four weeks went to $20, $22, $27, $28, $30, $31, $35, $36, $38, $40, $42, $43,
>$45, $50, $52, then to $55, and finally, in a gallant bid "just to get this
>over with," leaped straight to $101 where it was sold.

This is true also. I was aware of this. But, the facts again, are that

this is what the set sold for. I'm just printing in "my" listing what
actually happened.

>It is important that you realize the impact you may be making when you quote

>prices publicly like this. In addition to virtually assuring that you will
>not ever be able to buy a 6012 for yourself a reasonable price, you may also
>be making it very difficult for others to find a decent price.

This is just not true. This is how you feel. I am aware of the "impact"

that I have publicly on this matter. It is because of that precisely that

I have choosen to just quote the facts in my listing. I'm glad their are

others out there that feel that the sets that I have should be worth more.
I too feel that way. I'm also glad that there are those out there that feel
that the sets that I don't have should be worth less. I feel that way too.

But, I want a more realistic way of keeping track of my collection, and
that means I print just the facts... Just becuase I print the facts in my
listing doesn't mean that someone won't find a good deal out there.
Quite the reverse is true. They'll know it's a good deal when they find it.

>Now, you also need to realize that this set is not necessarily worth $100. It

>simply sold for $101 in one instance. The circumstances of that instance may
>never reoccur.

"The circumstances of that instance may never reoccur." And then again,

they may. Who are we to say. I just print what I know is the facts, or an
estimate thereof.

>The major factor in the jump from $55 to $101 was bidder

>fatigue. If you want to put a value on the set based on the February auction,
>but down $25 since this is where bidding changed from 3 bidders to 2 bidders.

Factual, and substantial, but who cares...

>>| 1974 | 1989 | Smugglers Hayride(1974)|y|1| 40 | | 32.00 | 35.00 |
>>| 1480 | 1991 | Kings Catapault(vp1476)|y|1| 20 | | 20.00 | 20.00 |

>Again, these are based on what specific individuals paid for specific
>instances of these sets under specific unique circumstances. I believe one
>or two of these was sold still in the original plastic packaging bags, so
>that may have affected its sale price (although it's always difficult to pin
>down any one factor in particular).

True. And well noted...

>>|*1877 | 1990 | Crusader's Cart(vp1675)|y|1| 56 | 12.00 | 32.00 | 32.00 |
>>|*1888 | 1992 | B/K Guardshack (vp1891)|y|3| 25 | | 10.00 | 10.00 |
>>|*1971 | 1993 | BlackKnights Ram(v1967)|y|2| 25 | | 10.00 | 10.00 |
>>[...]
>> "*" In front of the Item # indicates that the set is still available as of

>>the date the listing was last updated from the LEGO Shop at Home Service USA.

>Are you saying you paid more than the Shop-at-Home price for these when they
>are/were still available through Shop-at-Home? If so, how could 1877 possibly
>be worth $32.00?

I asked myself that too. Good question. That's what I paid for it

before I knew that it was still available. I believe I got it from you?...

A mistake on my part, but that won't change it's estimated value on my list.

>> "+" These items may be in or are in an auction over the Internet at this

>>time. Contact Todd Lehman (leh...@geom.umn.edu) for more information.

>This auction plug doesn't make sense. You have top bids on 3 sets, at insane
>prices, with almost no bidding competition, and you invite other people to
>join in on the bidding.
>--Todd

It's good for the others on the internet to know what sets are available

via the internet, when, and from whom. I added this information for their
benefit. Of course it may bring in competition, but I believe that's what
auctions, free market interprise, etc. is all about.

If you would like, I will remove your name and e-mail from the list.
I only put it there to give others the chance to contact you and get your
input about the actions that you sometimes have. I also wanted to keep
track of all the castle sets that are being sold over the internet at least
while I'm bidding on them. This is how I do it.

If anyone else has suggestions, questions, or comments I would very
much like to hear from you. This is how I can make "Jeff's Castle LEGO
Listing" work better for all Castle LEGO Enthusiasts. Thanks for your input.
Take care,

Jeff

__<>__ Jeffrey T. Crites __<>__

(______) Purdue University Computing Center (______)

Eileen Keeney

unread,

Aug 11, 1994, 12:28:48 PM8/11/94

to

How do people value sets ?
[ I think this might make an interesting discussion ]

I base value on playability value.
I would value an obsolete set, based on current prices of equally playable
sets (with a few rare acceptions, where there really is no current set that
meets the playability _I_ see in the set).

[ I did offer $3 for one minifig once, that met a playability use I really
wanted, and at the time, did not know another source of (short making my
own minifig outfits, which I am not very good at). ]

However, auctions have allowed me to see just how much people are willing to
pay to get something that is hard to get.

I would have never sold some old space sets for as much as I sold
them for, had I not seen the results of Todd's auction.
[ I'm glad Todd was one of the people I sold to, and I could base the price
on what HE was selling stuff for :-). ]

However, I do recognize, that when selling, one has to consider effort and
time involved. There is the sorting and searching involved, if getting the
set together. The time to take an item to the post office and mail it.
The Postage (paid by someone)
The buyer has to place more value on the item than the seller, at least equal
to the value of the seller's effort for a sale to even take place.
[ I'm sure this is just stating the obvious ]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|Eileen F. Keeney |email: eil...@hpcvnefk.cv.hp.com
|Hewlett Packard, Corvallis, ICBD |phone: (503) 715-3140
|Software Application Specialist |location 2U-G33
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

David Karr

unread,

Aug 11, 1994, 4:58:38 PM8/11/94

to

In article <32djk0$f...@hpscit.sc.hp.com> eil...@cv.hp.com (Eileen Keeney) writes:
>How do people value sets ?

I take it you mean how do I decide how much *I* want a set, not how do
I figure what its "current value" is.

>I base value on playability value.

What is "playability value"?

A lot of people seem to equate this with a wealth of fine detail that
suggests to them strongly a real-world (or fictional) object that they
want to model. I tend to value the ability of the pieces to vaguely
resemble many very different things depending on how I put them
together, and leaving a lot more to the imagination.

My 3-year-old can sit for a long time just stacking 2x2s in columns,
often on top of Duplo blocks. On the other hand, often she just can't
figure out how to put more complex pieces together. So I guess a
bucket of "generic" Duplo and LEGO 2x2s is the most valuable set in
the world to her.

Neither of my kids has as much skill or dexterity as I have, both of
which are valuable in LEGO design. But they have far, far more active
imaginations than I do. They can make the most amazing things out of
just two or three or four "generic" bricks---or even *one*
brick!---although they may be the only ones able to see it.

I strongly suspect that "playability" for my kids is far different
from what it is for most of the adult readers of this group, including
myself.

My LEGO preferences tend to follow along the lines of what I did as a
kid, the biggest difference being that I expect to use LEGO
minifigures now instead of my old "LEGO people". I still tend to
build more solidly and with more internal volume than the models in
the LEGO instructions. I have difficulty finding individual sets that
fit this style well, so in evaluating a set I would probably ask
myself how much its pieces would enrich my pile of LEGO. At least
that's what I've done since I've started making LEGO purchasing
decisions.

On the other hand, in *selling* LEGO, I'd be inclined not to sell off
individual pieces of a specialized set, if only because the set might
have collector's value to someone else. In other words, I believe my
valuation of sets would not match the market's.

>[ I did offer $3 for one minifig once, that met a playability use I really
> wanted, and at the time, did not know another source of (short making my
> own minifig outfits, which I am not very good at). ]

In a pinch, I could imagine doing something like this for a
particularly rare precision mechanical part that would just make a
certain design of mine work perfectly. (No, I don't have such a part
in mind at the moment, this is all hypothetical.)

-- David A. Karr (ka...@cs.cornell.edu)

Brian Zill

unread,

Aug 12, 1994, 11:18:48 AM8/12/94

to

In article <1994Aug11.2...@cs.cornell.edu>,

David Karr <ka...@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:
>
>What is "playability value"?
>

While I haven't been following this overall discussion (the idea of people
auctioning off lego strikes me as disgusting), I thought I'd comment on this.

The term "playability value" in the short history of this group, especially
as it is used in set reviews, has had a specific meaning. And that meaning
was, how much could one "play" with a particular set once built into the
design given by the instructions. How much fun one got out of building the
set, how nicely the set looks as a bookcase model, and how useful the pieces
are for building other things, are all values inherently different from
"playability".

For example, "playability" for a jet fighter model would relate to how easy
it is to hold it in your hand and swoop it around a room. "playability" for
a fire station would involve how easy it was to move to the mini-figs around,
get the fire engine out the doors, etc.

Personally, I rarely "play" with my lego in this manner, so I don't put much
stock in the "playability value" that people give sets in their reviews. I
look for other things that I'm more interested in (such as the other values
I listed above). However, I'd hate to see a good term that had a pretty
clear definition in this group lose its meaning.

--Brian

Eileen Keeney

unread,

Aug 11, 1994, 11:40:59 PM8/11/94

to

David Karr (ka...@cs.cornell.edu) wrote:
: I take it you mean how do I decide how much *I* want a set, not how do

: I figure what its "current value" is.

How much _I_ want a set is the only measure of value I really understand.

What someone else would pay is their value, not mine.
However "current value" might be market value if I were selling.
And I would base that on other peoples value, and how bad others want the
set.

: What is "playability value"?

If I am going to be the main player, it is based on the current market value
of a set that would provide ME with equal playability (how much fun I am
going to have, or can I use it for a specific type of play I want to
engage in or something I want to build.)

: A lot of people seem to equate this with a wealth of fine detail that

: suggests to them strongly a real-world (or fictional) object that they
: want to model. I tend to value the ability of the pieces to vaguely
: resemble many very different things depending on how I put them
: together, and leaving a lot more to the imagination.

I guess I would look at it this way if that were the way I played.
If I re-used my pieces for many different things, versatility would be
a factor. But I tend to gradually alter my designs, and rarely actually
take them completely apart to build something different.
So a pieces function, would be more important to me than its ability to
serve several functions.
How rare a piece is does play a role, I would pay more per piece for
white doors and windows, round pieces, white and black slopes, interesting
base plates, rare minifigs and such than for red doors and windows and slopes,
or any piece easily available. I would place at least 2x the value on
a white, pink or gray plate than on any other color (accept maybe green or
clear if I needed those in something I was doing).

: My 3-year-old can sit for a long time just stacking 2x2s in columns,

: often on top of Duplo blocks. On the other hand, often she just can't
: figure out how to put more complex pieces together. So I guess a
: bucket of "generic" Duplo and LEGO 2x2s is the most valuable set in
: the world to her.

: Neither of my kids has as much skill or dexterity as I have, both of
: which are valuable in LEGO design. But they have far, far more active
: imaginations than I do. They can make the most amazing things out of
: just two or three or four "generic" bricks---or even *one*
: brick!---although they may be the only ones able to see it.

: I strongly suspect that "playability" for my kids is far different
: from what it is for most of the adult readers of this group, including
: myself.

And when buying for a kid, I consider their playability, not mine.

: My LEGO preferences tend to follow along the lines of what I did as a

: kid, the biggest difference being that I expect to use LEGO
: minifigures now instead of my old "LEGO people". I still tend to
: build more solidly and with more internal volume than the models in
: the LEGO instructions. I have difficulty finding individual sets that
: fit this style well, so in evaluating a set I would probably ask
: myself how much its pieces would enrich my pile of LEGO. At least
: that's what I've done since I've started making LEGO purchasing
: decisions.

Now that I have a lot of un-used pieces, I do the same thing.
Since I am not much of a set builder (except with boat sets, and some
special vehicles) I also look at the pieces, to see how many pieces
would enhance my collection.
I like new minifigs (It would be nice if not so many of my town people
looks so exactly the same, I did consider school uniforms for a little
while, to make use of so many torsos that were the same).
One of my favorite pieces in a bunch of old lego I just obtained, was the
red pigtails, just because I didn't have any yet, and it was something
different.
However, sometimes I look at a set, and see a specific pieces that causes a
building idea to pop into my head that I want to try.
Other times I have a function in mind, and look at the sets on the shelf to
see if there is something to meet that function.
( I did by a spyrus saucer just for the large black octagon plate pieces,
but I had tried for days to get a decent looking, strong base on my
carousel, and it was perfect )
I doubt too many other people would place a $26 value on my Black base plates.
(The spyrus robot was actually a cute addition also).

: On the other hand, in *selling* LEGO, I'd be inclined not to sell off

: individual pieces of a specialized set, if only because the set might
: have collector's value to someone else. In other words, I believe my
: valuation of sets would not match the market's.

Interesting.
I wouldn't have thought I would think like this, but I find myself now saving
the boxes (neatly folded), so as not to loose any "collector" value.
I used to throw away any duplicate instructions I had (I often buy at least
two of a set, just because of the way Lego designs so many sets to build
only half of the building). I now keep them, in case I ever want to sell.

I should probably be more careful here, but if someone has a piece, that I
want more now, for playability, it makes sense to trade.
--
____________________________________________________________________________

David Karr

unread,

Aug 12, 1994, 2:59:18 PM8/12/94

to

In article <32g3so$t...@casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu> bd...@cs.cmu.edu (Brian Zill) writes:
>The term "playability value" in the short history of this group, especially
>as it is used in set reviews, has had a specific meaning. And that meaning
>was, how much could one "play" with a particular set once built into the

>design given by the instructions. [...]

>
>Personally, I rarely "play" with my lego in this manner, so I don't put much
>stock in the "playability value" that people give sets in their reviews.

>[...] However, I'd hate to see a good term that had a pretty

>clear definition in this group lose its meaning.

This is a good point, and the concept called "playability" that
appears in the set reviews is an important thing. The reason some of
us (for example, me!) tend to get confused by this term is that it
already was an Engilsh word with a clear definition long before it was
first used here.

It seems that the item called "playability" in the set reviews is
really (in ordinary English) the playability of the model in the set's
instructions. Logically, this could be the playability of the set as
well, but only if building the model in the instructions is the only
legitimate way to play with the set. Otherwise the set might have a
lot of extra playability (using the term in its English meaning).

Things are even more confusing for the Basic sets, where there are
either many models or no models that you're "supposed" to make from
them. What is the "playability" of such a set?

So rather than have to remember one definition of "playability" for
use in rec.toys.lego and another for use everywhere else, I'd prefer
to call the "playability" of the set reviews "playability of the
model", a term that's defined when it's clear from context what model
is being referred to. (For example, it's fairly unambiguous for those
sets that are designed to construct a particular model or layout.)

Mr Justin J Watkins

unread,

Aug 22, 1994, 7:47:34 AM8/22/94

to

Surely the playability factor of lego tends to infinity. The only thing
that could affect the playability factor would be HOW FAST it tended to
infinity. Does the addition of a new set to your collection double
the speed of tendency, or square it? And the playability also depends upon
the individual's imagination, so it's a bit of a subjective thing.

Am I talking gibberish?