Say you lost your entire Lego collection in an earthquake accident and had to collect it all over again, but you were insured up to the exact value of the collection you lost and were able to re-purchase all the sets you had at the price you originally bought them for... Or you could keep all of the money, or only buy some of the sets and keep the rest of the money... what would you do?

As much as my collection has been a pleasure to me, sometimes I feel it is just as much a burden. It takes up so much space, most sets I have only constructed once, I would be very expensive to move anywhere, I don't even have time to organise it properly. I definitely think I would have done things differently if I had known when I came out of my 'dark ages' that I could end up at this point. I would have probably only purchased the modular building range, and one other range, like the Pirates.

What about you?

I'd probably use it as an excuse to double up on an already very rare and expensive collection, mostly the 12V trains.

But I'd certainly get everything that I already had back. I don't know how I could go on without it.

I don't buy sets any more, I mostly buy lots or parts. If I had to start over I would design the models first in LDD, then purchase the relevant parts from S@H or BrickLink.

Hmm, this is an interesting dilemma. I think that I would buy everything back plus stuff that I missed in the past as well, I would not know what to do without my collection.

I would do it over again, but with a little more restraint. Like the original poster, I'd eliminate a theme or two and have a little extra cash. I would get an extra bookshelf or two so I can display more than I did.

Edited August 16, 201014 yr by Legocrazy81

I say at its inpossible me to lost my legos in earthquick, in my country havent happened any earthquicks never. So actually i cant think at it, but if i would lost them in fire.. I guess i would just lost them but would collect the new legos couse those legos what i currently have cant be purhased anymore. So if i lost my old ones, i would think at "Oh well, gone whats gone" and wouldnt think at it anymore and would start to collect more legos in time

Captain Becker

I would probably get most of my old sets, but there are a few sets that didn't have very good parts or I just didn't like the set for whatever reason, and for those ones I wouldn't bother and I'd just use the money to get other sets I never got.

Huh... some people responding seem to think you can buy sets you missed at the original prices, but that's not the scenario the OP suggests (you can buy sets you had at the original prices).

I can say, without hesitation, that out of all the sets I've purchased, the only ones that I would think twice about re-buying are the Star Wars non-OT sets. I'm simply not a fan of the PT or Clone Wars, and while there are some cool ships that I bought, they just don't fit in with everything else and I could certainly do without them. I even traded one to my son for his OT Y-Wing... he got it as a gift and doesn't like the OT as much as the newer stuff, so we were both happy.

I also have very limited space, but that doesn't deter me... I hope to have a lot more shelves up at some point, and even move into a larger home (not because of LEGO, though, but it'll give me more room for that, too).

I'm kinda with legocrazy81, with hindsight I'd have a much clearer idea of the kind of collection I'd want so I'd take the opportunity to streamline and specialize a bit. I've made a lot of impulse purchases that haven't really contributed to my hobby, and I'd probably pass on those (Yeah, you, Mars Mission).

I would get them all again if possible. I have always restricted my focus to relatively few themes and only buy sets I really want or if I find especially good deals on them. However, most of my collection consists of sets from the late 80s and 90s, which would be quite a bit more expensive to buy today than when I got them (mostly off ebay 7 or 8 years ago). And of course, MOCs would be almost impossible to rebuild exactly as they were.

On the other hand, there are practically no earthquakes around here either.

Edited August 16, 201014 yr by CP5670

Say you lost your entire Lego collection in an earthquake accident and had to collect it all over again, but you were insured up to the exact value of the collection you lost and were able to re-purchase all the sets you had at the price you originally bought them for... Or you could keep all of the money, or only buy some of the sets and keep the rest of the money... what would you do?

As much as my collection has been a pleasure to me, sometimes I feel it is just as much a burden. It takes up so much space, most sets I have only constructed once, I would be very expensive to move anywhere, I don't even have time to organise it properly. I definitely think I would have done things differently if I had known when I came out of my 'dark ages' that I could end up at this point. I would have probably only purchased the modular building range, and one other range, like the Pirates.

What about you?

I'd like a good portion of it back, but some sets are replaceable by other equally good other sets that I have not yet had, and for those I'd choose for some change.

About the space consumption of all those sets, I think that as soon as you have so many sets that storing them becomes a burden, you have to start selling. Even if you don't need the money, selling makes sense, because you do need the space that it frees up!

I'm kinda with legocrazy81, with hindsight I'd have a much clearer idea of the kind of collection I'd want so I'd take the opportunity to streamline and specialize a bit. I've made a lot of impulse purchases that haven't really contributed to my hobby, and I'd probably pass on those (Yeah, you, Mars Mission).

Bingo

There have been a lot of unnecessary purchases for me which I really didnt need to get. The sets I would buy would be the modulars because I missed out on them because I was fixated on Star Wars and was focusing all my money on that.

Some I would & some I wouldn't.

I'd definately buy Emerald Night & Green Grocer again but some of the smaller City sets I have bought I certainly wouldn't

I would buy the Modular Building's again although I have 5 of each as a reserve already!

some of my models like the Santa Fe sets I could probably never get replaced just not possible anymore

10173 and 10199 I have 3 off but still haven't build any.

Some and probably all the regular city sets I wouldn't bother and just start again.

Edited September 3, 201212 yr by GRogall

I think I'd get the old sets that I was in love with, but some of them, I wouldn't rebuy.

Alot of mine I got just becasue they are the official SW line, but I could due with only the newer versions.

interesting topic.. kinda feel that most of people (including AFOL) actually did 'over-buy' lego?

I'd like a good portion of it back, but some sets are replaceable by other equally good other sets that I have not yet had, and for those I'd choose for some change.

About the space consumption of all those sets, I think that as soon as you have so many sets that storing them becomes a burden, you have to start selling. Even if you don't need the money, selling makes sense, because you do need the space that it frees up!

I'd get around 90% of my sets again.

Though I've become closely attached to most of the stuff I own, there are still a number of sets that I either received as gifts, or else bought on impulse that don't appeal to me as much. I can think of quite a lot of times when I bought something, got home and built it, and then immediately thought "Shoot, I really should have bought X instead". It's those type of sets that I'd likely not be too keen about re-acquiring and would instead go for something that I want without a doubt.

Also, though storage is definitely getting to be a problem, I would never want that to dictate too much what I buy. I'd rather buy the set and cram it away until I can bring it out then not buy something because of lack of room and regret it down the road. Where there is a will, there is a way to find room for Lego!

Very interesting question!

I've been doing my own streamlining recently since I've really got no more space to add stuff without getting rid of something first - otherwise I'd just end up completely paralysed in a sea of storage boxes.

In some ways losing and starting over would make some things simple for me. I never use old grays and hardly ever old browns and I have a few boxes of old Castle/ Harry Potter parts in those shades that I wouldn't mind seeing the back of (mainly from early Bricklink purchases and when I first started coming out of my dark ages I bought a lot of Potter sets for parts which I mixed up with everything - I don't really have the will or time to restore many of them). Since I was very inconsistent about keeping boxes/ parts separate, I'd take the opportunity to buy again the pre-colour change sets that have long been dispersed but which I now have a fondness for.

So, getting rid of lots of boxes of mixed parts I'll never have time to go through? One point for the earthquake!

Secondly, at various points I've bought a lot of multiples when sets are cheap and I've thought 'Wouldn't it be cool if I combined 2 of x and made a super-x!' or whatever. Now, unless they were particularly spectacular for parts, I don't think I'd bother. Again, this is espdcially true for Castle sets (late KK2 and Fantasy). I'd rather have 1 nice copy of each to build as display models rather than take up room for projects which I never attempted and lost interest in.

That's another point in favour of the earthquake!

In the last few years I've become much more interested in the history of LEGO - although this was always true to an extent - so instead of restocking lots of the more useless recent sets, I'd go through with my trusty Collector's Guide and pick up all the sets I think are deserving classics, like some of the old Town houses, some Classic Space sets, and so on.

A third point for the earthquake!

On the downside, I'd never be able to get certain MISB modular houses or other sets at the price I paid for them (like half price Arkham Asylums), so a fair amount of budget would be chewed up that way. Also it would be a pain and practically impossible to recreate pretty extensive Bricklink purchases from the last few years (especially when you buy parts cheap from a set and then they disappear and increase in scarcity and price on BL). So, two points against the earthquake.

Looks like the earthquake just wins However I have been clearing out the recent dross I bought (like some of the City stuff and Mars Mission) and replacing it with classic sets in any case - so the earthquake might only speed up my own process and help out with the old pre-colour change mixed assortments.

It's probably heretical to many, but I don't mind cherrypicking the bits of sets I like and selling the rest off, or selling off sets even at a bit of a loss. I figure I still have the 'use-value' of having built and played with the set a few times and would rather have the space than store something I have no fondness for. And of course, if you sell off items that have increased in value, it all balances out in the end.

Great topic!

I'm gonna play by the rules: if an earthquake wiped out all my Lego (this is even less likely than an official Beatles reunion) I would re-purchase Castle but probably say goodbye to all the Space stuff, and the Town & Pirates sets I got as a kid. Why the Space? Because it's a complete collection. Objective has been reached. I would get the Castle stuff again because I haven't completed my collection yet. This would mean I would have A LOT of money left over! Use it to complete the Castle collection, and probably still have plenty left over for a nice holiday. Ahhhh.

If this hypothetical earthquake had arrived a few months ago (after Space was complete but before I got back into Castle) I would probably say "oh well, it was fun but now I'm a free man" and keep the money for a new car, haha!

So in answer to your question, given the options all Lego, all money or some of both I choose some of both.

Just a quick question? How could an earthquake wipe out all your lego? Wouldn't it just shake them around and destroy them but you would just be able to put them back together. Unless it was a huge earthquake which destroyed your house, wouldn't you have bigger things to worry about other than lego?

Sorry if its off topic but it just came to mind

...destroyed your house, wouldn't you have bigger things to worry about other than lego?

Get that filthy language out of here, you scum-of-the-earth!

I love the sentiment of the question, but I'd rather take it further and be more realistic. Unless you just started buying LEGO in the last year, there's no way you could "re-purchase all the sets you had at the price you originally bought them for." Once those suckers are out of the stores, you're gonna pay through the nose to re-buy them. And the minute you opened those boxes the re-sale value plummeted.

What if you only got cash for the current value of your collection, and could only re-buy at current prices?

Me, I'd spend a lot of time on Brickset. I'd buy the bricks and instructions for a few iconic used sets, regardless of what I owned (such as Camouflaged Outpost and Galaxy Explorer), and some of my favorites growing up (Crater Crawler and Cement Mixer come to mind). And then I'd start over with what's still in the stores, buying only retail sets that I like now (Medieval Market Village, all the Prince of Persia stuff, whatever Indiana Jones I could find, the modular houses).

I think that the sets on the market now are just plain better than the designs they had "back in my day," and assume they'll continue to improve. I think that the new King's Castle (7946) is better than my old one (6080), and I just built both of them with that comparison in mind.

So bottom line, and in answer to both the OP and my more realistic question, I'd save the cash and buy mostly current sets. I'm not saying I wouldn't shed tears, though....

Instead of repurchasing all of the sets I had previously, I would just do a lot of Bricklink buying I wouldn't be getting the same pieces, but getting $1500 of Bricklink might make up for it (NOTE: I'm not saying that my collection is worth $1500. It very well might, but I don't really know )

Very intresting question.

To be honest, I'm not totally totally sure. In my current mindset, I would definately not re-purchase everything. For a solid 8 years or so I collected Star wars lego to death, Collecting at least one of every set they released, and It took the release of the step-too-far-CW sets to make me realize that there's no way I'm going to keep buying every set for the sake of it. Since then, I've only been collecting the sets hat I really like and could use, that would make a positive difference to my collection.

I Now have probably 40+ sets that sit in boxes under my bed, which I even currently would love to sell, and an Earthquake would actully make it quite a bit easier to get rid of. I would definately re-collect all my UCS sets, and a lot of the modern nice sets, along with a lot of the classics. Mot of the older stuff I Find a burden. It sits in those boxes waiting for absolutely nothing other than to be eventully sold. I think I would Re-buy about 60% of my stuff, as it means a lot to me. However there is this a lot that I wouldn't be bothered with.

One of the other points, however, Is that I've always wanted to start getting set up for life early, and my plan was alays to buy a house while I'm young, and the odd $30,000 my collection is worth, could make quite a nice deposit on a house. If it really came down to an earthquke, I think I'd agree with Ronconator. A) The lego probably wouldn't be all that damaged in an earthquake, and B) there would be more important things to worry about.

If it really came down to it, It would depend where my life was at. If it happened in 5 years, I would be 20, probably have a girlfriend, and having a family would matter quite a bit more than it currently does to me, so would probably be more intrested in putting that money towards a house, but even then I would still look at buying the odd set or two that I have absolutely loved from my past. Including probably the Effiel tower, MMV, and a few UCS sets.

Definately a very intresting question though, something I've often though about. Not sure wether this should be influencing my current habit or not, but it definately is very intresting to ponder...

Thanks for starting a great topic Allan!

I've gotta say Legoman, that's an extremely well-reasoned and mature response. 15 years old and you're considering selling your collection for a down-payment on a house? Kudos!