>>10380479see this
>>10381095Bricklink does differentiate between parts, but I usually just don't buy parts at all. I go for sets and I collect classics with some modern exceptions that strike my fancy. Basically any set number below 7000 is a safe bet, I'd say, though I had some exo farce sets that lost a few clip hinges because they just snapped by themselves. So I might be wrong on the post 2010 estimate. I'll reduce it to post 2005.
Also if you buy bulk lots on egay and the likes, you should calculate with a loss anyway. If something sells as a bulk lot nowadays, it's guaranteed to be a hodge podge of shit tier items. I sometimes buy "collections" but only from private sellers and I do that nigger tactic where I wait till the last second and then bid 1000. I only do this when the lot contains multiple items I miss from my own collection. Picrelated is a nice catch from last year.
>>10380235Yep, old lego was made of quality plastic in a country that used to have high standards of living and a motivated workforce. This is partially why they almost went bankrupt. Point in case is you had to do some pretty fucked up shit to kill your old lego pieces. It was a toy and not some fucking boring shelf-piece with zero play value.
I also bought the barracuda bay set, but it turned out to be fine for me. The Barron manor haunted house set was trash tier, multiple light gray parts developed hairline cracks after just a few months of shelf storage. I also bought the lion knight's castle, but it's already disassembled out of fear for its bricks. I will not buy any other legacy sets though. It's over for lego. I'll stick to egay and bricklink for comfy soulful classics and let the consoomers get the rest. I only bought those three legacy sets because I got a friend who works at Lego, so I got 50% off and I got money to piss out the window. If you wanna "invest" you should stay away from modern stuff.
