I just came across the seller’s post here regarding our recent transaction.
As a relatively new LEGO collector on BrickLink, I truly appreciate the opportunity
to purchase retired sets and minifigures from various sellers, including this
store (this was actually my second order from them).
Upon receiving my order, I noticed what I personally believed to be a deep and
unusual mark on the hairpiece, which made the figure look damaged to me. I immediately
contacted the seller and shared clear photos and a video for reference.
The seller responded promptly and politely, explaining that they believed the
mark to be a common molding mark from LEGO’s production process. They suggested
contacting LEGO for a replacement and also offered a refund if I returned all
items in the package.
However, from a buyer’s perspective, I found this a bit disappointing because:
1. I had already opened the sealed pack containing the Wolfpack Beastmaster
(Series 27), and I assumed the seller would not accept a return under those circumstances.
2. I believed the issue made the item “not as described,” and I was hoping for
either a replacement hairpiece or a partial refund for that part.
3. In the seller’s reply, they mentioned:
“Also a heads-up. As per Australian Law you are not entitled to a repair, replacement
or a refund by us; however you are entitled with LEGO. That’s why we suggested
contacting LEGO directly. Please see the ACCC page attached below.”
As a customer, I felt it was a bit discouraging to be told that the responsibility
lies elsewhere — especially for an item listed as brand new and purchased directly
from a seller.
These were the main reasons I eventually decided to leave a negative review —
not out of anger, but simply to reflect my experience as a buyer.
I fully understand this may not be the standard approach, especially for experienced
sellers, but I was acting in good faith and based on my expectations of what
a “new” LEGO part should look like.
After contacting BrickLink support, I was advised to work directly with the seller
or seek assistance via PayPal. Since the other items in the order were in great
condition, I decided to mark the order as “complete” and leave what I felt was
an honest review reflecting my personal experience.
To be clear, I do not intend to accuse the seller of any dishonesty — I understand
these kinds of misunderstandings can happen, especially when it comes to interpreting
quality issues.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to ask the community:
Are the marks shown in the attached photos typical LEGO molding marks, or are
they unusual for a new part?
Your insights would be greatly appreciated, and will help me better understand
LEGO quality in future purchases.
I just came across the seller’s post here regarding our recent transaction.
As a relatively new LEGO collector on BrickLink, I truly appreciate the opportunity
to purchase retired sets and minifigures from various sellers, including this
store (this was actually my second order from them).
Upon receiving my order, I noticed what I personally believed to be a deep and
unusual mark on the hairpiece, which made the figure look damaged to me. I immediately
contacted the seller and shared clear photos and a video for reference.
The seller responded promptly and politely, explaining that they believed the
mark to be a common molding mark from LEGO’s production process. They suggested
contacting LEGO for a replacement and also offered a refund if I returned all
items in the package.
However, from a buyer’s perspective, I found this a bit disappointing because:
1. I had already opened the sealed pack containing the Wolfpack Beastmaster
(Series 27), and I assumed the seller would not accept a return under those circumstances.
2. I believed the issue made the item “not as described,” and I was hoping for
either a replacement hairpiece or a partial refund for that part.
3. In the seller’s reply, they mentioned:
“Also a heads-up. As per Australian Law you are not entitled to a repair, replacement
or a refund by us; however you are entitled with LEGO. That’s why we suggested
contacting LEGO directly. Please see the ACCC page attached below.”
As a customer, I felt it was a bit discouraging to be told that the responsibility
lies elsewhere — especially for an item listed as brand new and purchased directly
from a seller.
These were the main reasons I eventually decided to leave a negative review —
not out of anger, but simply to reflect my experience as a buyer.
I fully understand this may not be the standard approach, especially for experienced
sellers, but I was acting in good faith and based on my expectations of what
a “new” LEGO part should look like.
After contacting BrickLink support, I was advised to work directly with the seller
or seek assistance via PayPal. Since the other items in the order were in great
condition, I decided to mark the order as “complete” and leave what I felt was
an honest review reflecting my personal experience.
To be clear, I do not intend to accuse the seller of any dishonesty — I understand
these kinds of misunderstandings can happen, especially when it comes to interpreting
quality issues.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to ask the community:
Are the marks shown in the attached photos typical LEGO molding marks, or are
they unusual for a new part?
Your insights would be greatly appreciated, and will help me better understand
LEGO quality in future purchases.
Thank you all for your time and advice.
Cheers!
I'm totally taking the middle ground on this. Nubs replied to the seller's
post, so I'll reply to yours. What is the precise item id number? We all
need to look at the catalog images first to see what the piece is supposed to
look like.
On my first glance, the "cut" appears to match the other two lines on
that side of the helmet. It also appears to be in a completely random yet precise
part of the helmet. So it's hard to know what we're looking at unless
we know what the part is originally intended to look like.
Thanks for giving me help. The minifigure number is mk123.
I also attach the screenshot of reply mail from BL support.
Cheers!
In Problem Order, Ziegelmeister writes:
In Problem Order, Carson2022 writes:
Hi all,
I just came across the seller’s post here regarding our recent transaction.
As a relatively new LEGO collector on BrickLink, I truly appreciate the opportunity
to purchase retired sets and minifigures from various sellers, including this
store (this was actually my second order from them).
Upon receiving my order, I noticed what I personally believed to be a deep and
unusual mark on the hairpiece, which made the figure look damaged to me. I immediately
contacted the seller and shared clear photos and a video for reference.
The seller responded promptly and politely, explaining that they believed the
mark to be a common molding mark from LEGO’s production process. They suggested
contacting LEGO for a replacement and also offered a refund if I returned all
items in the package.
However, from a buyer’s perspective, I found this a bit disappointing because:
1. I had already opened the sealed pack containing the Wolfpack Beastmaster
(Series 27), and I assumed the seller would not accept a return under those circumstances.
2. I believed the issue made the item “not as described,” and I was hoping for
either a replacement hairpiece or a partial refund for that part.
3. In the seller’s reply, they mentioned:
“Also a heads-up. As per Australian Law you are not entitled to a repair, replacement
or a refund by us; however you are entitled with LEGO. That’s why we suggested
contacting LEGO directly. Please see the ACCC page attached below.”
As a customer, I felt it was a bit discouraging to be told that the responsibility
lies elsewhere — especially for an item listed as brand new and purchased directly
from a seller.
These were the main reasons I eventually decided to leave a negative review —
not out of anger, but simply to reflect my experience as a buyer.
I fully understand this may not be the standard approach, especially for experienced
sellers, but I was acting in good faith and based on my expectations of what
a “new” LEGO part should look like.
After contacting BrickLink support, I was advised to work directly with the seller
or seek assistance via PayPal. Since the other items in the order were in great
condition, I decided to mark the order as “complete” and leave what I felt was
an honest review reflecting my personal experience.
To be clear, I do not intend to accuse the seller of any dishonesty — I understand
these kinds of misunderstandings can happen, especially when it comes to interpreting
quality issues.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to ask the community:
Are the marks shown in the attached photos typical LEGO molding marks, or are
they unusual for a new part?
Your insights would be greatly appreciated, and will help me better understand
LEGO quality in future purchases.
Thank you all for your time and advice.
Cheers!
I'm totally taking the middle ground on this. Nubs replied to the seller's
post, so I'll reply to yours. What is the precise item id number? We all
need to look at the catalog images first to see what the piece is supposed to
look like.
On my first glance, the "cut" appears to match the other two lines on
that side of the helmet. It also appears to be in a completely random yet precise
part of the helmet. So it's hard to know what we're looking at unless
we know what the part is originally intended to look like.
Thanks for giving me help. The minifigure number is mk123.
I also attach the screenshot of reply mail from BL support.
Cheers!
In Problem Order, Ziegelmeister writes:
In Problem Order, Carson2022 writes:
Hi all,
I just came across the seller’s post here regarding our recent transaction.
As a relatively new LEGO collector on BrickLink, I truly appreciate the opportunity
to purchase retired sets and minifigures from various sellers, including this
store (this was actually my second order from them).
Upon receiving my order, I noticed what I personally believed to be a deep and
unusual mark on the hairpiece, which made the figure look damaged to me. I immediately
contacted the seller and shared clear photos and a video for reference.
The seller responded promptly and politely, explaining that they believed the
mark to be a common molding mark from LEGO’s production process. They suggested
contacting LEGO for a replacement and also offered a refund if I returned all
items in the package.
However, from a buyer’s perspective, I found this a bit disappointing because:
1. I had already opened the sealed pack containing the Wolfpack Beastmaster
(Series 27), and I assumed the seller would not accept a return under those circumstances.
2. I believed the issue made the item “not as described,” and I was hoping for
either a replacement hairpiece or a partial refund for that part.
3. In the seller’s reply, they mentioned:
“Also a heads-up. As per Australian Law you are not entitled to a repair, replacement
or a refund by us; however you are entitled with LEGO. That’s why we suggested
contacting LEGO directly. Please see the ACCC page attached below.”
As a customer, I felt it was a bit discouraging to be told that the responsibility
lies elsewhere — especially for an item listed as brand new and purchased directly
from a seller.
These were the main reasons I eventually decided to leave a negative review —
not out of anger, but simply to reflect my experience as a buyer.
I fully understand this may not be the standard approach, especially for experienced
sellers, but I was acting in good faith and based on my expectations of what
a “new” LEGO part should look like.
After contacting BrickLink support, I was advised to work directly with the seller
or seek assistance via PayPal. Since the other items in the order were in great
condition, I decided to mark the order as “complete” and leave what I felt was
an honest review reflecting my personal experience.
To be clear, I do not intend to accuse the seller of any dishonesty — I understand
these kinds of misunderstandings can happen, especially when it comes to interpreting
quality issues.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to ask the community:
Are the marks shown in the attached photos typical LEGO molding marks, or are
they unusual for a new part?
Your insights would be greatly appreciated, and will help me better understand
LEGO quality in future purchases.
Thank you all for your time and advice.
Cheers!
I'm totally taking the middle ground on this. Nubs replied to the seller's
post, so I'll reply to yours. What is the precise item id number? We all
need to look at the catalog images first to see what the piece is supposed to
look like.
On my first glance, the "cut" appears to match the other two lines on
that side of the helmet. It also appears to be in a completely random yet precise
part of the helmet. So it's hard to know what we're looking at unless
we know what the part is originally intended to look like.
Screenshots of messages to and from BL don't matter here. We all need to
know what we're looking at first and compare it against other known examples.
Even the catalog images themselves don't tell the whole story because every
single piece isn't made by the same mold in the same machine in the same
plant. I ran across some 30099's I needed for order fulfillment that looked
like a deranged orangutang took an exacto knife too. But they came directly
from lego PAB, and they were uniform. And yet they 100% did not look like the
other 30099's I had in my inventory from new set part outs.
Bottom line is you're (coming across as) pulling out the nuclear option for
an $8 part. Dial it back a little, take a day or two to decompress and restart
your conflict resolution. Personally I _believe_ these are mold/machine marks,
and I understand that due to shipping costs and inventory availability it's
hard to get this part in that part of the world, but that's the nature of
the biz.
I just came across the seller’s post here regarding our recent transaction.
As a relatively new LEGO collector on BrickLink, I truly appreciate the opportunity
to purchase retired sets and minifigures from various sellers, including this
store (this was actually my second order from them).
Upon receiving my order, I noticed what I personally believed to be a deep and
unusual mark on the hairpiece, which made the figure look damaged to me. I immediately
contacted the seller and shared clear photos and a video for reference.
The seller responded promptly and politely, explaining that they believed the
mark to be a common molding mark from LEGO’s production process. They suggested
contacting LEGO for a replacement and also offered a refund if I returned all
items in the package.
However, from a buyer’s perspective, I found this a bit disappointing because:
1. I had already opened the sealed pack containing the Wolfpack Beastmaster
(Series 27), and I assumed the seller would not accept a return under those circumstances.
2. I believed the issue made the item “not as described,” and I was hoping for
either a replacement hairpiece or a partial refund for that part.
3. In the seller’s reply, they mentioned:
“Also a heads-up. As per Australian Law you are not entitled to a repair, replacement
or a refund by us; however you are entitled with LEGO. That’s why we suggested
contacting LEGO directly. Please see the ACCC page attached below.”
As a customer, I felt it was a bit discouraging to be told that the responsibility
lies elsewhere — especially for an item listed as brand new and purchased directly
from a seller.
These were the main reasons I eventually decided to leave a negative review —
not out of anger, but simply to reflect my experience as a buyer.
I fully understand this may not be the standard approach, especially for experienced
sellers, but I was acting in good faith and based on my expectations of what
a “new” LEGO part should look like.
After contacting BrickLink support, I was advised to work directly with the seller
or seek assistance via PayPal. Since the other items in the order were in great
condition, I decided to mark the order as “complete” and leave what I felt was
an honest review reflecting my personal experience.
To be clear, I do not intend to accuse the seller of any dishonesty — I understand
these kinds of misunderstandings can happen, especially when it comes to interpreting
quality issues.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to ask the community:
Are the marks shown in the attached photos typical LEGO molding marks, or are
they unusual for a new part?
Your insights would be greatly appreciated, and will help me better understand
LEGO quality in future purchases.
Thank you all for your time and advice.
Cheers!
I'm totally taking the middle ground on this. Nubs replied to the seller's
post, so I'll reply to yours. What is the precise item id number? We all
need to look at the catalog images first to see what the piece is supposed to
look like.
On my first glance, the "cut" appears to match the other two lines on
that side of the helmet. It also appears to be in a completely random yet precise
part of the helmet. So it's hard to know what we're looking at unless
we know what the part is originally intended to look like.
I just came across the seller’s post here regarding our recent transaction.
As a relatively new LEGO collector on BrickLink, I truly appreciate the opportunity
to purchase retired sets and minifigures from various sellers, including this
store (this was actually my second order from them).
Upon receiving my order, I noticed what I personally believed to be a deep and
unusual mark on the hairpiece, which made the figure look damaged to me. I immediately
contacted the seller and shared clear photos and a video for reference.
The seller responded promptly and politely, explaining that they believed the
mark to be a common molding mark from LEGO’s production process. They suggested
contacting LEGO for a replacement and also offered a refund if I returned all
items in the package.
However, from a buyer’s perspective, I found this a bit disappointing because:
1. I had already opened the sealed pack containing the Wolfpack Beastmaster
(Series 27), and I assumed the seller would not accept a return under those circumstances.
2. I believed the issue made the item “not as described,” and I was hoping for
either a replacement hairpiece or a partial refund for that part.
3. In the seller’s reply, they mentioned:
“Also a heads-up. As per Australian Law you are not entitled to a repair, replacement
or a refund by us; however you are entitled with LEGO. That’s why we suggested
contacting LEGO directly. Please see the ACCC page attached below.”
As a customer, I felt it was a bit discouraging to be told that the responsibility
lies elsewhere — especially for an item listed as brand new and purchased directly
from a seller.
These were the main reasons I eventually decided to leave a negative review —
not out of anger, but simply to reflect my experience as a buyer.
I fully understand this may not be the standard approach, especially for experienced
sellers, but I was acting in good faith and based on my expectations of what
a “new” LEGO part should look like.
After contacting BrickLink support, I was advised to work directly with the seller
or seek assistance via PayPal. Since the other items in the order were in great
condition, I decided to mark the order as “complete” and leave what I felt was
an honest review reflecting my personal experience.
To be clear, I do not intend to accuse the seller of any dishonesty — I understand
these kinds of misunderstandings can happen, especially when it comes to interpreting
quality issues.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to ask the community:
Are the marks shown in the attached photos typical LEGO molding marks, or are
they unusual for a new part?
Your insights would be greatly appreciated, and will help me better understand
LEGO quality in future purchases.
I just came across the seller’s post here regarding our recent transaction.
As a relatively new LEGO collector on BrickLink, I truly appreciate the opportunity
to purchase retired sets and minifigures from various sellers, including this
store (this was actually my second order from them).
Upon receiving my order, I noticed what I personally believed to be a deep and
unusual mark on the hairpiece, which made the figure look damaged to me. I immediately
contacted the seller and shared clear photos and a video for reference.
The seller responded promptly and politely, explaining that they believed the
mark to be a common molding mark from LEGO’s production process. They suggested
contacting LEGO for a replacement and also offered a refund if I returned all
items in the package.
However, from a buyer’s perspective, I found this a bit disappointing because:
1. I had already opened the sealed pack containing the Wolfpack Beastmaster
(Series 27), and I assumed the seller would not accept a return under those circumstances.
2. I believed the issue made the item “not as described,” and I was hoping for
either a replacement hairpiece or a partial refund for that part.
3. In the seller’s reply, they mentioned:
“Also a heads-up. As per Australian Law you are not entitled to a repair, replacement
or a refund by us; however you are entitled with LEGO. That’s why we suggested
contacting LEGO directly. Please see the ACCC page attached below.”
As a customer, I felt it was a bit discouraging to be told that the responsibility
lies elsewhere — especially for an item listed as brand new and purchased directly
from a seller.
These were the main reasons I eventually decided to leave a negative review —
not out of anger, but simply to reflect my experience as a buyer.
I fully understand this may not be the standard approach, especially for experienced
sellers, but I was acting in good faith and based on my expectations of what
a “new” LEGO part should look like.
After contacting BrickLink support, I was advised to work directly with the seller
or seek assistance via PayPal. Since the other items in the order were in great
condition, I decided to mark the order as “complete” and leave what I felt was
an honest review reflecting my personal experience.
To be clear, I do not intend to accuse the seller of any dishonesty — I understand
these kinds of misunderstandings can happen, especially when it comes to interpreting
quality issues.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to ask the community:
Are the marks shown in the attached photos typical LEGO molding marks, or are
they unusual for a new part?
Your insights would be greatly appreciated, and will help me better understand
LEGO quality in future purchases.
I just came across the seller’s post here regarding our recent transaction.
As a relatively new LEGO collector on BrickLink, I truly appreciate the opportunity
to purchase retired sets and minifigures from various sellers, including this
store (this was actually my second order from them).
Upon receiving my order, I noticed what I personally believed to be a deep and
unusual mark on the hairpiece, which made the figure look damaged to me. I immediately
contacted the seller and shared clear photos and a video for reference.
The seller responded promptly and politely, explaining that they believed the
mark to be a common molding mark from LEGO’s production process. They suggested
contacting LEGO for a replacement and also offered a refund if I returned all
items in the package.
However, from a buyer’s perspective, I found this a bit disappointing because:
1. I had already opened the sealed pack containing the Wolfpack Beastmaster
(Series 27), and I assumed the seller would not accept a return under those circumstances.
2. I believed the issue made the item “not as described,” and I was hoping for
either a replacement hairpiece or a partial refund for that part.
3. In the seller’s reply, they mentioned:
“Also a heads-up. As per Australian Law you are not entitled to a repair, replacement
or a refund by us; however you are entitled with LEGO. That’s why we suggested
contacting LEGO directly. Please see the ACCC page attached below.”
As a customer, I felt it was a bit discouraging to be told that the responsibility
lies elsewhere — especially for an item listed as brand new and purchased directly
from a seller.
These were the main reasons I eventually decided to leave a negative review —
not out of anger, but simply to reflect my experience as a buyer.
I fully understand this may not be the standard approach, especially for experienced
sellers, but I was acting in good faith and based on my expectations of what
a “new” LEGO part should look like.
After contacting BrickLink support, I was advised to work directly with the seller
or seek assistance via PayPal. Since the other items in the order were in great
condition, I decided to mark the order as “complete” and leave what I felt was
an honest review reflecting my personal experience.
To be clear, I do not intend to accuse the seller of any dishonesty — I understand
these kinds of misunderstandings can happen, especially when it comes to interpreting
quality issues.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to ask the community:
Are the marks shown in the attached photos typical LEGO molding marks, or are
they unusual for a new part?
Your insights would be greatly appreciated, and will help me better understand
LEGO quality in future purchases.
I agree. And there is no way a seller would intentionally cut a piece they are
selling. I could understand unintentional damage to a piece with a knife if this
came in a cmf sealed bag and the seller opens the bags with a blade rather than
scissors and it was a thin part that got stuck near the edge of the bag but the
sets this comes in and the size make that incredibly unlikely.
Never said seller intentional cut. Also I keep the full video of opening the
package when received.
In Problem Order, yorbrick writes:
Mold marks for sure.
I agree. And there is no way a seller would intentionally cut a piece they are
selling. I could understand unintentional damage to a piece with a knife if this
came in a cmf sealed bag and the seller opens the bags with a blade rather than
scissors and it was a thin part that got stuck near the edge of the bag but the
sets this comes in and the size make that incredibly unlikely.
Never said seller intentional cut. Also I keep the full video of opening the
package when received.
In Problem Order, yorbrick writes:
Mold marks for sure.
I agree. And there is no way a seller would intentionally cut a piece they are
selling. I could understand unintentional damage to a piece with a knife if this
came in a cmf sealed bag and the seller opens the bags with a blade rather than
scissors and it was a thin part that got stuck near the edge of the bag but the
sets this comes in and the size make that incredibly unlikely.
My friend... we're all trying to work with you here but please consider
the optics. There are only 748 BL stores in the entirety of Australia and bringing
all of this up in the forum and leaving negative feedback for a production issue
might result in you getting stop listed by the small amount of stores you have
access too. Go check your activity page to see if this is true or not.
I'm bowing out, I have an early morning tomorrow and from the looks of it
the sun sky is starting to lighten up.
I really appreciate your help. This is the reason I ask community friends. If
this is Lego normal mark and quality control problem, I will apologize to seller
and ask BL remove the negative review. Have a good night!
In Problem Order, Ziegelmeister writes:
In Problem Order, Carson2022 writes:
Never said seller intentional cut. Also I keep the full video of opening the
package when received.
In Problem Order, yorbrick writes:
Mold marks for sure.
I agree. And there is no way a seller would intentionally cut a piece they are
selling. I could understand unintentional damage to a piece with a knife if this
came in a cmf sealed bag and the seller opens the bags with a blade rather than
scissors and it was a thin part that got stuck near the edge of the bag but the
sets this comes in and the size make that incredibly unlikely.
My friend... we're all trying to work with you here but please consider
the optics. There are only 748 BL stores in the entirety of Australia and bringing
all of this up in the forum and leaving negative feedback for a production issue
might result in you getting stop listed by the small amount of stores you have
access too. Go check your activity page to see if this is true or not.
I'm bowing out, I have an early morning tomorrow and from the looks of it
the sun sky is starting to lighten up.
Never said seller intentional cut. Also I keep the full video of opening the
package when received.
In Problem Order, yorbrick writes:
Mold marks for sure.
I agree. And there is no way a seller would intentionally cut a piece they are
selling. I could understand unintentional damage to a piece with a knife if this
came in a cmf sealed bag and the seller opens the bags with a blade rather than
scissors and it was a thin part that got stuck near the edge of the bag but the
sets this comes in and the size make that incredibly unlikely.
I agree with you on your 2nd picture as it's much clearer than the first.
It does look less like a molding mark and more like a cut. But hard to give a
definite answer without another to compare it to.
Never said seller intentional cut. Also I keep the full video of opening the
package when received.
In the image, what’s circled in black is a mold mark and what’s circled in blue
is what appears to be factory wear, parts (often printed ones) can show significant
wear even direct from lego at times
Seeing your screenshots from cs I deleted my prior message as it seems they did
actually respond fast (assuming the message had just recently been sent)
Thanks for the updated reply! I should have uploaded this clear screenshot earlier—still
learning. Appreciate your help!
In Problem Order, Nubs_Select writes:
In Problem Order, Carson2022 writes:
Never said seller intentional cut. Also I keep the full video of opening the
package when received.
In the image, what’s circled in black is a mold mark and what’s circled in blue
is what appears to be factory wear, parts (often printed ones) can show significant
wear even direct from lego at times
Seeing your screenshots from cs I deleted my prior message as it seems they did
actually respond fast (assuming the message had just recently been sent)
I just came across the seller’s post here regarding our recent transaction.
As a relatively new LEGO collector on BrickLink, I truly appreciate the opportunity
to purchase retired sets and minifigures from various sellers, including this
store (this was actually my second order from them).
Upon receiving my order, I noticed what I personally believed to be a deep and
unusual mark on the hairpiece, which made the figure look damaged to me. I immediately
contacted the seller and shared clear photos and a video for reference.
The seller responded promptly and politely, explaining that they believed the
mark to be a common molding mark from LEGO’s production process. They suggested
contacting LEGO for a replacement and also offered a refund if I returned all
items in the package.
However, from a buyer’s perspective, I found this a bit disappointing because:
1. I had already opened the sealed pack containing the Wolfpack Beastmaster
(Series 27), and I assumed the seller would not accept a return under those circumstances.
2. I believed the issue made the item “not as described,” and I was hoping for
either a replacement hairpiece or a partial refund for that part.
3. In the seller’s reply, they mentioned:
“Also a heads-up. As per Australian Law you are not entitled to a repair, replacement
or a refund by us; however you are entitled with LEGO. That’s why we suggested
contacting LEGO directly. Please see the ACCC page attached below.”
As a customer, I felt it was a bit discouraging to be told that the responsibility
lies elsewhere — especially for an item listed as brand new and purchased directly
from a seller.
These were the main reasons I eventually decided to leave a negative review —
not out of anger, but simply to reflect my experience as a buyer.
I fully understand this may not be the standard approach, especially for experienced
sellers, but I was acting in good faith and based on my expectations of what
a “new” LEGO part should look like.
After contacting BrickLink support, I was advised to work directly with the seller
or seek assistance via PayPal. Since the other items in the order were in great
condition, I decided to mark the order as “complete” and leave what I felt was
an honest review reflecting my personal experience.
To be clear, I do not intend to accuse the seller of any dishonesty — I understand
these kinds of misunderstandings can happen, especially when it comes to interpreting
quality issues.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to ask the community:
Are the marks shown in the attached photos typical LEGO molding marks, or are
they unusual for a new part?
Your insights would be greatly appreciated, and will help me better understand
LEGO quality in future purchases.
As a customer, I felt it was a bit discouraging to be told that the responsibility
lies elsewhere — especially for an item listed as brand new and purchased directly
from a seller.
I don't know how the law works in Australia but it is fairly common to contact
Lego customer support when you buy a product new from a retailer and there is
something wrong with it. Of course that assumes Lego can do something about it
(which they can't/won't for retired products).
To be clear, I do not intend to accuse the seller of any dishonesty — I understand
these kinds of misunderstandings can happen, especially when it comes to interpreting
quality issues.
To be honest, the "cut" doesn't look like a molding mark to me. But
I also don't understand why you would call it "intentional"? The
piece could have rubbed against another piece anywhere in the production/distribution
chain.
Thanks for your reply. I don’t know whether I can ask Lego a replacement if I
bought from BL seller.
Just to clarify about the mark — when I said it looked like an “intentional-looking
cutting mark,” I didn’t mean that anyone (especially the seller) did it on purpose.
I only meant that it didn’t look like a normal molding mark, and I was trying
to describe how it looks so others could help identify if it’s a known issue.
If the word “intentional” caused any confusion, I truly apologize — that wasn’t
my intention at all. I’ve also explained this clearly in my email to the seller!
I have to admit, leaving the negative review might’ve been a bit hasty on my
part. At the time, I felt that being told to contact LEGO for a replacement came
across as the seller trying to avoid responsibility — just how it felt to me
in the moment.
Looking back, I probably should’ve given it more thought. If anyone knows how
to update or remove a negative review on BrickLink, I’d really appreciate the
advice!
In Problem Order, peregrinator writes:
In Problem Order, Carson2022 writes:
As a customer, I felt it was a bit discouraging to be told that the responsibility
lies elsewhere — especially for an item listed as brand new and purchased directly
from a seller.
I don't know how the law works in Australia but it is fairly common to contact
Lego customer support when you buy a product new from a retailer and there is
something wrong with it. Of course that assumes Lego can do something about it
(which they can't/won't for retired products).
To be clear, I do not intend to accuse the seller of any dishonesty — I understand
these kinds of misunderstandings can happen, especially when it comes to interpreting
quality issues.
To be honest, the "cut" doesn't look like a molding mark to me. But
I also don't understand why you would call it "intentional"? The
piece could have rubbed against another piece anywhere in the production/distribution
chain.
It’s the same form whether the feedback is left by you or the other party to
the transaction, that’s why it’s in “Problem Center.”
When it’s yours, and less than a month old, the result is immediate and you can
post a new one immediately.
When it’s not yours, or older than a month, it’s up to the admins.
Thanks for your reply. I don’t know whether I can ask Lego a replacement if I
bought from BL seller.
I don't know. In this case, though - I believe the product is retired so
it's kind of moot.
Looking back, I probably should’ve given it more thought. If anyone knows how
to update or remove a negative review on BrickLink, I’d really appreciate the
advice!
As a customer, I felt it was a bit discouraging to be told that the responsibility
lies elsewhere — especially for an item listed as brand new and purchased directly
from a seller.
I don't know how the law works in Australia but it is fairly common to contact
Lego customer support when you buy a product new from a retailer and there is
something wrong with it. Of course that assumes Lego can do something about it
(which they can't/won't for retired products).
I can't comment on the part because I've never seen one but the law here
is that it's the retailer's responsibility to solve issues and they must
not tell consumers to take the problem to the manufacturer.
To be clear, I do not intend to accuse the seller of any dishonesty — I understand
these kinds of misunderstandings can happen, especially when it comes to interpreting
quality issues.
To be honest, the "cut" doesn't look like a molding mark to me. But
I also don't understand why you would call it "intentional"? The
piece could have rubbed against another piece anywhere in the production/distribution
chain.
“Perhaps you can request a replacement from LEGO themselves?”
That was the main reason I initially felt disappointed, as this was the reply
I received from the seller. I really appreciate you showing me how to update
the review. I’ll go ahead and remove the feedback first, as I do trust that every
seller aims to provide the best quality items.
Thanks again for the clarification and for everyone’s input — it really helped
me see things from a different perspective.
In Problem Order, QBricks writes:
In Problem Order, peregrinator writes:
In Problem Order, Carson2022 writes:
As a customer, I felt it was a bit discouraging to be told that the responsibility
lies elsewhere — especially for an item listed as brand new and purchased directly
from a seller.
I don't know how the law works in Australia but it is fairly common to contact
Lego customer support when you buy a product new from a retailer and there is
something wrong with it. Of course that assumes Lego can do something about it
(which they can't/won't for retired products).
I can't comment on the part because I've never seen one but the law here
is that it's the retailer's responsibility to solve issues and they must
not tell consumers to take the problem to the manufacturer.
To be clear, I do not intend to accuse the seller of any dishonesty — I understand
these kinds of misunderstandings can happen, especially when it comes to interpreting
quality issues.
To be honest, the "cut" doesn't look like a molding mark to me. But
I also don't understand why you would call it "intentional"? The
piece could have rubbed against another piece anywhere in the production/distribution
chain.
Australia, Victoria
USA, Ohio
France, Centre-Val de Loire
United Kingdom, England
Canada, Ontario
