Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | WoutR  | | Posted: | Feb 4, 2024 14:46 | | Subject: | Re: Variants & Contests | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Contests | |
| In Contests, noid55 writes:
| | Not a snowspeeder...I'm betting it would be a rebellion side set...how about
an x-wing?
|
That, or the Milennium Falcon
|
 |
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Feb 4, 2024 11:30 | | Subject: | Re: How do I get my double paid VAT back?? | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Taxes | |
| - BrickLink collects the tax (1)
- Buyer pays the tax
- Customs does not receive that electronic number, so they collect the tax again
(2)
- Buyer has to pay tax again, with an additional administrative fee
- BrickLink does not know that taxes were already paid, so BrickLink transfers
the tax amount. The customs office now has received payment 1 and 2.
- If the seller refunds, he is out of money without possibility of being reimbursed.
- Then the buyer gets a refund, pays taxes only once but could be out of the
extra fee.
- BrickLink is has paid the taxes, so they are at 0. BrickLink is the only party
who can claim back the second payment to customs, but they don't have a system
to do this.
- Customs office remains with the double paid tax unclaimed.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Feb 4, 2024 11:22 | | Subject: | Re: How do I get my double paid VAT back?? | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Taxes | |
| In Taxes, zorbanj writes:
| | Attached is a screenshot of shipping information I must fill out for an international
shipping label. The black box is where the Bricklink IOSS number must be entered.
If the number is not entered, the buyer will probably be charged VAT again. It
doesn't matter if there's a VAT invoice included in the package or if
I write in the IOSS number on the label by hand.
Yes, this is for US shipping but the idea is the same. If your seller didn't
enter the IOSS number electronically then that is the reason you were charged
VAT again. If the seller is unable to enter the IOSS number electronically they
shouldn't be selling to EU buyers.
So again, you must get the original VAT back from the seller. If you feel bad
ask for half of it back, but you aren't going to be refunded by Bricklink
or your country. If the seller did in fact complete the shipping label correctly
and there was a glitch they will have to pay you and then take it up with their
post office.
In Taxes, Poncke writes:
| |
seller was very cooperative, but says he did everything correctly, also has the
VAT invoiuce which says IOSS was enterered correctly.
So someone messed up, but I can only get vat back from BL. And VAT is no one's
profit or revenue, so there should be no issue sending it back me. Its just one
big confusing dark hole and I dont know who or where to turn to get my VAT back
|
|
Even when the seller makes an error, the seller is not the one who can correct
the mistake because he does not hold the money.
BrickLink holds the money. BrickLink can refund, and in turn does not have to
pay those taxes. The net result for BrickLink is 0 (+ takes, - taxes), they only
pay for the labour involved. This is how the system was designed, and this is
how BrickLink shoudl comply.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Feb 4, 2024 10:20 | | Subject: | Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:
| | Interesting. Does it still apply to the same colour, and process of creation?
If it's identical to the later 309 parts, I'll probably leave it. It
shows up in most databases as 309, and if I start splitting hairs there people
might get a bit confused.
As an aside, there's an unlisted Light Grey Hau under the chrome! I'll
have a dud one in hand this week to strip and provide evidence of, it's the
last Mata mask I need (aside from prototypes).
|
For all practical purposes, it is identical.
You might want to include a note that it originally was seen as a decoration
on that Light Gray base, not a separate color in itself. Just in case someone
builds a color timeline based on your notes and this one does not fit in or distorts
everything.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Feb 4, 2024 08:36 | | Subject: | Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:
| | Mahri shoulder piece is 131 v2. Hydruka armour piece is 315. Couple
of mates had them lying around, tested 'em against confirmed iterations of
those colours. Neither fit the timeline at all. Just when I thought I had things
ironed out...
I did at least finish rewriting the silver overview thing I work on for my Parts
Guide:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1we0sW-jnigQxDkBpY3hUn2n3IEGLX6ZyM08-3sXsfZI/edit?usp=sharing
I doubt there's anything new to you there, it's just nice having an overview
put together.
|
309 is probably not technically correct for the 2001 Hau. That color number was
introduced later. At that time, the chrome silver was seen as a surface decoration
pattern that did not get its own (ink) color number.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 20:15 | | Subject: | Re: Variants & Contests | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Contests | |
| In Contests, popsicle writes:
| | In Contests, WoutR writes:
| |
A first set should have been Dulpo
|
As you would natural would think if you didn't know my son. Very intelligent
from an early age, who would've been bored with Duplo -
|
I think that depends on which age you start. No point in waiting until a child
is 3 years old, but you also don't want them eating all the smallest parts.
| | Another hint dropped
|
A small success achieved!
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 20:03 | | Subject: | Re: Variants & Contests | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Contests | |
| | Or, even better, DUPLO 😉 |
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 20:02 | | Subject: | Re: Variants & Contests | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Contests | |
| In Contests, popsicle writes:
| | The lengthy and sometimes lively debates over the recent catalog procedural change,
illustrates to me dedication to and strength of, community. As though that which
in one sense or another, gathered us, the BL catalog, continues to demonstrate
how it also helps in the forming of community.
Plenty of strongly held opinions with pushing n’ pulling of thoughtful and often
times impressive arguments. Consider that this would not take place if those
‘gathered’ were indifferent to one another... As I see it, plainly emblematic
of a healthy sense of community.
It’s the free exchange of ideas and thoughts that helps us to grow and improve
individually, but also collectively.
As posted, the cost of this contest is dedicated to those that have taken the
time to encourage and express their appreciation:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1451388
Enough introspective sappiness on my part Let’s have some fun!
The prize is a fairly rare LEGO Star Wars item
New/Sealed, that contains
with his chrome-silver hilted weapon
The contest: Guess the first LEGO set I ever purchased?
Clues: The purchase was for my son’s (unspecified) birthday in Sweden. He is
currently less than 30 years of age.
Contest Rules:
- One entry per 24 hour period, posted here without limit to number of entries.
- If two entries are identical, the first wins.
- For transparency all entries must be posted here as reply
- All our fellow BL members worldwide are welcome to participate, though we'll
cover domestic shipping only should you win.
- Otherwise, no further restrictions
Goofing-off and banter encouraged
~ConstrucToys
|
A first set should have been Dulpo
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 19:40 | | Subject: | Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, here4bricks614 writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
Those are actually the easiest. The fact that 221 has been reformulated so many
times is what makes this difficult. Any part in 22 looks identical to modern
221, but almost nothing like original 221. The best time to address this was
2004.
|
I think we can probably separate them in the inventories. But if a seller finds
some parts in a lot of used bricks, can he identify them correctly?
I'd love to get the history correct and have all the accurate information
in the catalog, but I think that there are to many challenges to make this work
in Bricklink stores.
| | It's disappointing to hear that its odds are low, especially given the fact
that it is very much doable and is backed up by extensive research. The concerns
behind its addition are understandable, however.
Still hoping for 225. 
|
It is a rare color, but one that should be in the catalog.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 19:20 | | Subject: | Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| |
So, it's Red, so there's no problem?
I guess you've already seen Yellow Technic almost orange?
Again, sorry if I read too fast the whole.
|
It is a similar situation, with a different cause.
Some Light Gray parts also have this problem
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/15210696207/
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 19:16 | | Subject: | Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| |
I would say it has a better chance than 22 which will almost surely never be
added. I just know that 296 is going to be a very hard sell with the direction
the site is moving in.
|
I think that the difference between 22 and 221 will be extremely difficult for
most sellers. Especially for the parts that were made during the transition period
that appear in both versions.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/14777415117/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/14988645798/
296 will be a challenge, but considering the amount of questions on the forum
and the increasing interest in Bionicle, I think that BrickLink should separate
them. I think it will increase catalog accuracy and reduce confusion. It might
take a lot of comparison photos though...
| | The next one we are going to get moving on is Rose. I just need to find some
time to contact you all and discuss some things that I would then bring back
to the team for further discussion. In this case, the addition has already been
agreed to, but I need to have a plan of action in place along with all of the
required data and images ready to go.
|
Good to hear! This is one of the remaining color groupings that is bugging me
most.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/14931522786/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/14776964407/
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 19:00 | | Subject: | Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, here4bricks614 writes:
| | | | | | Big shame that 296 wont be getting an official colour listing any time soon,
but c'est la vie. Any chance of getting some distinction between the older
and newer 131 formulations?
|
Nope. That is a complete non-starter, unfortunately. BrickLink does not recognize
variations of colors or reformulations.
|
Are these grandfathered in? We have enough data to confirm that these are just
a crappy red.
|
|
Wow - I hear discussions about rust color since I registered on BrickLink!
Unbelievable.
|
This is not about ALL Rust colored parts.
BrickLink Rust is a group that currently contains:
LEGO 13 Red Orange / Fabuland Red
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/14960664342/
LEGO 216 Rust
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/15139390746/
"Crappy red" (LEGO 21 Bright Red, but softer material with poor color
matching. These parts are a color variation.)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/15077477860/
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 16:52 | | Subject: | Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:
| | Sorry again mate, self-righteousness blinded me to how big an ass I was being.
Frustration does not look good on me, and that's entirely my fault. Even
worse, I was wrong! Mainly just have to swap some names around, but I do have
a bunch of part/colour versions that are missing
|
These colors are complicated, especially because of the reformulations, different
materials and that fact that we did not have ANY official information before
2010.
I hope you gained some understanding about the catalog history here. People did
their best, with the knowledge they had. In addition, the catalog has to keep
a delicate balance between for example the available information, historical
accuracy, the needs of sellers, buyers and several different types of collectors
and specialists and the time available for the volunteers.
Look at how much the catalog colors changed since 2022:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogColors.asp?sortBy=N
The amount of catalog changes made, all requiring manual work and verification
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogLogs.asp
Or simply the amount of items that are added daily:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp
The workload is huge, so the volunteers have to prioritize. Our personal priorities
might be different sometimes, but we owe them much grattitude and appreciation
for their time and effort.
| | Big shame that 296 wont be getting an official colour listing any time soon,
but c'est la vie.
|
Best we can do for now is:
- collect reliable information and make that available
- take photos comparing the different versions. We could try to get them into
the catalog as alternate images (if the catalog admins agree).
- Add catalog notes to the parts (if the catalog admins agree).
- try to make https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1096 as helpful as possible
| | Any chance of getting some distinction between the older
and newer 131 formulations?
|
If a seller only has a few parts, how is (s)he going to identify which one it
is?
I think this will not be possible for an average seller.
| | I sent a couple of emails btw, mind letting me know if they actually arrived?
Their info was mostly obsolete, and I've killed the link I included while
I fix the content, but there are a couple of things that definitely aren't
recognised and (total guess on my part) would be pretty easy to add to the catalogue
without any major issues.
First off, 131 'v2' leaked into the early Hero Factory stuff before the
big switcheroo to 315. Here's a Surge weapon in both colours, which I'm
guessing could just be added as an alternate part?
|
Have you seen
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogAdd.asp
You can add catalog items, photos of new colors or request inventory changes.
If you are certain, you can submit a catalog or inventory change request. Volunteers
will look at this, so it can take some time before they get to it. Depending
on their workload it can take weeks, but they will get to it. Note that requests
can be denied if there is insufficient proof, keeping the catalog reliable is
a huge challenge so the admins can be very strict about proposed changes. They
catch a lot or errors and mistakes this way.
Note that there are different teams of volunteers for the Catalog items and the
Inventories.
Please read the help files, to meet the catalog requirements and to make things
easier for the volunteers.
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=38
| | Secondly, and slightly more important, is the missing Kraahkan: the Pearl Black
4-Hole. This mould is 2 years older than BrickLink's catalogue recognises,
and originates in 2003 with Makuta Teridax. On its right is the noticeably darker
Black 4-Hole, from Makuta Icarax in 2008. You thought silvers were bad? Now we
have to deal with different blacks.
The catalogue does recognise the different blacks (see Bomonga vs Vorahk
heads), but this instance has been missed somehow. See, I'm not entirely
full of shit lmao
|
The color is in the catalog since 2022, thanks to randyf
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 15:35 | | Subject: | Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| |
You have now been hit by two of the people that have become major resources for
me over the course of my role here. Along with a couple of other amazing AFOLs
(h/t Rylie and Dan), their work on colors and getting this information compiled
occurred over much more than the four years you put in and has been corroborated
by a lot of official data straight from the mothership. I am happy to know their
work still stands the test, but I am also happy to know that you are happy.
|
We probably all started like NoGravitasHere. Noticing a problem and trying to
figure it out.
I have no doubt that NoGravitasHere wil be a better expert on Cool Silver than
I am soon. Once everything is identified properly, he has a much better set of
data than I have.
I hope NoGravitasHere and here4bricks614 can compare notes. That could help to
sort out things here, when the time comes to start that project.
| | And this is why I said that I was going to have to ask you for a lot of proof
of your findings in my last message. People here that have been in the hobby
for a long time know things that the general LEGO fan community doesn't.
We know when colors were used, what parts were manufactured when, when colors
were reformulated, what materials are used for most parts, etc., etc., because
a lot of detailed work has been done and confirmed by official LEGO data sources
and is not just speculation. Once again, the problem we have is getting a chance
to get all of this information into BrickLink. But if you ask any of the people
communicating with you here, they will hopefully agree that we have made some
significant progress on things over the last 3-4 years and I will do all that
I can to continue that work.
|
Absolutely! A HUGE amount of progress has been made.
| | Stick around. There is a lot to learn about this toy that we all are passionate
about! 
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 14:55 | | Subject: | Re: Unknown yellow bird part | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog Identification | |
| In Catalog Identification, Northwinds writes:
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 14:39 | | Subject: | Re: How do I get my double paid VAT back?? | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Taxes | |
| In Help, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | That only moves the problem… and the buyer doesn’t have their LEGO!
|
Frankly, need of LEGO shouldn't make you to accept to pay twice the taxes.
Apart if he didn't know he already paid (or he had to pay again, which I
doubt), then it's a wrong decision, IMO. How can you complain about something
you agreed to?
|
It is how this system was designed. Buyer pays twice and gets a refund from the
marketplace.
Only problem is that BrickLink has not implemented this yet...
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 08:19 | | Subject: | Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | P.S. There is no current plan to separate BrickLink Pearl Dark Gray into its
two unique colors, but it is something that may be considered in the future.
|
I hope so, because some parts were made in both colors. For example:
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 07:56 | | Subject: | Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:
| | I meant 2007, but that's moot. You're right, goddamn you. This changes
everything.
|
It changes the names/color numbers. Probably not the groupings you made.
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 07:47 | | Subject: | Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:
| | Oooooh that's good data, where'd you get the official name from?
If that's accurate, then I've absolutely got some names mixed up. However,
that doesn't change the fact the the silvers from 2001 and 2007 do not match,
and to a degree that isn't just colour variation. That would mean we're
looking at either a significant, and unrecorded, reformulation of 131 into its
2006-2010 version, or still a whole a new silver. The problem remains.
|
Directly from LEGO customer service.
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 07:46 | | Subject: | Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| The 150 parts NoGravitasHere identified and the 144 here4bricks614 identified
could be a pretty good match also. I suspect both are 296 Cool Silver.
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 07:41 | | Subject: | Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | The thing you are calling 150 looks to be 296. The thing you are calling 296
is another variation of either 131 or 296. 296 was only used in early 2006 with
few exceptions.
|
I agree. I think you are confusing 150 and 296.
Confirmed 296, in rubbery material (polypropylene ?) because of the LEGO part
name "Wing W. Holes Ø 4,84 296/191"
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 07:04 | | Subject: | Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | Maybe this helps (I don't have the best set up for taking pictures :c)
|
Can you upload a higher quality version of this image?
(Rotate 90 degrees if rescaling of the image by BrickLink causes the low resolution,
rotated text is less of a problem than low resolution)
|
Sure, I just uploaded it in full resolution to Flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/168347127@N06/53506310595/
|
Also useful:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/17768155498/
where we could add these notes (9 years later):
|
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 06:44 | | Subject: | Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | Maybe this helps (I don't have the best set up for taking pictures :c)
|
Can you upload a higher quality version of this image?
(Rotate 90 degrees if rescaling of the image by BrickLink causes the low resolution,
rotated text is less of a problem than low resolution)
|
Sure, I just uploaded it in full resolution to Flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/168347127@N06/53506310595/
|
Thanks
|
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Feb 3, 2024 06:28 | | Subject: | Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | Maybe this helps (I don't have the best set up for taking pictures :c)
|
Can you upload a higher quality version of this image?
(Rotate 90 degrees if rescaling of the image by BrickLink causes the low resolution,
rotated text is less of a problem than low resolution)
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
