BrickLink Discussion Forum

In Contests, noid55 writes:

Not a snowspeeder...I'm betting it would be a rebellion side set...how about
an x-wing?

4502-2 (Inv) X-wing Fighter (Dagobah), Original Trilogy Edition box
550 Parts, 3 Minifigures, 2004
Sets: Star Wars: Star Wars Episode 4/5/6

That, or the Milennium Falcon

7190-1 (Inv) Millennium Falcon
641 Parts, 6 Minifigures, 2000
Sets: Star Wars: Star Wars Episode 4/5/6

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:

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:

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:

In Contests, popsicle writes:

In Contests, WoutR writes:

A first set should have been Dulpo

2691-1 (Inv) My First Fire Engine
13 Parts, 1 Minifigure, 1995
Sets: DUPLO: DUPLO, Town: Fire

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:

Or, even better, DUPLO 😉

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Feb 3, 2024 20:02

Subject:

Re: Variants & Contests

Viewed:

24 times

Topic:

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

9002939 Watch Set, SW Obi-Wan Kenobi (Short Cape)
Gear: Watch: Star Wars

New/Sealed, that contains

Minifig No: sw0388 Name: Obi-Wan Kenobi (Old) - Short Cape (Watch 9002939)

sw0388 (Inv) Obi-Wan Kenobi (Old) - Short Cape (Watch 9002939)
Minifigures: Star Wars: Star Wars Episode 4/5/6

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

2691-1 (Inv) My First Fire Engine
13 Parts, 1 Minifigure, 1995
Sets: DUPLO: DUPLO, Town: Fire

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Feb 3, 2024 19:40

Subject:

Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly

Viewed:

46 times

Topic:

In Catalog, here4bricks614 writes:

In Catalog, WoutR writes:

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.

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:

In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:

"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/

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:

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:

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:

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:

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:

Found this part in a mixed lot that I purchased today.

I am unable to find it in the catalog.

Any help is appreciated!

Thanks,
Peter

Never mind, I found it!

https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=x682c01#T=P&C=1

x682c01 Birdcage, Yellow Bird
Parts: Animal, Air

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:

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:

x110c01 Projectile Launcher, Cannon Shooting
Parts: Projectile Launcher {Pearl Dark Gray}

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Feb 3, 2024 07:56

Subject:

Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly

Viewed:

50 times

Topic:

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:

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:

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:

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"

51342pb04 Dragon Wing 19 x 11 with Marbled Bright Light Orange Trailing Edge Pattern
Parts: Animal, Body Part, Decorated {Pearl Light Gray}

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Feb 3, 2024 07:04

Subject:

Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

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:

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 06:44

Subject:

Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly

Viewed:

30 times

Topic:

A LOT of work has been done to untangle the silver colors in recent years.
It used to be a confusing mess, it is less so today. The work is not completed
yet, but I have huge respect and appreciation for the progress that has been
made.

Pearl Light Gray

131 Silver / Pearl Light Gray
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/15076958255/

296 Cool Silver
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/15211564252/

Flat Silver

315 Silver Metallic / Flat Silver*
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/15206357186/

Pearl Very Light Gray

150 Light Grey Metallic / Pearl Very Light Gray
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/15095368701/

Bionicle Silver

179 Silver Flip/Flop / Bionicle Silver
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/15100531986/

Pearl Dark Gray

148 Dark Grey Metallic / (old) Pearl Dark Gray
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/14908560599/

316 Titanium Metallic / (New) Pearl Dark Gray
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/15042809177/

Metallic Silver (print/coating)

298 Cool Silver, Drum Lacquered / Metallic Silver
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/15217662502/

336 Silver Ink / Metallic Silver
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/51844135185/

337 Titanium [Ink]
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/51843433196/

Chrome Silver

309 Metalized Silver / Chrome Silver
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/15223065111/

Unknown

168 Gun Metallic
Not known to have been used in any parts...
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/35344027082/

X-Tracker Gray, official color name unknown
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/49417032622/

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Feb 3, 2024 06:28

Subject:

Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly

Viewed:

39 times

Topic:

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)

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Jan 28, 2024 17:03

Subject:

Re: Variants Thread - January 26

Viewed:

51 times

Topic:

That would be illegal here.

You, as seller and sender, are resposible for the delivery of the goods that
your customer ordered and paid for.

You are the person who contracted the postal service for that delivery. You are
responsible to resolve matters if the postal service cannot fullfill their contract
with you, causing you not to fullfill your contract with your buyer. As sender,
you have to refund your buyer and can then try to claim reimbursement from the
postal service.

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Jan 28, 2024 10:35

Subject:

Re: Add figure for 71411 mighty Bowser

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

Catalog Requests

In Catalog Requests, Give.Me.A.Brick writes:

In Catalog Requests, Saitobricks.ca writes:

Please add Bowser figure for set

71411-1 (Inv) The Mighty Bowser
2807 Parts, 2022
Sets: Super Mario: Sculptures

And please remove parts for bowser from the set inventory.

What about these?

7194-1 (Inv) Yoda - UCS
1075 Parts, 2002
Sets: Star Wars: Ultimate Collector Series: Sculptures: Star Wars Episode 4/5/6

76393-1 (Inv) Harry Potter & Hermione Granger
1673 Parts, 2021
Sets: Harry Potter: Sculptures

3723-1 (Inv) Minifigure
1850 Parts, 2000
Sets: Sculptures

40649-1 (Inv) Up-Scaled LEGO Minifigure
650 Parts, 1 Minifigure, 2023
Sets: Sculptures

they are getting exactly the same treatment as Bowser.
The entire set is in the catalog, there is not part or subset for the figures.

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Jan 28, 2024 06:09

Subject:

Re: Variants Thread - January 26

Viewed:

69 times

Topic:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

The design change was intentional, LEGO introduced new part numbers for it.

The same is true for other parts where there is an obvious difference and LEGO
have used a new number, yet they are merged.

True.

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Jan 27, 2024 21:42

Subject:

Re: Variants Thread - January 26

Viewed:

80 times

Topic:

I just made some photos of the hinges with 7 and 9 teeth. They show why they
click into the same positions.

I read a comment here on the forum that the 9 teeth hinge might be able to carry
more weight, as it makes a better connection.

The design change was intentional, LEGO introduced new part numbers for it.

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Jan 27, 2024 18:14

Subject:

Re: Various Threads

Viewed:

46 times

Topic:

6251px2 Cat, Crouching with Medium Blue Eyes, Black Pupils, Nose and Stripes Pattern
Parts: Animal, Land

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Jan 27, 2024 18:07

Subject:

Re: Variants Thread - January 26

Viewed:

62 times

Topic:

In Catalog, WoutR writes:

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:

(...)

I would be very interested to know if there are definitions of high/medium/low
level variations that are currently being used for the BrickLink catalog, as
guidance for accepting or rejecting new variants and for the proposed mergers.

Getting more clarity on those definitions and resulting policy could remove some
confusion (although there will always some discussion about how the classify
some parts).

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Jan 27, 2024 17:58

Subject:

Re: Variants Thread - January 26

Viewed:

69 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:

My initial post on this subject earlier this month has garnered almost 700 replies,

I would like an official response on why the website is choosing not to implement
the suggestion many have recommended for years. Many of us would like
to see a redesign of basic catalog functionality which allows everyone to be
served equally.

Selectable variants is a long-term solution which demonstrates there is a vision
for the future of this website and a care for all members. What are the difficulties
with implementing a visionary solution? Not enough money? Not enough staff?
Not enough vision at the top?

Looking forward to a quality response to this question which many of us have
asked.

We do have replatforming coming up soon and a better handling of variants is
definitely on the list of things we are looking to improve when it comes to core
catalog functionality.

Selectable variants (we have called this the Checkbox Solution internally) would
help in cases with medium level variants. We could implement this in both the
marketplace and the inventory system, at the very least.

However, there are many variants the catalog forces on the marketplace as a general
standard, and these are not optional. In the same way, there are many variants
that are so insignificant that BrickLink would never allow them to be distinguished
with a checkbox system.

So the answer is yes, in part.

But the variants we are merging as part of this current project would fall into
the last category. Maybe the "middle ground" could be expanded to include
them at some point, but from where I'm sitting now, I don't see that
happening.

Good to hear that there are some ideas on how to better deal with variants.

From my point of view, the more details the catalog can provide about historically
correct inventories the better. I do however also recognise that there needs
to be a balance. I also think that the catalog will never be perfect for everyone.
For that, the mentioned difference between high/medium/low level variants is
interesting.

I assume that variants with functional differences are high level.

Personally, I think that every time LEGO introduces a new part number for a part
that should at least be medium level variants. Those are significant for
historic reasons.
Probably part versions that have a clear visual difference (but not functional)
when using them in building should be medium level also. Those are significant
for MOC builders.

Low level would be differences in mould details, that do not lead to visual
or functional differences.

Several of the variants that are now proposed for merger would fit the high level
(32064c, on hold) or medium level (7 or 9 teeth hinges, chair with/without sprue
mark, ...). With this proposed merger, we would lose information on these high/medium
level variants.

As I read the comments, the proposed merger of parts that would conform to my
definition of high and medium level variants gets a lot of resistance, and parts
that are more low level get less.

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Jan 27, 2024 15:36

Subject:

Re: Variants Thread - January 26

Viewed:

49 times

Topic:

It is the same as the vertical ridges inside Duplo bricks. In this photo, you
can see how they match the position and size of the studs.

Because of their size, the Duplo bricks always have "thin" walls and
vertical ridges.

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Jan 27, 2024 12:03

Subject:

Re: Variants Thread - January 26

Viewed:

52 times

Topic:

In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:

Ah, alright! That makes sense. That still would mean they are the same as the
"thin" wall opaque bricks, and so to be consistent, the opaque ones should
be sorted as such too...

The visual difference is important for some builders, so separating them could
be a choice.

For consistency we could separate the thick and thin walled bricks, but the difference
only noticable when building using the transparent bricks. Separating them for
all colours might be to much of a burden for sellers while also most buyers would
not care.

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Jan 27, 2024 07:12

Subject:

Re: Variants Thread - January 26

Viewed:

69 times

Topic:

In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:

In Catalog, WoutR writes:

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:

And we’ve never been able to settle on
a reason for these peculiar markings. Some have suggested they are simply the
same patterns one would find on solid color bricks of the same era. Whatever
they are, though, this type of variant is typically found only in sellers’ notes
and not reflected in standalone BrickLink entries.

In fact, it is a peculiar thing that these entries were only for Transparent
versions of the part. We don’t really do that on BrickLink. Normally, all the
colors are placed under one entry.

The "frosted" appearance is caused by increased roughness of the inner
surface of the brick. During moulding, bricks can stick on the wrong half of
the mould when the mould opens and cause problems with the release of those parts.
The rough surface adds friction and helps to prevent that.

In some cases, moulds started out with a smooth surface and the inner surface
was modified during maintenance later. In other cases, moulds were made with
that rough inner surface from the start.

As far as I know, the frosting was included in the catalog only because of the
visual appearance. Smooth transparent bricks often look better.

Images:
- Two versions of 3001 brick with mould number 214-2
- Inner surface of a broken "brittle blue" brick.
Both these bricks would look "frosted" if they were transparent.

Aren't the "frosted lines" like on 3004f2 just internal support structures,
though?

Not exactly.

When you connect two bricks, the inner wall of a brick connects to the side of
a stud. When a brick clamps the studs on the brick beneath by connecting in at
least 3 places, a stable connection is formed.

The brick walls can be either "thick" or "thin".

Thick walls fill the entire distance between the side of a stud and the outside
surface of the brick.

I believe thin walls were introduced to save materials. (Possibly in response
to the oil crisis in the 1970s). The vertical ridges inside the walls make that
wall "locally thick" again, so the wall connects to the studs in those
places.

Because the thinner walls are more flexible (reducing clutch strength), these
thin walled bricks are usually designed with cross supports (increasing clutch
strength by reducing the amount of deformation of the wall). I believe the main
reason that the vertical ridges run the entire height from the top of the brick
to the bottom, is because of the moulding process. If this was not a continuous
shape, the brick would get stuck on the mould during production. They do add
some stiffness (internal support) though, helping to maintain clutch strength.

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Jan 27, 2024 06:23

Subject:

Re: Variants Thread - January 26

Viewed:

76 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:

Thank you for contributing these details to the conversation! Do we have your
permission to use the images in a Help article?

If you would like a larger image, you can download them from my Flickr page:

brittle blue brick
https://www.flickr.com/photos/111441268@N03/29255592308/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/111441268@N03/41316369010/

white brick
https://www.flickr.com/photos/111441268@N03/16456955312/

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Jan 27, 2024 05:59

Subject:

Re: Variants Thread - January 26

Viewed:

70 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:

In Catalog, WoutR writes:

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:

Thank you for contributing these details to the conversation! Do we have your
permission to use the images in a Help article?

Yes.

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Jan 26, 2024 17:41

Subject:

Re: Variants Thread - January 26

Viewed:

121 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Jan 25, 2024 17:06

Subject:

Re: Variant Merges and BL Moving Backwards

Viewed:

76 times

Topic:

Announce

In Announce, Tracyd writes:

In Announce, tec writes:

we need more variants really, like other platforms do! but any discussion is
useless, they already decided it in 2023 without asking.

They don't have to ask. It is their website, not mine, not yours, not ours.
They own it, lock, stock and both smoking barrels. How many other websites listen
to their users as Bricklink does? They do listen a lot, but in the end, they
can make unilateral decisions regardless of your or anyone else's opinions
or desires. In life you either evolve and adapt or you go extinct. If you choose
to go elsewhere because of this then I wish you luck, if not you will learn to
adapt to the new normal. That goes for everyone. I think quite a few of the
older sellers will continue to keep variants separate and sell them correctly,
others won't care, right now I guarantee there are plenty who don't care
and it won't affect them at all.
This is being done to streamline the listing and buying process for the vast
majority of the people who use this site. You don't hear them because they
aren't in the forums, they just want to buy and/or sell, they aren't
interested in anything else.

I wish I could remember the user who I used to talk to here who would get upset
because Daniel wasn't interested in listing the older non-brick items in
the catalog. This is not a Lego history site; it is a marketplace.

As a collector of part variations, I think that most (but not all) of the variants
that are now being merged are not more significant than variants that are currently
not separated in the catalog (such as CA/ABS, different IP protection marks,
hollow pins, split tubes and several more)

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Jan 24, 2024 16:19

Subject:

Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants

Viewed:

53 times

Topic:

In Catalog, WoutR writes:

That said... I tried to collect a sample of all [unprinted]... just because I am interested
in variations like these.

I still have not found this sub-version of 3626b
[p=3626b]

After the merger, that will become even more challenging...

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Jan 24, 2024 16:07

Subject:

Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants

Viewed:

51 times

Topic:

In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:

In Catalog, stevetq2 writes:

Many people want to know the difference between tiles with grooves as the ones
without...

Fun stats, mine are literally: zero asked for any without groove, while
40K buyers bought the ones with groove.

I have bought both. Without groove to restore old sets, with grooves to build
and play. They are both useful.

I'm sorry to tell you, LEGO is mainly used to play, create and build.

True. It is a toy.

Collectors, specialists of the brand history and sellers/buyers for old Sets
(on eBay?) are really really a tiny tiny minority.

And they use BrickLink because it has the best catalog.

Ever wonder why the pre-1965-ish sets don't sell well here? It is simply
because the catalog is not accurate and detailed enough to help collectors find
what they are looking for.

It's not vain or stupid, at the very contrary.
It's just 99.99% of people wish the current version.

While this, some sellers like one I talked to, in France, has 1000x+ 3001old
New (brand New) which are just NOT (neither old or New). Same for 3068a New which
aren't.
That also is much a problem.

Some sellers don't know their product, provide poor service or just make
a simple human mistake. It happens.

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Jan 24, 2024 15:49

Subject:

Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants

Viewed:

49 times

Topic:

https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, WoutR writes:

In Catalog, leggodtshop writes:

Will there be a list of all changes/mergers available?
Or is it already available?

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:

Somewhere hidden in this thread

More complete list: https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2629 (linked in
the mail too

).
That’s the list of all the entries that will disappear (and the texts you can
add to your comments, manually, one by one…).

Thanks, I had missed that.

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Jan 24, 2024 15:46

Subject:

Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants

Viewed:

65 times

Topic:

https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626

In Catalog, WoutR writes:

In Catalog, leggodtshop writes:

Will there be a list of all changes/mergers available?
Or is it already available?

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:

Somewhere hidden in this thread

Most of these changes make some kind of sense.

The transparent frosted parts use the same moulds as bricks with solid colors.
The frost is simply hidden on the inside wall in those cases. Even as a 2x4 collector,
I don't think the BrickLink catalog needs to have these versions.

The smooth slopes are a variation and I think that there are some intermediate
versions also.

The parts with connections between the studs are also a design improvement/variation.
Interesting, but I can understand the merger.

The chair with sprue mark is a similar part design variation.

Torsos with ribs... Double feelings about this. It feels important to distinguish
between original versions and re-issues even when there is no difference in print.

Parts with inside support.
32064c currently on hold (I think it should remain separate)
10247 looks like an insignificant variation,
46212 probably also...

The x-shaped axle holes can also be seen as a variation. There are a few versions
of the axle holes and we don't separate all of them. Different shapes can
be used for decorative purposes though.

The merger of the hinges with either 7 or 9 teeth just feels wrong. Those
have different part numbers and are not difficult to identify. Here we lose catalog
detail and accuracy.

Duplo brick with bottom tube also interesting but ultimately insignificant.

Parts with blocked or vented studs. Functionally the same, so probably it's
justified to merge them...

Renaming/renumbering those last few parts makes things easier. I don't have
an issue with that as long as the older versions still exist in the catalog.

----

That said... I tried to collect a sample of all... just because I am interested
in variations like these.

In many cases, when LEGO introduces a new version of a part with a new part number,
I think that BrickLink is to quick in merging them into existing variations.
I'd keep them separate until I am certain that they can be merged, instead
of trying to split them later.

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Jan 24, 2024 15:44

Subject:

Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants

Viewed:

65 times

Topic:

In Catalog, stevetq2 writes:

So somebody has decided that having a distinction between tiles with and without
grooves is UNIMPORTANT, well I can tell you IT IS, if I send one without a groove
to the majority of people I WILL GET A COMPLAINT. Nobody in the BrickLink community
(and those are the important people) has asked for this to be done.

The parts will be renamed, but the version without groove will remain in the
catalog.

The initial message about what changes were intended was just poor, so everyone
got a lot more confused than would have been needed.

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Jan 24, 2024 15:21

Subject:

Re: Important proposal regarding catalog variants

Viewed:

81 times

Topic:

https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2626

In Catalog, leggodtshop writes:

Will there be a list of all changes/mergers available?
Or is it already available?

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:

Somewhere hidden in this thread

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Jan 22, 2024 14:40

Subject:

Re: Someone stepped on a LEGO, ouch.

Viewed:

31 times

Topic:

In Off Topic, Saitobricks.ca writes:

(Personally I don’t find stepping on LEGO painful)

That is what I thought...
until my feet got oversensitive due to nerve damage...

suddenly ALL THE MEMES WERE TRUE!!!!

(Feeling a lot better now, but still don't want to try that again. It really
hurt!)

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Jan 21, 2024 12:30

Subject:

Re: Is it fake?

Viewed:

76 times

Topic:

Help

In Help, a101cn writes:

Hi all!
I have a part 60583b and i cant find it marked with LEGO. Is it fake?
Normaly you will find the marked LEGO in the hollow stud, but it’s missing. I
have severel parts 60583b from diffrent batches and the all missing the LEGO
marked.

Best regards
Haakan

The injection point is inside that stud.
I would expect them to look like " L dot O "

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Jan 15, 2024 15:55

Subject:

Re: Trying to post a subject line that is longer than 45 characters - I can! I have the power!

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

In Off Topic, PlanetEarthToys writes:

so by your standards, all Gummy posts are ok if someone calls them 'having
fun' & they are posted in the off-topic section of the Forum...

ok... gotchha

No. Absolutely not. There are a few important differences here:

1) Posting off-topic on the forum is not the same as spamming
2) Nobody is trying to sell me something I am not interested in
3) The people posting are BrickLink members who are actually contributing to
the community here

So yeah, I can tolerate that and might even smile when I see some of the responses.

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Jan 15, 2024 13:50

Subject:

Re: Trying to post a subject line that is longer than 45 characters - I can! I have the power!

Viewed:

60 times

Topic:

In Off Topic, PlanetEarthToys writes:

In Off Topic, peregrinator writes:

testing

this thead is no different than the gummy posts.. both are done to annoy & clog
up the Forum.

this is intentional spamming.

No, this is people having fun in the Off Topic section of the forum.

If it annoys you, adjust your settings here: https://www.bricklink.com/messageFilter.asp?viewFrom=P

Author:

WoutR

Posted:

Jan 14, 2024 13:52

Subject:

Re: Forum Resident Stats

Viewed:

28 times

Topic:

General