Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | randyf  | | Posted: | May 3, 2024 18:07 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifigure col433 | | Viewed: | 13 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SirPerceval writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 2 Part {Red to Dark Red} 2496 Wheel Skateboard / Trolley
Comments from Submitter:
I just parted out this minifigure and the wheels look like dark red and not like red.
|
These wheels are made from a material that can make the color red look slightly
darker than normal red, but it isn't dark red. However, they are definitely
supposed to be red.
If you could, please post a photo of the wheels next to other known red and dark
red parts.
Cheers,
Randy
|
After further review, the wheels are the same darker red as other parts made
from this material, and they are definitely supposed to be red to match the center
wheel on the costume. Since we do not use other colors to describe parts that
do not actually exist in that color, this request will not be accepted.
Cheers,
Randy
|
 |
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | May 2, 2024 14:25 | | Subject: | Re: Super highway | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Off Topic | |
| In Off Topic, WildBricks writes:
| | When I showed my employee your pic, we both giggled. That unpaved area to the
left of the picture has now become an express-way that changes direction with
the time of day.
|
Ah, good ol' Atlanta. I hate driving through there.
| |
In Off Topic, Saitobricks.ca writes:
| | This is the biggest highway I’ve ever driven on!
|
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | May 2, 2024 00:17 | | Subject: | Re: Please Add Alternate Number | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, axaday writes:
Any differences between it and the older mold?
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | May 2, 2024 00:16 | | Subject: | Re: Yet another item with a trailing new-line | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, sandman writes:
| | ... in its name. This time, it's
|
Let me know if it is still problematic.
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | May 1, 2024 23:51 | | Subject: | Re: Please make this item “un-inventorable” | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, Saitobricks.ca writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, BricksThatStick writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, Saitobricks.ca writes:
| | Please make,
“Un-inventorable”
|
It's a bag of miscellaneous bricks but how do you know each bag did not have
identical contents?
If every bag was the same then we could give it an inventory.
|
True, but it was unlikely that it would have the same contents.
|
Conjecture will not lead us to marking it as "Cannot be Inventoried".
This request will not be accepted.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | May 1, 2024 23:49 | | Subject: | Re: Please make this item “un-inventorable” | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, BricksThatStick writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, Saitobricks.ca writes:
| | Please make,
“Un-inventorable”
|
It's a bag of miscellaneous bricks but how do you know each bag did not have
identical contents?
If every bag was the same then we could give it an inventory.
|
My thoughts exactly. 👍
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | May 1, 2024 16:25 | | Subject: | Re: Does part 10202 need a note? | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
Ah, yes. Thank you. 👍
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Ziegelmeister writes:
| | Normally I wouldn't think twice about this, but I just packed and shipped
an order for a bunch of tiles ranging from 1x1 to 6x6. If you're not aware
the, the 6x6's have a matte finish quality to them that almost resembles
a 4x3 slope rather than the high gloss you come to expect from, say, 2x6 tiles.
Should there be a note attached to 10202 mentioning this? If this particular
buyer is intending to have these seamlessly blend in with the other tiles they
bought, they're in for a bad surprise unless they are already familiar with
the part.
|
Done.
|
|
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2024 20:52 | | Subject: | Re: Does part 10202 need a note? | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Ziegelmeister writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Dhobeck writes:
| | Would part 22385 need this note as well?
|
Also done.
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Ziegelmeister writes:
| | Normally I wouldn't think twice about this, but I just packed and shipped
an order for a bunch of tiles ranging from 1x1 to 6x6. If you're not aware
the, the 6x6's have a matte finish quality to them that almost resembles
a 4x3 slope rather than the high gloss you come to expect from, say, 2x6 tiles.
Should there be a note attached to 10202 mentioning this? If this particular
buyer is intending to have these seamlessly blend in with the other tiles they
bought, they're in for a bad surprise unless they are already familiar with
the part.
|
Done.
|
|
|
Hopefully I didn't open a can of worms with this.
|
Oh, no. These are good notes to have on these two parts. I am glad you suggested
it, because they do affect how a build looks. 
Even the LEGO Group themselves redesigned
because of so many complaints about the matte finish 6x6 tile originally used
for the roof in the set not matching all of the other glossy tile work on the
rest of the vehicle.
| | I've got a bunch of
22385 in different colors and I've only seen this with the 10202. It was
enough to make me pull out the magnifying glass to make sure it was the right
part number and had a LEGO logo.
|
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2024 17:20 | | Subject: | Re: Does part 10202 need a note? | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, peregrinator writes:
| | In Catalog, Dhobeck writes:
| | Would part 22385 need this note as well?
|
Pentagonal tiles have the normal tile finish
|
No, they don't. 
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2024 17:20 | | Subject: | Re: Does part 10202 need a note? | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Dhobeck writes:
| | Would part 22385 need this note as well?
|
Also done.
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Ziegelmeister writes:
| | Normally I wouldn't think twice about this, but I just packed and shipped
an order for a bunch of tiles ranging from 1x1 to 6x6. If you're not aware
the, the 6x6's have a matte finish quality to them that almost resembles
a 4x3 slope rather than the high gloss you come to expect from, say, 2x6 tiles.
Should there be a note attached to 10202 mentioning this? If this particular
buyer is intending to have these seamlessly blend in with the other tiles they
bought, they're in for a bad surprise unless they are already familiar with
the part.
|
Done.
|
|
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2024 16:20 | | Subject: | Re: Does part 10202 need a note? | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Ziegelmeister writes:
| | Normally I wouldn't think twice about this, but I just packed and shipped
an order for a bunch of tiles ranging from 1x1 to 6x6. If you're not aware
the, the 6x6's have a matte finish quality to them that almost resembles
a 4x3 slope rather than the high gloss you come to expect from, say, 2x6 tiles.
Should there be a note attached to 10202 mentioning this? If this particular
buyer is intending to have these seamlessly blend in with the other tiles they
bought, they're in for a bad surprise unless they are already familiar with
the part.
|
Done.
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2024 22:24 | | Subject: | Re: New part added | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, ccroxton writes:
| | Thanks for adding the new part! The set number is in the description, but the
set is not linked, and the part does not appear in the set inventory.
|
You need to fill out an Inventory Change Request to have it added.
Start here: https://www.bricklink.com/catalogInvChange.asp?itemType=S
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2024 22:03 | | Subject: | Re: Please add color notes | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
| In Colors, here4bricks614 writes:
| | tps://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1096
If the likelihood that 22 Medium Reddish Violet is ever going to be recognized
by BrickLink is low, then the notes page should at least contain a note about
the color. It was retired alongside old brown and the old grays.
22 Medium Reddish Violet:
Introduced in 1994 in the Belville theme.
Experienced consistency issues in 2003. Some bricks were much darker than intended/lacked
colorant quite often.
Replaced in 2004 by 221 Bright Purple as part of the color change (Though, 221
made its first appearance in 2003 Clikits sets. This theme did not use 22 Medium
Reddish Violet)
Used in three “floor cleaning” sets as part of LEGO’s cleanup project of old
colors up until 2005.
221 Bright Purple:
Introduced in the Clikits theme in 2003. Available outside of that theme starting
in 2004.
Original shade is significantly redder than Medium Reddish Violet.
Reformulated around 2009 to be more consistent. Now resembles 22 Medium Reddish
Violet more than its original 2004 shade.
Do we know if this page even experiences any sort of traffic? It would be nice
to see this added to the color guide.
|
That page is not meant to be an exhaustive outline of the history of all LEGO
colors. It is meant to be a guide for color issues in the history of the BrickLink
marketplace. I have never heard of any issues in the marketplace concerning the
inability to tell old and new dark pink apart from each other and why they don't
have two separate colors. That is most likely due to the fact that the two colors
are virtually indistinguishable to the naked eye. I believe this sort of information
is better left to other sites focused on LEGO color history.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2024 20:59 | | Subject: | Re: Different prints? | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog Requests | |
| In Catalog Requests, Nubs_Select writes:
| | I was just looking at a
and noticed a mark under its one eye and tried to remove it which I couldn't.
I looked closed and it is part of this print. the part has 3 PCC's and you
can see in the images that 2 versions (at least) are shown. should this be split?
|
Maybe? At this point in time, it is hard to know, but we have ways at looking
into such things.
The LEGO render for the oldest element number (4528206) shows the printed speck
on the face, so it probably started that way. If I had to guess, the speck might
have been let go for the Kingdoms theme.
I have a long list of minifigure heads that need to be split, so I will add this
one to it with a question mark. However, I am not looking to do a single one
of them until after the variant merge project for heads is completed.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2024 13:58 | | Subject: | Re: We should be able to get rid of some users | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Help | |
| In Help, Gaston.La.Brick writes:
| | For a seller, the order is fulfilled when the buyer receives ALL items ordered.
It's the seller his obligation to make sure the buyer receives the complete
order.
If the seller fails to do so, a simple refund of the missing items is not sufficient
as the buyer needs to put time in searching a new store to purchase from AND
to pay shipping costs again.
The seller can offer:
A) The buyer returns the full order, with a full refund (including original shipping
costs AND including the return shipping costs, since it was a seller's problem).
Seems expensive for the seller, but it's the seller's fault to begin
with.
B) Refund missing items and reasonable part of the original shipping costs. Or
completely. So the buyer isn't forced to pay shipping costs at another store
from his own pocket.
C) Make sure the buyer receives the items. If you (the seller) doens't have
it in stock, you can place the order yourself at another store, and re-ship (or
just choose a dropshipping method).
I know all options will eat (part of) your profit, but it was your error to begin
with. The buyer can't be held accountable for the mistakes a seller made.
So for a seller you can only sigh, take the cost and learn to get better and
order fulfilling to spot missing items.
The solution you offered to simply refund the actual costs of the missing items,
without even reaching out to the buyer first to discuss options, is not a good
one. I usually go for option C) because I find it my obligation as a seller to
make sure I fully fulfill the order without extra work for my customer. All efforts
and costs to rectify a problem, should come from the seller.
I understand BrickLink used to have more of a "kindred spirits" without
a true enforced "buyer-seller relationship with commercial and legal obligations".
But things have evolved over time, as more and more people found their way to
BrickLink. As a result, the commercial and legal obligations become more and
more important, so it's important for sellers to be aware of these obligations
and act correctly to follow these obligations.
Lastly, I don't think it really professional to post this issue here in the
thread and mention the related user. It might even be considered a privacy violation
to do so? I think it is. But in any case, as a seller, stay professional. This
isn't really a professional action.
You might continue by stoplisting my account as well based on the fact you will
probably not like this reply. It's just how I think about this situation
and give you some other point of view you might consider.
|
Wonderful post. 👍
This is a shining example of how a seller should respond in a situation like
this.
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2024 13:53 | | Subject: | Re: Bricks fate | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
| In Colors, BrickCompulsion writes:
| | Hi all
While sorting, I’m sure we all come across bricks That have had a hard life or
have had a challenging journey. This time I’m erring towards this brick actually
coming from the factory as a dual colour brick rather than it being bleached
or something
What do you think ?
Cheers
|
It sat submerged in something. The part that is discolored is beginning to degrade,
and the back of the brick is disgusting and has remnants of whatever it was in
the tubes. That brick is fit for nothing but the trash.
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2024 00:33 | | Subject: | Re: Technic Turntable 60T Redesign - 88738 | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Requests, Rayque writes:
| | Hi all,
The 2015 Technic Turntable with 60 teeth (Part #18938) has been replaced by its
redesign, Part #88738.
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=18938#T=P
Currently, #88738 is listed as an Alternate Item No for #18938. However, I own
both versions and they are not quite the same. I've attached several images
to this message to show the difference.
Part #18938 has bevel teeth, whereas the redesigned turntable #88738 has straight
teeth. Another way to tell these two apart are the amount of snap-fit joints:
the newer turntable has six of them, whereas the older one only has four.
The main reason why I request to split #88738 from #18938 is because #88738 is
functionally different from its predecessor.
#18938 has bevel teeth, meaning that other bevel gears can be used perpendicular
to it. However, because of the wider teeth, this turntable is incompatible with
Technic chain links (#3711, #3249 and #3873), which only fit spur gears.
#88738 has the same teeth width as other Technic spur gears, which matches the
older 56 teeth turntables (#2855 and #48168). This means that the newer turntable
is compatible with Technic chain links, but has lost the bevel teeth in the process.
As for the exact year when #88738 was introduced, it is probably 2022?
- I've checked my 2020 copy of #51515 (Robot Inventor), and it contains #18938.
- Looking at reviews of 2021's #75313 (UCS AT-AT), it also contains #18938.
- Reviews of 2022's #76210 (Hulkbuster) shows #88738.
- Reviews of 2023 sets, such as #42158 (NASA Mars Rover Perseverance) and #75362
(Ahsoka Tano's T-6 Jedi Shuttle), shows that these sets also include #88738.
How I got my hands on #88738 was through buying these from LEGO's online
Pick a Brick last week, in research of this topic. They no longer have #18938
for sale, which implies it is out of production.
As a normal Bricklink user, I cannot request to add part #88738 to the catalog,
because it is listed as the Alternate Item No for #18938. If possible, I would
prefer #88738 to have its own entry in the catalog because it is functionally
different enough to justify it. I'll leave it to our admins to decide.
Thank you in advance and for reading this.
|
This has been completed.
-----
has been replaced by
and
-----
has been replaced by
and
-----
* | | 18939c02 Technic Turntable 60 Tooth with Dark Bluish Gray Top (18939 / 18938u) (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Technic
Marked for Deletion |
has been replaced by
* | | 18939c04 (Inv) Technic Turntable 60 Tooth with Dark Bluish Gray Top with Beveled Teeth (18939 / 18938)
Parts: Technic |
and
* | | 18939c05 (Inv) Technic Turntable 60 Tooth with Dark Bluish Gray Top with Straight Teeth (18939 / 88738)
Parts: Technic |
-----
The set inventories are currently in the process of being updated.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2024 19:22 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7241-1 | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, Saitobricks.ca writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 30237 Red Brick, Modified 1 x 2 with Clip (Vertical Grip) (Undetermined Type) (match ID 4)
* Add 1 Part 30237a Red Brick, Modified 1 x 2 with Split U Clip Thick (Vertical Grip) (match ID 4)
Comments from Submitter:
If you will notice the set has part 30237b as a alternate for the undetermined type, leaving the u clip as the real part
|
The part in 2005 would have definitely been the 30237a variant, so this request
has been accepted. The 30237b variant released in 2010 was added much later since
this set was in production for a long time.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2024 17:48 | | Subject: | Re: Error in inventory | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
| In Inventories, lorivanderbilt writes:
| | I am working on set 7313 Red Planet Protector. There is a part (30526) where
the picture in manual differs from inventory. Manual shows blue but inventory
is dark gray. Which one do I follow?
|
It's explained in the note at the bottom of the inventory:
-----
Redesigned during production.
There are at least 2 different versions of instructions for this set. The differences
for the second version are indicated in this inventory in the Alternate Items
section with Match ID 99.
Quick overview of redesign: Three dark gray 30526 Brick, Modified 1 x 2 with
Pins are replaced by three blue pieces of the same type.
-----
So, the set can have either all dark gray 30526 or all blue 30526.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2024 17:12 | | Subject: | Re: Set 41442 | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, zorbanj writes:
Because no one has submitted an Inventory Change Request to have them added.
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
