Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | mhortar  | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2019 21:09 | | Subject: | Re: Factory assembled 4624 version (glued?) | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, elias3 writes:
| | In Catalog, normann1974 writes:
| | | | Rubber does harden over time as the plasticizers leak out. This hardening can
be accelerated by heat and light as well as changes in the amount of cross-linking
of the polymer chains. How old are these tires?
|
I can't tell. They were found in used bricks I bought. According to BrickLink:
1984-2018 (timeline of 4624 wheel).
/Jan
|
Hi
Yes they are factory pre-assembled wheels.
The first ones that came out were glued or pressed together.
Same for the 3464c02 and 4624c01 and 4624c02.
(from 1984-85 till I think begin 90s)
Also same for the first 6015 type with the 6014a.
The rubber is also harder, the assembles are softer in rubber.
Stefaan
|
Were these only glued in certain regions? This time frame was the heyday of my
LEGO collecting as a child, but I can't ever recall seeing glued wheels (and
I took *everything* apart). I only ever bought sets from the US though.
Do you happen to recall any specific sets that would have had glued wheels? I
have a ton of sealed sets from this era and would like to try and see if any
of them might be glued.
Josh
|
 |
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Feb 26, 2019 02:20 | | Subject: | Re: Why is Finch Dallow sw1005 from 2017? | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | I realize that it's a 1 piece change (hair) compared to 2 (helmet, head)
|
No in Kanan also two parts were changed.
Beside color of hair also print on the head
(black printing)
vs.
* | | 3626cpb1191 Minifigure, Head Dual Sided Dark Brown Eyebrows, Goatee, Cheek Lines, Smile / Neutral Pattern (SW Kanan Jarrus) - Hollow Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
(dark brown printing)
|
Well, that sure does shoot half my argument down, doesn't it? 
I still think changing from an unnamed to named character is enough of a change
to warrant a new set, but I appear to the in the minority.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Feb 25, 2019 19:24 | | Subject: | Re: Why is Finch Dallow sw1005 from 2017? | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | There are lot of sets with changed art on boxes (redesigned) without second
entry
for example
In both cases images on box were changed when those sets were redesign. The Ghost
case is exactly the same as current the Bomber case. Kanan in first run copies
had black hair and on the box of set it is also with black hair and head printing,
but LEGO in this case very quickly realised about mistake and changed Kanan to
brown hair and head print, changing minifg on box to brown Kanan.
In second case due to redesign, change is visible in construction of Tie on box,
two box arts then exists before redesign and after.
Don't remember now any more. But when it will be decided to create second
entry for 75188 then second entries for those two sets must be created also for
consistency.
When reading commentaries on the web I wonder how many pepole are suprised by
this change, it really nothing special as you see LEGO done this before. Almost
nobody remember Kanan case. But Kanan isn't popular minifigs, Rebels cartoon
weren't such a hype. Lego even stop producing Rebels sets after third seson
and never done sets from last fourth season.
List of redesigned sets:
https://brickset.com/sets/list-18333
|
I disagree that the Ghost case is the exact same as the Bomber. The Ghost kept
the same minifig, just changed the hair color to be more accurate to the source
material. The bomber change went from an unnamed pilot to a named character.
I realize that it's a 1 piece change (hair) compared to 2 (helmet, head),
but the context of changing to a named character that more accurately represents
the actual actor in the source material should add additional weight to the decision
on whether or not a second variation of the set is warranted. Considering
the possibility of confusion with people expecting one version of the character
or the other, it would seem like adding the alternate set number would be an
easy way to alleviate that problem in the future.
I'm not sure what the box change was for the TIE Fighter, so can't comment
on that.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2019 14:33 | | Subject: | Re: Aren't these differences ridiculous? | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| |
(There might still be problems though. Say, a buyer parts out a set into a WL,
they are asked if they allow other variants, they accept because they think it
will be cheaper and easier to fullfil, but the set really can only be built with
the one variant  )
|
This part is the one that would potentially cause issues. Things like the variations
of 3933/3934 that can cause parts to physically not attach in some scenarios.
That's the first I can think of just because I've experienced it in the
past.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2019 13:29 | | Subject: | Re: Allow AFOLs to "Bricklink" the ADP sets | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, mhortar writes:
| | In Suggestions, Brick.Door writes:
| | There are no plans to do so, but I hope that once the regular sales period is
finished Bricklink allows the inventory of these sets to be added to the catalog
so people can add them to a want list and buy the parts they need to build them.
Since they use mostly common parts, I think many AFOLs would prefer to build
them with the parts in their own collection, and just buy any ones they are missing.
Not only would this generate revenue for Bricklink by increased sales, it would
be an olive branch to the sellers who have been completely excluded from this
promotion.
Bricklink has done so much to build the AFOL community and it has become a verb
within our vocabulary (much like Google has in the general population). It would
be a sad irony if the sets created by Bricklink to celebrate AFOLs cannot be
Bricklinked by AFOLs.
|
From what I understand from reading about these sets, these aren't going
to be officially recognized LEGO sets. If that's the case, I don't feel
like they belong in the catalog. Someone will post the inventory somewhere (from
what I understand, it happens with most popular MOCs), so there is nothing stopping
a buyer from creating their own wanted list and purchase the parts without having
the set in the catalog.
Josh
|
They're still more official than BrickArms, which is also in the catalog...
Plus, the whole "exciting" part about the whole project, according to BL itself,
is the fact that it's an official cooperation with the LEGO Group.
So yes, I definitely see the irony.
|
I objected to adding BrickArms as well, for what it's worth. Fat lot of good
that did
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2019 12:55 | | Subject: | Re: Allow AFOLs to "Bricklink" the ADP sets | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Suggestions, Brick.Door writes:
| | There are no plans to do so, but I hope that once the regular sales period is
finished Bricklink allows the inventory of these sets to be added to the catalog
so people can add them to a want list and buy the parts they need to build them.
Since they use mostly common parts, I think many AFOLs would prefer to build
them with the parts in their own collection, and just buy any ones they are missing.
Not only would this generate revenue for Bricklink by increased sales, it would
be an olive branch to the sellers who have been completely excluded from this
promotion.
Bricklink has done so much to build the AFOL community and it has become a verb
within our vocabulary (much like Google has in the general population). It would
be a sad irony if the sets created by Bricklink to celebrate AFOLs cannot be
Bricklinked by AFOLs.
|
From what I understand from reading about these sets, these aren't going
to be officially recognized LEGO sets. If that's the case, I don't feel
like they belong in the catalog. Someone will post the inventory somewhere (from
what I understand, it happens with most popular MOCs), so there is nothing stopping
a buyer from creating their own wanted list and purchase the parts without having
the set in the catalog.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2019 04:22 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig rsq004 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, jaspervries writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 1 Part {Trans-Light Blue to Trans-Dark Blue} 2447 Minifigure, Visor Standard
|
What is your source for making this change request?
Thanks,
Randy
|
For what it's worth, I have a sealed copy of 6479. I can see the trans-dark
blue visor in the bag, but I can't get a good photo of it. This was the best
I could come up with...
Josh
|
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2019 17:48 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 730-2 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 1 Part Trans-Clear {3003 Brick 2 x 2 to 3003old Brick 2 x 2 without Inside Supports}
Comments from Submitter:
I changed a few other bricks in this set and then later noticed this one. I think it qualifies on oldness to change transparent bricks, right? Since old opaque bricks were also found in the set.
|
Technically all transparent 3003 bricks do not have inside supports, so according
to just the name of the part, all transparent 3003s would qualify as "3003old".
However, if we were to change all inventories in this way, then we would have
3003old parts all the way through the LEGO timeline up to the present day, which
would not be ideal. I also believe that the 3003old entry was created for those
looking for vintage _opaque_ 3003s.
When looking at the BrickLink data, it looks like the switch from 3003old to
3003 occurred around the mid-1980s, so the cutoff for including the Trans-Clear
brick as a 3003old in some inventories and as a 3003 in other inventories has
been arbitrarily set around the 1984 point. I guess this sort of makes sense,
but I am not too keen about the solution employed. I don't want to change
any more inventories with these parts in transparent colors until it is discussed
further by the admins.
This request will be rejected for now.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Should there be a new catalog item added, something like 3003trans or 3003t
to try and differentiate between vintage, modern, and modern transparent parts?
Maybe 3003old needs to be renamed to 'Brick 2x2 pre-1980 without inside supports'
or 'Brick 2x2 vintage without inside supports'...
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Jan 4, 2019 16:01 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1870-1 | | Viewed: | 17 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 4 Part 3641 Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small
* Delete 4 Part 4624 White Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm
* Change 4 Part White 4624c02 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small (4624 / 3641) {Counterpart to Regular}
Comments from Submitter:
Picture will follow
|
I know.. It's difficult to prove the complete wheel 
Please to not decline, I will cancel my request if you not approve.
-Fred
|
Is that the largest the image can get? Do you have a link to a better one?
- Randy
|
Randy,
The image come from Ebay:
-Fred
|
Your message is going to get cancelled because you can't post links to ebay.
However, I looked at the much larger image, and it does look like the wheels/tires
are together. In any case, I just bought the polybag, so we will know for sure
very soon! 
- Randy
|
I also buy this set as new
|
I didn't have this one yet, so I figured "what the hell."
|
lol, that line of thinking has gotten me into soooooo much trouble...
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 02:08 | | Subject: | Re: New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We have long needed a relationship match that shows items which fit together
and which are frequently used together. I have asked for this type of match
in the past and have gotten nowhere.
Instead, these kinds of matches were added as paired parts even though they did
not fit the spirit or definition of that match (and the sentence "Exceptions
to these definitions are determined at administrative discretion." was added
to the Item Relationships definitions page). Some examples of items currently
matched as paired parts:
* | | 44225 Technic Rotation Joint Disk with Large Pin and 3L Liftarm Thick
Parts: Technic |
* | | 44224 Technic Rotation Joint Disk with Large Pin Hole and 3L Liftarm Thick
Parts: Technic |
In my ongoing struggle to make the world a better place, generally speaking,
by addressing first-world problems of the lowest magnitude, we now have a new
relationship match:
Parts that Fit Together
Shows parts that naturally fit together which are designed to work together
and which are nearly always used together as a single unit.
If anyone sees where this definition could be improved, then please let me know.
Otherwise, start sending me some new item relationships and let's see how
well this works. I've added a few to get us started and here is one of them
so you can see how it looks:
See the project on the catalog roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
See the new relationship match added and defined today:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRel.asp
|
So I tried adding a new relationship for and and got an error.
Should I have modified the existing relationship instead?
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Dec 20, 2018 19:34 | | Subject: | Re: Is there actually a 3626bpx28? | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | so much for that attempt at humor
|
Sorry, didn't realize it was an attempt at humor. I've been getting
some occasionally unfriendly feedback of late and thus I've tended to assume
things are criticism unless stated otherwise.
It's funny . . . people complain about bitter, unresponsive administrators
and never think to question how that happens.
|
I like my administrators how I like my coffee... Dark (humor) and bitter
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Dec 18, 2018 04:35 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 4563-1 | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, mhortar writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 4 Part 3641 Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small
* Delete 2 Part 4084 Black Tire 21mm D. x 9mm Offset Tread Medium
* Delete 4 Part 4624 White Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm
* Delete 2 Part 4624 Yellow Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm
* Change 2 Part Yellow 4624c02 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small (4624 / 3641) {Counterpart to Regular}
* Change 2 Part White 4624c02 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small (4624 / 3641) {Counterpart to Regular}
* Change 2 Part White 4624c03 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire 21mm D. x 9mm Offset Tread Medium (4624 / 4084) {Counterpart to Regular}
Comments from Submitter:
Picture will follow
|
|
It is hard to tell from the images what wheel assemblies are shown. None of them
look like they have yellow wheels, so the change for that one will not be approved
based on these images. If you can tell what wheel assembly is shown with the
white images, I can accept those.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Sorry, but I didn't find better image than that 
|
Yeah, I don't think that helps very much. I will take a look around later
to see if I can dig up anything better. If not, I will let you go ahead and cancel
the requests instead of rejecting them.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Okay,
If I don't find better, I'm going to cancel in 24hours
Fred
|
I have a sealed copy of this set at home, I'll try to remember to check it
when I get there.
Josh
|
That deserves a huge pat on the back!
Please let us know what you find out.
Thanks,
Randy
|
Here's a pic showing the yellow wheels. Hope it's clear enough.
Josh
|
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Dec 17, 2018 23:09 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 4563-1 | | Viewed: | 11 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, mhortar writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, mhortar writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 4 Part 3641 Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small
* Delete 2 Part 4084 Black Tire 21mm D. x 9mm Offset Tread Medium
* Delete 4 Part 4624 White Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm
* Delete 2 Part 4624 Yellow Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm
* Change 2 Part Yellow 4624c02 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small (4624 / 3641) {Counterpart to Regular}
* Change 2 Part White 4624c02 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small (4624 / 3641) {Counterpart to Regular}
* Change 2 Part White 4624c03 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire 21mm D. x 9mm Offset Tread Medium (4624 / 4084) {Counterpart to Regular}
Comments from Submitter:
Picture will follow
|
|
It is hard to tell from the images what wheel assemblies are shown. None of them
look like they have yellow wheels, so the change for that one will not be approved
based on these images. If you can tell what wheel assembly is shown with the
white images, I can accept those.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Sorry, but I didn't find better image than that
|
Yeah, I don't think that helps very much. I will take a look around later
to see if I can dig up anything better. If not, I will let you go ahead and cancel
the requests instead of rejecting them.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Okay,
If I don't find better, I'm going to cancel in 24hours
Fred
|
I have a sealed copy of this set at home, I'll try to remember to check it
when I get there.
Josh
|
That deserves a huge pat on the back!
Please let us know what you find out.
Thanks,
Randy
|
Is there some sort of list you guys are working off of for these changes, or
just going by whatever has these parts? I've got hundreds of sealed sets
from the 80s and 90s and my BrickSet collection is mostly accurate, so if there's
a list of sets that need to be checked, I should be able to see what I have in
my collection and help out more.
Josh
|
May I send you a list?
|
Yeah, that would work. I still haven't decided if I'll open any sets
yet or not, but for the boxes I have that the seals are already opened or they
have a visible flap, I can hopefully check for any specific parts.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Dec 17, 2018 18:50 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 4563-1 | | Viewed: | 17 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, mhortar writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 4 Part 3641 Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small
* Delete 2 Part 4084 Black Tire 21mm D. x 9mm Offset Tread Medium
* Delete 4 Part 4624 White Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm
* Delete 2 Part 4624 Yellow Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm
* Change 2 Part Yellow 4624c02 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small (4624 / 3641) {Counterpart to Regular}
* Change 2 Part White 4624c02 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small (4624 / 3641) {Counterpart to Regular}
* Change 2 Part White 4624c03 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire 21mm D. x 9mm Offset Tread Medium (4624 / 4084) {Counterpart to Regular}
Comments from Submitter:
Picture will follow
|
|
It is hard to tell from the images what wheel assemblies are shown. None of them
look like they have yellow wheels, so the change for that one will not be approved
based on these images. If you can tell what wheel assembly is shown with the
white images, I can accept those.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Sorry, but I didn't find better image than that
|
Yeah, I don't think that helps very much. I will take a look around later
to see if I can dig up anything better. If not, I will let you go ahead and cancel
the requests instead of rejecting them.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Okay,
If I don't find better, I'm going to cancel in 24hours
Fred
|
I have a sealed copy of this set at home, I'll try to remember to check it
when I get there.
Josh
|
That deserves a huge pat on the back!
Please let us know what you find out.
Thanks,
Randy
|
Is there some sort of list you guys are working off of for these changes, or
just going by whatever has these parts? I've got hundreds of sealed sets
from the 80s and 90s and my BrickSet collection is mostly accurate, so if there's
a list of sets that need to be checked, I should be able to see what I have in
my collection and help out more.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Dec 17, 2018 17:54 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 4563-1 | | Viewed: | 17 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 4 Part 3641 Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small
* Delete 2 Part 4084 Black Tire 21mm D. x 9mm Offset Tread Medium
* Delete 4 Part 4624 White Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm
* Delete 2 Part 4624 Yellow Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm
* Change 2 Part Yellow 4624c02 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small (4624 / 3641) {Counterpart to Regular}
* Change 2 Part White 4624c02 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small (4624 / 3641) {Counterpart to Regular}
* Change 2 Part White 4624c03 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire 21mm D. x 9mm Offset Tread Medium (4624 / 4084) {Counterpart to Regular}
Comments from Submitter:
Picture will follow
|
|
It is hard to tell from the images what wheel assemblies are shown. None of them
look like they have yellow wheels, so the change for that one will not be approved
based on these images. If you can tell what wheel assembly is shown with the
white images, I can accept those.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Sorry, but I didn't find better image than that
|
Yeah, I don't think that helps very much. I will take a look around later
to see if I can dig up anything better. If not, I will let you go ahead and cancel
the requests instead of rejecting them.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Okay,
If I don't find better, I'm going to cancel in 24hours
Fred
|
I have a sealed copy of this set at home, I'll try to remember to check it
when I get there.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Dec 5, 2018 00:04 | | Subject: | Re: 60592c01 - whos idea was this? | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, brox999 writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, brox999 writes:
| | […]
[3930c01] is in many new sets
|
Not.
The hinge brick and the hinge plate always came separated.
| | and I need
the ability to add this part to my store inventory in a new state […]
|
This assembly can’t be New: you have assembled the parts yourself, that’s the
definition of Used.
|
Rubbish, putting two brand new, unused parts together does not make them used.
I list the assembly as new if the parts came from a sealed set
|
You assembled the parts. That's literally the definition of what makes them
used (previously assembled). You can't build a set and then sell it as 'new,
only assembled once'. There was a big argument a few years ago about whether
stacking bricks/plates at the Pick-A-Brick wall made them 'used' instead
of 'new' (my opinion is yes). There's also the argument that minifigs
can't be sold as 'new' if they are assembled (I'm on the fence
about this one).
Josh
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Dec 3, 2018 00:16 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6681-1 | | Viewed: | 17 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, mhortar writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, mhortar writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | (3) I am trying to establish a very firm timeline for the 4073s on sprue. As
of right now, my timeline stretches from 1984-1991. This set is a few years outside
of that current timeline, so I don't want to add in any information yet that
is not concrete.
I will leave this request open as I search for more information.
Thanks for your understanding,
Randy
|
I can extend the beginning of the timeline to at least 1981 for you. I have a
sealed that has the trans-red 1x1 plates on the sprues. I'll get
you pictures after the football game is over
Josh
|
Fantastic! Thank you! I just got it down to 1983 myself.
Cheers,
Randy
|
For what it's worth, I went and checked one of my 1992 sets that the box
had torn open (but the parts were still sealed). The 1x1 plates are not on the
sprue. An interesting thing to note was that even though the 1x1 plates were
separate, the molding pip was not on the stud like more modern examples.
Josh
|
Yep. I am finding the cutoff point for the 1x1 round plates on sprue to be around
the 1992 period. I have found one set so far from 1992 with the plates attached
to sprue, but most of the sets from that year are looking like they are without.
Thanks for the backup data, though. Every little bit helps. Would you mind letting
me know which 1992 set it was that you checked?
Cheers,
Randy
|
The set I checked was , the light gray 1x1 plates. I've got a few
other sets from 1992 that are still sealed that would have at least one of the
1x1 plates, I just haven't decided if I want to pop the seals yet or not.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Dec 2, 2018 20:08 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6927-1 | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, mhortar writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 2 Part 4073 Trans-Red Plate, Round 1 x 1 Straight Side
* Add 1 Part 4073c01 Trans-Red Plate, Round 1 x 1, 2 on Sprue
Comments from Submitter:
Wasn't sure if the individual 1x1 plates should be moved to counterparts or not, so I left them off. Pictures to follow.
|
Photos from my sealed set. Note, the plastic bags that the parts are in differ
from what I would normally think of from this era (the stiffer plastic with holes),
but is similar to other sealed sets I have from the late 70s/early 80s.
Another change that I don't know if it would be made or not is that the minfig
torsos come pre-assembled with the heads attached.
Josh
|
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Dec 2, 2018 20:04 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 6927-1 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 2 Part 4073 Trans-Red Plate, Round 1 x 1 Straight Side
* Add 1 Part 4073c01 Trans-Red Plate, Round 1 x 1, 2 on Sprue
Comments from Submitter:
Wasn't sure if the individual 1x1 plates should be moved to counterparts or not, so I left them off. Pictures to follow.
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Dec 2, 2018 19:54 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6681-1 | | Viewed: | 14 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, mhortar writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | (3) I am trying to establish a very firm timeline for the 4073s on sprue. As
of right now, my timeline stretches from 1984-1991. This set is a few years outside
of that current timeline, so I don't want to add in any information yet that
is not concrete.
I will leave this request open as I search for more information.
Thanks for your understanding,
Randy
|
I can extend the beginning of the timeline to at least 1981 for you. I have a
sealed that has the trans-red 1x1 plates on the sprues. I'll get
you pictures after the football game is over
Josh
|
Fantastic! Thank you! I just got it down to 1983 myself.
Cheers,
Randy
|
For what it's worth, I went and checked one of my 1992 sets that the box
had torn open (but the parts were still sealed). The 1x1 plates are not on the
sprue. An interesting thing to note was that even though the 1x1 plates were
separate, the molding pip was not on the stud like more modern examples.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Dec 2, 2018 18:20 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6681-1 | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | (3) I am trying to establish a very firm timeline for the 4073s on sprue. As
of right now, my timeline stretches from 1984-1991. This set is a few years outside
of that current timeline, so I don't want to add in any information yet that
is not concrete.
I will leave this request open as I search for more information.
Thanks for your understanding,
Randy
|
I can extend the beginning of the timeline to at least 1981 for you. I have a
sealed that has the trans-red 1x1 plates on the sprues. I'll get
you pictures after the football game is over
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 13:53 | | Subject: | Re: Finally! An Image of 9978-1 | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | Remember too, there's a couple polybags for parts that came with books that
were recently rejected that I submitted because neither I nor you were able to
locate a photo.
|
Yes, I remember. There's really only one fix for that: someone will have
to buy the books and photograph the bags. These kinds of sets wouldn't appear
in any catalog because the book must be opened to see them. Once we have photos,
then the sets will be quickly approved.
We're moving away from approving any submission which is not accompanied
by an image and I expect that will become firm policy within the next six months
or so.
There are simply too many items in the catalog completely missing images:
3 minifigures
29 sets
106 catalogs
108 books
133 gear
575 parts
902 instructions
4,236 original boxes
The idea in the past was that if you approved an item then eventually someone
would add a picture. That approach sort of works - sort of. I, for one, am
tired of seeing that we are missing 6,000+ images and that number* will only
keep growing if we don't stop it now.
*To be fair, instructions and boxes don't count as much because they're
created for all sets. Still, 950+ missing images are nothing in which to take
pride. If you look through the list of items missing images, you will see a
fair number of things for sale - clearly we need to do better at rewarding contributors.
|
I might be able to get pictures of some of the missing Star Wars boxes and instructions.
I just took a peek at what was missing and my inventory says I have at least
a few of them.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 04:05 | | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | I'm not sure that 'Pattern' actually fits.
|
The word "design" means "decorative pattern."
If we wanted to be truly accurate and consistent, then every single part title
would have one of the eight following identifiers:
Plain
Printed Design
Stickered Design
Printed/Stickered Design
Molded Design
Molded/Printed Design
Molded/Stickered Design
Molded/Stickered/Printed Design (pretty sure there are none of those)
Have I missed any? Maybe when/if we get tags we can do this. I think it would
be helpful.
But it sounds like "Decorated" is the preferred term so far from all three commentors.
I still think it's quite strange that part categories are the only place
we use that word, but this ain't a one-man show.
|
Are there any Printed/Stickered parts? I'm pretty sure there are molded/printed
parts (at least dual-molded arms), but not sure about the other combinations.
Molded/stickered might exist too, but they're probably pretty rare.
I checked some other definition sites and none of them focused on the 'repetition'
aspect like the first one I came across (I think it was the Oxford dictionary),
so upon further review, I'd be agreeable to 'Patterned' for the category
name. There's something to be said for making the category names and the
terms used in the actual names to be consistent.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 02:11 | | Subject: | Re: Decorated vs. Pattern | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In my continual effort to make your lives marginally better (which is a close
second to my continual effort to be a person who does not use catchphrases),
I propose the following for discussion: why do we call patterns patterns pretty
much everywhere but in category names?
Nearly the only place you will see "Decorated" on BrickLink is in category names
(32 of them). When you click on decorated parts, though, you see parts with
patterns. I propose changing the word "Decorated" to the word "Pattern" in those
32 category names. This will have no effects except in aesthetics and site-wide
consistency.
LordSkylark has asked for a category split of the Aircraft category into patterned
and non-patterned parts. I decided to succumb to his demand and have created
a new category titled Aircraft, Pattern. Now you can look at it on the parts
category page and see if you prefer the way things are now or the way I suggest
we do things.
Provide input, please.
|
I'm not sure that 'Pattern' actually fits. I think you'd have
to go with 'Patterned', but even then, a pattern is more of a repeated
design, which doesn't fit for most printed parts. Decorated, Ornamented,
or Embellished would probably be better fits.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 24, 2018 18:43 | | Subject: | Re: Seventh Catalog Project - Titles Update | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | I'm just noting that there's a mix of apples and oranges in this column.
|
Right, and I did think of that and disliked it. I have most of the 4 Juniors
sets done now according to the guidelines:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?catType=M&catString=516&itemBrand=1000
Honestly, when I see all those set numbers together on one page I don't much
care for the idea of including them at all. For those of you who want set numbers
added to the titles, do you like the way they look?
We could go with including them for one set only and use (Multiple Sets) after
that. This would fix the issue mfav pointed out. But, if I were the only person
deciding, I'd just leave them off completely except for figures which hadn't
yet been included in an inventory. They just look messy to me.
|
I'm honestly ambivalent about including the set numbers. On the one hand
I'd like a feature of the catalog to easily point out something unique (such
as a figure occurring only in 1 set). On the other hand, I have got issues with
all those numbers - they do look messy (and you've not done a figure that
is included in a book with the ISBN number as item number - 13 digits or three
books will have 39 digits!!). Also, how many inventory submitters are going to
remember to put those numbers in ascending order for name changes? Conversely,
how many submitters are going to remember to put a name change through for the
removal of the set number once the set has been inventoried? Or worse still,
which numbers do you order on: sets, gear or books, i e do you have a naming
convention that set numbers are first in line, ascending, then gear, then books?
So lets go with the work involved - which is easier: name changes for ascending
set numbers if you stick with three max (and I personally like the idea of 3+
sets in stead of multiple sets proposed in the other reply to this), or removing
set numbers from figures names once the inventory comes through? That is for
catmins to decide, as I said previously, if a person can remember to actually
do the name change request, it is not a huge extra effort as part of an inventory
submission to do so. Note that I'm not going with the workload to re-name
most if not all of the figures in the catalog, this will have to be done anyway
so including set numbers is just tacked on to that.
Furthermore, I've tested the searches on some of those 4 Juniors using just
the set numbers, and they do come up correctly as figures in the search results,
so from that perspective it works. But, and this is problematic, under what instance
would you search for a figure using the set number? If you have the figure or
a part of it, and do not know the set, you cannot do the search on that basis.
If you know the set number, then you can find the figure in its inventory. So
it would seem that I am back to my first argument - nice to have, and not necessarily
practical or user friendly in terms of look and feel (circular logic). If the
workload involved for the name changes referred to above is the same, then I
would just go for leaving the set numbers off altogether unless a set has not
been inventoried as yet and rather forgo the nice to have for a practical look
and feel.
|
My personal thoughts have gone back and forth on set numbers in the minifig description.
First I was against it, then after reading a lot of the feedback here, I had
changed my mind and thought it was a good idea. But now, after seeing it in practice,
it really clutters up and complicates things unnecessarily.
Finding which set a minifig is in takes 2 extra clicks, so it's really not
a lot of additional effort. In theory if we add the set number into the minifig
name, you could see all the minifigs in a set by just searching the set name.
Except if a minifig appears in more than 3 sets, the set number gets removed
and would no longer show up in the search of the set number. In the situation
where a set has a lot of minifigs, you might see all, most, some, or none
of the minifigs show up, depending on how often the minifigs appear elsewhere.
This seems like it would be more confusing than helpful.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 21, 2018 16:31 | | Subject: | Re: Projectile Launcher | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | OK. I assumed it existed already as these types of symbiotic relationships are
already used for windows, doors, wheels, etc. But obviously I don't know
the code so didn't realise they are different types of relationships.
|
You can learn more about item relationships here (click Definitions for further
information):
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRel.asp
|
I almost want to use the 'Paired Part' relationship for projectile launchers
and projectiles. The hinge parts would almost fit as well, except the definition
specifically says it's for parts that aren't normally attached to each
other. Projectiles and projectile launchers aren't really 'attached'
though, at least for the definition of 'attached' that I normally think
of. It's just that pesky sentence at the end that seems to exclude the projectile
launchers.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 16, 2018 06:00 | | Subject: | Re: 3626cpb2105 duplicate of 3626cpb0595? | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Admiral_Brick writes:
| | Duplicate catalog entry?
Kind regards,
Matthias
|
At first I wanted to say 'yes', but then I looked at the freckles. The
freckles appear to be different colors on the two heads based on those images.
I don't have either of them to compare, though, so that may be just me seeing
things. I wouldn't get the two entries merged until someone that has both
heads can compare them side by side.
Cheers,
Randy
|
I have both minifig heads (the flesh one from the Jurassic Park set, the yellow
from the Ferris Wheel) and while they are very similar, they do look like different
patterns to me. The freckles on the flesh head appear to be a smaller diameter
(about half the size) of the freckles on the yellow head. The only way I can
think of putting it differently would be if the freckles were a font, the flesh
head would be the 'normal' and the yellow head would be 'bold'.
:/
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 16:11 | | Subject: | Re: Fifth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| |
* | | 792c02 (Inv) Arm Holder Brick 2 x 2 with Round Top Hole with Arm (792 / 793 / 795)
Parts: Arm |
Red
Black
* | | 792c03 (Inv) Arm Holder Brick 2 x 2 with Round Top Hole with Arms (792 / 793 / 795) (Homemaker Figure / Maxifigure Torso Assembly)
Parts: Arm |
Light Gray
* | | 792c01 (Inv) Arm Holder Brick 2 x 2 with 2 Rectangle Holes with Arm (792 / 794 / 795)
Parts: Arm |
White
Blue
|
These ones are actually interesting to me. Since they are an assembly, it's
entirely possible to open the casing and add/remove a piece to create each of
these in the respective colors. Not sure if that makes any difference though.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 15, 2018 16:07 | | Subject: | Re: Sixth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | The sixth project is to review all of the existing additional catalog notes:
|
Split entries for consistency with other L and R parts
|
I think there might be some confusion here. This is one part with a sticker on
either side, not a left and right part. The 'left' and 'right'
on the images makes it sound weird, it really should be 'front' and 'back',
if anything. The 'left' and 'right' only make sense in relation
to the completed model.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 22:12 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1882-1 | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | Generally profound insights
|
Here is a picture.
|
I am disappointed. I was expecting a picture of an eel...
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 18:20 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | I understand completely all the things you say. The one thing the vol admins
can control is the description. And that is why, in absence of the ability to
change anything else, comprehensive, consistent, and thorough labeling conventions
applied uniformly across the catalog will improve the search results.
The downside of that are these descriptions that run on for two hundred words,
can be redundant and otherwise clumsy and/or inelegant.
If nobody wants to be bothered implementing some of my suggestions, I’m fine
with it.
If you want to label the backhead printed items as such, even if there is no
benefit to that, I’m fine with it.
Some suggestions that have been presented, all with honorable intentions, can’t
be implemented. I get that.
So where does any of this discussion get us? Kind of seems like, ultimately,
things are just getting rearranged for the sake of rearranging them. It seems
like all that’s getting done is constantly patching holes in the tires where
it would make more sense to remove the damned nails from the driveway.
This is, at least in part, one great exercise in futility, is it not?
As I come to this conclusion, I wonder why I have bothered. I guess I thought
my experience might be helpful. But maybe it just doesn't matter.
|
I kind of feel the same way you do. To me, the most important part of BrickLink
is the catalog. It's not the part that directly makes money though, so I
can see why it's less important to the powers that be. Doesn't make it
any more disheartening to hear though.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 9, 2018 04:44 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Changing titles of certain dual-sided heads to reflect this fact and splitting
heads into single-side print and dual-side print categories.
My take: I think these are good ideas, but am always willing to listen to dissenters.
Splitting decorated/non-decorated minifigure legs.
My take: This one was not on the list for the original project, but I'm adding
it. There are over 1,400 items in the Minifig, Legs Assembly category and I
find it exceedingly difficult to find non-decorated legs in all that mess. Does
anyone else besides me feel like this would be a good split?
|
These are the two that I am most in favor of, as they would most impact me as
a buyer. The others I don't have a real opinion of one way or the other.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 7, 2018 14:13 | | Subject: | Re: Second Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | Couldn't they just have their own separate categories: ghosts and skeletons?
|
The short answer is yes. However, if you look at the minifigure overview page
you'll notice that minifigures are categorized by theme:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogTree.asp?itemBrand=1000&itemType=M
They're not categorized by what they are, but by which theme they came from
(generally speaking - there are inconsistencies). So there are Town: City: Hospital
and Town: City: Airport but not Town: Doctor or Town: Pilot or Town: Plumber.
Creating new categories Ghost and Skeleton would be contrary to the current cataloging
system. I'm not saying it is a bad idea, but it would increase inconsistency
in the catalog. The other option for ghosts and skeletons would be to move them
into the individual themes from which they came (since my idea of Halloween doesn't
seem too popular).
In response to axaday's suggestion about moving zombies, I say look at this
page of zombies:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?catType=M&q=zombie&catLike=W&itemBrand=1000&searchMethod=searchBoth
If we moved all the zombies into one place we'd be pulling them from these
categories:
Minecraft
Star Wars
Pirates of the Caribbean
Game
Scooby-Doo
Monster Fighters
Collectible Minifigures
Ghostbusters
Holiday
Once we did that, those categories would no longer be complete because that is
not the way minifigures are categorized. I thought it would be nice to keep
the ghosts and skeletons together, but I guess they really should be moved into
the themes from which they came (as nearly as possible). So that's the new
plan if no one objects.
|
It does seem like the only real option is to move each figure into it's 'source'
category. It's unfortunate that these type of figures (which can span categories)
can't belong to multiple categories, but that's a huge can of worms.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Nov 4, 2018 00:53 | | Subject: | Re: Second Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | | | Power Bursts - move to Minifigure, Utensil
|
The consensus here was a new category titled Effect. Not a bad idea, but it
seems like it would be hard to understand. Even Power Effect seems questionable,
though better. It would be great if we could come up with a title to describe
all forms of effects (waves, flames, power bolts, etc.) and group them all together
as suggested.
I thought Plasma Effect would be perfect, but Wikipedia tells me that flame is
not a plasma. So what about Plasma / Gas Effect? Still no mention of flame
in the title, though, which some wanted to see. Open to suggestions and am hoping
for some along these lines.
| | Waves - create new category titled Wave
|
See Plasma Effect above.
|
What about 'Elemental Effects' for these? They're sometimes used
for lightning, flames, and water, so that kind of fits...
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Oct 31, 2018 16:39 | | Subject: | Re: Second Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Here's the plan: I'm going to post back here later today with all my
proposed changes (I may have to take this in steps) and give people a chance
to comment.
|
If you do have a comment/suggestion on where these parts are going, please suggest
an alternative location. Before you comment, look at the situation carefully
and present a good argument about why the proposed category is inappropriate.
Parts:
Beehive - move to Cone
|
I think 'Animal - Air' might be better for this, but that's just
a thought.
| | Spiral Pole - move to Hose
|
My first thought on this was that it should go to Axle, but Hose is probably
a better fit.
| | Waves - create new category titled Wave
|
This one has me conflicted. There's a number of these Wave items that should
be in 'Minfig - Utensil' but others should not. Is it better to keep
them all together in a new category, or split them based on common usage?
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Oct 31, 2018 16:31 | | Subject: | Re: Second Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| I'm really interested to see how this goes.
I just took a couple minutes to look at the stuff in the ' Other)' category.
For the parts, it looks like a lot of them would be fairly simple (lots of minifig
accessories), but there's a couple that will be interesting (the slide parts,
for instance).
The Sets in the (Other) category are the real interesting ones to me. A lot of
these fall into an (Other) that is actually a sub-category of another main category.
Should these stay this way? Since a number of them are promotional items, does
there need to be a Promotional category? If BrickLink supported multiple Categories
(or Tags!) on a item, I'd say yes, but since it doesn't, it seems like
it isn't quite as clear-cut.
I take that back... Sets are pretty simple compared to Gear and Books. Where
on earth would you put ?
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Oct 25, 2018 18:13 | | Subject: | Re: We have a new Catalog Admin! | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| Congratulations! I've been following as many of the inventory change discussions
as I can manage and find them fascinating. I'm looking forward to the same
enthusiasm with the catalog as well.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Sep 11, 2018 14:46 | | Subject: | Re: sh104 | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Suggestions, tEoS writes:
| | Power Man is the name on the set box that includes this minifig. So BL's
name is correct from that point of view.
|
The OP is not saying that this isn't Power Man, it's that this is 'Power
Man (Luke Cage)' rather than 'Power Man (Victor Alvarez)' that is
currently listed in the Minifig name:
I tried looking up images of both versions of the character and I can definitely
see the confusion. The Luke Cage Power Man only has this look in the Ultimate
Spider-Man cartoon series and has a much different look in most other comic instances.
In most of the images of Victor Alvarez's Power Man that I found, this is
close to his outfit as well.
That being said, I tend to agree with the OP that this should be renamed to Power
Man (Luke Cage).
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Sep 1, 2018 15:43 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, paulvdb writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In this extreme example, I trust that you can see the part was included for reasons
of commerce. To me, it's no different than the extreme example at the other
end of the spectrum of this part (which never came assembled in any set):
|
I see that this part is marked for deletion. Since the counterpart policy has
changed it seems like it should not be.
|
Great.
I give up.
|
Yeah. Can't tell if it's just a case of 'left hand doesn't know
what the right hand is doing' or some sort of turf war.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 15:50 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
For the instances of this assembly where the top color is different than the
base, do these all need to be added to the catalog individually? For example:
|
Please go here and look at the catalog items pending approval from me and the
images pending approval from me:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogPend.asp
If you (or anyone else) can provide images for the ones I couldn't, then
please do.
| | Looking at it a bit further, I guess it's actually not too bad. Since the
top would be the only fixed color, there's only a max of 16 new entries that
would (currently) need to be added.
|
I only counted 14 new entries. After you take a look at what I have pending,
please let me know which two I missed.
|
I always forget about the pending catalog page. I should have realized you were
already on top of things! There's a few of them I can probably take pictures
of. I'll try and do that tonight if I can find them. I know I can at least
do the Brown one if nothing else.
I came up with 16 possible new items just by looking at the number of different
colored top plates there are. Upon further review on my part (which I should
have done originally), the Maersk and Sand Green colors are matched, so that
just leaves the 14 that you already came up with.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 14:26 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
For the instances of this assembly where the top color is different than the
base, do these all need to be added to the catalog individually? For example:
has 2 hinges with a black base and red top
has 6 hinges with a red base and a brown top
has 2 different hinge combinations: dark red base with black top and
light gray base with black top
Looking at it a bit further, I guess it's actually not too bad. Since the
top would be the only fixed color, there's only a max of 16 new entries that
would (currently) need to be added.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 00:41 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | Using as an example, this part's components almost always appear
in pairs. When they do, they are always assembled in building the set. When the
set is taken apart and the pieces consolidated into those used lots that make
up the source of my stock, they are almost always still assembled.
|
Hasn't there been a set that had different colors for the two pieces in this
hinge brick? I can't think of what the set was though off the top of my head
and I couldn't find it in a quick search, so maybe I'm losing my mind.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Jul 15, 2018 03:34 | | Subject: | Re: What's the deal about bluish gray? | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
| In Colors, uvt203 writes:
| | In Colors, Pippyblocks writes:
| | It's because Lego replaced light grey with light bluish grey a long time
back so now all the light greys are harder to get, unfortunately.
In Colors, LeGoLem writes:
| | I am looking for gray bricks and part, but anywhere I look people only sell dark
or light bluish gray instead of regular gray parts. Why is that? Where are the
good old light gray parts? Why did regular gray become so rare?
|
|
That's correct. In 2006 LEGO changed Light Gray to Light Bluish Gray, Dark
Gray to Dark Bluish Gray and Brown to Reddish Brown. So all sets from after 2006/2007
have these 3 new colors and all before have the old colors. So the old colors
become more and more rare - especially in new conditions.
Asger
|
I thought the color change was in 2004, but I could be wrong.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Jul 15, 2018 02:53 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 76036-1 | | Viewed: | 17 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In this particular instance, the proper route would be to submit a new minifigure
to the catalog with photo. We typically don't change the inventories of
minifigures because we don't want buyers or sellers to end up in a bind.
|
I had a specific question about this part of your response.
How does the system take into account inventory changes in sets that sellers
currently have for sale? Say I have a used set for sale in my store and someone
makes an inventory change to increase the quantity of a part from 3 to 4. Would
I get notified that an item I have for sale has been modified? Does it get automatically
moved from my store to my stockroom until I verify the change?
Inventory changes seem to happen all the time for sets and it doesn't seem
to cause much of an issue, so wouldn't minifigs just be treated the same
way? Or is this another case where minifigs should be treated as a 'set'
of minifig parts but aren't (like 'no alternates in minifig inventories'.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Jul 15, 2018 02:44 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 76036-1 | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, Teup writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, Teup writes:
This is an area of the BrickLink catalog where there is inconsistency. Any changes
made to minifigure assemblies should ideally be system-wide, which would involve
policy changes and multiple new catalog entries and deletions of existing entries.
I'm open to that, but I do not have the final say-so in matters such as these.
In this particular instance, the proper route would be to submit a new minifigure
to the catalog with photo. We typically don't change the inventories of
minifigures because we don't want buyers or sellers to end up in a bind.
|
I don't think that much needs to change, this figure is the only situation
I am currently aware of that something that is "biologically" part of a body
is removed for the Bricklink figure.
But I do get your point about modifying minifigs. Too tricky since there is a
picture that has it without that part and sellers have already been listing them.
I'm curious however how many have assembled/packed them the Bricklink way
and how many did it what I think is the right way (if you look at the instructions
and every picture of the figure). When I packed them, I didn't even have
a second of doubt that 1 of these 5 parts could be not a bodypart. There also
exist crab pincers and such that are "handheld", plus this part is literally
in a bodypart category. Apart from this minifig, the Bricklink catalog always
made perfect sense to me.
I don't have any of these figures anymore, otherwise I would at least submit
a picture for a possible addition.
|
The plant CMF is in the same situation (the plant 'arms' aren't
included in the minifig entry).
Even Wolverine doesn't have his claws in the minifig entry, which
are integrated into his body (following the movies/comics anyway).
It's confusing that minifig entries contain everything present in the LEGO
instructions *except* for what is in the minifig's hands. So Magneto
comes with a dark gray 1x2 round plate because it's attached to his feet,
Iron Man minifigs come with the 1x2 round bricks on his feet, but Wolverine doesn't
get his claws because they are in his hands.
Minifig inventories really should include *all* accessories as pictured in the
instructions.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Jul 15, 2018 02:21 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7016-1 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, normann1974 writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, normann1974 writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 2 Part 3795 Dark Bluish Gray Plate 2 x 6 (Alternate) (match ID 4)
* Change 1 Part Dark Bluish Gray 3032 Plate 4 x 6 {match ID 0 to 4}
Comments from Submitter:
Proof is a correction sheet which I've uploaded as extra instruction image. Will also post it as reponse to this request in forum. At least some of these sets come with this change. If this is considered a redesign, feel free to change match ID to 99.
|
|
I don't have this set, so I'm curious why this change was made. It would
seem to me that it would be making the structure less stable, but I'm only
seeing this initial page.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Jul 5, 2018 04:24 | | Subject: | Re: Undocumented value pack? | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | Thanks! I've added the inventory, hopefully I did it correctly.
|
Everything looks good, but I do have one question. Did you open the set? The
pictures you added to the catalog showed the set was still sealed.
You listed the source as Sealed Set Contents. This source is only appropriate
if you've actually opened the set and checked to see what is inside (there
could be items included which are not visible - not likely for this set, but
still possible).
If you didn't open the set, then the appropriate source would be Set Box/Picture.
|
Gotcha. I'll keep that in mind for next time. It looks like someone already
update the source, so thanks for that if it was you.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Jul 5, 2018 01:39 | | Subject: | Re: Undocumented value pack? | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | I've got a set in my collection that I haven't been able to find much
info about. It doesn't appear to be in the BrickLink or Brickset databases.
|
Here is the new BrickLink catalog entry:
If you'd like to inventory this set, you may do so here:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogInvAdd.asp
|
Thanks! I've added the inventory, hopefully I did it correctly.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Jul 3, 2018 23:39 | | Subject: | Re: Undocumented value pack? | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | I uploaded new images of the front and back. Hopefully they came out ok.
|
Thanks! Unfortunately, there's this funny quirk the catalog has: you can't
upload two images for the same item. If you upload a new image, then the one
you already have pending is replaced.
Try this: add a photo of the front as the Set image and a photo of the
back as the Original Box image. That way the catalog entry can have both
images. The only image you have currently pending is of the back of the box.
|
Thanks for the help. I uploaded the back of the box as the original box image
then deleted and re-added the front with an image that is better centered. Hopefully
these are ok.
Just curious, but would pictures of sealed box contents be useful anywhere on
the site (at least for sets that have view windows)? I've got around 440
different sealed sets that are from 1998 or older. I know I've seen other
forums where people have posted sealed contents, but that's usually for more
recent sets. I've struggled in the past to figure out if a 'new/open
box' set is complete or not since it's hard to find photos of contents
on 30+ year old sets sometimes.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Jul 3, 2018 02:06 | | Subject: | Re: Undocumented value pack? | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | I've got a set in my collection that I haven't been able to find much
info about. It doesn't appear to be in the BrickLink or Brickset databases.
|
Not in the databases? Why, it's been pending approval here on BrickLink
for 3 minutes!
| | I've included photos of the front and back of the set.
|
It would be nice to have some larger pictures. Please add them here (up to 1600x1200):
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogImageAdd.page
Can you also verify the copyright date on the value pack? The year 2000 was
just a guess on my part.
|
I uploaded new images of the front and back. Hopefully they came out ok.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Jul 1, 2018 13:18 | | Subject: | Re: Undocumented value pack? | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | I've got a set in my collection that I haven't been able to find much
info about. It doesn't appear to be in the BrickLink or Brickset databases.
|
Not in the databases? Why, it's been pending approval here on BrickLink
for 3 minutes!
| | I've included photos of the front and back of the set.
|
It would be nice to have some larger pictures. Please add them here (up to 1600x1200):
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogImageAdd.page
Can you also verify the copyright date on the value pack? The year 2000 was
just a guess on my part.
|
You're correct on the copyright date (2000).
I'll try and get some larger photos. I just got a new photography tent to
try and take better pictures, but I'm still working out the best way to use
it.
I appreciate you adding this. I tried to figure out the process before I posted
the photos and couldn't quite work out what I was supposed to do in what
order.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Jul 1, 2018 13:16 | | Subject: | Re: Undocumented value pack? | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Dino1 writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Dino1 writes:
| | mhortar found the item, you get the honor! WOW! That's cool!
|
Member mhortar had ample opportunity to submit the item to the catalog, but did
not. Therefore, I did.
It is not uncommon for members to post undiscovered items in the forum and never
submit them to the catalog. I've taken it upon myself to add some of those
items. Please let me know if you'd prefer the BrickLink catalog be less
comprehensive so that I may scale back my efforts.
|
In this cases I'd prefer the BrickLink catalog be less comprehensive.
|
I appreciate the attempt at defending(?) me. But I couldn't figure out the
submission process (I actually tried before I posted the photos) and was hoping
that StormChaser would submit it.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Jul 1, 2018 02:26 | | Subject: | Undocumented value pack? | | Viewed: | 140 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
| I've got a set in my collection that I haven't been able to find much
info about. It doesn't appear to be in the BrickLink or Brickset databases.
I've included photos of the front and back of the set. It doesn't appear
to have a set number, but the barcode on the bottom of the box is 0 42884 78670
0
Josh
|
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Mar 28, 2018 15:39 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 10260-1 | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change {1 to 2} Part Lime 98138 Tile, Round 1 x 1 (Extra)
Comments from Submitter:
From sealed set. (Well, not sealed anymore )
|
Makes sense. The first lime tile comes in bag 1 and the second comes in bag
2. I've approved your request.
|
Thanks.
| | This was my first time inventorying a set this large from physical contents,
so if you find any other errors please let me know.
|
When building, I trust BL inventories and just check the extras, so I can’t say
for the regulars but there were no other differences for extras.
About the “Makes sens,” there are things that don’t make sense: Why did we both
get extras for the Black and LBG antennas in bag 3 but got none for the LBG one
in bag 4?
|
Actually, that's something I've been curious about recently as well.
I seem to remember (possibly incorrectly though!) that there were always an extra
part when certain small parts were in a bag, so if you had the same part in multiple
steps, you would get multiple extras of that part.
In recent sets (maybe only 2017/2018 sets, but I can't say for certain) it
seems like the first time a small part shows up in a set, there is an extra one,
but if the part appears again in a later step, there is no extra part.
Anyone else experience this, or am I just getting old and the memory is going?
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Mar 15, 2018 00:34 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 8040-1 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, parkdoob writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change {3 to 2} Part Black 3705 Technic, Axle 4
Comments from Submitter:
Believe this set should only include 2x 4-sticks, but database shows 3. Source: instructions & personal collection (only design to use 3x is the final “8040+8700” model, and 8700 also had these sticks)
|
I found something I can actually help with!
I have a new 8040 set, the parts are sealed but the box seal has come loose.
I just checked the bag that contains the 4L axle and there are indeed 3 of them
in the bag.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2018 17:42 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9516-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, mhortar writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, stecre writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 2 Part 3794 Tan Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud (Jumper) (Undetermined Type) (match ID 2)
* Add 2 Part 3794a Tan Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud without Groove (Jumper) (match ID 2)
* Delete 3 Part 3794 Dark Bluish Gray Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud (Jumper) (Undetermined Type) (match ID 3)
* Add 3 Part 3794a Dark Bluish Gray Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud without Groove (Jumper) (match ID 3)
Comments from Submitter:
These are the correct part variations for this set
|
Are you certain of this? I just checked my set (sealed set, opened by me) and
all of the jumpers have grooves.
Josh
|
Ignore me, I just looked and the jumpers with grooves are listed as an alternate.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2018 17:41 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9516-1 | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, stecre writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 2 Part 3794 Tan Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud (Jumper) (Undetermined Type) (match ID 2)
* Add 2 Part 3794a Tan Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud without Groove (Jumper) (match ID 2)
* Delete 3 Part 3794 Dark Bluish Gray Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud (Jumper) (Undetermined Type) (match ID 3)
* Add 3 Part 3794a Dark Bluish Gray Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud without Groove (Jumper) (match ID 3)
Comments from Submitter:
These are the correct part variations for this set
|
Are you certain of this? I just checked my set (sealed set, opened by me) and
all of the jumpers have grooves.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Jan 23, 2017 17:08 | | Subject: | Re: Stop Wanted List Spamming for Minifigs | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, yorbrick writes:
| | In Suggestions, tEoS writes:
| | I disagree. There are plenty of instances where someone sold a minifig that
was missing a cape (for example). I've probably bought several figs that
were missing something.
There's a market for these, so why not accommodate it by using complete/incomplete
|
I agree. There is a market for incomplete figures where a piece is missing, which
is why such a feature is good for both buyers and sellers.
|
I just wish there was a way to denote instances such as
[M=sw127] 'incomplete, missing jet pack'
is just
[M=sw126]
or
[M=sw109a] 'incomplete, missing pauldron'
is just
[M=sw036b]
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Jun 10, 2016 03:05 | | Subject: | Re: Catalog Search improvement | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, cosmicray writes:
| | When trying to locate a decorated part in the catalog … and I can clearly see
the part number on the part ( e.g. 30116 ) … the existing two catalog search
options both are unable to get a hit on the decorated item number that begins
with the part number ( e.g. 30116pb01 ).
The current search options are:
Whole Word in Field
Whole Word
Please add:
Anywhere in field
( or alternately )
Begins With
Thank You
|
You're still able to use the wildcard search, right? '30116*' finds
the part you're looking for (along with a couple others). It appears that
the wildcard is only allowed at the end of the field, looking for '*116pb01'
didn't find anything for me.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Apr 10, 2014 16:47 | | Subject: | Re: Remove MSRP Price | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, Brettj666 writes:
| | In Suggestions, mhortar writes:
| | In Suggestions, BrianAnderson writes:
| | Voted yes. Totally agree this drives people outside of BL.
|
Having the MSRP available from within BL doesn't drive people outside of
BL. BL stores having prices significantly higher than MSRP for things that are
still in production drives people outside of BL. I say this as a buyer who refuses
to pay inflated prices + shipping for something I can order off LS@H and get
free shipping + VIP points, or something I can buy off another site for near
MSRP + a known shipping cost prior to purchasing (sometimes free shipping).
|
You have the luxury of ordering it for retail because you live in a country which
S@H supports.
When the Canadian dollar was strong, it was getting close to being reasonable
for me to buy something from Bricklink (some shops have MRSP because of a formalized
deal with Lego) and pay for shipping and take the chance at duty rather than
retail in Canada.
Now, it doesn't make sense, but it was close at one point.
But if you were in Australia, South Africa, Brazil, where you don't have
any S@H options. (Australia probably does, but likely really inflated)
|
That's an excellent point and one I underestimated. Chalk it up to my American-centric
world view. Something something 'murika.
I don't sell on BL, but I have sold some of my collectibles recently on another
site. I was shocked at the shipping prices internationally (for one item, the
shipping cost was double the cost of the item being purchased!), but no one I
was sending the items to even batted an eye.
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Apr 10, 2014 15:39 | | Subject: | Re: Remove MSRP Price | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| In Suggestions, BrianAnderson writes:
| | Voted yes. Totally agree this drives people outside of BL.
|
Having the MSRP available from within BL doesn't drive people outside of
BL. BL stores having prices significantly higher than MSRP for things that are
still in production drives people outside of BL. I say this as a buyer who refuses
to pay inflated prices + shipping for something I can order off LS@H and get
free shipping + VIP points, or something I can buy off another site for near
MSRP + a known shipping cost prior to purchasing (sometimes free shipping).
|
|
)
)
)
)
