Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | WoutR  | | Posted: | Jun 25, 2019 17:25 | | Subject: | Re: Please add LEGO colour names to Color Guide | | Viewed: | 88 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| It is not very readable, but it does contain a LOT of information 
If I ever find time and motivation for some catalog work, this could also give
me some problems to work on. For example, the Tiny Blue problem should be easy
to fix.
In Suggestions, Pippyblocks writes:
| | Thanks for this WoutR, it's amazing. I'm bookmarking it as fascinated
by the Lego colours. Great work
In Suggestions, WoutR writes:
|
|
 |
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jun 25, 2019 17:02 | | Subject: | Re: Please add LEGO colour names to Color Guide | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, WoutR writes:
Because the message is no longer available, I am copying the missing information
here:
Part 3901
Part color code: update 4163862
Small Images: Choose one of the images in Fabuland Brown or Earth Orange and
delete the other.
Part 30374
Part color code: update 4159161
Small Images: Choose one of the images in Fabuland Brown, Earth Orange or Dark
Orange and delete the rest.
Part 30374px1
Remove additional note.
Update small image color from Dark Orange to Dark Nougat
Inventory 4706-1
Change part 30374px1 from Dark Orange to Dark Nougat (regular and extra)
Inventory 4730-1
Change part 30374 from Dark Orange to Dark Nougat
Inventory 4752-1
Change part 30374 from Dark Orange to Dark Nougat
Inventory 4756-1
Change part 30374 from Earth Orange to Dark Nougat
Inventory 4758-1
Change part 30374 from Earth Orange to Dark Nougat
Inventory 10132-1
Change part 30374 from Dark Orange to Dark Nougat
Inventory minifigure hp023 (used in set 4728-1 and HPG02-1)
Change part 3901 from Earth Orange to Dark Nougat
---
In the discussion, the name "Medium Dark Orange" was proposed for our
catalog
|
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jun 25, 2019 16:35 | | Subject: | Re: Please add LEGO colour names to Color Guide | | Viewed: | 116 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| (Many thanks to https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/sets/)
Recent changes:
- There are two new colors: Coral and Trans-Light Green
- Some of the smaller problems were solved by changes in set inventories. I did
not check all of them.
-----
Here is my UPDATED list:
There is actually a surprising number of BrickLink colors that contain multiple
LEGO colors. In many cases this does not cause any catalog conflicts because
the parts do not exist in both design-color combinations. In a few cases there
are (possible) problems.
In order to help gain an oversight over the possible problems, I have split up
my list in a few sections.
- BrickLink colors that match one LEGO color
- BrickLink colors containing multiple LEGO colors (without known catalog conflicts)
- BrickLink colors containing multiple LEGO colors (with known catalog conflicts)
- BrickLink colors without LEGO name
- LEGO colors without BrickLink name
- BrickLink colors that are confusing or split up LEGO colors (including all
gold, silver copper)
Within each section, the colors are in the same order as the BrickLink catalog.
BRICKLINK COLORS THAT MATCH ONE LEGO COLOR
Solid colors
1 White = 1 White
49 Very Light Gray = 103 Light Grey
99 Very Light Bluish Gray = 208 Light Stone Grey
86 Light Bluish Gray = 194 Medium Stone Grey
9 Light Gray = 2 Grey
10 Dark Gray = 27 Dark Grey
85 Dark Bluish Gray = 199 Dark Stone Grey
220 Coral = 353 Vibrant Coral
59 Dark Red = 154 Dark Red/New Dark Red
26 Light Salmon = 100 Light Red
58 Sand Red = 153 Sand Red
88 Reddish Brown = 192 Reddish Brown
120 Dark Brown = 308 Dark Brown
69 Dark Tan = 138 Sand Yellow
90 Light Flesh = 283 Light Nougat
28 Flesh = 18 Nougat
150 Medium Dark Flesh = 312 Medium Nougat
91 Dark Flesh = 217 Brown
106 Fabuland Brown = 4 Brick Red
160 Fabuland Orange = 19 Light Brown
165 Neon Orange = 133 Neon Orange (watch parts)
4 Orange = 106 Bright Orange
31 Medium Orange = 105 Bright Yellowish Orange
110 Bright Light Orange = 191 Flame Yellowish Orange
96 Very Light Orange = 36 Light Yellowish Orange
103 Bright Light Yellow = 226 Cool Yellow
33 Light Yellow = 3 Light Yellow
158 Yellowish Green = 326 Spring Yellowish Green
166 Neon Green = 134 Neon Green (watch parts)
76 Medium Lime = 115 Medium Yellowish Green
55 Olive Green = 330 Olive Green
80 Dark Green = 141 Earth Green
36 Bright Green = 37 Bright Green
38 Light Green = 6 Light Green
39 Dark Turquoise = 107 Bright Bluish Green
40 Light Turquoise = 116 Medium Bluish Green
41 Aqua = 118 Light Bluish Green
152 Light Aqua = 323 Aqua
63 Dark Blue = 140 Earth Blue
153 Dark Azure = 321 Dark Azur
156 Medium Azure = 322 Medium Azur
72 Maersk Blue = 11 Pastel Blue
105 Bright Light Blue = 212 Light Royal Blue
87 Sky Blue = 232 Dove Blue
55 Sand Blue = 135 Sand Blue
97 Blue-Violet = 195 Royal Blue
109 Dark Blue-Violet = 196 Dark Royal Blue
43 Violet = 110 Bright Bluish Violet
44 Light Violet = 39 Light Bluish Violet
24 Purple = 104 Bright Violet
93 Light Purple = 198 Bright Reddish Lilac
157 Medium Lavender = 324 Medium Lavender
154 Lavender = 325 Lavender
54 Sand Purple = 136 Sand Violet
71 Magenta = 124 Bright Reddish Violet
94 Medium Dark Pink = 16 Pink
Transparent Colors
12 Trans-Clear = 40 Transparent
13 Trans-Black = 111 Transparent Brown
17 Trans-Red = 41 Transparent Red
18 Trans-Neon Orange = 47 Transparent Fluorescent Reddish Orange
98 Trans-Orange = 182 Transparent Bright Orange
164 Trans-Light Orange = 231 Transparent Flame Yellowish Orange
121 Trans-Neon Yellow = 157 Transparent Fluorescent Yellow
16 Trans-Neon Green = 49 Transparent Fluorescent Green
221 Trans-Light Green = 285 Transparent Light Green
20 Trans-Green = 48 Transparent Green
15 Trans-Light Blue = 42 Transparent Light Blue
113 Trans-Very Lt Blue = 229 Transparent Light Bluish Green
114 Trans-Light Purple = 284 Transparent Reddish Lilac
107 Trans-Pink = 230 Transparent Bright Purple
Pearl Colors
83 Pearl White = 183 Metallic White
119 Pearl Very Light Gray = 150 Light Grey Metallic
61 Pearl Light Gold = 127 Gold
115 Pearl Gold = 297 Warm Gold
81 Flat Dark Gold = 147 Sand Yellow Metallic
Milky Colors
60 Milky White = 20 Nature
159 Glow in Dark White = 329 White Glow
46 Glow In Dark Opaque = 50 Phosphorescent White
118 Glow In Dark Trans = 294 Phosphorescent Green
Glitter Colors
102 Glitter Trans-Purple = 114 Transparent Medium Reddish Violet Glitter
100 Glitter Trans-Dark Pink = 129 Transparent Bluish Violet with Glitter
162 Glitter Trans-Light Blue = 302 “Pctr Li.Blue W/” (Polycarbonate Transparent
Light Blue with Glitter)
163 Glitter Trans-Neon Green = 339 “Tr. Fl.Gre W/Gli” (Transparent Transparent
Fluorescent Green with Glitter)
BRICKLINK COLORS CONTAINING MULTIPLE LEGO COLORS
(WITHOUT KNOWN CATALOG CONFLICTS)
Solid colors
11 Black
= 26 Black
= 149 Black Metallic (for Bionicle Rahkshi parts 44807, 44138, 44140)
= 342 Conductive Black (part 15411)
5 Red
= 21 Bright Red
= 184 Metallic Bright Red (for Bionicle Rahkshi parts 44807, 44138, 44140)
25 Salmon
= 101 Medium Red (Scala)
= 123 Bright Reddish Orange (Duplo salmon)
27 Rust
= 13 Red Orange (Duplo cows, Fabuland heads)
= The other BrickLink Rust parts are probably an odd version of 21 Bright Red
(?) but that color is so different that the separate listing is justified.
8 Brown
= 25 Earth Orange
= 187 Metallic Earth Orange (for Bionicle Rahkshi parts 44807, 44138, 44140)
= “Homemaker brown” The part x197 Homemaker headgear is a dark brown color.
68 Dark Orange
= 38 Dark Orange
= 216 Rust (for Skateboard 48394, Ladle x234, Dog 51163cx1)
3 Yellow
= 24 Bright Yellow
= 190 Fire Yellow (used in Clikits, color is VERY close to Bright Yellow)
35 Light Lime
= 15 Lemon (Duplo lemon-lime)
= 120 Light Yellowish Green (Scala/Belville/Duplo Princess)
34 Lime
= 14 Pastel Green (Fabuland, Duplo)
= 119 Bright Yellowish Green (current Lime)
6 Green
= 28 Dark Green
= 186 Metallic Dark Green (for Bionicle Rahkshi parts 44807, 44138, 44140, often
sold as Chrome Green or metallic green)
37 Medium Green
= 29 Medium Green
= 233 Light Faded Green (for part 44403c04)
48 Sand Green
= 151 Sand Green
= 210 Faded Green (for part 44513)
89 Dark Purple
= 268 Medium Lilac
= 197 Bright Lilac (for part 44611)
47 Dark Pink
= 22 Medium Reddish Violet (approximately 1994-2004)
= 221 Bright Purple (approximately 2004-now)
There is probably a lot of overlap between these colors, so theoretically there
must be catalog conflicts, but the colors are so close to each other and have
so much variation that it is nearly impossible to tell the difference.
104 Bright Pink
= 222 Light Purple
= 295 Flamingo Pink (for parts clikits141, clikits135, clikits135pb01, clikits100pb04)
Transparent Colors
19 Trans-Yellow
= 44 Transparent Yellow
= 234 Transparent Fire Yellow (Lighter than Transparent Yellow, used in Clikits
only)
108 Trans-Bright Green
= 227 Transparent Bright Yellowish Green (approximately 2003-2006)
= 311 Transparent Bright Green (Since 2010)
74 Trans-Medium Blue
= 143 Transparent Fluorescent Blue
= 293 Transparent Light Royal Blue (used om Clikits)
There might be a third Trans-Medium Blue color in the Clikits parts.
50 Trans-Dark Pink
= 113 Transparent Medium Reddish Violet
= 158 Transparent Fluorescent Red (for Bionicle part 32554)
Metallic colors
70 Metallic Green
= 200 Lemon Metallic (for Bionicle Kraata and Krana)
= The Metallic Green technic panels have a surface coating, and I do not know
what the official name is for the Metallic Green tube in the technic sets.
Glitter Colors
101 Glitter Trans-Clear
= 117 Transparent With Glitter
= 122 Nature with Glitter (Duplo spider web)
BRICKLINK COLORS CONTAINING MULTIPLE LEGO COLORS
(WITH KNOWN CATALOG CONFLICTS)
Solid colors
2 Tan
= 5 Brick Yellow
= 224 Light Brick Yellow (for part ava005 and the hair of figure 47205pb006).
Figure 47205pb006 has been found with hair both in tan and in “light tan” color.
29 Earth Orange
= 12 Light Orange Brown
= 128 Dark Nougat (used in some Harry Potter sets for parts 30374 (wand), flute
(30374px1), part 3901 (Vernon Dursley hair)
There is a catalog conflict on part 3901 and maybe 30374.
73 Medium Violet
= 112 Medium Bluish Violet (approximately 1999-2003)
= 219 Lilac (approximately 2003-2005)
= 213 Medium Royal Blue (for part 44688 in set 7495-1)
= 218 Reddish Lilac (used in Clikits, closer to modern Lavender)
There is some overlap between Medium Bluish Violet (Blueish Medium Violet) and
Lilac (Reddish Medium Violet). Both are known as part 3001 for example. The different
Medium Violet colors are VERY different. This causes confusion.
23 Pink
= 17 Rose (approximately 1992-1997 Paradisa pink)
= 9 Light Reddish Violet (approximately 1997-2006)
Several plates are known to exist in both colors. The Clikits Pink parts are
probably all Trans-Pink, misnamed because of the appearance of the material used.
32 Light Orange
= 121 Medium Yellowish Orange
= 225 Warm Yellowish Orange (for Duplo plate 8x16 part 6490)
Some Q-elements are known in both colors.
Transparent Colors
14 Trans-Dark Blue
= 43 Transparent Blue
= 156 Transparent Deep Blue (use outside watch parts is uncertain)
There is a conflict in the watch links, but not much is known about them. (See
https://www.flickr.com/photos/111441268@N03/15417687510/)
51 Trans-Purple
= 126 Transparent Bright Bluish Violet
= 236 Transparent Bright Reddish Lilac
Conflict in Clikits parts
Pearl Colors
77 Pearl Dark Gray
= 148 Dark Grey Metallic (approximately 2002-2010)
= 316 Titanium Metallic (since 2010)
There are conflicts, such as part x110c01.
BRICKLINK COLORS WITHOUT LEGO NAME
Solid colors
56 Light Pink
= Possibly a Scala/Belville clothes color. Probably this color is mainly used
for the “Paradisa pink” color.
Chrome Colors
These colors did not receive a LEGO color ID because they were treated as a surface
decoration just like the printed parts.
57 Chrome Antique Brass
122 Chrome Black
52 Chrome Blue
64 Chrome Green
82 Chrome Pink
LEGO COLORS WITHOUT BRICKLINK NAME
N/A - 109 (PC) Black IR (Probably part of IR assemblies only )
N/A - 132 Black Glitter (Original box for set 7159-1)
N/A - 144 Dark Army Green (watch parts)
N/A - 146 Sand Violet Metallic (watch parts)
N/A - 220 Light Lilac (Torso of 47394pb028)
The trunks of the Granulated trees are also a unique color of brown. No name
is known for this color for both BrickLink and LEGO.
BRICKLINK COLORS THAT ARE CONFUSING OR SPLIT UP LEGO COLORS
The silver, gold and copper colored parts cause most problems, because they can
have a completely different appearance depending on material used (ABS, polypropylene,
rubber) and part shape. In the years before any official color information was
available, we invented different color names for parts that actually were made
in a single color.
Solid Colors
7 Blue
= 23 Bright Blue
= 185 Metallic Bright Blue (for Bionicle Rahkshi parts 44807, 44138, 44140)
LEGO 185 Metallic Bright Blue is split up between Blue (for parts that do not
look pearly because of the plastic used) and 78 Metal Blue (for parts that do
look pearly).
Tiny Blue
42 Medium Blue
= 102 Medium Blue
= 188 Tiny Blue (for part 44534)
= 269 Tiny-Medium Blue (for part 44403c02)
62 Light Blue
= 45 Light Blue
= 188 Tiny Blue (for part 44461)
LEGO 188 Tiny Blue is split up between Medium Blue and Light Blue, depending
on which set it occurred in and how the person doing the inventory solved the
problem of how to classify a new unknown color.
Speckle Colors
Speckle colors are covered in a speckled coating. The speckles are not part of
the plastic itself.
111 Speckle Black-Silver
= 304 (ink) Cool Silver, Diffuse on Black parts
117 Speckle DBGray-Silver
= 304 (ink) Cool Silver, Diffuse on DB-Gray parts
151 Speckle Black-Gold
= No LEGO (ink) color ID is known
116 Speckle Black-Copper
= 306 (ink) Copper, Diffuse on Black part
LEGO 304 is split up depending on the color of the base-part it is applied to.
It does not cause any catalog problems, but it might need a “color note” to explain
the relation with the official LEGO color names for future reference.
Pearl Colors
Metallic Bright Blue
78 Metal Blue
= 145 Sand Blue Metallic
= 185 Metallic Bright Blue (for part 54005pb01 and the hubs of 54007c02)
Silver, Gold and Copper colors
Silver, Gold and Copper colors are made in a few different ways:
- As a color of the plastic itself
- as a shiny surface finish, called “chrome” on BrickLink.
- as a matte surface finish, called “metallic” on BrickLink.
- Painted, sprayed or brushed onto the part as a surface decoration. (In those
cases LEGO will usually specify the color of the part underneath the decoration,
with a description of the decoration in the part name). These are usually called
“metallic”, but I think I have seen a few inconsistencies (I did not check yet).
The naming conventions LEGO used for these colors are as confusing as the way
BrickLink dealt with differences in appearance caused by the use of different
materials. Initially LEGO only assigned a name to the color of the plastic itself.
Until somewhere around 2006 (?) all surface coatings were seen as decorations
only. Then a few color names were introduced that describe the appearance of
the brick. Since somewhere around 2009-2012 (?) those names have been replaced
by “ink colors” with labels (No 1000, No 1100) in the part name to describe the
surface finish.
So what is what?..
Gold colors
Chrome Colors
21 Chrome Gold
= until approximately 2010: surface decoration (no number assigned);
= later: 310 Metalized Gold
= present: 335 Gold Ink (probably with “No 1100” in the official LEGO part name)
(I am not sure about the exact dates for the changes in the LEGO naming conventions
for this color)
Pearl Colors
61 Pearl Light Gold = 127 Gold
115 Pearl Gold = 297 Warm Gold
81 Flat Dark Gold = 147 Sand Yellow Metallic
Metallic Colors
65 Metallic Gold
= 1998-2006: surface decoration (no number assigned);
= 2006-2009: LEGO 299 Warm Gold, Drum Lacquered
= 2009-present: LEGO 335 Gold ink (ink (probably with “No 1000” in the part name)
Silver colors
Chrome Colors
22 Chrome Silver
= until approximately 2010: surface decoration (no number assigned);
= later: 309 Metalized Silver
= present: 336 Silver Ink with (probably with “No 1100” in the official LEGO
part name)
(I am not sure about the exact dates for the changes in the LEGO naming conventions
for this color)
Pearl Colors
66 Pearl Light Gray and 95 Flat Silver
- Bricklink uses Pearl Light Gray for parts that “look swirly”
- Bricklink uses Flat Silver for parts that “do not look swirly” The definition
used can be found here: http://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1096 I think
the definition is very confusing and open to interpretation.
- Bricklink uses Flat Silver for all 315 Silver Metallic parts (since 2010).
= 131 Silver (approximately 1998-2010)
= 296 Cool Silver (briefly replaced 131 Silver in 2006)
= 315 Silver Metallic (since 2010)
= 179 Silver Flip/Flop (for Bionicle Kanohi mask. Used only in Bionicle mask
packs from 2002. Because these packs with random parts are not inventoried, no
BrickLink color is known for these parts. They are currently sold as Metallic
Silver, flat silver, pearl light gray, pearl dark gray)
Parts in softer plastics that didn't show the pearl-ness much used to be
considered Flat Silver on BL (even though they LEGO considered them to be the
same color as Pearl Light Gray).
Metallic Colors
67 Metallic Silver
= 1998-2005: surface decoration (no number assigned);
= 2005-2009: LEGO 298 Cool Silver, Drum Lacquered
= 2009-present: LEGO 336, Silver ink (probably with “No 1000” or 1001 in the
part name)
Copper colors
Pearl Colors
84 Copper
= 139 Copper
= 189 Reddish Gold
= 176 Red Flip/Flop (for Bionicle mask 32573 and 32572)
= 178 Yellow Flip/Flop (for Bionicle Kanohi mask. Used only in Bionicle mask
packs from 2002. Because these packs with random parts are not inventoried, no
BrickLink color is known for these parts. They are currently sold as copper,
metallic gold, pearl gold.
= 346 Copper Metallic
= 300 Copper, Drum Lacquered matte copper surface coating
= 334 Copper ink
This color is a bit of a mess on BrickLink. Because BrickLink does not have a
“Metallic Copper” the Copper color is used both for the actual plastic (139,
176, 178, 189, 346) and the Copper coated parts (300, 334). The copper surface
coatings have a similar history as the silver and gold colors.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jun 25, 2019 16:08 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7441-1 | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Bendix writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 1 Part {Violet to Dark Purple} 44611 Duplo Tile, Modified 4 x 4 Studs on Edge and Groove Lines (Little Robots)
|
The actual color of this part is "197 Bright Lilac".
It is slightly older than Dark Purple. It is a reasonable color match, so grouping
this with Dark Purple is a much better solution than the grouping with Violet.
(The part was possibly added to the inventory when Dark Purple was not in our
catalog yet.)
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jun 18, 2019 21:39 | | Subject: | Re: Fabuland Cow head color | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Colors, Stuart9 writes:
| | Fabuland orange would be my guess.
In Colors, samsam2 writes:
| | What color is the head of Fabuland Figure Cow?
I don't recognize it as any current color. It looks closest to Salmon but
I don't have any other parts in this color.
|
|
It could be Dark Salmon, a color we have been thinking about adding to the catalog.
|
When adding new colors, please stay close to the original LEGO name if possible.
Currently, this color is called rust on BrickLink. It shares that name with some
other parts that were probably intended to be Red.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jun 18, 2019 21:38 | | Subject: | Re: Fabuland Cow head color | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, randyf writes:
| | In Colors, samsam2 writes:
| | What color is the head of Fabuland Figure Cow?
I don't recognize it as any current color. It looks closest to Salmon but
I don't have any other parts in this color.
|
I believe it is this color:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/14960664342/
LEGO color 13 Red Orange is not recognized on BrickLink with an official name.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Correct.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | May 25, 2019 21:03 | | Subject: | Re: Mystery part | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | I have pending approval something like this
[p=Unknown]
Did anybody see something like this? Anybody knows anything about it?
|
I *had* seen it, probably at the same time as the new 2x4 brick with axle holes
and that technic connector block...
But I can't find it so I probably noticed the part when I was looking at
new items pending approval in our catalog... 
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | May 17, 2019 22:36 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7575-12 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, WoutR writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 2 Part Trans-Dark Pink {clikits027u Clikits Icon, Heart 2 x 2 Small with Pin - (Undetermined Version) to clikits027b Clikits Icon, Heart 2 x 2 Small with Pin, Polished (Transparent Colors Only)}
* Change 1 Part Trans-Purple {clikits013u Clikits Icon, Star 2 x 2 Small with Pin - (Undetermined Version) to clikits013b Clikits Icon, Star 2 x 2 Small with Pin, Polished (Transparent Colors Only)}
Comments from Submitter:
Pic to follow
|
|
The "Trans-Purple" star in this photo looks very similar in color to the part
in the image you posted at https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1141237 that
you had changed to "Trans-Light Purple". Are these pieces actually two different
colors? Because they do not look like it from the photos. Could you post a comparison
photo of these two parts side-by-side?
Cheers,
Randy
|
I am posting the comparison pic that you requested and also a bag of light purple
stars. The problem is that thinner pieces look lighter anyway and thicker look
darker. I would call the ones in the poly on the right all trans-purple. The
lowest star looks lighter, but it is a thinner type of piece and definitely darker
than the ziplock of trans-light purple stars that are the same piece. WIth all
of this laid out, I believe that the 3 Clikits025b that I said were trans-light
are not. They are just really thin trans-purple. Can you fix that from where
you are? I have to go to bed right now.
|
I stayed up late enough to correct (I THINK) my requests concerning the connector.
I do feel strongly corrected that it is regular trans-purple plastic. It is
just very thin. It looks similar to the thicker Trans-light pieces, though.
If I don't go to bed right now, I'm going to get in trouble 
|
See https://flic.kr/p/q3dwkU
|
Also note that BrickLink's Trans-Purple contains both LEGO 126 Transparent
Bright Bluish Violet and LEGO 236 Transparent Bright Reddish Lilac. Some parts
exist in both colors, and our catalog cannot correctly identify them.
That issue is still on my list of color problems in the BL catalog.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | May 17, 2019 22:27 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7575-22 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, WoutR writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 1 Part {Trans-Purple to Trans-Light Purple} {Clikits025u Clikits Bead, Ring Thin Large with Hole (Undetermined Connector Type) to Clikits025b Clikits Bead, Ring Thin Large with Hole with Low Connector}
Comments from Submitter:
Pics to follow. Also, I'd like some advice on the dark purple shiny thing. We really don't have a color for that.
|
The other admins and I will need to have a discussion about the dark purple shiny
thing.
Cheers,
Randy
|
I think the others are currently chrome pink
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?catType=P&colorPart=82
|
Yeah. But I have another piece that is WAAYYY different that is also chrome
pink.
|
Yes the glittery "paper" and holographic(?) "plastic" are completely different.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | May 17, 2019 22:21 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7575-12 | | Viewed: | 15 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 2 Part Trans-Dark Pink {clikits027u Clikits Icon, Heart 2 x 2 Small with Pin - (Undetermined Version) to clikits027b Clikits Icon, Heart 2 x 2 Small with Pin, Polished (Transparent Colors Only)}
* Change 1 Part Trans-Purple {clikits013u Clikits Icon, Star 2 x 2 Small with Pin - (Undetermined Version) to clikits013b Clikits Icon, Star 2 x 2 Small with Pin, Polished (Transparent Colors Only)}
Comments from Submitter:
Pic to follow
|
|
The "Trans-Purple" star in this photo looks very similar in color to the part
in the image you posted at https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1141237 that
you had changed to "Trans-Light Purple". Are these pieces actually two different
colors? Because they do not look like it from the photos. Could you post a comparison
photo of these two parts side-by-side?
Cheers,
Randy
|
I am posting the comparison pic that you requested and also a bag of light purple
stars. The problem is that thinner pieces look lighter anyway and thicker look
darker. I would call the ones in the poly on the right all trans-purple. The
lowest star looks lighter, but it is a thinner type of piece and definitely darker
than the ziplock of trans-light purple stars that are the same piece. WIth all
of this laid out, I believe that the 3 Clikits025b that I said were trans-light
are not. They are just really thin trans-purple. Can you fix that from where
you are? I have to go to bed right now.
|
I stayed up late enough to correct (I THINK) my requests concerning the connector.
I do feel strongly corrected that it is regular trans-purple plastic. It is
just very thin. It looks similar to the thicker Trans-light pieces, though.
If I don't go to bed right now, I'm going to get in trouble
|
See https://flic.kr/p/q3dwkU
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | May 17, 2019 22:18 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7575-22 | | Viewed: | 20 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-Purple to Trans-Light Purple} {Clikits025u Clikits Bead, Ring Thin Large with Hole (Undetermined Connector Type) to Clikits025b Clikits Bead, Ring Thin Large with Hole with Low Connector}
Comments from Submitter:
Pics to follow. Also, I'd like some advice on the dark purple shiny thing. We really don't have a color for that.
|
The other admins and I will need to have a discussion about the dark purple shiny
thing.
Cheers,
Randy
|
I think the others are currently chrome pink
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?catType=P&colorPart=82
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | May 17, 2019 22:13 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7575-2 | | Viewed: | 17 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 1 Part {Trans-Dark Pink to Trans-Pink} clikits080 Clikits Flexy Film, Heart 4 x 4 with Raised Border
Comments from Submitter:
I have collected up a few of these hearts from different sets. I expected them to be the same, but there are two different shades. This set has the lighter one.
|
The image you submitted to the catalog for Trans-Pink is *very* over-saturated
with color and much more magenta-like. In fact, it looks much more like Trans-Dark
Pink. Are you sure you submitted the right image to the right color? For reference,
see your images below where the first one shows the less magenta-like part labeled
as Trans-Pink and the second one shows the image currently under the color Trans-Pink
in the catalog. Something just does not seem right.
Cheers,
Randy
|
I took another pic and one of the new color and it wasn't any better, but
since you said saturated, I played with a slider called that and I got pics that
look on my screen very like the piece on my desk. I'm uploading them now.
|
Now those images look nice! Yes, images with bright colors can easily become
over-saturated, so sometimes you have to mute them by decreasing the "saturation"
of them to get a color that looks better on a screen interface. I wish mfav was
around right now. I am sure he could give you a fantastic lesson about it.
By the way, LEGO had two different pink colors for these hearts:
https://brickset.com/parts/design-48173
One was LEGO color Transparent Medium Reddish Violet, which is BrickLink Trans-Dark
Pink, and one was LEGO color Transparent Bright Purple, which is BrickLink Trans-Pink.
How's that for figuring this stuff out on your own? 
If you keep looking at that page above, you will also notice they made one in
a color called Transparent Light Green. I think I remember someone discovering
that a couple of days ago. Only problem is, BrickLink does not have a color
for that. You were right, we do need a new color.
Cheers,
Randy
|
See https://flic.kr/p/pLbLJi
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Apr 24, 2019 07:24 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7508-1 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 6 Part clikits004u Trans-Light Orange Clikits Icon, Flower 10 Petals 2 x 2 Small with Pin - (Undetermined Version)
* Add 6 Part Clikits004b Trans-Light Orange Clikits Icon, Flower 10 Petals 2 x 2 Small with Pin, Polished (Transparent Colors Only) (match ID 1)
* Add 6 Part Clikits004a Trans-Light Orange Clikits Icon, Flower 10 Petals 2 x 2 Small with Pin, Frosted (Solid and Transparent Colors) (Alternate) (match ID 1)
* Delete 4 Part clikits004u Trans-Neon Yellow Clikits Icon, Flower 10 Petals 2 x 2 Small with Pin - (Undetermined Version)
* Add 4 Part Clikits004b Trans-Neon Yellow Clikits Icon, Flower 10 Petals 2 x 2 Small with Pin, Polished (Transparent Colors Only) (match ID 2)
* Add 4 Part Clikits004a Trans-Neon Yellow Clikits Icon, Flower 10 Petals 2 x 2 Small with Pin, Frosted (Solid and Transparent Colors) (Alternate) (match ID 2)
* Delete 6 Part clikits005u Trans-Neon Yellow Clikits Icon, Flower 10 Petals 2 x 2 Small with Hole - (Undetermined Version)
* Add 6 Part Clikits005a Trans-Neon Yellow Clikits Icon, Flower 10 Petals 2 x 2 Small with Hole, Frosted (Solid and Transparent Colors) (match ID 3)
* Add 6 Part Clikits005b Trans-Neon Yellow Clikits Icon, Flower 10 Petals 2 x 2 Small with Hole, Polished (Transparent Colors Only) (Alternate) (match ID 3)
* Add 5 Part Clikits005b Trans-Orange Clikits Icon, Flower 10 Petals 2 x 2 Small with Hole, Polished (Transparent Colors Only) (match ID 4)
* Add 5 Part Clikits005b Trans-Light Orange Clikits Icon, Flower 10 Petals 2 x 2 Small with Hole, Polished (Transparent Colors Only) (Alternate) (match ID 4)
* Change 1 Part Trans-Bright Green {clikits004u Clikits Icon, Flower 10 Petals 2 x 2 Small with Pin - (Undetermined Version) to clikits004a Clikits Icon, Flower 10 Petals 2 x 2 Small with Pin, Frosted (Solid and Transparent Colors)}
* Change 1 Part Trans-Dark Pink {clikits004u Clikits Icon, Flower 10 Petals 2 x 2 Small with Pin - (Undetermined Version) to Clikits004a Clikits Icon, Flower 10 Petals 2 x 2 Small with Pin, Frosted (Solid and Transparent Colors)}
* Change 6 Part Trans-Light Orange {clikits004u Clikits Icon, Flower 10 Petals 2 x 2 Small with Pin - (Undetermined Version) to Clikits004a Clikits Icon, Flower 10 Petals 2 x 2 Small with Pin, Frosted (Solid and Transparent Colors)}
* Change 3 Part Trans-Bright Green {clikits005u Clikits Icon, Flower 10 Petals 2 x 2 Small with Hole - (Undetermined Version) to Clikits005a Clikits Icon, Flower 10 Petals 2 x 2 Small with Hole, Frosted (Solid and Transparent Colors)}
* Change 5 Part Trans-Dark Pink {clikits005u Clikits Icon, Flower 10 Petals 2 x 2 Small with Hole - (Undetermined Version) to Clikits005a Clikits Icon, Flower 10 Petals 2 x 2 Small with Hole, Frosted (Solid and Transparent Colors)}
* Change 3 Part Trans-Medium Blue {clikits038u Clikits Icon, Round 2 x 2 Small with Hole - (Undetermined Version) to Clikits038a Clikits Icon, Round 2 x 2 Small with Hole, Frosted (Solid and Transparent Colors)}
* Change 3 Part Trans-Light Orange {clikits005u Clikits Icon, Flower 10 Petals 2 x 2 Small with Hole - (Undetermined Version) to clikits005a Clikits Icon, Flower 10 Petals 2 x 2 Small with Hole, Frosted (Solid and Transparent Colors)}
* Change {8 to 3} Part Trans-Orange {clikits005u Clikits Icon, Flower 10 Petals 2 x 2 Small with Hole - (Undetermined Version) to clikits005a Clikits Icon, Flower 10 Petals 2 x 2 Small with Hole, Frosted (Solid and Transparent Colors)}
Comments from Submitter:
1-3) Thankfully simple.
4-6) My set had 5 polished and 1 frosted, but I believe they are random. There is nothing in the meager instruction to indicate where the 1 frosted one should go.
7-9) My set had 3 polished and 1 frosted, but I believe they are random. There is nothing in the meager instruction to indicate where the 1 frosted one should go.
10-12) Thankfully simple
13-15) My set had 3 polished and 3 frosted, but I believe they are random. There is nothing in the meager instruction to indicate where the where each goes.
16-19) Discussion welcome. This is my best stab. Current inventory has 8 trans-orange and 3 trans light orange all undetermined. Mine had 3 polished in each color and 5 frosted in the trans LIGHT. I can think of other ways to handle this, but this was the simplest.
|
Thank you for looking into these sets!
Interesting that polished or frosted parts might be random in this set.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Apr 21, 2019 18:13 | | Subject: | Re: Unusual Brittle Blue's you've found | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, Fragty writes:
| | I have -since I found out what brittle blue is/was- found:
3x1 inverted slopes
one 1x2 jumper plate
2x2 corner bricks
2x2 tiles
I probably have more if I search for it in my stock/old mocs.
And I'm sure I broke many, or threw them away, from the time before I knew
what it was.
Or used as filler bricks.
I do keep them now for fun. It's not a real colour and they are totally
useless, but still a nice oddity.
But if you do find a 2x4 brick...are you gonna add it to that color 'tower'?
I wouldnt. It might break just by doing that...
grtz,
Koen
In Colors, Pippyblocks writes:
| | I've just found a 16x16 baseplate in Brittle Blue, pretty cool find I think.
Anyone found anything unusual in this 'colour'. I thought it was just
bricks. Also still haven't found a 2x4 brick in Brittle Blue yet if anyone
has one.
|
|
I broke a 2x4 brick by accidentally knocking a ziplock bag with a brick off the
table. The brick did not survive the 75 cm fall... I was preparing it for shipping,
so the next one got a lot more padding 
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Apr 20, 2019 13:55 | | Subject: | Re: Help identifying a brick | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WrefordBrown writes:
| | Hi there, hope someone can help.
I've found what looks like a 7049b but with a white rather than red interior
and 'Pat Pend' on the bottom. It's from a box of my own childhood
Lego so it's definitely from the early 80's - should I list this as a
7049b or is there a better description?
Grateful for some advice...
|
There are a few variations of the interior colors.
BrickLink does not separate those variations, so 7049b is correct.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Apr 12, 2019 13:48 | | Subject: | Re: mx1142l | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Modulex | |
|
| In Modulex, yoavheskia writes:
| | Who knows how many colors this brick has? what colors not appearing in the picture?
|
There are 16 Modulex bricks with LEGO logo. You are missing one.
https://flic.kr/p/ZkwsC4
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Apr 9, 2019 16:25 | | Subject: | Re: inconsistencies | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | In other words there is a mess which will be hard to clarify
|
Keep it simple. A tile does not have studs. So if it has studs, then it is a
plate.
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Apr 3, 2019 15:36 | | Subject: | Re: Help identifying these purple colours | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, randyf writes:
| | -----
The one you have labeled "2?" is
[p=Clikits013a]
in Medium Violet. I don't think that color is right, though.
-----
|
It is one of several colors that BrickLink calls Medium Violet.
This color was used for Clikits only.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Mar 13, 2019 13:24 | | Subject: | Re: Help adding stickered parts please? | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Mistress_Lisa writes:
| | Hello,
I have several stickered parts that I would like to add to the catalog. It has
been ages that I have done this, so I forget how to do it. Is it adding or changing
to the catalog? Is it a change or addition to the item or the inventory? In other
words, I am not even sure where to start any more! Anyone have a link and some
advice, please?
Lisa
|
Add the item as a new part.
After the part is approved, request a change to the set inventory.
The stickered item is a counterpart (matched to the corresponding item without
sticker).
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2019 17:10 | | Subject: | Re: 3001: maybe a "new" color to colect? | | Viewed: | 77 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, yoavheskia writes:
| | Thank you both for your answer.
I'm lucky to find this brick...
|
Yes, congratulations.
And now we all know that we have to search for it
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Mar 5, 2019 19:02 | | Subject: | Re: 3001: maybe a "new" color to colect? | | Viewed: | 106 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, yoavheskia writes:
| | Hi everyone. few weeks ago i recieved light orange 2x4 brick.
i'm almost sure that the color of the brick is: Medium Yellowish Orange (lego
no. 121)
this is an unknown color so far for 2X4 bricks.
there is another light orange color: Warm Yellowish Orange (lego no. 225). maybe
some people have 2x4 brick in that color, i don't.
i took a picture of the 2x4 brick i got with the part 3898pb01 made only in Medium
Yellowish Orange (lego no. 121):
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3898pb01#T=C
what do you think?
|
I agree it seems to be a perfect match!
Now we need to find more of these bricks... I want one!
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Feb 7, 2019 17:25 | | Subject: | Re: Please help identify color | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, yoavheskia writes:
| | Thank you!
You are the man behind the list? I didn't know that. great work!
|
Yes I am, that is my Flickr page.
I think that Pikachu3 has the only complete collection of 3001 in all the known
colors.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Feb 6, 2019 16:23 | | Subject: | Re: Please help identify color | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, yoavheskia writes:
| | I think the 2x4 brick is really light orange , but it's not warm yellowish
orange (color no. 225). the corect color is Medium Yellowish Orange (color no.
121). it's defently not Flame Yellowish Orange (color no.191)
I'm looking for a 3001 master who can tell the exact color.
|
I can make a photo of all your reference colours with added Medium Yellowish
Orange and Warm Yellowish Orange. It will probably be a few days before I can
make time for that.
Also, the list only contains known colors for 3001. It is possible that more
colors were made. The list is updated when new colors are confirmed.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2019 11:58 | | Subject: | Re: A Smidgen of Lego History | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, elias3 writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
right, Duplo is 5y older as 'moi'
|
I guess that means: Happy birthday elias3!
I see that I had Duplo's first push train
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 29, 2019 11:19 | | Subject: | Re: A Smidgen of Lego History | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jodawill writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Today we added a somewhat historic entry to the BrickLink catalog:
(...)
|
That's really interesting. I've never seen a thin one. Any idea what sets it came in?
|
I was hoping for an answer on this question. Any ideas?
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2019 15:03 | | Subject: | Re: A Smidgen of Lego History | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Today we added a somewhat historic entry to the BrickLink catalog:
At first it looks like a normal Duplo plate, but it's not:
The first Duplo plates and tiles were based on the regular Lego plate/brick ratio
of 3:1 (that is, it takes 3 plates stacked on each other to reach the height
of a single Lego brick).
Somewhere around 1992, these "thin" plates and tiles were abandoned for the "thick"
type, which have a 2:1 ratio. These are what we find in modern Duplo sets.
What prompted the change? It could have been the advent of the 6309 printed tile:
Here are some other early "thin" Duplo parts:
* | | 3808 Duplo Tile, Modified 2 x 4 x 1/3 (Thin) Half Circle with 2 Studs
Parts: DUPLO |
* | | 4121 Duplo Tile, Modified 2 x 4 x 1/3 (Thin) with 4 Center Studs
Parts: DUPLO |
and maybe even this:
|
|
Oops
Please also rename 40666 to avoid confusion about the thickness of that
plate.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 24, 2019 14:59 | | Subject: | Re: A Smidgen of Lego History | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Today we added a somewhat historic entry to the BrickLink catalog:
At first it looks like a normal Duplo plate, but it's not:
The first Duplo plates and tiles were based on the regular Lego plate/brick ratio
of 3:1 (that is, it takes 3 plates stacked on each other to reach the height
of a single Lego brick).
Somewhere around 1992, these "thin" plates and tiles were abandoned for the "thick"
type, which have a 2:1 ratio. These are what we find in modern Duplo sets.
What prompted the change? It could have been the advent of the 6309 printed tile:
Here are some other early "thin" Duplo parts:
* | | 3808 Duplo Tile, Modified 2 x 4 x 1/3 (Thin) Half Circle with 2 Studs
Parts: DUPLO |
* | | 4121 Duplo Tile, Modified 2 x 4 x 1/3 (Thin) with 4 Center Studs
Parts: DUPLO |
and maybe even this:
|
Please also rename 4538 to avoid confusion about the thickness of that plate.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 17, 2019 14:24 | | Subject: | Re: Color Guide- non exist colors | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, yoavheskia writes:
| | Why the colors NEON GREEN & NEON ORANGE appears in the color guide?
Why it has a color id?
This colors not really exist anywhere...
|
It is used in watch links. For some reason, those are considered to be gear and
not parts, so they are not shown in the parts column.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 9, 2019 13:55 | | Subject: | Re: Please change "Coral" to "Vibrant Coral" | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, StormChaser writes:
| | In Colors, Classicsmiley writes:
| | I know the official names are pretty weird sometimes, but I do think it helps
to have the same names whenever possible.
|
The community has soundly rejected this approach, as evidenced in a forum discussion
not too long ago. You want it, most don't.
|
I think the community rejected renaming colors (that were named before the official
color names were known). I do not think the community rejected following LEGO
on new (known) color names.
I do not object to using a shortened version on BrickLink (Coral instead of Vibrant
Coral), but we should not use something completely different.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 8, 2019 16:59 | | Subject: | Re: Please change "Coral" to "Vibrant Coral" | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, StormChaser writes:
| | In Colors, Classicsmiley writes:
| | I'm not sure who to address this to, but could the color "Coral" please be
renamed to the official "Vibrant Coral"?
|
If anyone knows the hex which properly matches this color, then I could use that
information. The official coral hex doesn't appear to match LEGO renders.
Also, where would you put it on the color guide? Down with the pinks has been
suggested.
|
They probably use different values for different applications (renders, printed
media etc.)
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2019 06:37 | | Subject: | Re: Part 35442 and 35449 name - flower or gear? | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | If you look at how these parts are used, then they are actually gear wheels.
Should the name not be "Plate, Modified [size] with [amount] Gear Tooth"?
|
Sure, why not. It was an easy fix. Some people in the future might not realize
they're gears and think they're flower petals, so now the titles include
both terms.
|
Thanks
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 6, 2019 06:33 | | Subject: | Part 35442 and 35449 name - flower or gear? | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Parts 35442 and 35449 were just added to the catalog. They are currently named
"Plate, Modified [size] with [amount] Flower Petals".
[p=35449]
If you look at how these parts are used, then they are actually gear wheels.
Should the name not be "Plate, Modified [size] with [amount] Gear Tooth"?
See https://youtu.be/o0I6SgQSMMQ?t=282
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Jan 1, 2019 17:53 | | Subject: | Re: 2 versions of dino tail end #40379 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, tEoS writes:
| | There are two versions of this part where the small hole by the base varies
in location, mirrored left or right side.
|
If you'll post a comparison picture, then I'll add an additional note
to the part mentioning the difference and also add this part to our list of known
variants.
|
|
I don't know what happened here, but the website is responding very slow
and all my text is gone...
The different versions could simply be different cavity positions in the mold.
If those are evenly distributed in the mold, then we could expert to find approximately
equal amounts in sets.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2018 16:59 | | Subject: | Re: 3299miB | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, runner.caller writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | Is part 3299miB really a Minitalia part?
It looks like a LEGO System part with split tubes from the 1970s.
|
Kind of looks like to me
|
I just checked my slopes.
The blue slope on the left is a Minitalia slope (recessed/hollow stud).
The red bricks on the right are LEGO System slopes (LEGO logo on solid stud).
Part 3299miB could be a Minitalia part, but it could also belong to the LEGO
system series. I am just not sure about them.
I did not find a 3299miB between my 3299, but I do not have enough to draw any
conclusions from that
|
A bit more background information...
I think that there were 5 LEGO system parts with a variation with split tubes:
LEGO experimented with this design with molds made around 1973-1976 (and used
for several years after that). The weight-saving design might be related to rising
cost during the oil crisis, or it could have been inspired by their efforts to
keep Minitalia (1970) cheap to conquer the Italian market. The experiment was
not very successful and LEGO basically reverted to their previous designs (with
a few changes such as the mold pip location).
Currently, none of these 5 part variations have a separate catalog entry
(but maybe they should have....)
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=210072
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=224110
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=246083
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=201144
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=234313
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2018 16:25 | | Subject: | Re: 3299miB | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, runner.caller writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | Is part 3299miB really a Minitalia part?
It looks like a LEGO System part with split tubes from the 1970s.
|
Kind of looks like to me
|
I just checked my slopes.
The blue slope on the left is a Minitalia slope (recessed/hollow stud).
The red bricks on the right are LEGO System slopes (LEGO logo on solid stud).
Part 3299miB could be a Minitalia part, but it could also belong to the LEGO
system series. I am just not sure about them.
I did not find a 3299miB between my 3299, but I do not have enough to draw any
conclusions from that
|
See also
https://www.bricklink.com/search.asp?viewFrom=sa&itemBrand=1000&catID=31&q=split+tubes&searchComments=Y&searchSort=P&sz=500
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2018 16:21 | | Subject: | Re: 3299miB | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, runner.caller writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | Is part 3299miB really a Minitalia part?
It looks like a LEGO System part with split tubes from the 1970s.
|
Kind of looks like to me
|
I just checked my slopes.
The blue slope on the left is a Minitalia slope (recessed/hollow stud).
The red bricks on the right are LEGO System slopes (LEGO logo on solid stud).
Part 3299miB could be a Minitalia part, but it could also belong to the LEGO
system series. I am just not sure about them.
I did not find a 3299miB between my 3299, but I do not have enough to draw any
conclusions from that
|
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Dec 21, 2018 15:49 | | Subject: | 3299miB | | Viewed: | 93 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Is part 3299miB really a Minitalia part?
It looks like a LEGO System part with split tubes from the 1970s.
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2018 19:25 | | Subject: | Re: Slight variation on book cover to catalogue | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Lauren_Luke writes:
| | | | Could there be a difference in the bookbinding?
|
Yes...
9780241314227 is Hardback
9781465467140 is Paperback
|
Are you certain about that?
Does anyone have a paperback edition?
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2018 19:07 | | Subject: | Re: Slight variation on book cover to catalogue | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Stuart9 writes:
| | Existing entry :
Variation has different id number, see photo's.
|
If you read the text at the bottom of the current catalog image, it says "NOT
FINALLY APPROVED BY LICENSOR - FOR SALES MATERIAL ONLY"
That makes me think that the current catalog image is a prototype image and not
the actual book cover that made it to publishing.
Cheers,
Randy
|
That could be it, but where does the different number come from? Is that also
related to a prototype?
|
For some reason I can find two versions on a popular Dutch online store. The
description seems to be nearly identical, but the price is not...
1)
The LEGO Book New Edition
with exclusive LEGO brick
Auteur: Daniel Lipkowitz
Uitgever: Dorling Kindersley Ltd
Engels
1e druk
9780241314227
oktober 2018
Hardcover -- Binding "Hardcover"
280 pagina's
Euro 17,99
2)
The Lego Book, New Edition
With Exclusive Lego Brick
Auteur: Daniel Lipkowitz
Uitgever: Dk Publishing (Dorling Kindersley
Engels
1e druk
9781465467140
oktober 2018
Bindwijze overig -- Binding "Other"
280 pagina's
Euro 22,99
---
Could there be a difference in the bookbinding?
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Dec 16, 2018 18:31 | | Subject: | Re: Slight variation on book cover to catalogue | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Stuart9 writes:
| | Existing entry :
Variation has different id number, see photo's.
|
If you read the text at the bottom of the current catalog image, it says "NOT
FINALLY APPROVED BY LICENSOR - FOR SALES MATERIAL ONLY"
That makes me think that the current catalog image is a prototype image and not
the actual book cover that made it to publishing.
Cheers,
Randy
|
That could be it, but where does the different number come from? Is that also
related to a prototype?
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Dec 15, 2018 17:25 | | Subject: | Re: Slight variation on book cover to catalogue | | Viewed: | 15 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, Stuart9 writes:
| | Existing entry :
Variation has different id number, see photo's.
In General, Stuart9 writes:
| | Appears to be the approved version, it's missing the bottom print, but has
the registered mark and the 6+.
|
|
I received the same version in the Netherlands.
ISBN 978-0-24131-422-7
EAN 9780241314227
No text below the LEGO logo on the front side.
|
Also:
Exclusive LEGO(R) brick [6+]
instead of
Exclusive printed brick.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Dec 15, 2018 17:23 | | Subject: | Re: Slight variation on book cover to catalogue | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stuart9 writes:
| | Existing entry :
Variation has different id number, see photo's.
In General, Stuart9 writes:
| | Appears to be the approved version, it's missing the bottom print, but has
the registered mark and the 6+.
|
|
I received the same version in the Netherlands.
ISBN 978-0-24131-422-7
EAN 9780241314227
No text below the LEGO logo on the front side.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 17:08 | | Subject: | Re: Finally! An Image of 9978-1 | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | 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
|
Of the parts, over 200 of them are from the Modulex Decorated Tile category.
If we can't find images for those and there are no listings or wanted list
entries, I suggest we do a little pruning.
|
Why would you want to do that?
I agree that it would be better to have images, but why would anyone want to
remove information from our database unless the parts do not actually exist?
There are better solutions than deleting items.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Nov 28, 2018 17:06 | | Subject: | Re: Decorated V Pattern | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In General, WhiteVanMan writes:
| | | | Ah yes, thank you Paul for giving me my opening. I actually have submitted things
only to have it rejected. I'm sure I didn't fill out the form correctly,
not for a lack of effort, I just find the form to be convoluted as heck. If
it were a bit more user friendly, I think it make a huge difference in soliciting
volunteer submissions.
|
It's fairly easy.
For any part that is stickered, you will need to find the numerical identifier
of the last one to be issued, and for that, I use the add an image section to
find it.
Have 3 tabs up,
1st is the catalogue.
2nd is Add an image section
3rd is Add a Part section.
Say that you want to add a stickered 45deg 1x2 slope.
|
This can be done easier using the * search wildcard.
| | Find the highest number of that particular part you can quickly find.
input that number in the add image box, and it should show that part in a description.
Cycle through numbers by 10 until you get an error, and then decrease the numbers
until you then get a description, and you can then increase by 1 to get the next
sequential number.
|
The undecorated slope has part number 3040.
Decorated slopes will have an additional number, all recent numbers will use
pb to indicate the "pattern numbered by BrickLink" like 3040pb000.
Knowing this, I would search the catalog for 3040pb*.
Then imply sort by item number.
That will make it easy to find the highest number currently in the catalog.
A search for that number +1 will show if that part is available, or if a part
with that number is pending approval.
| |
Take a reasonable good picture of the part, preferably in daylight, or under
multiple lights, to eliminate shadows, and resize the pic to a Thumbnail on the
PC. (upload the picture, but don't submit the image yet)
Go to the add part section.
Add the number and identifier to the necessary boxes, along with the dimensions,
weight and such.
Use the same description(s) that other like parts have been added to the catalogue
before, and try to be accurate as possible.
Add the part to the catalogue.
Go back to the image section, and when you click on the verify , it should bring
up the item that you have just submitted, and you can then submit the corresponding
image.
I've done this with some of my mug collection, and will be doing others soon.
Have fun!
Paul
|
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Nov 26, 2018 05:50 | | Subject: | I just wanted to show this image - thanks! | | Viewed: | 153 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| This screenshot shows how much work was done on the Seventh Catalog Project yesterday,
and it is continuing today.
Thanks everyone!
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Nov 13, 2018 17:19 | | Subject: | Re: 3001: what is the color of this brick | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, yoavheskia writes:
| | please help to identify the color of the right brick
|
Trans-Neon Orange, Current Trans-Orange, Older Trans-Orange
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Nov 12, 2018 04:55 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
I apologize that this group of projects has not gone so well.
|
I think it did go well enough. There was a list of ideas, there was discussion,
and now there is a plan on how to move forward.
| | I will not bundle so many projects together in the future.
|
Good improvement. That will make the discussion better.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 11:38 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I would use something like:
Print on one side only:
"with X pattern"
Print on both sides:
"with X pattern on front and Y pattern on back"
or maybe
"dual-sided with X pattern on front and Y pattern on back"
because that makes it possible to use a search filter.
Face print on both sides:
"dual-faced with X pattern on front and Y pattern on back"
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Nov 11, 2018 07:52 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | So is there anything you want us to help with?
|
Not so much at the moment. The catalog is open now to Technic figure parts,
but no entries have been submitted. I'm still looking over the dual-color
molded arms to see how all this is going to work and still thinking about the
other changes.
If you'd like to do something, help me think up a good, brief descriptor
for heads with non-face printing on both sides. I've only gotten one suggestion
so far.
|
I think a contributing problem is that Dual-Sided is ambiguous. It could be used
for either. Maybe it should be changed to Dual-Faces.
|
I am also thinking about something like "dual-faced".
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Nov 10, 2018 17:08 | | Subject: | Re: Fourth Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| +1
I also think that these parts should be split.
In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | If it helps, you can change me to agreeing with Skylark now that I know what
we are talking about.
In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | | |
Reorganizing/renumbering certain mini doll legs to reflect a change in production
methods.
No one knew what was going on with this one. Nine people had no opinion, two
said maybe, two said yes, and one said no. If it's so obscure of an issue
that no one even knows about it, then I don't believe it needs to be addressed
(at least not by new catalog entries). However, I will be happy to add additional
notes to any parts affected by changes in molding process if someone will give
me a list of such parts and suggestions on wording.
|
I will restate that this needs to be done.
Most people probably do not deal much with friends parts.
These are ENTIRELY different parts. THey even have ENTIRELY different part numbers.
The one type of legs are printed.
The other type of legs are dual-molded.
The printed legs look much worse than the dual-molded ones.
This seems more serious to me than some of the other entries with multiple variants.
Andrew
|
|
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Nov 7, 2018 10:33 | | Subject: | Re: Second Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | Couldn't they just have their own separate categories: ghosts and skeletons?
|
I agree. I do not associate these figures with Halloween at all.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Nov 3, 2018 18:24 | | Subject: | Re: We have a new Inventories Admin | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Inventories, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello again everybody,
We mentioned last week that we were looking for a new Inventories Admin, and
I'm announcing today that we have appointed Randy (user randyf) to this position.
Randy is a very well-known contributor to the catalog, a frequent participant
in Forum discussions, and pretty much a person we couldn't imagine BrickLink
being without. He has contributed a large number of color-adjusted Lego part
renders which have helped define the look of BrickLink for the next generation.
And his work with PCCs is unmatched.
We are pleased and excited to extend these admin privileges to Randy and to welcome
him to our admin team.
Russell
|
Congratulations to Randy and BrickLink, another great addition to the team of
volunteers!
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Nov 1, 2018 13:30 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | Have we ever considered making the jump to using Lego official color names?
|
Yes, in fact I suggested it once myself. Then someone pointed out that some
of these names are rather convoluted and silly. Our names are better, but I
would like to include the official colors names on or color chart for cross-reference.
|
Please do not ever consider switching to using the official LEGO color names
here. They are indeed *very* convoluted and silly. For examples: BL Tan is LEGO
Brick Yellow, BL Magenta is LEGO Bright Reddish Violet, and BL Brown is LEGO
Earth Orange. Just those three alone make me wonder what TLG was thinking (or
smoking?) when naming colors.
Cheers,
Randy
|
I still think my suggestion would work:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=635575
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Oct 31, 2018 17:46 | | Subject: | Re: Second Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | 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.
|
Or Minifigure, Utensil
|
Could be if it was beehive made by human like this on photo. This one is definitly
made by bees themselves.
|
To me, it looks most like something that Disney uses in their cartoons. I have
never seen a natural bee colony looking like these.
I assumed that they were based on some idea of the older straw hives mixed with
a wasp nest. If there is any species building these, I'd like to see an image
Attached images:
- straw beehive
- honeybee colony
- wasp
|
LEGO calls part 35574 "MINI HAT, NO. 54" so that would be Minifigure, Headgear
We might need to rename the part after its completely different use in set 10261-1
* | | 35574 Cone 2 x 2 x 1 2/3 with Stacked Rings (Beehive / Cotton Candy)
Parts: Cone |
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Oct 31, 2018 17:42 | | Subject: | Re: Second Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | 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.
|
Or Minifigure, Utensil
|
Could be if it was beehive made by human like this on photo. This one is definitly
made by bees themselves.
|
To me, it looks most like something that Disney uses in their cartoons. I have
never seen a natural bee colony looking like these.
I assumed that they were based on some idea of the older straw hives mixed with
a wasp nest. If there is any species building these, I'd like to see an image
Attached images:
- straw beehive
- honeybee colony
- wasp nest
|
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Oct 31, 2018 16:42 | | Subject: | Re: Second Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | 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.
|
Or Minifigure, Utensil
| | | | 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: | WoutR | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 18:43 | | Subject: | Re: Some recessed studs are recessed. | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Give me some more information including comparison photos which show the actual difference
|
I don't know how to better show the difference than in the photo I provided
above. If you have some idea how to better illustrate the difference, share,
and I can attempt another photo.
|
The problem with your photo is it’s just lines you drew. Not easy to see for
oneself.
Try a close-up of both studs from an angle so we can see how deep they are?
If the parts are side by side or the same relative size and if you manage to
show the inside border of the studs…
Or maybe insert a common LEGO part and show how far it goes?
This way, anyone could easily do the same.
(A nozzle? They have grips that can help see the length. Better than plain
bars.)
|
I think the image is pretty good. The hole is the same, but it starts from a
lower stud.
I suspect that this is a mold error/variation. Interesting, but I do not know
if this is a functional difference that needd a new catalog entry.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Oct 29, 2018 06:01 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Want to know where we're going with the catalog? Hard to do without a map,
isn't it?
I'm excessively pleased to announce the all-new Catalog Roadmap in the Help
Center:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
If you lose that link, you can always find the page in the Help Center for the
catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
This is an effort to increase transparency about what is happening with the BrickLink
catalog and to make it feel more like a community effort. And, of course, to
get some stuff done.
And no, before anyone asks, I don't know what's going on with the site
roadmap. I thought it was a fantastic feature and I'm quite excited to finally
have something similar for the catalog.
Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
I think there still are some inconsistencies in the catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=202697
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=235406
I think those issues were never solved.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Oct 28, 2018 02:22 | | Subject: | Re: Another New Catalog Thing | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I am wasting no time in making your lives marginally better, my friends.
For your convenient reference, we now have a list with links and descriptions
of known part variants which are not distinguished by BrickLink:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=940
This list is majorly incomplete and I could use some assistance in completing
it. If you're bored and want to gather additional variants not yet shown
on the list, please respond to this message with your list of variants (macro
tags appreciated, but not absolutely necessary).
To save others duplicating work, you might reply first saying you're going
to be working on it.
|
I would prefer to have an alternate large image showing the variations for all
of these items in our catalog. The shark body is a good example for that.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Oct 27, 2018 14:50 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
Yes, and it is now added.
|
Thank you!
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Oct 27, 2018 14:19 | | Subject: | Re: New Catalog Roadmap | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Want to know where we're going with the catalog? Hard to do without a map,
isn't it?
I'm excessively pleased to announce the all-new Catalog Roadmap in the Help
Center:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2473
If you lose that link, you can always find the page in the Help Center for the
catalog:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?topicID=21
This is an effort to increase transparency about what is happening with the BrickLink
catalog and to make it feel more like a community effort. And, of course, to
get some stuff done.
And no, before anyone asks, I don't know what's going on with the site
roadmap. I thought it was a fantastic feature and I'm quite excited to finally
have something similar for the catalog.
Feedback? Ideas? Comments?
|
Should this be included?
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1101957
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Oct 25, 2018 19:59 | | Subject: | Re: We have a new Catalog Admin! | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello everyone,
We are pleased to announce that we have made another appointment. StormChaser,
who was appointed as Inventories Administrator last year, has now been promoted
to Catalog Administrator.
This is an important step for BrickLink. We haven't had a Catalog Admin appointment
for over nine years, and this is the first time someone has moved from the Inventories
side of the system to the Catalog side.
We believe StormChaser is highly qualified for this position. In addition to
an outstanding year as an Inventories Admin, he has had years of intense experience
with every area of the BrickLink Catalog. He has made many thousands of corrections,
uploaded an enormous amount of new data, and has solved a number of LEGO mysteries
over the years. So we're very pleased he has agreed to accept this position,
and we look forward to his activity in this new area.
We will be be making another appointment soon to fill his former position as
Inventories Administrator.
Russell
|
Congratulations StormChaser!
I am happy to see a new Catalog Admin added to the team, especially because the
workload seems to be increasing every year.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 30, 2018 09:36 | | Subject: | Re: Is this classed as a different brick? | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Help, CraftHouseBrick writes:
| | I’ve had a look and can’t find an old variant.
Is it worth asking about getting such a variant added to the database?
In Help, CraftHouseBrick writes:
| | Hi, thanks for your immediate reply!!
I’ll have a look for a variant piece listing for it. I’ve actually got about
6 or 7 floating around in a box of my stuff from when I was a child!
Thanks again
In Help, jblock writes:
| | In Help, CraftHouseBrick writes:
| | Hi, I’m new(ish) to BrickLink - certainly selling on here x and I had a question...
This is a regular “slope 33 4 x 3” piece which appears to me to be very old,
as it is unlike a lot of other bricks of the same appearance in that the tubes
underneath are split and has “PEND” in place of it’s part number.
I can’t find any evidence of this brick in the catalog... does it just class
as a regular “33 4x3” brick or is it special/rare in any way?
Thanks for any help you can give
|
Bricks with the split tubes like this are older, usually from the 60's/70's.
I'm not sure if this part number has an "old" variant, but for the 3001's
and 3002's, these split tubes are classified along with the other 3001old
and 3002old parts. You have a very vintage piece there!
|
|
|
Probably something fromn the mid 1970s. The 3001old with these tubes were introduced
in 1973. Sellers usually list them separately with "with split tubes" in the
comments.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 26, 2018 15:15 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Gear 8020332 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Redhawk_Kevin writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 8 Gear Black {bbw001 Watch, Link without rectangular holes (makes slightly shorter band) to bbw083 Watch, Link without rectangular holes, Oval-Shaped}
* Change 6 Gear Flat Silver {bbw001 Watch, Link without rectangular holes (makes slightly shorter band) to bbw083 Watch, Link without rectangular holes, Oval-Shaped}
* Change 4 Gear Red {bbw001 Watch, Link without rectangular holes (makes slightly shorter band) to bbw083 Watch, Link without rectangular holes, Oval-Shaped}
* Change 2 Gear Trans-Red {bbw001 Watch, Link without rectangular holes (makes slightly shorter band) to bbw083 Watch, Link without rectangular holes, Oval-Shaped}
Comments from Submitter:
Updated with new watch link variant.
|
Thanks for the quick work on these!
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 23, 2018 18:59 | | Subject: | Re: White brick with holes? | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Identification, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, normann1974 writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, normann1974 writes:
| | I found this in my spare parts. Which part is it? It seems not to neither
or .
|
Why not 3709c?
|
Because 3709c is made from two parts (notice the line in the picture),
|
Well, I know 3709a is split, but the pictures of 3709c are just bad renders,
so I wasn’t sure 3709c was split too.
|
It was.
| | | | and it doesn't exist in white.
|
No. The catalogue doesn’t know it exists. It doesn’t know a set where the part
would have appeared, or of one such part sold in the last 6 montths.
Now, as it’s not split, but (as shown on another of your posts) it has a bottom,
maybe it’s a prototype?
|
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 17, 2018 11:03 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mockingbird writes:
| | In Catalog, mockingbird writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| |
The catalog entries would likely remain for any parts removed from inventories
and could still be used for buying and selling just as they are now.
|
|
Yes, please
| | | | The second route we could go is to include all of the existing part assemblies
in the catalog in inventories. That opens the door to many more part assemblies
being added to the catalog and to inventories. My concern with that approach
is that eventually you fill up inventories (and the catalog) with part assemblies
- especially when you consider stickered/printed assemblies, assembly color variations,
and part variant assemblies.
|
|
For assemblies the color combinations and part variants are indeed a difficult
issue. Can't think of an easy solution for that. Something like a 'not
applicable' color and then add a comment to describe the colors (or variants)?
This would work for selling the parts, but I don't know if the comment field
is available in inventories.
Why not create a new option in inventories? Something like 'assembled parts
and pairs' This would include the wheel/tyre combination, the assembled hinges,
stickers over assembly, etc.
|
Something like this would be my preference also.
This section could work exactly like the current counterparts, but under a different
category heading and with a different definition. All the current exceptions
to the counterparts could go in this category.
| | This would NOT include full assemblies of subsets (like a train wagon or a car).
These go in the 'special assembly' (or subset) option .
Keep the counterparts option for the stickered parts, strings, hoses as per your
new definition.
And because of the many options in inventories that would be available then.
Make it possible to hide certain of these options when viewing or printing the
inventory.
|
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 16, 2018 16:12 | | Subject: | Re: sw880 | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Redhawk_Kevin writes:
| | There is actually a much larger assortment of watch variants. This may be too
detailed for Bricklink?
I have been supplying a large number of inventories for Star Wars watches recently,
but there are many variants that I have not tried to sort out for the catalog.
I did add the inventory for this watch today.
- Kevin
In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog, Dino1 writes:
| | What do you mean with three variants?
|
I allowed myself to compile your photo with third variant "older" artwork box
(like in first one) but with sw880.
All three have the same number.
|
|
Could you check the watch links?
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=241893
[g=bbw001]
[g=bbw083]
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 13, 2018 10:46 | | Subject: | Re: Return the Catalog tab | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, JulieK writes:
| | Please put it back.
It was the perfect word to describe where it took users.
|
I came to BrickLink for the catalog first, and started to buy later.
The catalog is not just a tool we use for selling, it is a hugely important way
to draw people to the site. I know that it has been gone for a long time, but
I would still love to have a separate catalog tab back.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 12, 2018 16:43 | | Subject: | Replying to messages in the NEWS topic | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | | Status: | Open | | Vote: | [Yes|No] | |
|
| Every time we reply to a topic in the NEWS section of the forum, we get the error
message:
"Oops! There was a problem processing your request:
1. Topic was not selected."
Please make it possible to reply to the NEWS section without this error.
Possible solutions include:
- allow replies in the NEWS section,
- select one topic by default (instead of asking users to pick one at random,
usually Announce and/or Administrative are used)
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 11, 2018 14:28 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig atl011 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, WhiteVanMan writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, WhiteVanMan writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 6041 Pearl Light Gray Propeller 3 Blade 3 Diameter
* Add 1 Part 6041 Flat Silver Propeller 3 Blade 3 Diameter
Comments from Submitter:
I've got 2 of the sets that this minifig comes from, and both were sealed, and I found that this propellor is actually in the newer colour of Flat Silver more than Pearl Light Grey, hence this change request. (I can't change the set's inventory to reflect this as well)
|
Here's the thing with PLG/flat silver parts: the catalog's really a mess
right now regarding those colors. It needs to be fixed, but right now the issue
is on hold. Sorry, but we're not going to be changing any PLG to flat silver
or flat silver to PLG for the time being.
|
OK
Then why not find out WHEN the newer style of Flat Silver that the LEGO group
uses first came in, and then state that all of the sets from THAT time will have
that style colour, so that we shall know WHICH colour is correct for a particular
part?
|
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/15206357186/
The color was introduced in 2010. But parts were made in the old color earlier
than that, and LEGO would have used any old stock before making the parts in
the new color. As a result, both the old and new color could be correct here.
| | It's well known that there are 2 distinct colours for the Flat silver that
we are aware of, and it can be done in the same way as the Light Grey/Light Bluish
Grey saga came about over 10 years ago....
How can it not be resolved?
Paul
|
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 11, 2018 07:40 | | Subject: | Re: Difference between mold types | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Help, randyf writes:
| | In Help, WoutR writes:
| | In Help, mfav writes:
| | It's very subtle, this difference.
|
Nice image!
Are the clips on the other side different also?
|
No.
|
Thanks. The name suggests a difference like
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 11, 2018 07:34 | | Subject: | Re: Difference between mold types | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Help, mfav writes:
| | It's very subtle, this difference.
|
Nice image!
Are the clips on the other side different also?
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 10, 2018 06:58 | | Subject: | Re: 3001old mold variations | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, patpendlego writes:
I can't believe how difficult it is to find number 31 on your list
I do have all the others, your list was very helpful when I started my collection.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 9, 2018 17:33 | | Subject: | Re: 3001old mold variations | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, kislibricks writes:
| | Thank you for your reply. My problem here is that my customer opened a NSS because
we didn't ship what he was expecting, that is the exact brick on the picture
with the old logo.
That's why it would be great if we could add a note on the page and/or some
more pictures of the different variations. What do you think?
|
One more thing... just to be clear.
This problem seems to be a misunderstanding about the catalog item on the buyers
side.
If you sent 2x4 bricks without cross-support then the NSS is not justified. BrickLink
does not recognise all the minor mold variations, and it would not be reasonable
to expect that level of detail from a seller. If a buyer needs a specific version,
then he/she needs to ask the seller about those details before ordering.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/111441268@N03/albums/72157648936541745
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 9, 2018 17:20 | | Subject: | Re: 3001old mold variations | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, kislibricks writes:
| | Thank you for your reply. My problem here is that my customer opened a NSS because
we didn't ship what he was expecting, that is the exact brick on the picture
with the old logo.
That's why it would be great if we could add a note on the page and/or some
more pictures of the different variations. What do you think?
|
We would need a dozen photos....
To find those exact bricks the buyer would need to buy bricks with the "Samsonite
Open O" logo. They can be found in the USA and Canada... This logo was never
used on bricks in Europe.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 9, 2018 14:05 | | Subject: | Re: 3001old mold variations | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, kislibricks writes:
| | Hello!
It seems there exists several variations/molds of the 3001old part (at least
2), which are neither 3001special, 3001f1, bhol04, 3001oldf1 or 3001oldb.
The 3001old we have are without Cross Supports, but seems newer than the one
pictured, as they don't have the old LEGO logo. They come from old sets from
the 70's that we part outed. The 3001old period ranges from 1954 to 2006
(though I doubt for the last year, I think it ended sooner).
We had an issue with a customer, who already owns some 3001old with the old logo,
and newer 3001old he ordered in our store.
Should we put a notice on the item page? Should the 3001old reference be splitted
into 2 references?
Opinions welcome!
Vincent
|
There are many different versions of 3001old. They were used from 1958 to the
early 1980s so it not strange that there are many different versions and stud
logos. The 2006 date in our catalog is correct because Maersk blue 3001old were
used in that year.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 5, 2018 15:44 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | […]
| | According to the part I emphasized, I’d say it’s because 3830c01 doesn’t break
when one tries to get them apart.
|
Maybe...
|
Well, I didn’t break either but, when a kid and when brick separators didn’t
exist, I had to use a butter knife to disassemble 3937c01 while I always could
disassemble 3830c01 easily by hand.
|
I remember using a knife to separate plates, I do not remember separating either
of these hinges as a kid.
| | | | Next question:
How much sense does it make to mark this part for deletion after stating to be
on the sidelines of this discussion, after the discussion in this thread concluded
that we need a better definition for counterparts, and after the inventory admins
decided to add these parts to inventories for now.
|
No sense at all, but the two hinges are still different.
|
looking at https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1562 I am not sure if that
difference is relevant.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 5, 2018 14:52 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | […]
| | I've been on the sidelines of this issue this time around (I have previously
been right in the middle of it) but I have to mention that this little 1 x 2
hinge is something I've long thought was a worthy counterpart, because of
how many of them I have destroyed trying to get them apart:
|
Could you explain why 3830c01 is different?
|
According to the part I emphasized, I’d say it’s because 3830c01 doesn’t break
when one tries to get them apart.
|
Maybe...
Next question:
How much sense does it make to mark this part for deletion after stating to be
on the sidelines of this discussion, after the discussion in this thread concluded
that we need a better definition for counterparts, and after the inventory admins
decided to add these parts to inventories for now.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 5, 2018 12:27 | | Subject: | Re: Bricktober sets: still pending? | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Reki_Lobsheek writes:
| | I was wondering why the Bricktober sets (HP and Jurassic World) are still pending
to be added to the BL catalog?
Seems they are being sold on Ebay and other venues for quite a while now and
in serious quantities, so they must be released in some countries.
Even on BL they are already being sold:
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/search.page?q=5005254#T=A
As we have no Toys'r'Us in Belgium I have no idea whether they were already
in the stores last week (perhaps some German members can fill in?).
Is BL awaiting some kind of "official" release or waiting for the US release?
Reki
|
I think they are waiting on any official release.
I found a Dutch website showing an image from Promobricks stating the dates of
release:
5005254 - August 27 to September 02
5005255 - September 03 to September 09
5005257 - September 10 to September 16
5005256 - September 17 to September 23
https://www.bouwsteentjes.info/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/LEGO-Bricktober-2018-sets.png
Not sure why these sets are called "Bricktober"
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 5, 2018 11:31 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | 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
|
I've been on the sidelines of this issue this time around (I have previously
been right in the middle of it) but I have to mention that this little 1 x 2
hinge is something I've long thought was a worthy counterpart, because of
how many of them I have destroyed trying to get them apart:
|
Could you explain why 3830c01 is different?
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 5, 2018 09:42 | | Subject: | Re: Modulex baseplate 8x8 ? | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Modulex | |
|
| In Modulex, novabrick writes:
| | In Modulex, WoutR writes:
| | I frequently see Modulex baseplates 8x8 in used lots.
They seem to be so common in different lots that I would be surprised if they
were all custom made from larger baseplates by the users.
Does anyone know:
- If these were actually made by Modulex?
- How these were used?
|
Many early LEGO Base plates appear to be cut to size. Given the many Modulex
letters avialible they might be used as door tags or name tags with changeble
letters. I've also seen huge planing boards with those letters based on modulex.
However I have never actually seen architectual use of Modulex bricks but I can't
see any use for an 8 x 8 square for this use in particular.
Christian
novabrick-team
|
They could be from the Planning board era, but I am not certain about that.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 5, 2018 09:27 | | Subject: | Modulex baseplate 8x8 ? | | Viewed: | 125 times | | Topic: | Modulex | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I frequently see Modulex baseplates 8x8 in used lots.
They seem to be so common in different lots that I would be surprised if they
were all custom made from larger baseplates by the users.
Does anyone know:
- If these were actually made by Modulex?
- How these were used?
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Sep 1, 2018 16:54 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | 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
|
I did not see any catalog admins taking part in this discussion, but I do not
think it is a coincidence that after 16 years in the catalog, this part is suddenly
deemed a bad "precedent."
Incidentally, looking at just the black version as an example, it appears that
the complete hinge sells at about three times the rate as the individual parts.
It is pretty clear that people prefer to buy this hinge as a unit. It's my
opinion that the number would be even higher if the hinge were in the counterpart
section of inventories.
|
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=241320
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Aug 31, 2018 16:26 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:
| | I am grateful, but also mindful of the resentment that seems to accompany the
decision.
|
It sounds as though you're saying I should keep my opinions to myself.
| | I'm not sure what you mean by a "commercial assembly."
|
I define a commercial assembly as any assemblage of individual parts which did
not come in the package already assembled. The only reason for having catalog
entries for assemblies which originally came unassembled is to facilitate the
ease of buying and selling them. I would make an exception to that definition,
however, for minifigures.
Yes, they fit together. Yes, they were intended to be assembled by the end user.
Yes, they were intended by TLG to be used as one part. Yes, in the wild you're
likely to find them already assembled. Yes, sellers and buyers would prefer
to have the ability to sell them as a unit instead of individual parts. None
of those facts make the reasons for including them in the catalog any less commercial.
Several of those criteria accurately describe this part:
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):
|
There is one important difference. Parts assemblies like 3830c01 form a "functional
element" that is used in many sets. Part assemblies like spa0008 are a "minibuild"
that is used in one set only. (The names of those categories are not perfect,
but I think you'll understand what I mean.)
I do see the "minibuild" category as commercial only.
I do not see the "functional element" category in the same way, they are suited
for a more intuitive approach to the parts in our catalog and I do see added
value in that. (I agree with you that they should not be in the main inventory,
and that it is an uneasy exception to include them in the counterpart section)
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Aug 30, 2018 12:13 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | Is there any chance of updating the definition? I would prefer a strict definition
with a lot of exceptions over the current vague definition.
|
Yes, of course it should be updated if the situation is ever corrected. However,
as long as the counterparts section is being used as a catch-all for a variety
of items, then I don't think it really matters. We'll just throw everything
in there and call it good - no definition needed.
|
I do not agree with you on that.
It is good to know what should be in there, and what are the exceptions.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2018 17:42 | | Subject: | Re: Crappy pictures for similar parts. | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog, zux writes:
| | Just found out someone has added two parts that need to be distinguished as they
are slightly different but pictures doesn't provide any visual clue. Basically
pictures are useless since there is no difference whatsoever.
Parts in questions:
* | | 44301a Hinge Plate 1 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger on End with Bottom Groove
Parts: Hinge |
* | | 44301b Hinge Plate 1 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger on End without Bottom Groove
Parts: Hinge |
These are slightly better, but difference is barely visible:
[P=44302a]
[P=44302b]
Why there's no picture with both items placed side by side helping in distinguishing
the difference?
How did this slip into catalog?
|
Difference is clearly visible.
Some unedited ones
Didn't add them because in both variants on them are in different color.
It is the same difference as in
* | | 44567a Hinge Plate 1 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger on Side with Bottom Groove
Parts: Hinge |
and
* | | 44567b Hinge Plate 1 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger on Side without Bottom Groove
Parts: Hinge |
|
Perfect, thanks!
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Aug 29, 2018 07:24 | | Subject: | Re: Update: Part Assemblies in Inventories | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | There has been inconsistency for many years regarding when part assemblies should
or should not be included as counterparts in set inventories.
|
Thank you all for the opinions expressed. You made it feel like a community
again.
Together we discovered a good solution which I am quite confident would please
all of us - adding a new section to inventories for commercial assemblies and
creating a strict definition for counterparts. However, getting BrickLink to
implement that solution appears to be troublesome.
|
I'm sorry to hear that.
Is there any chance of updating the definition? I would prefer a strict definition
with a lot of exceptions over the current vague definition.
| | These orphan parts have bothered me for years and I have decided to take the
unpopular route of adding them all to inventories as counterparts. From now
on the counterparts section of inventories may be considered a junk drawer into
which everything nonstandard is thrown.
This situation may be fixed at some point in the future. If it is, then there
are many things which are already wrongly classified as counterparts which will
need to be moved. Adding a few thousand moves to the mix won't change much.
I am not happy with what I'm about to do, but it is (and has been for many
years) rather petty to keep these parts out of inventories. Yes, there should
be rules for part assemblies and yes, older assemblies should not be grandfathered
in if they don't fit the rules. There are no rules, though, so whatever
assemblies are added to the catalog will be thrown into the counterparts section
for the time being.
Please do not submit ICRs for now. I don't want to flood the forum with
change requests. I'll simply add these assemblies as I have time and should
be done within a couple of months. After I finish, I will likely ask for volunteers
to look through and see if I've missed anything.
Thank you all again for the lively discussion and I'm sorry that we could
not get the problem properly solved.
|
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2018 13:18 | | Subject: | Re: The plight of part 44567 | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, mockingbird writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | This part and its accompanying variant have spelled trouble for a number of years
now in the catalog, and finally a few folks decided to do something about it:
* | | 44567 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger on Side (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Hinge |
First we added the definitive non-grooved variant, which turned out to be the
most recent one.
And here is the really important line in this message:
the A and B versions of this part were just switched today
So if you've labeled bags containing this variant you will need to reverse
this numbering.
Renumbering is never taken lightly, but in this case we felt we had to do it
because of 2 other entries added with nearly the same situation - early grooved
version followed by a non-grooved version. Quite the opposite from what we know
to be true with standard tiles.
Thanks for your patience. Resetting the numbers to reflect the correct chronological
order will save a lot of misunderstanding in the future.
|
I think it is not wise to put some meaning to an itemID. So the change of the
a and b version should not have happened, in my opinion. Even if in other parts
the itemIDs were assigned chronologically.
|
BrickLink ID numbers are "smart" numbers - they aren't a series of digits
randomly assigned when an entry is formed. We have those types of numbers internally,
btw, and maybe one of the things we could or should do is to make those numbers
available on the main catalog page for every entry.
The -a, -b, -c pattern is so prevalent in the catalog that even if we put a large
disclaimer on the Help pages stating that a chronological order should not be
inferred, people would still assume so. 99 percent of -a, -b, -c variants are
chronological, and it actually is a great help in giving people an instant understanding
of the relationship between variants, especially when the auto-generated dates
on the catalog page can be so misleading at times.
|
If a change is needed, maybe it would be better to skip the previously used letters
(-a, -b) and simply use the next available (-c, -d).
Then
- the old part numbers will not cause confusion
- the new part numbers will be in alphabetical order
It might look a bit odd at first sight, but I think that it would be a good compromise.
| | | | Also I think the catalog should keep the 'undetermined' versions of parts.
Because: -not all set inventories have the specified mold varients
-not all sellers want to differentiate between small mold varients, and they
should be able to (or must) list as undetermined.
-not all buyers care about the mold varient, they should be able to buy 'undetermined'.
(Ideally if you choose undetermined all versions would show up)
|
Ideally we decide as a site what we are going to distinguish and not distinguish
and every seller falls in line and helps us uphold a site-wide standard that
buyers can rely on.
The problem is that there *are* variants in the catalog that are not worth the
hassle, and over the years this has resulted in many sellers justifiably rejecting
these distinctions.
I think there is room for a middle ground where for a certain group of variants
sellers can opt to flag their listings for one variant or another, and the listings
would encompass both sellers who distinguish and others who don't.
But for the majority of parts, we need a site-wide standard. To achieve this
we need a joint effort from sellers and the catalog. On the catalog side, we
need to decommission some entries that are needlessly precise. The classic example
of that (and it has already been done) is the headlight brick with slot:
[p=4070a]
Sellers, on the other hand, need to come to the table ready to sort some variants
they may not believe in personally. A great example for that would be the standard
1 x 2 tile:
No seller should be listing the old non-grooved style mixed in with the new grooved
style. They look terrible together and the old version can be very hard to remove.
in this case, we as a site need to make a clear distinction between the old and
the new.
|
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2018 13:09 | | Subject: | Re: Crappy pictures for similar parts. | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | I can make one for 44302 this evening.
In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, tEoS writes:
| | Of course they are different. Did you read the descriptions? That would give
you a clue to the difference.
In Catalog, zux writes:
| | Just found out someone has added two parts that need to be distinguished as they
are slightly different but pictures doesn't provide any visual clue. Basically
pictures are useless since there is no difference whatsoever.
Parts in questions:
* | | 44301a Hinge Plate 1 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger on End with Bottom Groove
Parts: Hinge |
* | | 44301b Hinge Plate 1 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger on End without Bottom Groove
Parts: Hinge |
These are slightly better, but difference is barely visible:
[P=44302a]
[P=44302b]
Why there's no picture with both items placed side by side helping in distinguishing
the difference?
How did this slip into catalog?
|
|
I first read the name and then I still had to search for the difference. It IS
visible in the photos, but a clear comparison image would be a good addition.
|
|
Thanks!
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Aug 28, 2018 12:45 | | Subject: | Re: Crappy pictures for similar parts. | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tEoS writes:
| | Of course they are different. Did you read the descriptions? That would give
you a clue to the difference.
In Catalog, zux writes:
| | Just found out someone has added two parts that need to be distinguished as they
are slightly different but pictures doesn't provide any visual clue. Basically
pictures are useless since there is no difference whatsoever.
Parts in questions:
* | | 44301a Hinge Plate 1 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger on End with Bottom Groove
Parts: Hinge |
* | | 44301b Hinge Plate 1 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger on End without Bottom Groove
Parts: Hinge |
These are slightly better, but difference is barely visible:
[P=44302a]
[P=44302b]
Why there's no picture with both items placed side by side helping in distinguishing
the difference?
How did this slip into catalog?
|
|
I first read the name and then I still had to search for the difference. It IS
visible in the photos, but a clear comparison image would be a good addition.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Aug 27, 2018 09:48 | | Subject: | Re: Colour confusion | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, randyf writes:
| | In Colors, Lord.Oddfish writes:
| | So i guess my question is, is there a known large varation of the colour of the "pearl dark gray" pieces?
|
Yes. There is a Pearl Dark Gray pre-2010 (LEGO Color "Dark Grey Metallic"), and
a Pearl Dark Gray post-2010 (LEGO Color "Titanium Metallic").
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/17768155498
The set you are referring to was released in 2004, so the pieces should be in
the old Pearl Dark Gray which looks much more yellow than the current Pearl Dark
Gray.
HTH,
Randy
|
... AND the earliest parts in Dark Grey Metallic did look a bit more greenish
in color than the later parts.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Aug 26, 2018 07:55 | | Subject: | Re: The plight of part 44567 | | Viewed: | 78 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | This part and its accompanying variant have spelled trouble for a number of years
now in the catalog, and finally a few folks decided to do something about it:
* | | 44567 Hinge Plate 1 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger on Side (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Hinge |
First we added the definitive non-grooved variant, which turned out to be the
most recent one.
And here is the really important line in this message:
the A and B versions of this part were just switched today
So if you've labeled bags containing this variant you will need to reverse
this numbering.
|
I suspect that switching the numbers could cause problems for a lot of sellers.
I am quite surprised to see this happening.
| | Renumbering is never taken lightly, but in this case we felt we had to do it
because of 2 other entries added with nearly the same situation - early grooved
version followed by a non-grooved version. Quite the opposite from what we know
to be true with standard tiles.
Thanks for your patience. Resetting the numbers to reflect the correct chronological
order will save a lot of misunderstanding in the future.
|
I think we need a better messaging system to inform the sellers who were affected
by the change. I think that bagelboybugle described the only possible route for
a catalog renumbering like this one.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Aug 21, 2018 15:04 | | Subject: | Re: Who akes OCR cannot leave feedback | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, Shintaku writes:
| | Hello,
as a seller I always have this problem:
buyer submits a rash order then wants to cancel.
If you do agree, you risk the buyer leaving a negative feedback. I would surely
leave a neutral or negative for someone asking to cancel an order just because
they don't want the items anymore. But I can't leave it, as a revenge
negative is always ready.
So I deny the order cancel until they become NPB, I undergo the NPB procedure,
so the buyer isn't allowed to leave a feedback anymore.
But this way my items are BLOCKED FOR 14 DAYS (7 I have to wait + 7 I have to
wait the NPB to resolve) and no one can buy them anymore.
Instead if I was able to accept the OCR, knowing they will not be able to leave
a negative, I would do that, leave a neutral, relist my items instatly and move
on.
I don't think that removing the chance to leave a feedback if we wish to
cancel the order is so unfair. The ones who wish to cease the order, ceases the
feedback with it.
Please help us sellers.
Thanks
|
No. I have requested to cancel orders because the seller indicated that he did
not have the most important the items. The OCR does not have to mean that the
buyer does not want the items. Also, depending on the behaviour of the seller,
I might want to leave feedback.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Aug 21, 2018 06:54 | | Subject: | Re: Stickerd Parts no longer CPs? | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories | |
|
| In Catalog Inventories, tmxbricks writes:
| | Are stickered parts no longer being listed as counter parts in Bricklink inventories?
I was verifying some set inventories and noticed all the following sets have
no stickered parts as CPs:
41322
41323
41327
41328
41329
For my own purposes, I have put stickered parts in the comments section of Brickstock
as I verify my inventories, but I liked having them listed as CPs.
|
That only means that no one has added those counterparts to the catalog yet.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2018 19:17 | | Subject: | Re: No color chosen, listing suggestion. | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| The problem is that the catalog only knows a limited set of colors. 3001special
for example van be found in many more. And I think that we do not use colors
for stickers and there must be many more exceptions.
In Suggestions, C0lsanders_ writes:
| | Exactly. I had also thought after I posted that it warns if no condition is selected,
although you can't continue in that instance. I should think that the color
(if applicable) would be as necessary as condition is, and don't get how
it lets us list without a color chosen.
Miles (C0lsanders_)
In Suggestions, WoutR writes:
| | In Suggestions, C0lsanders_ writes:
| | Sorry if this has been suggested before (don't know how it couldn't have
been), but maybe red banner, large text saying "NO COLOR CHOSEN" when on the
add item verification page. Sort of the way it already warns you if you already
have 1 of said part in your inventory. Just something to say you failed to chose
a color would be a nice, simple addition. Would certainly help when listing white
items, because if you fail to chose a color, the part's image shows it in
white.
Miles (C0lsanders_)
|
I think we could do better...
When listing an item,
1) give a warning iF no color is chosen,
2) give a warning iF a color is chosen that is not known in the catalog,
3) give no warning if a color is chosen that is known in the catalog
After the warning, the seller should be able to continue with the listing. This
method is intended to prevent errors, but the seller could have a good reason
to list the item under that color.
To avoid unnecessary warnings, we might want to exclude certain parts or categories
such as stickers, 3001special, etc.
|
|
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2018 17:00 | | Subject: | Re: No color chosen, listing suggestion. | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
|
| In Suggestions, C0lsanders_ writes:
| | Sorry if this has been suggested before (don't know how it couldn't have
been), but maybe red banner, large text saying "NO COLOR CHOSEN" when on the
add item verification page. Sort of the way it already warns you if you already
have 1 of said part in your inventory. Just something to say you failed to chose
a color would be a nice, simple addition. Would certainly help when listing white
items, because if you fail to chose a color, the part's image shows it in
white.
Miles (C0lsanders_)
|
I think we could do better...
When listing an item,
1) give a warning is no color is chosen,
2) give a warning is a color is chosen that is not known in the catalog,
3) give no warning if a color is chosen that is known in the catalog
After the warning, the seller should be able to continue with the listing. This
method is intended to prevent errors, but the seller could have a good reason
to list the item under that color.
To avoid unnecessary warnings, we might want to exclude certain parts or categories
such as stickers, 3001special, etc.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2018 09:57 | | Subject: | Re: Brick 1 x 6 with two bottom tubes? | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Identification, Biodreamer writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, Biodreamer writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, Biodreamer writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, normann1974 writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, normann1974 writes:
| | I found this brick among my spare parts. I can't find this configuration
of bottom tubes anywhere in the catalog among 1x6 bricks. It doesn't look
to me like the missing tubes are broken off, they're just missing. Does anyone
recognize it?
|
I think it must be
|
Yes, and instead of a 3009, it is printed on a
I have tried to add printed variants like this to the catalog before and have
been told they will not be approved.
|
I would say it's neither of the two. 3009pb156 has 5 buttom tubes, and crssprt02
has none (but two cross supports). Mine has 2 buttom tubes with supports.
/Jan
|
Yes, and it has thin walls with vertical ridges. This is not an early brick design.
|
I don't agree there was a period in the early 1960 that had this style on
molds. so my first guess would have been like the OP first said that the pins
had been broken off, this can be done quite clean, if you put pressure on them
they will break right down by the pins bottom. Maybe it has been done to put
lights in the sign for a project.
|
I have never seen bricks from the early 1960s with thin walls.
|
I have four of these Shell signs with those thin walls but with all the pins
intact, (two different types of embossed prints) another two with a single lower
side support in the middle without thin walls.
I got one "POLICE" sign on the same kind of mold.
|
| | And one of those red 1x6 with Black headlight pattern.
|
Years Released: 1971 - 1977
Years Released: 1972 - 1983
These are bricks from the 1970s, not early 1960s.
| | I also got quit a bunch of unprinted ones but those
make it harder to determine which year they where used.
These where used but only during a very short period.
|
|
I stand corrected took it out of my memory without checking. still older then
other thin wall molds.
|
That is true. 2x4 molds with thin walls and split tubes were made around 1973-1976
(and remained in use for several years after that). Then LEGO returned to thick
walls for a few years. Around 1980 the thin walls came back with the 3001 with
cross-support. These 1x6 molds were probably made around the same time as the
2x4 bricks with split tubes.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2018 07:30 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, axaday writes:
| | In LEGO, StormChaser writes:
things like the following assembly (which was clearly created
| | only for commercial purposes):
|
If that is what he was thinking, he was out of his mind. No one would buy that.
At least not in a timely manner.
| | BTW, since this has come up several times: this issue is not about the
amount of work involved.
|
I'm not calling you lazy and I'm not calling myself lazy, but why do
the work twice? We made some special assemblies a few months ago because Russell
was into it and I haven't spoken with him since, but if he is still into
it, I'd guess he has more stroke with the programmers than you or I do.
Maybe this can really get done soon.
|
We might need some way to sort these "functional part assemblies" from "minibuilds"
in the Special Assembly section. We would improve the Counterpart section, but
we might create a challenge for the Special Assemblies section.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2018 07:21 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, StormChaser writes:
| | In LEGO, WoutR writes:
| | Assemblies that are combined simply because they are "easy to sell" or "probably
wanted by buyers" are no real counterparts according to this definition. (Although
I do usually buy my hinges combined/as a pair, so I have some mixed feelings
about those.)
|
As I said, I imagine the catalog entries would remain. You could still buy and
sell assemblies (like the hinges you prefer to buy as a pair), but they wouldn't
be included in inventories.
As for assemblies that aren't really legitimate counterparts, I only made
two exceptions: parts with wheels and wheel and tire assemblies. I don't
feel like two exceptions is too many. The other exceptions are special/large
assemblies and those will likely have their own section in inventories at some
point.
Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. It seems like everyone who
has responded are on pretty much the same page. The only real problem I can
see with better defined inventories is that it will create more orphaned catalog
entries (entries without appearances in sets or timelines of release). These
orphaned entries are somewhat off the beaten path and thus are more difficult
to locate.
How do you feel about that?
|
I am convinced that the function of counterparts in our inventories is to accommodate
those parts that have changed. That is the only reason why we need counterparts.
(The MISB/unchanged part in the main inventory, the changed part in the counterpart
section).
Everything else we use the counterpart section for is an exception.
I do however see good reasons to include many assemblies in the catalog. I prefer
to have those linked to inventories. Currently, the counterpart section is the
best suited option to include them. Maybe the Special Assemblies section could
be used in the future.
The more I think about this, the longer the list of useful functional pairs becomes.
- wheel + tire
- turntable
- hinge
- animals (body + jaw, body + legs etc)
- container + lid
- window + glass
- lever + base
- For vehicles, the situation already becomes more complicated, there we have
a frame + wheels + tires (but the assembly should not become more complicated
than that)
For all of these, there are some basic guidelines:
- The assembly was actually used in a set. We should not want to add any combination
that would be theoretically possible.
- The assembly is simple, a few parts only (usually two, but vehicles use more)
- The assembly often provides a function (the parts were designed as a pair to
provide movement, rotation, etc.) or the assembly contains parts that are usually
not disassembled after their first use (animal parts, window + glass, container+lid)
because many users (and buyers) will perceive them as belonging together. Resellers
will often find these assemblies as pairs in used lots, the part is often useless
without its paired part (what use is glass without a window frame? or a jaw without
an animal body? I am sure that someone can MOC an exception, but 99% of the
time they will be used assembled).
Making this long list, I feel that making an exception for wheels+tires only
is not enough.
But I also feel that I do not want to open up the counterparts section for an
unlimited amount of subassemblies and minibuilds. The counterparts section clearly
needs some restrictions to remain useful. Something like the carrot assembly
(33172c01) should not be a counterpart. (But it might be a Special Assembly.
I still think the Special Assemblies are an unwanted clutter and complication
of our catalog, but I accept those are going to happen no matter how I feel about
them).
To summarize:
All these assemblies are exceptions if we use them as counterparts but I do prefer
to have them linked to inventories. Mini-builds/special assemblies are not counterparts
and we do need some limits to avoid blurring the distinction between those.
|
|
| Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2018 06:26 | | Subject: | Re: Brick 1 x 6 with two bottom tubes? | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Identification, Biodreamer writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, Biodreamer writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, normann1974 writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, normann1974 writes:
| | I found this brick among my spare parts. I can't find this configuration
of bottom tubes anywhere in the catalog among 1x6 bricks. It doesn't look
to me like the missing tubes are broken off, they're just missing. Does anyone
recognize it?
|
I think it must be
|
Yes, and instead of a 3009, it is printed on a
I have tried to add printed variants like this to the catalog before and have
been told they will not be approved.
|
I would say it's neither of the two. 3009pb156 has 5 buttom tubes, and crssprt02
has none (but two cross supports). Mine has 2 buttom tubes with supports.
/Jan
|
Yes, and it has thin walls with vertical ridges. This is not an early brick design.
|
I don't agree there was a period in the early 1960 that had this style on
molds. so my first guess would have been like the OP first said that the pins
had been broken off, this can be done quite clean, if you put pressure on them
they will break right down by the pins bottom. Maybe it has been done to put
lights in the sign for a project.
|
I have never seen bricks from the early 1960s with thin walls.
|
I have four of these Shell signs with those thin walls but with all the pins
intact, (two different types of embossed prints) another two with a single lower
side support in the middle without thin walls.
I got one "POLICE" sign on the same kind of mold.
|
| | And one of those red 1x6 with Black headlight pattern.
|
Years Released: 1971 - 1977
Years Released: 1972 - 1983
These are bricks from the 1970s, not early 1960s.
| | I also got quit a bunch of unprinted ones but those
make it harder to determine which year they where used.
These where used but only during a very short period.
|
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
Netherlands, Zuid-Holland
)
)
)
