|
 |
| | | Author: | SezaR  | | Posted: | Jun 6, 2018 03:28 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 599-1 | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 8 Part Yellow {3002 Brick 2 x 3 to 3002old Brick 2 x 3 without Cross Supports}
* Change 2 Part Yellow {3943a Cone 4 x 4 x 2 without Axle Hole to 3943b Cone 4 x 4 x 2 with Axle Hole}
* Change 10 Part Black {3001 Brick 2 x 4 to 3001old Brick 2 x 4 without Cross Supports}
* Change 16 Part Blue {3001 Brick 2 x 4 to 3001old Brick 2 x 4 without Cross Supports}
* Change 10 Part Red {3001 Brick 2 x 4 to 3001old Brick 2 x 4 without Cross Supports}
* Change 5 Part White {3001 Brick 2 x 4 to 3001old Brick 2 x 4 without Cross Supports}
* Change 10 Part Yellow {3001 Brick 2 x 4 to 3001old Brick 2 x 4 without Cross Supports}
* Change 4 Part Black {3002 Brick 2 x 3 to 3002old Brick 2 x 3 without Cross Supports}
* Change 11 Part Blue {3002 Brick 2 x 3 to 3002old Brick 2 x 3 without Cross Supports}
* Change 4 Part Red {3002 Brick 2 x 3 to 3002old Brick 2 x 3 without Cross Supports}
* Change 6 Part White {3002 Brick 2 x 3 to 3002old Brick 2 x 3 without Cross Supports}
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jun 6, 2018 03:42 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 599-1 | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| Direct Approach
When you use the direct approach, the main idea (such as a recommendation, conclusion,
or request) comes in the "top" of the document, followed by the evidence. This
is a deductive argument. This approach is used when your audience will be neutral
or positive about your message. In the formal report, the direct approach usually
mandates that you lead off with a summary of your key findings, conclusions,
and recommendations. This "up-front" arrangement is by far the most popular and
convenient for business reports. It saves time and makes the rest of the report
easier to follow. For those who have questions or want more information, later
parts of the report provide complete findings and supporting details. The direct
approach also produces a more forceful report. You sound sure of yourself when
you state your conclusions confidently at the outset.
Indirect Approach
In the indirect approach, the evidence is presented first, leading therefore
to the main idea. This is an inductive argument. This approach is best if your
audience may be displeased about or may resist what you have to say.
At times, especially if you are a junior member of an organization or if you
are an outsider, writing with an extremely confident stance may be regarded as
arrogant. In such cases, or if your audience will be skeptical or hostile, you
may want to use the indirect approach: Introduce your complete findings and discuss
all supporting details before presenting your conclusions and recommendations.
The indirect approach gives you a chance to prove your points and gradually overcome
your audience’s reservations. By deferring the conclusions and recommendations,
you imply that you’ve weighed the evidence objectively without prejudging the
facts. You also imply that you’re subordinating your judgment to the audience,
whose members are capable of drawing their own conclusions when they have access
to all the facts.
Ref:
http://faculty.winthrop.edu/kosterj/writ465/management/directapproach.htm
In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 8 Part Yellow {3002 Brick 2 x 3 to 3002old Brick 2 x 3 without Cross Supports}
* Change 2 Part Yellow {3943a Cone 4 x 4 x 2 without Axle Hole to 3943b Cone 4 x 4 x 2 with Axle Hole}
* Change 10 Part Black {3001 Brick 2 x 4 to 3001old Brick 2 x 4 without Cross Supports}
* Change 16 Part Blue {3001 Brick 2 x 4 to 3001old Brick 2 x 4 without Cross Supports}
* Change 10 Part Red {3001 Brick 2 x 4 to 3001old Brick 2 x 4 without Cross Supports}
* Change 5 Part White {3001 Brick 2 x 4 to 3001old Brick 2 x 4 without Cross Supports}
* Change 10 Part Yellow {3001 Brick 2 x 4 to 3001old Brick 2 x 4 without Cross Supports}
* Change 4 Part Black {3002 Brick 2 x 3 to 3002old Brick 2 x 3 without Cross Supports}
* Change 11 Part Blue {3002 Brick 2 x 3 to 3002old Brick 2 x 3 without Cross Supports}
* Change 4 Part Red {3002 Brick 2 x 3 to 3002old Brick 2 x 3 without Cross Supports}
* Change 6 Part White {3002 Brick 2 x 3 to 3002old Brick 2 x 3 without Cross Supports}
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jun 7, 2018 04:38 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 599-1 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory
|
I would like to approve these requests, but the photos you have posted are simply
too poor in quality to make out details. I tried saving the photo and zooming
in to no avail.
Please provide a higher quality photo or direct me to the place where you located
these photos. Thanks.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jun 7, 2018 05:30 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 599-1 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | Please provide a higher quality photo or direct me to the place where you located
these photos. Thanks.
|
Alternatively, if you will confirm that you were able to identify at least one
of the bricks without cross supports in each color that you requested based on
the photo or photos which you have access to, then I will approve the requests
based on your word.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jun 7, 2018 05:49 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 599-1 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| I think the axle of the yellow cone is visible.
I do not care much about these bricks, but these inventory changes are meant
for a suggestion covering many sets.
The old type bricks are added recently (2014) but at that time, they probably
didn't know at what year they first appeared. In all photos for trains on
1990 or before that I have, there is no new type 3002 or 3003. In my Lego collection,
the only 3002 and 3003 I had was from a pirate set that I bought in 1992 (and
the only one that I bought after 1990 that came with bricks 2*2*1 or 2*3*1)
Based on my observation the following parts appeared first on the given years:
1984
1991
1991
So I think we should change all bricks 3002 and 3003 to 3002old and 3003old for
sets released on 1990 or before. Then if there is evidence for any of them coming
with 3003 or 3002, then we can change the inventory in the question.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/94457477@N06/41739810795/in/dateposted-public/
In my photo, we cannot be 100% sure if those bricks are 3002 or 3002old however
they appear to be 3002old.
Note: it is clear that the set is in MISB condition. but it is strange that there
are two
[p=bb47]
In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | Please provide a higher quality photo or direct me to the place where you located
these photos. Thanks.
|
Alternatively, if you will confirm that you were able to identify at least one
of the bricks without cross supports in each color that you requested based on
the photo or photos which you have access to, then I will approve the requests
based on your word.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jun 7, 2018 06:27 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 599-1 | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | I think we should change all bricks 3002 and 3003 to 3002old and 3003old for
sets released on 1990 or before. Then if there is evidence for any of them coming
with 3003 or 3002, then we can change the inventory in the question.
|
I inventoried this set based on for-sure sealed contents:
The copyright date on the box was 1989 (I believe the set was nearing production
end and I rather doubt, but don't know, that it was in production much past
'89 or perhaps '90 - for all I know this could have been an actual 1989
version). As you can see, it included mixed 3002 and 3002old. Things aren't
always so neat in actual set contents and this must be taken into consideration
(although I'm sure you realize that).
However, site-wide changes like this have indeed been done in the past. It might
be better to approach Russell about this idea you have - I know I wouldn't
be comfortable undertaking such a project without some guidance.
I definitely agree that some of them appear to be, but I'm not sure enough
to change them based on that alone. Unfortunately, the photo is simply too low-resolution
to say for sure. I appreciate your honesty and your sharing the photo location,
but I don't believe the evidence is sufficient to approve these requests.
| | Note: it is clear that the set is in MISB condition. but it is strange that there
are two
[p=bb47]
|
I agree. This is larger than the expected quantity of 1. They're also lying
in unusual places, as though they came from somewhere else.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jun 7, 2018 06:30 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 599-1 | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | Unfortunately, the photo is simply too low-resolution
to say for sure. I appreciate your honesty and your sharing the photo location,
but I don't believe the evidence is sufficient to approve these requests.
|
Except the cone with axle hole. It is obvious from the picture and I did approve
that request.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jun 7, 2018 06:42 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 599-1 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| Let me be more exact:
The sets in my consideration are all released until 1990. All the bricks in 7735
and 7745 were the old type. I know a couple of those MISB sets were form 1989
based on the production date of the motor.
So the year 1989 or 1990 may be the exact transition time from old type to new
type in 3002 or 3003.
But 599 is from 1982-5. There is more reason for this set to be coming with 3002old
and 3003old.
You (being admin) always think: is there enough evidence to approve this request?
This is sometime the wrong question. The better question here is:
If I want to inventory this set now, should I use 3003 or 3003old?
This is because at the time they inventoried 599-1, the old types 3002old and
3003old did not exist so they didn't ask this question.
(I can bet you would answer 3003old.)
In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | I think we should change all bricks 3002 and 3003 to 3002old and 3003old for
sets released on 1990 or before. Then if there is evidence for any of them coming
with 3003 or 3002, then we can change the inventory in the question.
|
I inventoried this set based on for-sure sealed contents:
The copyright date on the box was 1989 (I believe the set was nearing production
end and I rather doubt, but don't know, that it was in production much past
'89 or perhaps '90 - for all I know this could have been an actual 1989
version). As you can see, it included mixed 3002 and 3002old. Things aren't
always so neat in actual set contents and this must be taken into consideration
(although I'm sure you realize that).
However, site-wide changes like this have indeed been done in the past. It might
be better to approach Russell about this idea you have - I know I wouldn't
be comfortable undertaking such a project without some guidance.
I definitely agree that some of them appear to be, but I'm not sure enough
to change them based on that alone. Unfortunately, the photo is simply too low-resolution
to say for sure. I appreciate your honesty and your sharing the photo location,
but I don't believe the evidence is sufficient to approve these requests.
| | Note: it is clear that the set is in MISB condition. but it is strange that there
are two
[p=bb47]
|
I agree. This is larger than the expected quantity of 1. They're also lying
in unusual places, as though they came from somewhere else.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jun 7, 2018 06:58 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 599-1 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | But 599 is from 1982. There is more reason for this set to be coming with 3002old
and 3003old.
You (being admin) always think: is there enough evidence to approve this request?
This is sometime the wrong question. The better question here is:
If I want to inventory this set now, should I use 3003 or 3003old?
This is because at the time they inventoried 599-1, the old types 3002old and
3003old did not exist so they didn't ask this question.
(I can bet you would answer 3003old.)
|
Those are fair and well-spoken points.
Part 3003old was added in 2014 and viejos changed those for this set in 2015:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=199113
Do realize, though, that this set was inventoried in 2009 and 3002old was first
added to the catalog in 2002 - so it was available as an option for inventories
for 7 years before this set was first inventoried. Regardless of that, the source
of the inventory was Set Box/Picture - it can be assumed to contain inaccuracies.
Again, approach Russell regarding making site-wide changes to 3001, 3002, and
3003.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jun 7, 2018 07:17 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 599-1 | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| Sorry I confused 3002 and 3003 with each other in all I wrote and forgot which
one was what. I had also forgotten that 3003old was already added to 599-1. But
you get my main point anyway.
We don't know what was known in 2015 considering this set. But I would be
highlt surprised if viejos had found a copy of this set. This set basically is
out of sight. I periodically search this set in all local websites of Germany,
US, France, Netherland,.... but could never find it for sale. However I can find
all other basic sets such as 577,... .
Recently one guy listed in on bricklink and there is another MISB one in Austrlia
(gumtree.com.au)
Morris checked all his Italian catalogs and confirmed it did not appear in any
of them.
I checked all catalogs available online. In those of 1982, I could only find
it in the Polish one. Between 1983-5 in appeared in a couple of other catalogs.
All I know is
- this set exists!
- it was not promotional
- it was a limited-edition one
- it was sold for four years between 1982-85 so a strange limited-edition set!
- by googling, Morris found images of three variations of its box. Their difference
is only on the languages of the boxes. At the time, some boxes had texts in three
langauges: they are
D/F/I
UK/F/B
DK/S/SF
If you find anything else about it, please let me know.
In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | But 599 is from 1982. There is more reason for this set to be coming with 3002old
and 3003old.
You (being admin) always think: is there enough evidence to approve this request?
This is sometime the wrong question. The better question here is:
If I want to inventory this set now, should I use 3003 or 3003old?
This is because at the time they inventoried 599-1, the old types 3002old and
3003old did not exist so they didn't ask this question.
(I can bet you would answer 3003old.)
|
Those are fair and well-spoken points.
Part 3003old was added in 2014 and viejos changed those for this set in 2015:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=199113
Do realize, though, that this set was inventoried in 2009 and 3002old was first
added to the catalog in 2002 - so it was available as an option for inventories
for 7 years before this set was first inventoried. Regardless of that, the source
of the inventory was Set Box/Picture - it can be assumed to contain inaccuracies.
Again, approach Russell regarding making site-wide changes to 3001, 3002, and
3003.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jun 7, 2018 07:23 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 599-1 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | We don't know what was known in 2015 considering this set. But I would be
highly surprised if viejos had found a copy of this set.
|
This is an example of a site-wide change of the kind you're interested in
made by the person you need to talk to. Please see this message:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1054694
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Jun 7, 2018 12:51 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 599-1 | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location:  USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
 |
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Sorry I confused 3002 and 3003 with each other in all I wrote and forgot which
one was what. I had also forgotten that 3003old was already added to 599-1. But
you get my main point anyway.
|
We don't keep hard records of mistakes that people make, and we know that
no one is perfect. But such errors in fact (clerical though they may be) do work
against you indirectly.
| | On BrickLink,
We don't know what was known in 2015 considering this set. But I would be
highlt surprised if viejos had found a copy of this set.
|
Changes like this are made based on an artificial timeline.
Regarding your idea of changing all 3001, 3002, and 3003 to old variants up through
1990 and then backfilling any instances of the newer versions, this is not the
approach we are using.
The first reason is that the newer versions, strictly speaking, are undetermined
versions of the part that can stand for either version. So an old inventory with
the newer version is actually not wrong, even if the set is from the 1960's.
The second reason is that the transition time for each part (and even each color
of each part) was different. 1980 was the initial artificial line for all three
of these parts, but it became very clear, for example, that 3001 transitioned
earlier than the other two. So in order to construct an *accurate* timeline for
these parts, an open field is needed for people to report their findings.
And realistically speaking, you will have many more people reporting the old
versions in an open field of new versions than new versions in a open field of
old versions.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jun 7, 2018 17:08 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 599-1 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| | | We don't keep hard records of mistakes that people make, and we know that
no one is perfect. But such errors in fact (clerical though they may be) do work
against you indirectly.
|
I am sure many things work against me in my life outside BL and also inside BL.
I am not sure how this one would? I am not sure what consequences this mistake
can have against me? Have you been considering to give me a prize/salary/...
and now, I don't deserve it any more?
The inventory change request was made two days ago. At the time I checked the
parts 3001, 3002 and 3003 and submitted the inventory change request correctly
(i.e. didn't confuse the parts in submitting the requests). The admin replied
it one or two days after. By then, I forgot what variant was listed in the listing
of 599-1 and what I requested to change and thought that both 3002 and 3003 are
listed and I requested to change them to 3002old and 3003old.
I am human and make mistakes, specially when I am tired, and working on several
things at once. (the other inventory change request of 7735) But I don't
thing this mistake was a bad one.
| | Regarding your idea of changing all 3001, 3002, and 3003 to old variants up through
1990 and then backfilling any instances of the newer versions, this is not the
approach we are using.
The first reason is that the newer versions, strictly speaking, are undetermined
versions of the part that can stand for either version. So an old inventory with
the newer version is actually not wrong, even if the set is from the 1960's.
|
How users can know that 3003 is undetermined type?
| | The second reason is that the transition time for each part (and even each color
of each part) was different. 1980 was the initial artificial line for all three
of these parts, but it became very clear, for example, that 3001 transitioned
earlier than the other two. So in order to construct an *accurate* timeline for
these parts, an open field is needed for people to report their findings.
|
I think I mentioned somewhere. I believe the transition time for 3001 was 1984.
I believe the parts 3002old and 3003old were changed to 3002 and 3003 at the
same time.
I think this happened in 1990 or 1991.
I have seen the new types 3002 and 3003 in a sealed set from 1992 but have seen
the old type in sets up to 1989. I do have photos of a sealed copy of 7745 from
late 1988 (maybe was on shelves in 1989) in which all bricks 3002 and 3003 are
the old type. I know the time of release of that set because of the production
date of motor (sealed in the middle tray).
| | And realistically speaking, you will have many more people reporting the old
versions in an open field of new versions than new versions in a open field of
old versions.
|
There is a strong believe that 3002 and 3003 did not appear in any set up to
the end of 1988. I have photos of several sets for that and there is no evidence
disapproving it. The uncertainty would be for the years 1989, 1990 or 1991 for
which we don't know yet and either version can be chosen by default.
| | of each part) was different. 1980 was the initial artificial line for all three
of these parts, but it became...
|
So there is an artificial line. How did you get 1980? I gave some reasons why
this artificial line should be changed to 1984 for 3001 and 1989 for 3002 and
3003.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jun 7, 2018 17:11 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 599-1 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| Correction
| | I believe the parts 3002old and 3003old were changed to 3002 and 3003 at the
same time.
|
I believe the parts 3002old and 3003old were changed to 3002 and 3003 simultaneously.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jun 7, 2018 07:36 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 599-1 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| Hmmmmm
First thing: why I cannot find 1050-1 in any catalog? I checked about 10 of them
from 1986, 1988 and 1989.
The copy-right year on the box may not tell exact year of its release. Indeed,
TLG changed its packaging machines in 1989. So almost all train sets got new
boxes or got at least a new copy-right year in 1989. For example, the set 7824
has two types of box. First one has "copy right year of 1983" and the second
one "copy-right year 1983 and 1989".
Do we know that this set was not released in 1990 or 1991? If not, then the copy
you had might be from 1990 or 1991.
But maybe you found a catalog inside the box?
In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | I think we should change all bricks 3002 and 3003 to 3002old and 3003old for
sets released on 1990 or before. Then if there is evidence for any of them coming
with 3003 or 3002, then we can change the inventory in the question.
|
I inventoried this set based on for-sure sealed contents:
The copyright date on the box was 1989 (I believe the set was nearing production
end and I rather doubt, but don't know, that it was in production much past
'89 or perhaps '90 - for all I know this could have been an actual 1989
version). As you can see, it included mixed 3002 and 3002old. Things aren't
always so neat in actual set contents and this must be taken into consideration
(although I'm sure you realize that).
However, site-wide changes like this have indeed been done in the past. It might
be better to approach Russell about this idea you have - I know I wouldn't
be comfortable undertaking such a project without some guidance.
I definitely agree that some of them appear to be, but I'm not sure enough
to change them based on that alone. Unfortunately, the photo is simply too low-resolution
to say for sure. I appreciate your honesty and your sharing the photo location,
but I don't believe the evidence is sufficient to approve these requests.
| | Note: it is clear that the set is in MISB condition. but it is strange that there
are two
[p=bb47]
|
I agree. This is larger than the expected quantity of 1. They're also lying
in unusual places, as though they came from somewhere else.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jun 7, 2018 07:49 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 599-1 | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | why I cannot find 1050-1 in any catalog? I checked about 10 of them
from 1986, 1988 and 1989.
|
This set does not appear because it is an educational set and they typically
don't appear in regular catalogs. There is an entire line of educational
catalogs dating back to the mid 1970s (if not before):
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?catType=C&catID=166&itemBrand=1000
| | But maybe you found a catalog inside the box?
|
No, there were none.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jun 9, 2018 13:43 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 599-1 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| Do you have these catalogs?
If so, could you check until what year the set 1050-1 was released?
In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | why I cannot find 1050-1 in any catalog? I checked about 10 of them
from 1986, 1988 and 1989.
|
This set does not appear because it is an educational set and they typically
don't appear in regular catalogs. There is an entire line of educational
catalogs dating back to the mid 1970s (if not before):
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?catType=C&catID=166&itemBrand=1000
| | But maybe you found a catalog inside the box?
|
No, there were none.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jun 9, 2018 14:49 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 599-1 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Do you have these catalogs?
If so, could you check until what year the set 1050-1 was released?
|
I have some of them, yes. Unfortunately, these catalogs are expensive and quite
difficult to find.
I have none from 1989, 1 from 1990, and 1 from 1991. The '90 and '91
catalogs which I have only show the TC Logo line and associated items.
|
|
|
|
|
Canada, British Columbia
)
)
