|
 |
| | | Author: | StormChaser  | | Posted: | Apr 19, 2020 14:16 | | Subject: | Move Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 201 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I just added comparison photos and additional notes for the following part variants
I've recently discovered. All of these variants were undocumented on BrickLink
until today:
[P=3046a]
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 19, 2020 14:21 | | Subject: | Re: Move Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Ugh . . . typographical errors.
|
The title of this post was intended to include the word "More," not the word
"Move."
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 19, 2020 20:14 | | Subject: | Re: More Variants Discovered - Update | | Viewed: | 60 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I just added comparison photos and additional notes for the following part variants
I've recently discovered. All of these variants were undocumented on BrickLink
until today.
|
Found and added some more. That's 34 in total. Today. And there are likely
hundreds more.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 19, 2020 20:29 | | Subject: | Re: More Variants Discovered - Update | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | Found and added some more. That's 34 in total. Today. And there are likely
hundreds more.
|
Sorry, I guess I should have mentioned the point of all this. It would not surprise
me in the least if 50-75% of the parts in this set had variants:
Only two of them are in the inventory. And that's just a set chosen pretty
much at random. It goes for many sets.
I'm still confused on exactly what we've been doing for the last 20 years
when it comes to part variants. Whatever we've been doing, it's not
rational or sustainable.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | Dino | | Posted: | Apr 19, 2020 20:50 | | Subject: | Re: More Variants Discovered - Update | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I'm still confused on exactly what we've been doing for the last 20 years
when it comes to part variants. Whatever we've been doing, it's not
rational or sustainable.
|
Not only with parts, but also with sets, gears etc.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Apr 20, 2020 02:03 | | Subject: | Re: More Variants Discovered - Update | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
|
snip
| |
I'm still confused on exactly what we've been doing for the last 20 years
when it comes to part variants. Whatever we've been doing, it's not
rational or sustainable.
|
To make a catalogue is a science. In line with all sciences, it moves on a certain
pathway, from hypothesis to experimenting to proof to general theory. The basic
building blocks of all things LEGO are parts. So the basic premise in starting
a LEGO catalogue is one of the following two hypotheses:
1. A part design exists only when it is found in a set; or
2. A part design exists only because TLG has produced it.
The theory resulting from 1 is as follows:
Every part design that has been found in a set will be documented and these
documented part designs will be all of the part designs that TLG has ever made.
This will lead to an accurate catalogue of all things LEGO.
The theory resulting from 2 is as follows:
Every part design that TLG has ever made must be documented and, insofar as
these are found in sets, the part design/set relationships must also be documented.
This will lead to an accurate catalogue of all things LEGO.
Theories generally fail because they have not been tested adequately or because
they were poorly crafted from the underlying hypothesis.
The catalogue has been following hypothesis 1. Thus you cannot effectively
have new variants until you cannot prove the existence of the variant in a set,
irrespective of its production by TLG or its release onto the market by sellers.
The current method of dealing with variants is entirely correct based on the
underlying premise on how the catalogue of part designs is being built over time.
To state that it is irrational and not sustainable, calls into question the basic
underlying structure and understanding of the catalogue.
There has been many who have called for redesign of the catalogue and the site.
If the catalogue is failing to provide the very information it is supposed to
provide, then it is a failure of the site and the problem will only get bigger
over time. There is no easy fix at this point. But there will be NO fix until
such time as the management of BL properly define what it is that must be achieved
here. Hybrid systems lead to hybrid solutions lead to problems.
Probably we should move to theory 2 at some stage. This might prevent the “is
it genuine or fake” question from popping up more frequently or, worse, exposing
sellers to more risk after June when PayPal will be hitting sellers for damages
when selling fakes and clones. In this regard, variants must be documented, they
must be shown to exist and they must have comparatives.
I should think a separate variant page would be the solution for what is currently
the catalogue standard. Again, first define the correct outcome you want. For
that you'd best have the correct and tested theory in place first, else you
end up with the struggling and unwieldy hybrid we have at present, or another
problematic set of issues 20 years hence.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 20, 2020 12:40 | | Subject: | Re: More Variants Discovered - Update | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | […]
The catalogue has been following hypothesis 1. Thus you cannot effectively
have new variants until you cannot prove the existence of the variant in a set,
irrespective of its production by TLG or its release onto the market by sellers.
[…]
Probably we should move to theory 2 at some stage. This might prevent the “is
it genuine or fake” question from popping up more frequently or, worse, exposing
sellers to more risk after June when PayPal will be hitting sellers for damages
when selling fakes and clones. In this regard, variants must be documented, they
must be shown to exist and they must have comparatives.[…]
|
I believe you missed two contributing practises / rules (of thumb):
1. “not a functional difference,”
2. “everybody knows that.”
Plates exist with full and hollow underside pins? Everybody knows that, not
a functional difference, no new entry and no need for pics or notes.
There are lots of different 3001? Everybody knows that, not a functional difference,
we won’t have 45 entries, we won’t document them all. There, here’s a 3001old
entry for you to put some of them, we won’t define which are to be put in 3001
and which are to be put in 3001old.
These variants do have been found in sets. So, if the cataloguing were really/scrupulously
following theory 1, they would have been added or documented. It’s the above
two rules that prevented that.
Rule 1 is a good rule of thumb to decide whether a variant deserves an entry.
It shouldn’t be applied to decide whether a note or a pic should be added.
Rule 2 is rather stupid (and totally human).
Would changing to theory 2 have included these variants?
I think it depends on whether the two above rules were applied or not.
Theory 2 only says a variant shouldn’t be added if you don’t have proof, it doesn’t
say a variant (entry or note) should be added even if you have proof, because
one can still apply the above two rules and decide not to.
Look at 4070: for a time, there were the slot/no-slot variants (well, still are
but one is marked for deletion), until it was finally decided that the slot was
unimportant, “of little or consequence to most users.” It has been discussed
ad nauseam whether it was intended or not, whether it was a bit of plastic that
should be there and fell or a bit of plastic that shouldn’t be there. This isn’t
important now, what is is that a line has been drawn because a line has to be
drawn.
That same “of little or no consequence” rule, the same “it’s just a moulding
artefact” remark, can be used with theory 2.
Another example:
Everybody knows the moulding can cause bubbles in (trans) 4L bars.
Everybody knows the moulding can cause lines on 4L bars.
But bubbles deserve a note (because there were many questions about it on the
forum?).
Moulding lines apparently don’t (but there were questions about their proving
fakeness on the forum).
Would using theory 2 change that? I don’t think so.
Some variants don’t have a logo, or ©, or ID. Does that deserve an entry? A
note?
Applying theory 2 doesn’t change that.
What we need is to decide what is important and what is not, and to document
that.
A “what everybody should know” page? But who would read that?
Or a note on each every and every part (“can have bubbles” “may not have a logo”…)?
No more unwritten rules. No more rules of thumb. No more whims.
That won’t prevent discussions or the need for case by case decisions but it
would be clearer and more consistent.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 20, 2020 12:52 | | Subject: | Re: More Variants Discovered - Update | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | It shouldn’t be applied to decide whether a note or a pic should be added.
|
It is true that in the past a large variety of part variants were simply ignored
by BrickLink, with no notes or comparison pictures. At the same time, other
less-important variants were split into separate catalog entries.
I'm not a fan of additional notes because they must be maintained. And no
one has been maintaining them. But for part variants, notes and pictures are
important and necessary. Variant notes and pictures are easy to add and require
little to no maintenance if done properly.
With the rise during the last decade of 3D printing, combined with the increase
in clone brands and fakes, I feel like it would be wise to properly document
legitimate part variants.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | minithings4life | | Posted: | Apr 20, 2020 04:36 | | Subject: | Re: Move Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I have looked at the parts and can see your notes, but cannot see additional
photos.
What am I missing?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | Apr 20, 2020 04:45 | | Subject: | Re: Move Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Minifigforlife writes:
| | I have looked at the parts and can see your notes, but cannot see additional
photos.
What am I missing?
|
You must change the colour from the landing screen to "all colours"
so for [p=3046a] you will land on th page for "Blue"
On the drop down next to blue, change it to "all colours"
The additional image is third from the top
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | minithings4life | | Posted: | Apr 20, 2020 04:47 | | Subject: | Re: Move Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Thanks.  |
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Apr 20, 2020 06:41 | | Subject: | Re: Move Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I just added comparison photos and additional notes for the following part variants
I've recently discovered. All of these variants were undocumented on BrickLink
until today:
|
I can probably provide at least 20 variations of these molded lines on the inside
of 2x4 bricks. As a collector of 2x4 bricks, I think that these mold details
are to small and to variable to mention in our catalog.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/111441268@N03/albums/72157648936541745
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Stuart9 | | Posted: | Apr 20, 2020 07:04 | | Subject: | Re: Move Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Hi Wouter,
Nice to hear from you, hope you are keeping safe an well.
I agree, there are too many variations to list, it would be nice but it would
overwhelm the catalogue.
I also suspect that if we looked at many more parts, the same would apply.
The 3001old with 3001 underneath would be an interesting oddity in the catalogue,
just to name one.
In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I just added comparison photos and additional notes for the following part variants
I've recently discovered. All of these variants were undocumented on BrickLink
until today:
|
I can probably provide at least 20 variations of these molded lines on the inside
of 2x4 bricks. As a collector of 2x4 bricks, I think that these mold details
are to small and to variable to mention in our catalog.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/111441268@N03/albums/72157648936541745
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Apr 20, 2020 07:22 | | Subject: | Re: Move Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stuart9 writes:
| | Hi Wouter,
Nice to hear from you, hope you are keeping safe an well.
I agree, there are too many variations to list, it would be nice but it would
overwhelm the catalogue.
I also suspect that if we looked at many more parts, the same would apply.
The 3001old with 3001 underneath would be an interesting oddity in the catalogue,
just to name one.
|
That is certainly an oddity
The main reason to include it in the catalog is so I can find more!
(If people find any, let me know!)
It could be nice to include the version with split tubes. But only for people
looking for bricks from that specific time period, as far as I know there is
no functional difference.
Personally, I think that I would not include 3001oldf1 or 3001f1 in the catalog.
I use them now we have them, and there is a visual difference that some people
might care about because they are used for transparent parts. Solid color parts
have the same inner surfaces, but we simply use 3001old or 3001 for those because
you can't see them.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Stuart9 | | Posted: | Apr 20, 2020 07:35 | | Subject: | Re: Move Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I'm still looking for more too, I only have the one ( as your photo ).
In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, Stuart9 writes:
| | Hi Wouter,
Nice to hear from you, hope you are keeping safe an well.
I agree, there are too many variations to list, it would be nice but it would
overwhelm the catalogue.
I also suspect that if we looked at many more parts, the same would apply.
The 3001old with 3001 underneath would be an interesting oddity in the catalogue,
just to name one.
|
That is certainly an oddity
The main reason to include it in the catalog is so I can find more!
(If people find any, let me know!)
It could be nice to include the version with split tubes. But only for people
looking for bricks from that specific time period, as far as I know there is
no functional difference.
Personally, I think that I would not include 3001oldf1 or 3001f1 in the catalog.
I use them now we have them, and there is a visual difference that some people
might care about because they are used for transparent parts. Solid color parts
have the same inner surfaces, but we simply use 3001old or 3001 for those because
you can't see them.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Apr 20, 2020 07:12 | | Subject: | Re: Move Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I just added comparison photos and additional notes for the following part variants
I've recently discovered. All of these variants were undocumented on BrickLink
until today:
|
I can probably provide at least 20 variations of these molded lines on the inside
of 2x4 bricks. As a collector of 2x4 bricks, I think that these mold details
are to small and to variable to mention in our catalog.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/111441268@N03/albums/72157648936541745
|
Here is a quick image of mold lines inside the 3001 bricks. These inner mold
lines can occur in several different combinations, and can even change within
the same mold over time as a result of mold revisions/maintenance.
The "darker areas" indicate "frosting".
[p=3001f1]
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 20, 2020 12:05 | | Subject: | Re: Move Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | I can probably provide at least 20 variations of these molded lines on the inside
of 2x4 bricks.
|
I looked through your Flickr photo collection and I was most impressed. I've
updated the additional note.
| | As a collector of 2x4 bricks, I think that these mold details
are to small and to variable to mention in our catalog.
|
In another post you mention certain specifics, such as functionality or appearance,
as criteria for having separate catalog entries. The problem is that BrickLink
has no written criteria for separate catalog entries. We've just
been kinda winging it for 20 years. Here's an example of that (look at the
comparison image):
How much work was put into this non-functional, non-appearance-affecting part
split by everyone involved? And this is just one part. There are more.
So what I expect to see change in 2020: the addition of written guidelines specifying
exactly how part variants are handled. The current justification for our overall
strategy with part variants is that we're serving collectors and purists
with the way we do things.
But . . . we're not. And not only are we failing them rather miserably,
but we're making buyers, sellers, contributors, and administrators go to
sometimes extraordinary lengths to serve a system that doesn't serve anyone
well. People are buying sealed sets and dismantling them to determine a single
part variant, not realizing the whole set box is probably filled with variants.
That, as I've said before, is unsustainable and irrational. I don't
claim to have a solution yet, but I am giving it thought and I always appreciate
your knowledgeable input. I'm not against part variants or having separate
entries for them, but we've been doing it wrongly for a long time.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Apr 20, 2020 12:44 | | Subject: | Re: Move Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | […]
How much work was put into this non-functional, non-appearance-affecting part
split by everyone involved? And this is just one part. There are more.
|
I beg to differ for these parts. The difference is appearance-affecting
and is even more functional: you can’t put a bar in a square hole.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 20, 2020 14:45 | | Subject: | Re: Move Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | […]
How much work was put into this non-functional, non-appearance-affecting part
split by everyone involved? And this is just one part. There are more.
|
I beg to differ for these parts. The difference is appearance-affecting
and is even more functional: you can’t put a bar in a square hole.
|
+1
Exactly what I was going to write.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | WoutR | | Posted: | Apr 20, 2020 17:26 | | Subject: | Re: Move Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, WoutR writes:
| | I can probably provide at least 20 variations of these molded lines on the inside
of 2x4 bricks.
|
I looked through your Flickr photo collection and I was most impressed. I've
updated the additional note.
|
Thank you. It is a work in progress (all filler brick donations are welcome )
| | | | As a collector of 2x4 bricks, I think that these mold details
are to small and to variable to mention in our catalog.
|
In another post you mention certain specifics, such as functionality or appearance,
as criteria for having separate catalog entries. The problem is that BrickLink
has no written criteria for separate catalog entries. We've just
been kinda winging it for 20 years.
|
I think that there are 4 criteria
1) Functional difference.
2) Difference in appearance
3) Time period
4) Very minor details, just to be "complete".
The functional difference should be the MAIN criterium for catalog entries, but
possibly not the only one.
(1) If we look at the functional difference, then for 2x4 bricks we have
- slotted bricks (bslot04*)
- hollow bricks bhol04
- bricks with inner tubes (3001old, 3001).
(2) The difference in appearance is only useful for transparent 2x4 bricks. On
the outside, they are the same. Here, small differences in the inner wall become
visible.
For some parts, this difference can be more important than for others. It will
be challenging to write a good definition for that...
(3) The "bricks with inner tubes" have been in use since 1958. Selling all under
one catalog entry is a problem for people trying to restore old sets. As a collector,
I would not want to buy a 1970 set with 2020 bricks in it. We cannot be very
exact in dating bricks, but with work like my Flickr page we can get pretty close.
The split between 3001old (since 1958) and 3001 (since 1980) is a start to accommodate
buyers here. Some sellers provide additional details in the item description.
Additional images showing such changes over time could help buyers and sellers
looking to complete sets.
For example, see the additional image for 2547. That is nearly perfect. There
is no functional difference, no visual difference and no huge time gap, so there
is no separate catalog entry. The image shows that there are different versions
so buyers and sellers do not have to be confused. The only thing that could make
it better is if we knew the year these part versions were introduced.
(4) Wanting to be complete and list every minor mold variation would mean that
we could have a catalog note about most of the individual molds. Looking at the
2x4 bricks we can see that molds are made a few at a time, and there are minor
changes when the next batch is made. I want to see those in my collection, but
I do not think that any sensible LEGO builder or collector would care.
| | Here's an example of that (look at the comparison image):
How much work was put into this non-functional, non-appearance-affecting part
split by everyone involved? And this is just one part. There are more.
So what I expect to see change in 2020: the addition of written guidelines specifying
exactly how part variants are handled. The current justification for our overall
strategy with part variants is that we're serving collectors and purists
with the way we do things.
But . . . we're not. And not only are we failing them rather miserably,
but we're making buyers, sellers, contributors, and administrators go to
sometimes extraordinary lengths to serve a system that doesn't serve anyone
well. People are buying sealed sets and dismantling them to determine a single
part variant, not realizing the whole set box is probably filled with variants.
That, as I've said before, is unsustainable and irrational. I don't
claim to have a solution yet, but I am giving it thought and I always appreciate
your knowledgeable input. I'm not against part variants or having separate
entries for them, but we've been doing it wrongly for a long time.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Apr 20, 2020 09:27 | | Subject: | Re: Move Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
Can you tell me more about these?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Apr 20, 2020 12:11 | | Subject: | Re: Move Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
Can you tell me more about these?
|
Not much more except that they're variants. I had a new copy of 9610 and
compared parts within to modern parts. Those were the four most obvious variants.
The additional images show the differences. To make the images display, see
this post:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1191710
Our image system is finicky and difficult to understand. I'll try to get
the images for these variants fixed so that they display without having to take
this additional step.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | May 19, 2020 10:06 | | Subject: | Re: More Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I just added comparison photos and additional notes for the following part variants
|
I've just added pictures and notes for ten more. A few are mildly interesting
and will be worth your time to see:
* | | 30387 Hinge Brick 1 x 4 Locking with 1 Finger Vertical End and 2 Fingers Vertical End
Parts: Hinge |
I think I've figured out that, in addition to the other problems with variants,
BrickLink perpetuates the somewhat delusional thinking of pride in owning a period-specific
set.
Only if every single variant was thoroughly documented and also documented to
have appeared in that set could you say that your copy of a set is historically
accurate. And considering that many (if not most or all) parts have variants,
chasing those phantoms might become rather nonsensical at some point.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 19, 2020 10:22 | | Subject: | Re: More Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | […]
Only if every single variant was thoroughly documented and also documented to
have appeared in that set could you say that your copy of a set is historically
accurate.
|
Er, not exactly.
One’s owning the set since it was bought sealed and never having mixed its parts
allows one to say one’s copy is historically accurate.
Or any certified track of the set and its parts from the time it was bought sealed
allows the latest owner to say their copy is historically accurate.
So even if BL’s catalogue didn’t exist, one could still be proud of owning a
period-specific set.
| | And considering that many (if not most or all) parts have variants,
chasing those phantoms might become rather nonsensical at some point.
|
And the one who discovers a variant can’t even have the ego-boost of the variant
being named after them.
No “3961 stormchaserus” for you 
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | May 19, 2020 10:45 | | Subject: | Re: More Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 93 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | One’s owning the set since it was bought sealed and never having mixed its parts
allows one to say one’s copy is historically accurate.
Or any certified track of the set and its parts from the time it was bought sealed
allows the latest owner to say their copy is historically accurate.
|
Fair point. But the same sets packaged in different factories or even at different
times in the same factory, or perhaps even at the same time in the same factory,
may contain different variants.
I stand by my opinion that period-specificity is at least somewhat delusional.
| | So even if BL’s catalogue didn’t exist, one could still be proud of owning a
period-specific set.
|
True. But what does that even mean?
I do not have a large personal collection of LEGO parts. I looked through my
parts collection recently to create the attached image of the variants in molded
printing (which BL doesn't even distinguish) for just one part. And I missed
including one in the photo, by the way.
Each part in the photo shows a distinct and separate variant of molded printing,
with the second from the top having none at all. And my rough estimate at this
point is that at least two thirds of all parts have actual mold variants, while
most parts in production for more than a couple years probably have one or many
molded printing variants.
Because of the aforementioned variability in packaging for a given set, what
real meaning do the words "historically accurate" or "period-specific" even have?
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 19, 2020 11:37 | | Subject: | Re: More Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | […]
Fair point. But the same sets packaged in different factories or even at different
times in the same factory, or perhaps even at the same time in the same factory,
may contain different variants.
|
That other sets came out differently from the same (or not) factory at the same
time (or not) doesn’t change the fact that one set is as it was when it came
out of the factory.
All the sesterces are different, it doesn’t change the fact some of them can
be certified as being real antique coins from a certified time-period.
| | I stand by my opinion that period-specificity is at least somewhat delusional.
|
If you’re “bricklinking” the set.
And it also depends on your value of “good enough”: Do you trace all the parts,
asserting they came from boxes the siblings of the set you’re bricklinking?
Or are you content with “we know these variants were made around that time”?
| | | | So even if BL’s catalogue didn’t exist, one could still be proud of owning a
period-specific set.
|
True. But what does that even mean?
|
Well, you are the one who used the term 
| | […]
Because of the aforementioned variability in packaging for a given set, what
real meaning do the words "historically accurate" or "period-specific" even have?
|
There’s the same thing with cars: there are the “only original parts,” the “we
replaced some parts with others from the same manufacturer and period,” and the
“we used some 3D-printed parts” and so on. And some parts (chassis, engine…)
are more important than others (belts) and even on some important parts, some
modifications are allowed without removing value (remove rusted parts of the
body, weld some new bits).
There’s the same thing with all collectible items.
And the “meaning” of “historically accurate” or “period-specific” is not binary
(is / isn’t), it’s, like about every word, a gradation of what people agree it
is.
It can be discussed precisely, generally between a seller and a buyer, to translate
it in monetary value, but it’ll still be generally fuzzy.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | paulvdb | | Posted: | May 19, 2020 10:32 | | Subject: | Re: More Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
The note for this one can of course also be added to the unprinted 3009. And
probably a number of other decorated versions of this brick and other 1 x X bricks
and plates.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | bje | | Posted: | May 19, 2020 10:40 | | Subject: | Re: More Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
|
snip
| |
I think I've figured out that, in addition to the other problems with variants,
BrickLink perpetuates the somewhat delusional thinking of pride in owning a period-specific
set.
Only if every single variant was thoroughly documented and also documented to
have appeared in that set could you say that your copy of a set is historically
accurate. And considering that many (if not most or all) parts have variants,
chasing those phantoms might become rather nonsensical at some point.
|
Don't know about the delusion so much, but I would be pretty ticked off if
somebody sold me a so-called used complete at $1 000 and it included
a bunch of modern cheap variants. Or worse still some early space sets with
the wrong clips, and LBG and DBG parts. It is all relative - someone like me
prefer to deal ith the correct thing at the correct time and I am prepared to
invest the time and effort in it. From experience with return buyers, I know
I am not alone. And yes, I've had buyers ask me to check pips, pins, hole
sizes, clips and mold numbers and send images prior to shipping and also to make
sure the variants and colour differences are correct. Of course I've also
had buyers who just do not care.
I personally would not go as far as to mention closed and open pins and combinations
thereof, but I find for the serious buyer it pays to find serious sellers, catalogue
failings notwithstanding
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | May 28, 2020 18:57 | | Subject: | Re: Even More Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 52 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I just added comparison photos and additional notes for the following part variants
I've recently discovered. All of these variants were undocumented on BrickLink
until today:
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | Jacob_9821 | | Posted: | May 28, 2020 19:01 | | Subject: | Re: Even More Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I just added comparison photos and additional notes for the following part variants
I've recently discovered. All of these variants were undocumented on BrickLink
until today:
|
Some of these I've noticed over the years but never thought to document them
or anything. Thanks for your work.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 28, 2020 19:20 | | Subject: | Re: Even More Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
“This part has variants with and without two holes on one side (on each side
of the penultimate rung from the end without clips).”
Er, first, isn’t the “penultimate rung from the end without clips” the “second
rung from the end with clips” too?
I believe “second” is more widely understood than “penultimate.”
Then, you’re holding it wrong: it’s the “second rung from the end without clips”
or the “penultimate rung from the end without clips.”
“From” = where I start counting, “penultimate” = the one before last, where I
stop counting.
So if I start counting “from the end without clips,” it’s the second rung that
has holes.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | May 28, 2020 19:24 | | Subject: | Re: Even More Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | Then, you’re holding it wrong
|
Thank you for this input. I have updated the additional note for that part to
remove the confusion.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | randyf | | Posted: | May 28, 2020 21:12 | | Subject: | Re: Even More Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I think every 1xN brick and plate has a version with solid pins underneath and
a version with hollow pins underneath. You have a lot of work ahead of you.
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I just added comparison photos and additional notes for the following part variants
I've recently discovered. All of these variants were undocumented on BrickLink
until today:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
USA, Oklahoma
Luxembourg
South Africa, Western Cape
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
United Kingdom, England
Netherlands, Zuid-Holland
