| Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | EmpireBricksNY  | | Posted: | Mar 21, 2018 12:46 | | Subject: | Re: Tax information in order export | | Viewed: | 117 times | | Topic: | Suggestions | |
| I have all the columns opened up, and the tax information isn't there. It
also isn't calculated in the total amount received from buyers.
It definitely shows on invoices, which is where I look for the address when I
know tax was collected, but to find those orders, I have to look through my filed
orders.
In Suggestions, bricks2you writes:
| | Should be there, might be called additional charges #2. Shows on invoices as
sales tax.
|
|
 |
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Mar 21, 2018 12:17 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6872-1 | | Viewed: | 106 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, el_gordo writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | The standard is that the most commonly-appearing part is the regular and the
less-common part is the alternate. I believe this standard was enacted to make
errors less likely when parting out sets.
However, I'm rather dissatisfied with that standard because it's somewhat
difficult to know which version of a part appeared more frequently, especially
for older sets. I'd prefer to see the variation which appeared first listed
as regular and any later variations listed as an alternates.
|
Agreed. In fact, there's an extra layer of awkwardness in this set's
inventory - it is the only set from 1985 (and in fact, the first ever)
which lists type 4085b as primary.
It's been 15 years since the original inventory and therefore it'd be
preposterous to ask whether the souce was MISB or not; I strongly suspect
it not to have been so.
|
Normally old inventories with no source are unreliable when it comes to variants.
This particular submitter, though, is an expert on Classic Space, and when I
have contacted him in the past he has been able to defend all of his old inventories
with sealed set contents.
However, this particular part presents a real problem, because up until just
a few years ago there were not good images showing all the variants side by side.
Even now there are some BL members (certain of them experienced) who have trouble
distinguishing the different types.
|
|
| Author: | el_gordo | | Posted: | Mar 21, 2018 11:34 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6872-1 | | Viewed: | 95 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | The standard is that the most commonly-appearing part is the regular and the
less-common part is the alternate. I believe this standard was enacted to make
errors less likely when parting out sets.
However, I'm rather dissatisfied with that standard because it's somewhat
difficult to know which version of a part appeared more frequently, especially
for older sets. I'd prefer to see the variation which appeared first listed
as regular and any later variations listed as an alternates.
|
Agreed. In fact, there's an extra layer of awkwardness in this set's
inventory - it is the only set from 1985 (and in fact, the first ever)
which lists type 4085b as primary.
It's been 15 years since the original inventory and therefore it'd be
preposterous to ask whether the souce was MISB or not; I strongly suspect
it not to have been so.
In fact, back in 2005 this element was mentioned here (in german): https://www.1000steine.de/de/gemeinschaft/forum/?entry=1&id=165413
as having a b-type since 1986, and a c-type since 1993. That discussion does
not prove anything in itself, and nonetheless... cries "uncommon" regarding b-type
in 1985. Which should be enough for now, as per the current standard 
I'll follow elias3's lead and consider a-type as regular, and b-type
as alternate. Should I submit a brand new request, then?
Pedro
|
|
| Author: | jancg | | Posted: | Mar 21, 2018 11:24 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 5571-1 | | Viewed: | 97 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| Are you sure? In '96 jumpers with grooves existed for quite a while!
In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 7 Part Black {3794 Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud (Jumper) (Undetermined Type) to 3794a Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud without Groove (Jumper)}
* Change 2 Part Light Gray {3794 Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud (Jumper) (Undetermined Type) to 3794a Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud without Groove (Jumper)}
|
|
|
| Author: | elias3 | | Posted: | Mar 21, 2018 10:51 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 4011-1 | | Viewed: | 91 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, jancg writes:
| | That's a clear 'absolutely not'!
I'd say grooved jumper plates were introduced sometime in the 80's.
Jan.
|
Hi Jan
no you're wrong...
first 'groove' ones came around 2004
a few weeks ago there was a part change by the admins, all 3794 changed to the
'undetermined type' now a few members do the inventory changes to the
right 3794a type
Stefaan
| |
In Inventories Requests, el_gordo writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 1 Part White {3794 Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud (Jumper) (Undetermined Type) to 3794a Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud without Groove (Jumper)}
Comments from Submitter:
All jumper plates produced in the 20th century are the same, ungrooved type
|
|
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
|
