BrickLink Discussion Forum

Status:

Open

Can someone educate me on how to tell which one of these I have?

70026 Electric, Train 12V Remote Control Switch Motor 4 x 8 x 1 2/3 (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Electric, Train
Marked for Deletion

73112 Electric, Train 12V Manual Switch Motor 4 x 8 x 1 2/3
Parts: Electric, Train

The one I have has three electric contact holes in the end. The 3D image for
73112 does not show any electric contact holes, but I do not trust the 3D images.
Does 73112 have electric contacts?

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 19, 2018 06:40

Subject:

Re: Dark Grey 4095?

Viewed:

42 times

Topic:

Colors

In Colors, BeauBricks writes:

Hey all!

Busy uploading bunches of parts when I came across 4x 4095, but they are in Dark
Grey?
According to the catalog, this part has never been released in DG.

Where does this piece come from? Is it real Lego? I have not found any fake lego
in the bunch.

Thanks!

In the Bricklink catalog, a part becomes "known" when someone lists it in an
inventory. There are still many parts that are known to exist in real life, but
are not yet in inventories, so the catalog does not list them as "known."

It looks like this may be one of those parts. You can see that other sellers
have this for sale in this color, and some have even sold recently - at a high
price for this part!

https://www.bricklink.com/catalogPG.asp?P=4095&colorID=10

As for where it came from I would guess one of these two sets:

7897-1 (Inv) Passenger Train
489 Parts, 3 Minifigures, 2006
Sets: Train: RC Train

7786-1 (Inv) The Batcopter: The Chase for the Scarecrow
284 Parts, 2 Minifigures, 2007
Sets: Batman I

These are the only two that currently have the DBG version inventoried, and they
are from 2006 and 2007, which is around the time Lego switched the colors. Possibly
early versions of these sets had the part in dark gray and later ones in dark
bluish gray.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 18, 2018 17:54

Subject:

Re: Brick 1 x 6 with two bottom tubes?

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

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

3009pb156 Brick 1 x 6 with Red 'Shell' Wide with Squared 'e' Pattern
Parts: Brick, Decorated

Yes, and instead of a 3009, it is printed on a

crssprt02 Brick 1 x 6 without Bottom Tubes, with Cross Supports
Parts: Brick

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 didn't look closely. Weird. No point to the ridges without the pins. Some
kind of error?

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 18, 2018 16:37

Subject:

Re: Brick 1 x 6 with two bottom tubes?

Viewed:

48 times

Topic:

In Catalog Identification, WoutR writes:

In Catalog Identification, normann1974 writes:

I think it must be

3009pb156 Brick 1 x 6 with Red 'Shell' Wide with Squared 'e' Pattern
Parts: Brick, Decorated

Yes, and instead of a 3009, it is printed on a

crssprt02 Brick 1 x 6 without Bottom Tubes, with Cross Supports
Parts: Brick

I have tried to add printed variants like this to the catalog before and have
been told they will not be approved.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 18, 2018 12:12

Subject:

Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs

Viewed:

34 times

Topic:

In LEGO, randyf writes:

In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:

In LEGO, randyf writes:

In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:

If counterparts are threatening to run amok, then freeze the creation of assemblies, or restrict their definition.

Isn't that what we are trying to do here?

No, you're wanting to change the definition of counterparts, not assemblies.

Doing that means we will potentially continue to have assembly entries added
that will not be included in inventories because there will be two decisions
based on different criteria.

Decision #1 is whether an assembly should be added to the catalog (made by the
cat admins) and decision #2 is whether that entry should be included in set inventories
as a counterpart (made by the inventory admins based on criteria under discussion
now).

Changing the rules for decision #2 does nothing to alter decision #1. I think
we should streamline the whole thing into one decision - if it's listed in
the parts catalog, it should be listed in inventories.

I misunderstood the original statement. I follow your logic here.

For the ones that already exist, put them in inventories. This community has
already cataloged 50,000 parts and nearly 15,000 sets. Updating inventories will
not happen overnight, but it will happen. Arguing that it would simply be too
much work is, in my opinion, also losing sight of the purpose of the catalog.

I am one of the largest contributors to the site, and I will not be doing this
work. Are you going to?

Randy

Well, what angers me is those who do the most complaining and champion the increase
in work are the same individuals who do not end up contributing to the work.
See where I'm coming from?

Yes I do, and it is insulting.

Here is an example. I specialize in vintage parts. A good portion of my sales
are to people restoring Classic Space sets. Here is an assembly that was missing
from the catalog:

122c01assy4 (Inv) Plate, Modified 2 x 2 with Red Wheels with 2 Black Wheel Full Rubber Balloon with Axle Hole (122c01 / 4288)
Parts: Wheel & Tire Assembly

Judging by how often I sold the components, I determined there was a market for
it as an assembly. I submitted it and it was approved. Then I added it to the
nine sets in which it appears, as a counterpart. Also approved.

Just a small contribution. I've sold dozens of these since then, and they
are currently selling at the rate of about 20 per month. Not a huge contribution
to the catalog. Not a huge contribution to the income of Bricklink or any one
seller. But all these small contributions by the people to whom they are important
- as well as those of the people who have made regular contributions part of
their Lego hobby - have made this catalog what it is. Encouraging pissing matches
over who does more is counter to the spirit of community on which the site was
built.

Behind this objection is the assumption I am trying to call out here - that we
need to change the catalog based on the needs of the people administrating it
rather than the needs of the people using it. If it's too much work to update
a portion of the catalog then it was too much work to create it in the first
place.

It's a ridiculous objection. No I am not going to update every single
inventory. We - the Bricklink users - are going to update them, probably
as it has always been done, with people choosing to tackle small parts of it,
or make the requests as they have need to. If you choose to work on other things,
that's fine. It all adds up. That you would refuse to work on this has no
bearing on whether others might.

The "too much work" objection was raised when this entry was created in December
2104:

3003old Brick 2 x 2 without Inside Supports
Parts: Brick

Today it is inventoried in almost 500 sets, thanks to your hard work (and Russell's
and Robert's and that of many others). That didn't happen overnight -
it was most recently added to an inventory a couple weeks ago - but it would
not have happened at all if we had decided that creating a useful and accurate
catalog was just too much work.

I am not opposed to the work. I am opposed to the bloat of inventories that impede
my ability to do the work that I do on the site. Yes, my motives are selfish,
but your motives are based on what you want as a seller and in turn also selfish.

Ah. Well, I would just repeat what I have been saying in a slightly different
way - whose "selfish" needs are meant to be met by Bricklink? Catalog contributors?
Or sellers? (and buyers and collectors?)

Like Robert said, not everyone will be happy no matter what decisions are made.
So that is why I wrote the following a few posts ago:

"So maybe we are looking at this too narrowly from both sides. Maybe we need
to ask ourselves if there should be multiple views of an inventory instead of
just one? One for those looking for historical accuracy, one for those looking
at what assemblies can be sold from a set, one for ...?"

Any thoughts on that?

Options are great.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 18, 2018 11:37

Subject:

Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs

Viewed:

31 times

Topic:

In LEGO, randyf writes:

In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:

The reason is that we follow a rule that is arbitrary. Even if that rule is "Lego
calls it a part, so it's a part," that is still arbitrary.

I don't think you understand what arbitrary actually means. When something
is arbitrary, it follows *no* system, can seem random, and is by definition *not*
defined. BrickLink has a system that is largely defined by LEGO themselves. That
is not arbitrary. That is the exact meaning of a definition - trying to define
something and make it not random. I think we are trying to tighten up that definition,
which leads to being more defined and less arbitrary (or not arbitrary at all).

Randy

It is arbitrary because we only follow Lego up to a point, then we depart based
on BL's own arbitrarily-applied "rules." I give examples of where we call
a part a part because Lego does, but where we define parts that Lego does not.
There are also examples of where Lego defines a part but we do not.

And those decisions are not consistent over time - not because we have no rules,
but because the rules we do have are often subjective and not consistently applied.
There seems to be no disagreement about that, but I disagree that the solution
is to replace one subjective rule with another. It will have the effect of shortening
the inventories, but as I have argued elsewhere, that is not in the interest
of the users who want to identify, buy and sell these assemblies.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 18, 2018 11:28

Subject:

Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs

Viewed:

32 times

Topic:

In LEGO, randyf writes:

In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:

If counterparts are threatening to run amok, then freeze the creation of assemblies, or restrict their definition.

Isn't that what we are trying to do here?

I am one of the largest contributors to the site, and I will not be doing this
work. Are you going to?

Randy

Frankly this question angers me. I've seen it many times as a defense against
making much needed changes to the catalog. Many of those changes have been made
despite this line of protest, thankfully, and over time the catalog has become
better because of it.

Behind this objection is the assumption I am trying to call out here - that we
need to change the catalog based on the needs of the people administrating it
rather than the needs of the people using it. If it's too much work to update
a portion of the catalog then it was too much work to create it in the first
place.

It's a ridiculous objection. No I am not going to update every single
inventory. We - the Bricklink users - are going to update them, probably
as it has always been done, with people choosing to tackle small parts of it,
or make the requests as they have need to. If you choose to work on other things,
that's fine. It all adds up. That you would refuse to work on this has no
bearing on whether others might.

The "too much work" objection was raised when this entry was created in December
2104:

3003old Brick 2 x 2 without Inside Supports
Parts: Brick

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 18, 2018 09:38

Subject:

Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

In LEGO, mhortar writes:

In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:

Using

3830c01 Hinge Brick 1 x 4 Swivel
Parts: Hinge
Marked for Deletion

Hasn't there been a set that had different colors for the two pieces in this
hinge brick? I can't think of what the set was though off the top of my head
and I couldn't find it in a quick search, so maybe I'm losing my mind.

Josh

There have been, yes. But this is not an issue. We already have a method for
dealing with bi-color parts, which is to define one color in the title and one
in the color field. Like these parts, for example:

4592c02 (Inv) Antenna Small Base with Black Lever (4592 / 4593)
Parts: Antenna

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 18, 2018 09:34

Subject:

Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs

Viewed:

31 times

Topic:

Call it a rule that has been applied arbitrarily, then. And the method under
discussion is just as subject to random application because it is apparently
based on how difficult it is to separate the parts. Randy has already disagreed
with me on the relative difficulty of pulling the hinge plates apart compared
to the hinge bricks. That would be how we would be deciding whether a part is
inventoried or not?

Does that not seem absurd?

The comparison to minifigs is not merely general - it is exactly analogous. They
are both common assemblies of easily-separated parts that collectors, buyers
and sellers want to deal with both as a unit and as individual components. We
include minifigs in inventories, we should include assemblies, too.

That Lego sets have photos of the minifigs on the box is meaningless - as I say,
we depart from Lego all the time because the needs of the secondary market are
different. And besides, the fully-assembled counterparts are also pictured on
the box and that does not bless them into the inventory. And besides again, see
the subthread about the Cars characters, which are also named and appear on the
boxes but are not inventoried as figures or counterparts. So - Lego defining
an assembly does not mean that Bricklink does, and vice versa. I have
no problem with that, because as I say our needs are different.

And I think we may have lost sight of what the needs of the Bricklink user are.
When we start layering rules on top of one another for the ease of administrators
rather than the needs of the user, we are failing to learn from the past.

It would be much simpler to have one rule rather than two, and the place to apply
the rule is in the creation of assembly entries. If counterparts are threatening
to run amok, then freeze the creation of assemblies, or restrict their definition.
For the ones that already exist, put them in inventories. This community has
already cataloged 50,000 parts and nearly 15,000 sets. Updating inventories will
not happen overnight, but it will happen. Arguing that it would simply be too
much work is, in my opinion, also losing sight of the purpose of the catalog.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 17, 2018 23:25

Subject:

Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs

Viewed:

43 times

Topic:

In LEGO, randyf writes:

In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:

I'll take a somewhat contrary position. I think many times we base definitions
on arbitrary rules about the parts themselves and we ignore how the catalog is
used.

Defining a counterpart as only something that cannot be returned to its original
state at first looks like an elegant and simple method to categorize counterparts.
But collectors, buyers and sellers are not here to appreciate the talmudic deliberations
over what constitutes a counterpart. They are here for three things: identification,
buying and selling.

Using

3830c01 Hinge Brick 1 x 4 Swivel
Parts: Hinge
Marked for Deletion

I would bet that most collectors trying to identify that part in a set would
have no trouble finding the constituent part entries, but we would need data
to back that up. In any case, writing "Any collector...is confused..." is extremely
hyperbolic.

Any buyer wanting to complete a set with the components of this part might never
realize he can buy it assembled. He may think his only choice is to add each
half individually to his want list and hope he finds a seller who has them both.

A seller wanting to list it has a choice - does he list it as an assembly thereby
disconnecting it from buyers who are shopping via set inventories? Or does he
take it apart and list the halves separately, hoping that he doesn't have
to wait for two separate buyers to come take each one?

Now look at a practically identical part:

2429c01 (Inv) Hinge Plate 1 x 4 Swivel (2429 / 2430)
Parts: Hinge

I understand the analogy you are trying to make, but the comparison is apples
to oranges.

This part in *no* way can be disassembled as easily as 3830c01. It is always
packaged as a complete assembly, and it is not meant to be taken apart, just
as steering wheel assemblies are not meant to be taken apart. 3830c01 is packaged
as separate components and is very easy to take apart due to the Technic pin
connection which everyone is used to handling.

Also, it is not *our* arbitrary rule that calls this a part. It is LEGO themselves
who call this a part. LEGO do not sell the halves of it separately to consumers,
so why would anyone expect them separate. However, 3830c01 is made of two parts
that are both separately recognized and sold to consumers by LEGO. No one gets
these parts as a whole from LEGO, so why would the expectation at BrickLink be
any different to what comes in the packages that we all open.

In the end, I fail to see where these items are in anyway similar besides their
function.

So rather than a more arbitrarily restrictive definition of counterpart, I would
propose a broader one that accounts for how the catalog is actually used:

If an assembly is common enough to be added as a catalog entry, it should
also be included as a counterpart.

Perhaps not the direction people were anticipating, but I think I'll sell
more hinges once they're listed as counterparts in inventories and people
can find them.

Your definition is a nice one at the other extreme of this debate, so thanks
for chiming in. As someone who works on inventories, I want them to be as simple
as possible, and currently they can get quite bloated with all the Counterpart
entries. Your definition would just lead to more bloat in the inventories that
I would have to wade through. However, I understand that sellers have different
priorities with the inventories.

So maybe we are looking at this too narrowly from both sides. Maybe we need to
ask ourselves if there should be multiple views of an inventory instead of just
one? One for those looking for historical accuracy, one for those looking at
what assemblies can be sold from a set, one for ...?

I don't know what the answer is, but I am glad the situation is being looked
into.

Cheers,
Randy

I think most people would not understand why one is in inventories and the other
is not. The parts are very similar.

The reason is that we follow a rule that is arbitrary. Even if that rule is "Lego
calls it a part, so it's a part," that is still arbitrary.

It's arbitrary because we depart from Lego in many ways that make sense from
the point of view of the buyer and seller. We define minifigs as a unit and inventory
them as assemblies, for one thing. Lego does not.

Why do we do that? Because that's how people want to use our catalog. Imagine
what it would be like if we applied this restricted counterpart definition to
minifigs and did nnot allow them to be listed in set inventories. It would make
it simpler to create inventories, right? People could still figure things out
by tracking down the constituent parts. So why not?

Because minifigs are assemblies that users want to buy, sell and identify as
an assembled unit. The same is true of many counterparts.

"Bloated" inventories do not concern me. I'm in favor of more information,
not less. But if we want to control it, then the place to do that is with the
parts catalog by not adding these assemblies in the first place. But if they
ARE added, it seems silly not to connect them to their sets by including them
in inventories. That is one of the basic features of the catalog.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 17, 2018 19:08

Subject:

Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs

Viewed:

50 times

Topic:

3830c01 Hinge Brick 1 x 4 Swivel
Parts: Hinge
Marked for Deletion

as an example, this part's components almost always appear
in pairs. When they do, they are always assembled in building the set. When the
set is taken apart and the pieces consolidated into those used lots that make
up the source of my stock, they are almost always still assembled.

Any collector coming to Bricklink to try to identify a set that includes this
part is confused because it appears in no sets.

Any buyer wanting to complete a set with the components of this part might never
realize he can buy it assembled. He may think his only choice is to add each
half individually to his want list and hope he finds a seller who has them both.

A seller wanting to list it has a choice - does he list it as an assembly thereby
disconnecting it from buyers who are shopping via set inventories? Or does he
take it apart and list the halves separately, hoping that he doesn't have
to wait for two separate buyers to come take each one?

Now look at a practically identical part:

2429c01 (Inv) Hinge Plate 1 x 4 Swivel (2429 / 2430)
Parts: Hinge

Collectors, buyers and sellers have none of the same problems with this part,
because our arbitrary rule calls this a "part" even though it is made up of two
separate components that can be disassembled just as easily as 3830c01.

So rather than a more arbitrarily restrictive definition of counterpart, I would
propose a broader one that accounts for how the catalog is actually used:

If an assembly is common enough to be added as a catalog entry, it should
also be included as a counterpart.

Perhaps not the direction people were anticipating, but I think I'll sell
more hinges once they're listed as counterparts in inventories and people
can find them.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 16, 2018 11:14

Subject:

Re: Flag sticker or stickers?

Viewed:

44 times

Topic:

In Catalog, normann1974 writes:

Do they all have two stickers or is it one sticker that is wrapped around the
end of the flag?

Looks like most of them are individual stickers - am I imagining some that have
one sticker that wraps around?

At any rate, most of them are described as having a "sticker" when it appears
they have two stickers. I definitely looks like something that should be cleared
up.

Some of them already are entered as you describe

3596pb05 Flag on Flagpole, Straight with Oval and Two Crossed Cutlasses Pattern on Both Sides (Stickers) - Sets 6762 / 6769
Parts: Flag, Decorated

I can't tell from the image of the sticker sheet from set

1592-1 (Inv) Town Square - Castle Scene
419 Parts, 11 Minifigures, 1980
Sets: Town: Classic Town: Traffic

if it's
two individual stickers or one large. The sticker sheets for sets

939-1 (Inv) Flags, Trees and Road Signs
19 Parts, 1973
Sets: Universal Building Set: Supplemental

and

940-1 (Inv) Flags, Signs and Trees
19 Parts, 1973
Sets: Universal Building Set: Supplemental

seems to be two individual stickers and the flag which I'm
currently selling has two stickers on it.

/Jan

After looking at the note on the American flag version, I wonder if this is one
of those situations where many of these flags were entered long ago with no indication
that they had stickers on both sides, then never updated because some sellers
were selling them with only one sticker.

It might sound odd, but it would not be the first time incorrect entries were
allowed to persist simply because fixing them might confuse people. I would suggest
using the change feature to request new descriptions modeled on 3596pb05 above
and see what happens.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 16, 2018 07:01

Subject:

Re: Flag sticker or stickers?

Viewed:

29 times

Topic:

In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:

In Catalog, normann1974 writes:

I have a question about flags like these:

3596pb12 Flag on Flagpole, Straight with Great Britain Pattern (Stickers)
Parts: Flag, Decorated

The names of parts like this one suggest that they only have a sticker on one
side, but all sets that they occur in have at least two of every sticker (some
mirrored), suggesting that they should have a sticker on both sides. I suggest
that either a note is made on the items or that they are renamed so that the
name says that they have stickers on both sides.

Opinions?

/Jan

Do they all have two stickers or is it one sticker that is wrapped around the
end of the flag?

3596pb05 Flag on Flagpole, Straight with Oval and Two Crossed Cutlasses Pattern on Both Sides (Stickers) - Sets 6762 / 6769
Parts: Flag, Decorated

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 16, 2018 06:52

Subject:

Re: Flag sticker or stickers?

Viewed:

38 times

Topic:

In Catalog, normann1974 writes:

I have a question about flags like these:

3596pb12 Flag on Flagpole, Straight with Great Britain Pattern (Stickers)
Parts: Flag, Decorated

Look at the note on this flag - seems this is an issue that has caused problems
in the past.

3596pb04 Flag on Flagpole, Straight with United States Pattern (Stickers)
Parts: Flag, Decorated

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 16, 2018 06:45

Subject:

Re: Flag sticker or stickers?

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

In Catalog, normann1974 writes:

I have a question about flags like these:

3596pb12 Flag on Flagpole, Straight with Great Britain Pattern (Stickers)
Parts: Flag, Decorated

Do they all have two stickers or is it one sticker that is wrapped around the
end of the flag?

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 16, 2018 06:42

Subject:

Re: Identifying sets from inventory

Viewed:

26 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, malcolmsetter writes:

I was wondering if it was possible to identify from a store inventory what sets
could be made (or 90% made). This would be helpful with bulk buys and seeing
what sets could be made from the bulk purchase.

There used to be a search function where you could put in a set number and see
all the parts from that set that were in a certain store. It wasn't exactly
like what you describe, but it was useful for people looking to complete sets.

That function "broke" during one of the site updates and has not been fixed.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 7, 2018 19:19

Subject:

Re: Two versions of 33bc01?

Viewed:

45 times

Topic:

In Catalog, patpendlego writes:

In Catalog, 62Bricks writes:

In Catalog, patpendlego writes:

In Catalog, normann1974 writes:

Hi

I just sorted my old doors and found that there are actually two versions of

33bc01 Door 1 x 2 x 3 Hinge on Right with Trans-Clear Glass
Parts: Door

. One with a hole in the top and one without. The BrickLink part shows
two images, one with a hole and one without. Shouldn't this part be split
into two?

/Jan

All of these doors have glued glass, hole or no hole, with one exception: 32b
with 32glass in CA plastic. I have not found these in ABS, nor have I found a
33b. Yet

So there is a seperate entry.

32b Door 1 x 2 x 3 Hinge on Left, without Glass
Parts: Door

32glass Glass for Door 1 x 2 x 3 Left
Parts: Window, Glass & Shutter

I have several of these in red ABS

I am interested, sent you a PM

To be clear - I have several 32b in Red ABS - I thought it was this one you said
you had not seen in ABS.

All of my doors of this type are 32s.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 7, 2018 18:37

Subject:

Re: Two versions of 33bc01?

Viewed:

31 times

Topic:

In Catalog, patpendlego writes:

In Catalog, normann1974 writes:

Hi

I just sorted my old doors and found that there are actually two versions of

33bc01 Door 1 x 2 x 3 Hinge on Right with Trans-Clear Glass
Parts: Door

. One with a hole in the top and one without. The BrickLink part shows
two images, one with a hole and one without. Shouldn't this part be split
into two?

/Jan

All of these doors have glued glass, hole or no hole, with one exception: 32b
with 32glass in CA plastic. I have not found these in ABS, nor have I found a
33b. Yet

So there is a seperate entry.

32b Door 1 x 2 x 3 Hinge on Left, without Glass
Parts: Door

32glass Glass for Door 1 x 2 x 3 Left
Parts: Window, Glass & Shutter

I have several of these in red ABS

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 5, 2018 08:45

Subject:

Re: Two versions of 33bc01?

Viewed:

34 times

Topic:

In Catalog, PurpleDave writes:

In Catalog, normann1974 writes:

I just sorted my old doors and found that there are actually two versions of

33bc01 Door 1 x 2 x 3 Hinge on Right with Trans-Clear Glass
Parts: Door

. One with a hole in the top and one without. The BrickLink part shows
two images, one with a hole and one without. Shouldn't this part be split
into two?

There is no hole. In the no-hole version, the glass is cut into a perfect rectangle
and attached with thin lines of glue just above and below the opening. The mold
is also slightly different. The edges are sharper and the top section is thicker
on the front.

In the version with a hole, the glass has a tab on the top edge that fits the
hole. The corners are rounded. It may or may not be glued in place also. There
are two versions of the glass - one is shown here (in red) where the lower edge
of the glass is curved to accommodate the center prong. This version is glued.
There is another version where there is a tab on the lower edge that fits into
the channel molded into the prong. I think these are removable, but I don't
have one handy to check.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 5, 2018 08:27

Subject:

Re: Two versions of 33bc01?

Viewed:

29 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SezaR writes:

I just noticed another difference: the handle or key-hole or whatever it is
in some versions it is on the right and in the other on the left

These variants are cataloged

33bc01 Door 1 x 2 x 3 Hinge on Right with Trans-Clear Glass
Parts: Door

32bc01 Door 1 x 2 x 3 Hinge on Left with Trans-Clear Glass
Parts: Door

In Catalog, SezaR writes:

These are my windows. Note that:
- the windows on the right column have hole in their frames.
- the windows on the left column don't have any hole.
- all glasses are fixed.

I tried to remove the glass of one (the red one on the right column, on the bottom)
I managed to remove it by breaking it! (another sacrifice of my personal collection

) the glass doesn't have a tap. Nevertheless, it is fixed.

My white one on the right column was already broken but it is interesting that
the shape of the glass glued to the window is different (at the bottom) like
those on the left column.

In Catalog, normann1974 writes:

Couple quick questions. Is the glass loose in the red door, or is it still glued
to the frame? If you look on the inside of the yellow frame, can you tell if
the glass has tabs or if it's cut straight across? I ask this because from
where I'm sitting, looking at a single photo on a computer screen, I can't
tell if it's possible that the yellow frame has the same hole and it's
just obscured by a layer of flash. This happened with the headlight bricks,
which resulted in them being split into two catalog entries for "slotted" and
"unslotted", when it was really just parts where the flash was still attached
and parts where it either didn't form or had been removed (it was pretty
easy to poke it out with a fingernail and leave a nice crisp rectangular hole,
which tells you just how intentional it was when it occurred).

There might be a hole inside the door frame, but it doesn't go all the way
through to the outside on the yellow door. I'll check and answer your questings
regarding the glass during next week. I won't be home until then.

I have pictures of all combinations of hole/no hole and color. 4 in total. Two
with hole (red, white) and two without (red, yellow). Images attached.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Aug 2, 2018 18:06

Subject:

Re: Question on catalog image uploads

Viewed:

22 times

Topic:

In Catalog, crazylegoman writes:

In Catalog, Pippyblocks writes:

Isn't 600 the longest side it can be?

In Catalog, crazylegoman writes:

I was just trying to upload an image to the catalog, and I got an error that
says,

Oops! There was a problem processing your request:

1. Parameter Error.

The image is within the 800X600 pixel size requirement. What else could be the
trouble?

David

It says 800X600 on the upload page. My image was 600 pixels tall, but less than
800 wide.

David

The error message for images that are too large specifically gives the reason.
Is it an accepted file type?

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jul 31, 2018 17:53

Subject:

Re: Damaged or Discolored filtering

Viewed:

28 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, WoutR writes:

In Suggestions, 62Bricks writes:

In Suggestions, Canadeon writes:

Hi folks,

I've been getting a bunch of orders lately with severely damaged and discolored
bricks that are coming out of big orders. While I attempt to skim the orders
for things that stand out like that, it seems like its easy to miss these things,
and then I wind up with dozens of low quality bricks I wouldn't give to kids
for free.

I have two suggestions:

1. Create a new category for quality. We have new, we have used (should probably
be renamed to gently used) and there could be a third category for "partially
digested, covered in feces, discolored" or use a number rating system like
comic books do.

2. ANY comments on the item made by the seller should be highlighted in a different
color. When I am skimming a list of several hundred bricks, the seller notes
tend to get lost in with the brick description. Leave the brick description
black, and make the seller comments red. If I see red, I'll know something
needs to be read more carefully.

The solution to this problem is for sellers not to list badly damaged or discolored
parts at all.

Rather than complicating the problem with rating systems or long descriptions,
Bricklink should adopt a policy that damaged or discolored pieces should be sold
as custom lots only and not under the individual catalog entries.

To my mind there are two qualities of used part - those good enough to sell,
and those not. As a seller, I do not have the time to categorize parts into ten
possible grades. I have time to look at each part and decide if it's good
enough to list or not.

I am buying cheap "filler brick quality" 3001 and 3001old. Those absolutely need
an accurate description, but not a ban.

I think they should be listed as custom lots. Looking through the current listings
for 3001s, I see many, many listings at one cent each that are described as damaged,
scratched, discolored, etc. and the quantities are less than 5. Nobody looking
for filler bricks is going to buy them one or two at a time from 100 different
shops. They would be best sold as large custom lots. Given BL's current search
function, they would actually be easier to search for and find there than in
the regular listings (unless you use goatleg).

(In the meantime, that seller who is listing one heavily damaged brick for one
cent is probably going to have that brick in his inventory forever. The longest-listed
one I found in the three minutes I spent checking has been for sale since March,
2013.)

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jul 31, 2018 06:17

Subject:

Re: Damaged or Discolored filtering

Viewed:

28 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, Canadeon writes:

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jul 3, 2018 18:13

Subject:

Re: Feedback on Rejected Catalog Submissions

Viewed:

34 times

Topic:

In Suggestions, StormChaser writes:

In Suggestions, todeluca writes:

I find it odd that therobo would repeatedly state that feedback on rejected Catalog Submissions is not helpful

Actually, you're misrepresenting what he said just a little. He said (emphasis
added):

"I think it's not helpful to publicly indicate why items are not approved."

That doesn't necessarily mean that he disagrees with telling the submitter
why changes/additions were not approved. In fact, he clarifies his position
later in the same thread:

https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=956274

I don't think he's clarifying the difference between making the information
public or not.
What he is antagonistic toward is any kind of discussion of why an entry
is rejected. He says, "But besides notes on the pending submissions...there are
no resources to discuss every potential rejection."

This is incorrect. Rejected items are also visible in the logs, and just as with
pending submissions four or five words could be added to indicate why they were
rejected. No discussion is necessary. Therobo apparently opposes doing this,
even though the time involved would be minimal. There have been 28 rejections
in the past 30 days. A five-word note in each rejected submission log would require
140 words. At an average typing rate of 40 words per minute, that's 3.5 minutes
per month. We don't have the resources?

On the other hand, we currently have open discussions on every inventory
change request - rather, there is a forum post generated and discussion is possible.
Not all of them generate discussion because the information is straightforward
or documented or accepted by consensus. When a request is not approved, the reasoning
is usually spelled out in the thread.

If it's good for inventories, it's good for parts. It would educate the
community and it would not necessarily mean every new entry is debated or every
rejection challenged.

I do not base my opinion on a single post in a single thread. Therobo has made
his position pretty clear for a long time in many different ways. He doesn't
want to have to give anyone a reason for rejecting a submission, publicly or
otherwise. I think there are many users who feel the admins should have more
accountability.

Author:

62Bricks

Posted:

Jul 3, 2018 15:27

Subject:

Re: Feedback on Rejected Catalog Submissions

Viewed:

52 times

Topic: