| Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | 62Bricks  | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2018 10:48 | | Subject: | 12V Train 70026 and 73112 difference | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | 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 |
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:
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: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Identification, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, normann1974 writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, normann1974 writes:
| | I found this brick among my spare parts. I can't find this configuration
of bottom tubes anywhere in the catalog among 1x6 bricks. It doesn't look
to me like the missing tubes are broken off, they're just missing. Does anyone
recognize it?
|
I think it must be
|
Yes, and instead of a 3009, it is printed on a
I have tried to add printed variants like this to the catalog before and have
been told they will not be approved.
|
I would say it's neither of the two. 3009pb156 has 5 buttom tubes, and crssprt02
has none (but two cross supports). Mine has 2 buttom tubes with supports.
/Jan
|
Yes, and it has thin walls with vertical ridges. This is not an early brick design.
|
I 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: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog Identification, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, normann1974 writes:
| | I found this brick among my spare parts. I can't find this configuration
of bottom tubes anywhere in the catalog among 1x6 bricks. It doesn't look
to me like the missing tubes are broken off, they're just missing. Does anyone
recognize it?
|
I think it must be
|
Yes, and instead of a 3009, it is printed on a
I have tried to add printed variants like this to the catalog before and have
been told they will not be approved.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 12:12 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| 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
|
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.
|
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:
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:
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.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
|
