Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | mhortar  | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2019 21:09 | | Subject: | Re: Factory assembled 4624 version (glued?) | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, elias3 writes:
| | In Catalog, normann1974 writes:
| | | | Rubber does harden over time as the plasticizers leak out. This hardening can
be accelerated by heat and light as well as changes in the amount of cross-linking
of the polymer chains. How old are these tires?
|
I can't tell. They were found in used bricks I bought. According to BrickLink:
1984-2018 (timeline of 4624 wheel).
/Jan
|
Hi
Yes they are factory pre-assembled wheels.
The first ones that came out were glued or pressed together.
Same for the 3464c02 and 4624c01 and 4624c02.
(from 1984-85 till I think begin 90s)
Also same for the first 6015 type with the 6014a.
The rubber is also harder, the assembles are softer in rubber.
Stefaan
|
Were these only glued in certain regions? This time frame was the heyday of my
LEGO collecting as a child, but I can't ever recall seeing glued wheels (and
I took *everything* apart). I only ever bought sets from the US though.
Do you happen to recall any specific sets that would have had glued wheels? I
have a ton of sealed sets from this era and would like to try and see if any
of them might be glued.
Josh
|
 |
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Feb 26, 2019 02:20 | | Subject: | Re: Why is Finch Dallow sw1005 from 2017? | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog, mhortar writes:
| | I realize that it's a 1 piece change (hair) compared to 2 (helmet, head)
|
No in Kanan also two parts were changed.
Beside color of hair also print on the head
(black printing)
vs.
* | | 3626cpb1191 Minifigure, Head Dual Sided Dark Brown Eyebrows, Goatee, Cheek Lines, Smile / Neutral Pattern (SW Kanan Jarrus) - Hollow Stud
Parts: Minifigure, Head |
(dark brown printing)
|
Well, that sure does shoot half my argument down, doesn't it? 
I still think changing from an unnamed to named character is enough of a change
to warrant a new set, but I appear to the in the minority.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Feb 25, 2019 19:24 | | Subject: | Re: Why is Finch Dallow sw1005 from 2017? | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | There are lot of sets with changed art on boxes (redesigned) without second
entry
for example
In both cases images on box were changed when those sets were redesign. The Ghost
case is exactly the same as current the Bomber case. Kanan in first run copies
had black hair and on the box of set it is also with black hair and head printing,
but LEGO in this case very quickly realised about mistake and changed Kanan to
brown hair and head print, changing minifg on box to brown Kanan.
In second case due to redesign, change is visible in construction of Tie on box,
two box arts then exists before redesign and after.
Don't remember now any more. But when it will be decided to create second
entry for 75188 then second entries for those two sets must be created also for
consistency.
When reading commentaries on the web I wonder how many pepole are suprised by
this change, it really nothing special as you see LEGO done this before. Almost
nobody remember Kanan case. But Kanan isn't popular minifigs, Rebels cartoon
weren't such a hype. Lego even stop producing Rebels sets after third seson
and never done sets from last fourth season.
List of redesigned sets:
https://brickset.com/sets/list-18333
|
I disagree that the Ghost case is the exact same as the Bomber. The Ghost kept
the same minifig, just changed the hair color to be more accurate to the source
material. The bomber change went from an unnamed pilot to a named character.
I realize that it's a 1 piece change (hair) compared to 2 (helmet, head),
but the context of changing to a named character that more accurately represents
the actual actor in the source material should add additional weight to the decision
on whether or not a second variation of the set is warranted. Considering
the possibility of confusion with people expecting one version of the character
or the other, it would seem like adding the alternate set number would be an
easy way to alleviate that problem in the future.
I'm not sure what the box change was for the TIE Fighter, so can't comment
on that.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2019 14:33 | | Subject: | Re: Aren't these differences ridiculous? | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| |
(There might still be problems though. Say, a buyer parts out a set into a WL,
they are asked if they allow other variants, they accept because they think it
will be cheaper and easier to fullfil, but the set really can only be built with
the one variant  )
|
This part is the one that would potentially cause issues. Things like the variations
of 3933/3934 that can cause parts to physically not attach in some scenarios.
That's the first I can think of just because I've experienced it in the
past.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2019 13:29 | | Subject: | Re: Allow AFOLs to "Bricklink" the ADP sets | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Suggestions, Teup writes:
| | In Suggestions, mhortar writes:
| | In Suggestions, Brick.Door writes:
| | There are no plans to do so, but I hope that once the regular sales period is
finished Bricklink allows the inventory of these sets to be added to the catalog
so people can add them to a want list and buy the parts they need to build them.
Since they use mostly common parts, I think many AFOLs would prefer to build
them with the parts in their own collection, and just buy any ones they are missing.
Not only would this generate revenue for Bricklink by increased sales, it would
be an olive branch to the sellers who have been completely excluded from this
promotion.
Bricklink has done so much to build the AFOL community and it has become a verb
within our vocabulary (much like Google has in the general population). It would
be a sad irony if the sets created by Bricklink to celebrate AFOLs cannot be
Bricklinked by AFOLs.
|
From what I understand from reading about these sets, these aren't going
to be officially recognized LEGO sets. If that's the case, I don't feel
like they belong in the catalog. Someone will post the inventory somewhere (from
what I understand, it happens with most popular MOCs), so there is nothing stopping
a buyer from creating their own wanted list and purchase the parts without having
the set in the catalog.
Josh
|
They're still more official than BrickArms, which is also in the catalog...
Plus, the whole "exciting" part about the whole project, according to BL itself,
is the fact that it's an official cooperation with the LEGO Group.
So yes, I definitely see the irony.
|
I objected to adding BrickArms as well, for what it's worth. Fat lot of good
that did
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2019 12:55 | | Subject: | Re: Allow AFOLs to "Bricklink" the ADP sets | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Suggestions, Brick.Door writes:
| | There are no plans to do so, but I hope that once the regular sales period is
finished Bricklink allows the inventory of these sets to be added to the catalog
so people can add them to a want list and buy the parts they need to build them.
Since they use mostly common parts, I think many AFOLs would prefer to build
them with the parts in their own collection, and just buy any ones they are missing.
Not only would this generate revenue for Bricklink by increased sales, it would
be an olive branch to the sellers who have been completely excluded from this
promotion.
Bricklink has done so much to build the AFOL community and it has become a verb
within our vocabulary (much like Google has in the general population). It would
be a sad irony if the sets created by Bricklink to celebrate AFOLs cannot be
Bricklinked by AFOLs.
|
From what I understand from reading about these sets, these aren't going
to be officially recognized LEGO sets. If that's the case, I don't feel
like they belong in the catalog. Someone will post the inventory somewhere (from
what I understand, it happens with most popular MOCs), so there is nothing stopping
a buyer from creating their own wanted list and purchase the parts without having
the set in the catalog.
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Jan 28, 2019 04:22 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig rsq004 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, jaspervries writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 1 Part {Trans-Light Blue to Trans-Dark Blue} 2447 Minifigure, Visor Standard
|
What is your source for making this change request?
Thanks,
Randy
|
For what it's worth, I have a sealed copy of 6479. I can see the trans-dark
blue visor in the bag, but I can't get a good photo of it. This was the best
I could come up with...
Josh
|
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Jan 25, 2019 17:48 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 730-2 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 1 Part Trans-Clear {3003 Brick 2 x 2 to 3003old Brick 2 x 2 without Inside Supports}
Comments from Submitter:
I changed a few other bricks in this set and then later noticed this one. I think it qualifies on oldness to change transparent bricks, right? Since old opaque bricks were also found in the set.
|
Technically all transparent 3003 bricks do not have inside supports, so according
to just the name of the part, all transparent 3003s would qualify as "3003old".
However, if we were to change all inventories in this way, then we would have
3003old parts all the way through the LEGO timeline up to the present day, which
would not be ideal. I also believe that the 3003old entry was created for those
looking for vintage _opaque_ 3003s.
When looking at the BrickLink data, it looks like the switch from 3003old to
3003 occurred around the mid-1980s, so the cutoff for including the Trans-Clear
brick as a 3003old in some inventories and as a 3003 in other inventories has
been arbitrarily set around the 1984 point. I guess this sort of makes sense,
but I am not too keen about the solution employed. I don't want to change
any more inventories with these parts in transparent colors until it is discussed
further by the admins.
This request will be rejected for now.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Should there be a new catalog item added, something like 3003trans or 3003t
to try and differentiate between vintage, modern, and modern transparent parts?
Maybe 3003old needs to be renamed to 'Brick 2x2 pre-1980 without inside supports'
or 'Brick 2x2 vintage without inside supports'...
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Jan 4, 2019 16:01 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1870-1 | | Viewed: | 17 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
| In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, FreeStorm writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 4 Part 3641 Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small
* Delete 4 Part 4624 White Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm
* Change 4 Part White 4624c02 Wheel 8mm D. x 6mm with Black Tire 15mm D. x 6mm Offset Tread Small (4624 / 3641) {Counterpart to Regular}
Comments from Submitter:
Picture will follow
|
I know.. It's difficult to prove the complete wheel 
Please to not decline, I will cancel my request if you not approve.
-Fred
|
Is that the largest the image can get? Do you have a link to a better one?
- Randy
|
Randy,
The image come from Ebay:
-Fred
|
Your message is going to get cancelled because you can't post links to ebay.
However, I looked at the much larger image, and it does look like the wheels/tires
are together. In any case, I just bought the polybag, so we will know for sure
very soon! 
- Randy
|
I also buy this set as new
|
I didn't have this one yet, so I figured "what the hell."
|
lol, that line of thinking has gotten me into soooooo much trouble...
Josh
|
|
| Author: | mhortar | | Posted: | Dec 24, 2018 02:08 | | Subject: | Re: New Relationship Catalog Project Underway | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | We have long needed a relationship match that shows items which fit together
and which are frequently used together. I have asked for this type of match
in the past and have gotten nowhere.
Instead, these kinds of matches were added as paired parts even though they did
not fit the spirit or definition of that match (and the sentence "Exceptions
to these definitions are determined at administrative discretion." was added
to the Item Relationships definitions page). Some examples of items currently
matched as paired parts:
* | | 44225 Technic Rotation Joint Disk with Large Pin and 3L Liftarm Thick
Parts: Technic |
* | | 44224 Technic Rotation Joint Disk with Large Pin Hole and 3L Liftarm Thick
Parts: Technic |
In my ongoing struggle to make the world a better place, generally speaking,
by addressing first-world problems of the lowest magnitude, we now have a new
relationship match:
Parts that Fit Together
Shows parts that naturally fit together which are designed to work together
and which are nearly always used together as a single unit.
If anyone sees where this definition could be improved, then please let me know.
Otherwise, start sending me some new item relationships and let's see how
well this works. I've added a few to get us started and here is one of them
so you can see how it looks:
See the project on the catalog roadmap:
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=2476
See the new relationship match added and defined today:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogRel.asp
|
So I tried adding a new relationship for and and got an error.
Should I have modified the existing relationship instead?
Josh
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
