BrickLink Discussion Forum

I think I have one or two of those, if I can find them I'll check mine.

In Catalog Requests, tpr writes:

4215pb003 Panel 1 x 4 x 3 with Blue, Red and Silver Space Mechanical Pattern on Inside (Sticker) - Set 6949 (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Panel, Decorated
Marked for Deletion

I have this item with solid studs, so should be under 4215a

It is currently under 4215 which is undetermined.

Can anyone check the third picture - comes up too small for me, to see the studs

If they are solid, which I think they are, this wants re-assigning to a 4215a
number

Thanks

tpr

Author:

tpr

Posted:

Mar 18, 2020 11:19

Subject:

Panel needs checking please

Viewed:

83 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

4215pb003 Panel 1 x 4 x 3 with Blue, Red and Silver Space Mechanical Pattern on Inside (Sticker) - Set 6949 (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Panel, Decorated
Marked for Deletion

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Mar 17, 2020 19:08

Subject:

Re: Question about part x168

Viewed:

39 times

Topic:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

[…]
However, if LDraw
still uses some "x" numbers, it would be wise to retain them.

LDraw doesn’t use “x” numbers. They use “u” numbers, and they get rid of them
as soon as the correct ID is known.

So, rid away with the “x”!

As for aliases, they make alias files (their descriptions start with a “=”).
So that takes care of that.
Now, their patterns numbers are not compatible with BL’s. So this would be a
bigger problem, except, now, the BL ID is often put as keywords (inside the file
but searchable in some CADs or simply with a grep).

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Mar 17, 2020 17:28

Subject:

Re: Question about part x168

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:

Right. These "x" numbers are changed all the time when the actual number becomes
known. I'm surprised it wasn't done here.

Are they? That's definitely news to me.

Here's a list of X-numbers beginning with 1. There are nearly 400 of them,
and that's just one number:

https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?searchMethod=searchBoth&q=x1*&itemBrand=1000&catType=&itemYear=&catID=&catLike=W

"x" exists as a temporary number when the official Lego part number was originally
not known (usually because it is not printed on the part itself).

The "x" numbers come from the old peeron/LDraw days when numbers were not known.

When I've discovered the true part number, I've submitted many for the
"x" number to be replaced by the official Lego part number, and it's always
been done. (The "x" number was not even retained as an alternate.) In fact, one
time I went through the catelog to discover and replace as many as I could find
the original part number for.

Nope, this is not always the case. Some admins would change them and others would
not. The ones who would not change them stated that the reason was to maintain
consitency with peeron/LDraw. Since peeron has been defunct for quite a while,
I see no need to continue to maintain consistency with them. However, if LDraw
still uses some "x" numbers, it would be wise to retain them.

For some reason here though... When the original part number was discovered,
it was added as an alternate number, but not replaced. So, there's obviously
serious inconsistency here.

Author:

LordSkylark

Posted:

Mar 17, 2020 16:54

Subject:

Re: Question about part x168

Viewed:

31 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:

Right. These "x" numbers are changed all the time when the actual number becomes
known. I'm surprised it wasn't done here.

Are they? That's definitely news to me.

"x" exists as a temporary number when the official Lego part number was originally
not known (usually because it is not printed on the part itself).

When I've discovered the true part number, I've submitted many for the
"x" number to be replaced by the official Lego part number, and it's always
been done. (The "x" number was not even retained as an alternate.) In fact, one
time I went through the catelog to discover and replace as many as I could find
the original part number for.

For some reason here though... When the original part number was discovered,
it was added as an alternate number, but not replaced. So, there's obviously
serious inconsistency here.

Author:

stutrippant

Posted:

Mar 17, 2020 14:42

Subject:

White bricks on a white background.

Viewed:

132 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Seriously, what genius thought the best avatar brick in the catalog should be
white when the background is white too. So many hard to figure out bricks. Please
change all white avatar bricks to something more visible.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 17, 2020 04:48

Subject:

Re: Where can I submit product flyers

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Leftoverbricks writes:

Can I add those to the catalog?

You may submit any genuine LEGO item to the catalog.

And where: book / gear / catalog

At this point in time most paper objects should be added as the Books item type.
If the flyers have the characteristics of a catalog, then that's where they'd
go. Otherwise books.

Author:

Leftoverbricks

Posted:

Mar 17, 2020 04:43

Subject:

Where can I submit product flyers

Viewed:

65 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

TLG is distributing general product flyers in sets within the same theme. For
example DOTS and Ninjago Arcade Pods. The flyers are all the same, so not specific
to a particular set.
Can I add those to the catalog? And where: book / gear / catalog / somewhere
else?

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 17, 2020 01:17

Subject:

Re: Question about part x168

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:

Right. These "x" numbers are changed all the time when the actual number becomes
known. I'm surprised it wasn't done here.

Are they? That's definitely news to me.

Author:

LordSkylark

Posted:

Mar 16, 2020 23:48

Subject:

Re: Question about part x168

Viewed:

43 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, edeevo writes:

[…]
I'm guessing it also has to do with all the dependencies within the site
that would be affected if the numbers were simply changed... […]

Nah, items have a fixed, internal ID in the database, that ID doesn’t change.
The part ID is just another description, shorter and unique.

Think about when they add a digit to the numbered minifigs (bla001 becoming bla0001).

Right. These "x" numbers are changed all the time when the actual number becomes
known. I'm surprised it wasn't done here.

Author:

mfav

Posted:

Mar 16, 2020 22:05

Subject:

Clips Ahoy, part one

Viewed:

152 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

http://v4ei.com/brickref/clips-a-j.php

more to come eventually

Author:

Doodlebug

Posted:

Mar 16, 2020 21:02

Subject:

p12cty01, 02, & 03

Viewed:

49 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Is there any printing on the reverse side of this 2012 series of posters? Acquired
some, but they have B/W smaller versions on the reverse.

Author:

edeevo

Posted:

Mar 16, 2020 13:48

Subject:

Re: Question about part x168

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, edeevo writes:

I'm confident we're in good hands with StormChaser at the helm…

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I am not at the helm of anything.

I am the merely the newest of three catalog associates and we all work together
as a team with the two inventory administrators.

My role on the team is to spend most of my time posting in the discussion forum
while others do the actual work.

...an important calling nonetheless...

Life is Good.
~Ed.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 16, 2020 12:50

Subject:

Re: Question about part x168

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

In Catalog, edeevo writes:

I'm confident we're in good hands with StormChaser at the helm…

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Mar 16, 2020 12:07

Subject:

Re: Question about part x168

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

In Catalog, edeevo writes:

[…]
I'm guessing it also has to do with all the dependencies within the site
that would be affected if the numbers were simply changed... […]

Author:

edeevo

Posted:

Mar 16, 2020 12:00

Subject:

Re: Question about part x168

Viewed:

39 times

Topic:

In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, jonwil writes:

x168 Minifigure, Headgear Helmet Space / Town with Breathing Hose
Parts: Minifigure, Headgear

is labeled as "underwater" when it has never
appeared in any underwater type sets?

Should it be renamed?

It has been renamed.

Is there a reason that the "x" number is still the primary number when the actual
part number is now known?

I'm guessing it also has to do with all the dependencies within the site
that would be affected if the numbers were simply changed... & it's probably
a bit of a chore to verify and test such dependencies *before* making the change
each time, though I'm confident we're in good hands with StormChaser
at the helm…

Life is Good.
~Ed.

Author:

TheBrickGuys

Posted:

Mar 16, 2020 11:19

Subject:

Re: Question about part x168

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

In Catalog, TheBrickGuys writes:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, jonwil writes:

x168 Minifigure, Headgear Helmet Space / Town with Breathing Hose
Parts: Minifigure, Headgear

is labeled as "underwater" when it has never
appeared in any underwater type sets?

Should it be renamed?

It has been renamed.

6 minutes - You are FAST.

Or should I say, 6 MINUTES? What the L took so long??

Jim.

Author:

TheBrickGuys

Posted:

Mar 16, 2020 11:18

Subject:

Re: Question about part x168

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, jonwil writes:

x168 Minifigure, Headgear Helmet Space / Town with Breathing Hose
Parts: Minifigure, Headgear

is labeled as "underwater" when it has never
appeared in any underwater type sets?

Should it be renamed?

It has been renamed.

6 minutes - You are FAST.

Author:

starbeanie

Posted:

Mar 16, 2020 10:35

Subject:

Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring

Viewed:

38 times

Topic:

I agree. Having the set number in neither the part number or description will
make it harder to find.

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

Is there a reason why we can't have all the set numbers in the titles besides
the title length limitation? Since there are so few of these, I honestly don't
see why we would create two new naming conventions for these sheets that differ
from the convention used for all other sticker sheets. Also, since you are changing
the item numbers for these multi-set sticker sheets, it is probably more important
than ever to have the set numbers in the titles for search purposes. Using a
title like "Sticker Sheet for Multiple Sets, Town, Fish and Coral" does nothing
to help find this sticker sheet.

My suggestion is for one naming convention:

"Sticker Sheet for Set ..." for one-set sticker sheets and "Sticker Sheet for
Sets ..." for multi-set sticker sheets.

4. N/A and International sticker sheet entries will be merged when there
are no apparent differences beyond the standard N/A / International differences.

5. Where significant differences exist between sticker sheets, such as
color differences in the stickers themselves, the duplicate entries will be retained.

For All Sticker Sheet Entries:

1. PCCs for all sticker sheets will be moved from the item title to the
PCC field. Item numbers will be retained in their current place in the titles.

2. Item titles for all sticker sheets will be changed from the format
"Sticker for Set" to "Sticker Sheet for Set."

If anyone has suggestions for this plan or sees where it may encounter problems,
please say something. Otherwise, we'll move into the action phase during
the upcoming week.

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Mar 16, 2020 00:33

Subject:

Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring

Viewed:

29 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Mar 16, 2020 00:23

Subject:

Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring

Viewed:

28 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

For All Sticker Sheet Entries:

1. PCCs for all sticker sheets will be moved from the item title to the
PCC field. Item numbers will be retained in their current place in the titles.

2. Item titles for all sticker sheets will be changed from the format
"Sticker for Set" to "Sticker Sheet for Set."

I do! (hand in air)

I am not sure what this number is on these sheets. It could be an Element ID,
but maybe it isn't. I would rather us just move numbers to PCCs that we know
for sure are Element IDs. These would be the sticker sheets with a clear "Design
ID/Element ID" format on the sheets.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 15, 2020 23:17

Subject:

Re: Question about part x168

Viewed:

42 times

Topic:

In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:

Is there a reason that the "x" number is still the primary number when the actual
part number is now known?

Yes, there is a reason.

The reason is that BrickLink is leery of changing item numbers. There are hundreds
of item numbers that need to be changed and someday I may make a list of them.

Author:

LordSkylark

Posted:

Mar 15, 2020 23:09

Subject:

Re: Question about part x168

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, jonwil writes:

x168 Minifigure, Headgear Helmet Space / Town with Breathing Hose
Parts: Minifigure, Headgear

is labeled as "underwater" when it has never
appeared in any underwater type sets?

Should it be renamed?

It has been renamed.

Is there a reason that the "x" number is still the primary number when the actual
part number is now known?

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 15, 2020 22:56

Subject:

Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring

Viewed:

32 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

please ask for clarification

Forgot to clarify: we're only changing parts that appear in a single set.
If the sticker sheet appears in more than one set, then ignore it for now.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 15, 2020 22:40

Subject:

Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring

Viewed:

41 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

We can get started on this now. I can add the word "Sheet" to titles administratively,
but there is no easy way to accomplish moving PCCs administratively. Assistance
with catalog change requests would be appreciated.

Please see the attached images. The first image shows how to move the PCC when
there is only one number in the title. If anyone disagrees with treating this
number as a PCC, then say something. The second image shows how to move the
PCC when there are two numbers in the title separated by a slash. The lengthier
number should be the PCC (ask if unsure in a specific instance).

For sticker sheets from roughly 1997-2014 PCCs were already moved, but they were
(most unfortunately) left in the titles. They still need to be removed from
titles. If the PCC has already been moved, you'll get the message shown
in the third image. In those cases, just remove the PCC from the title.

If you're not sure how this should be done properly, please ask for clarification
before proceeding to assist with these changes. The parts shown in the images
are linked for reference:

1469stk01 Sticker Sheet for Set 1469 - (199602)
Parts: Sticker Sheet

1376stk01 Sticker Sheet for Set 1376 - (43655/4173445)
Parts: Sticker Sheet

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 15, 2020 20:04

Subject:

Re: Question about part x168

Viewed:

44 times

Topic:

In Catalog, jonwil writes:

x168 Minifigure, Headgear Helmet Space / Town with Breathing Hose
Parts: Minifigure, Headgear

is labeled as "underwater" when it has never
appeared in any underwater type sets?

Should it be renamed?

It has been renamed.

Author:

jonwil

Posted:

Mar 15, 2020 19:58

Subject:

Question about part x168

Viewed:

89 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Can anyone tell me why

x168 Minifigure, Headgear Helmet Space / Town with Breathing Hose
Parts: Minifigure, Headgear

is labeled as "underwater" when it has never
appeared in any underwater type sets?

Should it be renamed?

Author:

Captain.M

Posted:

Mar 15, 2020 18:02

Subject:

Re: Silly to Consider This Sprue a Part?

Viewed:

41 times

Topic:

I had a few of these, and because I noticed the anti-stud I also figured it might
be useful for MOC builders, so I put it in my store. A couple have sold, ages
ago, now only 1 left. I did message the buyer to make sure they knew what they
were buying. They were happy (they also bought some shurikens at the same time).

I don't know if they were actively looking for the sprue, maybe they just
wanted to make a set 100% complete once they saw the sprue for sale alongside
the shurikens. Would they have found them if they were listed under their own
entry in the catalogue? Who can say. Maybe my last one will never sell if it
is given a separate sprue designation in the catalogue and folks don't know
to look for it. But upon finding your post, my pedantic sense of order and completeness
immediately says "Yes, add it to the catalogue!" (even if it's to my own
detriment).

Just my 2 cents. I will leave it up to those more wise than I to decide.

Cheers

In Catalog, axaday writes:

I apologize for the quick lo-res pic, but I think a lot of people are familiar
with this piece. It's the sprue from [p=19807c01]. And it IS just a sprue.
But I was looking it over today before tossing it in the trash and it is a pretty
neat looking piece AND it was obviously designed with some play value, because
it fits on a stud. It has never been used in a set, I believe, but it is easy
for me to imagine it being useful in MOCs. Would it be silly to add it to the
catalog?

Author:

axaday

Posted:

Mar 15, 2020 09:19

Subject:

Re: Silly to Consider This Sprue a Part?

Viewed:

46 times

Topic:

In Catalog, crazylegoman writes:

In Catalog, axaday writes:

I think it would be fine in the catalog, although I'm sure there are others
who would oppose it. Are there other sprue-only entries in the catalog?

David

I don't think so, but I'm unaware of another sprue that can actually
go on a stud.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Mar 14, 2020 17:55

Subject:

Re: Silly to Consider This Sprue a Part?

Viewed:

75 times

Topic:

In Catalog, crazylegoman writes:

In Catalog, axaday writes:

I think it would be fine in the catalog, although I'm sure there are others
who would oppose it. Are there other sprue-only entries in the catalog?

It would at least limit the number of people not finding it in the catalogue.

Author:

Jblotempio

Posted:

Mar 14, 2020 17:49

Subject:

Re: Silly to Consider This Sprue a Part?

Viewed:

48 times

Topic:

In Catalog, crazylegoman writes:

In Catalog, axaday writes:

I think it would be fine in the catalog, although I'm sure there are others
who would oppose it. Are there other sprue-only entries in the catalog?

David

It appears in over 20 Ninjago sets, doesn't it? I see no reason why you
would not list it. I see those teeny screwdrivers listed by themselves, and in
fact, have bought one. Jerri

Author:

crazylegoman

Posted:

Mar 14, 2020 17:37

Subject:

Re: Silly to Consider This Sprue a Part?

Viewed:

66 times

Topic:

In Catalog, axaday writes:

I think it would be fine in the catalog, although I'm sure there are others
who would oppose it. Are there other sprue-only entries in the catalog?

David

Author:

axaday

Posted:

Mar 14, 2020 16:03

Subject:

Silly to Consider This Sprue a Part?

Viewed:

154 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Author:

Turez

Posted:

Mar 14, 2020 09:28

Subject:

Re: New minifigure head variant 28621

Viewed:

31 times

Topic:

Thankfully Axaday jumped in and added the new variant so I don't have to
deal with the description anymore.

[p=3626d]

I'm not sure about the part number, though. Officially, the new mold has
nothing to do with 3626 and in similar cases (where a new mold number is known)
like

15573 Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud with Groove and Bottom Stud Holder (Jumper)
Parts: Plate, Modified

61252 Plate, Modified 1 x 1 with Open O Clip (Horizontal Grip)
Parts: Plate, Modified

BL used to take the official number instead of the previous one +letter.

Regards,
Jonas

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 14, 2020 03:18

Subject:

Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring

Viewed:

73 times

Topic:

Here's my plan to handle the restructuring, which is a combination of ideas
from everyone:

For Existing Duplicate Catalog Entries:

1. Stickers that appear in multiple sets will have a new catalog entry
created. Then all existing duplicate entries will be merged into the new entry.

2. Item numbers for the new catalog entries will be formatted like this:
multistk001, multistk002, multistk003, etc.

3. Item titles for new entries will be formatted as follows. When the
sticker appears in three or fewer sets, then "Sticker Sheet for Multiple Sets
- 1001, 1002, 1003." When the sheet appears in more than three sets (there are
only 19 of these): "Sticker Sheet for Multiple Sets, Town, Fish and Coral."

4. N/A and International sticker sheet entries will be merged when there
are no apparent differences beyond the standard N/A / International differences.

5. Where significant differences exist between sticker sheets, such as
color differences in the stickers themselves, the duplicate entries will be retained.

For All Sticker Sheet Entries:

1. PCCs for all sticker sheets will be moved from the item title to the
PCC field. Item numbers will be retained in their current place in the titles.

2. Item titles for all sticker sheets will be changed from the format
"Sticker for Set" to "Sticker Sheet for Set."

If anyone has suggestions for this plan or sees where it may encounter problems,
please say something. Otherwise, we'll move into the action phase during
the upcoming week.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 14, 2020 02:55

Subject:

Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring

Viewed:

49 times

Topic:

Below are the issues additionally identified in this thread:

1. The word "Sheet" should be added to catalog entries.

I agree and we will make this part of the project. So all items will go from
"Sticker for Set" to "Sticker Sheet for Set."

2. Incomplete sticker sheets should not be allowed to be listed.

CAs cannot control this, nor can we force sellers to state if the sticker sheet
is complete or incomplete.

3. We should use the item number for sticker sheets instead of placing the
item number in the title.

Not a bad idea, but we're trying to accomplish this with as little disruption
as possible. This idea would require renumbering every single sticker sheet,
which is not feasible. Also, many early sticker sheets did not have an item
number, so this would be an inconsistent approach.

4. Sticker sheets should not be considered a part, but should instead be
tied to set entries like original boxes and set instructions are.

This idea would create problems because some sticker sheets appear in multiple
sets. Also, tying instructions and original boxes to set entries creates its
own problems. Also, this would require coding from the site and we know we won't
get that.

5. Background color should be required for sticker sheets.

For this, I don't think so. I get that it would be convenient for some users,
but our image scans of sticker sheets are continually improving. A proper scan
will show the background color and this is probably the best way to handle this
issue.

6. Sticker sheets should be titled with descriptions of most or all of the
stickers that appear thereon.

I agree that this would make searching easier, but it would also be fairly difficult
to accomplish properly with the system we now have. This isn't a bad idea,
but it would be more appropriate for some kind of tag system if we ever get it.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 14, 2020 01:11

Subject:

Re: Parts 89650 & 60153

Viewed:

41 times

Topic:

In Catalog, 69transamman writes:

For consistency shouldn't parts 89650 & 61053 have separate listings, they differ from each other

Please read this page:

https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=940

Author:

69transamman

Posted:

Mar 14, 2020 00:18

Subject:

Parts 89650 & 60153

Viewed:

62 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

The catalog has separate listing for parts 89652 & 60176, the only difference
being the open lower axle holes. For consistency shouldn't parts 89650 &
61053 have separate listings, they differ in the same way from each other.
Howard

Author:

bouncingbear

Posted:

Mar 13, 2020 00:16

Subject:

Re: Faulty print box - 10218 Pet Shop. Custom?

Viewed:

53 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Heartbricker writes:

In Catalog, bouncingbear writes:

Hello

We have 2 sets with faulty print box of Pet Shop (front of box shows 1332 pieces
vs 2032 official) - as relative new to selling appreciate help how best to put
it into the store inventory? Should it be a custom item, or should it be 10218-1
with custom image?

Many thanks in advance

That’s interesting, do you have pictures of the boxes?
If it’s sealed I would list it as 10218-1 with custom picture and additional
notes describing the error.
Where did you buy them? Was the error presented to you before you bought the
sets?

Hi, Bought in Singapore & did not know at time of purchase - have kept them ever
since. Once get round to taking pictures will upload (probably once I set up
dropbox to store photos).
Thanks

Author:

bouncingbear

Posted:

Mar 13, 2020 00:11

Subject:

Re: Faulty print box - 10218 Pet Shop. Custom?

Viewed:

44 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Cob writes:

In Catalog, bouncingbear writes:

I would list with the rest of the sets, note the faulty print and provide pictures.
I provide dropbox links in the comments so the buyer can see high quality pictures.

Example here:
https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=6024px4&idColor=6#T=S&C=6&O={%22color%22:6,%22ss%22:%22US%22,%22rpp%22:%22100%22,%22iconly%22:0}

Thanks that helpful - I like the idea of the dropbox link
Cheers

Author:

amthatkindoforc

Posted:

Mar 12, 2020 19:11

Subject:

Re: New minifigure head variant 28621

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

We would like the naming convention to be somewhat indicative of the form of
the obstruction for unambiguous recognition. I fear using "one bar" or "two holes"
leaves us vulnerable to too many potential design changes down the line. I'm
attaching a diagram with labels, all of which are accurate but few which are
unique and unambiguous.

I understand the concern. I like what you've done with describing the bars
as letters, and I believe we should use that as one part of the naming convention.
Unfortunately it doesn't cover the potential cases on the right.

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Mar 12, 2020 17:57

Subject:

Re: New minifigure head variant 28621

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Turez writes:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, Turez writes:

How should the new type (and the printed variants) be added to the catalog?

So this is basically a blocked open stud. We have two options:

1. Catalog them under the existing blocked open stud entry and add the new number
as an additional item number.

2. Create a new 3626d entry.

I don't have any preference here. What do others think?

I also prefer different entries so I will create a new head entry tomorrow. Any
suggestions how to name it? It should not be too long to leave room for pattern
descriptions.

In the meantime I have found the new type also in

40408-1 (Inv) Drag Racer
126 Parts, 2 Minifigures, 2020
Sets: Hidden Side

and

70429-1 (Inv) El Fuego's Stunt Plane
277 Parts, 3 Minifigures, 2020
Sets: Hidden Side

.
So maybe the latest inventories with transparent heads need to be checked again?

Yes, we will try and contact all the submitter's of inventories since December
that contained transparent heads.

Thanks for catching this early.

Cheers,
Randy

Author:

mfav

Posted:

Mar 12, 2020 17:28

Subject:

Re: New minifigure head variant 28621

Viewed:

38 times

Topic:

In Catalog, amthatkindoforc writes:

For the former:
Minifigure, Head [Pattern] - Blocked Open Stud, 1 Bar

For the latter:
Minifigure, Head [Pattern] - Blocked Open Stud, 2 Hole

I'd suggest the naming convention requires some additional consideration.
We would like the naming convention to be somewhat indicative of the form of
the obstruction for unambiguous recognition. I fear using "one bar" or "two holes"
leaves us vulnerable to too many potential design changes down the line. I'm
attaching a diagram with labels, all of which are accurate but few which are
unique and unambiguous.

With this in mind, I suggest further discussion.

Author:

BricksThatStick

Posted:

Mar 12, 2020 16:56

Subject:

Re: New minifigure head variant 28621

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Turez writes:

Hi everyone,

my set

70432-1 (Inv) Haunted Fairground
443 Parts, 5 Minifigures, 2020
Sets: Hidden Side

came with a new minifigure head type with two holes and new
number 28621. It is already listed at Brickset:
https://brickset.com/parts/design-28621

Looks like the new mold is only used for transparent heads. All three trans-neon
green heads (1x plain, 2x printed) in my set are the new type while all other
heads are 3626c.

How should the new type (and the printed variants) be added to the catalog?

Regards,
Jonas

https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1115430

I thought maybe they had found an old mould and started reusing it but looks
a different bar width to the one I found at the link above which is from

6380-1 (Inv) Emergency Treatment Center (St. Mary's Hospital)
270 Parts, 5 Minifigures, 1987
Sets: Town: Classic Town: Hospital

Author:

amthatkindoforc

Posted:

Mar 12, 2020 16:37

Subject:

Re: New minifigure head variant 28621

Viewed:

44 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Turez writes:

I also prefer different entries so I will create a new head entry tomorrow. Any
suggestions how to name it? It should not be too long to leave room for pattern
descriptions.

Depends on which you want to emphasize: the bar down the middle, or the 2 holes.
I kept the "Blocked Open Stud" string so people searching would find both the
current form and this variant.

For the former:
Minifigure, Head [Pattern] - Blocked Open Stud, 1 Bar

For the latter:
Minifigure, Head [Pattern] - Blocked Open Stud, 2 Hole

Author:

Turez

Posted:

Mar 12, 2020 16:19

Subject:

Re: New minifigure head variant 28621

Viewed:

39 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, Turez writes:

How should the new type (and the printed variants) be added to the catalog?

40408-1 (Inv) Drag Racer
126 Parts, 2 Minifigures, 2020
Sets: Hidden Side

and

70429-1 (Inv) El Fuego's Stunt Plane
277 Parts, 3 Minifigures, 2020
Sets: Hidden Side

.
So maybe the latest inventories with transparent heads need to be checked again?

Author:

mfav

Posted:

Mar 12, 2020 14:48

Subject:

Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails

Viewed:

44 times

Topic:

In Catalog, crazylegoman writes:

I would be in favor of the part size being determined by the overall part dimensions
and not just the base that attaches to studs in the plane tail category
(and possibly other categories.) However, I think that most categories (modified
bricks, modified plates, etc.) would not benefit at all from such size alterations
in their names.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think this is the situation we're in
right now. Some are thought of "one way" and some are thought of "another way".

The "description" labelling might be one way where the "stud dimensions" labelling
might be another way, and the "shipping dimensions" a third way...

It gets real messy real fast.

I'm up to a potential database field count of 15 so far...

I know: roadmap 36.

Author:

Cob

Posted:

Mar 12, 2020 13:13

Subject:

Re: Faulty print box - 10218 Pet Shop. Custom?

Viewed:

53 times

Topic:

In Catalog, bouncingbear writes:

Author:

Stellar

Posted:

Mar 12, 2020 13:01

Subject:

Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, Stellar writes:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

Sure it does. You just add the second part number as an alternate item number
and put both Element IDs in two separate PCC slots. In this case, the vendor
number (the 140413A or 134071A) don't matter, but on some they will.

Cheers,
Randy

In Catalog, starbeanie writes:

that doesn't solve this problem. same sheet, different number

75138stk01a Sticker Sheet for Set 75138 - International Version - (25703/6142378)
Parts: Sticker Sheet

75138stk01b Sticker Sheet for Set 75138 - North American Version - (25704/6142381)
Parts: Sticker Sheet

In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:

I'd say get rid of the current numbering system and give the sticker sheets
the part number which is written on the sheet itself. Then put the set # into
the description.

Design ID for stickers is the one before the / and the one after is the item
number.

The BrickLink item number/part number (or LEGO Design ID) is the one before the
slash and the BrickLink PCC (or LEGO Element ID) is the one after the slash.
That is exactly what I said above in my statement.

Cheers,
Randy

Right Randy, I misread!

Author:

crazylegoman

Posted:

Mar 12, 2020 12:29

Subject:

Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails

Viewed:

47 times

Topic:

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Mar 12, 2020 11:50

Subject:

Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring

Viewed:

41 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Stellar writes:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

that doesn't solve this problem. same sheet, different number

75138stk01a Sticker Sheet for Set 75138 - International Version - (25703/6142378)
Parts: Sticker Sheet

75138stk01b Sticker Sheet for Set 75138 - North American Version - (25704/6142381)
Parts: Sticker Sheet

In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:

I'd say get rid of the current numbering system and give the sticker sheets
the part number which is written on the sheet itself. Then put the set # into
the description.

Design ID for stickers is the one before the / and the one after is the item
number.

Author:

Stellar

Posted:

Mar 12, 2020 07:41

Subject:

Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring

Viewed:

43 times

Topic:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

that doesn't solve this problem. same sheet, different number

75138stk01a Sticker Sheet for Set 75138 - International Version - (25703/6142378)
Parts: Sticker Sheet

75138stk01b Sticker Sheet for Set 75138 - North American Version - (25704/6142381)
Parts: Sticker Sheet

In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:

I'd say get rid of the current numbering system and give the sticker sheets
the part number which is written on the sheet itself. Then put the set # into
the description.

Design ID for stickers is the one before the / and the one after is the item
number.

Author:

Stellar

Posted:

Mar 12, 2020 07:33

Subject:

Re: New minifigure head variant 28621

Viewed:

38 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, Turez writes:

How should the new type (and the printed variants) be added to the catalog?

Second option will be the best for now on.

Author:

bje

Posted:

Mar 12, 2020 04:32

Subject:

Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails

Viewed:

66 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Legoboy_II writes:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

The 2340 has studs on the top, clearly making it a1x5 in stud length.

Anyway, the question is...is the item on the roadmap?

Should you not start calling it an atlas?

I see what has been written here, and if I may offer a new user perspective?

I have a few tail pieces and ran some search tests (using various descriptions
of what I thought I should search for) to see what I could find, and the results
were all over the place. I had the most success just typing in airplane tail,
then adding parameters as I found them, but it was less than ideal. I did find
the tails I have, but it took several searches and they never all appeared in
the same search - which I would have expected searching just for airplane tail.
Interestingly, I didn't always get repeatable results. So I agree, we need
a workable standard.

After giving the matter some thought, I think I would find success with a W x
L X H x S and additional description afterward. Where W X L describes the base,
H for the height, and S for the sweep extension. For example:

2430 - 1 x 4 x 3 x 1 swept airplane tail, with 1 X 2 tip and RES Q sticker
6239 - 2 x 3 x 3.67 x 3 swept airplane tail, no decorations

Just my thoughts, it may not be the answer, but maybe it sparks a better idea?

Split the fin from the plates, and use its max dimensions thus:
2340 - 1 x 4 Tail Plate, 4 x 3 Fin, 1 x 2 T-Tail Plate and RES Q Sticker
6239 - 2 x 3 Tail Plate, 4 x 3.67 Fin
54094 - 2 x 14 Tail Plate, 14 x 8 Fin, 2 x 2 T-Tail Plate
(I don't have a

54094 Tail 14 x 2 x 8
Parts: Tail

, but I think those are the dimensions, obviously
it must be corrected as required)
This might also allow dimensions to be entered for the rest of that category
(how does a tail, shuttle differ from a tail shuttle, small? Both are tails,
just add the dimensions and do away with shuttle and small as descriptors, since
the one is not the small version of the other anyway)

Decide on a proper definition of a Tail part actually and standardise its descriptions.
Decide if the purpose is a vertical stabiliser, for which

30925 Vehicle, Spoiler 1 x 4 on 1 x 2 Base
Parts: Vehicle

also becomes
a Tail, or if a Tail is wedge, plate, brick etc modified by fins, for which

28779 Tail 4 x 1 with Pin Hole
Parts: Tail

4588 Brick, Round 1 x 1 with Fins
Parts: Brick, Round

4591 Brick, Round 2 x 2 x 2 with Fins
Parts: Brick, Round

also become Tails, not only

4867 Tail Wedge
Parts: Tail

.
As to 4867 - Tail Wedge, Fin , 2 x 2 T-Tail Plate (add dimensions), only because
someday the masters at TLG might decide to make a T-Tail Tile

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 12, 2020 03:27

Subject:

Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails

Viewed:

65 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

This is sort of akin to Number Six on your roadmap. I think.

It is, but definitely a good additional point to consider. I added the following
sentence to that project:

"Per mfav this project should also include an examination of how part dimensions
are titled, especially parts that have dimensions that exceed an attachment plate
(airplane tails, for example)."

And let me just say that it's not my roadmap. I made it for all of us to
share. It's our roadmap, our ongoing discussion about how to best
organize this catalog we share.

Author:

Legoboy_II

Posted:

Mar 12, 2020 01:49

Subject:

Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails

Viewed:

48 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

The 2340 has studs on the top, clearly making it a1x5 in stud length.

Anyway, the question is...is the item on the roadmap?

Author:

Heartbricker

Posted:

Mar 11, 2020 23:56

Subject:

Re: Faulty print box - 10218 Pet Shop. Custom?

Viewed:

69 times

Topic:

In Catalog, bouncingbear writes:

Author:

mfav

Posted:

Mar 11, 2020 23:24

Subject:

Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails

Viewed:

47 times

Topic:

The 2340 has studs on the top, clearly making it a1x5 in stud length.

Anyway, the question is...is the item on the roadmap?

Author:

axaday

Posted:

Mar 11, 2020 23:08

Subject:

Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails

Viewed:

51 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

So that makes a

30099 Arch 1 x 5 x 4 Inverted
Parts: Arch

a 1x3?

That one is a lot easier to measure with your eyes.

If a single consistent rule is necessary and this is the way it needs to go,
I'm not going to stand in the way.

But if the tails could say they are a tail on a 1x4 base, I'd like that.
For packaging dimensions we really need to see the extremes, but in the name
of the piece we need to see what we will search for and what will help us identify
the piece. I can't imagine a scenario when you are building something with
an airplane tail where you need to make sure it is going to clear some tolerance.

Author:

mfav

Posted:

Mar 11, 2020 22:41

Subject:

Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails

Viewed:

45 times

Topic:

So that makes a

30099 Arch 1 x 5 x 4 Inverted
Parts: Arch

a 1x3?

Author:

Give.Me.A.Brick

Posted:

Mar 11, 2020 22:07

Subject:

Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails

Viewed:

47 times

Topic:

In Catalog, axaday writes:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

This is sort of akin to Number Six on your roadmap. I think.

Is there a standardization scheme in the works for items like these shown, and
similar items, where the length exceeds the footprint of the attachment plate?

If you're going by the scheme used for 6239, then 2430 ought to be a 1x5.
If you're going by the scheme used for 2430, then 6239 ought to be a 2x3.

I know this is bound to have implications all over the catalog with many modified
bricks and plates and other things, especially when you get into SNOT pieces,
but there's inconsistency within and across categories now.

One would think the overall x-y-z dimensions of the piece would be considered
every time...

I know this is going to require some quiet contemplation followed by noisy debate,
but some semblance of consistency would be really nice to have.

I think average Joe-catalogsearcher will have better luck if the name is the
dimensions of the plate at the bottom. Measuring how far the tail extends backward
is a more advanced skill.

Agreed.

Author:

bouncingbear

Posted:

Mar 11, 2020 22:02

Subject:

Faulty print box - 10218 Pet Shop. Custom?

Viewed:

130 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Author:

axaday

Posted:

Mar 11, 2020 21:24

Subject:

Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails

Viewed:

54 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

I think average Joe-catalogsearcher will have better luck if the name is the
dimensions of the plate at the bottom. Measuring how far the tail extends backward
is a more advanced skill.

Author:

SylvainLS

Posted:

Mar 11, 2020 21:13

Subject:

Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails

Viewed:

66 times

Topic:

In Catalog, mfav writes:

That would be 2340

6239 Tail Shuttle
Parts: Tail

2340 Tail 4 x 1 x 3
Parts: Tail

I know this is bound to have implications all over the catalog with many modified
bricks and plates and other things, especially when you get into SNOT pieces,
but there's inconsistency within and across categories now.

One would think the overall x-y-z dimensions of the piece would be considered
every time...

I know this is going to require some quiet contemplation followed by noisy debate,
but some semblance of consistency would be really nice to have.

Author:

mfav

Posted:

Mar 11, 2020 20:52

Subject:

StormChaser: the tale of two tails

Viewed:

230 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Mar 11, 2020 10:33

Subject:

Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring

Viewed:

42 times

Topic:

that doesn't solve this problem. same sheet, different number

75138stk01a Sticker Sheet for Set 75138 - International Version - (25703/6142378)
Parts: Sticker Sheet

75138stk01b Sticker Sheet for Set 75138 - North American Version - (25704/6142381)
Parts: Sticker Sheet

In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:

I'd say get rid of the current numbering system and give the sticker sheets
the part number which is written on the sheet itself. Then put the set # into
the description.

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Mar 11, 2020 10:16

Subject:

Re: New minifigure head variant 28621

Viewed:

50 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, Turez writes:

How should the new type (and the printed variants) be added to the catalog?

As a minifigure collector, #2 is my preference.

Cheers,
Randy

Author:

starbeanie

Posted:

Mar 11, 2020 00:41

Subject:

Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring

Viewed:

44 times

Topic:

that doesn't solve this problem. same sheet, different number

75138stk01a Sticker Sheet for Set 75138 - International Version - (25703/6142378)
Parts: Sticker Sheet

75138stk01b Sticker Sheet for Set 75138 - North American Version - (25704/6142381)
Parts: Sticker Sheet

In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:

I'd say get rid of the current numbering system and give the sticker sheets
the part number which is written on the sheet itself. Then put the set # into
the description.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 10, 2020 21:18

Subject:

Re: New minifigure head variant 28621

Viewed:

48 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Turez writes:

How should the new type (and the printed variants) be added to the catalog?

Author:

LordSkylark

Posted:

Mar 10, 2020 18:34

Subject:

Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring

Viewed:

38 times

Topic:

I'd say get rid of the current numbering system and give the sticker sheets
the part number which is written on the sheet itself. Then put the set # into
the description.

Author:

Turez

Posted:

Mar 10, 2020 13:10

Subject:

New minifigure head variant 28621

Viewed:

138 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Hi everyone,

my set

70432-1 (Inv) Haunted Fairground
443 Parts, 5 Minifigures, 2020
Sets: Hidden Side

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 9, 2020 19:03

Subject:

Re: A Brief Task for A Bored Person

Viewed:

70 times

Topic:

In Catalog, axaday writes:

Hmmm....Not THAT bored.

Ten years ago I would have found this worthwhile and interesting. Regardless,
someone should probably get it done. Maybe I should make this message a catalog
request so the CAs can look into it.

Author:

axaday

Posted:

Mar 9, 2020 18:59

Subject:

Re: A Brief Task for A Bored Person

Viewed:

48 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

There are problems with these:

[P=41168c01]
[P=41168c02]
[P=41168c03]
[P=41168cx2]

Additionally, there are others not in the catalog. There are various problems
with images, part numbers, colors, inventories, titles, etc., etc.

Bored? Dive in and clean it up! Figure out what needs to be done and start
submitting the necessary requests/additions.

I don't have time + interest at this particular moment, but it needs to be
done.

Hmmm....Not THAT bored.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 9, 2020 18:48

Subject:

A Brief Task for A Bored Person

Viewed:

222 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 9, 2020 03:39

Subject:

Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring

Viewed:

58 times

Topic:

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

I have some ideas, but I'd like to hear yours

I'm still interested in hearing additional ideas on the best way to handle
this restructuring. As I said, I do have some ideas, but I'd rather hear
what others think first so that I'm not influencing opinions.

This is the question from my original post:

Sticker sheets are handled quite consistently at the present moment. How can we retain that consistency while eliminating duplicate entries with the least amount of disruption?

I'll likely post back here within the next week with what I see as some of
our options so that we may discuss them.

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 8, 2020 00:09

Subject:

Re: LEGOLAND Dollars

Viewed:

70 times

Topic:

In Catalog, baylit writes:

That helps, thanks!
Clearly not in the catalog then - those are 2015...

I think the years are wrong. The pictures for all of them show 2012.

Author:

baylit

Posted:

Mar 7, 2020 23:57

Subject:

Re: LEGOLAND Dollars

Viewed:

61 times

Topic:

That helps, thanks!
Clearly not in the catalog then - those are 2015...

In Catalog, StormChaser writes:

In Catalog, baylit writes:

I can't find them in the Catalog.
Should I create a new Gear entry?
I have 5 $1s that are from the 1999 series

??

[G=LLFMONEY1]
[G=LLFMONEY5]
[G=LLFMONEY10]

Author:

StormChaser

Posted:

Mar 7, 2020 23:47

Subject:

Re: LEGOLAND Dollars

Viewed:

68 times

Topic:

In Catalog, baylit writes:

I can't find them in the Catalog.
Should I create a new Gear entry?
I have 5 $1s that are from the 1999 series

??

[G=LLFMONEY1]
[G=LLFMONEY5]
[G=LLFMONEY10]

Author:

baylit

Posted:

Mar 7, 2020 23:30

Subject:

LEGOLAND Dollars

Viewed:

162 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

I can't find them in the Catalog.
Should I create a new Gear entry?
I have 5 $1s that are from the 1999 series

??

Author:

69transamman

Posted:

Mar 7, 2020 13:45

Subject:

50899a Showing Only 2 Known Colors

Viewed:

100 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

I was trying to identify some Marbled Bionicle Rhotuka Spinner and I noticed
that only 2 colors show up in the known colors list. However, if you click the
link for Color Images it shows actual pictures of 13 identified colors. Why aren't
the other 11 colors shown in the known list? I have the Yellow Marbled and Dark
Red Marbled on hand if additional pictures are needed. The ones I have came from
a bulk lot purchased years ago so, I have no way to identify which set they are
from. My intuition tells me they were from either set #8748-1 or set #6620-1.

8748-1 (Inv) Rhotuka Spinners
5 Parts, 2005
Sets: BIONICLE: Supplemental

6620-1 (Inv) Ultimate Accessory Set 500
507 Parts, 2006
Sets: BIONICLE: Supplemental

While I'm on the topic, does anyone know if the Spinners in set 8749-1 were
all of one color (I am referring only to the 4 Marbled Spinners without code)?
A standard mix of colors? or Completely random assortment of color?
Howard

Author:

rick_holl

Posted:

Mar 7, 2020 12:44

Subject:

8 x 8 dish

Viewed:

125 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Hi,
Anyone knows what finish the 8 x 8 DBG dish that is included in 75159 death star
comes into? There seems to be 2 variants of finish on this one (smooth and shiny)

Author:

BrickenbergNC

Posted:

Mar 6, 2020 11:59

Subject:

Re: BrickLink part numbers vs Lego part numbers

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

In Catalog, myq writes:

So, what is the official policy for pieces with official Lego part numbers that
also have Bricklink numbers?

Such as:

bricklink: 98138pb023
Tile, Round 1 x 1 with Black Number 5 Coin Pattern

Lego: 17968
FLAT TILE 1X1, ROUND "NO.24"

Obviously the Lego description needs some work, but I would prefer to see the
Lego number when it is known. It facilitates checking shop.lego.com for new bricks.

https://www.bricklink.com/catalogAdd.asp

You can submit the LEGO ID for that specific part as an alternate. As far as
I can tell 17968 is only used for that specific part and not for 1x1 round tiles
as a whole.

Author:

myq

Posted:

Mar 6, 2020 11:50

Subject:

BrickLink part numbers vs Lego part numbers

Viewed:

96 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Author:

rick_holl

Posted:

Mar 4, 2020 09:08

Subject:

Re: Color id

Viewed:

26 times

Topic:

In Catalog, peregrinator writes:

In Catalog, rick_holl writes:

Bought this lot under ´dark grey’ but looks like dark bluish grey
Don’t have it yet, just want to be sure i ordered the DBG one
Thoughts?

I see one piece that looks to be dark grey but the remainder appear to be dark
bluish grey

thx!

Author:

rick_holl

Posted:

Mar 4, 2020 09:07

Subject:

Re: Color id

Viewed:

24 times

Topic:

In Catalog, runner.caller writes:

In Catalog, rick_holl writes:

Bought this lot under ´dark grey’ but looks like dark bluish grey
Don’t have it yet, just want to be sure i ordered the DBG one
Thoughts?

Looks like you've got plenty of answers.
Gotta ask out of curiosity... are you planning a large scale DBG MOC?

It's to complete some SW UCS kits that i'm rebricking

Author:

peregrinator

Posted:

Mar 3, 2020 19:51

Subject:

Re: Color id

Viewed:

24 times

Topic:

In Catalog, rick_holl writes:

Bought this lot under ´dark grey’ but looks like dark bluish grey
Don’t have it yet, just want to be sure i ordered the DBG one
Thoughts?

I see one piece that looks to be dark grey but the remainder appear to be dark
bluish grey

Author:

runner.caller

Posted:

Mar 3, 2020 18:00

Subject:

Re: Color id

Viewed:

31 times

Topic:

In Catalog, rick_holl writes:

Bought this lot under ´dark grey’ but looks like dark bluish grey
Don’t have it yet, just want to be sure i ordered the DBG one
Thoughts?

Looks like you've got plenty of answers.
Gotta ask out of curiosity... are you planning a large scale DBG MOC?

Author:

Mirko8710

Posted:

Mar 3, 2020 13:17

Subject:

Re: Missing sh619

Viewed:

51 times

Topic:

Right!
I always noticed this "missing figures" but I always thought that there were
only skipped code for some reasons (like mistakes) and then forgotten.
So, when I will find a skipped code I will need only to search that number in
the page you linked before, to see what happened.
I tried now with njo520 and right, it was the same figure as njo532.

Many thanks again!!
Mirko

In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:

In Catalog, Mirko8710 writes:

Hi Hygrotus!

Thanks for your reply!! Every day we learn something! I didn't know that
an used code couldn't be used for another one after its merge!
Many thanks.
We don't need sh619 anymore! xD

Mirko

You can notice frequently such gaps

In Star Wars there are few for example.

Also you can spot this when submitting stickered counterparts which you are doing,
that is why always take next free number not one missed.

Author:

Hygrotus

Posted:

Mar 3, 2020 13:07

Subject:

Re: Missing sh619

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Mirko8710 writes:

Hi Hygrotus!

Thanks for your reply!! Every day we learn something! I didn't know that
an used code couldn't be used for another one after its merge!
Many thanks.
We don't need sh619 anymore! xD

Mirko

You can notice frequently such gaps

In Star Wars there are few for example.

Also you can spot this when submitting stickered counterparts which you are doing,
that is why always take next free number not one missed.

Author:

Mirko8710

Posted:

Mar 3, 2020 13:04

Subject:

Re: Missing sh619

Viewed:

43 times

Topic:

Hi Hygrotus!

Thanks for your reply!! Every day we learn something! I didn't know that
an used code couldn't be used for another one after its merge!
Many thanks.
We don't need sh619 anymore! xD

Mirko

In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:

In Catalog, Mirko8710 writes:

Hi all!

We are searching for the minifigure in the subject

Please, the next who submit a new SH minifigure use this code because in the
set 76147, that have three minifigures (sh617, sh618 and sh546), there aren't
no more new minifigures and that code had been skipped.

Many thanks!
Mirko

Number sh619 can't be used
under this number was submitted minifig which was already in the catalog and
accidentally approved. Then after discovery that it is the same as existing one
it was deleted by merge after such situation this number can't be use anymore.
Log, merge from feburary 5th
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReqList.asp?nID=&viewDate=Y&viewType=E&viewStatus=A&q=sh619

This number is no more available to be filled.

Author:

Hygrotus

Posted:

Mar 3, 2020 12:22

Subject:

Re: Missing sh619

Viewed:

62 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Mirko8710 writes:

Hi all!

We are searching for the minifigure in the subject

Author:

Mirko8710

Posted:

Mar 3, 2020 12:15

Subject:

Missing sh619

Viewed:

132 times

Topic:

Status:

Open

Hi all!

We are searching for the minifigure in the subject

Author:

macyenco

Posted:

Mar 3, 2020 10:42

Subject:

Re: Incorrect weight

Viewed:

51 times

Topic:

In Catalog, axaday writes:

In Catalog, macyenco writes:

Hi there,

Can someone please enter the correct weight of instruction booklet 6624 Delivery
Van. Due to Bricklink catalog the weight of this booklet is 55 grams, but it
should be 3 grams.

Thank you.

https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp?itemType=S

Type 6624 at the top by "Item No:"

Put the weight next to "Change Weight of Instructions To:" and check the white
box to the left.

Then "Submit Request"

It is very easy, but I want you to do it because it was your discovery and your
measurement and you should get the credit for it.

Thank you axaday, wanted to change it but it has already been done.

Author:

rick_holl

Posted:

Mar 3, 2020 09:14

Subject:

Re: Color id

Viewed:

29 times

Topic:

In Catalog, WildBricks writes:

99% DBG, those technic panels w/stickers on them are most likely flat silver
though.

In Catalog, rick_holl writes:

Bought this lot under ´dark grey’ but looks like dark bluish grey
Don’t have it yet, just want to be sure i ordered the DBG one
Thoughts?

Thx!

Author:

rick_holl

Posted:

Mar 3, 2020 09:14

Subject:

Re: Color id

Viewed:

26 times

Topic:

In Catalog, taxan writes:

In Catalog, rick_holl writes:

Bought this lot under ´dark grey’ but looks like dark bluish grey
Don’t have it yet, just want to be sure i ordered the DBG one
Thoughts?

30225pb05 Baseplate, Road 16 x 16 with White Danger Chevrons and Fire Logo Pattern (Sticker) - Set 7240
Parts: Baseplate, Road

and

6205pb006 Tile, Modified 6 x 16 with Studs on Edges with Yellow Worn Arrow and Stripes on Sides Pattern (Stickers) - Set 75171
Parts: Tile, Modified, Decorated

is DBG
Look look like it's mostly DBG.

Thank you!

Author:

WildBricks

Posted:

Mar 3, 2020 08:27

Subject:

Re: Color id

Viewed:

32 times

Topic:

99% DBG, those technic panels w/stickers on them are most likely flat silver
though.

In Catalog, rick_holl writes:

Bought this lot under ´dark grey’ but looks like dark bluish grey
Don’t have it yet, just want to be sure i ordered the DBG one
Thoughts?

Author:

taxan

Posted:

Mar 3, 2020 08:22

Subject:

Re: Color id

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

In Catalog, rick_holl writes:

Bought this lot under ´dark grey’ but looks like dark bluish grey
Don’t have it yet, just want to be sure i ordered the DBG one
Thoughts?

30225pb05 Baseplate, Road 16 x 16 with White Danger Chevrons and Fire Logo Pattern (Sticker) - Set 7240
Parts: Baseplate, Road

and

6205pb006 Tile, Modified 6 x 16 with Studs on Edges with Yellow Worn Arrow and Stripes on Sides Pattern (Stickers) - Set 75171
Parts: Tile, Modified, Decorated

is DBG
Look look like it's mostly DBG.

Author:

axaday

Posted:

Mar 3, 2020 07:37

Subject:

Re: Incorrect weight

Viewed:

46 times

Topic:

In Catalog, macyenco writes:

Hi there,

Can someone please enter the correct weight of instruction booklet 6624 Delivery
Van. Due to Bricklink catalog the weight of this booklet is 55 grams, but it
should be 3 grams.

Thank you.

Author:

rick_holl

Posted:

Mar 3, 2020 07:37

Subject:

Re: Color id

Viewed:

28 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, rick_holl writes:

Bought this lot under ´dark grey’ but looks like dark bluish grey
Don’t have it yet, just want to be sure i ordered the DBG one
Thoughts?

Not very easy to say without a reference but there’s a plate that looks more
olivey on the upper left, so I’d say most of it is DBG but there’s DG in there
too.

Thank you

Author:

rick_holl

Posted:

Mar 3, 2020 07:36

Subject:

Re: Color id

Viewed:

27 times

Topic: