Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | peregrinator  | | Posted: | May 6, 2022 21:24 | | Subject: | Re: Inventories | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, CapnBootle writes:
| | Why, bearing in mind The Lego Group now own BrickLink, do we still have to wait
for set inventories to be approved? - surely TLG actually have pics of any new
parts and have the capability to provide them to a site it owns? 
|
They definitely have renders of new parts, but they aren't always
good, and they don't have images of minifigures that are useful in the catalogue.
The reason we have to wait for inventories to be approved is that someone still
has to review the data that come from Lego, make sure it's been categorized
appropriately, etc.
|
 |
| Author: | McBricks | | Posted: | May 6, 2022 18:34 | | Subject: | Re: Inventories | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, CapnBootle writes:
| | Why, bearing in mind The Lego Group now own BrickLink, do we still have to wait
for set inventories to be approved? - surely TLG actually have pics of any new
parts and have the capability to provide them to a site it owns?
|
Amen!
|
| Author: | CapnBootle | | Posted: | May 6, 2022 17:42 | | Subject: | Inventories | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Why, bearing in mind The Lego Group now own BrickLink, do we still have to wait
for set inventories to be approved? - surely TLG actually have pics of any new
parts and have the capability to provide them to a site it owns?
|
| Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | May 5, 2022 18:38 | | Subject: | Re: Weight of Titanic Flags | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stuart9 writes:
| | Can you tell me the dimensions in chains please. 
|
(approx)
|
|
| Author: | Stuart9 | | Posted: | May 5, 2022 18:32 | | Subject: | Re: Weight of Titanic Flags | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Can you tell me the dimensions in chains please.
In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, Treybe writes:
| | Item 10294pls01 needs to have the weight added. Not sure if this is the proper
place to post this.
Thank you,
Trey
|
0.74g
No idea how it weights in gallons, sorry.
|
|
| Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | May 5, 2022 18:21 | | Subject: | Re: Weight of Titanic Flags | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, psusaxman2000 writes:
Done.
|
| Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | May 5, 2022 18:11 | | Subject: | Re: Weight of Titanic Flags | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Treybe writes:
| | Item 10294pls01 needs to have the weight added. Not sure if this is the proper
place to post this.
Thank you,
Trey
|
0.74g
No idea how it weights in gallons, sorry.
|
| Author: | psusaxman2000 | | Posted: | May 5, 2022 15:54 | | Subject: | Re: Weight of Titanic Flags | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Treybe writes:
| | Item 10294pls01 needs to have the weight added. Not sure if this is the proper
place to post this.
Thank you,
Trey
|
If you have the part you can submit the weight here:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp?itemType=P
|
| Author: | Treybe | | Posted: | May 5, 2022 15:26 | | Subject: | Weight of Titanic Flags | | Viewed: | 122 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Item 10294pls01 needs to have the weight added. Not sure if this is the proper
place to post this.
Thank you,
Trey
|
| Author: | Nicolasamico37 | | Posted: | May 5, 2022 03:07 | | Subject: | Re: The Muppets | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| You're right, I found the Minifigures before, but I just saw the menu "The
Muppets" in "Collectible Minifigures" in the Catalog Tree. Thank you,
Nicolas
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 5, 2022 02:41 | | Subject: | Re: The Muppets | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nicolasamico37 writes:
| | Is it me, or The Muppets Collectible Minifigures Series is still not on the Catalog
Tree ?
Hopefuly you can use the search toolbar 
Nicolas
|
They have been listed for about a week now.
|
| Author: | Sadler_Bricks | | Posted: | May 5, 2022 01:10 | | Subject: | Re: small old Lego car ID | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I come across the different variations of these from used hauls a nifty little
find if you ask me. Nice find.
Sadler_bricks
|
| Author: | Nicolasamico37 | | Posted: | May 4, 2022 22:40 | | Subject: | The Muppets | | Viewed: | 123 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Is it me, or The Muppets Collectible Minifigures Series is still not on the Catalog
Tree ?
Hopefuly you can use the search toolbar
Nicolas
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | May 4, 2022 10:53 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 387-1 | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, TakeAbricK writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | […]
With the new mold of 3660 we might need to update this part title.
|
It’s almost as complicated as 3001 
There’s:
— round pin vs. flat pin
— thin walls vs. thick walls
— studs with small hole vs. studs with big hole vs. studs with stopper ring
I don’t have many 3660old but mine have thick walls (obviously) and big hole
in the studs… but the holes are not big enough for a bar.
My old 3660 are either:
— thick walls & studs with small hole.
— thin walls & studs with big hole (a bar fits in some but not all).
And my new 3660 have thin walls and stopper rings.
I don’t think I’ve seen any of the new ones with a round pin yet.
| | Also the alternate image in that shows 2 blue pieces, it is for 3660 vs 3660old?
That might need to be labeled.
|
|
These 3660 should be split in 3 variants imo, before that new one is added.
1. bar doesn't fit
2. bar fits
3. bar fits partly
people want to know?!
|
Bar fitting seems not a split reason 
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=309651
|
|
| Author: | TakeAbricK | | Posted: | May 4, 2022 09:21 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 387-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | […]
With the new mold of 3660 we might need to update this part title.
|
It’s almost as complicated as 3001
There’s:
— round pin vs. flat pin
— thin walls vs. thick walls
— studs with small hole vs. studs with big hole vs. studs with stopper ring
I don’t have many 3660old but mine have thick walls (obviously) and big hole
in the studs… but the holes are not big enough for a bar.
My old 3660 are either:
— thick walls & studs with small hole.
— thin walls & studs with big hole (a bar fits in some but not all).
And my new 3660 have thin walls and stopper rings.
I don’t think I’ve seen any of the new ones with a round pin yet.
| | Also the alternate image in that shows 2 blue pieces, it is for 3660 vs 3660old?
That might need to be labeled.
|
|
These 3660 should be split in 3 variants imo, before that new one is added.
1. bar doesn't fit
2. bar fits
3. bar fits partly
people want to know?!
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 4, 2022 07:23 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 387-1 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | […]
With the new mold of 3660 we might need to update this part title.
|
It’s almost as complicated as 3001
There’s:
— round pin vs. flat pin
— thin walls vs. thick walls
— studs with small hole vs. studs with big hole vs. studs with stopper ring
I don’t have many 3660old but mine have thick walls (obviously) and big hole
in the studs… but the holes are not big enough for a bar.
My old 3660 are either:
— thick walls & studs with small hole.
— thin walls & studs with big hole (a bar fits in some but not all).
And my new 3660 have thin walls and stopper rings.
I don’t think I’ve seen any of the new ones with a round pin yet.
| | Also the alternate image in that shows 2 blue pieces, it is for 3660 vs 3660old?
That might need to be labeled.
|
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | May 4, 2022 06:27 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 387-1 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, TakeAbricK writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 4 Part 3660 Red Slope, Inverted 45 2 x 2 (Alternate) (match ID 1)
* Add 2 Part bb0076 Black Technic, Link Chain, Large with Studs (Extra)
* Change 4 Part Red 3660old Slope, Inverted 45 2 x 2 with Round Bottom Tube {match ID 0 to 1}
Comments from Submitter:
Not sure you’ll find it’s proven enough but here it is:
I’ve had this set since I was a child. It’s been played with, built, and unbuilt for years.
But:
1. I’ve 50x bb0076, without any other possible source. I put the 2 more as Extra because 48x is enough (almost too many) for the build.
2. I don’t have any Red 3660old and all my Red 3660 are accounted for if I include this set.
|
Approved.
This set was in production 1976-1979.
was produced a very short time.
Diana
|
With the new mold of 3660 we might need to update this part title.
Also the alternate image in that shows 2 blue pieces, it is for 3660 vs 3660old?
That might need to be labeled.
|
|
|
| Author: | TheCuteGiraffe | | Posted: | May 4, 2022 01:11 | | Subject: | Re: small old Lego car ID | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I think maybe a product for Primo or Quarto. I mean like for the older lego
for young kids.
|
| Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | May 3, 2022 17:20 | | Subject: | Re: small old Lego car ID | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | Anyday! |
| Author: | minifig_75 | | Posted: | May 3, 2022 17:19 | | Subject: | Re: small old Lego car ID | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
THANKS a lot
|
| Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | May 3, 2022 16:25 | | Subject: | Re: small old Lego car ID | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| |
| Author: | minifig_75 | | Posted: | May 3, 2022 16:16 | | Subject: | small old Lego car ID | | Viewed: | 115 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Hi everyone, hope you're fine.
Here's a small car, I had never seen this before.
It's made in 1 piece..
The big stud in middle lifts up when bumper's pulled out..
Has anyone ever seen it before please ?
(No Id, no year, only Lego Group written on bottom)
Thanks, wish you a nice evening
|
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | May 1, 2022 08:17 | | Subject: | Re: catalog pic show the partID too | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tec writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, tec writes:
| | Somehow I was able to see an ID inscribed onto a "render" image.
select color BLACK to see
too bad it's not 093 but part 4697b
but nice easter egg
|
It's actually 'LEGO' upside down and not a part number.
|
nice
should we redo it the right way?
|
The render comes directly from LEGO, so we do not need to alter it. Just use
your imagination to flip the part over in your head.
|
|
| Author: | tec | | Posted: | May 1, 2022 07:57 | | Subject: | Re: catalog pic show the partID too | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, tec writes:
| | Somehow I was able to see an ID inscribed onto a "render" image.
select color BLACK to see
too bad it's not 093 but part 4697b
but nice easter egg
|
It's actually 'LEGO' upside down and not a part number.
|
nice
should we redo it the right way?
|
|
| Author: | minifig_75 | | Posted: | May 1, 2022 01:49 | | Subject: | Re: forestman torso 6077 - color of collar | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, minifig_75 writes:
| | Hi all!
So we've had the 6077 forestman set for a long time.
And, both on the instructions AND the Bricklink description, there is a mistake
on the color RED of colar for torso 973p48c01 : it IS REDDISH BROWN, not RED.
It's certified.
thanks
best regards
Soon
|
THANK YOU SO MUCH for all your replies, guys ❤️
Wish you all a great day 😁
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 19:21 | | Subject: | Re: Part weights vary for printed variations | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| One of my dream features would be an alert system, where you could put a specific
alert on any entry in the catalog and everyone could search their inventory or
the catalog for items with alerts. So if something didn’t seem right but you
were unable to correct it, it would go in somewhere where the people who might
not see your forum post on one day will still see your issue. Your question
about the Mickey legs was answered this way, but it could have been missed.
I will soon be reshooting because I got one in a used lot, but
If we had an alert system someone would have tagged that picture needing a replacement
and I might have bought one to fix it.
In Catalog, sw_lego_lover writes:
| | So, I'd like to understand how scientific the measurements are for parts,
as I have come across some variation in the weights for some parts that share
the same "mould" (part number anyway).
Is it possible to request that someone re-analyse some of these to assess accuracy?
This is regarding the main minifigure hips and legs.
970c00 - 1.18g
970c00pb0966 - 1.16g - black
970c00pb0861 - 1.19g - black
970c00pb0961 - 1.27g
970c00pb0444 - 1.18g
While I'm not an expert in ink weights and color/material weights, this seems
a bit suspicious. If it was an issue of colors, then all matching color parts
would have very similar weights.
People are paying shipping based on these weights so they need to be accurate.
I'm just wondering if this has actually been reviewed, for this part in
particular?
|
|
|
| Author: | sw_lego_lover | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 19:16 | | Subject: | Re: Part weights vary for printed variations | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, sw_lego_lover writes:
| | Given that BrickLink is owned by TLG, there is some reasonable expectation that
the data regarding the parts would be shared. especially given this is a for-profit
company. Has there been any statement why data like this is not being shared
that anyone knows of?
|
The rule on BrickLink is that the catalog goes with the heaviest color / version
of an item under a given entry. This is to prevent undercharging on shipping
costs.
The data from the LEGO Group is for modern elements, and typically these are
lighter due to more efficient molding methods being developed over the years.
BrickLink will tend toward the older, heavier weights, so this new data is not
as useful for us as actual measurement.
The total spread in the parts you have listed is 0.1 gram, and without the outlier,
which may be due to the silver coating on the feet, we are down to 0.03 gram.
For the purposes of the instant checkout shipping calculator, 3 hundredths of
a gram is only going to make a difference when selling at high volume, and at
those higher total wieghts, the shipping bands are quite far apart.
More importantly, all of those weights were submitted by individuals who now
have a credit in the BrickLink system. Community involvement is more important
to us than absolute accuracy and standardization, because we recognize that it
takes a community to build the kind of catalog we all enjoy. The key is to get
more people involved and more people contributing, and in the end, that will
translate into the best catalog possible.
That doesn't preclude us from using LEGO data either. We can use it to check
submissions for accuracy, and we regularly do.
|
Thanks for clarifying on the data usage. I appreciate all of the responses. A
few have been explained or verified already. Especially where newer parts may
be lighter than previous versions due to manufacturing changes - yet are not
captured in a new Part #.
Its apparently all understandable variation, which is honestly surprising to
me. But I'm glad the community has put forth an effort to aide me in understanding.
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 15:48 | | Subject: | Re: catalog pic show the partID too | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tec writes:
| | Somehow I was able to see an ID inscribed onto a "render" image.
select color BLACK to see
too bad it's not 093 but part 4697b
but nice easter egg
|
It's actually 'LEGO' upside down and not a part number.
|
| Author: | tec | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 15:14 | | Subject: | catalog pic show the partID too | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Somehow I was able to see an ID inscribed onto a "render" image.
select color BLACK to see
too bad it's not 093 but part 4697b
but nice easter egg
|
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 11:50 | | Subject: | Re: Item Description Inconsistencies | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, brickearther writes:
| | Most parts include its category at the beginning of the description. But not
always, such as as part # x577 Engine (category is Aircraft). There's a bunch
of minifig parts like this too.
The accuracy is important for me when I'm trying to build a set and all my
parts are organized by category. When I get to the engine part I have to go all
the way back to Aircraft bin to go find that part.
Am I crazy or would it make sense to change this to make it consistent?
|
Category descriptions used in titles are used the way they are for ease of use.
In some categories where there is only one item type, it makes sense to have
them for findability and sorting purposes (such as Bricks, Plates, and Wedges).
However, we don't need to say "Animal, Land" in front of every land animal
because it is not necessary and the category contains many types of items. In
other words, a cat is a cat, and a dog is a dog. That is what people are going
to search for and adding "Animal, Land" to the description is considered clutter.
In the case of the engines in the "Aircraft" category, there are many different
types of items in that category, so the category descriptor is not used. Many
of the engines are also used for other things besides aircraft engines, so having
them in "Aircraft" may not be the best place for them. But for now, they are
fine where they are.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 10:46 | | Subject: | Re: Item Description Inconsistencies | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, brickearther writes:
| | Most parts include its category at the beginning of the description. But not
always, such as as part # x577 Engine (category is Aircraft). There's a bunch
of minifig parts like this too.
The accuracy is important for me when I'm trying to build a set and all my
parts are organized by category. When I get to the engine part I have to go all
the way back to Aircraft bin to go find that part.
Am I crazy or would it make sense to change this to make it consistent?
|
I am pretty sure that many of the minifig parts do not have their category at
the start of their Item Name because there just isn't enough space with all
those pattern descriptions.
I also sort my store by category and have just gotten used to where the outliers
pop up alphabetically. The Animals and the Food are the biggest culprits in my
book.
Jen
|
|
| Author: | brickearther | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 10:18 | | Subject: | Item Description Inconsistencies | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Most parts include its category at the beginning of the description. But not
always, such as as part # x577 Engine (category is Aircraft). There's a bunch
of minifig parts like this too.
The accuracy is important for me when I'm trying to build a set and all my
parts are organized by category. When I get to the engine part I have to go all
the way back to Aircraft bin to go find that part.
Am I crazy or would it make sense to change this to make it consistent?
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 07:06 | | Subject: | Re: Part weights vary for printed variations | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, sw_lego_lover writes:
| | So, I'd like to understand how scientific the measurements are for parts,
as I have come across some variation in the weights for some parts that share
the same "mould" (part number anyway).
Is it possible to request that someone re-analyse some of these to assess accuracy?
This is regarding the main minifigure hips and legs.
- 1.18g
|
Just checked this one and indeed the weight is on point at 1.16g
| | - 1.19g - black
- 1.27g
- 1.18g
While I'm not an expert in ink weights and color/material weights, this seems
a bit suspicious. If it was an issue of colors, then all matching color parts
would have very similar weights.
People are paying shipping based on these weights so they need to be accurate.
I'm just wondering if this has actually been reviewed, for this part in
particular?
|
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 06:57 | | Subject: | Re: Part weights vary for printed variations | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, sw_lego_lover writes:
| | Given that BrickLink is owned by TLG, there is some reasonable expectation that
the data regarding the parts would be shared. especially given this is a for-profit
company. Has there been any statement why data like this is not being shared
that anyone knows of?
|
The rule on BrickLink is that the catalog goes with the heaviest color / version
of an item under a given entry. This is to prevent undercharging on shipping
costs.
The data from the LEGO Group is for modern elements, and typically these are
lighter due to more efficient molding methods being developed over the years.
BrickLink will tend toward the older, heavier weights, so this new data is not
as useful for us as actual measurement.
The total spread in the parts you have listed is 0.1 gram, and without the outlier,
which may be due to the silver coating on the feet, we are down to 0.03 gram.
For the purposes of the instant checkout shipping calculator, 3 hundredths of
a gram is only going to make a difference when selling at high volume, and at
those higher total wieghts, the shipping bands are quite far apart.
More importantly, all of those weights were submitted by individuals who now
have a credit in the BrickLink system. Community involvement is more important
to us than absolute accuracy and standardization, because we recognize that it
takes a community to build the kind of catalog we all enjoy. The key is to get
more people involved and more people contributing, and in the end, that will
translate into the best catalog possible.
That doesn't preclude us from using LEGO data either. We can use it to check
submissions for accuracy, and we regularly do.
|
And those 3/100s of a gram per part are insignificant compared to the weight
of any packaging a seller is likely to use.
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 06:33 | | Subject: | Re: Part weights vary for printed variations | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, sw_lego_lover writes:
| | So, I'd like to understand how scientific the measurements are for parts,
as I have come across some variation in the weights for some parts that share
the same "mould" (part number anyway).
Is it possible to request that someone re-analyse some of these to assess accuracy?
This is regarding the main minifigure hips and legs.
970c00 - 1.18g
970c00pb0966 - 1.16g - black
970c00pb0861 - 1.19g - black
970c00pb0961 - 1.27g
970c00pb0444 - 1.18g
|
This decorated version does actually weigh more:
970c00 (White): 1.19g
970c00pb0961 (Decorated White): 1.29g
|
Yep. And that is due to the dual molding process which adds more plastic between
the two colors.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2022 20:22 | | Subject: | Re: Part weights vary for printed variations | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location:  USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
 |
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, sw_lego_lover writes:
| | Given that BrickLink is owned by TLG, there is some reasonable expectation that
the data regarding the parts would be shared. especially given this is a for-profit
company. Has there been any statement why data like this is not being shared
that anyone knows of?
|
The rule on BrickLink is that the catalog goes with the heaviest color / version
of an item under a given entry. This is to prevent undercharging on shipping
costs.
The data from the LEGO Group is for modern elements, and typically these are
lighter due to more efficient molding methods being developed over the years.
BrickLink will tend toward the older, heavier weights, so this new data is not
as useful for us as actual measurement.
The total spread in the parts you have listed is 0.1 gram, and without the outlier,
which may be due to the silver coating on the feet, we are down to 0.03 gram.
For the purposes of the instant checkout shipping calculator, 3 hundredths of
a gram is only going to make a difference when selling at high volume, and at
those higher total wieghts, the shipping bands are quite far apart.
More importantly, all of those weights were submitted by individuals who now
have a credit in the BrickLink system. Community involvement is more important
to us than absolute accuracy and standardization, because we recognize that it
takes a community to build the kind of catalog we all enjoy. The key is to get
more people involved and more people contributing, and in the end, that will
translate into the best catalog possible.
That doesn't preclude us from using LEGO data either. We can use it to check
submissions for accuracy, and we regularly do.
|
|
| Author: | sw_lego_lover | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2022 15:13 | | Subject: | Re: Part weights vary for printed variations | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, sw_lego_lover writes:
| | So, I'd like to understand how scientific the measurements are for parts,
as I have come across some variation in the weights for some parts that share
the same "mould" (part number anyway).
Is it possible to request that someone re-analyse some of these to assess accuracy?
This is regarding the main minifigure hips and legs.
970c00 - 1.18g
970c00pb0966 - 1.16g - black
970c00pb0861 - 1.19g - black
970c00pb0961 - 1.27g
970c00pb0444 - 1.18g
While I'm not an expert in ink weights and color/material weights, this seems
a bit suspicious. If it was an issue of colors, then all matching color parts
would have very similar weights.
People are paying shipping based on these weights so they need to be accurate.
I'm just wondering if this has actually been reviewed, for this part in
particular?
|
Weights and measurements are submitted by members so there is no confirming their
scientific accuracy. These weights are all well within a range that is unlikely
to affect shipping costs. If you feel strongly that any data in our system needs
to be corrected, you are free to submit a change request to update it.
Jen
|
Given that BrickLink is owned by TLG, there is some reasonable expectation that
the data regarding the parts would be shared. especially given this is a for-profit
company. Has there been any statement why data like this is not being shared
that anyone knows of?
|
|
| Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2022 14:47 | | Subject: | Re: Part weights vary for printed variations | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, sw_lego_lover writes:
| | So, I'd like to understand how scientific the measurements are for parts,
as I have come across some variation in the weights for some parts that share
the same "mould" (part number anyway).
Is it possible to request that someone re-analyse some of these to assess accuracy?
This is regarding the main minifigure hips and legs.
970c00 - 1.18g
970c00pb0966 - 1.16g - black
970c00pb0861 - 1.19g - black
970c00pb0961 - 1.27g
970c00pb0444 - 1.18g
While I'm not an expert in ink weights and color/material weights, this seems
a bit suspicious. If it was an issue of colors, then all matching color parts
would have very similar weights.
People are paying shipping based on these weights so they need to be accurate.
I'm just wondering if this has actually been reviewed, for this part in
particular?
|
Weights and measurements are submitted by members so there is no confirming their
scientific accuracy. These weights are all well within a range that is unlikely
to affect shipping costs. If you feel strongly that any data in our system needs
to be corrected, you are free to submit a change request to update it.
Jen
|
|
| Author: | sw_lego_lover | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2022 14:40 | | Subject: | Part weights vary for printed variations | | Viewed: | 87 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| So, I'd like to understand how scientific the measurements are for parts,
as I have come across some variation in the weights for some parts that share
the same "mould" (part number anyway).
Is it possible to request that someone re-analyse some of these to assess accuracy?
This is regarding the main minifigure hips and legs.
970c00 - 1.18g
970c00pb0966 - 1.16g - black
970c00pb0861 - 1.19g - black
970c00pb0961 - 1.27g
970c00pb0444 - 1.18g
While I'm not an expert in ink weights and color/material weights, this seems
a bit suspicious. If it was an issue of colors, then all matching color parts
would have very similar weights.
People are paying shipping based on these weights so they need to be accurate.
I'm just wondering if this has actually been reviewed, for this part in
particular?
|
|
| Author: | runner.caller | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2022 14:00 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, qwertyboy writes:
| | We use those Acro-Mills-style small drawers to store minifigs heads We have them
labeled "b0000", "b0050", "b0100" etc, where "b0000" contains heads 3626bpb0000-3626bpb0049
etc. Nice and easy. Same with torsos - drawers "pb0000", "pb0050" (and here we
also have "px1" etc). Same with decorated legs. Our utensils are stored by item
ID in their own drawer cabinet, as are weapons.
I don't understand why some people here are so dead set against sorting by
category that they would say things like "... you should NEVER ..." (and worse).
Each way of storing has its advantages and drawbacks. We have sold close to 2
million used parts, with currently 217k items in 10k lots in stock. We don't
have issues with picking speed (we regularly handle 300+ lots orders). To us,
storing by category just makes sense. I can grab any item with just a description
(like "red brick 2x4") in 5 seconds without having to look anything up. I know
there are others who store by category (and one runs a 3M+ parts shop) without
issues.
If there are category reorganizations, we handle those when the need is there,
and sometimes the need is not that pressing. For instance, a while ago the category
"Brick, Arch" was renamed "Arch". We haven't even bothered moving the corresponding
drawers as we know where all our arches are.
[tl/dr] Store however works for you. If you store by remark, great. Store by
category, fine. Store by color, more power to you (even though I would like to
see that in action for a large inventory). As long as it is fast and organized,
who cares.
Niek.
|
Great stuff Niek!
You hit so many great points! Seems like a lot of long time sellers systems'
have evolved to the point they have blinders on and can't fathom how any
other method other than their own could be better but, like you said, the best
system is the one that each individual chooses for themselves.
|
|
| Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 12:46 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 55 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| We use those Acro-Mills-style small drawers to store minifigs heads We have them
labeled "b0000", "b0050", "b0100" etc, where "b0000" contains heads 3626bpb0000-3626bpb0049
etc. Nice and easy. Same with torsos - drawers "pb0000", "pb0050" (and here we
also have "px1" etc). Same with decorated legs. Our utensils are stored by item
ID in their own drawer cabinet, as are weapons.
I don't understand why some people here are so dead set against sorting by
category that they would say things like "... you should NEVER ..." (and worse).
Each way of storing has its advantages and drawbacks. We have sold close to 2
million used parts, with currently 217k items in 10k lots in stock. We don't
have issues with picking speed (we regularly handle 300+ lots orders). To us,
storing by category just makes sense. I can grab any item with just a description
(like "red brick 2x4") in 5 seconds without having to look anything up. I know
there are others who store by category (and one runs a 3M+ parts shop) without
issues.
If there are category reorganizations, we handle those when the need is there,
and sometimes the need is not that pressing. For instance, a while ago the category
"Brick, Arch" was renamed "Arch". We haven't even bothered moving the corresponding
drawers as we know where all our arches are.
[tl/dr] Store however works for you. If you store by remark, great. Store by
category, fine. Store by color, more power to you (even though I would like to
see that in action for a large inventory). As long as it is fast and organized,
who cares.
Niek.
|
|
| Author: | peregrinator | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 10:16 | | Subject: | Re: forestman torso 6077 - color of collar | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, goldknight writes:
| | I know nothing about these torsos but if I were to get one, which color would
be rarest in your opinions??
|
Black
|
|
| Author: | runner.caller | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 10:15 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | It makes picking easy, cause you don't have to pay very close attention if
the customer ordered a torso from a given location and there is only 1 style
torso in that drawer.
|
This^
I thought it was obvious; but apparently people prefer to put all the Minifig
Heads in the same drawer, so they've 99% chances to make a mistake
|
I can see how that works for maybe a one-room workplace, but we have a storage
building, a sorting building, and then the listing usually occurs in the house.
When we list heads, for example, it's a lot easier to take one bin with all
the heads in it than a few hundred. But we keep them very organized with bags
and labels.
In fact, I feel this method may be slightly better as it forces the picker to
pay more attention to what they're actually handling and doing.
|
Makes sense. Even with a setup like that, I'd do 99% of the listing at home,
but just not process the XML file.
I'd have a baseplate with all the heads lined up in the order that I'm
going to put them away into their locations, and prep the file.
Then, I'd take them to the building where the orders are picked and process
the XML file and place each head into its bin.
This would not work for new parts, because once you stuck a head onto the baseplate
it would technically become used, but maybe someone could use something like
a segmented bead tray to accomplish the same thing.
But yes, I'd still be wasting time the next day putting them away, but I
think the time would be made up by picking orders faster.
|
|
| Author: | 1974 | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 10:15 | | Subject: | Re: forestman torso 6077 - color of collar | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, goldknight writes:
| | I know nothing about these torsos but if I were to get one, which color would
be rarest in your opinions??
|
The blue one
|
|
| Author: | edk | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 09:50 | | Subject: | Re: forestman torso 6077 - color of collar | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stuart9 writes:
| | I’ve seen this too, thanks for posting the images.
|
Red and green mixed = Brown. I say these are just variations due to the formula
or some sort of variation in the red ink used.
| |
In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | In Catalog, minifig_75 writes:
| | Hi all!
So we've had the 6077 forestman set for a long time.
And, both on the instructions AND the Bricklink description, there is a mistake
on the color RED of colar for torso 973p48c01 : it IS REDDISH BROWN, not RED.
It's certified.
thanks
best regards
Soon
|
I have several variations, varying from Red, to Dark Red to Reddish Brown; at
one time they even have had separate listings and a comparison picture on Bricklink.
It got lost during the image restyling project or when three distinct patterns
where merged into one:
[p=973p53]
[p=973p54]
|
|
|
|
| Author: | goldknight | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 09:49 | | Subject: | Re: forestman torso 6077 - color of collar | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stuart9 writes:
| | I’ve seen this too, thanks for posting the images.
In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | In Catalog, minifig_75 writes:
| | Hi all!
So we've had the 6077 forestman set for a long time.
And, both on the instructions AND the Bricklink description, there is a mistake
on the color RED of colar for torso 973p48c01 : it IS REDDISH BROWN, not RED.
It's certified.
thanks
best regards
Soon
|
I have several variations, varying from Red, to Dark Red to Reddish Brown; at
one time they even have had separate listings and a comparison picture on Bricklink.
It got lost during the image restyling project or when three distinct patterns
where merged into one:
[p=973p53]
[p=973p54]
|
|
I know nothing about these torsos but if I were to get one, which color would
be rarest in your opinions??
|
|
| Author: | Stuart9 | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 09:31 | | Subject: | Re: forestman torso 6077 - color of collar | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I’ve seen this too, thanks for posting the images.
In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | In Catalog, minifig_75 writes:
| | Hi all!
So we've had the 6077 forestman set for a long time.
And, both on the instructions AND the Bricklink description, there is a mistake
on the color RED of colar for torso 973p48c01 : it IS REDDISH BROWN, not RED.
It's certified.
thanks
best regards
Soon
|
I have several variations, varying from Red, to Dark Red to Reddish Brown; at
one time they even have had separate listings and a comparison picture on Bricklink.
It got lost during the image restyling project or when three distinct patterns
where merged into one:
[p=973p53]
[p=973p54]
|
|
|
| Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 09:21 | | Subject: | Re: forestman torso 6077 - color of collar | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, minifig_75 writes:
| | Hi all!
So we've had the 6077 forestman set for a long time.
And, both on the instructions AND the Bricklink description, there is a mistake
on the color RED of colar for torso 973p48c01 : it IS REDDISH BROWN, not RED.
It's certified.
thanks
best regards
Soon
|
I have several variations, varying from Red, to Dark Red to Reddish Brown; at
one time they even have had separate listings and a comparison picture on Bricklink.
It got lost during the image restyling project or when three distinct patterns
where merged into one:
[p=973p53]
[p=973p54]
|
|
|
| Author: | 1974 | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 07:14 | | Subject: | Re: forestman torso 6077 - color of collar | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I've got a lot of those torsos and the variation is rather large
I do believe it's supposed to be red as reddish brown wasn't around back
then
In Catalog, minifig_75 writes:
| | Hi all!
So we've had the 6077 forestman set for a long time.
And, both on the instructions AND the Bricklink description, there is a mistake
on the color RED of colar for torso 973p48c01 : it IS REDDISH BROWN, not RED.
It's certified.
thanks
best regards
Soon
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
United Kingdom, England
France, Provence-Alpes-Côte d'Azur
Spain, Comunidad Valenciana
Netherlands, Gelderland
Australia, Victoria
Canada, Ontario
Italy, Marche
Denmark
)
)