BrickLink Discussion Forum

In Colors, 7StarMantis writes:

I found that the four 3005 light gray blocks in set 10698-1 that I got are unusually
light when compared to other blocks of supposedly the same color. The manual
lists these as the same as the other bricks in the set, but this is not the case.
In the photo I have attached, the window piece also came with the set. I have
attached other bricks for comparison as well.

I am not sure if this is intentional or a color error at the manufacturing plant,
but these bricks are lighter than the standard light blue gray.

This brick sells for $5 a piece for some reason in the color very light blue
gray. The current set inventory on here does not reflect the lighter color.

It's just a slight color variation within light gray. Very light bluish gray
is almost white; from the picture those do not look to be that color at all.

Author:

tonnic

Posted:

Apr 7, 2021 14:12

Subject:

Re: Rare Very Light Blue Gray in Set 10698-1

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

Colors

In Colors, 7StarMantis writes:

You should compare this brick with a very light bluish gray part like one of
the Knights Kingdom shields.
This part isn’t meant to be very light bluish gray, it might be a color issue
like less color in the mix.
LBG, reddish brown and also other parts have quite some color variations.
So before calling it rare be sure it is.
Rare seems to be a very much abused words nowadays, maybe in this case it isn’t
but you need to be sure.

Author:

Admin_Russell

Posted:

Apr 7, 2021 13:58

Subject:

Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature

Viewed:

58 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Brick.Door writes:

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:

Instant Checkout will work no matter what order the data is in, but when stud
and metric dimensions are listed together, it makes sense that the fields line
up.

The Z dimension should always mean height / thickness according to the rules
for stud dimensions.

Thanks for the quick reply!

How do dimension limits work on instant checkout? I haven't been able to
find any documentation. There is no way for me to test it, so I simply didn't
use it.

You can test it by putting things in a cart and trying to go through checkout.
I personally tested it quite a bit when Instant Checkout was released, and it
works very well. You will need to make sure you have accurate dimensions for
the parts in your store, and you will need to make small adjustments to the process
at first.

There is a help page for "Store Shipping Methods" however it seems to be out
of date. I think it shows the shipping settings screens from before IC was implemented.

There is a help page under "Instant Checkout" "Advanced Options" that shows an
example of package restictions:

Orders can't be shipped with this method when order package exceeds any of
these conditions or when an item in the order has been flagged with manual packaging
type by the seller.
Max dimension
15 in (w) x 12 in (h) x 0.75 in (d)

It states that it is flagged if "order package" is too big. I don't know
what the size of the order package is, or how it is calculated. Does that mean
if any of the individual elements is too big?

Items that are Weight Bound are measured as a liquid. Larger items should be
Volume Bound and these are virtually stacked inside your order package as 3 dimensional
rectangles.

Are we supposed to enter the limits in inches? Even though the packaging dimensions
are in cm?

Yes. I believe for different postal systems, the measurement units are different.

Would a 1x1x5 Brick be allowed under this example?
It has dimensions 0.8 x 0.8 x 4.8 cm.
4.8 cm 0.75 in so it seems to be it would not be allowed, unless the system
is doing something behind the scenes to re-organize the dimensions and can see
that
4.8 cm
0.8 cm
0.8 cm

Yes, it would be allowed. The system would lay the brick down on its side to
fit in the package.

Author:

7StarMantis

Posted:

Apr 7, 2021 13:57

Subject:

Rare Very Light Blue Gray in Set 10698-1

Viewed:

114 times

Topic:

Colors

Status:

Open

Author:

Cob

Posted:

Apr 7, 2021 12:02

Subject:

Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature

Viewed:

32 times

Topic:

In Catalog, cosmicray writes:

In Catalog, jennnifer writes:

In Catalog, calsbricks writes:

In Catalog, jennnifer writes:

In Catalog, tec writes:

My friend here likes this post

That's a beauty! I definitely need one of those.

Jen

Or you might want one of these

Nope, I'm old-school analog all the way! Here's my scale....lol.

Jen

I'll see you ancient balance scale, and raise you a couple of USPS built
to last 100 years heavy duty scales. Both are in daily use in the Cosmic
Toys shipping department …

I'm jealous, that is an awesome scale.

Author:

Brick.Door

Posted:

Apr 7, 2021 11:57

Subject:

Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:

Thanks for the quick reply!

How do dimension limits work on instant checkout? I haven't been able to
find any documentation. There is no way for me to test it, so I simply didn't
use it.

There is a help page for "Store Shipping Methods" however it seems to be out
of date. I think it shows the shipping settings screens from before IC was implemented.

There is a help page under "Instant Checkout" "Advanced Options" that shows an
example of package restictions:

Orders can't be shipped with this method when order package exceeds any of
these conditions or when an item in the order has been flagged with manual packaging
type by the seller.
Max dimension
15 in (w) x 12 in (h) x 0.75 in (d)

It states that it is flagged if "order package" is too big. I don't know
what the size of the order package is, or how it is calculated. Does that mean
if any of the individual elements is too big?

Are we supposed to enter the limits in inches? Even though the packaging dimensions
are in cm?

Would a 1x1x5 Brick be allowed under this example?
It has dimensions 0.8 x 0.8 x 4.8 cm.
4.8 cm 0.75 in so it seems to be it would not be allowed, unless the system
is doing something behind the scenes to re-organize the dimensions and can see
that
4.8 cm
0.8 cm
0.8 cm

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Apr 7, 2021 11:30

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 6837-1

Viewed:

18 times

Topic:

Inventories Requests (Entry)

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

6837-1 (Inv) Cosmic Creeper
53 Parts, 1 Minifigure, 1998
Sets: Space: Insectoids

* Change 1 Part Black {6048 Arm Piece with Pin, 2 Fingers to 6048b Arm Piece with Pin, 2 Fingers and Finger Grooves}

Comments from Submitter:
From my personal collection. The set was bought new and never mixed with other sets.

Author:

axaday

Posted:

Apr 7, 2021 11:27

Subject:

Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw0100

Viewed:

28 times

Topic:

In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:

In Inventories Requests, dcarmine writes:

Then why is the figure pic in DK OG? The set pic and box image also have it
as DK OG?

There are many official set images and box images that show things that were
never included in the sets, but our guideline is to *not* alter official set
images or box images. However, we can change the figure image. There just happens
to be another image attached to that figure that shows the correct hair, so we
will just remove the image with dark orange hair. The image for the figure with
cape is already correct, also.

This minifig lives on my desk. Is a new picture of him wanted?

Author:

Admin_Russell

Posted:

Apr 7, 2021 11:27

Subject:

Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature

Viewed:

54 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Brick.Door writes:

For parts is the z dimension the height? Because I looked at 1x1x5 brick and
the height is .8 cm. The actual height was entered as the y dimension.

Or is the z dimension the smallest? So that it can be used to determine whether
the item will fit in a thin envelope. In that case there are many entries that
need to be changed.

Before all the work of populating part dimensions i think we need to figure out
how it is going to be used.

Many of the currently entered Packing Dimensions were mass imported from LDraw
data when Instant Checkout was implemented in 2017. These measurements have no
user credit - that is how you can tell where they came from.

Things were done that way to get the system up and running quickly, but at this
point we need to refine the data. I am outlining the submission rules on the
Help page, but essentially what they say is this - for parts, use the stud dimensions
to determine the order of the fields. Where there are no stud dimensions, add
dimensions in whichever order you wish.

So please submit a correction to that data. It is very likely there is more wrong
than just the order of the fields.

Instant Checkout will work no matter what order the data is in, but when stud
and metric dimensions are listed together, it makes sense that the fields line
up.

The Z dimension should always mean height / thickness according to the rules
for stud dimensions.

Author:

randyf

Posted:

Apr 7, 2021 11:16

Subject:

Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw0100

Viewed:

32 times

Topic:

In Inventories Requests, dcarmine writes:

Then why is the figure pic in DK OG? The set pic and box image also have it
as DK OG?

Author:

Brick.Door

Posted:

Apr 7, 2021 11:04

Subject:

Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature

Viewed:

44 times

Topic:

Author:

brickerking

Posted:

Apr 7, 2021 11:00

Subject:

Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature

Viewed:

42 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:

Personally, I would encourage you to spend 100% of your measurement submissions on actual dimensions at this point, and not worry about the studs.

Yay, this makes sense! You can always perform a calculation on the server side
to display stud dimensions. Entering a real unit of measurement on the user/data
entry side is a great improvement!

Author:

tec

Posted:

Apr 7, 2021 10:56

Subject:

Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

Good to know

Author:

Admin_Russell

Posted:

Apr 7, 2021 10:48

Subject:

Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature

Viewed:

59 times

Topic:

In Catalog, cosmicray writes:

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

Just to note, you have snipped the image starting with the 2x4 brick but not
included its dimensions. I got confused with the first set of dimensions x, y
and z until I realised they are for the slope and not the brick.

Sorry about that. Here is another screenshot:

An observation, and not a criticism, the Z dimension (on the brick and the slope)
correctly includes the height of the stud on top, and because of that is not
directly convertible into brick heights (when measured in brick units). This
is because assembled bricks nest the stud within the bottom of the above brick.
And, as we all know, no one ever ships bricks assembled (but see below).

Which also, causes the rather oblique situation of hips/legs (which have studs
on top) and torsos, to not add up correctly in the Z direction, because of being
shipped individually.

Somewhere in all this (part II or part III ?) we need to address the issue I
pointed out a couple of weeks back about part-assemblies (e.g. wheels and tires)
and how they are measured for X+Y+Z and if assembling them is required.

Nita Rae

There is no relationship or dependency between the two types of dimensions
- stud and metric. I know in the past that stud dimensions were used to give
an estimate of actual metric size, but we don't want to do that now.

I will continue adding examples of how we want you to measure things for the
catalog. It's going to be a long Help page!

Author:

Admin_Russell

Posted:

Apr 7, 2021 10:44

Subject:

Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature

Viewed:

55 times

Topic:

In Catalog, tec writes:

Update:
Many of my measurements got rejected
Is it because of fractions? (0.5 0.66 ..)
My example was:

44567b Hinge Plate 1 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger on Side without Bottom Groove
Parts: Hinge

where W=1.67

They were rejected because we do not accept stud dimensions on non-standard parts.
Especially now that we have actual metric values being added, there is no need
to find the stud dimensions for weird shapes.

In fact, we are considering hiding stud dimensions altogether, or moving them
to a separate info tab to keep people from being confused. Almost all pertinent
stud information is contained in the item name anyway.

Of course, it is a bit subjective whether a part is "weird" enough to not have
stud dimensions, but that is up to the catalog admin handling the request. Personally,
I would encourage you to spend 100% of your measurement submissions on actual
dimensions at this point, and not worry about the studs.

Author:

cosmicray

Posted:

Apr 7, 2021 08:31

Subject:

Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Brick.Door writes:

In Catalog, Emporiosa writes:

In Catalog, Brick.Door writes:

How will this be used? Will we be able to set up a shipping method that is only
allowed if all pieces are under a certain thickness? (i.i USPS large envelope/flat)

So the checkout would need to find the smallest of the three dimensions for each
element in the cart, and make sure it is below the threshold.

Or is it just to better approximate the total volume of the order?

It's already very much in use with Canadians sellers; it can jump from a
$1.94 stamp to $22 if the part is over 20mm in thickness. Canadian sellers have
been manually putting in the packaging dimensions for every oversized item (and
setting those items to Volume based).

What you do is set the packaging limits (if you have any for USPS) in the shipping
option like you mentioned, and it ensures that if there's a thickness maximum
(like the 20mm in Canada for Lettermail), that no part has any dimension that
goes over that. There's also general volumetric dimensions that you can set
where it's to try to calculate if "that much LEGO" can fit into what you
gave it, but I'm not entirely sure how well this part works.

So you have to exclude a part with any dimension over 20mm? That doesn't
seem like it would work very well. A 1x6x5 brick can easily fit but only one
of its dimensions is less than 20mm.

Believe it or not, the correct answer to this question also involves orientation
within the envelope when shipped. If you put solid bricks (or any part) in the
envelope with the wrong orientation, then it becomes what is known as a nonmachinable
letter. It all has to do with what USPS (and likely Canada Post) normally
expect letter mail to be subjected to when it goes through the processing equipment.
See this passage in Postal Explorer for a better detail of the requirements (DMM
101.1.2) …

https://pe.usps.com/text/DMM300/101.htm?q=diameter&h=diameter&t=H&s=R&p=1&c=DMM|QSG

There are even a few USB thumb drives that are thin enough to get thru letter
mail, but you need a thin cardboard frame to keep them oriented correctly.

Nita Rae

Author:

cosmicray

Posted:

Apr 7, 2021 08:18

Subject:

Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature

Viewed:

42 times

Topic:

In Catalog, jennnifer writes:

In Catalog, calsbricks writes:

In Catalog, jennnifer writes:

In Catalog, tec writes:

My friend here likes this post

That's a beauty! I definitely need one of those.

Jen

Or you might want one of these

Nope, I'm old-school analog all the way! Here's my scale....lol.

Jen

I'll see you ancient balance scale, and raise you a couple of USPS built
to last 100 years heavy duty scales. Both are in daily use in the Cosmic
Toys shipping department …

Author:

tec

Posted:

Apr 7, 2021 08:04

Subject:

Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

Update:
Many of my measurements got rejected
Is it because of fractions? (0.5 0.66 ..)
My example was:

44567b Hinge Plate 1 x 2 Locking with 1 Finger on Side without Bottom Groove
Parts: Hinge

where W=1.67

Author:

cosmicray

Posted:

Apr 7, 2021 07:52

Subject:

Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature

Viewed:

39 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:

In Catalog, yorbrick writes:

Sorry about that. Here is another screenshot:

Author:

msSquirrel

Posted:

Apr 7, 2021 07:34

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 9217-1

Viewed:

14 times

Topic:

Inventories Requests (Entry)

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

9217-1 (Inv) Farm Set
146 Parts, 4 Minifigures, 2 Gear, 2010
Sets: Educational & Dacta: DUPLO: Farm

* Add 9 Part 76371 Red Duplo, Brick 1 x 2 x 2 with Bottom Tube (Alternate)

Comments from Submitter:
sealed set content

Author:

axaday

Posted:

Apr 7, 2021 05:40

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 9794-3

Viewed:

22 times

Topic:

Inventories Requests (Entry)

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

9794-3 (Inv) ROBOLAB Team Challenge Set USB (2004 Version)
829 Parts, 2 Books, 3 Gear, 2004
Sets: Educational & Dacta: MINDSTORMS: RCX

* Change 2 Part Black {6048 Arm Piece with Pin, 2 Fingers to 6048b Arm Piece with Pin, 2 Fingers and Finger Grooves}
* Change 2 Part Black {4085b Plate, Modified 1 x 1 with U Clip Thin (Vertical Grip) to 4085c Plate, Modified 1 x 1 with U Clip Thick (Vertical Grip)}

Comments from Submitter:
Both of Jonas' notes on this set turned out right.

Author:

axaday

Posted:

Apr 7, 2021 05:38

Subject:

Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9794-3

Viewed:

16 times

Topic:

In Inventories Requests, Turez writes:

In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:

In Inventories Requests, Turez writes:

I would guess
[p=6048]
is in fact

6048b Arm Piece with Pin, 2 Fingers and Finger Grooves
Parts: Arm

My picture came out terribly but it is good enough. Are the "grooves" the indentation
in my white circle in the pic?

Yes.

Then you went 2/2.

Author:

Turez

Posted:

Apr 7, 2021 02:51

Subject:

Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 9794-3

Viewed:

24 times

Topic:

In Inventories Requests, axaday writes:

In Inventories Requests, Turez writes:

I would guess
[p=6048]
is in fact

6048b Arm Piece with Pin, 2 Fingers and Finger Grooves
Parts: Arm

My picture came out terribly but it is good enough. Are the "grooves" the indentation
in my white circle in the pic?

Yes.

Author:

dcarmine

Posted:

Apr 7, 2021 00:42

Subject:

Re: Inventory Change Request for Minifig sw0100

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

In Inventories Requests, infinibrix writes:

In Inventories Requests, randyf writes:

In Inventories Requests, dcarmine writes:

Please make changes to the following inventory:

Minifig No: sw0100 Name: Anakin Skywalker (Padawan) - Yellow Head

sw0100 (Inv) Anakin Skywalker (Padawan) - Yellow Head
Minifigures: Star Wars: Star Wars Episode 2

* Delete 1 Part 3901 Dark Nougat Minifigure, Hair Male
* Add 1 Part 3901 Dark Orange Minifigure, Hair Male

Comments from Submitter:
I have an original figure, and I know what dark orange looks like.

But do you know what Dark Nougat looks like?

Yes I do.

This is the only hairpiece ever made in Dark Nougat (and is one of the only pieces
known to exist in Dark Nougat), and Dark Nougat is very similar to Dark Orange.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/14890173099/

And this set definitely came with that hairpiece in Dark Nougat. (The official
LEGO data for this set confirms this as it also says it came with Dark Nougat
hair.)

If your original figure came from a sealed set with *true* Dark Orange hair,
then another minifigure will need to be created instead of altering the inventory
of this one.

Cheers,
Randy

also just to add that within that same set it actually comes with Kenobi with
hair described as Dark Orange and then the Anakin hair is officially described
differently as:-

Color Orange-brown
Description Dark Nougat

I'm not sure why Lego use two colour references for that same part but its
certainly intended to be different to Dark Orange thats for sure

I just checked my fig and you are right, it's Dark Nougat.

Then why is the figure pic in DK OG? The set pic and box image also have it
as DK OG?
Any new sellers that sees that pic will think it is DK OG.

So now you will ask me to provide a new pic, with and without cape? I'll
try to get to it.

Thanks for the "schooling".

Donna

Author:

Admin_Russell

Posted:

Apr 7, 2021 00:34

Subject:

Re: New Packing Dimensions Feature

Viewed:

75 times

Topic: