BrickLink Discussion Forum

In Inventories Requests, normann1974 writes:

In Inventories Requests, WOLKsite writes:

In Inventories Requests, normann1974 writes:

In Inventories Requests, WOLKsite writes:

Please make changes to the following inventory:

8570-1 (Inv) Gali Nuva
44 Parts, 2002
Sets: BIONICLE: Toa Nuva

* Delete 1 Part 4265c Light Gray Technic Bush 1/2 Smooth (Extra)
* Change {2 to 3} Part Light Gray 4265c Technic Bush 1/2 Smooth

Comments from Submitter:
The official piece count for this set is 44, and this part is included in the inventory from LEGO. However, it is not used in any configuration shown in the instructions.

The same is the case for Kopaka Nuva (8571) but not Onua Nuva (8566) - though the Kopaka set has bigger issues in need of investigation.

Yes, that inventory seems to be broken.

Four small gears are needed in the build: Two for the main build, one is added
to the left arm in the second build, and one is added to the back. This is confirmed
by LEGO data which also says that 4106469 is included and that only three 451926
is included. Don't see the former in instructions, and four of the latter
seem to be used for the second build (two in arms, one in neck and one in the
back).

More invenstigation is needed to fix this inventory and I unfortunately don't
have the time for it.

/Jan

I agree that more investigation is needed. I don't know where the extra 451926
came from... However, the Peeron inventory may be of help: http://www.peeron.com/inv/sets/8571-1
It also agrees that there are four gear pieces and an axle connector.

However, I am still doubtful; as far as I've seen, the instructions never
show four gears, nor four axles, in use all at once. In the configuration with
the gear and axle on the back, an axle-pin (43093) is used for the left arm.

I've also gone through the combination model shown in the instructions, and
the fourth gear/axle is not necessary to build it either.

As a last note, the official piece count is 43.

I've been wanting to get a sealed copy to confirm what the included parts
are but that's one big investment.

The third third gear/axle is added on 21 if one wants to make the left arm rotate.
The third gear/axle is also needed for locking the arm movement shown own page
22. The set ought to either allow or not allow you to do both things if you wanted
to, so that would require a set of either three or four gears/axles which LEGO
says is not what the set contains (3 gears and 4 axles). It's really strange.
I believe a sealed set would be necessary.

/Jan

Yeah.

The other Toa Nuva (aside from Pohatu on account of his different build) only
allow for one of the two configurations, with only 3 axles and 3 gears.

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 25, 2024 16:49

Subject:

Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 8570-1

Viewed:

30 times

Topic:

In Inventories Requests, normann1974 writes:

In Inventories Requests, WOLKsite writes:

Please make changes to the following inventory:

8570-1 (Inv) Gali Nuva
44 Parts, 2002
Sets: BIONICLE: Toa Nuva

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 25, 2024 12:57

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 8570-1

Viewed:

29 times

Topic:

Inventories Requests (Entry)

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

8570-1 (Inv) Gali Nuva
44 Parts, 2002
Sets: BIONICLE: Toa Nuva

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 24, 2024 15:25

Subject:

Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 8568-1

Viewed:

26 times

Topic:

In Inventories Requests, WOLKsite writes:

Please make changes to the following inventory:

8568-1 (Inv) Pohatu Nuva
44 Parts, 2002
Sets: BIONICLE: Toa Nuva

* Delete 1 Part 4519 Black Technic, Axle 3L (Extra)
* Change {4 to 5} Part Black 4519 Technic, Axle 3L

Comments from Submitter:
Per the packaging, this set contains 44 pieces, and per the inventory from LEGO, the set contains 5 of these axles. Thus, this axle is not a spare piece.

However, I don't know why it is included. It is not used in the main model, nor in the combiner -- Across the three sets (8566, 8568, 8572) there are a total of 10 axles, but the combiner only uses 7.

Actually no, my bad. All five axles are used in the configuration where the gear
function is locked, because unlike the other Toa Nuva, the limb that is not attached
to the mechanism still uses an axle.

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 24, 2024 15:20

Subject:

Inventory Change Request for Set 8568-1

Viewed:

21 times

Topic:

Inventories Requests (Entry)

Status:

Open

Please make changes to the following inventory:

8568-1 (Inv) Pohatu Nuva
44 Parts, 2002
Sets: BIONICLE: Toa Nuva

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 20, 2024 21:47

Subject:

Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 8623-1

Viewed:

26 times

Topic:

In Inventories Requests, Nubs_Select writes:

see the note
"The following part was included in this set and is shown on the official
parts list but is not necessary to build the model according to the instructions:

1x x71 White Rubber Belt Small (Round Cross Section) - Approx. 2 x 2"

Additionally, the peice count shown on the box is 203.

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 14, 2024 15:52

Subject:

Re: What’s the deal with 3803?

Viewed:

48 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Turez writes:

In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:

In Catalog, Turez writes:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

2. It has disappeared from Brickset. But then it’s a question for Brickset I
guess

I don't think it has been added to Brickset yet. I don't know how exactly
they import their parts data from LEGO, but apparently they don't always
update inventories of older sets to account for new variants that show up in
the official online parts list.

Brickset checks set inventories. Since this isn't in a set inventory, they
wouldn't find it.

It is in the 71043 inventory:
https://www.bricklink.com/r3/inventorycomparison/main.page?sourceB=1&invB=71043&sourceA=0&invA=71043-1

Ah, then I don't know why it hasn't been updated, given that a lot older
sets have been updated recently (such as with the introduction of part 93571,
annoyingly).

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 14, 2024 15:45

Subject:

Re: What’s the deal with 3803?

Viewed:

41 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

Hi,

What’s the deal with

3803 Technic, Pin Connector Hub with 4 Bars and Through Pin Hole
Parts: Technic, Connector

The part has been added to the catalogue but is not in any set.

— Brickset doesn’t have it anymore.
“Anymore” because, obviously, the BL image is a render from LEGO, and Rebrickable
has a link to its (now non-existent) page on Brickset.
— Rebrickable has it as an alternate for

48723 Technic, Axle Connector Hub with 4 Bars and Pin Hole
Parts: Technic, Connector

— LDraw has a 3D model.
— I think I remember it being shown on some site (NewElementary?) but I can’t
find it.

Cancelled? Postponed?

There's also

3766 Plate, Round 4 x 6 Oval
Parts: Plate, Round {White}

Maybe it's an alternate for two of the half-plates (18980)?

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 14, 2024 15:41

Subject:

Re: What’s the deal with 3803?

Viewed:

44 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Turez writes:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, Turez writes:

[…]
Rebrickable is correct.

Well, not completely correct if 3803 and 48723 are functionally different

Part 48723 is no longer in production and has been replaced
with 68888 and 3803. 48723 has an axle hole on one side and a pin hole on the
other side. Most sets require the axle hole, so 68888 can be used as an alternate
part. But in set 71043 the pin hole is needed, therefore later copies of that
set probably come with 3803. Maybe that is already the case, but we need proof
from a sealed set before we can add the alternate part.

Understood but what I found strange is that:

1. It’s already in the catalogue while it’s not in any set yet. But then Stellar
is saying it’s in PaB… but then a second question arises: why is it not in

pab2023-1 (Inv) Pick-a-Brick (PaB) 2023 Parts
61 Parts, 2023
Sets: LEGO Brand
Marked for Deletion

? Too late? And it’s still too early for

pab2024-1 (Inv) Pick-a-Brick (PaB) 2024 Parts
28 Parts, 2024
Sets: LEGO Brand
Marked for Deletion

We just hadn't thought about adding it to the PaB sets because it was quite
obvious that it will show up in 71043 sooner or later.

2. It has disappeared from Brickset. But then it’s a question for Brickset I
guess

Brickset checks set inventories. Since this isn't in a set inventory, they
wouldn't find it.

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 14, 2024 14:36

Subject:

Re: Variants Thread - February 12

Viewed:

65 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:

Hello again everyone,

Below I have listed the general groups of variants we are tackling and the results
of the deliberation over the last month. I was originally planning to provide
a schedule for when these changes will happen, but based on the progress with
the tiles since February 1, I am hesitant to commit to any timeline except that
we will not change anything on this list prior to February 15.

Frosted bricks

These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.

Smooth slopes

These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.

Connections between studs

This whole class of variants will NOT be merged as part of this project. Complete
research needs to be done for the related 1 x 3 inverted slopes and the differing
angles, plus more work to understand how the 2 x 2 inverted slope relates to
these parts.

Sprue marks

The minifigure chair was the only one in this category and it will be merged
as planned.

Torsos with ribs

This whole class of variants will NOT be merged as part of this project. However,
we will rename these parts to remove the “ribs” depending on if we can get some
better photos. We will also place a moratorium on any new torsos distinguished
by underside ribs.

Inside supports

We will merge 46212 (Brick 1 x 2 x 5) as planned, but as part of this project
we will not be touching 32064c (Brick 1 x 2 with Axle Hole and Side Supports)
or 10247 (Plate Modified 2 x 2 with Pin Hole). More research needs to be done
in regards to the practical use cases of the parts and their actual use in LEGO
sets. As part of this project, however, we will also mark part 772 for deletion
(with a 3 month time frame before a merge), even though it wasn’t on the original
list. This variant likely does not even exist and it’s similar in class to the
46212.

X-shaped axle holes

These will be merged as planned.

Hinges with teeth

These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.

Duplo bricks with bottom tubes

These will be merged as planned.

Blocked and vented studs

These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.

Determined entries for very common parts

Update: We are well on our way through the decorated versions of 3 out of the
4 parts. Another 250 of these are scheduled to be changed on Tuesday (tomorrow).

Firstly, thank you for the update!

Secondly, I still disagree with merging of 46212. I find the argument "it
only exists in transparent colors" as hypocritical towards removing frosted
bricks, which quite the opposite, were only recognized in transparent colors
despite technically existing for opaque colors.

Colors should not be a factor in what is a different part. Molds should not be
sorted by colors, colors should be sorted by colors.

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 12, 2024 15:08

Subject:

Re: Trans-brown (old trans-black)

Viewed:

66 times

Topic:

Colors

In Colors, mwright5 writes:

Seriously? Light trans-black would have been a more appropriate identifier as
there is a noticeable difference, however there is nothing brown about this color
that we are now calling trans-brown.

Just like there is nothing brown about old mud "grey"

LEGO's official name for the old color is Transparent Brown. I think Rylie's
comparison highlights how brown the old color really is in comparison:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/52887756159/#comment72157720267793815

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 11, 2024 18:11

Subject:

Re: Dupe Accounts to push Variant Merge Argument?

Viewed:

51 times

Topic:

In General, 1001bricks writes:

You can't believe that stamp users (even nowadays) buy maybe 1 million times
more stamps than collectors?

I can -- but on that note, from a general store. Bricklink as a market place
is already a niché, the vast majority of people who just want to buy LEGO to
build with would just go to their local toy store, or find their way to the
Pick a Brick website with the big official LEGO stamp on it. The reason you'd
look for something specialized like Bricklink is more likely because you're
already looking for something specific.

What point are you trying to make? This doesn't seem relevant to the supposed
dup-account thing.

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 11, 2024 17:45

Subject:

Re: Dupe Accounts to push Variant Merge Argument?

Viewed:

44 times

Topic:

In General, 1001bricks writes:

Maybe, people who have a "deep knowledge" of understanding variants,
but along with only a couple orders per year, can't have such a deep knowledge.

Because reality is different.

You HAVE to place orders, guess or pick the proper variant, receive (often) the
wrong one, place another one, build an old Set, sell it with more or less success...
Then maybe you can say you have this deep IRL knowledge.

Yes, because as we all know, buying and selling LEGO on Bricklink is the true
purpose of LEGO, thus you can only obtain LEGO on Bricklink, and only do so for
the purpose of selling. It's absolutely impossible to buy LEGO from a regular
store to add to your collection which contains things inherited from a past generation.

Reality is bigger than Bricklink, Bricklink transaction history doesn't define
a person's familiarity with LEGO.

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 11, 2024 14:44

Subject:

Re: Dupe Accounts to push Variant Merge Argument?

Viewed:

91 times

Topic:

In General, infinibrix writes:

In General, WOLKsite writes:

In General, infinibrix writes:

How is it possible that so many replies against the variant merge are from people
with barely any feedback yet they still appear to have the highest/most complex
level of understanding when it comes to variants?

I wouldn't attribute it to dup accounts, that's kinda silly. More-so,
when Slugger and Duckbricks made their videos, that brought the attention of
a lot of people.

No what is silly is where we have people with barely any feedback/transaction
history jumping up and down about the changes when they don't actually even
use the site for its primary intended purpose? Even the very few occasions when
you yourself have actually placed an order here, sellers appear to of had some
issues?

That's 2 instances from years ago, before I knew how the site worked. I don't
place orders often because like most people, I don't have a lot of money
to simply throw around.

Using Bricklink as a resource alone is fine yet many of those same users also
expect their voices to be heard as though they somehow know what's best for
Bricklink and its wider user base?

That said, you don't think its a bit strange that we have all these new users
that have so much passion and complex understanding of variants but apparently
not quite enough passion to actually buy those variants that they claim to be
so passionate about keeping?

No, I don't. Nor have I seen that many with a complex understand of variants,
more-so people who think they know more than they do - typically because they
got an inaccurate summary of things. Most do not seem to even grasp what the
changes actually are.

Therefore in that sense you could say that their arguments to keep the variants
becomes somewhat void?
Well that or they choose not to use their REAL account when it comes to voicing
their concerns which is what I would call "Kinda Silly!"

Perhaps their opinions are void, I'm not the one to judge that. That doesn't
make them duplicate accounts, that's jumping to conclusions.

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 10, 2024 15:27

Subject:

Re: Variants Thread - January 31

Viewed:

62 times

Topic:

In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:

In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:

[…]
LEGO did also not renumber the molds […]
LEGO even renumbered these. […]

Either way it’s used, that is not a good argument, or even a good hint, because
LEGO is very inconsistent on this. Some moulds have been renumbered while we
can’t see any difference (for instance 3066 = 35256, difference?). There’s many
moulds that have not been renumbered while there’s obvious differences (that’s
the case for most of the bricks, and, oh, it seems 4079 too

You are right about that, yeah.

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 10, 2024 08:12

Subject:

Re: Variants Thread - January 31

Viewed:

83 times

Topic:

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:

We have a meeting on Monday (Feb 5) with our catalog admins to go through the
rest of the list and make final decisions. After that meeting, a schedule will
be made for the merges. Due to the large number of minifigure heads in the catalog,
the merge process is likely to not be complete until the end of May.

How did the meeting go? Any updates?

Anyway, it's been a month or so since the original announcement, and there's
been a lot of discussion (both good and bad) since then. I've seen a lot
of dismissive or belittling attitude, and a lot of misinformation or fearmongering
circulating around. I am concerned about losing existing documentation, and concerned
that volunteer work would simply be thrown out just like that, but I do not believe
the catalogue is being greatly "dumbed down", or will continue to be
so as some make the case out to be. I stand by that an umbrella system would
be helpful, and would negate the issues with some of these.

Anyway, I wanted to give my thoughts on the changes, in order of how they are
listed on the Help Center:

Frosted parts:
I think it's pretty clear that this was never an intentional feature, either
caused by decay of the mold, or by changes to mold that are not as visible in
the opaque parts. These traits are not well-documented which causes the catalogue's
set appearances to be misleading, and it's not a consistent treatment, as
the opaque parts are not distinguished the same way (we don't distinguish
"thin" and "thick" walls, for instance, which is the cause of
some of these).

Tl;dr: I'm fine with this change.

Smooth slopes:
Similar to above, this is poorly documented resulting in misleading data. Smooth
slopes are likely a lot more common in the 05-07 ish era of sets. However, much
as Russell has pointed out, even the "smooth" slopes are not smooth.
The difference is just in the amount of texture, and there's not simply two
versions of the texture. This could perhaps also be caused by mold decay. LEGO
did also not renumber the molds based this difference as far as I know. I believe
sets may also even include a mixture of "smooth" and "rough"
slopes.

Tl;dr: I'm fine with this change.

Connection between studs:
This one is easy to see if you know to look for it, and obviously an intentional
change. I would have kept this one.

Chair with sprue mark:
Ditto. I see no reason not keep this one.

Torsos with ribs:
I'll preface this with that I am not a minifigure person. This mold change
would drive me nuts if I was. I'll abstain from making a comment on this
one aside from that I believe Reissue prints should be recognized regardless
of the mold.

Inside supports:
All three of these I feel are different cases:

32064c has a functional difference, as has been discussed, so I would not merge
it.
46212 has a functional difference that is used in sets, and thus, I would not
merge it. That it only comes in transparent colors should not be a factor of
concern.
10247 I believe is fine to merged.

X-shaped axle holes:
I always found this change silly, but I feel like we have pretty good documentation
on it, and thus, should not merge it. The difference is pretty easy to spot.

Hinges:
I would not merge these. LEGO even renumbered these.

DUPLO brick with bottom tube:
Probably fine?

Blocked or vented stud:
Again, minifigures seem like a nightmare, so I'll abstain to comment on those.
"Blocked" and "Vented" feel like almost the same thing though.
However, looking at the domes, I feel those are well-catalogued, thus I would
not merge those.

Distinguishing these two stud-types feels difficult, however. That is where I
believe an umbrella system comes in handy, not for distinguishing the extremely
obvious differences. Same for the axle holes and connection between studs.

Removed determiner:
Inconsequential.

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 10, 2024 07:39

Subject:

Re: Dupe Accounts to push Variant Merge Argument?

Viewed:

96 times

Topic:

In General, infinibrix writes:

I wouldn't attribute it to dup accounts, that's kinda silly. More-so,
when Slugger and Duckbricks made their videos, that brought the attention of
a lot of people.

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 9, 2024 14:26

Subject:

Re: 'Tan' Hau - any ideas?

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

This mask genuinely keeps me up at night. It shouldn't exist, and yet...

This mask came to me from a guy here in NZ, who owned it since he was a kid.
His parents owned a toy shop in the 2000s, which might be relevant. He claims
he never painted, dyed, or otherwise modified this piece, and sold it to me as
a sundamaged white Hau. I have no clue what it is.

Theory 1: Prototype/Test Tan Hau
Counterpoint: the mask is white underneath, note the small scratches around the
mouth stud showing white plastic.

Theory 2: Sun Damage
Counterpoint: the colouration is perfect. No inconsistency whatsoever, all facets
are equally tan. Coverage is also perfect, even inside the mouth stud, all facets
of the grills, the inside of the mouth hole etc.

Theory 3: Modified white Hau
Counterpoint: sole previous owner is just as confused as I am, and genuinely
believed it was just sun damaged. He had no idea how said damage would have occurred,
he just assumed it was once white and copped some sun.

Help?

Although there is an element number for a tan Hau (4144201)

, I believe what
you are seeing is a chemical change in the plastic where certain additives migrate
their way to the surface over time. This leads to a yellowing or browning of
the surface of a part and can often make a white part look tan over time. This
is why it is completely uniform and only occurs at the surface. It has nothing
to do with a part being in the sun, because brand new sets from decades ago have
been opened that show the same change.

Cheers,
Randy

Yeah I agree, it's just yellowed white.

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 9, 2024 12:54

Subject:

Re: What is #44814 Glitter Trans-Clear coated in?

Viewed:

22 times

Topic:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, Stellar writes:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

Is it worth adding the Light Grey Hau to the catalogue too? Given that it's
also a mask + coating, similar to the Avohkii?

Since it is technically a "wiped" piece, unfortunately no. We know it
exists though because of its element number (4161805).

Cheers,
Randy

Can't the image be accepted and stay just here:

https://www.bricklink.com/catalogColors.asp?itemType=P&itemNo=32505&v=2

32505 Bionicle Mask Hau
Parts: BIONICLE, Kanohi Mask {Light Gray}

There are many unprinted parts in the catalog that are not linked to any set,
aka don't appear in known colors, but the photos stay as they exists.

This part has never shown up as plain light gray and is only known to exist as
the base for the chrome version of the mask. That doesn't mean that a true
unaltered light gray version does not exist out there, but having received no
image of one to BrickLink over 24 years is telling. Also, we know that this one
was "wiped", so I would never accept the image.

Cheers,
Randy

You never know when one could show

Some non-production BIONICLE parts such
as the Violet Huna and Sand Green Rau surfaced only a year ago.

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 9, 2024 09:57

Subject:

Re: What is #44814 Glitter Trans-Clear coated in?

Viewed:

29 times

Topic:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

Is it worth adding the Light Grey Hau to the catalogue too? Given that it's
also a mask + coating, similar to the Avohkii?

Since it is technically a "wiped" piece, unfortunately no. We know it
exists though because of its element number (4161805).

Cheers,
Randy

Oh, the 'Years Released' on the 4-Hole entry is still showing the old
range. It should be 2003-2008. Thanks again chief

I think that is automatic? Perhaps it doesn't account for alternates, which
makes sense since they usually wouldn't be occuring within the same year
as the original release... Although the color guide's years don't work
that way.

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 9, 2024 03:32

Subject:

Re: What is #44814 Glitter Trans-Clear coated in?

Viewed:

29 times

Topic:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

Had this first image cross my path today, a supposedly non-glittery Avohkii.
It reminded me of a damaged one I had in my sad bin, which had a chunk of its
crest missing its trademark shininess. I had to mess with a bunch of other stripping
chemicals anyway (bonus pic of my shiny new dechromed Light Grey Hau) so I figured
I'd chuck this in some chems and see what happened.

Evapo-Rust was unreactive, unsurprisingly. I only used that because I knew it
could strip galvanisation off screws and I had the ex-chrome Hau to test (also
no reaction). Simple Green concentrate was similarly unreactive, but stripped
the Hau perfectly when used with the ultrasonic cleaner. I did manage to get
a positive reaction with IPA, and was able to get the glitter layer to go tacky.
I scraped off the majority of the central crest with my thumbnail as a proof
of concept sorta thing. I can confirm that it's just a layer over top. There's
a milky white transparent mask underneath. I feel cheated.

I've currently got it sitting overnight in a bath of acetone-based nail polish
remover (hardware store was closed, supermarket was not lmao) and will strip
the glitter 'varnish' off entirely. I'd love to know exactly what
this glitter layer is made of, if anyone has any insight? It might make removing
it a little easier.

The next question here is: what colour actually is this? I was under the impression
117 Glitter Trans-Clear was plastic with embedded glitter, not just a coating.
Would this just be 40 Trans-Clear + shiny varnish?

Cheers
James @ PSPS

I would like to get this mask separated out in the catalog from the plain-color
versions since it is actually patterned and officially a trans-clear part. How
would you describe the pattern? Looks like shiny gold speckles or something?

Thanks,
Randy

Iridescent gold glitter, maybe?

Actually, it's not as color-shifting as I remember it, but it's really
shiny when the light hits it right, where as from other angles it's barely
visible. The glitter is much, much smaller than the typical glitter.

Meet the catalog's newest resident:

44814pb01 Bionicle Mask Avohkii with Gold Glitter Coating Pattern
Parts: BIONICLE, Kanohi Mask

How are we looking at getting the 2 different 4-Hole Kraahkan recognised?

Point me directly to the information, and I will look into it.

Sure, I'll dump it here. Image here shows the 8 production Kraahkan, with
their BrickLink labels. Top to bottom (and left to right):

- 6-Hole (Pearl Black)
- 5-Hole (Pearl Black)
- 4-Hole (Pearl Gold, Flat Dark Gold, Pearl Black, Black)
- Movie Edition (Black)
- Dume Mask of Power (Black)

See how the Black Kraahkan sticks out like a sore thumb? It's much darker
than the Pearl Black version in the centre of the cross. It's the same situation
as the Rahaga/Rahkshi heads existing in 2 different blacks/whites. The catalogue
does currently distinguish between Pearl Black and Black, which is good! That
was the hard bit lol.

I was confused at the high number of 38593 Makuta (Teridax) I had seen with 4-Holes,
in person or online. Many of these appeared to be owned from NIB, or at least
not built from spare parts/BrickLink orders. I spoke with a number of collectors,
and was able to confirm that some copies of Teridax (solo and combiner versions).

In 2003, the 6-Hole mould (#44815a) was introduced with #8593 Makuta (Teridax).
The 6-Hole was produced exclusively in Pearl Black. Partway through production,
mould cavity(?) 4-01 broke/damaged/whatever, and produced the 5-Hole mismould.
This also exists only in Pearl Black. These 2 masks give us a baseline/control
group to work with.

4-01's damage was noticed during Teridax's production, and to correct
the issue all Kraahkan moulds were modified to no longer clear the top 2 holes,
giving us the 4-Hole a full 2 years earlier than is currently recognised. A large
number of these 'Teridax' 4-Holes were produced, which explains why so
many Teridax pop up with 4-Holes. This 4-Hole was produced in Pearl Black.

In 2005, the 4-Hole mould was used again for the gold Kraahkan in #8758 Tower
of Toa. This is currently believed to be the first usage of the mould.

in 2008, the mould was resurrected for #8593 Makuta Icarax. This mask was produced
in Black, which is recognised by the catalogue currently. Icarax's version
lacks the subtle metallic sheen of the original releases, and appears as a darker,
more saturated black on comparison.

How's that? Need more pics?

There is a change request: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1450887

It would be nice to have the 5-hole Kraahkan as well in the catalogue, do we
have any pictures of it on its own?

The inventory of 8593 used to contain the 4-hole version as an alternate, but
during the move to Pearl Black, it wasn't changed. I tried to have it updated
to Pearl Black but instead it was removed:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1353620

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 9, 2024 03:25

Subject:

Re: What is #44814 Glitter Trans-Clear coated in?

Viewed:

19 times

Topic:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

Iridescent gold glitter, maybe?

Meet the catalog's newest resident:

44814pb01 Bionicle Mask Avohkii with Gold Glitter Coating Pattern
Parts: BIONICLE, Kanohi Mask

Yay!

Is it worth adding the Light Grey Hau to the catalogue too? Given that it's
also a mask + coating, similar to the Avohkii?

The Chrome Hau is handled consistent with other Chrome parts in the catalogue.

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 8, 2024 12:54

Subject:

Re: What is #44814 Glitter Trans-Clear coated in?

Viewed:

31 times

Topic:

In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

Iridescent gold glitter, maybe?

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 8, 2024 12:44

Subject:

Re: What is #44814 Glitter Trans-Clear coated in?

Viewed:

29 times

Topic:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

Iridescent gold glitter, maybe?

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 8, 2024 03:09

Subject:

Re: What is #44814 Glitter Trans-Clear coated in?

Viewed:

33 times

Topic:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

Yes, 117 and other Glitter colors have the glitter imbeded in the plastic.
In LEGO's database, the Avohkii is 40 Transparent, with the glitter being
a decoration/printing. The "glitter ink" does not have an ID since LEGO's
colors did not cover decoration colors at the time. The color-shifting effect
is really nice though

This part is one reason as to why I feel the assignment of 40 Transparent and
20 Nature is arbitrary.

Sweet, good to know it's a confirmed weirdo. Any idea what Lego used as the
medium for that glitter layer? It's pretty resilient to damage/scratching,
I couldn't budge it without chemical assistance.

No clue.

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 8, 2024 02:49

Subject:

Re: What is #44814 Glitter Trans-Clear coated in?

Viewed:

45 times

Topic:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

This part is one reason as to why I feel the assignment of 40 Transparent and
20 Nature is arbitrary.

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 6, 2024 05:27

Subject:

Re: Bionicle Silver Demystification Project

Viewed:

44 times

Topic:

Colors

I wonder if the Toa Inika were ever released in 296. The marbled parts

8731-1 (Inv) Toa Kongu
46 Parts, 2006
Sets: BIONICLE: Toa Inika

only appear with 131. The element IDs/PCCs of 4493393 & 4493394 appear both in
the database and the instruction manual, and are after the last known 296 ID,
4493182.

Have you find any Inika parts in the color?

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 6, 2024 02:27

Subject:

51289pb01 - two different prints?

Viewed:

87 times

Topic:

Catalog Requests

For:

Catalog Associate

Status:

Open

51289pb01 appears to be covering two different prints:

51289pb01 Duplo Utensil Telephone, Mobile with Keypad and Display Pattern
Parts: DUPLO, Figure Wear & Utensil {Orange}

has blue buttons and a light yellow screen.

51289pb01 Duplo Utensil Telephone, Mobile with Keypad and Display Pattern
Parts: DUPLO, Figure Wear & Utensil {Blue}

looks to have light lime buttons & screen (probably requires
in-person confirmation).

Thus, should these be split?

Pearl Light Gray PCC 4283900 uses the same ID as the blue one, 51820.

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 4, 2024 10:32

Subject:

Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly

Viewed:

28 times

Topic:

In Catalog, WoutR writes:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

Interesting. Does it still apply to the same colour, and process of creation?
If it's identical to the later 309 parts, I'll probably leave it. It
shows up in most databases as 309, and if I start splitting hairs there people
might get a bit confused.

As an aside, there's an unlisted Light Grey Hau under the chrome! I'll
have a dud one in hand this week to strip and provide evidence of, it's the
last Mata mask I need (aside from prototypes).

For all practical purposes, it is identical.

You might want to include a note that it originally was seen as a decoration
on that Light Gray base, not a separate color in itself. Just in case someone
builds a color timeline based on your notes and this one does not fit in or distorts
everything.

Well, LEGO's data calls it 0 (undefined), so it's not quite like a decal
either. Need to look into this a little bit more when it comes to different eras,
but LEGO's data is very inconsistent - Some chrome/lacquered gold/silver
parts are listed as 127/297 or 131/296 respectively, others as 0, of course some
are 297-299 and 335-336. There doesn't seem to actually be any parts that
are actually listed as 309/310 because at that point, they were listing the parts
based on the plastic color beneath the coating.

And then there's hoses that are for some reason listed using the drum lacq
colors, which makes no sense.

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 4, 2024 10:19

Subject:

Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly

Viewed:

28 times

Topic:

In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:

Perhaps also worth noting that the speckle/diffuse colors seem to have been retired
coinciding with the introduction of the new ink IDs. I'd guess they would
also be under that umbrella if they were still in use.

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 4, 2024 10:17

Subject:

Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly

Viewed:

34 times

Topic:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

In Catalog, WoutR writes:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

Mahri shoulder piece is 131 v2. Hydruka armour piece is 315. Couple
of mates had them lying around, tested 'em against confirmed iterations of
those colours. Neither fit the timeline at all. Just when I thought I had things
ironed out...

I did at least finish rewriting the silver overview thing I work on for my Parts
Guide:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1we0sW-jnigQxDkBpY3hUn2n3IEGLX6ZyM08-3sXsfZI/edit?usp=sharing

I doubt there's anything new to you there, it's just nice having an overview
put together.

309 is probably not technically correct for the 2001 Hau. That color number was
introduced later. At that time, the chrome silver was seen as a surface decoration
pattern that did not get its own (ink) color number.

It's functionally the same thing. Same with 298. 309 was introduced around
'07-10, 298 was introduced in 2005. Since around 2014, LEGO uses 336 Silver
Ink instead. I'm not sure if there's any actual difference, however it
and the other four ink colors (334 Copper Ink, 335 Gold Ink, 337 Titanium Ink)
seem to cover both chrome and metallic coatings, as well as printing (with 334
and 337 only having been used for printing).

And yes - that grey Hau is element/PCC 4161805, the chrome one directly following
as 4161806. From what I've heard, the so-called "Vacuum Metal Krana-Kal"
are also just regular chrome? I've never had one in hand.

148 is used in for 2002

8558-1 (Inv) Cahdok & Gahdok
630 Parts, 2002
Sets: BIONICLE: Titans

and possibly for printing on the infected
Hau? Not entirely sure but it seems like a match.

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 4, 2024 08:18

Subject:

Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly

Viewed:

29 times

Topic:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

Maybe the Hydruka armor is from a 2011 batch of

8190-1 (Inv) Claw Catcher
252 Parts, 2 Minifigures, 2010
Sets: Power Miners

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 4, 2024 07:05

Subject:

Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly

Viewed:

38 times

Topic:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

Oh god no, why?

Or perhaps they failed to fix the inconsistency issues/made it worse... Hmm

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 4, 2024 04:21

Subject:

Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

A friend of mine just shot me some new info. He's got a 296 Rode that he's
had from childhood. It came from 8892 Piraka Outpost, so we have one source confirmed
at least! Jury's still out on the other sets.

If it helps, release dates (that I know of) for the 2006 BIONICLE sets are as
follows:

December 2005: Matoran of Voya Nui (8721 thru 8726)
January 2006: Piraka (8900 thru 8905) & Zamor Spheres (8719)
March 2006: Irnakk (8626), Axonn & Brutaka (8733, 8734)
July 2006: Race for the Mask of Life (8624), Umbra (8625)
August 2006: Toa Inika (8727 thru 8732), Vezon & Fenrakk (8764), Playsets
(8892 thru 8894), Vezon & Kardas (10204)
August, week 33: 6934 Good Guy
August, week 34: 6935 Bad Guy
December 2006: QUICK promotions (6934 again, 7717 thru 7719)

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 4, 2024 03:20

Subject:

Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly

Viewed:

32 times

Topic:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

131 v1, 131 v2, and our buddy 296.

Oh wow!

Yeah, then there was definitely a production period between retiring
296 and reformulating 131.

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 3, 2024 19:56

Subject:

Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly

Viewed:

45 times

Topic:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

And with our powers combined, we just ruined 99% of 'complete' mask displays
in the world... Love it. Wait til I bust out the unrecognised 296 masks...

I'll finish my reworks, incorporate the list of known 296 parts, and get
back to you with like, actual useful data that's right this time.

The amount of times I've wanted to point out that there's two Rode lmao

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 3, 2024 10:10

Subject:

Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly

Viewed:

52 times

Topic:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

Even if you were (which you weren't lol), you were justified in doing so.
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to un[REDACTED] this cluster[REDACTED] that
I helped create... Goddammit.

For what it's worth, I find listing Cool Silver parts as "Pearl Very
Light Gray" is beneficial until the time when the color is properly recognized
on the site. Makes them far easier to find and buy

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 3, 2024 09:35

Subject:

Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly

Viewed:

51 times

Topic:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

You really just laid it all out here, and I was too stubborn to even take it
in. How foolish of me. This is literally the clearest explanation of this whole
debacle on the internet. I was an arrogant prick, and I cannot apologise enough.
This information is priceless. Thank you for persisting in your attempts to correct
me. This means everything to me.

No worries!

I was actually worried I was coming off too harshly.

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 3, 2024 07:51

Subject:

Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly

Viewed:

37 times

Topic:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

131 was entirely phased out after 2010, at least in PP parts. The silver history
link Randyf provided confirms that. Your assessment is incorrect.

I never made any claims 131 was used post-2010?

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 3, 2024 07:50

Subject:

Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly

Viewed:

32 times

Topic:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

Sorry, I misspoke. That part of the link is actually wrong, at least in regards
to Bionicle. 296 was the (almost) exclusive silver used from 2007-2010 in the
Bionicle catalogue. This isn't even hard to confirm, just hold up any Mistika/Phantoka
exclusive mould next to an old Nuva chest. They don't match. They're
different official colours.

And this is what I've been saying all along -- you've misunderstood
what 296 is.

Yes, the silver parts from 2007-2010 look different, HOWEVER, they are still
variations of 131. The color was reformulated, but remained under the same ID.
The peachy silver color from 2006 is 296.

Here's an official statement from LEGO Design Lab from 2009, talking about
how 131 is being replaced by 315 going into 2011: https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/35009-changes-in-colours/

Here's a 2010 color palette, officially released by LEGO Design Lab:
https://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?/forums/topic/38096-the-internal-lego-color-scheme/

Bricks & Pieces also separates "Cool Silver" from "Silver". Those
elements used in 2007-2010 sets, of those which match those listed in the instructions
manuals are labelled as *Silver* on Bricks & Pieces, just as the older parts
2002-2005. Meanwhile, those 2006 parts with IDs matching the instructions are
labelled *Cool Silver*.
(The reason I bring up the IDs matching is that Bricks & Pieces often substitutes
parts due to being a replacement parts service, sometimes even with parts that
were never released, such as the elements in the Stars sets using color 315.)

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 3, 2024 07:27

Subject:

Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly

Viewed:

36 times

Topic:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

Bonus image of the unrecorded 296 Surge weapons vs the recognised 315 version.
See, I'm not crazy, there are definitely unrecorded silvers being used in
the catalogue, 150 is just one of many silver issues...

Yeah, there's a lot of sets from 2010 that need to have it recognized that
they used both 131 and 315. A few do, a few only have 315 recorded, a few only
have 131. Should apply to pretty much all of the 2010 HF sets, though not the
BIONICLE Stars.

The thing you are calling 150 looks to be 296. The thing you are calling 296
is another variation of either 131 or 296. 296 was only used in early 2006 with
few exceptions.

In the Guurahk staff image, from left to right I see 315, "old" 131,
"new" 131, and 296.

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 3, 2024 06:43

Subject:

Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly

Viewed:

35 times

Topic:

In Catalog, WoutR writes:

In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:

Maybe this helps (I don't have the best set up for taking pictures :c)

Can you upload a higher quality version of this image?
(Rotate 90 degrees if rescaling of the image by BrickLink causes the low resolution,
rotated text is less of a problem than low resolution)

Sure, I just uploaded it in full resolution to Flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/168347127@N06/53506310595/

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 3, 2024 06:23

Subject:

Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly

Viewed:

48 times

Topic:

Maybe this helps (I don't have the best set up for taking pictures :c)

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 3, 2024 05:49

Subject:

Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly

Viewed:

59 times

Topic:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:
That variation is a big part of why 150 has snuck under

the radar this whole time. That being said, under the correct lighting conditions,
and with enough practice, you can tell them apart, at least in Polypropylene
parts. ABS is a little different, as you've noted, but I've still managed
to sort most of them too. The PP parts tend to have distinct undertones which
they show, even with less pigment/different plastic. Example: the lightest version
of 131 is almost identical to 150, but still carries a blue undertone that 150
lacks. With this in mind, I've managed to at least triple the BrickLink catalogue's
number of 150 parts, as well as track down where most of them came from. 150
definitely infiltrated Bionicle in 2006, and at least 2 pieces from 2007 (Axonn's
Rode mask, and the Jaller Mahri blades used in Lesovikk). There are partial and
whole set variants that exist in 150 from 2006 (Vezok, Thok, and all the Voya
Nui Matoran can contain 150 parts). As an aside, 150 also bled over into Knights
Kingdom a little too, but I don't have a huge amount of data on that beyond
a few weapon/armour parts.

Those parts are not 150, they're most likely 296, in the case of the 2006
sets you mentioned -- early batches of those sets used 296 rather than 131
-- or bad 131 in the case of the 2007 sets. 296 Cool Silver is (contrary
to the name) a warmer, lighter color than 131 Silver.

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 3, 2024 03:42

Subject:

Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly

Viewed:

40 times

Topic:

In Catalog, randyf writes:

In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:

Yes, there have been some glaring issues in the BIONICLE part of the catalogue
- All of the ones Randy mentioned I am really happy are being addressed (as someone
who has researched Zamor Spheres, I'll be keeping an as careful eye as I
can at how that develops). There's some others as well, like incorrect listings
of the Kanohi/Krana packs which I've brought up in a past topic.

Just don't hold me to any timelines or promises!

Of course! You're doing your best

The latter is also the primary reason why I want Tahu's eyestalk color recognized,
as BIONICLE fans are just not familiar with Trans-Dark Pink and thus do not realize
it's not the same color at all.

I will do what I can to get 158 officially recognized here. There are a couple
of other minor colors that I will be pushing for next before trying to tackle
the silvers more, so I might as well add this one in there.

Yay!

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 3, 2024 03:41

Subject:

Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly

Viewed:

38 times

Topic:

In Catalog, here4bricks614 writes:

Please message me if you would like to see a full list of every part that appears
in 296 Cool Silver. I have compiled an excel spreadsheet of every Cool Silver
part, along with some other info.

I would like that list personally

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 2, 2024 21:10

Subject:

Re: Bionicle is handled incredibly poorly

Viewed:

116 times

Topic:

In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:

Thanks for your response, Randy. I really appreciate it.
Only 150 Light Grey Metallic still has problems, and BrickLink's catalogue
doesn't even recognise it as being used in Bionicle. It definitely is, both
repeatedly and often interchangeably with 131 and 296, which themselves were
used interchangeably with each other in some cases. The link on the history of
silvers you have provided is not accurate, and my data conclusively proves that.
If you have the information you need, as you claim, then why have you skipped
150 entirely? Can you tell me what year(s) 150 made its way into the Bionicle
catalogue?

I believe the problem you're having is misidentifying 131, 150, and 296.

150 Light Grey Metallic is recognized on Bricklink, called "Pearl Very Light
Gray". In BIONICLE, it was ONLY used during 2003 for Kraata & Krana-Kal.
There are no other 150 parts in BIONICLE.

296 is a color that was used very briefly during 2006, introduced along side
"Warm Gold"/"Pearl Gold", but was quickly retired in favor of
the older 131 Silver - effectively all the 2006 sets use 296 in early batches,
131 in later batches. While 296 was used in 2007, this was only in Exo-Force,
for the marbled torsos, and even then, those were soon phased out for solid 131
ones, that's why the 2007 Exo-Force sets have alternate Minifigures.

What a lot of BIONICLE fans don't seem to grasp is that the silver used for
the Kal sockets, the silver used for the Nuva armor, and the silver used for
the 2007-2009 weapon parts, are all 131 Silver, despite how different they look.
This primarily stems from two different things:
- That 131 itself was adjusted several times during its lifespan (as were 148
Dark Grey Metallic, and 297 Warm Gold)
- That LEGO's materials and colors were all adjusted around 2005-2006 as
they moved to mixing colors in-house (at least, that's what I've come
to understand). This would be the source of not only 131 being different, but
also why the Kanohi Rau in the Toa Nokama set differs from that in the Dalu set.
The result of these adjustments is that 131 become more consistent. Before 2006,
polypropylene parts molded in 131 looked noticably different from ABS parts (a
problem not just with 131 but also with other "metallic" colors like
145, 147, and 149). After 2006, the color had a consistently lighter hue, matching
how it had always looked in ABS plastic.

We know when these colors were used - Throughout the LEGO community we have quite
a lot of data to go on gathered from LEGO, palette tiles to compare physical
parts with, etc.

On top of this, all LEGO colors have some degree of variation, both from adjustments
made over time and from poor quality control. This makes for *color variation*,
something not recognized on Bricklink (besides Rust :v) not separate colors.

A somewhat common misconception I've come across in the BIONICLE community
is that 150 is the lighter silver you find in the early 2006 sets, but this not
correct. That color is 296. This likely stems from a second misconception, that
the lighter parts used from 2006 onwards are 296, which as I've detailed
above is also not correct.

Yes, there have been some glaring issues in the BIONICLE part of the catalogue
- All of the ones Randy mentioned I am really happy are being addressed (as someone
who has researched Zamor Spheres, I'll be keeping an as careful eye as I
can at how that develops). There's some others as well, like incorrect listings
of the Kanohi/Krana packs which I've brought up in a past topic.

However, the case of silver is one that at this point stems from many BIONICLE
fans (and I say this being a BIONICLE fan) not knowing the subject as well as
they think they do, either jumping to conclusions or getting all their information
from Bricklink (people still think in terms of Pearl Light Gray and Flat Silver).
The latter is also the primary reason why I want Tahu's eyestalk color recognized,
as BIONICLE fans are just not familiar with Trans-Dark Pink and thus do not realize
it's not the same color at all.

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 1, 2024 21:36

Subject:

Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 8728-1

Viewed:

25 times

Topic:

In Inventories Requests, here4bricks614 writes:

In Inventories Requests, TheRealTBOC writes:

Please make changes to the following inventory:

8728-1 (Inv) Toa Hahli
46 Parts, 2006
Sets: BIONICLE: Toa Inika

* Change 4 Part {Trans-Neon Green to Trans-Light Green} 54821 Ball, Bionicle Zamor Sphere

Comments from Submitter:
Hahli Inika, like Jaller, contains 4 Zamor spheres of a color varying between Trans-Light Green and a darker Trans-Bright Green. It is very distinct from the Trans-Neon Green listed, which was included in other sets. My original copy, from a sealed set in 2006, included these.

It is not officially Transparent Light Green. This weird color is likely a result
of mixing two colors.

It is; this part used 28 Dark Green (Green) mixed with either 40 Transparent
(Trans-Clear) or 20 Nature (Milky White)*. The same combination was also used
for the 2010 Hero Factory sets. The 2006 release is 4297034, the 2010 release
is 4583979. Both are "6.Multikombination" in LEGO's database.

*While it appears related to the material, ultimately what is defined as Transparent
or Nature seems rather arbitrary, so there's really no way to know what LEGO
would have referred to it as. They're both effectively just colorless plastic.

Trans-Light Green is a much more accurate description than Trans-Neon Green.
The images listed for the part show the one used in these sets as "Light
Green", where as the image for "Trans-Neon Green" depicts a different
part, 4296080. The same can be said about store listings, if you buy a TNG one
you're 99% guaranteed to get 4296080 because it actually looks yellowish
green like TNG. If you want the correct part, you should buy a Light Green or
Trans-Light Green one.

Nevertheless, I've been told a Zamor project is underway: https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=351831

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Feb 1, 2024 21:25

Subject:

Re: Variants Thread - January 31

Viewed:

44 times

Topic:

In Catalog, oukexergon writes:

In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:

Hello again everyone.

This is the latest update on the variants project.

....

Please consider the functional differences between 46212 and 2454, both in production
by TLG and kept separate by them and in every other catalog. I documented a good
example of this in Ninjago City here:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1451755

Only repeating this because there's no admin response, so my apologies if
it has been seen and is being considered already.

Author:

WOLKsite

Posted:

Jan 30, 2024 14:52

Subject:

Notes on Rahkshi Kraata

Viewed:

92 times

Topic:

Catalog Requests

For:

Inventories Administrator

Status:

Completed