Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | randyf  | | Posted: | Mar 12, 2020 11:50 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | Sure it does. You just add the second part number as an alternate item number
and put both Element IDs in two separate PCC slots. In this case, the vendor
number (the 140413A or 134071A) don't matter, but on some they will.
Cheers,
Randy
In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | that doesn't solve this problem. same sheet, different number
In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | I'd say get rid of the current numbering system and give the sticker sheets
the part number which is written on the sheet itself. Then put the set # into
the description.
|
|
|
Design ID for stickers is the one before the / and the one after is the item
number.
|
The BrickLink item number/part number (or LEGO Design ID) is the one before the
slash and the BrickLink PCC (or LEGO Element ID) is the one after the slash.
That is exactly what I said above in my statement.
Cheers,
Randy
|
 |
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Mar 12, 2020 07:41 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | Sure it does. You just add the second part number as an alternate item number
and put both Element IDs in two separate PCC slots. In this case, the vendor
number (the 140413A or 134071A) don't matter, but on some they will.
Cheers,
Randy
In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | that doesn't solve this problem. same sheet, different number
In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | I'd say get rid of the current numbering system and give the sticker sheets
the part number which is written on the sheet itself. Then put the set # into
the description.
|
|
|
Design ID for stickers is the one before the / and the one after is the item
number.
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Mar 12, 2020 07:33 | | Subject: | Re: New minifigure head variant 28621 | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | How should the new type (and the printed variants) be added to the catalog?
|
So this is basically a blocked open stud. We have two options:
1. Catalog them under the existing blocked open stud entry and add the new number
as an additional item number.
2. Create a new 3626d entry.
I don't have any preference here. What do others think?
|
Second option will be the best for now on.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | Mar 12, 2020 04:32 | | Subject: | Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Legoboy_II writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | The 2340 has studs on the top, clearly making it a1x5 in stud length.
Anyway, the question is...is the item on the roadmap?
|
|
Should you not start calling it an atlas?
| |
I see what has been written here, and if I may offer a new user perspective?
I have a few tail pieces and ran some search tests (using various descriptions
of what I thought I should search for) to see what I could find, and the results
were all over the place. I had the most success just typing in airplane tail,
then adding parameters as I found them, but it was less than ideal. I did find
the tails I have, but it took several searches and they never all appeared in
the same search - which I would have expected searching just for airplane tail.
Interestingly, I didn't always get repeatable results. So I agree, we need
a workable standard.
After giving the matter some thought, I think I would find success with a W x
L X H x S and additional description afterward. Where W X L describes the base,
H for the height, and S for the sweep extension. For example:
2430 - 1 x 4 x 3 x 1 swept airplane tail, with 1 X 2 tip and RES Q sticker
6239 - 2 x 3 x 3.67 x 3 swept airplane tail, no decorations
Just my thoughts, it may not be the answer, but maybe it sparks a better idea?
|
Split the fin from the plates, and use its max dimensions thus:
2340 - 1 x 4 Tail Plate, 4 x 3 Fin, 1 x 2 T-Tail Plate and RES Q Sticker
6239 - 2 x 3 Tail Plate, 4 x 3.67 Fin
54094 - 2 x 14 Tail Plate, 14 x 8 Fin, 2 x 2 T-Tail Plate
(I don't have a , but I think those are the dimensions, obviously
it must be corrected as required)
This might also allow dimensions to be entered for the rest of that category
(how does a tail, shuttle differ from a tail shuttle, small? Both are tails,
just add the dimensions and do away with shuttle and small as descriptors, since
the one is not the small version of the other anyway)
Decide on a proper definition of a Tail part actually and standardise its descriptions.
Decide if the purpose is a vertical stabiliser, for which also becomes
a Tail, or if a Tail is wedge, plate, brick etc modified by fins, for which
, , also become Tails, not only .
As to 4867 - Tail Wedge, Fin , 2 x 2 T-Tail Plate (add dimensions), only because
someday the masters at TLG might decide to make a T-Tail Tile
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 12, 2020 03:27 | | Subject: | Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | This is sort of akin to Number Six on your roadmap. I think.
|
It is, but definitely a good additional point to consider. I added the following
sentence to that project:
"Per mfav this project should also include an examination of how part dimensions
are titled, especially parts that have dimensions that exceed an attachment plate
(airplane tails, for example)."
And let me just say that it's not my roadmap. I made it for all of us to
share. It's our roadmap, our ongoing discussion about how to best
organize this catalog we share.
|
|
| Author: | Legoboy_II | | Posted: | Mar 12, 2020 01:49 | | Subject: | Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | The 2340 has studs on the top, clearly making it a1x5 in stud length.
Anyway, the question is...is the item on the roadmap?
|
I see what has been written here, and if I may offer a new user perspective?
I have a few tail pieces and ran some search tests (using various descriptions
of what I thought I should search for) to see what I could find, and the results
were all over the place. I had the most success just typing in airplane tail,
then adding parameters as I found them, but it was less than ideal. I did find
the tails I have, but it took several searches and they never all appeared in
the same search - which I would have expected searching just for airplane tail.
Interestingly, I didn't always get repeatable results. So I agree, we need
a workable standard.
After giving the matter some thought, I think I would find success with a W x
L X H x S and additional description afterward. Where W X L describes the base,
H for the height, and S for the sweep extension. For example:
2430 - 1 x 4 x 3 x 1 swept airplane tail, with 1 X 2 tip and RES Q sticker
6239 - 2 x 3 x 3.67 x 3 swept airplane tail, no decorations
Just my thoughts, it may not be the answer, but maybe it sparks a better idea?
|
|
| Author: | Heartbricker | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2020 23:56 | | Subject: | Re: Faulty print box - 10218 Pet Shop. Custom? | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bouncingbear writes:
| | Hello
We have 2 sets with faulty print box of Pet Shop (front of box shows 1332 pieces
vs 2032 official) - as relative new to selling appreciate help how best to put
it into the store inventory? Should it be a custom item, or should it be 10218-1
with custom image?
Many thanks in advance
|
That’s interesting, do you have pictures of the boxes?
If it’s sealed I would list it as 10218-1 with custom picture and additional
notes describing the error.
Where did you buy them? Was the error presented to you before you bought the
sets?
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2020 23:24 | | Subject: | Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| The 2340 has studs on the top, clearly making it a1x5 in stud length.
Anyway, the question is...is the item on the roadmap?
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2020 23:08 | | Subject: | Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
That one is a lot easier to measure with your eyes.
If a single consistent rule is necessary and this is the way it needs to go,
I'm not going to stand in the way.
But if the tails could say they are a tail on a 1x4 base, I'd like that.
For packaging dimensions we really need to see the extremes, but in the name
of the piece we need to see what we will search for and what will help us identify
the piece. I can't imagine a scenario when you are building something with
an airplane tail where you need to make sure it is going to clear some tolerance.
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2020 22:41 | | Subject: | Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | So that makes a a 1x3? |
|
| Author: | Give.Me.A.Brick | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2020 22:07 | | Subject: | Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | This is sort of akin to Number Six on your roadmap. I think.
Is there a standardization scheme in the works for items like these shown, and
similar items, where the length exceeds the footprint of the attachment plate?
If you're going by the scheme used for 6239, then 2430 ought to be a 1x5.
If you're going by the scheme used for 2430, then 6239 ought to be a 2x3.
I know this is bound to have implications all over the catalog with many modified
bricks and plates and other things, especially when you get into SNOT pieces,
but there's inconsistency within and across categories now.
One would think the overall x-y-z dimensions of the piece would be considered
every time...
I know this is going to require some quiet contemplation followed by noisy debate,
but some semblance of consistency would be really nice to have.
|
I think average Joe-catalogsearcher will have better luck if the name is the
dimensions of the plate at the bottom. Measuring how far the tail extends backward
is a more advanced skill.
|
Agreed.
|
|
| Author: | bouncingbear | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2020 22:02 | | Subject: | Faulty print box - 10218 Pet Shop. Custom? | | Viewed: | 130 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Hello
We have 2 sets with faulty print box of Pet Shop (front of box shows 1332 pieces
vs 2032 official) - as relative new to selling appreciate help how best to put
it into the store inventory? Should it be a custom item, or should it be 10218-1
with custom image?
Many thanks in advance
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2020 21:24 | | Subject: | Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | This is sort of akin to Number Six on your roadmap. I think.
Is there a standardization scheme in the works for items like these shown, and
similar items, where the length exceeds the footprint of the attachment plate?
If you're going by the scheme used for 6239, then 2430 ought to be a 1x5.
If you're going by the scheme used for 2430, then 6239 ought to be a 2x3.
I know this is bound to have implications all over the catalog with many modified
bricks and plates and other things, especially when you get into SNOT pieces,
but there's inconsistency within and across categories now.
One would think the overall x-y-z dimensions of the piece would be considered
every time...
I know this is going to require some quiet contemplation followed by noisy debate,
but some semblance of consistency would be really nice to have.
|
I think average Joe-catalogsearcher will have better luck if the name is the
dimensions of the plate at the bottom. Measuring how far the tail extends backward
is a more advanced skill.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2020 21:13 | | Subject: | Re: StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, mfav writes:
| | This is sort of akin to Number Six on your roadmap. I think.
Is there a standardization scheme in the works for items like these shown, and
similar items, where the length exceeds the footprint of the attachment plate?
If you're going by the scheme used for 6239, then 2430 ought to be a 1x5.
If you're going by the scheme used for 2430, then 6239 ought to be a 2x3.
|
That would be 2340 
| | I know this is bound to have implications all over the catalog with many modified
bricks and plates and other things, especially when you get into SNOT pieces,
but there's inconsistency within and across categories now.
One would think the overall x-y-z dimensions of the piece would be considered
every time...
I know this is going to require some quiet contemplation followed by noisy debate,
but some semblance of consistency would be really nice to have.
|
|
|
| Author: | mfav | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2020 20:52 | | Subject: | StormChaser: the tale of two tails | | Viewed: | 230 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| This is sort of akin to Number Six on your roadmap. I think.
Is there a standardization scheme in the works for items like these shown, and
similar items, where the length exceeds the footprint of the attachment plate?
If you're going by the scheme used for 6239, then 2430 ought to be a 1x5.
If you're going by the scheme used for 2430, then 6239 ought to be a 2x3.
I know this is bound to have implications all over the catalog with many modified
bricks and plates and other things, especially when you get into SNOT pieces,
but there's inconsistency within and across categories now.
One would think the overall x-y-z dimensions of the piece would be considered
every time...
I know this is going to require some quiet contemplation followed by noisy debate,
but some semblance of consistency would be really nice to have.
|
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2020 10:33 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Sure it does. You just add the second part number as an alternate item number
and put both Element IDs in two separate PCC slots. In this case, the vendor
number (the 140413A or 134071A) don't matter, but on some they will.
Cheers,
Randy
In Catalog, starbeanie writes:
| | that doesn't solve this problem. same sheet, different number
In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | I'd say get rid of the current numbering system and give the sticker sheets
the part number which is written on the sheet itself. Then put the set # into
the description.
|
|
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2020 10:16 | | Subject: | Re: New minifigure head variant 28621 | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | How should the new type (and the printed variants) be added to the catalog?
|
So this is basically a blocked open stud. We have two options:
1. Catalog them under the existing blocked open stud entry and add the new number
as an additional item number.
2. Create a new 3626d entry.
I don't have any preference here. What do others think?
|
As a minifigure collector, #2 is my preference.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | starbeanie | | Posted: | Mar 11, 2020 00:41 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| that doesn't solve this problem. same sheet, different number
In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | I'd say get rid of the current numbering system and give the sticker sheets
the part number which is written on the sheet itself. Then put the set # into
the description.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 10, 2020 21:18 | | Subject: | Re: New minifigure head variant 28621 | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | How should the new type (and the printed variants) be added to the catalog?
|
So this is basically a blocked open stud. We have two options:
1. Catalog them under the existing blocked open stud entry and add the new number
as an additional item number.
2. Create a new 3626d entry.
I don't have any preference here. What do others think?
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | Mar 10, 2020 18:34 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I'd say get rid of the current numbering system and give the sticker sheets
the part number which is written on the sheet itself. Then put the set # into
the description.
|
|
| Author: | Turez | | Posted: | Mar 10, 2020 13:10 | | Subject: | New minifigure head variant 28621 | | Viewed: | 138 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Hi everyone,
my set came with a new minifigure head type with two holes and new
number 28621. It is already listed at Brickset:
https://brickset.com/parts/design-28621
Looks like the new mold is only used for transparent heads. All three trans-neon
green heads (1x plain, 2x printed) in my set are the new type while all other
heads are 3626c.
How should the new type (and the printed variants) be added to the catalog?
Regards,
Jonas
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 9, 2020 19:03 | | Subject: | Re: A Brief Task for A Bored Person | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
Ten years ago I would have found this worthwhile and interesting. Regardless,
someone should probably get it done. Maybe I should make this message a catalog
request so the CAs can look into it. 
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Mar 9, 2020 18:59 | | Subject: | Re: A Brief Task for A Bored Person | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | There are problems with these:
[P=41168c01]
[P=41168c02]
[P=41168c03]
[P=41168cx2]
Additionally, there are others not in the catalog. There are various problems
with images, part numbers, colors, inventories, titles, etc., etc.
Bored? Dive in and clean it up! Figure out what needs to be done and start
submitting the necessary requests/additions.
I don't have time + interest at this particular moment, but it needs to be
done.
|
Hmmm....Not THAT bored.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 9, 2020 18:48 | | Subject: | A Brief Task for A Bored Person | | Viewed: | 222 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| There are problems with these:
[P=41168c01]
[P=41168c02]
[P=41168c03]
[P=41168cx2]
Additionally, there are others not in the catalog. There are various problems
with images, part numbers, colors, inventories, titles, etc., etc.
Bored? Dive in and clean it up! Figure out what needs to be done and start
submitting the necessary requests/additions.
I don't have time + interest at this particular moment, but it needs to be
done.
|
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 9, 2020 03:39 | | Subject: | Re: March Project - Sticker Sheet Restructuring | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I have some ideas, but I'd like to hear yours
|
I'm still interested in hearing additional ideas on the best way to handle
this restructuring. As I said, I do have some ideas, but I'd rather hear
what others think first so that I'm not influencing opinions.
This is the question from my original post:
| | Sticker sheets are handled quite consistently at the present moment. How can we retain that consistency while eliminating duplicate entries with the least amount of disruption?
|
I'll likely post back here within the next week with what I see as some of
our options so that we may discuss them.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 8, 2020 00:09 | | Subject: | Re: LEGOLAND Dollars | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, baylit writes:
| | That helps, thanks!
Clearly not in the catalog then - those are 2015...
|
I think the years are wrong. The pictures for all of them show 2012.
|
| Author: | baylit | | Posted: | Mar 7, 2020 23:57 | | Subject: | Re: LEGOLAND Dollars | | Viewed: | 61 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| That helps, thanks!
Clearly not in the catalog then - those are 2015...
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, baylit writes:
| | I can't find them in the Catalog.
Should I create a new Gear entry?
I have 5 $1s that are from the 1999 series
??
|
[G=LLFMONEY1]
[G=LLFMONEY5]
[G=LLFMONEY10]
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Mar 7, 2020 23:47 | | Subject: | Re: LEGOLAND Dollars | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, baylit writes:
| | I can't find them in the Catalog.
Should I create a new Gear entry?
I have 5 $1s that are from the 1999 series
??
|
[G=LLFMONEY1]
[G=LLFMONEY5]
[G=LLFMONEY10]
|
| Author: | baylit | | Posted: | Mar 7, 2020 23:30 | | Subject: | LEGOLAND Dollars | | Viewed: | 162 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I can't find them in the Catalog.
Should I create a new Gear entry?
I have 5 $1s that are from the 1999 series
??
|
|
| Author: | 69transamman | | Posted: | Mar 7, 2020 13:45 | | Subject: | 50899a Showing Only 2 Known Colors | | Viewed: | 100 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I was trying to identify some Marbled Bionicle Rhotuka Spinner and I noticed
that only 2 colors show up in the known colors list. However, if you click the
link for Color Images it shows actual pictures of 13 identified colors. Why aren't
the other 11 colors shown in the known list? I have the Yellow Marbled and Dark
Red Marbled on hand if additional pictures are needed. The ones I have came from
a bulk lot purchased years ago so, I have no way to identify which set they are
from. My intuition tells me they were from either set #8748-1 or set #6620-1.
While I'm on the topic, does anyone know if the Spinners in set 8749-1 were
all of one color (I am referring only to the 4 Marbled Spinners without code)?
A standard mix of colors? or Completely random assortment of color?
Howard
|
|
| Author: | rick_holl | | Posted: | Mar 7, 2020 12:44 | | Subject: | 8 x 8 dish | | Viewed: | 125 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Hi,
Anyone knows what finish the 8 x 8 DBG dish that is included in 75159 death star
comes into? There seems to be 2 variants of finish on this one (smooth and shiny)
|
|
| Author: | BrickenbergNC | | Posted: | Mar 6, 2020 11:59 | | Subject: | Re: BrickLink part numbers vs Lego part numbers | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, myq writes:
| | So, what is the official policy for pieces with official Lego part numbers that
also have Bricklink numbers?
Such as:
bricklink: 98138pb023
Tile, Round 1 x 1 with Black Number 5 Coin Pattern
Lego: 17968
FLAT TILE 1X1, ROUND "NO.24"
Obviously the Lego description needs some work, but I would prefer to see the
Lego number when it is known. It facilitates checking shop.lego.com for new bricks.
|
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogAdd.asp
You can submit the LEGO ID for that specific part as an alternate. As far as
I can tell 17968 is only used for that specific part and not for 1x1 round tiles
as a whole.
|
|
| Author: | myq | | Posted: | Mar 6, 2020 11:50 | | Subject: | BrickLink part numbers vs Lego part numbers | | Viewed: | 96 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| So, what is the official policy for pieces with official Lego part numbers that
also have Bricklink numbers?
Such as:
bricklink: 98138pb023
Tile, Round 1 x 1 with Black Number 5 Coin Pattern
Lego: 17968
FLAT TILE 1X1, ROUND "NO.24"
Obviously the Lego description needs some work, but I would prefer to see the
Lego number when it is known. It facilitates checking shop.lego.com for new bricks.
|
|
| Author: | rick_holl | | Posted: | Mar 4, 2020 09:08 | | Subject: | Re: Color id | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, peregrinator writes:
| | In Catalog, rick_holl writes:
| | Bought this lot under ´dark grey’ but looks like dark bluish grey
Don’t have it yet, just want to be sure i ordered the DBG one
Thoughts?
|
I see one piece that looks to be dark grey but the remainder appear to be dark
bluish grey
|
thx!
|
|
| Author: | rick_holl | | Posted: | Mar 4, 2020 09:07 | | Subject: | Re: Color id | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, runner.caller writes:
| | In Catalog, rick_holl writes:
| | Bought this lot under ´dark grey’ but looks like dark bluish grey
Don’t have it yet, just want to be sure i ordered the DBG one
Thoughts?
|
Looks like you've got plenty of answers.
Gotta ask out of curiosity... are you planning a large scale DBG MOC?
|
It's to complete some SW UCS kits that i'm rebricking
|
| Author: | peregrinator | | Posted: | Mar 3, 2020 19:51 | | Subject: | Re: Color id | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, rick_holl writes:
| | Bought this lot under ´dark grey’ but looks like dark bluish grey
Don’t have it yet, just want to be sure i ordered the DBG one
Thoughts?
|
I see one piece that looks to be dark grey but the remainder appear to be dark
bluish grey
|
| Author: | runner.caller | | Posted: | Mar 3, 2020 18:00 | | Subject: | Re: Color id | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, rick_holl writes:
| | Bought this lot under ´dark grey’ but looks like dark bluish grey
Don’t have it yet, just want to be sure i ordered the DBG one
Thoughts?
|
Looks like you've got plenty of answers.
Gotta ask out of curiosity... are you planning a large scale DBG MOC?
|
|
| Author: | Mirko8710 | | Posted: | Mar 3, 2020 13:17 | | Subject: | Re: Missing sh619 | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Right!
I always noticed this "missing figures" but I always thought that there were
only skipped code for some reasons (like mistakes) and then forgotten.
So, when I will find a skipped code I will need only to search that number in
the page you linked before, to see what happened.
I tried now with njo520 and right, it was the same figure as njo532.
Many thanks again!!
Mirko
In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog, Mirko8710 writes:
| | Hi Hygrotus!
Thanks for your reply!! Every day we learn something! I didn't know that
an used code couldn't be used for another one after its merge!
Many thanks.
We don't need sh619 anymore! xD
|
You can notice frequently such gaps
In Star Wars there are few for example.
Also you can spot this when submitting stickered counterparts which you are doing,
that is why always take next free number not one missed.
|
|
|
| Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Mar 3, 2020 13:07 | | Subject: | Re: Missing sh619 | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Mirko8710 writes:
| | Hi Hygrotus!
Thanks for your reply!! Every day we learn something! I didn't know that
an used code couldn't be used for another one after its merge!
Many thanks.
We don't need sh619 anymore! xD
|
You can notice frequently such gaps
In Star Wars there are few for example.
Also you can spot this when submitting stickered counterparts which you are doing,
that is why always take next free number not one missed.
|
|
| Author: | Mirko8710 | | Posted: | Mar 3, 2020 13:04 | | Subject: | Re: Missing sh619 | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Hi Hygrotus!
Thanks for your reply!! Every day we learn something! I didn't know that
an used code couldn't be used for another one after its merge!
Many thanks.
We don't need sh619 anymore! xD
Mirko
In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog, Mirko8710 writes:
| | Hi all!
We are searching for the minifigure in the subject 
Please, the next who submit a new SH minifigure use this code because in the
set 76147, that have three minifigures (sh617, sh618 and sh546), there aren't
no more new minifigures and that code had been skipped.
Many thanks!
Mirko 
|
Number sh619 can't be used
under this number was submitted minifig which was already in the catalog and
accidentally approved. Then after discovery that it is the same as existing one
it was deleted by merge after such situation this number can't be use anymore.
Log, merge from feburary 5th
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReqList.asp?nID=&viewDate=Y&viewType=E&viewStatus=A&q=sh619
This number is no more available to be filled.
|
|
|
| Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | Mar 3, 2020 12:22 | | Subject: | Re: Missing sh619 | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Mirko8710 writes:
| | Hi all!
We are searching for the minifigure in the subject
Please, the next who submit a new SH minifigure use this code because in the
set 76147, that have three minifigures (sh617, sh618 and sh546), there aren't
no more new minifigures and that code had been skipped.
Many thanks!
Mirko
|
Number sh619 can't be used
under this number was submitted minifig which was already in the catalog and
accidentally approved. Then after discovery that it is the same as existing one
it was deleted by merge after such situation this number can't be use anymore.
Log, merge from feburary 5th
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReqList.asp?nID=&viewDate=Y&viewType=E&viewStatus=A&q=sh619
This number is no more available to be filled.
|
|
| Author: | Mirko8710 | | Posted: | Mar 3, 2020 12:15 | | Subject: | Missing sh619 | | Viewed: | 132 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Hi all!
We are searching for the minifigure in the subject
Please, the next who submit a new SH minifigure use this code because in the
set 76147, that have three minifigures (sh617, sh618 and sh546), there aren't
no more new minifigures and that code had been skipped.
Many thanks!
Mirko
|
|
| Author: | macyenco | | Posted: | Mar 3, 2020 10:42 | | Subject: | Re: Incorrect weight | | Viewed: | 51 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, macyenco writes:
| | Hi there,
Can someone please enter the correct weight of instruction booklet 6624 Delivery
Van. Due to Bricklink catalog the weight of this booklet is 55 grams, but it
should be 3 grams.
Thank you.
|
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp?itemType=S
Type 6624 at the top by "Item No:"
Put the weight next to "Change Weight of Instructions To:" and check the white
box to the left.
Then "Submit Request"
It is very easy, but I want you to do it because it was your discovery and your
measurement and you should get the credit for it.
|
Thank you axaday, wanted to change it but it has already been done.
|
|
| Author: | rick_holl | | Posted: | Mar 3, 2020 09:14 | | Subject: | Re: Color id | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WildBricks writes:
| | 99% DBG, those technic panels w/stickers on them are most likely flat silver
though.
In Catalog, rick_holl writes:
| | Bought this lot under ´dark grey’ but looks like dark bluish grey
Don’t have it yet, just want to be sure i ordered the DBG one
Thoughts?
|
|
Thx!
|
| Author: | rick_holl | | Posted: | Mar 3, 2020 09:14 | | Subject: | Re: Color id | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, taxan writes:
| | In Catalog, rick_holl writes:
| | Bought this lot under ´dark grey’ but looks like dark bluish grey
Don’t have it yet, just want to be sure i ordered the DBG one
Thoughts?
|
and
is DBG
Look look like it's mostly DBG.
|
Thank you!
|
|
| Author: | WildBricks | | Posted: | Mar 3, 2020 08:27 | | Subject: | Re: Color id | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| 99% DBG, those technic panels w/stickers on them are most likely flat silver
though.
In Catalog, rick_holl writes:
| | Bought this lot under ´dark grey’ but looks like dark bluish grey
Don’t have it yet, just want to be sure i ordered the DBG one
Thoughts?
|
|
| Author: | taxan | | Posted: | Mar 3, 2020 08:22 | | Subject: | Re: Color id | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, rick_holl writes:
| | Bought this lot under ´dark grey’ but looks like dark bluish grey
Don’t have it yet, just want to be sure i ordered the DBG one
Thoughts?
|
and
is DBG
Look look like it's mostly DBG.
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Mar 3, 2020 07:37 | | Subject: | Re: Incorrect weight | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, macyenco writes:
| | Hi there,
Can someone please enter the correct weight of instruction booklet 6624 Delivery
Van. Due to Bricklink catalog the weight of this booklet is 55 grams, but it
should be 3 grams.
Thank you.
|
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp?itemType=S
Type 6624 at the top by "Item No:"
Put the weight next to "Change Weight of Instructions To:" and check the white
box to the left.
Then "Submit Request"
It is very easy, but I want you to do it because it was your discovery and your
measurement and you should get the credit for it.
|
|
| Author: | rick_holl | | Posted: | Mar 3, 2020 07:37 | | Subject: | Re: Color id | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, rick_holl writes:
| | Bought this lot under ´dark grey’ but looks like dark bluish grey
Don’t have it yet, just want to be sure i ordered the DBG one
Thoughts?
|
Not very easy to say without a reference but there’s a plate that looks more
olivey on the upper left, so I’d say most of it is DBG but there’s DG in there
too.
|
Thank you
|
|
| Author: | rick_holl | | Posted: | Mar 3, 2020 07:36 | | Subject: | Re: Color id | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
| | In Catalog, rick_holl writes:
| | Bought this lot under ´dark grey’ but looks like dark bluish grey
Don’t have it yet, just want to be sure i ordered the DBG one
Thoughts?
|
Those big plates with the big round hole in them only comes in dark bluish gray,
so I'd say the majority of this lot is dark bluish gray.
|
Thank you
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
USA, Ohio
Spain, Comunidad Valenciana
South Africa, Western Cape
Portugal
Singapore
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Germany, Niedersachsen
)
)
Canada, Quebec
Italy, Toscana
Poland, w. Wielkopolskie
Netherlands, Noord-Brabant
Sweden, Västernorrland