Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | opposingwinds  | | Posted: | May 20, 2020 08:22 | | Subject: | One random part... | | Viewed: | 143 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Does anyone know why Brick Modified 1 x 2 x 2/3 No Studs, Wing End is
so expensive?? It's in more than 100 sets and I feel like it's quite
common. I came across several stores selling it for $1, even $2.
|
 |
| Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | May 20, 2020 04:44 | | Subject: | Re: Length of Electric, Wire and Connector 5306bc | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, joel07 writes:
| | Hello, I would like clarification on the 5306bc electric, wire and connector.
The number next to it corresponds to the length of the cable, or is it the length
of the cable and the brick (for example 5306bc026) ?
Thank you for your answers.
Best regards,
Joel
|
C'est un projet qu'on a definit il y a deux ans:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1113705
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1136906
Jusqu'a ce qu'on travail sur le projet, on sais pas. Peronne ne sait.
Le longueur de la cable n'est pas bien definit donc ca peut etre tous ce
qu'on peut imaginer.
Comme j'ai verifie, le longueur des cables de train 7722 sur mes 5 examplaires
n'etaient pas exact en tout cas.
|
|
| Author: | joel07 | | Posted: | May 20, 2020 04:19 | | Subject: | Length of Electric, Wire and Connector 5306bc | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Hello, I would like clarification on the 5306bc electric, wire and connector.
The number next to it corresponds to the length of the cable, or is it the length
of the cable and the brick (for example 5306bc026) ?
Thank you for your answers.
Best regards,
Joel
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | May 19, 2020 16:42 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory for fabac3 | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
Oops. My bad. Obviously I can't keep up with everything happening on the
catalog side of things like you can! 
|
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | May 19, 2020 16:29 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory for fabac3 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, normann1974 writes:
| | I would like to create an inventory for part just like part
has. But what part number should I use for the base?
|
If there is no number on it, then it gets a 'bb' number. The next available
'bb' number is bb1131.
Cheers,
Randy
|
| Author: | normann1974 | | Posted: | May 19, 2020 16:19 | | Subject: | Inventory for fabac3 | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| I would like to create an inventory for part just like part
has. But what part number should I use for the base?
/Jan
|
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 19, 2020 11:37 | | Subject: | Re: More Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | […]
Fair point. But the same sets packaged in different factories or even at different
times in the same factory, or perhaps even at the same time in the same factory,
may contain different variants.
|
That other sets came out differently from the same (or not) factory at the same
time (or not) doesn’t change the fact that one set is as it was when it came
out of the factory.
All the sesterces are different, it doesn’t change the fact some of them can
be certified as being real antique coins from a certified time-period.
| | I stand by my opinion that period-specificity is at least somewhat delusional.
|
If you’re “bricklinking” the set.
And it also depends on your value of “good enough”: Do you trace all the parts,
asserting they came from boxes the siblings of the set you’re bricklinking?
Or are you content with “we know these variants were made around that time”?
| | | | So even if BL’s catalogue didn’t exist, one could still be proud of owning a
period-specific set.
|
True. But what does that even mean?
|
Well, you are the one who used the term 
| | […]
Because of the aforementioned variability in packaging for a given set, what
real meaning do the words "historically accurate" or "period-specific" even have?
|
There’s the same thing with cars: there are the “only original parts,” the “we
replaced some parts with others from the same manufacturer and period,” and the
“we used some 3D-printed parts” and so on. And some parts (chassis, engine…)
are more important than others (belts) and even on some important parts, some
modifications are allowed without removing value (remove rusted parts of the
body, weld some new bits).
There’s the same thing with all collectible items.
And the “meaning” of “historically accurate” or “period-specific” is not binary
(is / isn’t), it’s, like about every word, a gradation of what people agree it
is.
It can be discussed precisely, generally between a seller and a buyer, to translate
it in monetary value, but it’ll still be generally fuzzy.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | May 19, 2020 10:45 | | Subject: | Re: More Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 93 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | One’s owning the set since it was bought sealed and never having mixed its parts
allows one to say one’s copy is historically accurate.
Or any certified track of the set and its parts from the time it was bought sealed
allows the latest owner to say their copy is historically accurate.
|
Fair point. But the same sets packaged in different factories or even at different
times in the same factory, or perhaps even at the same time in the same factory,
may contain different variants.
I stand by my opinion that period-specificity is at least somewhat delusional.
| | So even if BL’s catalogue didn’t exist, one could still be proud of owning a
period-specific set.
|
True. But what does that even mean?
I do not have a large personal collection of LEGO parts. I looked through my
parts collection recently to create the attached image of the variants in molded
printing (which BL doesn't even distinguish) for just one part. And I missed
including one in the photo, by the way.
Each part in the photo shows a distinct and separate variant of molded printing,
with the second from the top having none at all. And my rough estimate at this
point is that at least two thirds of all parts have actual mold variants, while
most parts in production for more than a couple years probably have one or many
molded printing variants.
Because of the aforementioned variability in packaging for a given set, what
real meaning do the words "historically accurate" or "period-specific" even have?
|
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | May 19, 2020 10:40 | | Subject: | Re: More Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
|
snip
| |
I think I've figured out that, in addition to the other problems with variants,
BrickLink perpetuates the somewhat delusional thinking of pride in owning a period-specific
set.
Only if every single variant was thoroughly documented and also documented to
have appeared in that set could you say that your copy of a set is historically
accurate. And considering that many (if not most or all) parts have variants,
chasing those phantoms might become rather nonsensical at some point.
|
Don't know about the delusion so much, but I would be pretty ticked off if
somebody sold me a so-called used complete at $1 000 and it included
a bunch of modern cheap variants. Or worse still some early space sets with
the wrong clips, and LBG and DBG parts. It is all relative - someone like me
prefer to deal ith the correct thing at the correct time and I am prepared to
invest the time and effort in it. From experience with return buyers, I know
I am not alone. And yes, I've had buyers ask me to check pips, pins, hole
sizes, clips and mold numbers and send images prior to shipping and also to make
sure the variants and colour differences are correct. Of course I've also
had buyers who just do not care.
I personally would not go as far as to mention closed and open pins and combinations
thereof, but I find for the serious buyer it pays to find serious sellers, catalogue
failings notwithstanding
|
|
| Author: | paulvdb | | Posted: | May 19, 2020 10:32 | | Subject: | Re: More Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
The note for this one can of course also be added to the unprinted 3009. And
probably a number of other decorated versions of this brick and other 1 x X bricks
and plates.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 19, 2020 10:22 | | Subject: | Re: More Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | […]
Only if every single variant was thoroughly documented and also documented to
have appeared in that set could you say that your copy of a set is historically
accurate.
|
Er, not exactly.
One’s owning the set since it was bought sealed and never having mixed its parts
allows one to say one’s copy is historically accurate.
Or any certified track of the set and its parts from the time it was bought sealed
allows the latest owner to say their copy is historically accurate.
So even if BL’s catalogue didn’t exist, one could still be proud of owning a
period-specific set.
| | And considering that many (if not most or all) parts have variants,
chasing those phantoms might become rather nonsensical at some point.
|
And the one who discovers a variant can’t even have the ego-boost of the variant
being named after them.
No “3961 stormchaserus” for you
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | May 19, 2020 10:06 | | Subject: | Re: More Variants Discovered | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | I just added comparison photos and additional notes for the following part variants
|
I've just added pictures and notes for ten more. A few are mildly interesting
and will be worth your time to see:
* | | 30387 Hinge Brick 1 x 4 Locking with 1 Finger Vertical End and 2 Fingers Vertical End
Parts: Hinge |
I think I've figured out that, in addition to the other problems with variants,
BrickLink perpetuates the somewhat delusional thinking of pride in owning a period-specific
set.
Only if every single variant was thoroughly documented and also documented to
have appeared in that set could you say that your copy of a set is historically
accurate. And considering that many (if not most or all) parts have variants,
chasing those phantoms might become rather nonsensical at some point.
|
|
| Author: | bengreen28 | | Posted: | May 16, 2020 14:38 | | Subject: | Re: Part marked for deletion | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Proprietor writes:
| | List it in under the Sticker over Assembly number and indicate in your comments
that it’s the plate only and price it accordingly.
In Catalog, bengreen28 writes:
| | In Catalog, BricksThatStick writes:
| | In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | In Catalog, BricksThatStick writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, bengreen28 writes:
| | Hi, I have a 1x2 plate that has a sticker on it, I have gone to list it and have
found that it is marked for deletion because the sticker was applied to the wrong
part.
I have got this model at home and also have the instructions for it. the sticker
has been applied to the correct part as it shows it clearly on the instructions.
Who do we contact in order to get the deletion cancelled?
Part number is 3023pb01, you can see clearly in the picture that the sticker
is applied to the 1x2 plate and not the mudguard.
|
Here is the thread from when it was removed from the inventory:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=253659
The sticker now forms this assembly:
* | | BA081pb01 Stickered Assembly 4 x 2 x 1 with 'Shell' Small Pattern on Both Sides (Stickers) - Set 6634 - 2 Plate 1 x 2, 1 Mudguard 2 x 4 with Arch Studded
Parts: Stickered Assembly |
So the sticker is in the correct place but it covers more than 1 part (admittedly
only just)
|
The only problem is, because that is just barely over, a majority of people will
have the 1x2 plate with with the sticker in a lot rather than the entire assembly...
|
True but that leaves the sticker open to being damaged or getting gunk stuck
to it.
There's no reason why you can't sell it as an individual part but it
doesn't need it's own catalog entry as we are now happily accepting sticker
over assembly entries.
|
That's the problem though, there is a catalog entry for the part, I'm
unable to list it as it's marked for deletion. I only have one of the plates
and I also don't have the other parts to be able to list it in the sticker
over assembly entry.
So I end up with a part I can't list or I remove the sticker and list the
plate whilst binning the sticker.
This is not one from my set as that is complete and still has all the original
parts from when I bought it new.
|
|
Cool thanks I'll do that.
|
|
| Author: | Proprietor | | Posted: | May 16, 2020 14:23 | | Subject: | Re: Part marked for deletion | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| List it in under the Sticker over Assembly number and indicate in your comments
that it’s the plate only and price it accordingly.
In Catalog, bengreen28 writes:
| | In Catalog, BricksThatStick writes:
| | In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | In Catalog, BricksThatStick writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, bengreen28 writes:
| | Hi, I have a 1x2 plate that has a sticker on it, I have gone to list it and have
found that it is marked for deletion because the sticker was applied to the wrong
part.
I have got this model at home and also have the instructions for it. the sticker
has been applied to the correct part as it shows it clearly on the instructions.
Who do we contact in order to get the deletion cancelled?
Part number is 3023pb01, you can see clearly in the picture that the sticker
is applied to the 1x2 plate and not the mudguard.
|
Here is the thread from when it was removed from the inventory:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=253659
The sticker now forms this assembly:
* | | BA081pb01 Stickered Assembly 4 x 2 x 1 with 'Shell' Small Pattern on Both Sides (Stickers) - Set 6634 - 2 Plate 1 x 2, 1 Mudguard 2 x 4 with Arch Studded
Parts: Stickered Assembly |
So the sticker is in the correct place but it covers more than 1 part (admittedly
only just)
|
The only problem is, because that is just barely over, a majority of people will
have the 1x2 plate with with the sticker in a lot rather than the entire assembly...
|
True but that leaves the sticker open to being damaged or getting gunk stuck
to it.
There's no reason why you can't sell it as an individual part but it
doesn't need it's own catalog entry as we are now happily accepting sticker
over assembly entries.
|
That's the problem though, there is a catalog entry for the part, I'm
unable to list it as it's marked for deletion. I only have one of the plates
and I also don't have the other parts to be able to list it in the sticker
over assembly entry.
So I end up with a part I can't list or I remove the sticker and list the
plate whilst binning the sticker.
This is not one from my set as that is complete and still has all the original
parts from when I bought it new.
|
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | May 16, 2020 13:54 | | Subject: | Re: Item 6468: problems? | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Gaston.La.Brick writes:
| | Hello,
the item 6468 is according to the catalog 1x3x4. This seems correct with the
picture.
However, it is referenced as being used in item 6460. That is not correct with
the dimensions.
I post a picture of the window/door that fits 6460. You can clearly see it fits,
but has other dimensions as item 6468.
|
Should the dimensions for 6468 be instead 1x3x3?
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | bengreen28 | | Posted: | May 16, 2020 12:06 | | Subject: | Re: Part marked for deletion | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, BricksThatStick writes:
| | In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | In Catalog, BricksThatStick writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, bengreen28 writes:
| | Hi, I have a 1x2 plate that has a sticker on it, I have gone to list it and have
found that it is marked for deletion because the sticker was applied to the wrong
part.
I have got this model at home and also have the instructions for it. the sticker
has been applied to the correct part as it shows it clearly on the instructions.
Who do we contact in order to get the deletion cancelled?
Part number is 3023pb01, you can see clearly in the picture that the sticker
is applied to the 1x2 plate and not the mudguard.
|
Here is the thread from when it was removed from the inventory:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=253659
The sticker now forms this assembly:
* | | BA081pb01 Stickered Assembly 4 x 2 x 1 with 'Shell' Small Pattern on Both Sides (Stickers) - Set 6634 - 2 Plate 1 x 2, 1 Mudguard 2 x 4 with Arch Studded
Parts: Stickered Assembly |
So the sticker is in the correct place but it covers more than 1 part (admittedly
only just)
|
The only problem is, because that is just barely over, a majority of people will
have the 1x2 plate with with the sticker in a lot rather than the entire assembly...
|
True but that leaves the sticker open to being damaged or getting gunk stuck
to it.
There's no reason why you can't sell it as an individual part but it
doesn't need it's own catalog entry as we are now happily accepting sticker
over assembly entries.
|
That's the problem though, there is a catalog entry for the part, I'm
unable to list it as it's marked for deletion. I only have one of the plates
and I also don't have the other parts to be able to list it in the sticker
over assembly entry.
So I end up with a part I can't list or I remove the sticker and list the
plate whilst binning the sticker.
This is not one from my set as that is complete and still has all the original
parts from when I bought it new.
|
|
| Author: | Gaston.La.Brick | | Posted: | May 16, 2020 10:06 | | Subject: | Item 6468: problems? | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Hello,
the item 6468 is according to the catalog 1x3x4. This seems correct with the
picture.
However, it is referenced as being used in item 6460. That is not correct with
the dimensions.
I post a picture of the window/door that fits 6460. You can clearly see it fits,
but has other dimensions as item 6468.
|
|
| Author: | BricksThatStick | | Posted: | May 16, 2020 08:09 | | Subject: | Re: Part marked for deletion | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, LordSkylark writes:
| | In Catalog, BricksThatStick writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, bengreen28 writes:
| | Hi, I have a 1x2 plate that has a sticker on it, I have gone to list it and have
found that it is marked for deletion because the sticker was applied to the wrong
part.
I have got this model at home and also have the instructions for it. the sticker
has been applied to the correct part as it shows it clearly on the instructions.
Who do we contact in order to get the deletion cancelled?
Part number is 3023pb01, you can see clearly in the picture that the sticker
is applied to the 1x2 plate and not the mudguard.
|
Here is the thread from when it was removed from the inventory:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=253659
The sticker now forms this assembly:
* | | BA081pb01 Stickered Assembly 4 x 2 x 1 with 'Shell' Small Pattern on Both Sides (Stickers) - Set 6634 - 2 Plate 1 x 2, 1 Mudguard 2 x 4 with Arch Studded
Parts: Stickered Assembly |
So the sticker is in the correct place but it covers more than 1 part (admittedly
only just)
|
The only problem is, because that is just barely over, a majority of people will
have the 1x2 plate with with the sticker in a lot rather than the entire assembly...
|
True but that leaves the sticker open to being damaged or getting gunk stuck
to it.
There's no reason why you can't sell it as an individual part but it
doesn't need it's own catalog entry as we are now happily accepting sticker
over assembly entries.
|
|
| Author: | LordSkylark | | Posted: | May 16, 2020 05:41 | | Subject: | Re: Part marked for deletion | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, BricksThatStick writes:
| | In Catalog Requests, bengreen28 writes:
| | Hi, I have a 1x2 plate that has a sticker on it, I have gone to list it and have
found that it is marked for deletion because the sticker was applied to the wrong
part.
I have got this model at home and also have the instructions for it. the sticker
has been applied to the correct part as it shows it clearly on the instructions.
Who do we contact in order to get the deletion cancelled?
Part number is 3023pb01, you can see clearly in the picture that the sticker
is applied to the 1x2 plate and not the mudguard.
|
Here is the thread from when it was removed from the inventory:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=253659
The sticker now forms this assembly:
* | | BA081pb01 Stickered Assembly 4 x 2 x 1 with 'Shell' Small Pattern on Both Sides (Stickers) - Set 6634 - 2 Plate 1 x 2, 1 Mudguard 2 x 4 with Arch Studded
Parts: Stickered Assembly |
So the sticker is in the correct place but it covers more than 1 part (admittedly
only just)
|
The only problem is, because that is just barely over, a majority of people will
have the 1x2 plate with with the sticker in a lot rather than the entire assembly...
|
|
| Author: | Cob | | Posted: | May 16, 2020 01:43 | | Subject: | Re: Lego pin 006 & 005 in different colors | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hendrik_Brands writes:
| | Hello,
It came to my attention that the following parts Pin006 & pin005 are only listed
in the color red. Although there are much more colors: green, blue, white, silver,
yellow and black. I hope these could be added!
Yours sincerely,
Hendrik Brands
|
Wow, what a nice collection!
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | May 15, 2020 20:42 | | Subject: | Re: Lego pin 006 & 005 in different colors | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Hendrik_Brands writes:
| | It came to my attention that the following parts Pin006 & pin005 are only listed
in the color red. Although there are much more colors: green, blue, white, silver,
yellow and black. I hope these could be added!
|
Traditionally for gear new catalog entries weren't added for every color
when items came in multiple colors. Like clothing wasn't added in every
possible size for each item of clothing.
With your permission, though, we can add your photo to each catalog entry so
that people will be aware of the array of colors for these pins.
|
|
| Author: | Brands_Bricks | | Posted: | May 15, 2020 19:10 | | Subject: | Lego pin 006 & 005 in different colors | | Viewed: | 91 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Hello,
It came to my attention that the following parts Pin006 & pin005 are only listed
in the color red. Although there are much more colors: green, blue, white, silver,
yellow and black. I hope these could be added!
Yours sincerely,
Hendrik Brands
|
|
|
| Author: | BricksThatStick | | Posted: | May 15, 2020 18:05 | | Subject: | Re: Part marked for deletion | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Requests, bengreen28 writes:
| | Hi, I have a 1x2 plate that has a sticker on it, I have gone to list it and have
found that it is marked for deletion because the sticker was applied to the wrong
part.
I have got this model at home and also have the instructions for it. the sticker
has been applied to the correct part as it shows it clearly on the instructions.
Who do we contact in order to get the deletion cancelled?
Part number is 3023pb01, you can see clearly in the picture that the sticker
is applied to the 1x2 plate and not the mudguard.
|
Here is the thread from when it was removed from the inventory:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=253659
The sticker now forms this assembly:
* | | BA081pb01 Stickered Assembly 4 x 2 x 1 with 'Shell' Small Pattern on Both Sides (Stickers) - Set 6634 - 2 Plate 1 x 2, 1 Mudguard 2 x 4 with Arch Studded
Parts: Stickered Assembly |
So the sticker is in the correct place but it covers more than 1 part (admittedly
only just)
|
|
| Author: | bengreen28 | | Posted: | May 15, 2020 16:56 | | Subject: | Part marked for deletion | | Viewed: | 94 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Hi, I have a 1x2 plate that has a sticker on it, I have gone to list it and have
found that it is marked for deletion because the sticker was applied to the wrong
part.
I have got this model at home and also have the instructions for it. the sticker
has been applied to the correct part as it shows it clearly on the instructions.
Who do we contact in order to get the deletion cancelled?
Part number is 3023pb01, you can see clearly in the picture that the sticker
is applied to the 1x2 plate and not the mudguard.
|
|
|
| Author: | Adjour | | Posted: | May 15, 2020 12:00 | | Subject: | Re: Can I see Imperial units for Catalog entries? | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, paulvdb writes:
| | In Catalog, Yo_Yo_Flamingo writes:
| | Is there any way for me to view the weight/dimensions of a set from its catalog
entry in Imperial units (pounds/inches- ghastly, I know, but I live in America)?
I commonly use this when quoting shipping for a buyer so I don't have to
dig out a set every time someone asks, but it is always a little bit of hassle
to convert grams to pounds and cm to inches.
|
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogOptions.asp?viewFrom=P
|
Omg thank you.
|
|
| Author: | popsicle | | Posted: | May 15, 2020 10:57 | | Subject: | Re: Can I see Imperial units for Catalog entries? | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, paulvdb writes:
| | In Catalog, Yo_Yo_Flamingo writes:
| | Is there any way for me to view the weight/dimensions of a set from its catalog
entry in Imperial units (pounds/inches- ghastly, I know, but I live in America)?
I commonly use this when quoting shipping for a buyer so I don't have to
dig out a set every time someone asks, but it is always a little bit of hassle
to convert grams to pounds and cm to inches.
|
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogOptions.asp?viewFrom=P
|
I'm a little surprised that TLG has keep that in place, as global-minded
as they are. Not complaining, I also appreciate the ability to use the system
that's more intuitive for me.
|
|
| Author: | Yo_Yo_Flamingo | | Posted: | May 15, 2020 10:48 | | Subject: | Re: Can I see Imperial units for Catalog entries? | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, paulvdb writes:
| | In Catalog, Yo_Yo_Flamingo writes:
| | Is there any way for me to view the weight/dimensions of a set from its catalog
entry in Imperial units (pounds/inches- ghastly, I know, but I live in America)?
I commonly use this when quoting shipping for a buyer so I don't have to
dig out a set every time someone asks, but it is always a little bit of hassle
to convert grams to pounds and cm to inches.
|
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogOptions.asp?viewFrom=P
|
You're amazing, Mate! Thanks 3000!
|
|
| Author: | paulvdb | | Posted: | May 15, 2020 10:47 | | Subject: | Re: Can I see Imperial units for Catalog entries? | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Yo_Yo_Flamingo writes:
| | Is there any way for me to view the weight/dimensions of a set from its catalog
entry in Imperial units (pounds/inches- ghastly, I know, but I live in America)?
I commonly use this when quoting shipping for a buyer so I don't have to
dig out a set every time someone asks, but it is always a little bit of hassle
to convert grams to pounds and cm to inches.
|
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogOptions.asp?viewFrom=P
|
|
| Author: | Yo_Yo_Flamingo | | Posted: | May 15, 2020 10:39 | | Subject: | Can I see Imperial units for Catalog entries? | | Viewed: | 74 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Is there any way for me to view the weight/dimensions of a set from its catalog
entry in Imperial units (pounds/inches- ghastly, I know, but I live in America)?
I commonly use this when quoting shipping for a buyer so I don't have to
dig out a set every time someone asks, but it is always a little bit of hassle
to convert grams to pounds and cm to inches.
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | May 15, 2020 10:21 | | Subject: | Re: White sheep problem | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Soviet writes:
Send in the new sheep and we'll figure out a title for it.
|
| Author: | Soviet | | Posted: | May 15, 2020 09:26 | | Subject: | White sheep problem | | Viewed: | 111 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Hey, I'm trying to help with the 21159 set, but it would be my first inventory
job, so I'm hitting a block early on.
It looks like the set has one of those:
but in white. Meanwhile, the name "Minecraft Sheep, White - Brick Built" is already
taken by:
which has a different build (plates instead of brick). What to do, I wonder?
|
|
| Author: | enig | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 17:22 | | Subject: | Re: 2555 - even more variants | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, edeevo writes:
| | In Catalog, enig writes:
| | Happy day  The time that is spent differentiating between mold variants is
certainly not worth it money-wise, but worth it in other ways.
A customer purchased some classic 2555's. Apparently we still sent two different
variants to him. Sure, most of the older parts have various mini-differences,
just never thought anyone would actually care about getting a specific variant.
Either way, I was not aware of this particular difference.
Our customer described it as 'The wider ones and the narrower ones' and
sent us a picture, circling the different variants. A bit hard to see, I am attaching
one more.
The difference itself is in the sharpness of the outside/inside edges - the very
tops the clips. Principally kind of similar to the difference between classic
and modern 2555, except much more subtle. Difficult to judge if looking at the
edge itself, but becomes easy when comparing from the top view. At least when
you have two pieces to compare
The left one has, call it, completely sharp edge. The right one has a slight
roundness to it. That rounding comes at a cost of reducing the top surface area
of the clip.
Complete list of the differences between the two:
The 'flat top' type:
* Sharper edge / bigger top surface area of the clip
* mold pip on a side
* now looking from yet another side, the sidewall of the clip is completely straight
in all dimensions - does not get narrower towards the top and forms a straight
rectangle (the last picture)
The 'slightly slightly rounded top'
* Slightly rounded top edge of the clip, reduced flat surface area of the top
* mold pip at the bottom
* sidewall is of slightly concave shape - forms a trapezoid
Some more differences, but only concerns the construction of the mold and the
ejection pins placement.
Question(s).
1 - How many of you have/have not noticed this particular difference before?
Curious.
2 - any other different classic 2555s than these two?
|
I'd say it's pretty commonly known; the squared-top kind are the older
type, whereas the rounded-top kind are newer (the catalog entry has a note indicating
the difference)...
I actually keep the two types separated in my inventory in anticipation of a
new entry for each--which will likely never happen--but having each type
together really helps me to give a Buyer the same type whenever they buy any.
Life is Good.
~Ed.
|
Yeah that's how my employee was looking at this too. We nearly got into an
actual argument over this haha.
It's not the BL described difference that I am talking about. The key part
addressing this in the OP is:
The difference itself is in the sharpness of the outside/inside edges - the
very tops the clips. Principally kind of similar to the difference between classic
and modern 2555, except much more subtle.
Will get back to this tomorrow I guess, with more pictures comparing these to
the newer 2555s.
|
|
| Author: | edeevo | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 17:05 | | Subject: | Re: 2555 - even more variants | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, enig writes:
| | Happy day The time that is spent differentiating between mold variants is
certainly not worth it money-wise, but worth it in other ways.
A customer purchased some classic 2555's. Apparently we still sent two different
variants to him. Sure, most of the older parts have various mini-differences,
just never thought anyone would actually care about getting a specific variant.
Either way, I was not aware of this particular difference.
Our customer described it as 'The wider ones and the narrower ones' and
sent us a picture, circling the different variants. A bit hard to see, I am attaching
one more.
The difference itself is in the sharpness of the outside/inside edges - the very
tops the clips. Principally kind of similar to the difference between classic
and modern 2555, except much more subtle. Difficult to judge if looking at the
edge itself, but becomes easy when comparing from the top view. At least when
you have two pieces to compare
The left one has, call it, completely sharp edge. The right one has a slight
roundness to it. That rounding comes at a cost of reducing the top surface area
of the clip.
Complete list of the differences between the two:
The 'flat top' type:
* Sharper edge / bigger top surface area of the clip
* mold pip on a side
* now looking from yet another side, the sidewall of the clip is completely straight
in all dimensions - does not get narrower towards the top and forms a straight
rectangle (the last picture)
The 'slightly slightly rounded top'
* Slightly rounded top edge of the clip, reduced flat surface area of the top
* mold pip at the bottom
* sidewall is of slightly concave shape - forms a trapezoid
Some more differences, but only concerns the construction of the mold and the
ejection pins placement.
Question(s).
1 - How many of you have/have not noticed this particular difference before?
Curious.
2 - any other different classic 2555s than these two?
|
I'd say it's pretty commonly known; the squared-top kind are the older
type, whereas the rounded-top kind are newer (the catalog entry has a note indicating
the difference)...
I actually keep the two types separated in my inventory in anticipation of a
new entry for each--which will likely never happen--but having each type
together really helps me to give a Buyer the same type whenever they buy any.
Life is Good.
~Ed.
|
|
|
| Author: | James2506 | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 16:47 | | Subject: | Re: Why oh why Batman Sh016b | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Thanks!
I built myself an Sh016b today using spare parts from my other figures so your
method has its benefits - i dont have to keep buying new sets - although i do
own the SDCC Gotham Skyline set - just refuse to open it.
James
In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog, James2506 writes:
| | So in the coming summer sets for DC Batman we are getting another black Sh016
batman but a new cape (very cool looking glide cape) - so we should expect Sh016c
in the Penguin Boat Chase.
|
In set 75168 will be new number for Batman as cape has totally different shape
so this will be Batman assembly with new part not being varian of previous capes
This cape isn't a varian to capes
and
[p=56630b,11]
and
New part in assembly not part variant so new number not a, b or c
| | We are also getting another dark grey batman with
gold outline belt with the same new cape so he should get Sh589a in the Mobile
Bat Base and Joker Trike Chase. Interestingly they are releasing these with
3 capes in each set so are we going to get 3 variants in a single set!!!! Oh
my head hurts.
|
For other two Batman sets policy is clear only one minfig can be accepted in
assembly as showed firstly in building instruction. So when minfig has in alternates
for it assembly only fisrt showed version in instruction is approved.
For example
in set
can be with hair or helmet.
but in instruction
https://www.lego.com/biassets/bi/6310759.pdf
it is firstly showed assembled with hair then with helmet
so only with hair is being accepted for this set, we don't crate second entry
with helmet.
|
|
|
| Author: | enig | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 16:26 | | Subject: | 2555 - even more variants | | Viewed: | 122 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Happy day The time that is spent differentiating between mold variants is
certainly not worth it money-wise, but worth it in other ways.
A customer purchased some classic 2555's. Apparently we still sent two different
variants to him. Sure, most of the older parts have various mini-differences,
just never thought anyone would actually care about getting a specific variant.
Either way, I was not aware of this particular difference.
Our customer described it as 'The wider ones and the narrower ones' and
sent us a picture, circling the different variants. A bit hard to see, I am attaching
one more.
The difference itself is in the sharpness of the outside/inside edges - the very
tops the clips. Principally kind of similar to the difference between classic
and modern 2555, except much more subtle. Difficult to judge if looking at the
edge itself, but becomes easy when comparing from the top view. At least when
you have two pieces to compare
The left one has, call it, completely sharp edge. The right one has a slight
roundness to it. That rounding comes at a cost of reducing the top surface area
of the clip.
Complete list of the differences between the two:
The 'flat top' type:
* Sharper edge / bigger top surface area of the clip
* mold pip on a side
* now looking from yet another side, the sidewall of the clip is completely straight
in all dimensions - does not get narrower towards the top and forms a straight
rectangle (the last picture)
The 'slightly slightly rounded top'
* Slightly rounded top edge of the clip, reduced flat surface area of the top
* mold pip at the bottom
* sidewall is of slightly concave shape - forms a trapezoid
Some more differences, but only concerns the construction of the mold and the
ejection pins placement.
Question(s).
1 - How many of you have/have not noticed this particular difference before?
Curious.
2 - any other different classic 2555s than these two?
|
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 16:19 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts P - R | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | I don't think the definitions should be so focussed.
|
I've modified the Propeller definition to this:
For items with circularly-spinning blades, including accessories and component
parts.
|
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 15:06 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts V- | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, bje writes:
| | […]
Wheel - For items that is a solid disk or a rigid circular ring connected
by spokes to a hub, designed to turn, which may or may not fit tire and tread.
|
Hmm, those are wheels:
and fit your description but I’m not sure we’d want them in the Wheel category
|
Me neither, Let me sleep on it though
snip
| |
Dang. No one ever agree with anyone, not even lexicologists.
(French “véhicule” (the etymon) admits the “extended” usages.)
|
And in Afrikaans (voertuig) any mobile machine used for transport.... which can
makes things easier or more difficult
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 14:28 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts V- | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
not 30633
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 14:26 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts V- | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | […]
Wheel - For items that is a solid disk or a rigid circular ring connected
by spokes to a hub, designed to turn, which may or may not fit tire and tread.
|
Hmm, those are wheels:
and fit your description but I’m not sure we’d want them in the Wheel category
| | | | | | […]
2. A vehicle is by definition only something with wheels for land transport.
Consider rather moving the aircraft section out.
|
 By which definition?
A vehicle is a means of transporting, carrying, something or someone. I don’t
see anything preventing vehicle to be used for aircrafts or boats.
Indeed, this is from WP ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle ):
“A vehicle (from Latin: vehiculum[1]) is a machine that transports people or
cargo. Vehicles include wagons, bicycles, motor vehicles (motorcycles, cars,
trucks, buses), railed vehicles (trains, trams), watercraft (ships, boats), amphibious
vehicles (screw-propelled vehicle, hovercraft), aircraft (airplanes, helicopters)
and spacecraft.[2]”
The references are [1] OED and [2] MacMillan Contemporary Dictionary.
|
Vehicle noun (MACHINE)
B1 [ C ] formal
a machine, usually with wheels and an engine, used for transporting people or
goods on land, especially on roads
Cambridge English Dictionary set to US English specifically
|
Dang. No one ever agree with anyone, not even lexicologists.
(French “véhicule” (the etymon) admits the “extended” usages.)
| | Also, we have aircraft and boat sections, which presumably should exclude those
from being in another section.
|
Okay.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 14:07 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts P - R | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | I don't think the definitions should be so focussed.
|
I've modified the Propeller definition to this:
For items with circularly-spinning blades, including accessories and component
parts.
|
|
| Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 14:06 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Plate | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | Plate - For items nearly identical in use to building bricks that are one
third as tall, have one or more studs, and for which all corners are square.
|
Thank you for pointing out the problem with the current definition. We'll
keep hammering away at these until we get them right.
I have modified it to this:
For items similar to building bricks that are one third as tall, have top surfaces
evenly covered in studs, and for which all corners are square.
Will this better define what should be a plate?
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 13:57 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts V- | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, bje writes:
| | […]
Wheel - For items that is a solid disk or a rigid circular ring connected
by spokes to a hub, designed to turn around an axle passed through the centre,
which may or may not fit tire and tread. Note 6
|
Potential problem with “axle”: it could be understood as “Technic axle.”
Maybe it should be amended with examples, like “(Technic axle, Technic pin, or
wheel pin).”
|
Hmm, you are right, I was trying to move away from the hub idea. Maybe leave
off the axle part altogether then:
Wheel - For items that is a solid disk or a rigid circular ring connected
| | | | by spokes to a hub, designed to turn, which may or may not fit tire and tread.
|
|
| |
| | […]
2. A vehicle is by definition only something with wheels for land transport.
Consider rather moving the aircraft section out.
|
By which definition?
A vehicle is a means of transporting, carrying, something or someone. I don’t
see anything preventing vehicle to be used for aircrafts or boats.
Indeed, this is from WP ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle ):
“A vehicle (from Latin: vehiculum[1]) is a machine that transports people or
cargo. Vehicles include wagons, bicycles, motor vehicles (motorcycles, cars,
trucks, buses), railed vehicles (trains, trams), watercraft (ships, boats), amphibious
vehicles (screw-propelled vehicle, hovercraft), aircraft (airplanes, helicopters)
and spacecraft.[2]”
The references are [1] OED and [2] MacMillan Contemporary Dictionary.
|
Vehicle noun (MACHINE)
B1 [ C ] formal
a machine, usually with wheels and an engine, used for transporting people or
goods on land, especially on roads
Cambridge English Dictionary set to US English specifically
Also, we have aircraft and boat sections, which presumably should exclude those
from being in another section.
|
|
| Author: | Hygrotus | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 13:49 | | Subject: | Re: Why oh why Batman Sh016b | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, James2506 writes:
| | So in the coming summer sets for DC Batman we are getting another black Sh016
batman but a new cape (very cool looking glide cape) - so we should expect Sh016c
in the Penguin Boat Chase.
|
In set 75168 will be new number for Batman as cape has totally different shape
so this will be Batman assembly with new part not being varian of previous capes
This cape isn't a varian to capes
and
[p=56630b,11]
and
New part in assembly not part variant so new number not a, b or c
| | We are also getting another dark grey batman with
gold outline belt with the same new cape so he should get Sh589a in the Mobile
Bat Base and Joker Trike Chase. Interestingly they are releasing these with
3 capes in each set so are we going to get 3 variants in a single set!!!! Oh
my head hurts.
|
For other two Batman sets policy is clear only one minfig can be accepted in
assembly as showed firstly in building instruction. So when minfig has in alternates
for it assembly only fisrt showed version in instruction is approved.
For example
in set
can be with hair or helmet.
but in instruction
https://www.lego.com/biassets/bi/6310759.pdf
it is firstly showed assembled with hair then with helmet
so only with hair is being accepted for this set, we don't crate second entry
with helmet.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 13:44 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts V- | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
| | […]
Wheel - For items that is a solid disk or a rigid circular ring connected
by spokes to a hub, designed to turn around an axle passed through the centre,
which may or may not fit tire and tread. Note 6
|
Potential problem with “axle”: it could be understood as “Technic axle.”
Maybe it should be amended with examples, like “(Technic axle, Technic pin, or
wheel pin).”
| | […]
2. A vehicle is by definition only something with wheels for land transport.
Consider rather moving the aircraft section out.
|
By which definition?
A vehicle is a means of transporting, carrying, something or someone. I don’t
see anything preventing vehicle to be used for aircrafts or boats.
Indeed, this is from WP ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle ):
“A vehicle (from Latin: vehiculum[1]) is a machine that transports people or
cargo. Vehicles include wagons, bicycles, motor vehicles (motorcycles, cars,
trucks, buses), railed vehicles (trains, trams), watercraft (ships, boats), amphibious
vehicles (screw-propelled vehicle, hovercraft), aircraft (airplanes, helicopters)
and spacecraft.[2]”
The references are [1] OED and [2] MacMillan Contemporary Dictionary.
|
|
| Author: | James2506 | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 13:16 | | Subject: | Re: Why oh why Batman Sh016b | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| So in the coming summer sets for DC Batman we are getting another black Sh016
batman but a new cape (very cool looking glide cape) - so we should expect Sh016c
in the Penguin Boat Chase. We are also getting another dark grey batman with
gold outline belt with the same new cape so he should get Sh589a in the Mobile
Bat Base and Joker Trike Chase. Interestingly they are releasing these with
3 capes in each set so are we going to get 3 variants in a single set!!!! Oh
my head hurts.
Thanks
In Catalog, Hygrotus writes:
| | In Catalog, axaday writes:
| | In Catalog, James2506 writes:
| | I think each variant should get a fresh number. Certainly the faces do even
though the rest of the fig remains the same. It just happened with Mr Freeze
too - the dark Peary grey now has two unique numbers when all that changed was
the neck bracket and weapon.
How do we ask Admins to consider changing the naming first given?
|
I am sure an admin will see this thread.
It's not a for sure thing. They also have to weigh in how it will affect
stores to have the name change. They may have labelled things. Just adding
a or b on the end is much gentler for that.
|
When minfigs assembly is exactly the same but there is just one minior change
in part variant minfigs is classified as variant minfig and gets a or b or c
if there are more variants.
In Batman case all three are the same just one part is in differnt part variant
in sh016 and sh016a and now sh016b is the same assembly as sh016a just cape is
in diffrent part variant. It is a quite common practice (not always consistent,
but I try to keep it consistent)
Minfigs gest new number when assembly is diffrent for example wjhen for this
Batmon would be added totally differnt part
Example with Mr Freeze is good it got nee number as assembly is different, this
minfig has additiona parts so it makes an assembly different.
so few example
assembly the same just the head has different color
assembly the same just cape variant changed
but
new numbers as totally different heads are in there
but when print on the head si only small variation minfig is consider also variant
and gets an a
* | | trn227 (Inv) Overalls with Tools in Pocket, Blue Legs, Red Short Bill Cap, Glasses with Brown Thin Eyebrows
Minifigures: Train |
brown eybrows vs red eyebrows, very minor difference beside that minfigs are
identical
recently added
these have different numbers as they are different assemblies, every one have
additional parts there, but for example if suddenly LEGO would start produce
cupcae in different mold variant and it would be discovered then one with mold
variant of such part would get variant with the same number and added a
when you look through catalog teher really a lot of "a" and "b" variants of minifigs
in very different themes
So important is how significant if change of similar character or minfigs. Slight
change, only different part variant but whole assembly the same. This is minfig
variant with the same number but with a added. Only slight change in prinbt also
only a variant. Significant print change or aditional parts added which makes
it different assembty, new number.
some more examples
only chane of color of the photoreceptor
but here more significant print change
ok there are meny meny more examples
so numeration of those batmans stays as they are as those minfigs hase the same
assemblies only parts are in different mold variants
normal cape vs spongy cape
type of mask also mold variant
the same here only mask mold change
but here different heads, so different assemblies and new numbers
(btw name should be change here to get rid of type 1, 2 and 3, describtion of
faces exspressions should be here as all heads have different prints like here
for example https://www.bricklink.com/catalogListOld.asp?pg=1&catString=971&catType=M&v=1)
Hope this is more clear now why ve have minfigs variants marked as a nad b
|
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 13:12 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Plate | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
which will be a round plate
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 13:10 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Plate | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, bje writes:
New definition:
Plate - For items nearly identical in use to building bricks that are one
third as tall, have one or more studs, and for which all corners are square.
Sorry, but is it the intention that these parts and a few other similar ones
are to be moved to category plates as they all satisfy that definition?
The concern I have is that we are moving away from the plate being a representation
of a brick in 1/3 height as TLG defines it as well. There are at present no bricks
with missing studs along the top, so should plates not be the same? IOW if there
are studs missing, we class that as normal for a plate and not a modification.
Or am I just reading the definition wrong (in which case it is probably not meeting
expectations )
This does impact on what tiles are as well (plates with no studs essentially),
so best to get it out of the way.
|
|
| Author: | bje | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 12:43 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts V- | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I'll hopefully have the final T-section ready by tomorrow
Definitions – Section V Parts
Vehicle - For a sub-theme of Legoland sets that featured vehicles released
from the early 1960s to the late 1970s. Note1
Vehicle, Base - For items that function as a platform on which to construct
vehicles and their accessories. Note 2
Vehicle, Mudguard - For items that combined make up the wheel well, fender
and fender flares on vehicles and the mudguards on riding cycles. Note 3
Definitions – Section W Parts
Wedge - For items other than plates that have a narrow edge at one end
and a wider edge at the other end. Note 4
Wedge, Plate - For plates that have a narrow edge at one end and a wider
edge at the other end. Note 5
Wheel - For items that is a solid disk or a rigid circular ring connected
by spokes to a hub, designed to turn around an axle passed through the centre,
which may or may not fit tire and tread. Note 6
Wheel & Tire Assembly - For items that are a combination of a wheel and
a tire.
Wheel, Accessory - For items that are parts of entire wheels, wheel axles
and other wheel accessories such as wheel covers.
Window - For the frame of an opening in a structure or vehicle that afford
the ability to see out. Note 7
Windscreen - For items used as the front window glass in vehicles, aircraft,
ships and trains for wind protection and which are not panels.
Wing - For items that perform the function of flight support for aircraft.
Note 8
Definitions – Section Miscellaneous
(Other) - For items that are specific to the BrickLink catalog. Note
9
Notes:
1. Certainly this cannot be correct in terms of parts for vehicles? Consider
adding parts specific to vehicles as well.
2. A vehicle is by definition only something with wheels for land transport.
Consider rather moving the aircraft section out.
3. Vehicles do not have mud guards, so the combination of parts that make up
the wheel well and its cover (fender, fender flares) are used by definition.
There are presently no parts that make up a quarter panel. Mudguards are only
in use by cycles by definition. Some of the fast food racer parts are bases?
4. To avoid the circular definition. Unless stated as bricks, modified bricks,
slopes, inverted slopes, etc it is maybe easier to just exclude plates from being
wedges.
5. To avoid the circular definition.
6. The hub is only the thing to which spokes are connected and is not for all
wheels. Also, not all wheels get tire and tread (trolley wheels).
7. The opening itself is generally accepted as the window and the frame into
which the glass is placed is the window frame. I might still be better to combine
these with door frames as just frames.
8. Flight management is, respectfully, performed by rudders and ailerons
9. The death knell of a good catalogue – other?? Good thing they are last Those
are only BrickLink entries.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 13, 2020 12:19 | | Subject: | Re: Category Definitions Discussion - Parts P - R | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| .
| |
I'd shorten the definition to say two or more blades that spin around. Even then
what about the individual blades that are listed there?
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
USA, Florida
Canada, British Columbia
France, Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes
Poland, w. Wielkopolskie
Denmark
South Africa, Western Cape
Netherlands, Overijssel
United Kingdom, England
Belgium
Lithuania, Panevėžys
)
)
)
