Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | Hurt  | | Posted: | May 19, 2022 16:32 | | Subject: | Re: 61054 off brands | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, ccroxton writes:
| | Someone is doing an excellent job of re-creating LEGO designs for parts!
|
Interesting.
Are there two different molds? One with the actual number and one without?
Lego Technic parts tend to not have any Lego numbers on them (at least in the
past).
|
| Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | May 19, 2022 16:20 | | Subject: | Re: 61054 off brands | | Viewed: | 57 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| looks like a real
to me
|
| Author: | ccroxton | | Posted: | May 19, 2022 16:10 | | Subject: | 61054 off brands | | Viewed: | 154 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| | Someone is doing an excellent job of re-creating LEGO designs for parts! |
|
 |
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 19, 2022 10:36 | | Subject: | Car bases 18923c01 & 68446c01 | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Hi all,
* | | 18923c01 Vehicle, Base 8 x 16 x 2 1/2 with Mudguards Raised, 4 x 14 Recessed Center with 3 Holes, and Dark Bluish Gray Wheels Holders
Parts: Vehicle, Base |
* | | 68446c01 Vehicle, Base 8 x 16 x 2 1/2 with Mudguards, 4 x 14 Recessed Center with 5 Holes, and Dark Bluish Gray Wheels Holders
Parts: Vehicle, Base |
I don’t have the parts, only 3D model for 18923c01, so could someone check they
are actually:
— 18923c01: 2 bricks high,
or 2 1/3 if you include the wheel axle brick (bottom is 1 plate lower than
the base),
or 2 1/3 if you include the top of the mudguards,
or 2 2/3 if you include both the bricks and the mudguards,
— 68446c01: 2 1/3 bricks high,
or 2 2/3 if you include the wheel axle bricks,
or is it 2 & 2 1/3? (I can’t see if it’s the base that is higher or the
mudguards that are lower),
and make the proper change request?
Thanks 
|
|
| Author: | ccroxton | | Posted: | May 16, 2022 18:02 | | Subject: | Re: 18792 not listed in a silver color? | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | In Catalog, ccroxton writes:
| | Why is there no silver color for the bow and arrow? Flat silver or pearl light
grey, something like that?
|
You might want to check all the parts you bought in the lot. I'm sure one
of the "fits lego" brands did Steve wearing silver armour and a matching silver
bow and arrow.
|
I have not found any off-brand Steve figures. Most of the off-brand that I get
are poorly made, and this one actually looks better than the RB one does!
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 16, 2022 13:59 | | Subject: | Re: 18792 not listed in a silver color? | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, ccroxton writes:
| | Why is there no silver color for the bow and arrow? Flat silver or pearl light
grey, something like that?
|
You might want to check all the parts you bought in the lot. I'm sure one
of the "fits lego" brands did Steve wearing silver armour and a matching silver
bow and arrow.
|
|
| Author: | ccroxton | | Posted: | May 16, 2022 12:18 | | Subject: | Re: 18792 not listed in a silver color? | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, ccroxton writes:
| | Why is there no silver color for the bow and arrow? Flat silver or pearl light
grey, something like that?
|
First, are you sure that it is LEGO? If so, where did you find it? I can't
find any official information on a Flat Silver Minecraft bow and arrow.
Cheers,
Randy
|
I came out of an auction lot, so it could theoretically be anything. Close inspection
reveals that the pattern is exactly the same, except for the diamond between
the handlebars. On the RB bow there is a small bump on one side in the center
of the diamond. This is absent on the sliver bow. Neither seem to bear any Lego
markings. The RB is more worn on all the little details, but that could be from
a well-used mold, or lots of handling?
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | May 16, 2022 05:33 | | Subject: | Re: 18792 not listed in a silver color? | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, ccroxton writes:
| | Why is there no silver color for the bow and arrow? Flat silver or pearl light
grey, something like that?
|
First, are you sure that it is LEGO? If so, where did you find it? I can't
find any official information on a Flat Silver Minecraft bow and arrow.
Cheers,
Randy
|
| Author: | ccroxton | | Posted: | May 16, 2022 01:39 | | Subject: | 18792 not listed in a silver color? | | Viewed: | 107 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Why is there no silver color for the bow and arrow? Flat silver or pearl light
grey, something like that?
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | May 12, 2022 07:13 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 67 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | (¹ 2599a has three other Design IDs. One of them could be used if the “a” is
“itching” some people. Maybe use the one that can be read on modern parts.)
|
They are noticeable different parts, 2599a is way more flexible than the newer
ones, maybe they could be split.
This happened recently with this hair:
|
|
| Author: | jancg | | Posted: | May 11, 2022 11:07 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Another option to allow external tools to update their external catalogs is to
provide a push-delta. BrickLink has a reasonable API. Should be relatively easy
to implement.
|
|
| Author: | Bricklanta | | Posted: | May 11, 2022 07:18 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jedvii writes:
| | In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| |
Please mention any concerns you have with these changes along with ideas as to
what would work the best for BrickLink in the future.
|
I feel this all could have been avoided by having some kind of announcement before
catalog changes are made. Right now it feels so willy-nilly. Sure 99% of catalog
changes are thing people wouldn't care about, but those other 1% can really
have an impact. Why can't there be an announcement of parts that are going
to be changed? Maybe on Mondays you could post all the parts that are set to
be changed in 1 week.
I feel an increase in transparency would be a great thing.
-jed
|
Or maybe just not change part numbers at all! I get that someone had the bright
idea that things might have been better if these parts had been moneyed this
way too begin with, but they weren't. Sometimes, speaking from personal experience,
you suck up your OCD tendencies and you adhere to precedent and backwards compatibility.
Also, this may not fall into the catalog admin's kingdom, but upgrading the
database in the back end to notate whether a part has subpart or is a sprue or
is a "multipart" would solve the problem in a far more elegant way without breaking
hundreds of people's inventories.
|
|
| Author: | StarBrick | | Posted: | May 11, 2022 05:51 | | Subject: | Re: Communication Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Mmmm, looks like "de toeslagenaffaire": who decides and has the authority to
do so given by who?
Or the book by Jesse Frederiks on that disaster "Zo hadden we het niet bedoeld"
(English: "That's not what we intended to happen...").
This phenomenon now even entered the world of our beloved plastic parts  .
So much for 'a world of our own...'.
|
|
| Author: | jedvii | | Posted: | May 11, 2022 05:14 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| |
Please mention any concerns you have with these changes along with ideas as to
what would work the best for BrickLink in the future.
|
I feel this all could have been avoided by having some kind of announcement before
catalog changes are made. Right now it feels so willy-nilly. Sure 99% of catalog
changes are thing people wouldn't care about, but those other 1% can really
have an impact. Why can't there be an announcement of parts that are going
to be changed? Maybe on Mondays you could post all the parts that are set to
be changed in 1 week.
I feel an increase in transparency would be a great thing.
-jed
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 11, 2022 05:01 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | […]
| | But if the plain ID is already used for the lone part, can it also be used as
an alternate ID for the sprue?
For instance, 3742 is the flower, can 3742 be added as alternate ID for 3742sprue?
|
As far as I know Alternate ID is just a text field, like a second title.
|
Oh yeah, I forgot that. So no problem and very handy solution
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | May 11, 2022 04:46 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Stellar writes:
Plus two parts that are not: 4079b and 4079bpb01 
|
Hey, I didn't say the list only contained parts on sprue, just said that
all parts on sprue where there
| |
| | If IDs with a suffix had the ID without the suffix as an alternate ID they would
appear in searches alongside without the need of the * that most users don't
know about.
|
But if the plain ID is already used for the lone part, can it also be used as
an alternate ID for the sprue?
For instance, 3742 is the flower, can 3742 be added as alternate ID for 3742sprue?
|
As far as I know Alternate ID is just a text field, like a second title.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 11, 2022 04:39 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stellar writes:
Plus two parts that are not: 4079b and 4079bpb01
| | If IDs with a suffix had the ID without the suffix as an alternate ID they would
appear in searches alongside without the need of the * that most users don't
know about.
|
But if the plain ID is already used for the lone part, can it also be used as
an alternate ID for the sprue?
For instance, 3742 is the flower, can 3742 be added as alternate ID for 3742sprue?
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 11, 2022 04:34 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | […]
What about things like these?
|
I think those have always been this way.
And the sprues have their LEGO number and we don’t know the lone parts number
(or even if they have one¹: TLG doesn’t really need one as they only produce
and sell the sprues).
Maybe the sprues could have the “sprue” suffix to show they are sprues but I’m
not keen on removing the “a” from the parts.
(¹ 2599a has three other Design IDs. One of them could be used if the “a” is
“itching” some people. Maybe use the one that can be read on modern parts.)
|
I picked two items there, as they are handled in different ways by LEGO. The
knives come on a sprue, but in the inventory in instructions they are shown singly.
Whereas the wands are shown on a sprue, even if just one is needed. At least,
in the instructions I just looked at (79003).
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 11, 2022 04:26 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | […]
What about things like these?
|
I think those have always been this way.
And the sprues have their LEGO number and we don’t know the lone parts number
(or even if they have one¹: TLG doesn’t really need one as they only produce
and sell the sprues).
Maybe the sprues could have the “sprue” suffix to show they are sprues but I’m
not keen on removing the “a” from the parts.
(¹ 2599a has three other Design IDs. One of them could be used if the “a” is
“itching” some people. Maybe use the one that can be read on modern parts.)
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | May 11, 2022 04:21 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | I made adjustments yesterday to the following item numbers:
and today I made a few more:
|
What about things like these?
|
Full list of multiple items on sprue:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?v=1&pg=1&q=sprue&catLike=W&sortBy=N&sortAsc=A&catType=P
If IDs with a suffix had the ID without the suffix as an alternate ID they would
appear in searches alongside without the need of the * that most users don't
know about.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 11, 2022 03:49 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | I made adjustments yesterday to the following item numbers:
and today I made a few more:
|
What about things like these?
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | May 10, 2022 19:45 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 99 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
Location:  USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
 |
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, brox999 writes:
| | Why on earth has this catalog number changed, usually the a suffix is because
a new variant has emerged but that isn't the case here, does not make sense.
Andrew (Broxy's Bricks)
|
I made adjustments yesterday to the following item numbers:
and today I made a few more:
One of the effects of using a "smart number" system is that Item Numbers take
on a greater purpose than that of a simple unique identifier. In cases where
an Item Number is found to be incorrect, it is catalog policy to make the correction
in order to better align with the sources of information we have about that part.
The changes that were made recently to the item numbers of complete sprues were
aligned with this policy. We have now dropped the practice of using the assembly
constant suffix "c01" for complete sprues, which was troublesome due to complete
sprues technically not being "assemblies":
https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=168
The problem that arose, though, was that some items on the sprue had been numbered
with the item number of the complete sprue. When the Item Number you wish to
use is already in use, this presents a situation where an Item Number will not
simply be retired from use, but it will take on a new identity. This was a sticking
point with some of our sellers who
had resulting issues with listings and items sold.
To solve this, I have completed a couple changes. First, for all complete sprues
that cannot immediately be changed to their correct number, I have added the
suffix "sprue" to the Item Number.
Second, I have reverted the Item Numbers of the separate parts back to what they
have been known as for years.
For two of the cases (the round plate and the flippers) the situation is more
complex, because the parts were distributed both with and without sprues. Strictly
speaking, the newer versions without sprue have a new number and should not be
used in the inventory for the older sprue.
However, this would be highly impractical to implement because it would disassociate
parts that are virtually the same. So the jury is still out on how this will
end up being handled. For the time being we will stick to how things are now.
Please mention any concerns you have with these changes along with ideas as to
what would work the best for BrickLink in the future.
Be sure to do a hard refresh to get the right images to appear in the macro tags
in this post.
|
|
| Author: | ZwarteMagica | | Posted: | May 10, 2022 07:21 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| That would be great to implement and makes bricklink more scalable.
For now I really looking forward for the next blunt change. Messing with my inventory.
In Catalog, brick.warehouse writes:
| | Third party applications will have difficulty with changes of this nature as
the part number is the only identifier that is available over the API.
A competing site provides a separate stable identifier (the BOID) which allows
the part number to change without breaking the relationship between the parts
on Bricklink and the parts in external databases.
If these changes are going to occur frequently, it would be helpful if Bricklink
could introduce something similar.
|
|
|
|
| Author: | Leftoverbricks | | Posted: | May 9, 2022 23:41 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 79 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, brox999 writes:
| | Why on earth has this catalog number changed, usually the a suffix is because
a new variant has emerged but that isn't the case here, does not make sense.
Andrew (Broxy's Bricks)
|
I would like to make a formal apology to you and everyone else for not thinking
all of the consequences through for these changes. Although I am an experienced
contributor and admin, I am human and not perfect. I make mistakes. Most of the
parts on sprue will not affect hardly anything or cause a stir, but this part
is different and special because it is so ubiquitous. As others have seen, this
one part has had the changes reverted, and I take full responsibility for the
blame. I am currently taking my floggings and licking my wounds, and I hope there
are no hard feelings had by all.
Thanks,
Randy
|
Well, all settled then.
|
|
| Author: | brick.warehouse | | Posted: | May 9, 2022 22:36 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 90 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Third party applications will have difficulty with changes of this nature as
the part number is the only identifier that is available over the API.
A competing site provides a separate stable identifier (the BOID) which allows
the part number to change without breaking the relationship between the parts
on Bricklink and the parts in external databases.
If these changes are going to occur frequently, it would be helpful if Bricklink
could introduce something similar.
|
|
| Author: | Macaronis | | Posted: | May 9, 2022 13:52 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a DUMB DUMB DUMB | | Viewed: | 86 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | |
** I refrained from using the F word in this message numerous times !!!!
____
|
Considering my Age and Time here I can totally understand this. My comparison
over the years is if I would have had to put money in a swear jar because of
the amount of times I had cursed in cases like this over BL things, I would have
about 2 dollars less than Elon Musk.
W
|
|
| Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | May 9, 2022 12:58 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 69 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, brox999 writes:
| | Why on earth has this catalog number changed, usually the a suffix is because
a new variant has emerged but that isn't the case here, does not make sense.
Andrew (Broxy's Bricks)
|
I would like to make a formal apology to you and everyone else for not thinking
all of the consequences through for these changes. Although I am an experienced
contributor and admin, I am human and not perfect. I make mistakes. Most of the
parts on sprue will not affect hardly anything or cause a stir, but this part
is different and special because it is so ubiquitous. As others have seen, this
one part has had the changes reverted, and I take full responsibility for the
blame. I am currently taking my floggings and licking my wounds, and I hope there
are no hard feelings had by all.
Thanks,
Randy
|
No hard feelings here! I understand your thought process of wanting to have all
the sprue parts consistent for the catalog. Thanks for being so forthcoming about
all the details.
Our imperfect catalog needs lots of imperfect people to keep it going.
Jen
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 9, 2022 12:27 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | I would like to make a formal apology to you and everyone else for not thinking
all of the consequences through for these changes.
|
As punishment you must walk over a pile of 4073s with bare feet. The "crime"
is not serious enough to warrant 3003s!
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 9, 2022 11:36 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | […]
I would like to make a formal apology to you and everyone else for not thinking
all of the consequences through for these changes. Although I am an experienced
contributor and admin, I am human and not perfect. I make mistakes. Most of the
parts on sprue will not affect hardly anything or cause a stir, but this part
is different and special because it is so ubiquitous. As others have seen, this
one part has had the changes reverted, and I take full responsibility for the
blame. I am currently taking my floggings and licking my wounds, and I hope there
are no hard feelings had by all.
Thanks,
Randy
|
No problem Randy. I think the communication part (or rather lack thereof; the
surprise) made it a bigger issue than it really is.
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | May 9, 2022 11:23 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 82 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, brox999 writes:
| | Why on earth has this catalog number changed, usually the a suffix is because
a new variant has emerged but that isn't the case here, does not make sense.
Andrew (Broxy's Bricks)
|
I would like to make a formal apology to you and everyone else for not thinking
all of the consequences through for these changes. Although I am an experienced
contributor and admin, I am human and not perfect. I make mistakes. Most of the
parts on sprue will not affect hardly anything or cause a stir, but this part
is different and special because it is so ubiquitous. As others have seen, this
one part has had the changes reverted, and I take full responsibility for the
blame. I am currently taking my floggings and licking my wounds, and I hope there
are no hard feelings had by all.
Thanks,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | Leftoverbricks | | Posted: | May 9, 2022 11:20 | | Subject: | Re: Communication Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Leftoverbricks writes:
| | In Catalog, brox999 writes:
| | Why on earth has this catalog number changed, usually the a suffix is because
a new variant has emerged but that isn't the case here, does not make sense.
Andrew (Broxy's Bricks)
|
So we had a severe situation today: Randyf changed 4073 to 4073a. After a couple
of hours Admin Russell changed it back to 4073.
Facts:
- Randyf is an extremely experienced and valuable Catalog Associate
- apparently this was quickly met by critique on the forum and admin Russell
reverted it
So I ask myself: who is in charge here? A catalog associate or a manager? And
if Russell is in charge why didn't he reply to the topic?
Just asking.
|
To clarify: I'm not criticizing Russell for reverting the change made by
Randyf (I welcome that), I criticize the complete lack of communication from
BL admins to sellers.
|
|
| Author: | Leftoverbricks | | Posted: | May 9, 2022 10:59 | | Subject: | Communication Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a | | Viewed: | 72 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, brox999 writes:
| | Why on earth has this catalog number changed, usually the a suffix is because
a new variant has emerged but that isn't the case here, does not make sense.
Andrew (Broxy's Bricks)
|
So we had a severe situation today: Randyf changed 4073 to 4073a. After a couple
of hours Admin Russell changed it back to 4073.
Facts:
- Randyf is an extremely experienced and valuable Catalog Associate
- apparently this was quickly met by critique on the forum and admin Russell
reverted it
So I ask myself: who is in charge here? A catalog associate or a manager? And
if Russell is in charge why didn't he reply to the topic?
Just asking.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 9, 2022 10:26 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, ZwarteMagica writes:
| | […]
Thank you Bricklink! Now I have sold pieces I do not own, or ever have had.
Again Thank you!
|
I thought everything was changed automatically, including store inventories.
Or did you add the “wrong” parts after the change? (Using a not-yet up-to-date
tool?)
|
|
| Author: | ZwarteMagica | | Posted: | May 9, 2022 10:18 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, brox999 writes:
| | Why on earth has this catalog number changed, usually the a suffix is because
a new variant has emerged but that isn't the case here, does not make sense.
Andrew (Broxy's Bricks)
|
Thank you Bricklink! Now I have sold pieces I do not own, or ever have had.
Again Thank you!
|
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 9, 2022 10:13 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | The question is: Is there a difference in the database between special assemblies
and sprues? And, except for “sprue” in the name or description, I fear there’s
not.
|
You would hope that there could be different types. I think there are different
types of "parts", not all of them actually parts in the bricklink sense. In particular,
special assemblies, (built) animals, minifigures, etc. To me, these are all equivalent
types of object. They are groups of parts that once assembled form the special
object but are also reversible. To me, all these types of assemblies are more
than just parts. They should all be recognized with the same status as minifigures
as a well-defined special object.
Is there really a fundamental difference between this part:
and this minifigure?
There is definitely (at least, should be) a difference between a special assembly
and a sprue. Special assemblies are all composed by the user from parts. Whereas
sprues (and bags of parts, sticker sheets, etc) are parts that the user destroys
to create other parts (whether the created parts are recognized as parts or not,
without being attached to other parts).
|
There’s two levels: interpretation (what the things are (or thought to be)) and
representation (how things are stored in the database).
You’re talking about interpretation, I was talking about the database.
Everything in interpretation isn’t always represented. It’s often not the case,
either because of poor implementation or simply because it’s not useful… or
because things changed and the border between useful and not needed moved.
So, AFAIK, for the catalogue, the items are: sets, parts, minifigures, books,
gears, catalogues, instructions, boxes, and unsorted lots.
There’s no subtype for parts: a part is a part.
And parts can contain parts. That the part is then a single part, a composite
(hinge plate, horse, motor…), an assembly (stickered assembly, brick-built animal
or character) or a sprue is, I believe, not in the database. I don’t think that
there’s a field or table that says “standalone,” “composite,” “assembly,” or
“sprue.” The only way to differentiate the last three is by interpretation (that
is, looking at the description if the word Sprue is there (but beware of 4079b
 )). For the first one, I don’t think there’s a field either, it’s just that
its list of subparts is empty. Even “can’t be inventoried” is just another table
that lists parts for which the UI will prevent you from adding subparts.
So, what I was saying, what I meant, is that for the parts page to add a link
“Part of Sprue XX,” the devs need to either:
a. Add a subtype field (or tables) to determine if a part is a standalone, composite,
sprue, or special assembly… which I don’t think they’ll do soon or they would
have done it for the special assemblies.
b. Parse the description to look for clues, which is not a good thing to do,
partly because descriptions are free (see comment about 4079b), and also because
information shouldn’t be stored in composite fields that you then need to decompose/parse.
What I didn’t say is that it shouldn’t be done (preferrably a super-(a), which
would allow to sort the “special assemblies are characters like minifigures but
not minifigures” problem).
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 9, 2022 09:29 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | The question is: Is there a difference in the database between special assemblies
and sprues? And, except for “sprue” in the name or description, I fear there’s
not.
|
You would hope that there could be different types. I think there are different
types of "parts", not all of them actually parts in the bricklink sense. In particular,
special assemblies, (built) animals, minifigures, etc. To me, these are all equivalent
types of object. They are groups of parts that once assembled form the special
object but are also reversible. To me, all these types of assemblies are more
than just parts. They should all be recognized with the same status as minifigures
as a well-defined special object.
Is there really a fundamental difference between this part:
and this minifigure?
There is definitely (at least, should be) a difference between a special assembly
and a sprue. Special assemblies are all composed by the user from parts. Whereas
sprues (and bags of parts, sticker sheets, etc) are parts that the user destroys
to create other parts (whether the created parts are recognized as parts or not,
without being attached to other parts).
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 9, 2022 08:45 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 56 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, yorbrick writes:
| | | | | | For ease of finding the sprue part variant, you could also add all sprue parts
as a related item to the parts that are on the sprue.
|
It somehow already exists: “Item Appears In … NN Parts” but it sure is less visible
than the other way round (“Item Consists Of”).
|
The item appears in ... NN parts is not so useful for things like the 1x1 round
plate, since so many assemblies are classed as parts. The humble 1x1 round appears
in 59 parts - nearly all of them animals or special assemblies that are not
important enough to be minifigures like other similar objects but have to have
a label so get called parts.
|
Yes, first you have to look in the column that has many links, then you need
to find it in the list (though, here, it’s the first one).
That’s why I said “somehow”
The question is: Is there a difference in the database between special assemblies
and sprues? And, except for “sprue” in the name or description, I fear there’s
not.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 9, 2022 08:31 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | | | For ease of finding the sprue part variant, you could also add all sprue parts
as a related item to the parts that are on the sprue.
|
It somehow already exists: “Item Appears In … NN Parts” but it sure is less visible
than the other way round (“Item Consists Of”).
|
The item appears in ... NN parts is not so useful for things like the 1x1 round
plate, since so many assemblies are classed as parts. The humble 1x1 round appears
in 59 parts - nearly all of them animals or special assemblies that are not
important enough to be minifigures like other similar objects but have to have
a label so get called parts.
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 9, 2022 08:26 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jbroman writes:
| | Looking at the change log, it’s been changed back by Admin_Russell.
|
It has been changed back, but changed back to what it was seven plus years ago,
not yesterday. The pair started out as 4073sprue.
Then
Aug 22, 2015
Changed Item No from {4073sprue} to {4073c01}
May 8, 2022
Changed Item No from {4073c01} to {4073}
Changed Item No from {4073} to {4073c01}
Changed Item No from {4073c01} to {4073}
May 9, 2022
Changed Item No from {4073} to {4073sprue}
So it is now (currently?) back to what it was called years ago.
Anyone using the number only for cataloguing/storage will still need to deal
with a change if they have the sprue parts.
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 9, 2022 07:38 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jbroman writes:
| | Looking at the change log, it’s been changed back by Admin_Russell.
|
Great, just after I changed my database….
| | Change is good, but maybe cat admins should also look at how many sets are affected.
4073 is everywhere, most people looking for it would be surprised that it was
available on a sprue for 13 years in 173 sets.
|
If, as Randyf said, one of the goals was to make it easier for interoperability,
naming the standalone plate 6141 would have been better (it’s its name in LDD
& LDraw).
| | With that, maybe all parts on sprues should have the sprue suffix. While still
leaving the assembly constraint off.
For ease of finding the sprue part variant, you could also add all sprue parts
as a related item to the parts that are on the sprue.
|
It somehow already exists: “Item Appears In … NN Parts” but it sure is less visible
than the other way round (“Item Consists Of”).
| | By the way, with these recent changes, there is no default colour shown for 4073
when going to the item page.
|
Seems okay now.
|
|
| Author: | jbroman | | Posted: | May 9, 2022 07:21 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 75 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Looking at the change log, it’s been changed back by Admin_Russell.
Change is good, but maybe cat admins should also look at how many sets are affected.
4073 is everywhere, most people looking for it would be surprised that it was
available on a sprue for 13 years in 173 sets.
With that, maybe all parts on sprues should have the sprue suffix. While still
leaving the assembly constraint off.
For ease of finding the sprue part variant, you could also add all sprue parts
as a related item to the parts that are on the sprue.
By the way, with these recent changes, there is no default colour shown for 4073
when going to the item page.
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | May 9, 2022 06:27 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 109 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, brox999 writes:
| | Why on earth has this catalog number changed, usually the a suffix is because
a new variant has emerged but that isn't the case here, does not make sense.
Andrew (Broxy's Bricks)
|
The reason it was updated was because all sprued parts were updated.
All sprued parts were rid of their assembly constants for a few reasons: (1)
to actually make the part connections between LEGO data and BrickLink data more
in sync; (2) to make them easier to find when searching from other sources; (3)
they are not true assemblies (they are actually one molded part and not an assembly
of parts which are *built* from other base parts); and (4) to sync up with how
multipacks and plastic sheets are handled and/or will be handled in the catalog
(which is by just the design number and no assembly constants).
For example,
etc.
All of these had assembly constants, but now they don't. However, all of
the subparts of these sprued parts have for a very long time gone by subpart
numbers ending in 'a', and 4073 was a lone holdout for a very long time
because it was the most forward facing part. Now it has finally been standardized
with all of the other sprued parts.
Also, if you look at a larger sprue or a multipack, you will see the subparts
of those entries use letter suffixes:
or
I know that the change to this one part is the most obvious, but there is a lot
to be gained by standardizing all sprued parts with each other and with how other
things are handled in the catalog. It will take a little time to get used to,
but it will not take long before it is part of everyone's knowledge.
I hope that this message goes a ways towards explaining the rationale. Please
let me know if you have any other questions.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 9, 2022 03:28 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a DUMB DUMB DUMB | | Viewed: | 79 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | | It screws up all BL seller storage of physical inventory and all past records.
|
No it doesn't. It may cause a tiny problem for some sellers but certainly
not all. If you choose to store only by part number, can't you just add an
a to the end of the storage label? There is maybe slightly more work for people
that have both sprued and single parts, as they need to change two numbers.
| | It makes set inventories worthless now.
|
Why? They have all been updated correctly.
I'm not a fan of unnecessary changes but this hardly seems like the end of
the world.
|
|
| Author: | uvt203 | | Posted: | May 9, 2022 03:22 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a DUMB DUMB DUMB | | Viewed: | 68 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Shiny_Stuff writes:
| | In Catalog, here4bricks614 writes:
| | In Catalog, brox999 writes:
| | Why on earth has this catalog number changed, usually the a suffix is because
a new variant has emerged but that isn't the case here, does not make sense.
Andrew (Broxy's Bricks)
|
Probably because of this: https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=4073#T=I
I was just thinking about that part before I found this post...
|
That is a totally STOOPID move.
The one on the sprue should be numbered 4073c00 or 4073c01 or 4073sprue and leave
the regular entry alone.
This is but another example of silly, unnecessary part number changes that cause
chaos for everybody for no good reason. It also breaks all connections with
all other websites that rely on BL part numbers. It screws up all BL seller
storage of physical inventory and all past records. It makes set inventories
worthless now.
This is NOT an improvement or enhancement or beneficial to anyone for any reason.
BrickLink is a commerce website and the primary purpose is to enable easy buying
and selling. BrickLink does NOT exist to have a "Perfect" catalong -- whatever
the heck that might mean. When part numbers get changed willy-nilly it causes
untold problems.
Part number 4073 has existed for over 20 years. Nothing good comes from changing
it now.
Please change it back.
** I refrained from using the F word in this message numerous times !!!!
____
|
+1
|
|
| Author: | Shiny_Stuff | | Posted: | May 9, 2022 02:56 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a DUMB DUMB DUMB | | Viewed: | 121 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, here4bricks614 writes:
| | In Catalog, brox999 writes:
| | Why on earth has this catalog number changed, usually the a suffix is because
a new variant has emerged but that isn't the case here, does not make sense.
Andrew (Broxy's Bricks)
|
Probably because of this: https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=4073#T=I
I was just thinking about that part before I found this post...
|
That is a totally STOOPID move.
The one on the sprue should be numbered 4073c00 or 4073c01 or 4073sprue and leave
the regular entry alone.
This is but another example of silly, unnecessary part number changes that cause
chaos for everybody for no good reason. It also breaks all connections with
all other websites that rely on BL part numbers. It screws up all BL seller
storage of physical inventory and all past records. It makes set inventories
worthless now.
This is NOT an improvement or enhancement or beneficial to anyone for any reason.
BrickLink is a commerce website and the primary purpose is to enable easy buying
and selling. BrickLink does NOT exist to have a "Perfect" catalong -- whatever
the heck that might mean. When part numbers get changed willy-nilly it causes
untold problems.
Part number 4073 has existed for over 20 years. Nothing good comes from changing
it now.
Please change it back.
** I refrained from using the F word in this message numerous times !!!!
____
|
|
| Author: | here4bricks614 | | Posted: | May 9, 2022 01:04 | | Subject: | Re: 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 142 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, brox999 writes:
| | Why on earth has this catalog number changed, usually the a suffix is because
a new variant has emerged but that isn't the case here, does not make sense.
Andrew (Broxy's Bricks)
|
Probably because of this: https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=4073#T=I
I was just thinking about that part before I found this post...
|
| Author: | brox999 | | Posted: | May 9, 2022 00:45 | | Subject: | 1x1 Round plate - 4073 to 4073a (Why????) | | Viewed: | 246 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Why on earth has this catalog number changed, usually the a suffix is because
a new variant has emerged but that isn't the case here, does not make sense.
Andrew (Broxy's Bricks)
|
|
| Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | May 7, 2022 09:14 | | Subject: | Re: Inventories | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, CapnBootle writes:
| | Why, bearing in mind The Lego Group now own BrickLink, do we still have to wait
for set inventories to be approved? - surely TLG actually have pics of any new
parts and have the capability to provide them to a site it owns? 
|
We've had all the available set data and all the part renders for years even
from before LEGO owned the site. However, our catalog is much more complicated
than just this data. Look at a set inventory. How much do you see that is obviously
been created by hand? Photographic images, minifig inventories, names for parts,
extras, alternates, sticker sheets, etc?? If we used the raw data from Day 1,
your part-out would be incomplete, and I bet that wouldn't be what you want
either.
Jen
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=315060&nID=1320391
|
By the way, which set inventory are you looking for? I do a lot of inventories
and maybe I could help.
Jen
|
|
| Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | May 7, 2022 08:54 | | Subject: | Re: Inventories | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, CapnBootle writes:
| | Why, bearing in mind The Lego Group now own BrickLink, do we still have to wait
for set inventories to be approved? - surely TLG actually have pics of any new
parts and have the capability to provide them to a site it owns?
|
We've had all the available set data and all the part renders for years even
from before LEGO owned the site. However, our catalog is much more complicated
than just this data. Look at a set inventory. How much do you see that is obviously
been created by hand? Photographic images, minifig inventories, names for parts,
extras, alternates, sticker sheets, etc?? If we used the raw data from Day 1,
your part-out would be incomplete, and I bet that wouldn't be what you want
either.
Jen
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=315060&nID=1320391
|
|
| Author: | TakeAbricK | | Posted: | May 7, 2022 01:33 | | Subject: | Re: Inventories | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, CapnBootle writes:
| | Why, bearing in mind The Lego Group now own BrickLink, do we still have to wait
for set inventories to be approved? - surely TLG actually have pics of any new
parts and have the capability to provide them to a site it owns?
|
Bricklink adds to inventories:
- Complete Minifigs
- Counterparts
- the correct variants of parts
- alternate variants
- extra parts
This can only be done by submitting inventories, based on sealed sets.
- add the minifigs
- add the counterparts
- check the correct variant
- build the set to determine extra parts
All this has to be checked before approval, to make sure it's correct and
complete.
Diana
|
|
| Author: | peregrinator | | Posted: | May 6, 2022 21:24 | | Subject: | Re: Inventories | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, CapnBootle writes:
| | Why, bearing in mind The Lego Group now own BrickLink, do we still have to wait
for set inventories to be approved? - surely TLG actually have pics of any new
parts and have the capability to provide them to a site it owns?
|
They definitely have renders of new parts, but they aren't always
good, and they don't have images of minifigures that are useful in the catalogue.
The reason we have to wait for inventories to be approved is that someone still
has to review the data that come from Lego, make sure it's been categorized
appropriately, etc.
|
|
| Author: | McBricks | | Posted: | May 6, 2022 18:34 | | Subject: | Re: Inventories | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, CapnBootle writes:
| | Why, bearing in mind The Lego Group now own BrickLink, do we still have to wait
for set inventories to be approved? - surely TLG actually have pics of any new
parts and have the capability to provide them to a site it owns?
|
Amen!
|
| Author: | CapnBootle | | Posted: | May 6, 2022 17:42 | | Subject: | Inventories | | Viewed: | 76 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Why, bearing in mind The Lego Group now own BrickLink, do we still have to wait
for set inventories to be approved? - surely TLG actually have pics of any new
parts and have the capability to provide them to a site it owns?
|
| Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | May 5, 2022 18:38 | | Subject: | Re: Weight of Titanic Flags | | Viewed: | 53 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stuart9 writes:
| | Can you tell me the dimensions in chains please.
|
(approx)
|
|
| Author: | Stuart9 | | Posted: | May 5, 2022 18:32 | | Subject: | Re: Weight of Titanic Flags | | Viewed: | 40 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Can you tell me the dimensions in chains please.
In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | In Catalog, Treybe writes:
| | Item 10294pls01 needs to have the weight added. Not sure if this is the proper
place to post this.
Thank you,
Trey
|
0.74g
No idea how it weights in gallons, sorry.
|
|
| Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | May 5, 2022 18:21 | | Subject: | Re: Weight of Titanic Flags | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, psusaxman2000 writes:
Done.
|
| Author: | 1001bricks | | Posted: | May 5, 2022 18:11 | | Subject: | Re: Weight of Titanic Flags | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Treybe writes:
| | Item 10294pls01 needs to have the weight added. Not sure if this is the proper
place to post this.
Thank you,
Trey
|
0.74g
No idea how it weights in gallons, sorry.
|
| Author: | psusaxman2000 | | Posted: | May 5, 2022 15:54 | | Subject: | Re: Weight of Titanic Flags | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Treybe writes:
| | Item 10294pls01 needs to have the weight added. Not sure if this is the proper
place to post this.
Thank you,
Trey
|
If you have the part you can submit the weight here:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogReq.asp?itemType=P
|
| Author: | Treybe | | Posted: | May 5, 2022 15:26 | | Subject: | Weight of Titanic Flags | | Viewed: | 122 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Item 10294pls01 needs to have the weight added. Not sure if this is the proper
place to post this.
Thank you,
Trey
|
| Author: | Nicolasamico37 | | Posted: | May 5, 2022 03:07 | | Subject: | Re: The Muppets | | Viewed: | 49 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| You're right, I found the Minifigures before, but I just saw the menu "The
Muppets" in "Collectible Minifigures" in the Catalog Tree. Thank you,
Nicolas
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | May 5, 2022 02:41 | | Subject: | Re: The Muppets | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nicolasamico37 writes:
| | Is it me, or The Muppets Collectible Minifigures Series is still not on the Catalog
Tree ?
Hopefuly you can use the search toolbar
Nicolas
|
They have been listed for about a week now.
|
| Author: | Sadler_Bricks | | Posted: | May 5, 2022 01:10 | | Subject: | Re: small old Lego car ID | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I come across the different variations of these from used hauls a nifty little
find if you ask me. Nice find.
Sadler_bricks
|
| Author: | Nicolasamico37 | | Posted: | May 4, 2022 22:40 | | Subject: | The Muppets | | Viewed: | 123 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Is it me, or The Muppets Collectible Minifigures Series is still not on the Catalog
Tree ?
Hopefuly you can use the search toolbar
Nicolas
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | May 4, 2022 10:53 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 387-1 | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, TakeAbricK writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | […]
With the new mold of 3660 we might need to update this part title.
|
It’s almost as complicated as 3001
There’s:
— round pin vs. flat pin
— thin walls vs. thick walls
— studs with small hole vs. studs with big hole vs. studs with stopper ring
I don’t have many 3660old but mine have thick walls (obviously) and big hole
in the studs… but the holes are not big enough for a bar.
My old 3660 are either:
— thick walls & studs with small hole.
— thin walls & studs with big hole (a bar fits in some but not all).
And my new 3660 have thin walls and stopper rings.
I don’t think I’ve seen any of the new ones with a round pin yet.
| | Also the alternate image in that shows 2 blue pieces, it is for 3660 vs 3660old?
That might need to be labeled.
|
|
These 3660 should be split in 3 variants imo, before that new one is added.
1. bar doesn't fit
2. bar fits
3. bar fits partly
people want to know?!
|
Bar fitting seems not a split reason 
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=309651
|
|
| Author: | TakeAbricK | | Posted: | May 4, 2022 09:21 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 387-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | […]
With the new mold of 3660 we might need to update this part title.
|
It’s almost as complicated as 3001
There’s:
— round pin vs. flat pin
— thin walls vs. thick walls
— studs with small hole vs. studs with big hole vs. studs with stopper ring
I don’t have many 3660old but mine have thick walls (obviously) and big hole
in the studs… but the holes are not big enough for a bar.
My old 3660 are either:
— thick walls & studs with small hole.
— thin walls & studs with big hole (a bar fits in some but not all).
And my new 3660 have thin walls and stopper rings.
I don’t think I’ve seen any of the new ones with a round pin yet.
| | Also the alternate image in that shows 2 blue pieces, it is for 3660 vs 3660old?
That might need to be labeled.
|
|
These 3660 should be split in 3 variants imo, before that new one is added.
1. bar doesn't fit
2. bar fits
3. bar fits partly
people want to know?!
|
|
| Author: | SylvainLS | | Posted: | May 4, 2022 07:23 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 387-1 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | […]
With the new mold of 3660 we might need to update this part title.
|
It’s almost as complicated as 3001
There’s:
— round pin vs. flat pin
— thin walls vs. thick walls
— studs with small hole vs. studs with big hole vs. studs with stopper ring
I don’t have many 3660old but mine have thick walls (obviously) and big hole
in the studs… but the holes are not big enough for a bar.
My old 3660 are either:
— thick walls & studs with small hole.
— thin walls & studs with big hole (a bar fits in some but not all).
And my new 3660 have thin walls and stopper rings.
I don’t think I’ve seen any of the new ones with a round pin yet.
| | Also the alternate image in that shows 2 blue pieces, it is for 3660 vs 3660old?
That might need to be labeled.
|
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | May 4, 2022 06:27 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 387-1 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, TakeAbricK writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SylvainLS writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 4 Part 3660 Red Slope, Inverted 45 2 x 2 (Alternate) (match ID 1)
* Add 2 Part bb0076 Black Technic, Link Chain, Large with Studs (Extra)
* Change 4 Part Red 3660old Slope, Inverted 45 2 x 2 with Round Bottom Tube {match ID 0 to 1}
Comments from Submitter:
Not sure you’ll find it’s proven enough but here it is:
I’ve had this set since I was a child. It’s been played with, built, and unbuilt for years.
But:
1. I’ve 50x bb0076, without any other possible source. I put the 2 more as Extra because 48x is enough (almost too many) for the build.
2. I don’t have any Red 3660old and all my Red 3660 are accounted for if I include this set.
|
Approved.
This set was in production 1976-1979.
was produced a very short time.
Diana
|
With the new mold of 3660 we might need to update this part title.
Also the alternate image in that shows 2 blue pieces, it is for 3660 vs 3660old?
That might need to be labeled.
|
|
|
| Author: | TheCuteGiraffe | | Posted: | May 4, 2022 01:11 | | Subject: | Re: small old Lego car ID | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I think maybe a product for Primo or Quarto. I mean like for the older lego
for young kids.
|
| Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | May 3, 2022 17:20 | | Subject: | Re: small old Lego car ID | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| | Anyday! |
| Author: | minifig_75 | | Posted: | May 3, 2022 17:19 | | Subject: | Re: small old Lego car ID | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Nubs_Select writes:
THANKS a lot
|
| Author: | Nubs_Select | | Posted: | May 3, 2022 16:25 | | Subject: | Re: small old Lego car ID | | Viewed: | 47 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| |
| Author: | minifig_75 | | Posted: | May 3, 2022 16:16 | | Subject: | small old Lego car ID | | Viewed: | 115 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Hi everyone, hope you're fine.
Here's a small car, I had never seen this before.
It's made in 1 piece..
The big stud in middle lifts up when bumper's pulled out..
Has anyone ever seen it before please ?
(No Id, no year, only Lego Group written on bottom)
Thanks, wish you a nice evening
|
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | May 1, 2022 08:17 | | Subject: | Re: catalog pic show the partID too | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tec writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, tec writes:
| | Somehow I was able to see an ID inscribed onto a "render" image.
select color BLACK to see
too bad it's not 093 but part 4697b
but nice easter egg
|
It's actually 'LEGO' upside down and not a part number.
|
nice
should we redo it the right way?
|
The render comes directly from LEGO, so we do not need to alter it. Just use
your imagination to flip the part over in your head.
|
|
| Author: | tec | | Posted: | May 1, 2022 07:57 | | Subject: | Re: catalog pic show the partID too | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, tec writes:
| | Somehow I was able to see an ID inscribed onto a "render" image.
select color BLACK to see
too bad it's not 093 but part 4697b
but nice easter egg
|
It's actually 'LEGO' upside down and not a part number.
|
nice
should we redo it the right way?
|
|
| Author: | minifig_75 | | Posted: | May 1, 2022 01:49 | | Subject: | Re: forestman torso 6077 - color of collar | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, minifig_75 writes:
| | Hi all!
So we've had the 6077 forestman set for a long time.
And, both on the instructions AND the Bricklink description, there is a mistake
on the color RED of colar for torso 973p48c01 : it IS REDDISH BROWN, not RED.
It's certified.
thanks
best regards
Soon
|
THANK YOU SO MUCH for all your replies, guys ❤️
Wish you all a great day 😁
|
|
| Author: | axaday | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 19:21 | | Subject: | Re: Part weights vary for printed variations | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| One of my dream features would be an alert system, where you could put a specific
alert on any entry in the catalog and everyone could search their inventory or
the catalog for items with alerts. So if something didn’t seem right but you
were unable to correct it, it would go in somewhere where the people who might
not see your forum post on one day will still see your issue. Your question
about the Mickey legs was answered this way, but it could have been missed.
I will soon be reshooting because I got one in a used lot, but
If we had an alert system someone would have tagged that picture needing a replacement
and I might have bought one to fix it.
In Catalog, sw_lego_lover writes:
| | So, I'd like to understand how scientific the measurements are for parts,
as I have come across some variation in the weights for some parts that share
the same "mould" (part number anyway).
Is it possible to request that someone re-analyse some of these to assess accuracy?
This is regarding the main minifigure hips and legs.
970c00 - 1.18g
970c00pb0966 - 1.16g - black
970c00pb0861 - 1.19g - black
970c00pb0961 - 1.27g
970c00pb0444 - 1.18g
While I'm not an expert in ink weights and color/material weights, this seems
a bit suspicious. If it was an issue of colors, then all matching color parts
would have very similar weights.
People are paying shipping based on these weights so they need to be accurate.
I'm just wondering if this has actually been reviewed, for this part in
particular?
|
|
|
| Author: | sw_lego_lover | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 19:16 | | Subject: | Re: Part weights vary for printed variations | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, sw_lego_lover writes:
| | Given that BrickLink is owned by TLG, there is some reasonable expectation that
the data regarding the parts would be shared. especially given this is a for-profit
company. Has there been any statement why data like this is not being shared
that anyone knows of?
|
The rule on BrickLink is that the catalog goes with the heaviest color / version
of an item under a given entry. This is to prevent undercharging on shipping
costs.
The data from the LEGO Group is for modern elements, and typically these are
lighter due to more efficient molding methods being developed over the years.
BrickLink will tend toward the older, heavier weights, so this new data is not
as useful for us as actual measurement.
The total spread in the parts you have listed is 0.1 gram, and without the outlier,
which may be due to the silver coating on the feet, we are down to 0.03 gram.
For the purposes of the instant checkout shipping calculator, 3 hundredths of
a gram is only going to make a difference when selling at high volume, and at
those higher total wieghts, the shipping bands are quite far apart.
More importantly, all of those weights were submitted by individuals who now
have a credit in the BrickLink system. Community involvement is more important
to us than absolute accuracy and standardization, because we recognize that it
takes a community to build the kind of catalog we all enjoy. The key is to get
more people involved and more people contributing, and in the end, that will
translate into the best catalog possible.
That doesn't preclude us from using LEGO data either. We can use it to check
submissions for accuracy, and we regularly do.
|
Thanks for clarifying on the data usage. I appreciate all of the responses. A
few have been explained or verified already. Especially where newer parts may
be lighter than previous versions due to manufacturing changes - yet are not
captured in a new Part #.
Its apparently all understandable variation, which is honestly surprising to
me. But I'm glad the community has put forth an effort to aide me in understanding.
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 15:48 | | Subject: | Re: catalog pic show the partID too | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, tec writes:
| | Somehow I was able to see an ID inscribed onto a "render" image.
select color BLACK to see
too bad it's not 093 but part 4697b
but nice easter egg
|
It's actually 'LEGO' upside down and not a part number.
|
| Author: | tec | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 15:14 | | Subject: | catalog pic show the partID too | | Viewed: | 58 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Somehow I was able to see an ID inscribed onto a "render" image.
select color BLACK to see
too bad it's not 093 but part 4697b
but nice easter egg
|
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 11:50 | | Subject: | Re: Item Description Inconsistencies | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, brickearther writes:
| | Most parts include its category at the beginning of the description. But not
always, such as as part # x577 Engine (category is Aircraft). There's a bunch
of minifig parts like this too.
The accuracy is important for me when I'm trying to build a set and all my
parts are organized by category. When I get to the engine part I have to go all
the way back to Aircraft bin to go find that part.
Am I crazy or would it make sense to change this to make it consistent?
|
Category descriptions used in titles are used the way they are for ease of use.
In some categories where there is only one item type, it makes sense to have
them for findability and sorting purposes (such as Bricks, Plates, and Wedges).
However, we don't need to say "Animal, Land" in front of every land animal
because it is not necessary and the category contains many types of items. In
other words, a cat is a cat, and a dog is a dog. That is what people are going
to search for and adding "Animal, Land" to the description is considered clutter.
In the case of the engines in the "Aircraft" category, there are many different
types of items in that category, so the category descriptor is not used. Many
of the engines are also used for other things besides aircraft engines, so having
them in "Aircraft" may not be the best place for them. But for now, they are
fine where they are.
Cheers,
Randy
|
|
| Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 10:46 | | Subject: | Re: Item Description Inconsistencies | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, brickearther writes:
| | Most parts include its category at the beginning of the description. But not
always, such as as part # x577 Engine (category is Aircraft). There's a bunch
of minifig parts like this too.
The accuracy is important for me when I'm trying to build a set and all my
parts are organized by category. When I get to the engine part I have to go all
the way back to Aircraft bin to go find that part.
Am I crazy or would it make sense to change this to make it consistent?
|
I am pretty sure that many of the minifig parts do not have their category at
the start of their Item Name because there just isn't enough space with all
those pattern descriptions.
I also sort my store by category and have just gotten used to where the outliers
pop up alphabetically. The Animals and the Food are the biggest culprits in my
book.
Jen
|
|
| Author: | brickearther | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 10:18 | | Subject: | Item Description Inconsistencies | | Viewed: | 63 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Most parts include its category at the beginning of the description. But not
always, such as as part # x577 Engine (category is Aircraft). There's a bunch
of minifig parts like this too.
The accuracy is important for me when I'm trying to build a set and all my
parts are organized by category. When I get to the engine part I have to go all
the way back to Aircraft bin to go find that part.
Am I crazy or would it make sense to change this to make it consistent?
|
|
| Author: | Stellar | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 07:06 | | Subject: | Re: Part weights vary for printed variations | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, sw_lego_lover writes:
| | So, I'd like to understand how scientific the measurements are for parts,
as I have come across some variation in the weights for some parts that share
the same "mould" (part number anyway).
Is it possible to request that someone re-analyse some of these to assess accuracy?
This is regarding the main minifigure hips and legs.
- 1.18g
|
Just checked this one and indeed the weight is on point at 1.16g
| | - 1.19g - black
- 1.27g
- 1.18g
While I'm not an expert in ink weights and color/material weights, this seems
a bit suspicious. If it was an issue of colors, then all matching color parts
would have very similar weights.
People are paying shipping based on these weights so they need to be accurate.
I'm just wondering if this has actually been reviewed, for this part in
particular?
|
|
|
| Author: | yorbrick | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 06:57 | | Subject: | Re: Part weights vary for printed variations | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, sw_lego_lover writes:
| | Given that BrickLink is owned by TLG, there is some reasonable expectation that
the data regarding the parts would be shared. especially given this is a for-profit
company. Has there been any statement why data like this is not being shared
that anyone knows of?
|
The rule on BrickLink is that the catalog goes with the heaviest color / version
of an item under a given entry. This is to prevent undercharging on shipping
costs.
The data from the LEGO Group is for modern elements, and typically these are
lighter due to more efficient molding methods being developed over the years.
BrickLink will tend toward the older, heavier weights, so this new data is not
as useful for us as actual measurement.
The total spread in the parts you have listed is 0.1 gram, and without the outlier,
which may be due to the silver coating on the feet, we are down to 0.03 gram.
For the purposes of the instant checkout shipping calculator, 3 hundredths of
a gram is only going to make a difference when selling at high volume, and at
those higher total wieghts, the shipping bands are quite far apart.
More importantly, all of those weights were submitted by individuals who now
have a credit in the BrickLink system. Community involvement is more important
to us than absolute accuracy and standardization, because we recognize that it
takes a community to build the kind of catalog we all enjoy. The key is to get
more people involved and more people contributing, and in the end, that will
translate into the best catalog possible.
That doesn't preclude us from using LEGO data either. We can use it to check
submissions for accuracy, and we regularly do.
|
And those 3/100s of a gram per part are insignificant compared to the weight
of any packaging a seller is likely to use.
|
|
| Author: | randyf | | Posted: | Apr 30, 2022 06:33 | | Subject: | Re: Part weights vary for printed variations | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | In Catalog, sw_lego_lover writes:
| | So, I'd like to understand how scientific the measurements are for parts,
as I have come across some variation in the weights for some parts that share
the same "mould" (part number anyway).
Is it possible to request that someone re-analyse some of these to assess accuracy?
This is regarding the main minifigure hips and legs.
970c00 - 1.18g
970c00pb0966 - 1.16g - black
970c00pb0861 - 1.19g - black
970c00pb0961 - 1.27g
970c00pb0444 - 1.18g
|
This decorated version does actually weigh more:
970c00 (White): 1.19g
970c00pb0961 (Decorated White): 1.29g
|
Yep. And that is due to the dual molding process which adds more plastic between
the two colors.
|
|
|
| Author: | Admin_Russell | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2022 20:22 | | Subject: | Re: Part weights vary for printed variations | | Viewed: | 71 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
|
BrickLink
ID CardAdmin_Russell
|
| Location: USA, California |
| Member Since |
Contact |
Type |
Status |
| May 9, 2017 |
|
Admin |
|
|
| BrickLink Administrator |
|
| In Catalog, sw_lego_lover writes:
| | Given that BrickLink is owned by TLG, there is some reasonable expectation that
the data regarding the parts would be shared. especially given this is a for-profit
company. Has there been any statement why data like this is not being shared
that anyone knows of?
|
The rule on BrickLink is that the catalog goes with the heaviest color / version
of an item under a given entry. This is to prevent undercharging on shipping
costs.
The data from the LEGO Group is for modern elements, and typically these are
lighter due to more efficient molding methods being developed over the years.
BrickLink will tend toward the older, heavier weights, so this new data is not
as useful for us as actual measurement.
The total spread in the parts you have listed is 0.1 gram, and without the outlier,
which may be due to the silver coating on the feet, we are down to 0.03 gram.
For the purposes of the instant checkout shipping calculator, 3 hundredths of
a gram is only going to make a difference when selling at high volume, and at
those higher total wieghts, the shipping bands are quite far apart.
More importantly, all of those weights were submitted by individuals who now
have a credit in the BrickLink system. Community involvement is more important
to us than absolute accuracy and standardization, because we recognize that it
takes a community to build the kind of catalog we all enjoy. The key is to get
more people involved and more people contributing, and in the end, that will
translate into the best catalog possible.
That doesn't preclude us from using LEGO data either. We can use it to check
submissions for accuracy, and we regularly do.
|
|
| Author: | sw_lego_lover | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2022 15:13 | | Subject: | Re: Part weights vary for printed variations | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, jennnifer writes:
| | In Catalog, sw_lego_lover writes:
| | So, I'd like to understand how scientific the measurements are for parts,
as I have come across some variation in the weights for some parts that share
the same "mould" (part number anyway).
Is it possible to request that someone re-analyse some of these to assess accuracy?
This is regarding the main minifigure hips and legs.
970c00 - 1.18g
970c00pb0966 - 1.16g - black
970c00pb0861 - 1.19g - black
970c00pb0961 - 1.27g
970c00pb0444 - 1.18g
While I'm not an expert in ink weights and color/material weights, this seems
a bit suspicious. If it was an issue of colors, then all matching color parts
would have very similar weights.
People are paying shipping based on these weights so they need to be accurate.
I'm just wondering if this has actually been reviewed, for this part in
particular?
|
Weights and measurements are submitted by members so there is no confirming their
scientific accuracy. These weights are all well within a range that is unlikely
to affect shipping costs. If you feel strongly that any data in our system needs
to be corrected, you are free to submit a change request to update it.
Jen
|
Given that BrickLink is owned by TLG, there is some reasonable expectation that
the data regarding the parts would be shared. especially given this is a for-profit
company. Has there been any statement why data like this is not being shared
that anyone knows of?
|
|
| Author: | jennnifer | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2022 14:47 | | Subject: | Re: Part weights vary for printed variations | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, sw_lego_lover writes:
| | So, I'd like to understand how scientific the measurements are for parts,
as I have come across some variation in the weights for some parts that share
the same "mould" (part number anyway).
Is it possible to request that someone re-analyse some of these to assess accuracy?
This is regarding the main minifigure hips and legs.
970c00 - 1.18g
970c00pb0966 - 1.16g - black
970c00pb0861 - 1.19g - black
970c00pb0961 - 1.27g
970c00pb0444 - 1.18g
While I'm not an expert in ink weights and color/material weights, this seems
a bit suspicious. If it was an issue of colors, then all matching color parts
would have very similar weights.
People are paying shipping based on these weights so they need to be accurate.
I'm just wondering if this has actually been reviewed, for this part in
particular?
|
Weights and measurements are submitted by members so there is no confirming their
scientific accuracy. These weights are all well within a range that is unlikely
to affect shipping costs. If you feel strongly that any data in our system needs
to be corrected, you are free to submit a change request to update it.
Jen
|
|
| Author: | sw_lego_lover | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2022 14:40 | | Subject: | Part weights vary for printed variations | | Viewed: | 87 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| So, I'd like to understand how scientific the measurements are for parts,
as I have come across some variation in the weights for some parts that share
the same "mould" (part number anyway).
Is it possible to request that someone re-analyse some of these to assess accuracy?
This is regarding the main minifigure hips and legs.
970c00 - 1.18g
970c00pb0966 - 1.16g - black
970c00pb0861 - 1.19g - black
970c00pb0961 - 1.27g
970c00pb0444 - 1.18g
While I'm not an expert in ink weights and color/material weights, this seems
a bit suspicious. If it was an issue of colors, then all matching color parts
would have very similar weights.
People are paying shipping based on these weights so they need to be accurate.
I'm just wondering if this has actually been reviewed, for this part in
particular?
|
|
| Author: | runner.caller | | Posted: | Apr 29, 2022 14:00 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, qwertyboy writes:
| | We use those Acro-Mills-style small drawers to store minifigs heads We have them
labeled "b0000", "b0050", "b0100" etc, where "b0000" contains heads 3626bpb0000-3626bpb0049
etc. Nice and easy. Same with torsos - drawers "pb0000", "pb0050" (and here we
also have "px1" etc). Same with decorated legs. Our utensils are stored by item
ID in their own drawer cabinet, as are weapons.
I don't understand why some people here are so dead set against sorting by
category that they would say things like "... you should NEVER ..." (and worse).
Each way of storing has its advantages and drawbacks. We have sold close to 2
million used parts, with currently 217k items in 10k lots in stock. We don't
have issues with picking speed (we regularly handle 300+ lots orders). To us,
storing by category just makes sense. I can grab any item with just a description
(like "red brick 2x4") in 5 seconds without having to look anything up. I know
there are others who store by category (and one runs a 3M+ parts shop) without
issues.
If there are category reorganizations, we handle those when the need is there,
and sometimes the need is not that pressing. For instance, a while ago the category
"Brick, Arch" was renamed "Arch". We haven't even bothered moving the corresponding
drawers as we know where all our arches are.
[tl/dr] Store however works for you. If you store by remark, great. Store by
category, fine. Store by color, more power to you (even though I would like to
see that in action for a large inventory). As long as it is fast and organized,
who cares.
Niek.
|
Great stuff Niek!
You hit so many great points! Seems like a lot of long time sellers systems'
have evolved to the point they have blinders on and can't fathom how any
other method other than their own could be better but, like you said, the best
system is the one that each individual chooses for themselves.
|
|
| Author: | qwertyboy | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 12:46 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 54 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| We use those Acro-Mills-style small drawers to store minifigs heads We have them
labeled "b0000", "b0050", "b0100" etc, where "b0000" contains heads 3626bpb0000-3626bpb0049
etc. Nice and easy. Same with torsos - drawers "pb0000", "pb0050" (and here we
also have "px1" etc). Same with decorated legs. Our utensils are stored by item
ID in their own drawer cabinet, as are weapons.
I don't understand why some people here are so dead set against sorting by
category that they would say things like "... you should NEVER ..." (and worse).
Each way of storing has its advantages and drawbacks. We have sold close to 2
million used parts, with currently 217k items in 10k lots in stock. We don't
have issues with picking speed (we regularly handle 300+ lots orders). To us,
storing by category just makes sense. I can grab any item with just a description
(like "red brick 2x4") in 5 seconds without having to look anything up. I know
there are others who store by category (and one runs a 3M+ parts shop) without
issues.
If there are category reorganizations, we handle those when the need is there,
and sometimes the need is not that pressing. For instance, a while ago the category
"Brick, Arch" was renamed "Arch". We haven't even bothered moving the corresponding
drawers as we know where all our arches are.
[tl/dr] Store however works for you. If you store by remark, great. Store by
category, fine. Store by color, more power to you (even though I would like to
see that in action for a large inventory). As long as it is fast and organized,
who cares.
Niek.
|
|
| Author: | peregrinator | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 10:16 | | Subject: | Re: forestman torso 6077 - color of collar | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, goldknight writes:
| | I know nothing about these torsos but if I were to get one, which color would
be rarest in your opinions??
|
Black
|
|
| Author: | runner.caller | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 10:15 | | Subject: | Re: moving heads to animal is stupid | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, firestar246 writes:
| | In Catalog, 1001bricks writes:
| | | | It makes picking easy, cause you don't have to pay very close attention if
the customer ordered a torso from a given location and there is only 1 style
torso in that drawer.
|
This^
I thought it was obvious; but apparently people prefer to put all the Minifig
Heads in the same drawer, so they've 99% chances to make a mistake
|
I can see how that works for maybe a one-room workplace, but we have a storage
building, a sorting building, and then the listing usually occurs in the house.
When we list heads, for example, it's a lot easier to take one bin with all
the heads in it than a few hundred. But we keep them very organized with bags
and labels.
In fact, I feel this method may be slightly better as it forces the picker to
pay more attention to what they're actually handling and doing.
|
Makes sense. Even with a setup like that, I'd do 99% of the listing at home,
but just not process the XML file.
I'd have a baseplate with all the heads lined up in the order that I'm
going to put them away into their locations, and prep the file.
Then, I'd take them to the building where the orders are picked and process
the XML file and place each head into its bin.
This would not work for new parts, because once you stuck a head onto the baseplate
it would technically become used, but maybe someone could use something like
a segmented bead tray to accomplish the same thing.
But yes, I'd still be wasting time the next day putting them away, but I
think the time would be made up by picking orders faster.
|
|
| Author: | 1974 | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 10:15 | | Subject: | Re: forestman torso 6077 - color of collar | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, goldknight writes:
| | I know nothing about these torsos but if I were to get one, which color would
be rarest in your opinions??
|
The blue one
|
|
| Author: | edk | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 09:50 | | Subject: | Re: forestman torso 6077 - color of collar | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stuart9 writes:
| | I’ve seen this too, thanks for posting the images.
|
Red and green mixed = Brown. I say these are just variations due to the formula
or some sort of variation in the red ink used.
| |
In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | In Catalog, minifig_75 writes:
| | Hi all!
So we've had the 6077 forestman set for a long time.
And, both on the instructions AND the Bricklink description, there is a mistake
on the color RED of colar for torso 973p48c01 : it IS REDDISH BROWN, not RED.
It's certified.
thanks
best regards
Soon
|
I have several variations, varying from Red, to Dark Red to Reddish Brown; at
one time they even have had separate listings and a comparison picture on Bricklink.
It got lost during the image restyling project or when three distinct patterns
where merged into one:
[p=973p53]
[p=973p54]
|
|
|
|
| Author: | goldknight | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 09:49 | | Subject: | Re: forestman torso 6077 - color of collar | | Viewed: | 36 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Stuart9 writes:
| | I’ve seen this too, thanks for posting the images.
In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | In Catalog, minifig_75 writes:
| | Hi all!
So we've had the 6077 forestman set for a long time.
And, both on the instructions AND the Bricklink description, there is a mistake
on the color RED of colar for torso 973p48c01 : it IS REDDISH BROWN, not RED.
It's certified.
thanks
best regards
Soon
|
I have several variations, varying from Red, to Dark Red to Reddish Brown; at
one time they even have had separate listings and a comparison picture on Bricklink.
It got lost during the image restyling project or when three distinct patterns
where merged into one:
[p=973p53]
[p=973p54]
|
|
I know nothing about these torsos but if I were to get one, which color would
be rarest in your opinions??
|
|
| Author: | Stuart9 | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 09:31 | | Subject: | Re: forestman torso 6077 - color of collar | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I’ve seen this too, thanks for posting the images.
In Catalog, hpoort writes:
| | In Catalog, minifig_75 writes:
| | Hi all!
So we've had the 6077 forestman set for a long time.
And, both on the instructions AND the Bricklink description, there is a mistake
on the color RED of colar for torso 973p48c01 : it IS REDDISH BROWN, not RED.
It's certified.
thanks
best regards
Soon
|
I have several variations, varying from Red, to Dark Red to Reddish Brown; at
one time they even have had separate listings and a comparison picture on Bricklink.
It got lost during the image restyling project or when three distinct patterns
where merged into one:
[p=973p53]
[p=973p54]
|
|
|
| Author: | hpoort | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 09:21 | | Subject: | Re: forestman torso 6077 - color of collar | | Viewed: | 45 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, minifig_75 writes:
| | Hi all!
So we've had the 6077 forestman set for a long time.
And, both on the instructions AND the Bricklink description, there is a mistake
on the color RED of colar for torso 973p48c01 : it IS REDDISH BROWN, not RED.
It's certified.
thanks
best regards
Soon
|
I have several variations, varying from Red, to Dark Red to Reddish Brown; at
one time they even have had separate listings and a comparison picture on Bricklink.
It got lost during the image restyling project or when three distinct patterns
where merged into one:
[p=973p53]
[p=973p54]
|
|
|
| Author: | 1974 | | Posted: | Apr 28, 2022 07:14 | | Subject: | Re: forestman torso 6077 - color of collar | | Viewed: | 46 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I've got a lot of those torsos and the variation is rather large
I do believe it's supposed to be red as reddish brown wasn't around back
then
In Catalog, minifig_75 writes:
| | Hi all!
So we've had the 6077 forestman set for a long time.
And, both on the instructions AND the Bricklink description, there is a mistake
on the color RED of colar for torso 973p48c01 : it IS REDDISH BROWN, not RED.
It's certified.
thanks
best regards
Soon
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
Austria, Wien
Canada, Ontario
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
United Kingdom, England
)
)
Spain, Comunidad Valenciana
Netherlands, Noord-Holland
Australia, Western Australia
Denmark
New Zealand, Bay of Plenty
Italy, Marche
)
)