Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | 62Bricks  | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2018 10:48 | | Subject: | 12V Train 70026 and 73112 difference | | Viewed: | 70 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Can someone educate me on how to tell which one of these I have?
* |  | 70026 Electric, Train 12V Remote Control Switch Motor 4 x 8 x 1 2/3 (Undetermined Type)
Parts: Electric, Train
Marked for Deletion |
The one I have has three electric contact holes in the end. The 3D image for
73112 does not show any electric contact holes, but I do not trust the 3D images.
Does 73112 have electric contacts?
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Aug 19, 2018 06:40 | | Subject: | Re: Dark Grey 4095? | | Viewed: | 42 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, BeauBricks writes:
| | Hey all!
Busy uploading bunches of parts when I came across 4x 4095, but they are in Dark
Grey?
According to the catalog, this part has never been released in DG.
Where does this piece come from? Is it real Lego? I have not found any fake lego
in the bunch.
Thanks!
|
In the Bricklink catalog, a part becomes "known" when someone lists it in an
inventory. There are still many parts that are known to exist in real life, but
are not yet in inventories, so the catalog does not list them as "known."
It looks like this may be one of those parts. You can see that other sellers
have this for sale in this color, and some have even sold recently - at a high
price for this part!
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogPG.asp?P=4095&colorID=10
As for where it came from I would guess one of these two sets:
These are the only two that currently have the DBG version inventoried, and they
are from 2006 and 2007, which is around the time Lego switched the colors. Possibly
early versions of these sets had the part in dark gray and later ones in dark
bluish gray.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 17:54 | | Subject: | Re: Brick 1 x 6 with two bottom tubes? | | Viewed: | 37 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Identification, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, normann1974 writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, 62Bricks writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, normann1974 writes:
| | I found this brick among my spare parts. I can't find this configuration
of bottom tubes anywhere in the catalog among 1x6 bricks. It doesn't look
to me like the missing tubes are broken off, they're just missing. Does anyone
recognize it?
|
I think it must be
|
Yes, and instead of a 3009, it is printed on a
I have tried to add printed variants like this to the catalog before and have
been told they will not be approved.
|
I would say it's neither of the two. 3009pb156 has 5 buttom tubes, and crssprt02
has none (but two cross supports). Mine has 2 buttom tubes with supports.
/Jan
|
Yes, and it has thin walls with vertical ridges. This is not an early brick design.
|
I didn't look closely. Weird. No point to the ridges without the pins. Some
kind of error?
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 16:37 | | Subject: | Re: Brick 1 x 6 with two bottom tubes? | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog Identification, WoutR writes:
| | In Catalog Identification, normann1974 writes:
| | I found this brick among my spare parts. I can't find this configuration
of bottom tubes anywhere in the catalog among 1x6 bricks. It doesn't look
to me like the missing tubes are broken off, they're just missing. Does anyone
recognize it?
|
I think it must be
|
Yes, and instead of a 3009, it is printed on a
I have tried to add printed variants like this to the catalog before and have
been told they will not be approved.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 12:12 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, randyf writes:
| | In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | In LEGO, randyf writes:
| | In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | If counterparts are threatening to run amok, then freeze the creation of assemblies, or restrict their definition.
|
Isn't that what we are trying to do here? 
|
No, you're wanting to change the definition of counterparts, not assemblies.
Doing that means we will potentially continue to have assembly entries added
that will not be included in inventories because there will be two decisions
based on different criteria.
Decision #1 is whether an assembly should be added to the catalog (made by the
cat admins) and decision #2 is whether that entry should be included in set inventories
as a counterpart (made by the inventory admins based on criteria under discussion
now).
Changing the rules for decision #2 does nothing to alter decision #1. I think
we should streamline the whole thing into one decision - if it's listed in
the parts catalog, it should be listed in inventories.
|
I misunderstood the original statement. I follow your logic here.
| | | |
| | For the ones that already exist, put them in inventories. This community has
already cataloged 50,000 parts and nearly 15,000 sets. Updating inventories will
not happen overnight, but it will happen. Arguing that it would simply be too
much work is, in my opinion, also losing sight of the purpose of the catalog.
|
I am one of the largest contributors to the site, and I will not be doing this
work. Are you going to?
Randy
|
Frankly this question angers me. I've seen it many times as a defense against
making much needed changes to the catalog. Many of those changes have been made
despite this line of protest, thankfully, and over time the catalog has become
better because of it.
|
Well, what angers me is those who do the most complaining and champion the increase
in work are the same individuals who do not end up contributing to the work.
See where I'm coming from?
|
Yes I do, and it is insulting.
Here is an example. I specialize in vintage parts. A good portion of my sales
are to people restoring Classic Space sets. Here is an assembly that was missing
from the catalog:
Judging by how often I sold the components, I determined there was a market for
it as an assembly. I submitted it and it was approved. Then I added it to the
nine sets in which it appears, as a counterpart. Also approved.
Just a small contribution. I've sold dozens of these since then, and they
are currently selling at the rate of about 20 per month. Not a huge contribution
to the catalog. Not a huge contribution to the income of Bricklink or any one
seller. But all these small contributions by the people to whom they are important
- as well as those of the people who have made regular contributions part of
their Lego hobby - have made this catalog what it is. Encouraging pissing matches
over who does more is counter to the spirit of community on which the site was
built.
| |
| | Behind this objection is the assumption I am trying to call out here - that we
need to change the catalog based on the needs of the people administrating it
rather than the needs of the people using it. If it's too much work to update
a portion of the catalog then it was too much work to create it in the first
place.
It's a ridiculous objection. No I am not going to update every single
inventory. We - the Bricklink users - are going to update them, probably
as it has always been done, with people choosing to tackle small parts of it,
or make the requests as they have need to. If you choose to work on other things,
that's fine. It all adds up. That you would refuse to work on this has no
bearing on whether others might.
The "too much work" objection was raised when this entry was created in December
2104:
Today it is inventoried in almost 500 sets, thanks to your hard work (and Russell's
and Robert's and that of many others). That didn't happen overnight -
it was most recently added to an inventory a couple weeks ago - but it would
not have happened at all if we had decided that creating a useful and accurate
catalog was just too much work.
|
I am not opposed to the work. I am opposed to the bloat of inventories that impede
my ability to do the work that I do on the site. Yes, my motives are selfish,
but your motives are based on what you want as a seller and in turn also selfish.
|
Ah. Well, I would just repeat what I have been saying in a slightly different
way - whose "selfish" needs are meant to be met by Bricklink? Catalog contributors?
Or sellers? (and buyers and collectors?)
| |
Like Robert said, not everyone will be happy no matter what decisions are made.
So that is why I wrote the following a few posts ago:
"So maybe we are looking at this too narrowly from both sides. Maybe we need
to ask ourselves if there should be multiple views of an inventory instead of
just one? One for those looking for historical accuracy, one for those looking
at what assemblies can be sold from a set, one for ...?"
Any thoughts on that?
|
Options are great.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 11:37 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, randyf writes:
| | In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | The reason is that we follow a rule that is arbitrary. Even if that rule is "Lego
calls it a part, so it's a part," that is still arbitrary.
|
I don't think you understand what arbitrary actually means. When something
is arbitrary, it follows *no* system, can seem random, and is by definition *not*
defined. BrickLink has a system that is largely defined by LEGO themselves. That
is not arbitrary. That is the exact meaning of a definition - trying to define
something and make it not random. I think we are trying to tighten up that definition,
which leads to being more defined and less arbitrary (or not arbitrary at all).
Randy
|
It is arbitrary because we only follow Lego up to a point, then we depart based
on BL's own arbitrarily-applied "rules." I give examples of where we call
a part a part because Lego does, but where we define parts that Lego does not.
There are also examples of where Lego defines a part but we do not.
And those decisions are not consistent over time - not because we have no rules,
but because the rules we do have are often subjective and not consistently applied.
There seems to be no disagreement about that, but I disagree that the solution
is to replace one subjective rule with another. It will have the effect of shortening
the inventories, but as I have argued elsewhere, that is not in the interest
of the users who want to identify, buy and sell these assemblies.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 11:28 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, randyf writes:
| | In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | If counterparts are threatening to run amok, then freeze the creation of assemblies, or restrict their definition.
|
Isn't that what we are trying to do here?
|
No, you're wanting to change the definition of counterparts, not assemblies.
Doing that means we will potentially continue to have assembly entries added
that will not be included in inventories because there will be two decisions
based on different criteria.
Decision #1 is whether an assembly should be added to the catalog (made by the
cat admins) and decision #2 is whether that entry should be included in set inventories
as a counterpart (made by the inventory admins based on criteria under discussion
now).
Changing the rules for decision #2 does nothing to alter decision #1. I think
we should streamline the whole thing into one decision - if it's listed in
the parts catalog, it should be listed in inventories.
| |
| | For the ones that already exist, put them in inventories. This community has
already cataloged 50,000 parts and nearly 15,000 sets. Updating inventories will
not happen overnight, but it will happen. Arguing that it would simply be too
much work is, in my opinion, also losing sight of the purpose of the catalog.
|
I am one of the largest contributors to the site, and I will not be doing this
work. Are you going to?
Randy
|
Frankly this question angers me. I've seen it many times as a defense against
making much needed changes to the catalog. Many of those changes have been made
despite this line of protest, thankfully, and over time the catalog has become
better because of it.
Behind this objection is the assumption I am trying to call out here - that we
need to change the catalog based on the needs of the people administrating it
rather than the needs of the people using it. If it's too much work to update
a portion of the catalog then it was too much work to create it in the first
place.
It's a ridiculous objection. No I am not going to update every single
inventory. We - the Bricklink users - are going to update them, probably
as it has always been done, with people choosing to tackle small parts of it,
or make the requests as they have need to. If you choose to work on other things,
that's fine. It all adds up. That you would refuse to work on this has no
bearing on whether others might.
The "too much work" objection was raised when this entry was created in December
2104:
Today it is inventoried in almost 500 sets, thanks to your hard work (and Russell's
and Robert's and that of many others). That didn't happen overnight -
it was most recently added to an inventory a couple weeks ago - but it would
not have happened at all if we had decided that creating a useful and accurate
catalog was just too much work.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 09:38 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 35 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, mhortar writes:
| | In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | Using as an example, this part's components almost always appear
in pairs. When they do, they are always assembled in building the set. When the
set is taken apart and the pieces consolidated into those used lots that make
up the source of my stock, they are almost always still assembled.
|
Hasn't there been a set that had different colors for the two pieces in this
hinge brick? I can't think of what the set was though off the top of my head
and I couldn't find it in a quick search, so maybe I'm losing my mind.
Josh
|
There have been, yes. But this is not an issue. We already have a method for
dealing with bi-color parts, which is to define one color in the title and one
in the color field. Like these parts, for example:
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Aug 18, 2018 09:34 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| Call it a rule that has been applied arbitrarily, then. And the method under
discussion is just as subject to random application because it is apparently
based on how difficult it is to separate the parts. Randy has already disagreed
with me on the relative difficulty of pulling the hinge plates apart compared
to the hinge bricks. That would be how we would be deciding whether a part is
inventoried or not?
Does that not seem absurd?
The comparison to minifigs is not merely general - it is exactly analogous. They
are both common assemblies of easily-separated parts that collectors, buyers
and sellers want to deal with both as a unit and as individual components. We
include minifigs in inventories, we should include assemblies, too.
That Lego sets have photos of the minifigs on the box is meaningless - as I say,
we depart from Lego all the time because the needs of the secondary market are
different. And besides, the fully-assembled counterparts are also pictured on
the box and that does not bless them into the inventory. And besides again, see
the subthread about the Cars characters, which are also named and appear on the
boxes but are not inventoried as figures or counterparts. So - Lego defining
an assembly does not mean that Bricklink does, and vice versa. I have
no problem with that, because as I say our needs are different.
And I think we may have lost sight of what the needs of the Bricklink user are.
When we start layering rules on top of one another for the ease of administrators
rather than the needs of the user, we are failing to learn from the past.
It would be much simpler to have one rule rather than two, and the place to apply
the rule is in the creation of assembly entries. If counterparts are threatening
to run amok, then freeze the creation of assemblies, or restrict their definition.
For the ones that already exist, put them in inventories. This community has
already cataloged 50,000 parts and nearly 15,000 sets. Updating inventories will
not happen overnight, but it will happen. Arguing that it would simply be too
much work is, in my opinion, also losing sight of the purpose of the catalog.
|
|
| Author: | 62Bricks | | Posted: | Aug 17, 2018 23:25 | | Subject: | Re: Seeking Opinions on Part Assemblies in Invs | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In LEGO, randyf writes:
| | In LEGO, 62Bricks writes:
| | I'll take a somewhat contrary position. I think many times we base definitions
on arbitrary rules about the parts themselves and we ignore how the catalog is
used.
Defining a counterpart as only something that cannot be returned to its original
state at first looks like an elegant and simple method to categorize counterparts.
But collectors, buyers and sellers are not here to appreciate the talmudic deliberations
over what constitutes a counterpart. They are here for three things: identification,
buying and selling.
Using as an example, this part's components almost always appear
in pairs. When they do, they are always assembled in building the set. When the
set is taken apart and the pieces consolidated into those used lots that make
up the source of my stock, they are almost always still assembled.
Any collector coming to Bricklink to try to identify a set that includes this
part is confused because it appears in no sets.
|
I would bet that most collectors trying to identify that part in a set would
have no trouble finding the constituent part entries, but we would need data
to back that up. In any case, writing "Any collector...is confused..." is extremely
hyperbolic.
| | Any buyer wanting to complete a set with the components of this part might never
realize he can buy it assembled. He may think his only choice is to add each
half individually to his want list and hope he finds a seller who has them both.
A seller wanting to list it has a choice - does he list it as an assembly thereby
disconnecting it from buyers who are shopping via set inventories? Or does he
take it apart and list the halves separately, hoping that he doesn't have
to wait for two separate buyers to come take each one?
Now look at a practically identical part:
Collectors, buyers and sellers have none of the same problems with this part,
because our arbitrary rule calls this a "part" even though it is made up of two
separate components that can be disassembled just as easily as 3830c01.
|
I understand the analogy you are trying to make, but the comparison is apples
to oranges.
This part in *no* way can be disassembled as easily as 3830c01. It is always
packaged as a complete assembly, and it is not meant to be taken apart, just
as steering wheel assemblies are not meant to be taken apart. 3830c01 is packaged
as separate components and is very easy to take apart due to the Technic pin
connection which everyone is used to handling.
Also, it is not *our* arbitrary rule that calls this a part. It is LEGO themselves
who call this a part. LEGO do not sell the halves of it separately to consumers,
so why would anyone expect them separate. However, 3830c01 is made of two parts
that are both separately recognized and sold to consumers by LEGO. No one gets
these parts as a whole from LEGO, so why would the expectation at BrickLink be
any different to what comes in the packages that we all open.
In the end, I fail to see where these items are in anyway similar besides their
function.
| | So rather than a more arbitrarily restrictive definition of counterpart, I would
propose a broader one that accounts for how the catalog is actually used:
If an assembly is common enough to be added as a catalog entry, it should
also be included as a counterpart.
Perhaps not the direction people were anticipating, but I think I'll sell
more hinges once they're listed as counterparts in inventories and people
can find them.
|
Your definition is a nice one at the other extreme of this debate, so thanks
for chiming in. As someone who works on inventories, I want them to be as simple
as possible, and currently they can get quite bloated with all the Counterpart
entries. Your definition would just lead to more bloat in the inventories that
I would have to wade through. However, I understand that sellers have different
priorities with the inventories.
So maybe we are looking at this too narrowly from both sides. Maybe we need to
ask ourselves if there should be multiple views of an inventory instead of just
one? One for those looking for historical accuracy, one for those looking at
what assemblies can be sold from a set, one for ...?
I don't know what the answer is, but I am glad the situation is being looked
into.
Cheers,
Randy
|
I think most people would not understand why one is in inventories and the other
is not. The parts are very similar.
The reason is that we follow a rule that is arbitrary. Even if that rule is "Lego
calls it a part, so it's a part," that is still arbitrary.
It's arbitrary because we depart from Lego in many ways that make sense from
the point of view of the buyer and seller. We define minifigs as a unit and inventory
them as assemblies, for one thing. Lego does not.
Why do we do that? Because that's how people want to use our catalog. Imagine
what it would be like if we applied this restricted counterpart definition to
minifigs and did nnot allow them to be listed in set inventories. It would make
it simpler to create inventories, right? People could still figure things out
by tracking down the constituent parts. So why not?
Because minifigs are assemblies that users want to buy, sell and identify as
an assembled unit. The same is true of many counterparts.
"Bloated" inventories do not concern me. I'm in favor of more information,
not less. But if we want to control it, then the place to do that is with the
parts catalog by not adding these assemblies in the first place. But if they
ARE added, it seems silly not to connect them to their sets by including them
in inventories. That is one of the basic features of the catalog.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
USA, Missouri
