Redisplay Messages: Compact | Brief | All | Full Show Messages: All | Without Replies| Author: | WOLKsite  | | Posted: | Feb 26, 2024 12:18 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 8570-1 | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, normann1974 writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, WOLKsite writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, normann1974 writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, WOLKsite writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 4265c Light Gray Technic Bush 1/2 Smooth (Extra)
* Change {2 to 3} Part Light Gray 4265c Technic Bush 1/2 Smooth
Comments from Submitter:
The official piece count for this set is 44, and this part is included in the inventory from LEGO. However, it is not used in any configuration shown in the instructions.
The same is the case for Kopaka Nuva (8571) but not Onua Nuva (8566) - though the Kopaka set has bigger issues in need of investigation.
|
Yes, that inventory seems to be broken.
Four small gears are needed in the build: Two for the main build, one is added
to the left arm in the second build, and one is added to the back. This is confirmed
by LEGO data which also says that 4106469 is included and that only three 451926
is included. Don't see the former in instructions, and four of the latter
seem to be used for the second build (two in arms, one in neck and one in the
back).
More invenstigation is needed to fix this inventory and I unfortunately don't
have the time for it.
/Jan
|
I agree that more investigation is needed. I don't know where the extra 451926
came from... However, the Peeron inventory may be of help: http://www.peeron.com/inv/sets/8571-1
It also agrees that there are four gear pieces and an axle connector.
However, I am still doubtful; as far as I've seen, the instructions never
show four gears, nor four axles, in use all at once. In the configuration with
the gear and axle on the back, an axle-pin (43093) is used for the left arm.
I've also gone through the combination model shown in the instructions, and
the fourth gear/axle is not necessary to build it either.
As a last note, the official piece count is 43.
I've been wanting to get a sealed copy to confirm what the included parts
are but that's one big investment.
|
The third third gear/axle is added on 21 if one wants to make the left arm rotate.
The third gear/axle is also needed for locking the arm movement shown own page
22. The set ought to either allow or not allow you to do both things if you wanted
to, so that would require a set of either three or four gears/axles which LEGO
says is not what the set contains (3 gears and 4 axles). It's really strange.
I believe a sealed set would be necessary.
/Jan
|
Yeah.
The other Toa Nuva (aside from Pohatu on account of his different build) only
allow for one of the two configurations, with only 3 axles and 3 gears.
|
 |
| Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 25, 2024 16:49 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 8570-1 | | Viewed: | 30 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, normann1974 writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, WOLKsite writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 4265c Light Gray Technic Bush 1/2 Smooth (Extra)
* Change {2 to 3} Part Light Gray 4265c Technic Bush 1/2 Smooth
Comments from Submitter:
The official piece count for this set is 44, and this part is included in the inventory from LEGO. However, it is not used in any configuration shown in the instructions.
The same is the case for Kopaka Nuva (8571) but not Onua Nuva (8566) - though the Kopaka set has bigger issues in need of investigation.
|
Yes, that inventory seems to be broken.
Four small gears are needed in the build: Two for the main build, one is added
to the left arm in the second build, and one is added to the back. This is confirmed
by LEGO data which also says that 4106469 is included and that only three 451926
is included. Don't see the former in instructions, and four of the latter
seem to be used for the second build (two in arms, one in neck and one in the
back).
More invenstigation is needed to fix this inventory and I unfortunately don't
have the time for it.
/Jan
|
I agree that more investigation is needed. I don't know where the extra 451926
came from... However, the Peeron inventory may be of help: http://www.peeron.com/inv/sets/8571-1
It also agrees that there are four gear pieces and an axle connector.
However, I am still doubtful; as far as I've seen, the instructions never
show four gears, nor four axles, in use all at once. In the configuration with
the gear and axle on the back, an axle-pin (43093) is used for the left arm.
I've also gone through the combination model shown in the instructions, and
the fourth gear/axle is not necessary to build it either.
As a last note, the official piece count is 43.
I've been wanting to get a sealed copy to confirm what the included parts
are but that's one big investment.
|
|
| Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 25, 2024 12:57 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 8570-1 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 4265c Light Gray Technic Bush 1/2 Smooth (Extra)
* Change {2 to 3} Part Light Gray 4265c Technic Bush 1/2 Smooth
Comments from Submitter:
The official piece count for this set is 44, and this part is included in the inventory from LEGO. However, it is not used in any configuration shown in the instructions.
The same is the case for Kopaka Nuva (8571) but not Onua Nuva (8566) - though the Kopaka set has bigger issues in need of investigation.
|
|
| Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 24, 2024 15:25 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 8568-1 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, WOLKsite writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 4519 Black Technic, Axle 3L (Extra)
* Change {4 to 5} Part Black 4519 Technic, Axle 3L
Comments from Submitter:
Per the packaging, this set contains 44 pieces, and per the inventory from LEGO, the set contains 5 of these axles. Thus, this axle is not a spare piece.
However, I don't know why it is included. It is not used in the main model, nor in the combiner -- Across the three sets (8566, 8568, 8572) there are a total of 10 axles, but the combiner only uses 7.
|
Actually no, my bad. All five axles are used in the configuration where the gear
function is locked, because unlike the other Toa Nuva, the limb that is not attached
to the mechanism still uses an axle.
|
|
| Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 24, 2024 15:20 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 8568-1 | | Viewed: | 21 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Delete 1 Part 4519 Black Technic, Axle 3L (Extra)
* Change {4 to 5} Part Black 4519 Technic, Axle 3L
Comments from Submitter:
Per the packaging, this set contains 44 pieces, and per the inventory from LEGO, the set contains 5 of these axles. Thus, this axle is not a spare piece.
However, I don't know why it is included. It is not used in the main model, nor in the combiner -- Across the three sets (8566, 8568, 8572) there are a total of 10 axles, but the combiner only uses 7.
|
|
| Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 20, 2024 21:47 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 8623-1 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, Nubs_Select writes:
| | see the note
"The following part was included in this set and is shown on the official
parts list but is not necessary to build the model according to the instructions:
1x x71 White Rubber Belt Small (Round Cross Section) - Approx. 2 x 2"
|
Additionally, the peice count shown on the box is 203.
|
|
| Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 14, 2024 15:52 | | Subject: | Re: What’s the deal with 3803? | | Viewed: | 48 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | 2. It has disappeared from Brickset. But then it’s a question for Brickset I
guess 
|
I don't think it has been added to Brickset yet. I don't know how exactly
they import their parts data from LEGO, but apparently they don't always
update inventories of older sets to account for new variants that show up in
the official online parts list.
|
Brickset checks set inventories. Since this isn't in a set inventory, they
wouldn't find it.
|
It is in the 71043 inventory:
https://www.bricklink.com/r3/inventorycomparison/main.page?sourceB=1&invB=71043&sourceA=0&invA=71043-1
|
Ah, then I don't know why it hasn't been updated, given that a lot older
sets have been updated recently (such as with the introduction of part 93571,
annoyingly).
|
|
| Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 14, 2024 15:45 | | Subject: | Re: What’s the deal with 3803? | | Viewed: | 41 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | Hi,
What’s the deal with
The part has been added to the catalogue but is not in any set.
— Brickset doesn’t have it anymore.
“Anymore” because, obviously, the BL image is a render from LEGO, and Rebrickable
has a link to its (now non-existent) page on Brickset.
— Rebrickable has it as an alternate for
— LDraw has a 3D model.
— I think I remember it being shown on some site (NewElementary?) but I can’t
find it.
Cancelled? Postponed?
|
There's also
Maybe it's an alternate for two of the half-plates (18980)?
|
|
| Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 14, 2024 15:41 | | Subject: | Re: What’s the deal with 3803? | | Viewed: | 44 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, Turez writes:
| | […]
Rebrickable is correct.
|
Well, not completely correct if 3803 and 48723 are functionally different
| | Part 48723 is no longer in production and has been replaced
with 68888 and 3803. 48723 has an axle hole on one side and a pin hole on the
other side. Most sets require the axle hole, so 68888 can be used as an alternate
part. But in set 71043 the pin hole is needed, therefore later copies of that
set probably come with 3803. Maybe that is already the case, but we need proof
from a sealed set before we can add the alternate part.
|
Understood but what I found strange is that:
1. It’s already in the catalogue while it’s not in any set yet. But then Stellar
is saying it’s in PaB… but then a second question arises: why is it not in
? Too late? And it’s still too early for ?
|
We just hadn't thought about adding it to the PaB sets because it was quite
obvious that it will show up in 71043 sooner or later. 
| |
2. It has disappeared from Brickset. But then it’s a question for Brickset I
guess
|
I don't think it has been added to Brickset yet. I don't know how exactly
they import their parts data from LEGO, but apparently they don't always
update inventories of older sets to account for new variants that show up in
the official online parts list.
|
Brickset checks set inventories. Since this isn't in a set inventory, they
wouldn't find it.
|
|
| Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 14, 2024 14:36 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - February 12 | | Viewed: | 65 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | Hello again everyone,
Below I have listed the general groups of variants we are tackling and the results
of the deliberation over the last month. I was originally planning to provide
a schedule for when these changes will happen, but based on the progress with
the tiles since February 1, I am hesitant to commit to any timeline except that
we will not change anything on this list prior to February 15.
Frosted bricks
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Smooth slopes
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Connections between studs
This whole class of variants will NOT be merged as part of this project. Complete
research needs to be done for the related 1 x 3 inverted slopes and the differing
angles, plus more work to understand how the 2 x 2 inverted slope relates to
these parts.
Sprue marks
The minifigure chair was the only one in this category and it will be merged
as planned.
Torsos with ribs
This whole class of variants will NOT be merged as part of this project. However,
we will rename these parts to remove the “ribs” depending on if we can get some
better photos. We will also place a moratorium on any new torsos distinguished
by underside ribs.
Inside supports
We will merge 46212 (Brick 1 x 2 x 5) as planned, but as part of this project
we will not be touching 32064c (Brick 1 x 2 with Axle Hole and Side Supports)
or 10247 (Plate Modified 2 x 2 with Pin Hole). More research needs to be done
in regards to the practical use cases of the parts and their actual use in LEGO
sets. As part of this project, however, we will also mark part 772 for deletion
(with a 3 month time frame before a merge), even though it wasn’t on the original
list. This variant likely does not even exist and it’s similar in class to the
46212.
X-shaped axle holes
These will be merged as planned.
Hinges with teeth
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Duplo bricks with bottom tubes
These will be merged as planned.
Blocked and vented studs
These will be merged as planned, and a new Help Page is being written on this
topic.
Determined entries for very common parts
Update: We are well on our way through the decorated versions of 3 out of the
4 parts. Another 250 of these are scheduled to be changed on Tuesday (tomorrow).
|
Firstly, thank you for the update!
Secondly, I still disagree with merging of 46212. I find the argument "it
only exists in transparent colors" as hypocritical towards removing frosted
bricks, which quite the opposite, were only recognized in transparent colors
despite technically existing for opaque colors.
Colors should not be a factor in what is a different part. Molds should not be
sorted by colors, colors should be sorted by colors.
|
|
| Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 12, 2024 15:08 | | Subject: | Re: Trans-brown (old trans-black) | | Viewed: | 66 times | | Topic: | Colors | |
|
| In Colors, mwright5 writes:
| | Seriously? Light trans-black would have been a more appropriate identifier as
there is a noticeable difference, however there is nothing brown about this color
that we are now calling trans-brown.
|
Just like there is nothing brown about old mud "grey"
LEGO's official name for the old color is Transparent Brown. I think Rylie's
comparison highlights how brown the old color really is in comparison:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/126975831@N07/52887756159/#comment72157720267793815
|
|
| Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 11, 2024 18:11 | | Subject: | Re: Dupe Accounts to push Variant Merge Argument? | | Viewed: | 50 times | | Topic: | General | |
|
| In General, 1001bricks writes:
| | You can't believe that stamp users (even nowadays) buy maybe 1 million times
more stamps than collectors?
|
I can -- but on that note, from a general store. Bricklink as a market place
is already a niché, the vast majority of people who just want to buy LEGO to
build with would just go to their local toy store, or find their way to the
Pick a Brick website with the big official LEGO stamp on it. The reason you'd
look for something specialized like Bricklink is more likely because you're
already looking for something specific.
What point are you trying to make? This doesn't seem relevant to the supposed
dup-account thing.
|
|
| Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 11, 2024 17:45 | | Subject: | Re: Dupe Accounts to push Variant Merge Argument? | | Viewed: | 43 times | | Topic: | General | |
|
| In General, 1001bricks writes:
| | Maybe, people who have a "deep knowledge" of understanding variants,
but along with only a couple orders per year, can't have such a deep knowledge.
Because reality is different.
You HAVE to place orders, guess or pick the proper variant, receive (often) the
wrong one, place another one, build an old Set, sell it with more or less success...
Then maybe you can say you have this deep IRL knowledge.
|
Yes, because as we all know, buying and selling LEGO on Bricklink is the true
purpose of LEGO, thus you can only obtain LEGO on Bricklink, and only do so for
the purpose of selling. It's absolutely impossible to buy LEGO from a regular
store to add to your collection which contains things inherited from a past generation.
Reality is bigger than Bricklink, Bricklink transaction history doesn't define
a person's familiarity with LEGO.
|
|
| Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 11, 2024 14:44 | | Subject: | Re: Dupe Accounts to push Variant Merge Argument? | | Viewed: | 90 times | | Topic: | General | |
|
| In General, infinibrix writes:
| | In General, WOLKsite writes:
| | In General, infinibrix writes:
| | How is it possible that so many replies against the variant merge are from people
with barely any feedback yet they still appear to have the highest/most complex
level of understanding when it comes to variants?
|
I wouldn't attribute it to dup accounts, that's kinda silly. More-so,
when Slugger and Duckbricks made their videos, that brought the attention of
a lot of people.
|
No what is silly is where we have people with barely any feedback/transaction
history jumping up and down about the changes when they don't actually even
use the site for its primary intended purpose? Even the very few occasions when
you yourself have actually placed an order here, sellers appear to of had some
issues?
|
That's 2 instances from years ago, before I knew how the site worked. I don't
place orders often because like most people, I don't have a lot of money
to simply throw around.
| | Using Bricklink as a resource alone is fine yet many of those same users also
expect their voices to be heard as though they somehow know what's best for
Bricklink and its wider user base?
That said, you don't think its a bit strange that we have all these new users
that have so much passion and complex understanding of variants but apparently
not quite enough passion to actually buy those variants that they claim to be
so passionate about keeping?
|
No, I don't. Nor have I seen that many with a complex understand of variants,
more-so people who think they know more than they do - typically because they
got an inaccurate summary of things. Most do not seem to even grasp what the
changes actually are.
| | Therefore in that sense you could say that their arguments to keep the variants
becomes somewhat void?
Well that or they choose not to use their REAL account when it comes to voicing
their concerns which is what I would call "Kinda Silly!"
|
Perhaps their opinions are void, I'm not the one to judge that. That doesn't
make them duplicate accounts, that's jumping to conclusions.
|
|
| Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 10, 2024 15:27 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 62 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, SylvainLS writes:
| | In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | […]
LEGO did also not renumber the molds […]
LEGO even renumbered these. […]
|
Either way it’s used, that is not a good argument, or even a good hint, because
LEGO is very inconsistent on this. Some moulds have been renumbered while we
can’t see any difference (for instance 3066 = 35256, difference?). There’s many
moulds that have not been renumbered while there’s obvious differences (that’s
the case for most of the bricks, and, oh, it seems 4079 too  ).
|
You are right about that, yeah.
|
|
| Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 10, 2024 08:12 | | Subject: | Re: Variants Thread - January 31 | | Viewed: | 83 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Admin_Russell writes:
| | We have a meeting on Monday (Feb 5) with our catalog admins to go through the
rest of the list and make final decisions. After that meeting, a schedule will
be made for the merges. Due to the large number of minifigure heads in the catalog,
the merge process is likely to not be complete until the end of May.
|
How did the meeting go? Any updates?
Anyway, it's been a month or so since the original announcement, and there's
been a lot of discussion (both good and bad) since then. I've seen a lot
of dismissive or belittling attitude, and a lot of misinformation or fearmongering
circulating around. I am concerned about losing existing documentation, and concerned
that volunteer work would simply be thrown out just like that, but I do not believe
the catalogue is being greatly "dumbed down", or will continue to be
so as some make the case out to be. I stand by that an umbrella system would
be helpful, and would negate the issues with some of these.
Anyway, I wanted to give my thoughts on the changes, in order of how they are
listed on the Help Center:
Frosted parts:
I think it's pretty clear that this was never an intentional feature, either
caused by decay of the mold, or by changes to mold that are not as visible in
the opaque parts. These traits are not well-documented which causes the catalogue's
set appearances to be misleading, and it's not a consistent treatment, as
the opaque parts are not distinguished the same way (we don't distinguish
"thin" and "thick" walls, for instance, which is the cause of
some of these).
Tl;dr: I'm fine with this change.
Smooth slopes:
Similar to above, this is poorly documented resulting in misleading data. Smooth
slopes are likely a lot more common in the 05-07 ish era of sets. However, much
as Russell has pointed out, even the "smooth" slopes are not smooth.
The difference is just in the amount of texture, and there's not simply two
versions of the texture. This could perhaps also be caused by mold decay. LEGO
did also not renumber the molds based this difference as far as I know. I believe
sets may also even include a mixture of "smooth" and "rough"
slopes.
Tl;dr: I'm fine with this change.
Connection between studs:
This one is easy to see if you know to look for it, and obviously an intentional
change. I would have kept this one.
Chair with sprue mark:
Ditto. I see no reason not keep this one.
Torsos with ribs:
I'll preface this with that I am not a minifigure person. This mold change
would drive me nuts if I was. I'll abstain from making a comment on this
one aside from that I believe Reissue prints should be recognized regardless
of the mold.
Inside supports:
All three of these I feel are different cases:
32064c has a functional difference, as has been discussed, so I would not merge
it.
46212 has a functional difference that is used in sets, and thus, I would not
merge it. That it only comes in transparent colors should not be a factor of
concern.
10247 I believe is fine to merged.
X-shaped axle holes:
I always found this change silly, but I feel like we have pretty good documentation
on it, and thus, should not merge it. The difference is pretty easy to spot.
Hinges:
I would not merge these. LEGO even renumbered these.
DUPLO brick with bottom tube:
Probably fine?
Blocked or vented stud:
Again, minifigures seem like a nightmare, so I'll abstain to comment on those.
"Blocked" and "Vented" feel like almost the same thing though.
However, looking at the domes, I feel those are well-catalogued, thus I would
not merge those.
Distinguishing these two stud-types feels difficult, however. That is where I
believe an umbrella system comes in handy, not for distinguishing the extremely
obvious differences. Same for the axle holes and connection between studs.
Removed determiner:
Inconsequential.
|
|
| Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 10, 2024 07:39 | | Subject: | Re: Dupe Accounts to push Variant Merge Argument? | | Viewed: | 95 times | | Topic: | General | |
|
| In General, infinibrix writes:
| | How is it possible that so many replies against the variant merge are from people
with barely any feedback yet they still appear to have the highest/most complex
level of understanding when it comes to variants?
|
I wouldn't attribute it to dup accounts, that's kinda silly. More-so,
when Slugger and Duckbricks made their videos, that brought the attention of
a lot of people.
|
|
| Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 9, 2024 14:26 | | Subject: | Re: 'Tan' Hau - any ideas? | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:
| | This mask genuinely keeps me up at night. It shouldn't exist, and yet...
This mask came to me from a guy here in NZ, who owned it since he was a kid.
His parents owned a toy shop in the 2000s, which might be relevant. He claims
he never painted, dyed, or otherwise modified this piece, and sold it to me as
a sundamaged white Hau. I have no clue what it is.
Theory 1: Prototype/Test Tan Hau
Counterpoint: the mask is white underneath, note the small scratches around the
mouth stud showing white plastic.
Theory 2: Sun Damage
Counterpoint: the colouration is perfect. No inconsistency whatsoever, all facets
are equally tan. Coverage is also perfect, even inside the mouth stud, all facets
of the grills, the inside of the mouth hole etc.
Theory 3: Modified white Hau
Counterpoint: sole previous owner is just as confused as I am, and genuinely
believed it was just sun damaged. He had no idea how said damage would have occurred,
he just assumed it was once white and copped some sun.
Help?
|
Although there is an element number for a tan Hau (4144201)  , I believe what
you are seeing is a chemical change in the plastic where certain additives migrate
their way to the surface over time. This leads to a yellowing or browning of
the surface of a part and can often make a white part look tan over time. This
is why it is completely uniform and only occurs at the surface. It has nothing
to do with a part being in the sun, because brand new sets from decades ago have
been opened that show the same change.
Cheers,
Randy
|
Yeah I agree, it's just yellowed white.
|
|
| Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 9, 2024 12:54 | | Subject: | Re: What is #44814 Glitter Trans-Clear coated in? | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, Stellar writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:
| | Is it worth adding the Light Grey Hau to the catalogue too? Given that it's
also a mask + coating, similar to the Avohkii?
|
Since it is technically a "wiped" piece, unfortunately no. We know it
exists though because of its element number (4161805).
Cheers,
Randy
|
Can't the image be accepted and stay just here:
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogColors.asp?itemType=P&itemNo=32505&v=2
There are many unprinted parts in the catalog that are not linked to any set,
aka don't appear in known colors, but the photos stay as they exists.
|
This part has never shown up as plain light gray and is only known to exist as
the base for the chrome version of the mask. That doesn't mean that a true
unaltered light gray version does not exist out there, but having received no
image of one to BrickLink over 24 years is telling. Also, we know that this one
was "wiped", so I would never accept the image.
Cheers,
Randy
|
You never know when one could show Some non-production BIONICLE parts such
as the Violet Huna and Sand Green Rau surfaced only a year ago.
|
|
| Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 9, 2024 09:57 | | Subject: | Re: What is #44814 Glitter Trans-Clear coated in? | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:
| | Is it worth adding the Light Grey Hau to the catalogue too? Given that it's
also a mask + coating, similar to the Avohkii?
|
Since it is technically a "wiped" piece, unfortunately no. We know it
exists though because of its element number (4161805).
Cheers,
Randy
|
Oh, the 'Years Released' on the 4-Hole entry is still showing the old
range. It should be 2003-2008. Thanks again chief
|
I think that is automatic? Perhaps it doesn't account for alternates, which
makes sense since they usually wouldn't be occuring within the same year
as the original release... Although the color guide's years don't work
that way.
|
|
| Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 9, 2024 03:32 | | Subject: | Re: What is #44814 Glitter Trans-Clear coated in? | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:
| | Had this first image cross my path today, a supposedly non-glittery Avohkii.
It reminded me of a damaged one I had in my sad bin, which had a chunk of its
crest missing its trademark shininess. I had to mess with a bunch of other stripping
chemicals anyway (bonus pic of my shiny new dechromed Light Grey Hau) so I figured
I'd chuck this in some chems and see what happened.
Evapo-Rust was unreactive, unsurprisingly. I only used that because I knew it
could strip galvanisation off screws and I had the ex-chrome Hau to test (also
no reaction). Simple Green concentrate was similarly unreactive, but stripped
the Hau perfectly when used with the ultrasonic cleaner. I did manage to get
a positive reaction with IPA, and was able to get the glitter layer to go tacky.
I scraped off the majority of the central crest with my thumbnail as a proof
of concept sorta thing. I can confirm that it's just a layer over top. There's
a milky white transparent mask underneath. I feel cheated.
I've currently got it sitting overnight in a bath of acetone-based nail polish
remover (hardware store was closed, supermarket was not lmao) and will strip
the glitter 'varnish' off entirely. I'd love to know exactly what
this glitter layer is made of, if anyone has any insight? It might make removing
it a little easier.
The next question here is: what colour actually is this? I was under the impression
117 Glitter Trans-Clear was plastic with embedded glitter, not just a coating.
Would this just be 40 Trans-Clear + shiny varnish?
Cheers
James @ PSPS
|
I would like to get this mask separated out in the catalog from the plain-color
versions since it is actually patterned and officially a trans-clear part. How
would you describe the pattern? Looks like shiny gold speckles or something?
Thanks,
Randy
|
Iridescent gold glitter, maybe?
|
Actually, it's not as color-shifting as I remember it, but it's really
shiny when the light hits it right, where as from other angles it's barely
visible. The glitter is much, much smaller than the typical glitter.
|
Meet the catalog's newest resident:
|
How are we looking at getting the 2 different 4-Hole Kraahkan recognised?
|
Point me directly to the information, and I will look into it.
|
Sure, I'll dump it here. Image here shows the 8 production Kraahkan, with
their BrickLink labels. Top to bottom (and left to right):
- 6-Hole (Pearl Black)
- 5-Hole (Pearl Black)
- 4-Hole (Pearl Gold, Flat Dark Gold, Pearl Black, Black)
- Movie Edition (Black)
- Dume Mask of Power (Black)
See how the Black Kraahkan sticks out like a sore thumb? It's much darker
than the Pearl Black version in the centre of the cross. It's the same situation
as the Rahaga/Rahkshi heads existing in 2 different blacks/whites. The catalogue
does currently distinguish between Pearl Black and Black, which is good! That
was the hard bit lol.
I was confused at the high number of 38593 Makuta (Teridax) I had seen with 4-Holes,
in person or online. Many of these appeared to be owned from NIB, or at least
not built from spare parts/BrickLink orders. I spoke with a number of collectors,
and was able to confirm that some copies of Teridax (solo and combiner versions).
In 2003, the 6-Hole mould (#44815a) was introduced with #8593 Makuta (Teridax).
The 6-Hole was produced exclusively in Pearl Black. Partway through production,
mould cavity(?) 4-01 broke/damaged/whatever, and produced the 5-Hole mismould.
This also exists only in Pearl Black. These 2 masks give us a baseline/control
group to work with.
4-01's damage was noticed during Teridax's production, and to correct
the issue all Kraahkan moulds were modified to no longer clear the top 2 holes,
giving us the 4-Hole a full 2 years earlier than is currently recognised. A large
number of these 'Teridax' 4-Holes were produced, which explains why so
many Teridax pop up with 4-Holes. This 4-Hole was produced in Pearl Black.
In 2005, the 4-Hole mould was used again for the gold Kraahkan in #8758 Tower
of Toa. This is currently believed to be the first usage of the mould.
in 2008, the mould was resurrected for #8593 Makuta Icarax. This mask was produced
in Black, which is recognised by the catalogue currently. Icarax's version
lacks the subtle metallic sheen of the original releases, and appears as a darker,
more saturated black on comparison.
How's that? Need more pics?
|
There is a change request: https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1450887
It would be nice to have the 5-hole Kraahkan as well in the catalogue, do we
have any pictures of it on its own?
The inventory of 8593 used to contain the 4-hole version as an alternate, but
during the move to Pearl Black, it wasn't changed. I tried to have it updated
to Pearl Black but instead it was removed:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1353620
|
|
| Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 9, 2024 03:25 | | Subject: | Re: What is #44814 Glitter Trans-Clear coated in? | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:
| | Had this first image cross my path today, a supposedly non-glittery Avohkii.
It reminded me of a damaged one I had in my sad bin, which had a chunk of its
crest missing its trademark shininess. I had to mess with a bunch of other stripping
chemicals anyway (bonus pic of my shiny new dechromed Light Grey Hau) so I figured
I'd chuck this in some chems and see what happened.
Evapo-Rust was unreactive, unsurprisingly. I only used that because I knew it
could strip galvanisation off screws and I had the ex-chrome Hau to test (also
no reaction). Simple Green concentrate was similarly unreactive, but stripped
the Hau perfectly when used with the ultrasonic cleaner. I did manage to get
a positive reaction with IPA, and was able to get the glitter layer to go tacky.
I scraped off the majority of the central crest with my thumbnail as a proof
of concept sorta thing. I can confirm that it's just a layer over top. There's
a milky white transparent mask underneath. I feel cheated.
I've currently got it sitting overnight in a bath of acetone-based nail polish
remover (hardware store was closed, supermarket was not lmao) and will strip
the glitter 'varnish' off entirely. I'd love to know exactly what
this glitter layer is made of, if anyone has any insight? It might make removing
it a little easier.
The next question here is: what colour actually is this? I was under the impression
117 Glitter Trans-Clear was plastic with embedded glitter, not just a coating.
Would this just be 40 Trans-Clear + shiny varnish?
Cheers
James @ PSPS
|
I would like to get this mask separated out in the catalog from the plain-color
versions since it is actually patterned and officially a trans-clear part. How
would you describe the pattern? Looks like shiny gold speckles or something?
Thanks,
Randy
|
Iridescent gold glitter, maybe?
|
Actually, it's not as color-shifting as I remember it, but it's really
shiny when the light hits it right, where as from other angles it's barely
visible. The glitter is much, much smaller than the typical glitter.
|
Meet the catalog's newest resident:
|
|
Yay!
| | Is it worth adding the Light Grey Hau to the catalogue too? Given that it's
also a mask + coating, similar to the Avohkii?
|
The Chrome Hau is handled consistent with other Chrome parts in the catalogue.
|
|
| Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2024 12:54 | | Subject: | Re: What is #44814 Glitter Trans-Clear coated in? | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:
| | Had this first image cross my path today, a supposedly non-glittery Avohkii.
It reminded me of a damaged one I had in my sad bin, which had a chunk of its
crest missing its trademark shininess. I had to mess with a bunch of other stripping
chemicals anyway (bonus pic of my shiny new dechromed Light Grey Hau) so I figured
I'd chuck this in some chems and see what happened.
Evapo-Rust was unreactive, unsurprisingly. I only used that because I knew it
could strip galvanisation off screws and I had the ex-chrome Hau to test (also
no reaction). Simple Green concentrate was similarly unreactive, but stripped
the Hau perfectly when used with the ultrasonic cleaner. I did manage to get
a positive reaction with IPA, and was able to get the glitter layer to go tacky.
I scraped off the majority of the central crest with my thumbnail as a proof
of concept sorta thing. I can confirm that it's just a layer over top. There's
a milky white transparent mask underneath. I feel cheated.
I've currently got it sitting overnight in a bath of acetone-based nail polish
remover (hardware store was closed, supermarket was not lmao) and will strip
the glitter 'varnish' off entirely. I'd love to know exactly what
this glitter layer is made of, if anyone has any insight? It might make removing
it a little easier.
The next question here is: what colour actually is this? I was under the impression
117 Glitter Trans-Clear was plastic with embedded glitter, not just a coating.
Would this just be 40 Trans-Clear + shiny varnish?
Cheers
James @ PSPS
|
I would like to get this mask separated out in the catalog from the plain-color
versions since it is actually patterned and officially a trans-clear part. How
would you describe the pattern? Looks like shiny gold speckles or something?
Thanks,
Randy
|
Iridescent gold glitter, maybe?
|
Actually, it's not as color-shifting as I remember it, but it's really
shiny when the light hits it right, where as from other angles it's barely
visible. The glitter is much, much smaller than the typical glitter.
|
|
|
| Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2024 12:44 | | Subject: | Re: What is #44814 Glitter Trans-Clear coated in? | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, randyf writes:
| | In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:
| | Had this first image cross my path today, a supposedly non-glittery Avohkii.
It reminded me of a damaged one I had in my sad bin, which had a chunk of its
crest missing its trademark shininess. I had to mess with a bunch of other stripping
chemicals anyway (bonus pic of my shiny new dechromed Light Grey Hau) so I figured
I'd chuck this in some chems and see what happened.
Evapo-Rust was unreactive, unsurprisingly. I only used that because I knew it
could strip galvanisation off screws and I had the ex-chrome Hau to test (also
no reaction). Simple Green concentrate was similarly unreactive, but stripped
the Hau perfectly when used with the ultrasonic cleaner. I did manage to get
a positive reaction with IPA, and was able to get the glitter layer to go tacky.
I scraped off the majority of the central crest with my thumbnail as a proof
of concept sorta thing. I can confirm that it's just a layer over top. There's
a milky white transparent mask underneath. I feel cheated.
I've currently got it sitting overnight in a bath of acetone-based nail polish
remover (hardware store was closed, supermarket was not lmao) and will strip
the glitter 'varnish' off entirely. I'd love to know exactly what
this glitter layer is made of, if anyone has any insight? It might make removing
it a little easier.
The next question here is: what colour actually is this? I was under the impression
117 Glitter Trans-Clear was plastic with embedded glitter, not just a coating.
Would this just be 40 Trans-Clear + shiny varnish?
Cheers
James @ PSPS
|
I would like to get this mask separated out in the catalog from the plain-color
versions since it is actually patterned and officially a trans-clear part. How
would you describe the pattern? Looks like shiny gold speckles or something?
Thanks,
Randy
|
Iridescent gold glitter, maybe?
|
|
| Author: | WOLKsite | | Posted: | Feb 8, 2024 03:09 | | Subject: | Re: What is #44814 Glitter Trans-Clear coated in? | | Viewed: | 33 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:
| | In Catalog, WOLKsite writes:
| | In Catalog, NoGravitasHere writes:
| | Had this first image cross my path today, a supposedly non-glittery Avohkii.
It reminded me of a damaged one I had in my sad bin, which had a chunk of its
crest missing its trademark shininess. I had to mess with a bunch of other stripping
chemicals anyway (bonus pic of my shiny new dechromed Light Grey Hau) so I figured
I'd chuck this in some chems and see what happened.
Evapo-Rust was unreactive, unsurprisingly. I only used that because I knew it
could strip galvanisation off screws and I had the ex-chrome Hau to test (also
no reaction). Simple Green concentrate was similarly unreactive, but stripped
the Hau perfectly when used with the ultrasonic cleaner. I did manage to get
a positive reaction with IPA, and was able to get the glitter layer to go tacky.
I scraped off the majority of the central crest with my thumbnail as a proof
of concept sorta thing. I can confirm that it's just a layer over top. There's
a milky white transparent mask underneath. I feel cheated.
I've currently got it sitting overnight in a bath of acetone-based nail polish
remover (hardware store was closed, supermarket was not lmao) and will strip
the glitter 'varnish' off entirely. I'd love to know exactly what
this glitter layer is made of, if anyone has any insight? It might make removing
it a little easier.
The next question here is: what colour actually is this? I was under the impression
117 Glitter Trans-Clear was plastic with embedded glitter, not just a coating.
Would this just be 40 Trans-Clear + shiny varnish?
Cheers
James @ PSPS
|
Yes, 117 and other Glitter colors have the glitter imbeded in the plastic.
In LEGO's database, the Avohkii is 40 Transparent, with the glitter being
a decoration/printing. The "glitter ink" does not have an ID since LEGO's
colors did not cover decoration colors at the time. The color-shifting effect
is really nice though
This part is one reason as to why I feel the assignment of 40 Transparent and
20 Nature is arbitrary.
|
Sweet, good to know it's a confirmed weirdo. Any idea what Lego used as the
medium for that glitter layer? It's pretty resilient to damage/scratching,
I couldn't budge it without chemical assistance.
|
No clue.
|
|
Next Page: 5 More | 10 More | 25 More | 50 More | 100 More
|
Sweden, Örebro
