* Delete 2 Part 4150pb148 White Tile, Round 2 x 2 with Eye Pattern (Alternate) (match ID 1)
* Change 2 Part White 14769pb004 Tile, Round 2 x 2 with Bottom Stud Holder with Eye Pattern {match ID 1 to 0}
Comments from Submitter:
This set CANNOT be built with part 4150pb148, so it is highly unlikely that this part was ever included. The center, bottom stud holder on 14769pb004 is essential to the build. A prior inventory change request moved part 4150pb148 to the alternate, but it just needs to be removed.
* Delete 2 Part 4150pb148 White Tile, Round 2 x 2 with Eye Pattern (Alternate) (match ID 1)
* Change 2 Part White 14769pb004 Tile, Round 2 x 2 with Bottom Stud Holder with Eye Pattern {match ID 1 to 0}
Comments from Submitter:
This set CANNOT be built with part 4150pb148, so it is highly unlikely that this part was ever included. The center, bottom stud holder on 14769pb004 is essential to the build. A prior inventory change request moved part 4150pb148 to the alternate, but it just needs to be removed.
* Delete 2 Part 4150pb148 White Tile, Round 2 x 2 with Eye Pattern (Alternate) (match ID 1)
* Change 2 Part White 14769pb004 Tile, Round 2 x 2 with Bottom Stud Holder with Eye Pattern {match ID 1 to 0}
Comments from Submitter:
This set CANNOT be built with part 4150pb148, so it is highly unlikely that this part was ever included. The center, bottom stud holder on 14769pb004 is essential to the build. A prior inventory change request moved part 4150pb148 to the alternate, but it just needs to be removed.
I have been in touch with the original submitter of the inventory and he had
one of each
in his set. I tried with both parts
and the build can be made successfully. I did not encounter any problem with
either part.
If you take another look at the Inventory Change Request that exists you will
see that the submitter was merely changing the regular part and the alternate
part quantity from 1 to 2 in order to correct the inventory.
In view of the above reply I will not be removing part 4140pb148 from the set
and your inventory change request has been denied.
* Delete 2 Part 4150pb148 White Tile, Round 2 x 2 with Eye Pattern (Alternate) (match ID 1)
* Change 2 Part White 14769pb004 Tile, Round 2 x 2 with Bottom Stud Holder with Eye Pattern {match ID 1 to 0}
Comments from Submitter:
This set CANNOT be built with part 4150pb148, so it is highly unlikely that this part was ever included. The center, bottom stud holder on 14769pb004 is essential to the build. A prior inventory change request moved part 4150pb148 to the alternate, but it just needs to be removed.
I have been in touch with the original submitter of the inventory and he had
one of each
because I have the set sitting right in front of me and it does not work. I can
take pictures if you would like.
If you take another look at the Inventory Change Request that exists you will
see that the submitter was merely changing the regular part and the alternate
part quantity from 1 to 2 in order to correct the inventory.
If you take another look at the Inventory Change Request that exists, you will
see that the submitter *not only* changed the quantities from one to two but
*also* moved
* Delete 2 Part 4150pb148 White Tile, Round 2 x 2 with Eye Pattern (Alternate) (match ID 1)
* Change 2 Part White 14769pb004 Tile, Round 2 x 2 with Bottom Stud Holder with Eye Pattern {match ID 1 to 0}
Comments from Submitter:
This set CANNOT be built with part 4150pb148, so it is highly unlikely that this part was ever included. The center, bottom stud holder on 14769pb004 is essential to the build. A prior inventory change request moved part 4150pb148 to the alternate, but it just needs to be removed.
I agree that it cannot be built with the X-bottom. Nevertheless, it is a fact
that my copy of the set really did include one of each. I thought it was odd
too, but as it was the only copy I had the inventory was accurate.
I have been in touch with the original submitter of the inventory and he had
one of each
because I have the set sitting right in front of me and it does not work. I can
take pictures if you would like.
It's Lego's mistake, not mine. As far as I knew at the time, all copies
of the set were unbuildable.
If you take another look at the Inventory Change Request that exists you will
see that the submitter was merely changing the regular part and the alternate
part quantity from 1 to 2 in order to correct the inventory.
If you take another look at the Inventory Change Request that exists, you will
see that the submitter *not only* changed the quantities from one to two but
*also* moved
I agree that it cannot be built with the X-bottom. Nevertheless, it is a fact
that my copy of the set really did include one of each. I thought it was odd
too, but as it was the only copy I had the inventory was accurate.
It's Lego's mistake, not mine. As far as I knew at the time, all copies
of the set were unbuildable.
I really never questioned whether your set had one of each or not. I totally
believe you. I am just saying that the model *cannot* be built with one of the
current listed parts in the inventory. LEGO made a mistake packing your set,
and it was unfortunate. However, the official inventory here should show the
correct part and not the incorrect one. We do not want buyers in the future thinking
they can use either part for the build when one of them will obviously not work
and was not intended by LEGO to ever be in the set. I hope that makes a little
more sense in my submitting this as a change request.
I agree that it cannot be built with the X-bottom. Nevertheless, it is a fact
that my copy of the set really did include one of each. I thought it was odd
too, but as it was the only copy I had the inventory was accurate.
It's Lego's mistake, not mine. As far as I knew at the time, all copies
of the set were unbuildable.
I really never questioned whether your set had one of each or not. I totally
believe you. I am just saying that the model *cannot* be built with one of the
current listed parts in the inventory. LEGO made a mistake packing your set,
and it was unfortunate. However, the official inventory here should show the
correct part and not the incorrect one. We do not want buyers in the future thinking
they can use either part for the build when one of them will obviously not work
and was not intended by LEGO to ever be in the set. I hope that makes a little
more sense in my submitting this as a change request.
Cheers,
Randy
Yeah, I see that now, thanks
Which brings up the question (at least for me): Should the BL inventory show
what a set actually includes, or what it should include in order to
build the set properly? (In the hypothetical that all copies were like mine --
I'm assuming this isn't the case).
I agree that it cannot be built with the X-bottom. Nevertheless, it is a fact
that my copy of the set really did include one of each. I thought it was odd
too, but as it was the only copy I had the inventory was accurate.
It's Lego's mistake, not mine. As far as I knew at the time, all copies
of the set were unbuildable.
I really never questioned whether your set had one of each or not. I totally
believe you. I am just saying that the model *cannot* be built with one of the
current listed parts in the inventory. LEGO made a mistake packing your set,
and it was unfortunate. However, the official inventory here should show the
correct part and not the incorrect one. We do not want buyers in the future thinking
they can use either part for the build when one of them will obviously not work
and was not intended by LEGO to ever be in the set. I hope that makes a little
more sense in my submitting this as a change request.
Cheers,
Randy
The question of TLG intention is an important one, and it is one of the factors
often overlooked when BL inventories are being compiled, approved, and adjusted.
This is why good inventory work should involve checking multiple sources, such
as box inventory, instructions inventory, actual pieces on hand, and of course
the build itself. Where sources do not agree, a practical solution must be found.
In this case, it is impractical to include a variant that will not work.
Also I agree that the way inventories are perceived by the average user should
be factored into the process. There are some "wild" extras I have found in sealed
sets over the years that I would not include even as extras because they would
only cause confusion. They were never part of the original set inventory as conceived
by TLG, and were included either just to use up random parts or in error.
The most space I would give to this "variant" is an inventory note to the effect
of: some sets have been found with x variant, but this variant cannot be used
to build the set.
The most space I would give to this "variant" is an inventory note to the effect
of: some sets have been found with x variant, but this variant cannot be used
to build the set.
I like this solution that you propose, Russell. Maybe the Inventory Admins can
comment on this suggestion?
I agree that it cannot be built with the X-bottom. Nevertheless, it is a fact
that my copy of the set really did include one of each. I thought it was odd
too, but as it was the only copy I had the inventory was accurate.
It's Lego's mistake, not mine. As far as I knew at the time, all copies
of the set were unbuildable.
I really never questioned whether your set had one of each or not. I totally
believe you. I am just saying that the model *cannot* be built with one of the
current listed parts in the inventory. LEGO made a mistake packing your set,
and it was unfortunate. However, the official inventory here should show the
correct part and not the incorrect one. We do not want buyers in the future thinking
they can use either part for the build when one of them will obviously not work
and was not intended by LEGO to ever be in the set. I hope that makes a little
more sense in my submitting this as a change request.
Cheers,
Randy
The question of TLG intention is an important one, and it is one of the factors
often overlooked when BL inventories are being compiled, approved, and adjusted.
This is why good inventory work should involve checking multiple sources, such
as box inventory, instructions inventory, actual pieces on hand, and of course
the build itself. Where sources do not agree, a practical solution must be found.
In this case, it is impractical to include a variant that will not work.
Also I agree that the way inventories are perceived by the average user should
be factored into the process. There are some "wild" extras I have found in sealed
sets over the years that I would not include even as extras because they would
only cause confusion. They were never part of the original set inventory as conceived
by TLG, and were included either just to use up random parts or in error.
The most space I would give to this "variant" is an inventory note to the effect
of: some sets have been found with x variant, but this variant cannot be used
to build the set.
Russell
I agree, for the most part. But I would definitely want any unusual extra parts
left in, for the sake of accuracy and parting-out.
USA, Ohio
