|
 |
| | | Author: | johnnydiscopony  | | Posted: | Jun 25, 2018 10:58 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 1484-1 | | Viewed: | 38 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 1 Part Yellow {4345apx1 Container, Box 2 x 2 x 2 - Solid Studs with Mail Pattern to 4345a Container, Box 2 x 2 x 2 - Solid Studs}
Comments from Submitter:
A new but opened set was recently sold on eBay and the photographs show that this part was plain yellow and doesn't have the mail pattern. This can be seen in the last photo on this link:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/-/302690196984?nordt=true&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l10137
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jun 25, 2018 12:25 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1484-1 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| I know that this set came
So this should be added as alternative.
In Inventories Requests, johnnydiscopony writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Change 1 Part Yellow {4345apx1 Container, Box 2 x 2 x 2 - Solid Studs with Mail Pattern to 4345a Container, Box 2 x 2 x 2 - Solid Studs}
Comments from Submitter:
A new but opened set was recently sold on eBay and the photographs show that this part was plain yellow and doesn't have the mail pattern. This can be seen in the last photo on this link:
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/-/302690196984?nordt=true&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l10137
|
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jun 26, 2018 16:48 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1484-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, johnnydiscopony writes:
| | A new but opened set was recently sold on eBay and the photographs show that this part was plain yellow and doesn't have the mail pattern.
|
Agreed and your request was approved. Photo attached for future reference.
In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | I know that this set came
So this should be added as alternative.
|
I'm a little confused. This is the part variant (4345a) which the submitter
is adding to the set. Can you clarify what you're requesting?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jun 26, 2018 22:31 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1484-1 | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| Why the part
is removed? (despite my comment)
In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, johnnydiscopony writes:
| | A new but opened set was recently sold on eBay and the photographs show that this part was plain yellow and doesn't have the mail pattern.
|
Agreed and your request was approved. Photo attached for future reference.
In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | I know that this set came
So this should be added as alternative.
|
I'm a little confused. This is the part variant (4345a) which the submitter
is adding to the set. Can you clarify what you're requesting?
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jun 26, 2018 22:38 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1484-1 | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Why the part is removed? (despite my comment)
|
Because, as I said, I wasn't sure what you were requesting. Now I think
I understand: you wanted the decorated container to remain in the inventory as
a regular part and the undecorated container to be added as an alternate part,
yes?
I can always change the inventory to show this if evidence can be provided or
you may request the change and present evidence then.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jun 26, 2018 23:02 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1484-1 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| I can always present an evidence. But I don't find this right at all.
The instructions, box and any (really any) image you google show the decorated
container.
I am rather considering this question: is this copy coming with
a production error? (that happened only in one production run)
Should the inventory gets destroyed because one such copy shows up? I
This is a similar case to the thin and thick rings of 7817.
Sorry, I didn't continue the other topic concerning probability and checking
used sets. But let us consider this question:
Why ALL google images of 1484 shows decorated container? Were all their original
4345a replaced by 4345apx1 by coincidence?
My comments and efforts can save the inventory of this particular set, but if
this path is followed, many inventories will be damaged.
In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Why the part is removed? (despite my comment)
|
Because, as I said, I wasn't sure what you were requesting. Now I think
I understand: you wanted the decorated container to remain in the inventory as
a regular part and the undecorated container to be added as an alternate part,
yes?
I can always change the inventory to show this if evidence can be provided or
you may request the change and present evidence then.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jun 26, 2018 23:23 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1484-1 | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | But I don't find this right at all.
The instructions, box and any (really any) image you google show the decorated
container.
|
None of the images you mention show the back (the supposedly decorated
portion) of the mailbox container. The images instead all show the front
of the mailbox with this door added:
I have added an image of the container as it is shown in pretty much all pictures.
The door is clearly visible. The back of the container, since it is facing
away in all the images I've seen, is not visible.
The instructions, by the way, do not show whether the container is decorated
or not. I've added an image of those as well. We do have proof from a sealed
set, however, that the container was undecorated. That's why the change
was made.
| | My comments and efforts can save the inventory of this particular set, but if
this path is followed, many inventories will be damaged.
|
I confess it's rather a relief to know that at least someone is committed
to saving BrickLink's inventories from the damage I inflict upon them. 
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jun 26, 2018 23:30 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1484-1 | | Viewed: | 15 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| Yes, I cancelled my previous message. That was my mistake, my apologies.
I bought this set 6 months ago and forgot these details. Now I remember that
I replaced the not-decorated container with a decorated one from my personal
collection (along with other parts or missing parts).
And I think the inventory is correct as it is now. I also found another photo
(see attached of one that is available on Ebay) confirming this.
But my concern remains: if one variant of a part is proved to come with a vintage
set, why the other variant should be deleted without having any evidence/proof/...
that it did not come with the set?
In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | But I don't find this right at all.
The instructions, box and any (really any) image you google show the decorated
container.
|
None of the images you mention show the back (the supposedly decorated
portion) of the mailbox container. The images instead all show the front
of the mailbox with this door added:
I have added an image of the container as it is shown in pretty much all pictures.
The door is clearly visible. The back of the container, since it is facing
away in all the images I've seen, is not visible.
The instructions, by the way, do not show whether the container is decorated
or not. I've added an image of those as well. We do have proof from a sealed
set, however, that the container was undecorated. That's why the change
was made.
| | My comments and efforts can save the inventory of this particular set, but if
this path is followed, many inventories will be damaged.
|
I confess it's rather a relief to know that at least someone is committed
to saving BrickLink's inventories from the damage I inflict upon them.
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jun 26, 2018 23:42 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1484-1 | | Viewed: | 16 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | But my concern remains: if one variant of a part is proved to come with a vintage
set, why the other variant should be deleted without having any evidence/proof/...
that it did not come with the set?
|
That is not BrickLink's policy. I have done it once or twice, yes. But,
in the thick ring/thin ring case which you mentioned in your cancelled post,
I reconsidered my decision and reversed that change. I definitely don't
make a habit of deleting current variants whenever new ones are added.
Yet, if older BrickLink inventories were primarily constructed from set instructions
as you believe (and you may be right), then any existing part variants should
be automatically suspect anyway, shouldn't they? There was no proof from
an actual set for adding them in the first place, so why would you so staunchly
defend them?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jun 27, 2018 00:17 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 1484-1 | | Viewed: | 17 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| | | Yet, if older BrickLink inventories were primarily constructed from set instructions
as you believe (and you may be right), then any existing part variants should
be automatically suspect anyway, shouldn't they?
|
They should, but one should be very thoughtful in removing or keeping them.
| | There was no proof from an actual set for adding them in the first place, so why would you so staunchly defend them?
|
I think this depends on the case. For this example (set 1484-1), one can check
all images on the box and some images on Ebay,... which would approve that.
On the case of thin/thick rings 7817, there were many evidences to keep them
and none to remove them:
1- instructions and boxes
2- thick rings started to appear since 1986 then are we sure to remove thin ring
from a set of 1985? (which means the thick rings started to appear since 1985)
3 - Is this a mere coincidence that about 10% of items 7817 on various websites
come with thin rings? The light gray thin ring are rare, and they are more rare
than the light gray thick ring. Why does copies of 7817 coming with thin rings
have 4 thin rings in light gray color? Is they are intermingled with thick ones,
why aren't they a mix of two versions in any example? why their color are
correct if they were replaced?....
Why other parts in those copies available on various auction sites are all correct?
(colors, wheels,...)
I believe the third evidence is very strong once you believe I am honest with
my observation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
United Kingdom, England
Canada, British Columbia
USA, Oklahoma
)
)
