|
 |
| | | Author: | SezaR  | | Posted: | Jul 6, 2018 17:33 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 29 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 3002 Yellow Brick 2 x 3 (match ID 4)
* Add 2 Part 3003 Red Brick 2 x 2 (Alternate) (match ID 5)
* Add 2 Part 3003 Yellow Brick 2 x 2 (Alternate) (match ID 6)
* Change 1 Part Yellow 3002old Brick 2 x 3 without Cross Supports {match ID 0 to 4}
* Change 2 Part Red 3003old Brick 2 x 2 without Inside Supports {match ID 0 to 5}
* Change 2 Part Yellow 3003old Brick 2 x 2 without Inside Supports {match ID 0 to 6}
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jul 7, 2018 04:12 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 3002 Yellow Brick 2 x 3 (match ID 4)
* Add 2 Part 3003 Red Brick 2 x 2 (Alternate) (match ID 5)
* Add 2 Part 3003 Yellow Brick 2 x 2 (Alternate) (match ID 6)
* Change 1 Part Yellow 3002old Brick 2 x 3 without Cross Supports {match ID 0 to 4}
* Change 2 Part Red 3003old Brick 2 x 2 without Inside Supports {match ID 0 to 5}
* Change 2 Part Yellow 3003old Brick 2 x 2 without Inside Supports {match ID 0 to 6}
|
Bedazzle us with overwhelming evidence, bewilder us with extravagant documentation,
and flabbergast us with meticulously-compiled attestation. In short, confound
and awe us.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jul 7, 2018 05:35 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| Such words deserve a special type of evidence. But before, you never answered
to my question here:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1093972
In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 1 Part 3002 Yellow Brick 2 x 3 (match ID 4)
* Add 2 Part 3003 Red Brick 2 x 2 (Alternate) (match ID 5)
* Add 2 Part 3003 Yellow Brick 2 x 2 (Alternate) (match ID 6)
* Change 1 Part Yellow 3002old Brick 2 x 3 without Cross Supports {match ID 0 to 4}
* Change 2 Part Red 3003old Brick 2 x 2 without Inside Supports {match ID 0 to 5}
* Change 2 Part Yellow 3003old Brick 2 x 2 without Inside Supports {match ID 0 to 6}
|
Bedazzle us with overwhelming evidence, bewilder us with extravagant documentation,
and flabbergast us with meticulously-compiled attestation. In short, confound
and awe us.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jul 9, 2018 03:48 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 20 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
I'm not even completely sure what you're asking there. If you have evidence
of the variants or alternate variants of 2 x 2 and 2 x 3 bricks included in set
7735, please share that evidence.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jul 9, 2018 04:31 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| I am not sure what part of it you didn't follow.
You requested an evidence and I replied that I would give a very nice evidence.
Meantime, my question is that if the evidence I gave for supporting the boat
weights
coming with 7735 convinced you? See this thread:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1093972
In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
I'm not even completely sure what you're asking there. If you have evidence
of the variants or alternate variants of 2 x 2 and 2 x 3 bricks included in set
7735, please share that evidence.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jul 10, 2018 03:59 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 34 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| Dear Robert,
I know that the process of studying, doing an analysis and finally making a decision
for each inventory change request is not entertaining much. I really got it.
This is why I am giving a new type of evidence. Hope it satisfies you:
https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=g5ED0vWsLIE
(remove the space in the middle)
For supporting the addition of "boat weight" to 7735, I made a huge effort.
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1093132
You finally accepted the request but you didn't reply to my question that
if the evidence was good enough and 100% convincing:
https://www.bricklink.com/message.asp?ID=1096624
Your silence makes me thing that it was not good enough however you trusted us.
Well, thanks but it is still disappointing that after such an effort, I could
still not give a good evidence. Hopefully the above video helps better.
In the video, we see that the motor is of type 4 (bb12vc) and boat weights 73090b
so this set if from 1988 or later. Unfortunately, we don't see 3002. I am
sure it came in this set.
The inverted 45 2*2 bricks
have inside supports. Why don't we split them like bricks 3002 and 3003?
In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
I'm not even completely sure what you're asking there. If you have evidence
of the variants or alternate variants of 2 x 2 and 2 x 3 bricks included in set
7735, please share that evidence.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jul 12, 2018 02:51 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 32 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | I know that the process of studying, doing an analysis and finally making a decision
for each inventory change request is not entertaining much.
|
Ah, it's not so bad. It's not as entertaining as a rock concert, but
it pays the bills (just kidding). It does take time, though.
| | This is why I am giving a new type of evidence. Hope it satisfies you:
|
It was very satisfying. No question about the 2 x 2 bricks. I have attached
photos from the video for future reference. The red brick is harder to see,
but it definitely had inside supports.
| | For supporting the addition of "boat weight" to 7735, I made a huge effort.
You finally accepted the request but you didn't reply to my question that
if the evidence was good enough and 100% convincing:
|
I had to take the time to go back and look at the request again. Now that I
have looked again, I'm not sure why I approved it or even if I did approve
it. However, as you say the evidence must have been convincing enough because
it was approved.
Sorry I can't be of more help here, but because of the volume of change requests
I tend to forget them once a decision has been reached. For the boat weight
it looks like the top and 5th studs on one side have special indicators for type
one weights, but it's hard to tell in the photo if either the top or 5th
studs are visible due to the position of the weights in the packaging.
| | Unfortunately, we don't see 3002. I am sure it came in this set.
|
It is unfortunate. I could not in good conscience approve that portion of your
requests, but the 2 x 2 requests were both approved.
| | The inverted 45 2*2 bricks
have inside supports. Why don't we split them like bricks 3002 and 3003?
|
No idea - that's a question for the catalog administrators. Honestly, if
you added every possible variant to the catalog, then the whole enterprise would
sag and buckle under its own weight. After some point it all gets a little ridiculous
and a line must be drawn.
As an example, look at this thing:
The undetermined part appears in 61 sets. There are five known variants (one
just recently added) and those combined appear in only 16 sets. Even in those
sets they are sometimes (perhaps frequently) mixed. How long do you think it
will take to get that undetermined entry deleted from the catalog because it's
no longer necessary?
Like I said, you've got to draw the line somewhere. TLG is inconsistent
in many ways and seems to always be tinkering with things. If you really want
to open a can of worms, imagine the catalog split between plant-based and ABS
parts.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jul 12, 2018 04:31 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 7735-1 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | I know that the process of studying, doing an analysis and finally making a decision
for each inventory change request is not entertaining much.
|
Ah, it's not so bad. It's not as entertaining as a rock concert, but
it pays the bills (just kidding). It does take time, though.
| | This is why I am giving a new type of evidence. Hope it satisfies you:
|
It was very satisfying. No question about the 2 x 2 bricks. I have attached
photos from the video for future reference. The red brick is harder to see,
but it definitely had inside supports.
| | For supporting the addition of "boat weight" to 7735, I made a huge effort.
You finally accepted the request but you didn't reply to my question that
if the evidence was good enough and 100% convincing:
|
I had to take the time to go back and look at the request again. Now that I
have looked again, I'm not sure why I approved it or even if I did approve
it. However, as you say the evidence must have been convincing enough because
it was approved.
Sorry I can't be of more help here, but because of the volume of change requests
I tend to forget them once a decision has been reached. For the boat weight
it looks like the top and 5th studs on one side have special indicators for type
one weights, but it's hard to tell in the photo if either the top or 5th
studs are visible due to the position of the weights in the packaging.
|
Indeed, in the "boat weight", inside all studs there is a Lego logo. But for
"train weight", four studs don't have Lego logo. Let "L" stands for Lego
logo and "N" for no logo. Then the studs in train weight are like this:
LN
NL
LL
LL
LN
NL
Based on this, we can see that the weight we can in the video is a boat weight.
Indeed, if it was train weight, the studs without Logo would be flat and reflect
light in a way you would notice easily.
By the way, I have requested to change the name of "train weight..." and "boat
weight..." to just "weight...". They have nothing to do with boat or train, just
one variant is replaced by the newer one.
| | | | Unfortunately, we don't see 3002. I am sure it came in this set.
|
It is unfortunate. I could not in good conscience approve that portion of your
requests, but the 2 x 2 requests were both approved.
| | The inverted 45 2*2 bricks
have inside supports. Why don't we split them like bricks 3002 and 3003?
|
No idea - that's a question for the catalog administrators. Honestly, if
you added every possible variant to the catalog, then the whole enterprise would
sag and buckle under its own weight. After some point it all gets a little ridiculous
and a line must be drawn.
As an example, look at this thing:
The undetermined part appears in 61 sets. There are five known variants (one
just recently added) and those combined appear in only 16 sets. Even in those
sets they are sometimes (perhaps frequently) mixed. How long do you think it
will take to get that undetermined entry deleted from the catalog because it's
no longer necessary?
Like I said, you've got to draw the line somewhere. TLG is inconsistent
in many ways and seems to always be tinkering with things. If you really want
to open a can of worms, imagine the catalog split between plant-based and ABS
parts.
|
I am not suggesting to split the inverted 45 2*2 bricks and I admit we should
draw a line. I am just wondering why the cross support is a cause of split for
3002 and 3003 but not for these bricks? However, the shape of the bottom tube
is a cause for distinguishing between
and
I don't find this consistent (and I understand it is hard or maybe impossible
to be consistent  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
Canada, British Columbia
USA, Oklahoma
)
)
