|
 |
| | | Author: | SezaR  | | Posted: | Jul 19, 2018 01:32 | | Subject: | Inventory Change Request for Set 6659-1 | | Viewed: | 39 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests (Entry) | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 2 Part 4276 Black Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 2 Fingers (match ID 1)
* Add 1 Part 4275 Black Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 3 Fingers (match ID 2)
* Add 2 Part 4081b White Plate, Modified 1 x 1 with Clip Light - Thick Ring (Alternate) (match ID 3)
* Change 1 Part Black {3002 Brick 2 x 3 to 3002old Brick 2 x 3 without Cross Supports}
* Change 2 Part Black 4276a Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 2 Fingers and Solid Studs {Regular to Alternate} {match ID 0 to 1}
* Change 1 Part Black 4275a Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 3 Fingers and Solid Studs {Regular to Alternate} {match ID 0 to 2}
* Change 2 Part White 4081a Plate, Modified 1 x 1 with Clip Light - Thin Ring {match ID 0 to 3}
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jul 19, 2018 01:41 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6659-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| I have seen one copy of this set on Ebay coming with thick rings and hinges with
solid studs. That is weird! But any way, I suggest to keep the old variations
as alternate. In any case, they are the one less appeared with this set. (please
switch the thick and thin clips, I made a mistake)
In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
* Add 2 Part 4276 Black Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 2 Fingers (match ID 1)
* Add 1 Part 4275 Black Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 3 Fingers (match ID 2)
* Add 2 Part 4081b White Plate, Modified 1 x 1 with Clip Light - Thick Ring (Alternate) (match ID 3)
* Change 1 Part Black {3002 Brick 2 x 3 to 3002old Brick 2 x 3 without Cross Supports}
* Change 2 Part Black 4276a Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 2 Fingers and Solid Studs {Regular to Alternate} {match ID 0 to 1}
* Change 1 Part Black 4275a Hinge Plate 1 x 2 with 3 Fingers and Solid Studs {Regular to Alternate} {match ID 0 to 2}
* Change 2 Part White 4081a Plate, Modified 1 x 1 with Clip Light - Thin Ring {match ID 0 to 3}
|
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jul 20, 2018 04:10 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6659-1 | | Viewed: | 27 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | I have seen one copy of this set on Ebay
|
What is the item number on eBay for the first photo with sealed bags?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jul 20, 2018 04:24 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6659-1 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| 302807232378
The seller is also on Bricklink. Having communicated with him, I can say he is
an expert on vintage Lego (and new Lego?).
He confirmed these changes (concerning the brick, otherwise we can see the hinges).
In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | I have seen one copy of this set on Ebay
|
What is the item number on eBay for the first photo with sealed bags?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jul 20, 2018 04:47 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6659-1 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
Sorry, but I can't find it with that item number in current or completed
listings.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jul 20, 2018 04:59 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6659-1 | | Viewed: | 25 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| I think I am not supposed to put a link here.
Remove the space
https://www.ebay.fr/itm/-/302807232378?
nordt=true&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l10137
In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
Sorry, but I can't find it with that item number in current or completed
listings.
|
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jul 20, 2018 14:28 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6659-1 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
|
Enhanced photos from the link you provided.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jul 24, 2018 00:51 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6659-1 | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| I am sure 99.99% copies of these sets came with hinges with hollow studs this
is why I requested to include them as regular. Why didn't you accept this?
In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Please make changes to the following inventory:
|
Enhanced photos from the link you provided.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jul 24, 2018 14:14 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6659-1 | | Viewed: | 13 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | I am sure 99.99% copies of these sets came with hinges with hollow studs this
is why I requested to include them as regular. Why didn't you accept this?
|
Two reasons.
1. I think variants which came first chronologically should appear in
the Regular Items section and am not fond of making exceptions to that rule.
2. This set is very unlikely to be parted out from sealed set contents.
Therefore, the importance of the variant order is considerably lessened for
this set.
The only reason for including a later variant as a regular part would be to reduce
errors during partout. Again, that's not a concern with this set.
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jul 24, 2018 15:10 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6659-1 | | Viewed: | 16 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| My reasons:
I agree that the variants which came first chronologically should appear in
the Regular Items. But
1) If this set really came with hinges with solid studs, that would be only 0.00001
of the total copies of this set. This is like never. In such cases, I think the
more common variant should be included in the regular part. I copy this part
of the help center for definition of regular,...:
Regular/Alternate Placement - Part variants confirmed in the earliest version
of a set should be placed in the Regular Items section and later variants should
be placed in the Alternate Items section. There are a number of exceptions to
this rule, however, so check with an Inventories Administrator for clarification
if you're not sure where to place a particular variant. Some of the exceptions
are:
- The International versions of sticker sheets are placed in the Regular Items
section.
- When the scarcity of the earliest variant is high enough that it is unlikely
to be found in a sealed set, then it may be placed in the Alternate Items section.
- Part variants in sets close to the time of transition between variants and
outliers may be handled differently than stated above.
I am sure the last two cases are realized for this set.
2) it is unlikely that this set came with hinges of solid studs. But that would
be difficult to prove (no matter how many sealed sets we check and we don't
find those later-variant hinges, it doesn't prove that the older-variant
never appeared with this set)
In Inventories Requests, StormChaser writes:
| | In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | I am sure 99.99% copies of these sets came with hinges with hollow studs this
is why I requested to include them as regular. Why didn't you accept this?
|
Two reasons.
1. I think variants which came first chronologically should appear in
the Regular Items section and am not fond of making exceptions to that rule.
2. This set is very unlikely to be parted out from sealed set contents.
Therefore, the importance of the variant order is considerably lessened for
this set.
The only reason for including a later variant as a regular part would be to reduce
errors during partout. Again, that's not a concern with this set.
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jul 24, 2018 15:47 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6659-1 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | I think the more common variant should be included in the regular part.
|
We disagree on that approach. This was the way inventories were historically
done on BrickLink. Things have changed from that old way.
One of the serious problems with this approach is the problems which arise from
trying to decide which variant is more common. In some case it may be easy to
say, but in many cases it leads to arguments and disagreements.
The commonsense method is to list the first-appearing variant as regular. This
is the way inventories are done for modern sets. For example, let's say
someone inventoried a set in 2016. The set is still in production now, two years
later, and you open it to find a newer variant. You would request the newer
variant be added as an alternate - not request that the original variant be changed
to alternate so that the new variant could take its place.
This is the natural order of things and just because a set is older does not
mean that it is excepted.
| | I copy this part
of the help center for definition of regular,...:
|
| | - When the scarcity of the earliest variant is high enough that it is unlikely
to be found in a sealed set, then it may be placed in the Alternate Items section.
|
Note the key word there: may - not shall or should or must, but may.
I kept that in as a nod to the old method of listing the most common variant
as regular, but we're moving away from that.
| | - Part variants in sets close to the time of transition between variants and
outliers may be handled differently than stated above.
|
Again, not the word may. The last year in which this part variant appears
is 1986 according to BrickLink. It appears in seven sets in 1986 and in all
seven sets it appears as regular. Why aren't you complaining about the other
six appearances?
| | 2) it is unlikely that this set came with hinges of solid studs.
|
So submit a request to remove them. I don't mind removing them. If someone
wants them in the set, then they must prove the variants existed in a sealed
set to have them added back in.
I recall this approach caused you great consternation the last time it came up,
but perhaps now you will find it more appealing?
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | SezaR | | Posted: | Jul 24, 2018 16:32 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6659-1 | | Viewed: | 23 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| | | | | I think the more common variant should be included in the regular part.
|
We disagree on that approach. This was the way inventories were historically
done on BrickLink. Things have changed from that old way.
One of the serious problems with this approach is the problems which arise from
trying to decide which variant is more common. In some case it may be easy to
say, but in many cases it leads to arguments and disagreements.
The commonsense method is to list the first-appearing variant as regular. This
is the way inventories are done for modern sets. For example, let's say
someone inventoried a set in 2016. The set is still in production now, two years
later, and you open it to find a newer variant. You would request the newer
variant be added as an alternate - not request that the original variant be changed
to alternate so that the new variant could take its place.
This is the natural order of things and just because a set is older does not
mean that it is excepted.
|
I think there is no easy best solution. I strongly think that for old sets, when
it is clear and obvious than the older variant appeared in a small percentage
of the total releases, as this is the case for this set, then it is more correct
to include it in the alternate part. To give a number, something like 0.1% of
the total releases, but not for a case of 10%.
Also, a note can be added to the inventory of this set or such sets.
On the side, if you are moving away from that aproach, the words "regular" and
"alternate" should be replaced. I have seen few users who didn't interprete
these words properly. We cannot expect people to go and read the definitions
(if they do, t is good but who have time to read everything in all daily interaction
with various associations, shops, websites,...)
I don't have a better words for regular and alternate on the top of my head
right now 
| |
| | I copy this part
of the help center for definition of regular,...:
|
| | - When the scarcity of the earliest variant is high enough that it is unlikely
to be found in a sealed set, then it may be placed in the Alternate Items section.
|
Note the key word there: may - not shall or should or must, but may.
I kept that in as a nod to the old method of listing the most common variant
as regular, but we're moving away from that.
| | - Part variants in sets close to the time of transition between variants and
outliers may be handled differently than stated above.
|
Again, not the word may. The last year in which this part variant appears
is 1986 according to BrickLink. It appears in seven sets in 1986 and in all
seven sets it appears as regular. Why aren't you complaining about the other
six appearances?
|
I complain!
But I can only complain starting with one case! On the other hand, I have not
checked all those sets. I only checked 7722 and I can say that I have not seen
even one single used or sealed copy of it coming with 4275a or 4276a.
The part
appears in 10 sets from 1985 and 8 sets from 1986.
The part
appears in 10 sets from 1985 and 6 sets from 1986.
My suggestion if to move them to the alternate parts for all these sets. If for
one set, we find good evidence that these hinges were not actually used, then
we can remove them from their inventory. (for example, if I check about 100-200
used copies and eventually see some coming with a box including a catalog of
1985 or 1986. But that is too much of work that I can do right now)
| |
| | 2) it is unlikely that this set came with hinges of solid studs.
|
So submit a request to remove them. I don't mind removing them. If someone
wants them in the set, then they must prove the variants existed in a sealed
set to have them added back in.
I recall this approach caused you great consternation the last time it came up,
but perhaps now you will find it more appealing?
|
Actually these two cases are different. Concerning 7817, I am sure it came with
in 1985. I believe the production of
started in 1986. I don't have any reason to think it was earlier (like mid
1985). Recently, I submitted another inv. request proving that 4081a was still
in use in 1985:
https://www.bricklink.com/messageThread.asp?ID=238783
(a US catalog from 1985 is included in the box)
I also have a sealed copy of 7817 with the older type box from 1985-88. I just
don't have enough reason to open it and check if it does have 4081 or 4081a,
and then damaging its value.
But for the set 6651, I am not sure if it came with solid hinges or 4081a
since it is from 1986. As mentioned before, I saw a used copy on Ebay coming
with older variants of hinges and clips 4081a. Are the parts original to that
set or the owner was a fanatic Lego fan who wanted to be very faithful to the
instructions and inventory? The second case is less likely.
So I think it is better to include them as alternate for now.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Jul 24, 2018 17:00 | | Subject: | Re: Inventory Change Request for Set 6659-1 | | Viewed: | 24 times | | Topic: | Inventories Requests | |
|
| In Inventories Requests, SezaR writes:
| | Also, a note can be added to the inventory of this set or such sets.
|
I'm convinced that an inventory note could legitimately be added for every
set in the catalog. I'm of the opinion that inventory notes, like tornado
warnings, should be used sparingly so as to maintain their effectiveness.
| | On the side, if you are moving away from that aproach, the words "regular" and
"alternate" should be replaced.
|
You've mentioned this before, I believe, but have not suggested viable alternatives.
|
|
|
|
|
Canada, British Columbia
)
)
USA, Oklahoma
)
)
)
