| Discussion Forum: Thread 246470 |
|
 |
| | | Author: | FreeStorm  | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2018 13:11 | | Subject: | Different size for Watches parts bbw002 | | Viewed: | 64 times | | Topic: | Catalog | | Status: | Open | |
|
| Hello,
I own the 2017 version of 9005008 (in 24-Hour format)
While I'm looking for size and weight of parts it look that my parts for
the Watch are not the same weight and size as catalog items.
For example:
bbw001
Mine: 1.8 x 1.0 x 0.41 for 0.2g
Catalog: 2.25 x 1.25 for 0.33g
bbw002:
Mine: 1.8 x 1.7 x 0.4 for 0.3g
Catalog: 2.25 x 2.25 cm for 0.51g
it look like my Watch from 2017 is smaller than watch from 2013
I'm pretty sure for the size of my parts, I'm using an electronic caliper
And a balance accurate to 0.1 g
What do you think?
|
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2018 15:35 | | Subject: | Re: Different size for Watches parts bbw002 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, FreeStorm writes:
| | my parts for
the Watch are not the same weight and size as catalog items.
|
| | it look like my Watch from 2017 is smaller than watch from 2013
|
I've changed the topic of your post from Catalog Requests to Catalog. The
requests topic is for when you're making a specific request that something
be changed which cannot be changed through existing forms. You do not appear
to making any requests, but only asking for an opinion.
My opinion is that one of two possibilities could be true:
1. Your watch and all its components are smaller. This seems unlikely, but
still possible. If true, all parts would need to be added separately.
2. The current dimensions and weights for the existing parts are incorrect.
If true, correct dimensions should be added.
The only way to know for sure what the reality is would be to have both items
in hand and physically compare them. If you're able to pick up the 2013
watch cheaply, then this is what I'd recommend before coming to any conclusions.
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Author: | FreeStorm | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2018 21:04 | | Subject: | Re: Different size for Watches parts bbw002 | | Viewed: | 18 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, FreeStorm writes:
| | my parts for
the Watch are not the same weight and size as catalog items.
|
| | it look like my Watch from 2017 is smaller than watch from 2013
|
I've changed the topic of your post from Catalog Requests to Catalog. The
requests topic is for when you're making a specific request that something
be changed which cannot be changed through existing forms. You do not appear
to making any requests, but only asking for an opinion.
My opinion is that one of two possibilities could be true:
1. Your watch and all its components are smaller. This seems unlikely, but
still possible. If true, all parts would need to be added separately.
2. The current dimensions and weights for the existing parts are incorrect.
If true, correct dimensions should be added.
The only way to know for sure what the reality is would be to have both items
in hand and physically compare them. If you're able to pick up the 2013
watch cheaply, then this is what I'd recommend before coming to any conclusions.
|
Thanks for you reply,
While looking at bbw001 pictures
[g=bbw001]
I found that the correct width should be 1.8cm not 2.25cm
The picture with the ruler is from my Watch, the picture with the tan parts are
from the catalog
You can see that my parts and the catalog parts are the same size.
Is it a sufficient prove to update the catalog with "my" size and weight?
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Author: | StormChaser | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2018 21:14 | | Subject: | Re: Different size for Watches parts bbw002 | | Viewed: | 19 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, FreeStorm writes:
| | Is it a sufficient prove to update the catalog with "my" size and weight?
|
If we're talking about proof, then the only proof would be to measure and
weigh the actual item from 2013. Measuring/weighing your item and then changing
the dimensions/weight of another item which you believe to be the same based
on a poor-quality catalog photo is not proof, but only conjecture.
However, you are welcome to submit change requests if you'd like and I'll
consider them. Perhaps someone reading this can confirm these dimensions for
the existing catalog entry?
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Redhawk_Kevin | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2018 21:34 | | Subject: | Re: Different size for Watches parts bbw002 | | Viewed: | 26 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| I've done a lot of work with the watches recently. The OP is both correct
and incorrect.
Correct in the sense that bbw001 does have wrong dimensions currently. There
may have been early variant of this part since I only have watches from 2007
until current, but the links that I have are 1.8cm in width.
Incorrect in the sense that the watch that FreeStorm has does not actually contain
bbw001 links. Instead that watch contains the new bbw083 link that was added
to the catalog.
[g=bbw083]
-Kevin
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, FreeStorm writes:
| | Is it a sufficient prove to update the catalog with "my" size and weight?
|
If we're talking about proof, then the only proof would be to measure and
weigh the actual item from 2013. Measuring/weighing your item and then changing
the dimensions/weight of another item which you believe to be the same based
on a poor-quality catalog photo is not proof, but only conjecture.
However, you are welcome to submit change requests if you'd like and I'll
consider them. Perhaps someone reading this can confirm these dimensions for
the existing catalog entry?
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | Redhawk_Kevin | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2018 21:38 | | Subject: | Re: Different size for Watches parts bbw002 | | Viewed: | 28 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| To add to this, I believe the current dimensions are in studs and not in cm.
- Kevin
| | In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, FreeStorm writes:
| | Is it a sufficient prove to update the catalog with "my" size and weight?
|
If we're talking about proof, then the only proof would be to measure and
weigh the actual item from 2013. Measuring/weighing your item and then changing
the dimensions/weight of another item which you believe to be the same based
on a poor-quality catalog photo is not proof, but only conjecture.
However, you are welcome to submit change requests if you'd like and I'll
consider them. Perhaps someone reading this can confirm these dimensions for
the existing catalog entry?
|
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FreeStorm | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2018 22:14 | | Subject: | Re: Different size for Watches parts bbw002 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Redhawk_Kevin writes:
| | I've done a lot of work with the watches recently. The OP is both correct
and incorrect.
Correct in the sense that bbw001 does have wrong dimensions currently. There
may have been early variant of this part since I only have watches from 2007
until current, but the links that I have are 1.8cm in width.
Incorrect in the sense that the watch that FreeStorm has does not actually contain
bbw001 links. Instead that watch contains the new bbw083 link that was added
to the catalog.
[g=bbw083]
-Kevin
In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, FreeStorm writes:
| | Is it a sufficient prove to update the catalog with "my" size and weight?
|
If we're talking about proof, then the only proof would be to measure and
weigh the actual item from 2013. Measuring/weighing your item and then changing
the dimensions/weight of another item which you believe to be the same based
on a poor-quality catalog photo is not proof, but only conjecture.
However, you are welcome to submit change requests if you'd like and I'll
consider them. Perhaps someone reading this can confirm these dimensions for
the existing catalog entry?
|
|
Can you explain me the difference (I don't see it in the pictures)
|
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FreeStorm | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2018 23:00 | | Subject: | Re: Different size for Watches parts bbw002 | | Viewed: | 31 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, Redhawk_Kevin writes:
Thank you for that great link
I definitively have bbw083 version 
Now I can take pictures/weight/size of my parts and add it to the catalog for
part bbw083
|
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Author: | FreeStorm | | Posted: | Dec 31, 2018 21:54 | | Subject: | Re: Different size for Watches parts bbw002 | | Viewed: | 22 times | | Topic: | Catalog | |
|
| In Catalog, StormChaser writes:
| | In Catalog, FreeStorm writes:
| | Is it a sufficient prove to update the catalog with "my" size and weight?
|
If we're talking about proof, then the only proof would be to measure and
weigh the actual item from 2013. Measuring/weighing your item and then changing
the dimensions/weight of another item which you believe to be the same based
on a poor-quality catalog photo is not proof, but only conjecture.
However, you are welcome to submit change requests if you'd like and I'll
consider them. Perhaps someone reading this can confirm these dimensions for
the existing catalog entry?
|
I know that a picture is not a proof, but we are speaking of 4.25mm (22.5mm vs
18mm) that is ~1/4 of the size of the parts. Even with a bad picture, we can
compare it.
You can compare my picture with 8 other picture (with studs) of this part on
the catalog.
It's okay, I'll wait for someone else to update these parts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Switzerland, Vaud
USA, Oklahoma
)
)
