Was entered into the catalog in 2008. But if you carefully pay attention to the
years range, the part was being molded in this variant from 2006. That means,
that for two years, sellers had no place to put either variant other than into
4589. There is likely inventory out there that claims to be 4589, but is in reality
4589b.
Begin rhetorical question, that is not really a rant (even if it sounds like
one).
What wasn’t 4589 transitioned to 4589u (for unknown variant), and two variant
specific catalog entries created ? Unknown/undefined would have been correct,
but saying that everything in 4589 was automagically the early variant is some
combination of dangerous and wrong.
End rhetorical question.
Why am I concerned about this ? Because someone is complaining about ordering
the old variant, and receiving the new. My research tells me how this happened,
and while it did not happen between 2006 and 2006, this issue was revealed.
Was entered into the catalog in 2008. But if you carefully pay attention to the
years range, the part was being molded in this variant from 2006. That means,
that for two years, sellers had no place to put either variant other than into
4589. There is likely inventory out there that claims to be 4589, but is in reality
4589b.
Begin rhetorical question, that is not really a rant (even if it sounds like
one).
What wasn’t 4589 transitioned to 4589u (for unknown variant), and two variant
specific catalog entries created ? Unknown/undefined would have been correct,
but saying that everything in 4589 was automagically the early variant is some
combination of dangerous and wrong.
End rhetorical question.
Why am I concerned about this ? Because someone is complaining about ordering
the old variant, and receiving the new. My research tells me how this happened,
and while it did not happen between 2006 and 2006, this issue was revealed.
Nita Rae
4589 is an umbrella entry. It should never have had the "without groove"
added to the Item Name, so I have removed that part.
4589 is an umbrella entry. It should never have had the "without groove"
added to the Item Name, so I have removed that part.
I hate umbrella parts. I'm the one out here fixing inventories and I can't
see a part that needs to be targeted.
Now you can't order one without groove?
One thing about umbrella entries is that they are often treated differently in
the marketplace than they are in the inventory system. This is one of the reasons
there is so much pressure to get rid of them.
In inventories, we will often consider the umbrella entry as a specific variant
as is done with 3001 and 3001old:
If we were strict about this in inventories, we would as a rule have the 3001
in all inventories in the regular section and 3001old would be relegated to an
alternate whenever it was found in a set. This is what we do with the minor "frosted"
variants:
Another important thing that helps with practical issues in the marketplace,
is that 1) many people don't care about variants, and 2) many sellers interpret
the entries following the pattern of the inventory system, not the catalog proper.
These sellers are funneling the ungrooved cone into the umbrella entry anyway,
so if you buy in a variant-conscious store, you will most likely get the ungrooved
type from the umbrella entry.
Also it must be noted, that just because the catalog makes a hard split and does
not use an umbrella entry DOESN'T mean that all sellers will sort them properly.
Sadly not. Look at this page:
I could start checking transition period sets. But the trouble is that any one
that didn't have the grooved piece, I wouldn't have a real way to communicate
a finding. Someone else may buy the set for the same reason and then someone
else. We wouldn't know where we were in the job.
I could start checking transition period sets. But the trouble is that any one
that didn't have the grooved piece, I wouldn't have a real way to communicate
a finding. Someone else may buy the set for the same reason and then someone
else. We wouldn't know where we were in the job.
One of the odd historical oddities that comes to light, is this set …
It contained both a common configuration of parts, and a variable configuration.
The variable configuration was, IIRC, one of 6 specific variable configurations.
The parts in the variable configurations were reputed to be floor sweepings
but were more likely excess from production runs at Enfield, and/or parts that
the model shops ordered for one-off builds (and no longer needed retention).
The question I had, and will likely never know is, was P=4589 (of which one existed
in one of the variants) without groove or with groove ? Since the collectability
of that set is practically nil, my suspicion is there are no more MISB remaining
(plus having the correct variant inside a sealed set would require some level
of medical radar access that few of us have). So we will never reliably know
which version that part was in there. That part, curiously, was one of the possibilities
that led me down a blind alley in trying to figure out how the wrong 4589/orange
was sent to a buyer.
I parted out several hundred of that set, so I saw all the variants of the variable
contents.
I could start checking transition period sets. But the trouble is that any one
that didn't have the grooved piece, I wouldn't have a real way to communicate
a finding. Someone else may buy the set for the same reason and then someone
else. We wouldn't know where we were in the job.
One of the odd historical oddities that comes to light, is this set …
It contained both a common configuration of parts, and a variable configuration.
The variable configuration was, IIRC, one of 6 specific variable configurations.
The parts in the variable configurations were reputed to be floor sweepings
but were more likely excess from production runs at Enfield, and/or parts that
the model shops ordered for one-off builds (and no longer needed retention).
The question I had, and will likely never know is, was P=4589 (of which one existed
in one of the variants) without groove or with groove ? Since the collectability
of that set is practically nil, my suspicion is there are no more MISB remaining
(plus having the correct variant inside a sealed set would require some level
of medical radar access that few of us have). So we will never reliably know
which version that part was in there. That part, curiously, was one of the possibilities
that led me down a blind alley in trying to figure out how the wrong 4589/orange
was sent to a buyer.
I parted out several hundred of that set, so I saw all the variants of the variable
contents.
Nita Rae
I have parted that set out about 20 times and sealed ones are still available.
The inventory note about there being only a few set configurations is not true.
It is much more variable in quantities and mixtures, but it has been a long
time since I have found a part that wasn't in the inventory in an American
box (with the part count printed). You can probably rely on the variants shown
in the inventory. I have always treated the piece that was called "without
groove" to actually be that piece and any set verified by me should actually
be that piece.
4589 is an umbrella entry. It should never have had the "without groove"
added to the Item Name, so I have removed that part.
I hate umbrella parts. I'm the one out here fixing inventories and I can't
see a part that needs to be targeted.
Now you can't order one without groove?
One thing about umbrella entries is that they are often treated differently in
the marketplace than they are in the inventory system. This is one of the reasons
there is so much pressure to get rid of them.
In inventories, we will often consider the umbrella entry as a specific variant
as is done with 3001 and 3001old:
If we were strict about this in inventories, we would as a rule have the 3001
in all inventories in the regular section and 3001old would be relegated to an
alternate whenever it was found in a set.
I hate implicit umbrella parts.
I believe that we should have specified versions of the parts in our catalog
(although I would have made different choices on which versions of 3001 we could/should
distinguish).
There should definitely be a rule that the specific version of a part is used
in inventories when it is available in the catalog, and not some general undefined
entry.
This is what we do with the minor "frosted"
variants:
Another important thing that helps with practical issues in the marketplace,
is that 1) many people don't care about variants, and 2) many sellers interpret
the entries following the pattern of the inventory system, not the catalog proper.
I think that the difference you indicate between the "inventory system"
and the "catalog proper" is artificial. They are different sides of the
same thing.
We should not have different rules on how to interpret a part or its version
depending on where you look at it on BrickLink.
These sellers are funneling the ungrooved cone into the umbrella entry anyway,
so if you buy in a variant-conscious store, you will most likely get the ungrooved
type from the umbrella entry.
Also it must be noted, that just because the catalog makes a hard split and does
not use an umbrella entry DOESN'T mean that all sellers will sort them properly.
Sadly not. Look at this page:
This ungrooved tile came in 6 colors, yet there are 26 colors for sale. That
means 20 of those colors are wrongly listed.
Yes, many sellers make mistakes. A buyer ordering one of these has a valid reason
to complain. Just like when a seller is confused about colours.
Bricklink, and all the volunteers involved, try to make the catalog as clear
as possible. It is then up to the sellers and buyers to use it correctly. That
is not a reason not to make hard splits in the catalog.
You can, but only if the seller has confirmed that the lot represents that. This
has, in one sense, been the situation since the first new “with groove” part
arrived in stores (sometime during 2006). While there will be much gnashing of
teeth, every seller should pay attention to their 4589 lots and make sure which
is which (assuming they wish to attract the discerning buyer 😉 ).
Tell which is which is easier than it first appears: all you have to do is roll
a finger nail edge across the upper lip of the cone. The old style it will be
smooth transition, the new style you can feel a distinctive click.
Until the dust settles, and we see how many sellers will do this, I’m not sure
if a P=4589a would be appropriate.
You can, but only if the seller has confirmed that the lot represents that. This
has, in one sense, been the situation since the first new “with groove” part
arrived in stores (sometime during 2006). While there will be much gnashing of
teeth, every seller should pay attention to their 4589 lots and make sure which
is which (assuming they wish to attract the discerning buyer 😉 ).
Tell which is which is easier than it first appears: all you have to do is roll
a finger nail edge across the upper lip of the cone. The old style it will be
smooth transition, the new style you can feel a distinctive click.
Until the dust settles, and we see how many sellers will do this, I’m not sure
if a P=4589a would be appropriate.
Nita Rae
I’ve posted a reply narrowing down the introduction date of 4589b. It is not
from 2006.
4589 is an umbrella entry. It should never have had the "without groove"
added to the Item Name, so I have removed that part.
I hate umbrella parts. I'm the one out here fixing inventories and I can't
see a part that needs to be targeted.
Now you can't order one without groove?
I agree. I hate umbrella parts.
It absolutely does not make sense to me to have a catalog entry for one version
of a part, but not for the other. To me, that is fundamentally wrong.
If a version is "unspecified" or "umbrella", then it should state
so in the name.
I would absolutely not mind having in our catalog something like
4589u unspecified
4589a without groove
4589b with groove
With the a and b versions in the inventories, and the u version where the correct
inventory version is still unknown AND for buyers and sellers who do not care
about the version.
It absolutely does not make sense to me to have a catalog entry for one version
of a part, but not for the other. To me, that is fundamentally wrong.
+1
If a version is "unspecified" or "umbrella", then it should state
so in the name.
I would absolutely not mind having in our catalog something like
4589u unspecified
4589a without groove
4589b with groove
With the a and b versions in the inventories, and the u version where the correct
inventory version is still unknown AND for buyers and sellers who do not care
about the version.
I would mind.
Either it’s only one unspecified entry or it’s separate, specified variants.
BrickLink is not built to work with real umbrella entries. Quirky workarounds
don’t work.
Either it’s only one unspecified entry or it’s separate, specified variants.
BrickLink is not built to work with real umbrella entries. Quirky workarounds
don’t work.
When we realize that a new part version was missed, and a current entry needs
to be split, the proper procedure is something like:
1) rename the current part into an "undetermined version". That affects
all inventories and all items currently for sale. (the 4589u)
2) create new catalog entries for ALL the new parts (a and b).
3) update inventories to remove the undetermined version from it.
After that, the integrity of our catalog has been corrected. In my opinion, the
next steps are optional :
4) sellers change their undetermined entry into the correct part
5) the undetermined entry gets deleted from the catalog once it is no longer
needed.
Problems occur when we do not do the first two steps properly. (That is why we
have weird umbrella parts).
The undetermined version only remains in inventories until step three is complicated
(as soon as possible, but with the appropriate care that our administrators take
for such issues). It doesn't really matter to me if we allow the undetermined
version to remain in the catalog and stores.
Either it’s only one unspecified entry or it’s separate, specified variants.
BrickLink is not built to work with real umbrella entries. Quirky workarounds
don’t work.
When we realize that a new part version was missed, and a current entry needs
to be split, the proper procedure is something like:
1) rename the current part into an "undetermined version". That affects
all inventories and all items currently for sale. (the 4589u)
2) create new catalog entries for ALL the new parts (a and b).
3) update inventories to remove the undetermined version from it.
After that, the integrity of our catalog has been corrected. In my opinion, the
next steps are optional :
4) sellers change their undetermined entry into the correct part
5) the undetermined entry gets deleted from the catalog once it is no longer
needed.
Problems occur when we do not do the first two steps properly. (That is why we
have weird umbrella parts).
The undetermined version only remains in inventories until step three is completed
(as soon as possible, but with the appropriate care that our administrators take
for such issues). It doesn't really matter to me if we allow the undetermined
version to remain in the catalog and stores.
Corrected a weird typing error: Until step 3 is completed 🙂
Either it’s only one unspecified entry or it’s separate, specified variants.
BrickLink is not built to work with real umbrella entries. Quirky workarounds
don’t work.
When we realize that a new part version was missed, and a current entry needs
to be split, the proper procedure is something like:
1) rename the current part into an "undetermined version". That affects
all inventories and all items currently for sale. (the 4589u)
2) create new catalog entries for ALL the new parts (a and b).
3) update inventories to remove the undetermined version from it.
After that, the integrity of our catalog has been corrected. In my opinion, the
next steps are optional :
4) sellers change their undetermined entry into the correct part
5) the undetermined entry gets deleted from the catalog once it is no longer
needed.
That’s what I mind: 4 & 5 should be mandatory.
If you leave undetermined entries, then the website (and database) should work
with them.
That means a seller could list Xu, Xa, or Xb as they wish and when a buyer wants:
— Xa, they only get Xa in searches,
— Xu, they get Xu, Xa, and Xb in searches.
The website doesn’t work like that. I don’t think there’s any plan to make it
work like that, and even if there were plans, plans are for the future, we are
in the present.
Problems occur when we do not do the first two steps properly. (That is why we
have weird umbrella parts).
The undetermined version only remains in inventories until step three is complicated
(as soon as possible, but with the appropriate care that our administrators take
for such issues). It doesn't really matter to me if we allow the undetermined
version to remain in the catalog and stores.
If you leave undetermined entries, then the website (and database) should work
with them.
That means a seller could list Xu, Xa, or Xb as they wish and when a buyer wants:
— Xa, they only get Xa in searches,
— Xu, they get Xu, Xa, and Xb in searches.
The website doesn’t work like that. I don’t think there’s any plan to make it
work like that, and even if there were plans, plans are for the future, we are
in the present.
Currently the seller could list Xu, Xa and Xb, and the buyer buys Xu, Xa or Xb.
A buyer who does not care about the version currently has to buy all three or
any of them.
It does not work with any auto buy feature, but it works when a buyer is browsing
through a store.
Without considering future plans, the only advantage of retaining the undetermined
version is that sellers who do not care, do not have to split their items for
sale. Hopefully, that would reduce the number of listing errors and the number
of notes from sellers which state that they do not sort versions.
Personally, I prefer it when step 4 and 5 are completed, but I can accept an
optional compromise. As long as the catalog itself is clear (step 1 to 3 completed)
AND buyers know what they will get when they buy something.
4589 is an umbrella entry. It should never have had the "without groove"
added to the Item Name, so I have removed that part.
I hate umbrella parts. I'm the one out here fixing inventories and I can't
see a part that needs to be targeted.
Now you can't order one without groove?
I agree. I hate umbrella parts.
It absolutely does not make sense to me to have a catalog entry for one version
of a part, but not for the other. To me, that is fundamentally wrong.
If a version is "unspecified" or "umbrella", then it should state
so in the name.
I would absolutely not mind having in our catalog something like
4589u unspecified
4589a without groove
4589b with groove
With the a and b versions in the inventories, and the u version where the correct
inventory version is still unknown AND for buyers and sellers who do not care
about the version.
Plus one other thing, the root entry (for 4589 in this case) which owns all three.
Then, if someone will take any variant in a specific color, they point their
wanted list to the root, and it shows you all of them rolled up.
In one sense, every unspecified deserves a root, even if there are no known variants.
The root is something you can search against, but cannot list lots against. It
is a placeholder for the design, and not a specific instance of the design. The
headlight brick is another prime example.
Plus one other thing, the root entry (for 4589 in this case) which owns all three.
Then, if someone will take any variant in a specific color, they point their
wanted list to the root, and it shows you all of them rolled up.
In one sense, every unspecified deserves a root, even if there are no known variants.
The root is something you can search against, but cannot list lots against. It
is a placeholder for the design, and not a specific instance of the design.
I think that is not possible in our current catalog. But maybe I misunderstand
what you mean...
I think that I don't understand the example.
The version with slot is a minor moulding error that is marked for deletion,
so part versions do not really apply here.
Was entered into the catalog in 2008. But if you carefully pay attention to the
years range, the part was being molded in this variant from 2006. That means,
that for two years, sellers had no place to put either variant other than into
4589. There is likely inventory out there that claims to be 4589, but is in reality
4589b.
Begin rhetorical question, that is not really a rant (even if it sounds like
one).
What wasn’t 4589 transitioned to 4589u (for unknown variant), and two variant
specific catalog entries created ? Unknown/undefined would have been correct,
but saying that everything in 4589 was automagically the early variant is some
combination of dangerous and wrong.
End rhetorical question.
Why am I concerned about this ? Because someone is complaining about ordering
the old variant, and receiving the new. My research tells me how this happened,
and while it did not happen between 2006 and 2006, this issue was revealed.
Nita Rae
4589 is an umbrella entry. It should never have had the "without groove"
added to the Item Name, so I have removed that part.
OK, and thank you. For the moment, and coincidental when that was being fixed
in Irvine, I did a inspection of my existing P=4589 lots to see which had been
co-mingled. Only one was found to have the actual issue. That one I have divided,
and updated the with-grove count to the lot with the appropriate catalog entry.
All the others correctly match to “early variant” and the comments reflect this.
So what I end up with an umbrella entry that describes what it was intended to
represent pre-2006, which I’m OK with.
4589 is an umbrella entry. It should never have had the "without groove"
added to the Item Name, so I have removed that part.
Just so I'm absolutely certain: The words "without groove" have been
removed from the listing's description. The item itself is NOT up for deletion.
I can't tell you the number of hours that have been spent in my store checking
for the groove on this part and making certain that the mould variations are
true for our different lots.
4589 is an umbrella entry. It should never have had the "without groove"
added to the Item Name, so I have removed that part.
Just so I'm absolutely certain: The words "without groove" have been
removed from the listing's description. The item itself is NOT up for deletion.
Yes, Russell meant “I removed that part of the description.”
Less confusion in French (partie ≠ pièce)
I can't tell you the number of hours that have been spent in my store checking
for the groove on this part and making certain that the mould variations are
true for our different lots.
4589 is an umbrella entry. It should never have had the "without groove"
added to the Item Name, so I have removed that part.
Just so I'm absolutely certain: The words "without groove" have been
removed from the listing's description. The item itself is NOT up for deletion.
I can't tell you the number of hours that have been spent in my store checking
for the groove on this part and making certain that the mould variations are
true for our different lots.
That is correct, the title of 4589 (the umbrella entry) has been reverted to
what it was prior to when 4589a was created (roughly 2008). There is nothing
that prevents you from designating a lot (via comments) as ‘confirmed as old
variant’, which is what I am doing. That only requires adding a comment to each
lot entry.
There is nothing
that prevents you from designating a lot (via comments) as ‘confirmed as old
variant’, which is what I am doing. That only requires adding a comment to each
lot entry.
There is nothing
that prevents you from designating a lot (via comments) as ‘confirmed as old
variant’, which is what I am doing. That only requires adding a comment to each
lot entry.
Nita Rae
A very good idea. I just did it for my lots:
And for buyers who care, they will start with your store because you confirm
the variant. It's actually not a bad thing to do on any lot that you spend
time sorting, whether the entry is specific or undetermined.
There is nothing
that prevents you from designating a lot (via comments) as ‘confirmed as old
variant’, which is what I am doing. That only requires adding a comment to each
lot entry.
Nita Rae
A very good idea. I just did it for my lots:
And for buyers who care, they will start with your store because you confirm
the variant. It's actually not a bad thing to do on any lot that you spend
time sorting, whether the entry is specific or undetermined.
Yep.
I sold out of my supply of Black 4589 several months ago -- at 84 cents each.
And I sell lots of 3794A and 4085C at higher prices because my lots are verified.
And for buyers who care, they will start with your store because you confirm
the variant. It's actually not a bad thing to do on any lot that you spend
time sorting, whether the entry is specific or undetermined.
I don't get my collection, mainly, from careful sellers. I get them from
sets. I can't see what sets I need to find to get umbrella entries, especially
umbrella entries that I didn't know where umbrella entries. We apparently
don't even know for sure what colors are available in each variant...
And for buyers who care, they will start with your store because you confirm
the variant. It's actually not a bad thing to do on any lot that you spend
time sorting, whether the entry is specific or undetermined.
I don't get my collection, mainly, from careful sellers. I get them from
sets. I can't see what sets I need to find to get umbrella entries, especially
umbrella entries that I didn't know where umbrella entries. We apparently
don't even know for sure what colors are available in each variant...
Color is a subject greatly in need of an intelligent monograph, but you point
is well taken.
Was entered into the catalog in 2008. But if you carefully pay attention to the
years range, the part was being molded in this variant from 2006. That means,
that for two years, sellers had no place to put either variant other than into
4589. There is likely inventory out there that claims to be 4589, but is in reality
4589b.
Nita Rae
And there were sets as late 2009 that had the possibility of containing one or
both variants in the same sets.
The only way to know was to physically check each piece for the groove. That
is still the only way to know for sure. For Trans colored cones especially,
it may require a fingernail or tumbnail test done on each piece to be absolutely
sure of the groove or lack of groove.
Was entered into the catalog in 2008. But if you carefully pay attention to the
years range, the part was being molded in this variant from 2006. That means,
that for two years, sellers had no place to put either variant other than into
4589. There is likely inventory out there that claims to be 4589, but is in reality
4589b.
Begin rhetorical question, that is not really a rant (even if it sounds like
one).
What wasn’t 4589 transitioned to 4589u (for unknown variant), and two variant
specific catalog entries created ? Unknown/undefined would have been correct,
but saying that everything in 4589 was automagically the early variant is some
combination of dangerous and wrong.
End rhetorical question.
Why am I concerned about this ? Because someone is complaining about ordering
the old variant, and receiving the new. My research tells me how this happened,
and while it did not happen between 2006 and 2006, this issue was revealed.
Nita Rae
This part was first seen going into 2008. The problem with BrickLink item years
is that they account for older sets that were available for a long time. The
2006 sets all have the 59900 cones as alternates, but early production runs of
those sets would have had 4589 cones.
It’s not that sellers didn’t have a separate entry for 59900 for two years, but
that these sets that were available during a transition period are messing up
entry years. These listing errors are more than likely just mistakes.
Was entered into the catalog in 2008. But if you carefully pay attention to the
years range, the part was being molded in this variant from 2006. That means,
that for two years, sellers had no place to put either variant other than into
4589. There is likely inventory out there that claims to be 4589, but is in reality
4589b.
Begin rhetorical question, that is not really a rant (even if it sounds like
one).
What wasn’t 4589 transitioned to 4589u (for unknown variant), and two variant
specific catalog entries created ? Unknown/undefined would have been correct,
but saying that everything in 4589 was automagically the early variant is some
combination of dangerous and wrong.
End rhetorical question.
Why am I concerned about this ? Because someone is complaining about ordering
the old variant, and receiving the new. My research tells me how this happened,
and while it did not happen between 2006 and 2006, this issue was revealed.
Nita Rae
This part was first seen going into 2008. The problem with BrickLink item years
is that they account for older sets that were available for a long time. The
2006 sets all have the 59900 cones as alternates, but early production runs of
those sets would have had 4589 cones.
It’s not that sellers didn’t have a separate entry for 59900 for two years, but
that these sets that were available during a transition period are messing up
entry years. These listing errors are more than likely just mistakes.
Part 4589b = 59900.
59892 (4506824) made its first appearance in June of 2007.
59901 (4506800) made its first appearance in August of 2007.
The transition from 4589 to 59900 probably began in the final months of 2007,
meaning that sellers would have only had to list 59900s as 4589s for a month
or two, at least until it was given its own entry in January of the following
year.
USA, Florida
Canada, Ontario
Netherlands, Zuid-Holland
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine
Italy, Marche