In 1986 (for the Dutch market or all markets, I don't recall), they decided
to downgrade this supplemental sets as a service pack, and they numbered it 1239
Then they realized it was a bad idea to sell this set in a service pack so since
1987, they again produced it in its box as before.
But they already had some leftovers and decided to re-purposed them by adding
an extra sticker 7863 on top of 1239's sticker, as seen in the photo:
That's it!
There are probably a few of these copies and I happen to see it once in the last
5-6 years and I bought a lot of 4 service packs, two of them was e-purposed 7863.
Does this really justify adding an extra catalog entry?!
IMHO hell no
In 1986 (for the Dutch market or all markets, I don't recall), they decided
to downgrade this supplemental sets as a service pack, and they numbered it 1239
Then they realized it was a bad idea to sell this set in a service pack so since
1987, they again produced it in its box as before.
But they already had some leftovers and decided to re-purposed them by adding
an extra sticker 7863 on top of 1239's sticker, as seen in the photo:
That's it!
There are probably a few of these copies and I happen to see it once in the last
5-6 years and I bought a lot of 4 service packs, two of them was e-purposed 7863.
Does this really justify adding an extra catalog entry?!
IMHO hell no
The set can now be identified properly in the catalog by the label that is on
it. And it was sold by that number, correct? Otherwise, why the need for the
extra sticker?
Since the packaging is very different from a box (7863-1), it was decided to
have a separate entry. So, yes, we do believe we are justified in adding the
catalog entry.
In 1986 (for the Dutch market or all markets, I don't recall), they decided
to downgrade this supplemental sets as a service pack, and they numbered it 1239
Then they realized it was a bad idea to sell this set in a service pack so since
1987, they again produced it in its box as before.
But they already had some leftovers and decided to re-purposed them by adding
an extra sticker 7863 on top of 1239's sticker, as seen in the photo:
That's it!
There are probably a few of these copies and I happen to see it once in the last
5-6 years and I bought a lot of 4 service packs, two of them was e-purposed 7863.
Does this really justify adding an extra catalog entry?!
IMHO hell no
The set can now be identified properly in the catalog by the label that is on
it. And it was sold by that number, correct? Otherwise, why the need for the
extra sticker?
Since the packaging is very different from a box (7863-1), it was decided to
have a separate entry. So, yes, we do believe we are justified in adding the
catalog entry.
Cheers,
Randy
There are many virtually identical sets in the Service Pack section of the catalog
that are only separated by a different set number or suffix. And this was the
way the catalog was built from almost the beginning.
I believe the principle was to provide maximum visibility for these somewhat
rare, highly collectible items, even if in theory it would have been more efficient
to use alternate item numbers.
We entertained a proposal a few years ago to consolidate many similar sets but
decided against it. One of the things gained (or retained) by using more entries
is that we can better track the release years and production years - for example:
In 1986 (for the Dutch market or all markets, I don't recall), they decided
to downgrade this supplemental sets as a service pack, and they numbered it 1239
Then they realized it was a bad idea to sell this set in a service pack so since
1987, they again produced it in its box as before.
But they already had some leftovers and decided to re-purposed them by adding
an extra sticker 7863 on top of 1239's sticker, as seen in the photo:
That's it!
There are probably a few of these copies and I happen to see it once in the last
5-6 years and I bought a lot of 4 service packs, two of them was e-purposed 7863.
Does this really justify adding an extra catalog entry?!
IMHO hell no
The set can now be identified properly in the catalog by the label that is on
it. And it was sold by that number, correct? Otherwise, why the need for the
extra sticker?
Since the packaging is very different from a box (7863-1), it was decided to
have a separate entry. So, yes, we do believe we are justified in adding the
catalog entry.
Cheers,
Randy
There are many virtually identical sets in the Service Pack section of the catalog
that are only separated by a different set number or suffix. And this was the
way the catalog was built from almost the beginning.
I believe the principle was to provide maximum visibility for these somewhat
rare, highly collectible items, even if in theory it would have been more efficient
to use alternate item numbers.
Yes I am aware of those service packs. They were advertised by those numbers.
Here is quite different:
My photo of the service pack 1239 was removed.
There is currently only one photo uploaded for 1239: the common boxed 7863 that
was re-purposed with a sticker "1239" and was sold as 1239. Based on
the same principle, we need to have an extra entry for 1239 as well. That makes
in total four entries instead of just two entries 1239 and 7863. But in Lego
catalogs, only two sets were advertised: 1239 and 7863.
P.S. I believe 7863 always came with instructions: the same one as that one 7858-9
In 1986 (for the Dutch market or all markets, I don't recall), they decided
to downgrade this supplemental sets as a service pack, and they numbered it 1239
Then they realized it was a bad idea to sell this set in a service pack so since
1987, they again produced it in its box as before.
But they already had some leftovers and decided to re-purposed them by adding
an extra sticker 7863 on top of 1239's sticker, as seen in the photo:
That's it!
There are probably a few of these copies and I happen to see it once in the last
5-6 years and I bought a lot of 4 service packs, two of them was e-purposed 7863.
Does this really justify adding an extra catalog entry?!
IMHO hell no
The set can now be identified properly in the catalog by the label that is on
it. And it was sold by that number, correct? Otherwise, why the need for the
extra sticker?
I explained why they added an sticker "1239" to 7863 box in early 1985
(as seen in the photo of 1239 that is uploaded) and why they added an sticker
"7863" to the service pack 1239 in 1986.
Since the packaging is very different from a box (7863-1), it was decided to
have a separate entry. So, yes, we do believe we are justified in adding the
catalog entry.
This can be handled by a beautiful small note and an extra photo to 7863 and
similarly for 1239.
This is what I think it is better to handle this.
Otherwise, for the same exact reason, we need to have an extra entry "1239-3"
to handle those service packs that came with the box 7863 and an sticker "1239"
on top of it.
If this is the case, shall I add a catalog entry for this extra 1239?
Otherwise, for the same exact reason, we need to have an extra entry "1239-3"
to handle those service packs that came with the box 7863 and an sticker "1239"
on top of it.
If this is the case, shall I add a catalog entry for this extra 1239?
If you feel inclined to add it, we will make sure it gets into the catalog.
Canada, British Columbia
USA, Ohio
