87785 Cloth Cape, Zurg Large Figure Pointed Collar with Red and Black Sides Parts: Cloth
First, it comes packed in a cardboard sleeve. The sleeve, being an integral part
of a New example, adds weight. The weight of a New example is 28.95 gms. This
might deserve a note on the catalog page, and sellers with New stock may want
to override the lot weight to reflect the sleeve.
Second, the cardboard sleeve has a part number on it of 4565209. As this number
is not showing as an alternate on the catalog entry, perhaps it should.
87785 Cloth Cape, Zurg Large Figure Pointed Collar with Red and Black Sides Parts: Cloth
First, it comes packed in a cardboard sleeve. The sleeve, being an integral part
of a New example, adds weight. The weight of a New example is 28.95 gms. This
might deserve a note on the catalog page, and sellers with New stock may want
to override the lot weight to reflect the sleeve.
The original cardboard sleeve entry has the weight of the original cardboard
sleeve, however just the cape has the weight of just the cape.
Second, the cardboard sleeve has a part number on it of 4565209. As this number
is not showing as an alternate on the catalog entry, perhaps it should.
No cardboard sleeves are added to the inventories in general so I doubt they
will for this one. What you brought up with this one would apply to ever cape
in the catalogue if I’m understanding correctly
No cardboard sleeves are added to the inventories in general so I doubt they
will for this one. What you brought up with this one would apply to ever cape
in the catalogue if I’m understanding correctly
Plus some sets have two capes for two different minifigs in one sleeve.
87785 Cloth Cape, Zurg Large Figure Pointed Collar with Red and Black Sides Parts: Cloth
First, it comes packed in a cardboard sleeve. The sleeve, being an integral part
of a New example, adds weight. The weight of a New example is 28.95 gms. This
might deserve a note on the catalog page, and sellers with New stock may want
to override the lot weight to reflect the sleeve.
The original cardboard sleeve entry has the weight of the original cardboard
sleeve, however just the cape has the weight of just the cape.
Second, the cardboard sleeve has a part number on it of 4565209. As this number
is not showing as an alternate on the catalog entry, perhaps it should.
No cardboard sleeves are added to the inventories in general so I doubt they
will for this one. What you brought up with this one would apply to ever cape
in the catalogue if I’m understanding correctly
I understand what you are suggesting, however the fact that the sleeve
is taped shut, and it confirms the newness of the item, makes it integral.
This is (yet another) example of why a flat catalog is problematic. What might
be valid for an inventory of a used set, is less valid for a new set. I will
not sell this item without the sealed sleeve. But, listing it as the sleeve,
does not tie back to what is inside of the sleeve, in a way that an average buyer
can perceive. So I can't list the sleeve.
It isn't so much that the catalog is wrong, it's that the catalog has
no way to select A or B (like an alternate) where A is the New version and
B is the Used version. It is both an alternate, and it isn't. Since the sleeve
is meaningless without the contents, then perhaps the 7-digit number needs to
represent the cape in a sealed sleeve. I know that's not going to happen,
but it is the only way (within the current Catalog architecture) to get from
here to there. Then put the sealed sleeve with cape as an alternate to the plain
old cape, in the inventory.
87785 Cloth Cape, Zurg Large Figure Pointed Collar with Red and Black Sides Parts: Cloth
First, it comes packed in a cardboard sleeve. The sleeve, being an integral part
of a New example, adds weight. The weight of a New example is 28.95 gms. This
might deserve a note on the catalog page, and sellers with New stock may want
to override the lot weight to reflect the sleeve.
The original cardboard sleeve entry has the weight of the original cardboard
sleeve, however just the cape has the weight of just the cape.
Second, the cardboard sleeve has a part number on it of 4565209. As this number
is not showing as an alternate on the catalog entry, perhaps it should.
No cardboard sleeves are added to the inventories in general so I doubt they
will for this one. What you brought up with this one would apply to ever cape
in the catalogue if I’m understanding correctly
I understand what you are suggesting, however the fact that the sleeve
is taped shut, and it confirms the newness of the item, makes it integral.
many sleeves and plastic parts come inside boxes. even some instruction manuals
lately are inside cardboard boxes. they are considered by bricklink (at least
to my understanding) to be just packaging. just like how an instruction manual
doesn't have the weight of its cardboard sleeve same for capes as its just
the weight of the cape itself. if you are interested in selling the sleeve you
can list it under the sleeves entry
when you get it in a set and list it you throw
away the box it came in or specify on that listing that it still includes its
box. same with instruction manuals that come in sleeves, it might be how it was
packaged from lego however the listing of the instructions is specifically for
the instructions and isn't for the packaging it came in. same goes for the
instructions that are shipping in plastic bags. it would set a huge (and probably
bad) president if entries started including their packaging
This is (yet another) example of why a flat catalog is problematic. What might
be valid for an inventory of a used set, is less valid for a new set. I will
not sell this item without the sealed sleeve. But, listing it as the sleeve,
does not tie back to what is inside of the sleeve, in a way that an average buyer
can perceive. So I can't list the sleeve.
sleeves do still sell but most buyers dont care about the sleeve so not many
want to pay a premium for said sleeve but if they do then they most likely can
follow the entry to the sleeves listing and purchase in there
It isn't so much that the catalog is wrong, it's that the catalog has
no way to select A or B (like an alternate) where A is the New version and
B is the Used version. It is both an alternate, and it isn't. Since the sleeve
is meaningless without the contents, then perhaps the 7-digit number needs to
represent the cape in a sealed sleeve. I know that's not going to happen,
but it is the only way (within the current Catalog architecture) to get from
here to there. Then put the sealed sleeve with cape as an alternate to the plain
old cape, in the inventory.
I do agree it would be amazing if sleeves could've listed as alternates however
that would then result in having said cape twice within 1 inventory which is
probably the reason they haven't done it
I do agree it would be amazing if sleeves could've listed as alternates however
that would then result in having said cape twice within 1 inventory which is
probably the reason they haven't done it
I think we are both on a similar thought line. This all began because the weight
of the cape, as packaged in the set, is significantly heavier than the weight
of bare piece of cloth.
For most small capes, this is a non-issue. This example is an issue, because
it could result in the calculated weight for the order to drift off actual weight.
The way to solve that is to change the catalog entry, but I'm not going down
that road because the admins would take great umbrage if I did.
So we are left with two forks in the road, list as the cape (which is what most
buyers would be searching for) or list as the sleeve (which is most cases would
never equate to the cape, no matter what the catalog relationship says).
I see both sides of the issue. There may be more than two perspectives. There
is no simple answer, that solves the problem for the person parting out and for
the prospective buyer seeking quality. The Catalog, which has served us well,
has inflexible rules, and sometimes those rules run up against how TLG builds
sets.
87785 Cloth Cape, Zurg Large Figure Pointed Collar with Red and Black Sides Parts: Cloth
First, it comes packed in a cardboard sleeve. The sleeve, being an integral part
of a New example, adds weight. The weight of a New example is 28.95 gms. This
might deserve a note on the catalog page, and sellers with New stock may want
to override the lot weight to reflect the sleeve.
The original cardboard sleeve entry has the weight of the original cardboard
sleeve, however just the cape has the weight of just the cape.
Second, the cardboard sleeve has a part number on it of 4565209. As this number
is not showing as an alternate on the catalog entry, perhaps it should.
No cardboard sleeves are added to the inventories in general so I doubt they
will for this one. What you brought up with this one would apply to ever cape
in the catalogue if I’m understanding correctly
I understand what you are suggesting, however the fact that the sleeve
is taped shut, and it confirms the newness of the item, makes it integral.
Yes, it confirms the newness, but that is not the criteria for new. The criteria
for new is _not_ used. Just as a set box is packaging material for new bricks
that are separated out for selling, the sleeve is packaging material for the
new cape. Removing the cape from the sleeve does not make it used, just like
removing bricks from a box do not make them used. Using the items make them used.
This is (yet another) example of why a flat catalog is problematic. What might
be valid for an inventory of a used set, is less valid for a new set. I will
not sell this item without the sealed sleeve. But, listing it as the sleeve,
does not tie back to what is inside of the sleeve, in a way that an average buyer
can perceive. So I can't list the sleeve.
The sleeve entry was only created so people could know what came inside of it
without having to open it. You are free to list your sleeve with that entry,
but it will never be added to an inventory because the sleeve is considered packaging
material and unnecessary for commerce. It would also duplicate items in an inventory.
However, the sleeve entry does contain the contents, so it is perfectly useful
for selling the item in its packaging.
Or you can list the item as new under the cape entry and add a note that it comes
in the packaging. Either way gets you to your goal of selling the item in packaging.
It isn't so much that the catalog is wrong, it's that the catalog has
no way to select A or B (like an alternate) where A is the New version and
B is the Used version.
Once again, you are conflating BrickLink definitions of new and used with packaging
of new and used items. Items do not have to be in packaging to be new. They just
can't be used.
It is both an alternate, and it isn't. Since the sleeve
is meaningless without the contents, then perhaps the 7-digit number needs to
represent the cape in a sealed sleeve. I know that's not going to happen,
but it is the only way (within the current Catalog architecture) to get from
here to there. Then put the sealed sleeve with cape as an alternate to the plain
old cape, in the inventory.
87785 Cloth Cape, Zurg Large Figure Pointed Collar with Red and Black Sides Parts: Cloth
First, it comes packed in a cardboard sleeve. The sleeve, being an integral part
of a New example, adds weight. The weight of a New example is 28.95 gms. This
might deserve a note on the catalog page, and sellers with New stock may want
to override the lot weight to reflect the sleeve.
The original cardboard sleeve entry has the weight of the original cardboard
sleeve, however just the cape has the weight of just the cape.
Second, the cardboard sleeve has a part number on it of 4565209. As this number
is not showing as an alternate on the catalog entry, perhaps it should.
No cardboard sleeves are added to the inventories in general so I doubt they
will for this one. What you brought up with this one would apply to ever cape
in the catalogue if I’m understanding correctly
I understand what you are suggesting, however the fact that the sleeve
is taped shut, and it confirms the newness of the item, makes it integral.
Yes, it confirms the newness, but that is not the criteria for new. The criteria
for new is _not_ used. Just as a set box is packaging material for new bricks
that are separated out for selling, the sleeve is packaging material for the
new cape. Removing the cape from the sleeve does not make it used, just like
removing bricks from a box do not make them used. Using the items make them used.
BL most definitely (at least for sets) entertains the concept of Sealed. Beyond
this specific example, there are other individual parts which are (for a variety
of reasons) sealed individually within a plastic bag. The sleeve exists for similar
reasons.
This is (yet another) example of why a flat catalog is problematic. What might
be valid for an inventory of a used set, is less valid for a new set. I will
not sell this item without the sealed sleeve. But, listing it as the sleeve,
does not tie back to what is inside of the sleeve, in a way that an average buyer
can perceive. So I can't list the sleeve.
The sleeve entry was only created so people could know what came inside of it
without having to open it. You are free to list your sleeve with that entry,
but it will never be added to an inventory because the sleeve is considered packaging
material and unnecessary for commerce. It would also duplicate items in an inventory.
The sleeve contributes to the flatness of the cape. Without it, and knowing how
bags bounce around inside a set box, the cape would end up being warped and bent.
Selling a cape, without the sleeve or an equivalent prop runs the same loss of
quality issue. The sleeve was also used during set assembly for automation.
In one sense, and this probably does not move the discussion along but there
you go, the sleeve is an synonym to a bag that contains parts. We do not add
those bags to the catalog, but those bags typically do not have 7-digit part
numbers either[1]. What we call the PCC is actually a 7-digit stock keeping number
for TLG manufacturing. It eventually became printed in the back of the instructions
should people want to order a replacement part. While we don't see them,
I'm willing to bet that bags of parts (with no specific identification on
the bags) also have 7-digit numbers used by manufacturing. The exterior boxes
have them, and the older cardboard trays have them.
[1] But I have run across examples of collections of individual parts which did
get a catalog entry, even if TLG did them that way primarily for manufacturing
purposes.
87785 Cloth Cape, Zurg Large Figure Pointed Collar with Red and Black Sides Parts: Cloth
First, it comes packed in a cardboard sleeve. The sleeve, being an integral part
of a New example, adds weight. The weight of a New example is 28.95 gms. This
might deserve a note on the catalog page, and sellers with New stock may want
to override the lot weight to reflect the sleeve.
The original cardboard sleeve entry has the weight of the original cardboard
sleeve, however just the cape has the weight of just the cape.
Second, the cardboard sleeve has a part number on it of 4565209. As this number
is not showing as an alternate on the catalog entry, perhaps it should.
No cardboard sleeves are added to the inventories in general so I doubt they
will for this one. What you brought up with this one would apply to ever cape
in the catalogue if I’m understanding correctly
I understand what you are suggesting, however the fact that the sleeve
is taped shut, and it confirms the newness of the item, makes it integral.
Yes, it confirms the newness, but that is not the criteria for new. The criteria
for new is _not_ used. Just as a set box is packaging material for new bricks
that are separated out for selling, the sleeve is packaging material for the
new cape. Removing the cape from the sleeve does not make it used, just like
removing bricks from a box do not make them used. Using the items make them used.
BL most definitely (at least for sets) entertains the concept of Sealed. Beyond
this specific example, there are other individual parts which are (for a variety
of reasons) sealed individually within a plastic bag. The sleeve exists for similar
reasons.
This is (yet another) example of why a flat catalog is problematic. What might
be valid for an inventory of a used set, is less valid for a new set. I will
not sell this item without the sealed sleeve. But, listing it as the sleeve,
does not tie back to what is inside of the sleeve, in a way that an average buyer
can perceive. So I can't list the sleeve.
The sleeve entry was only created so people could know what came inside of it
without having to open it. You are free to list your sleeve with that entry,
but it will never be added to an inventory because the sleeve is considered packaging
material and unnecessary for commerce. It would also duplicate items in an inventory.
The sleeve contributes to the flatness of the cape. Without it, and knowing how
bags bounce around inside a set box, the cape would end up being warped and bent.
Selling a cape, without the sleeve or an equivalent prop runs the same loss of
quality issue. The sleeve was also used during set assembly for automation.
Many of the cardboard sleeves contain more than one item in them, so they have
to be opened to sell an individual cape or other cloth part separately. There
is nothing wrong with this, and that is why there are entries for every cloth
item without packaging. I have ordered plenty of new cloth parts that are shipped
between pieces of cardboard by sellers. That way of shipping them is actually
better than the cardboard sleeves.
Also, I have seen cardboard sleeves packed with the wrong item, so I like to
actually know that I am getting what I ordered.
In one sense, and this probably does not move the discussion along but there
you go, the sleeve is an synonym to a bag that contains parts. We do not add
those bags to the catalog, but those bags typically do not have 7-digit part
numbers either[1].
All of them do behind the scenes. They just aren't printed on the bags for
the most part (some are). In any case, we weren't getting asked multiple
times per year what was in a bag. We were getting asked that for the cardboard
sleeves because people didn't want to open and damage them to find out what
was inside. Therefore, they were _only_ added to the catalog as a way to curb
those questions. Nothing more, nothing less. Since the cardboard sleeves are
now able to be opened without damaging them (no tape or perforations), we do
not add them to the catalog anymore.
What we call the PCC is actually a 7-digit stock keeping number
for TLG manufacturing. It eventually became printed in the back of the instructions
should people want to order a replacement part. While we don't see them,
I'm willing to bet that bags of parts (with no specific identification on
the bags) also have 7-digit numbers used by manufacturing. The exterior boxes
have them, and the older cardboard trays have them.
As above, they sure do. But the element number that you see on a sleeve is _not_
the element number of the item(s) inside. The element number on the sleeve
is used for the combined "item" of cardboard sleeve _including_ contents.
The actual item(s) in the sleeve have their own element numbers.
In your case here, the cape has element number 4562067. The "item" that
consists of the sleeve and the cape has element number 4565209. They are different
beasts. As I said before, the current catalog entries cover all possibilities
that sellers need for these items.
[1] But I have run across examples of collections of individual parts which did
get a catalog entry, even if TLG did them that way primarily for manufacturing
purposes.
The sleeve contributes to the flatness of the cape. Without it, and knowing how
bags bounce around inside a set box, the cape would end up being warped and bent.
Selling a cape, without the sleeve or an equivalent prop runs the same loss of
quality issue. The sleeve was also used during set assembly for automation.
Many of the cardboard sleeves contain more than one item in them, so they have
to be opened to sell an individual cape or other cloth part separately. There
is nothing wrong with this, and that is why there are entries for every cloth
item without packaging. I have ordered plenty of new cloth parts that are shipped
between pieces of cardboard by sellers. That way of shipping them is actually
better than the cardboard sleeves.
+1 in general it’s a very bad idea to actually ship it inside the original sleeve
as you mentioned that it can many times have multiple items in it and 2 many
times they offer 0 protection (aside from the super slim ones that are sturdy)
as most are made of very weak cardboard and have lots of empty space which can
easily get crushed in shipping or let the cape move around easily which can be
bad. I’ve always simply (for normal capes not on figures) put the cape in a small
bag, put a business card on each side, then put that in a large bag. It’s weighs
very little weight and is amazing protection during shipping
The sleeve contributes to the flatness of the cape. Without it, and knowing how
bags bounce around inside a set box, the cape would end up being warped and bent.
Selling a cape, without the sleeve or an equivalent prop runs the same loss of
quality issue. The sleeve was also used during set assembly for automation.
Many of the cardboard sleeves contain more than one item in them, so they have
to be opened to sell an individual cape or other cloth part separately. There
is nothing wrong with this, and that is why there are entries for every cloth
item without packaging. I have ordered plenty of new cloth parts that are shipped
between pieces of cardboard by sellers. That way of shipping them is actually
better than the cardboard sleeves.
+1 in general it’s a very bad idea to actually ship it inside the original sleeve
as you mentioned that it can many times have multiple items in it and 2 many
times they offer 0 protection (aside from the super slim ones that are sturdy)
as most are made of very weak cardboard and have lots of empty space which can
easily get crushed in shipping or let the cape move around easily which can be
bad. I’ve always simply (for normal capes not on figures) put the cape in a small
bag, put a business card on each side, then put that in a large bag. It’s weighs
very little weight and is amazing protection during shipping
The cardboard sleeve is what TLG chose to protect the item during packaging.
So I find that line of reasoning disingenuous at best. I would rather have a
perfectly flat, and intact sleeve, than to ship the cape with no sleeve (where
it would likely to be creased). As to the multiple inside argument, that should
be able to be observed by checking the weight (without breaking the seal). The
sleeve in this example has a small window, to be able to confirm that it has
at least one present. If the same sleeve were used for different capes, then
the window at a minimum will allow the color to be observed.
The sleeve contributes to the flatness of the cape. Without it, and knowing how
bags bounce around inside a set box, the cape would end up being warped and bent.
Selling a cape, without the sleeve or an equivalent prop runs the same loss of
quality issue. The sleeve was also used during set assembly for automation.
Many of the cardboard sleeves contain more than one item in them, so they have
to be opened to sell an individual cape or other cloth part separately. There
is nothing wrong with this, and that is why there are entries for every cloth
item without packaging. I have ordered plenty of new cloth parts that are shipped
between pieces of cardboard by sellers. That way of shipping them is actually
better than the cardboard sleeves.
+1 in general it’s a very bad idea to actually ship it inside the original sleeve
as you mentioned that it can many times have multiple items in it and 2 many
times they offer 0 protection (aside from the super slim ones that are sturdy)
as most are made of very weak cardboard and have lots of empty space which can
easily get crushed in shipping or let the cape move around easily which can be
bad. I’ve always simply (for normal capes not on figures) put the cape in a small
bag, put a business card on each side, then put that in a large bag. It’s weighs
very little weight and is amazing protection during shipping
The cardboard sleeve is what TLG chose to protect the item during packaging.
So I find that line of reasoning disingenuous at best.
From lego it ships (most times) inside a large box, however in general most bricklink
orders are shipped inside bubble mailers which have significantly less structural
integrity plus almost every time I’ve ordered a cape from a seller and they ship
it in the original box the box is very often damaged from shipping and depending
how many I order It can make me pay a lot more on shipping so it’s a lose lose
situation
I would rather have a
perfectly flat, and intact sleeve, than to ship the cape with no sleeve (where
it would likely to be creased). As to the multiple inside argument, that should
be able to be observed by checking the weight (without breaking the seal). The
sleeve in this example has a small window, to be able to confirm that it has
at least one present. If the same sleeve were used for different capes, then
the window at a minimum will allow the color to be observed.
You misunderstand. Many sleeves have multiple separate capes inside the same
same sleeve so unless the buyer purchases all the separate capes at the same
time (I think I’ve seen up to 5 or so capes in 1 box) then you have to open the
box to begin with and as such create a system for shipping unboxed capes. Plus
they stopped accepting new sleeves into the catalogue unless the sleeve is taped
shut or such so in general sleeves aren’t being added to the catalog much anymore
The sleeve contributes to the flatness of the cape. Without it, and knowing how
bags bounce around inside a set box, the cape would end up being warped and bent.
Selling a cape, without the sleeve or an equivalent prop runs the same loss of
quality issue. The sleeve was also used during set assembly for automation.
Many of the cardboard sleeves contain more than one item in them, so they have
to be opened to sell an individual cape or other cloth part separately. There
is nothing wrong with this, and that is why there are entries for every cloth
item without packaging. I have ordered plenty of new cloth parts that are shipped
between pieces of cardboard by sellers. That way of shipping them is actually
better than the cardboard sleeves.
+1 in general it’s a very bad idea to actually ship it inside the original sleeve
as you mentioned that it can many times have multiple items in it and 2 many
times they offer 0 protection (aside from the super slim ones that are sturdy)
as most are made of very weak cardboard and have lots of empty space which can
easily get crushed in shipping or let the cape move around easily which can be
bad. I’ve always simply (for normal capes not on figures) put the cape in a small
bag, put a business card on each side, then put that in a large bag. It’s weighs
very little weight and is amazing protection during shipping
The cardboard sleeve is what TLG chose to protect the item during packaging.
So I find that line of reasoning disingenuous at best.
And they ship it inside a bag that is inside a larger box (with plenty of air
space) that is yet inside a _larger_ carton of sets being shipped through freight...not
a bubble mailer going through USPS Ground Advantage.
I would rather have a
perfectly flat, and intact sleeve, than to ship the cape with no sleeve (where
it would likely to be creased). As to the multiple inside argument, that should
be able to be observed by checking the weight (without breaking the seal). The
sleeve in this example has a small window, to be able to confirm that it has
at least one present. If the same sleeve were used for different capes, then
the window at a minimum will allow the color to be observed.
USA, Florida
Canada, Ontario
