Edited by Fugazi, 02 October 2012 - 12:43 PM.
Set Restoration: Original (vintage) or new parts?
Posted 15 December 2010 - 01:18 AM
Edited by Fugazi, 02 October 2012 - 12:43 PM.
My set reviews: 410 Payloader, 6517 Water Jet, 6854 Alien Fossilizer
Posted 15 December 2010 - 02:23 AM
Edited by prateek, 15 December 2010 - 02:23 AM.
Posted 15 December 2010 - 03:02 AM
Posted 15 December 2010 - 03:20 AM
My Classic Space Space Cruiser sits in front of me right now, half reconstructed, mocking me in a loving way... my first set with minifigs who actually had arms (1978).
Posted 15 December 2010 - 01:17 PM
As it has been said it adds to the nostalgia and makes that more classic. I do sometimes redo old sets in new colors just to see what they would look like.
My 2 cents
Posted 15 December 2010 - 01:20 PM
Do you love Classic-Pirates.com? Subscribe! to the new mailing list!
How to download LEGO instructions from LEGO.com
Visit my about me page for all of my Set reviews, and info about me!
Please read the Members Guidelines and check the Index of Tutorials (including re-sizing images)
Posted 15 December 2010 - 02:43 PM
Posted 15 December 2010 - 03:50 PM
(Click here if you'd like to do business with me)
Posted 15 December 2010 - 04:07 PM
This way you still indeed have your old set, and the crucial parts of it came from your childhood but it looks and feels like a model that could be currently in production
— Terry Pratchett
My MOC Pages
Posted 09 September 2012 - 07:36 PM
I admit that it can lead to a lot of confusion for the untrained eye or new collectors (and is why online databases try to avoid this)... but advanced collectors should have some means to be able to do so. It's ironic that I'm asking for something that I cannot figure out how to do logically... but collectively perhaps AFOLs can come up with something.
See my Yellow Castle Parts sales (in Buy-Sell-Trade) for some of the discoveries I have made in separating old from new bricks, by closely checking each one).... I think I'm going to need bifocals now...
Also... I agree that mold variations can be extensive... for example the 2x4 brick has over 40 mold variations, but a lot of those have to do with the numbers printed inside the mold, and I'm not advocating going to that extreme.
I also realize that the number of admins working for the databases is limited... and what I'm suggesting would take a lot more workers than is perfectly logical.
Maybe I should just be happy and not bitch that I parsed out over 2000 sets into separate boxes, and now I have the ability to reassemble them without difficulty (although for me there's still a learning curve)....
Edited by LEGO Historian, 09 September 2012 - 07:38 PM.
Posted 09 September 2012 - 10:10 PM
When you consider that, as you say, there are at least 40 variations on a 2x4 brick, the work involved in going through even a moderately sized collection just becomes a monumental task. And if, the reason you're doing so is to sell them on, that almost inevitably results in either you having to sell them at extortionately high prices or to value your own time so little that you're never really reclaiming what you deserve for the effort put in. And of course it's all made worse by the fact only the strictest of purist is ever really going to care that they have the exact type of yellow 2x4 brick that would have been in the set originally (and for them it'd probably cheaper, easier and more reliable to track down a MISB than to put in any of the effort involved).
I don't think a system to precisely identify LEGO parts will ever be practical until cheap, but accurate 3D scanners are ubiquitous and easily automated across a whole collection. And it would still require some pretty epic work to accurately accumulate details on older sets' part usage.
Posted 10 September 2012 - 03:13 AM
My First Real MOC!
Almost ready for customers! Comics, Karate, and brutally painful Dentistry, all under one roof!
Posted 10 September 2012 - 07:05 AM
But I think it would be nice to have the Pat. Pend. and Pat. Pend. removed parts isolated as a separate group of parts... which is even (cost wise) more important than newer bricks with cross-supports. I think that LEGO AFOLs are smart enough to understand the 3 main varieties on the underside of LEGO bricks and plates... 4 if you include cross supports on the bricks. But I can agree that PIP location or mold numbers is asking way too much of what collectors want.
Usually I can tell if a "used" set has been re-assembled from different parts... if there is a great amount of differences in the condition of the parts... that's usually a good sign that this is a re-constituted set.
Edited by LEGO Historian, 10 September 2012 - 07:08 AM.
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users