Eurobricks Citizen
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About 62Bricks

Spam Prevention

  • What is favorite LEGO theme? (we need this info to prevent spam)

Profile Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

760 profile views
  1. I had not heard of lead being present in LEGO pieces. They did use cadmium in early red parts, and bromine was added to all parts for a while as a fire retardant. It is the brownish bromine leeching to the surface of old bricks that causes yellowing.
  2. Robert is a good guy who wanted to do right by the Bricklink community. I didn't know about the dispute over being paid. So there would appear to be no catalog admin at the moment.
  3. The middle shade of gray is particular to this part and is fairly common. These clips were once made from a different type of plastic that was more flexible than ABS.
  4. I'm not only talking about prototypes or Legoland pieces. Bricklink defines a "known" color as one that has been included in a Bricklink inventory. Likewise, the years of production are based on the inventories. There are many instances of regular production pieces that are not "known" colors in the catalog simply because they have not been inventoried. The inventories are also frequently wrong - wrong variations are listed, wrong colors (especially with the grays), making the years of production incorrect. For another point of reference, here is the Peeron inventory from an opened set, from Feb, 2012: http://peeron.com/inv/sets/10221-1 It lists the 3x6 wedge plates in Old Gray. I think you have to do much more twisting and rationalizing to come with an explanation that this is not an original part in old light gray, especially when we know that a) Bricklink is sometimes wrong about dates and colors b) LEGO has mixed old and new colors in other sets and c) other people have reported this exact same thing in this set.
  5. Color changes never happen all at once - LEGO uses up all old stock even after new colors and variations are introduced, so to find an old color in a set two years after a new one is introduced is not impossible. Bricklink is a good guide, but it is not always accurate on when parts or colors were used. This is because the catalog is based on set inventories. There are many examples of parts that were in use before the date given in Bricklink, and in colors that are not "known." You cannot say a part was NEVER produced in a certain year or color based on the Bricklink catalog. I have a small collection of parts just like this. In the case of this set, the mixed gray colors has been documented in other new sets. There is a note about it at Bricklink: https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=10030-1&name=Imperial Star Destroyer - UCS&category=[Star Wars][Ultimate Collector Series][Star Wars Episode 4/5/6]#T=S&O={"iconly":0}
  6. Last week I asked the inventory admins why they were moving parts from the extras section into the regular section in apparent conflict with the stated definitions. I got no response, but today (Dec. 23) they changed the definitions to fit what they had already been doing in practice. The tail is wagging the dog, it seems. Regardless of where one thinks the parts should go, I think this makes it pretty clear that the admins are deciding what they want to do first without regard to past practice or the actual written policies, then changing the rules afterward. It is just this kind of ad hoc administration that has led to the situation they are trying to "fix." I don't see it improving until they step back and make some basic decisions on a mission. We're going to end up with a very pretty catalog with lots and lots of little rules to follow and exceptions to remember. It will be like fancy Swiss watch with so many little dials and numbers you can't actually tell what time it is. Edit: Forgot to give the link to the "new" rules: https://www.bricklink.com/help.asp?helpID=1562
  7. While they are relaxing this in one area, they're tipping the other direction in others. The new parts administrator is really leading the charge to get rid of as many inconsistencies as possible, but there does not seem to be any unifying mission on where to draw the line between these two needs. The only solutions that seem to be under consideration involve adding more layers of complexity to the catalog. It already has over 800 categories. It's kind of like looking at a houseful of jumbled possessions and thinking the only solution is to build more closets.
  8. The general thinking among the small crowd of users who are actively involved in catalog matters seems to be if only they had a more complex system they could create all kinds of different inventories for each set. I disagree that more complexity is the solution. It is entirely possible to include all the information about the set as it came packaged and as it is considered complete "used" using the current infrastructure. It only requires a different outlook. In the real world, we will never know how some sets came packaged new because there aren't any available to check. So setting that as a standard for the secondary market seems like a losing proposition from the start, to me. I think the BL catalog should be based on how people in the market and the hobby buy, sell and collect the parts and sets, not on a theoretical ideal new set. Dealers in sealed, new sets really have no need for the inventories to reflect the packaged items. Buyers and sellers of used sets or sets that have been opened or individual parts to complete sets are the ones who need an inventory that reflects how those sets appear in the after market.
  9. Now that almost all sets come with an "official" parts list, adopting that as the basis for sets that have parts lists makes sense. It simplifies the partout process for sellers and there is a clear source. Exceptions arise for sets from before the time when parts lists became common. Those are supposed to be based as much as possible on on the instructions, according to the current definitions. So "loose" parts shown in the instructions - like single-piece animals and soccer balls - would be included as regular parts. Parts included but not shown in the instructions were "extras." Essentially, they have re-written the rule based on new sets and are applying it retroactively to older sets, which is not clarifying things at all but is creating even more exceptions.
  10. Yes, the newer sets have a parts list, and Bricklink now uses those lists as the definition of "regular" parts in their inventories. However, they also follow LEGO's practice of calling the small bags of utensils (like this one) a single "part." In some cases, not all of the utensils are used to complete the model as it is built in the instructions. In the past, these parts that were not used would have gone in the "extras" section. Now they are in the regular section.
  11. Not a bad idea, but unfortunately "extras" are not the same everywhere. In the past, at least, boxes packed in one factory might have different extras than those packed in another. This is why the definition of "complete" is based on building the models because presumably every copy of the set will have those parts in common. The new unwritten policy is in conflict with the established practice and the written definitions, and it is creating a needless inconsistency in the inventories.
  12. ...you should be aware that something of a coup has taken place there recently and the catalog geeks are now in charge. These are all well-meaning people, but their priorities are quite different than most buyers, sellers and collectors in my opinion. The new de facto policy is to catalog sets as they were packaged rather than based on the parts used in the main models which is how it has been done for many years, and which is what the actual catalog definitions still state. Most people are aware that most LEGO sets come with "extra" pieces that are not used in the model. These are usually small parts. Bricklink policy used to be that the parts used to build the main model as shown in the instructions were put in the "regular" section and the other parts were put in the "extras" section of the inventory. The Bricklink definition of a "complete set" for the purposes of buying and selling is based on this policy. On Bricklink, "complete" means a set has all the parts needed to build the main and alternate models and does not require the extra parts. These definitions are all still in place, but they are not being followed by the admins any longer. Instead, they are hunting down photos of sealed sets and bags to document how parts were packaged and making changes to inventories based on that. A problem arises with parts like 1x1 round plates, which for a time were packaged with two plates on a sprue. In the past, the plates were listed in inventories individually. That means if two plates were included on a sprue but only one was in the model, one went in the regular section and one in the extras section. But the new admins are now actively deleting these plates from the extras section and putting them back on their sprues and into the regular section. The result is that the regular section now includes parts not used in the model. If you have any of these used sets listed for sale as "complete" they are now potentially incomplete. And if you're buying one, you should know that you might not get that extra 1x1 round plate. Perhaps not a big deal in the grand scheme, however there is potential for bigger issues if they keep following the policy. Some of the plumes from Castle sets that came packaged three on a sprue are fairly valuable parts, for example, but are currently listed in the extras section of some sets. If this new practice puts them back in the regular section, you might end up with an upset customer or frustrated seller whose set that was complete when it was listed is now missing a $10 part. It is not only the older sprue pieces. BL also recently changed the definition of regular parts to make the small individually-bagged accessories, like the utensils in Friends sets, a single "piece" in the regular section. This has the same effect in some sets where not all the pieces in the bag are used in the model. As far as I can tell, this was done mainly because of another obsession of the new admin crew, which is to make the Bricklink inventory part count match the one on the LEGO box - this is despite the fact that over the years LEGO has changed what they consider to be a "part" for purposes of the part count, and until recently did not even include part counts on the box for most of the world. I'm not averse to change - there are also some much-needed improvements being made to the catalog. But I fear this new direction is veering away from the idea that the catalog should reflect how the sets are bought, sold and collected.
  13. 62Bricks

    Angled SNOT Challenge

    One possibility is to use two 1x1 brackets and a 1x plate or tile to connect them. You can experiment with the spacing to get the angle you need, and do it at either end of the plate for stability.
  14. 62Bricks

    Did lego ever have church sets?

    Here's a great thread about the 1762 church and other "official" LEGO churches: https://forum.brickset.com/discussion/17323/lego-church-set
  15. LEGO Universe had a similar name generator. I was IckyMushElectron Now I'm SergeantDexterousHackler