Brickset ForumShopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Does piecing together a set from PAB and Bricklink count as "owning" a set?
CypressLI
Member Posts: 3
If this has already been discussed, my apologies for the repeat.
So I took the bricklist from Peeron for set 6085 and purchased what I could from PAB and then filled in the rest of the pieces from Bricklink. Does this count as "owning" the set? I was just wondering how everyone feels about this and I kinda feel like a cheater but on the other hand, I couldn't afford this hobby otherwise. I have loads of fun going through peoples stores on Bricklink and picking out what I need; and then a few days later this package of joy shows up in the mail and I can put a little more of the set together.
I will happily uncheck 6085 from "my sets" if the community deems it to be so...
So I took the bricklist from Peeron for set 6085 and purchased what I could from PAB and then filled in the rest of the pieces from Bricklink. Does this count as "owning" the set? I was just wondering how everyone feels about this and I kinda feel like a cheater but on the other hand, I couldn't afford this hobby otherwise. I have loads of fun going through peoples stores on Bricklink and picking out what I need; and then a few days later this package of joy shows up in the mail and I can put a little more of the set together.
I will happily uncheck 6085 from "my sets" if the community deems it to be so...
0
Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
Recent discussions • Categories • Privacy Policy • Brickset.com
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- All Categories
- 16.2K General
- 3 Announcements
- 3.1K Collecting
- 3.7K Everything else LEGO
- 1.7K Building and Techniques
- 2.3K Brickset
- 14 Ambassador
- 1K Introduce yourself
- 385 The Database
- 438 Brickset.com
- 315 Forum Operation
- 15 FAQs
- 13.9K Shopping
- 1.7K Shopping USA/Canada
- 337 Shopping Elsewhere
- 11K Marketplace
- 1.2K Other
- 571 Community and Events
- 262 Photography/Video
Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Comments
http://www.bricksetforum.com/discussion/comment/4671/#Comment_4671
@rocao - couldn't agree more, I don't really care all that much about the "original" parts, but I always feel just a bit cheated when I buy a "set" on ebay which has modern stand-ins for the old parts (like the wrong type of clip, etc)
Same with Sets I put up on eBay.. I always try to use the correct type of part or note if I do not... Because I know that collectors value that, although the tough sets are ones that were made during a transition from a type to a type.. and usually Peeron's parts likes confuse the clips.
I believe the Big Rig Truck Stop is like this, where I think clips went from a type 1 to a type 2 so I have seen sets with type one clips (as show in the instruction pics) but they appear to have type 2 in the parts (Although I never had an brand new Big Rig Truck Stop-nor would I open a MISB one now if I had one-) so I dunno if someone can confirm my statement above..
It is a shame though that most type 1 clips from the Classic Gray always seemed a shade darker than other bricks.. does anyone know why this is?
Thanks!
/that ACM looks really cool
:)
The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned [from Crete] had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same.
Which reminds me of this XKCD cartoon appropriately titled Lego.
Take that Plutarch!
Just my opinion....cheers!!
I sure hope after all of this I own them.
If I know I bought or recieved a set, I own it. If I've got instructions to piece a set together independant of any other sets and don't have to cannibalize another set, then I own it.
But if you're going to sell, then yes, do disclose the fact it's pieced together. I've found it annoying to have not had that fact disclosed to me on a couple sets bought over the 'net.
So I guess it is all in the eyes of an owner.. I have sold many a set that technically were pieced together, but I still deem them originals as I use original colors, try to weed out the badly sun worn or discolored parts, and try to match shades of the parts, but that can be difficult to do as brand new sets usually have different shades to part.. especially now.
Everyone has their own interpretation of having a 'set', but I include a few that only have printed instructions and none of the rare stickers (the 1818 set) While I consider it a set in my mind it is more of an incomplete set as it missing pieces that if I get a chance to get I will in order to 'complete' the set.
Now, for those of you talking about piecing things together from other sets who believe that piecing together counts, but not if you cannibalize:
If I buy set A and set B original from LEGO, then proceed to use the pieces to build and display set C, and that would comprise my entire LEGO collection, which set(s) do I own?
To my mind, there is no hard & fast answer. What if you buy a MISB set, then open it & lose a minifig. Do you still 'own' that set, since you cannot now build it? What if you lose more parts, but still have the box & instructions? What if you buy the set 2nd hand, without the minifig? Do you 'own' the set then? How many parts can you lose before the set is no longer 'owned'?
I'm not sure this is a particularly productive discussion ... :-)
In the end all of the pieces are made by Lego and whether you get them prepackaged together or separately makes no difference in my mind. Even Lego sells same pieces of differing color and quality within a prepackaged set. Does the fact that the pieces were picked out by a robot and packaged within a few hours make them different from ones packaged / sourced at a later date? In the modular sets Lego sells like pieces obviously made at different periods of time because the colors are off....so if Lego sources them at different periods of time and mashes them all together to make a set then why can't we do the same?
I think the only debate is do you need the box and instructions. I'd say Lego is more about the plastic than the paper but ridiculous prices for empty boxes and instructions that are freely available to download may prove me wrong.
Now I'm guessing people would look to other indicators to answer the question which sets are owned. In that case I'll add the information that the pieces were bought as boxed sets A+B, however, I decided to construct and display set C instead using some of the pieces from A and some from B. Now there is a bit of paradox involved. Based on the sensibility of purchasing sets I own A+B and based on sensibility of building sets from parts I own C, but based on the rule of owning enough pieces I can't own A+B and C.
You might say, hey if it's just broken down in a tub you own A+B, but once you dedicate the parts to a physical construction you own C. But of course I can always just break things down and build them up. Which opens up the possibility of changing the sets I own without changing the pieces I own at all, which is very counter intuitive. Not sure how comfortable people feel about that idea.
Philosophical discussion is unlike politics and religion. It is not about opinion but about logical consistency.
I guess to end this debate is if you sell it, explain what is missing and let the chips (or bricks) fall where they may.
I've pieced together quite a few sets that I missed when I was in my dark ages. I've made sure I used the exact piece needed (example: type 1 clip vs type 2 clip) and I've gotten the correct minifigs for the set. If you put my set right next to a set that was purchased from Lego there would be no difference so I feel that I do in fact own the set.
Unless you are going to somebody's house and building all their sets to confirm that they own them all, does it matter? I could say that I have hundreds of sets and nobody would know differently. (I don't).
I just came across a group of parts that I had stored away for many years in a drawer... it was 20 mint 1x6x3 trans-clear wind screens from 10 6390 Main Street sets I bought back about 1983 on clearance. These older 1980s windscreens have a "milky" trans-clear appearance, compared to the crisp clear windscreens that have been in production since 1999 (the remake of the Main Street set used the newer clear windscreens).
This type of information is NOT currently recorded in either the Bricklink or Peeron parts database. So anyone who wants to reconstruct and then sell old sets... they need to be forthcoming in honestly telling the buyer that the set is a reconstruct... because they may get bitten in the butt by a savvy buyer who is expecting genuine parts, and knows that there are sub-variations that are not even mentioned in online parts databases.
So here is an interesting thing about this database entry. Should one consider 1593 to be a set? If so, what is the inventory of this set? If the plastic bricks are to be acquired by acquiring two other sets, does ownership of the two other sets automatically imply ownership of this set?
Personally I feel that 1593 is a set. Which is why I also object that the title is "1593-1: Super Model Building Instructions" when it should be just "1593-1: Super Model." It is the set, not just the building instructions for it.
I also consider it its own entity, meaning you need to have parts specific for that set to really consider it a set...
At this point I am just going to say "Whatever..." It is up to each of you. I gave my opinion and obviously people are disagreeing. So... whatever.. to each their own... I really do have better things to do than to get into this any longer of what constitutes as a 'set'
As for assembling a set from spare parts, I've done it a number of times. But do I own that set? Personally I'd feel better about saying I own it if I had the packaging or at least the instructions. I think it comes down to how you feel about. I do say I own this sets, but I know in my mind that they were assembled set rather than original and I'm ok with that.
So, LEGO elements can be put together in any configuration. Some of these specific configurations are known as sets. But LEGO elements can also be put into other specific configurations. Therefore the world of LEGO can also be in a state that is a superposition of the two!
This is exciting because then we can consider LEGO sets in terms of quantum entanglement: "Quantum systems can become entangled through various types of interactions. If entangled, one object cannot be fully described without considering the other(s). They remain in a quantum superposition and share a single quantum state until a measurement is made."
So if you have a bunch of pieces you own a quantum superposition of sets. But once you measure your sets by building them up, you make the superposition go away!
"An example of entanglement occurs when subatomic particles decay into other particles. These decay events obey the various conservation laws, and as a result, pairs of particles can be generated that are required to be in some specific quantum states."
Just like LEGO bricks! You take your set apart into pieces, you have to obey laws of conservation. Only certain sets would be valid for the resultant bunch of pieces. Yet until you build, all you have is a superposition.
Now, I know the idea of superposition can be confusing. I mean, how is it a pile of pieces can be either one set or another at the same time? But maybe it is just because you're more familiar with Newtonian physics as opposed to quantum mechanics. "In 1935, Erwin Schrödinger devised a well-known thought experiment, now known as Schrödinger's cat, which highlighted the dissonance between quantum mechanics and Newtonian physics, where only one configuration occurs." Ah yes, poor Schrödinger's cat. What a paradox!
Ah this is interesting: "Schrödinger did not wish to promote the idea of dead-and-alive cats as a serious possibility; quite the reverse, the paradox is a classic reductio ad absurdum. The thought experiment serves to illustrate the bizarreness of quantum mechanics and the mathematics necessary to describe quantum states. Intended as a critique of just the Copenhagen interpretation (the prevailing orthodoxy in 1935), the Schrödinger cat thought experiment remains a typical touchstone for all interpretations of quantum mechanics. How each interpretation deals with Schrödinger's cat is often used as a way of illustrating and comparing each interpretation's particular features, strengths, and weaknesses."
Wait, there are various interpretations of quantum mechanics? "Although quantum mechanics has held up to rigorous and thorough experimental testing, many of these experiments are open to different interpretations. There exist a number of contending schools of thought, differing over whether quantum mechanics can be understood to be deterministic, which elements of quantum mechanics can be considered 'real', and other matters."
I guess there isn't a right answer then, is there? ;)
if you have the right parts to make a structure that they sell in a shop then you have the ability to make that set.
having a box is irrelevant. it is just packaging. The instructions in paper form are irrelevant. it is a medium that you are given to put a set together. if you use a digital copy then it is no different than the paper version.
being able to make a set without compromising your collection of lego pieces needed to make other sets is irrelevant. because it is no different to say owning a 3 in 1 set and building them one at a time. or building certain sets and not building others. you do not have to have them built at the same time to own them. You will always have the ability to make those sets because you have the right lego bricks.
I'm really like Schrödinger. I'm not advancing a particular viewpoint with my examples and questions. I'm really trying to illustrate the logical problems with different ways of looking at set ownership. My ultimate point of view is use whatever works for you, there are many valid ways of looking at it that each have their issues.
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
So beware....
:-)