Does piecing together a set from PAB and Bricklink count as "owning" a set?

zipsforbananas

I really don't see what's difficult here. (I've a feeling 2011's philosophical debate trundled on because the chance to throw out HGttG references was too tempting to miss!)

In your personal collection, say what you like, and add a few notes in.

And if you're selling it, wouldn't you include details like if it comes with the instructions and box, or any bricks that are missing, in the main description as standard anyway?
And as to whether you state that you've part sourced it or not, people sell Lego not knowing what they're selling all the time too (say parents selling children's collections) so if all the parts match what was advertised, what's the problem? For decency's sake, you should state everything you know, but then many morals get lost in marketplaces don't they! :P

Pitfall69

Do most people selling on EBay know exactly what they are selling? I know for sure there are people state that what they are selling is authentic even though it is not. I messaged a seller who was selling a Cloud City Boba Fett and it was clearly NOT. He messaged back and told me that it is a from the Cloud City set and that all he did was replace the legs. Then , he messaged me again telling me to mind my own business.

If I bought a Classic Yellow Castle pieced together with current PAB bricks, I would promptly send it back. Even if it did have the box and instructions. All the bricks from that era are very different than today's bricks.

madforLEGO

Pitfall69 said:

Do most people selling on EBay know exactly what they are selling? I know for sure there are people state that what they are selling is authentic even though it is not. I messaged a seller who was selling a Cloud City Boba Fett and it was clearly NOT. He messaged back and told me that it is a from the Cloud City set and that all he did was replace the legs. Then , he messaged me again telling me to mind my own business.

If I bought a Classic Yellow Castle pieced together with current PAB bricks, I would promptly send it back. Even if it did have the box and instructions. All the bricks from that era are very different than today's bricks.

Yeah I believe you at least need to try to keep it as era correct as possible (especially with the eyelet 1x1s and the clips).
also I would almost go to eBay about that Fett seller as it sounds like with his last comment that he is actively trying to deceive, unless he notes in the listing that the legs are different.. also doesn't that figure also have arm printing too?

Pitfall69

^You are correct. Legs and arms, but I didn't notice whether the arms were printed or not. The legs are definitely noticeable.

TitanArch

Rhetorically, how do you feel about this statement:

"I possess the collection of pieces needed to build a particular thing."

Hopefully you agree that it can be rewritten as "I own a set". Look up the definition of "own" and "set" if you disagree.

However, LEGO fans have a specific thing in mind when referring to a set. I would call this a LEGO Set, or basically the contents of a sealed box (and possibly including the box itself). It's the kind of thing that even if you intermingled one set's pieces with other sets, you would probably say you owned that one set even though it would be impossible to gather up the original parts that composed the MISB set.

Someone else brought up this example earlier, but it is worth re-using:

If I can build Set C from the parts of Set A and Set B -- now refer to my quoted statement above -- you could say I owned Set C! While I definitely own LEGO Set A and LEGO Set B, I would only say that I can build LEGO Set C.

Each person may have their own definition of set, but my personal guideline is this: A collection of pieces that can be singly grouped for the purpose of building a model from a specific LEGO set (consider the multi-build sets). But even then, I still say I own some sets like Bricks and More or Pink Brick Box even though those are stored in bins sorted by color.

All that said, if a set's part lineage is important to you, then you better be asking the seller about how they acquired the set, whether it was built, if it displayed and/or played with, and how the parts were stored when disassembled.

Pitfall69

If I ask you to show me Sets A, B and C; you would only be able to show me one of the above. If you cannot build 3 complete sets, you do not have 3 sets, you only have a collection of parts that may or may not complete set A, B or C.

Also, if you say you have Cafe Corner, yet don't have the instructions and have substituted all the rare parts with less expensive ones; I would say that you don't have CC. What you have is an MOC.

One would say that we are beating a dead horse, but I think this thread puts the whole aspect of piecing together sets in perspective.

zipsforbananas

Having sets A and B which can make set C definitely doesn't count as owning set C, but part sourcing the pieces to go specifically towards building set C would put you in the right ballpark to my mind.
And I'd count most different era pieces simply as different pieces. So yes, if an old set has a lot of discontinued parts I'd expect the description to say so unless the parts were correct. Whether a castle wall element came from say King's Castle or the Balcksmith set wouldn't bother me, just so long as it was the right piece with the right printing. (I'm just saying that to clarify what I said earlier, as @Pitfall69‌ said, this is a three year old thread having a brief moment of stardom again. I guess I shoudl shut up as every word I type is just making it worse! :P)

sweetness34

Pitfall69 said:

Also, if you say you have Cafe Corner, yet don't have the instructions and have substituted all the rare parts with less expensive ones; I would say that you don't have CC. What you have is a MOC.

I think I would refer to that as an altered CC instead of a MOC.

Pitfall69

"I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further."

Pitfall69

I am not trying to resurrect old threads and cause problems, but every now and then there are discussions that develop in other threads about piecing together sets. Instead of going off on a tangent and discussing it there; I rather discuss it in the appropriate thread :)

cody6268

I might be able to build several other sets with my parts (both Lego and clone), but they don't count, as I don't technically own the set.

Paperbackwriter

Box, instructions and all (or exact replacements) of every part that was supposed to be in the box when it left the factory. I don't really value the box or the instructions, but to have a complete set, I need them. I'll over look the fact that someone might not have saved the original crinkly plastic numbered bags that came with the set when it was new.

piratemania7

To answer this question shortly. No. I don't think it does. You own the pieces to make the set sure; but you don't own it in the sense that you bought it brand new and sealed. Box, instructions, the handful of extra small pieces, etc. I can go buy a few bulk lots on eBay and piece together a really expensive and retired set.

But that's it. I don't own "the set". I can say to myself "I successful purchased the right bulk lots and took the time to meticulously see what pieces I need to build this set after printing off instructions from the Internet and was able to put the complete set together".

Basta

I have currently acquired about 3500 pieces of the Taj Mahal #10189 from Bricklink & PAB. Once completed I will most definitely be adding it to my Brickset "My Sets" database & if anyone asks I will say "Yes I own that set" :P

I also have around 500 pieces of the Green Dragon #6724, I will be substituting most of, if not all, the 2 x 8's with 2 x (2 x 4's), I will still add it to "My Sets" and say that I own it.

The only time I would feel a need to disclose that they were Bricklinked version is if I was selling it or someone asked me directly about its origin.

To each their own though.

CupIsHalfEmpty

Basta said:

I also have around 500 pieces of the Green Dragon #6724, I will be substituting most of, if not all, the 2 x 8's with 2 x (2 x 4's), I will still add it to "My Sets" and say that I own it.

Green Dragon? 6724? Am I the only one confused?

This Dragon doesn't appear to use any sand green :P http://brickset.com/sets/4189224-1/Green-dragon

Which set is it that you are bricklinking?

Basta

Sorry, #3724 is the one I meant.

http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?S=3466-1
This piece (Not sand green) is rare and expensive.

Pitfall69

Basta said:

To each their own though.

True, but you would be living a lie :)

I own the Legends release of Black Seas Barracuda. Would I then click the box of the original Black Seas Barracuda because basically the same thing?

There is really nothing special about the Taj Mahal is there? The instructions is what makes it expensive. I guess you can say you have the Taj Mahal made of Lego, I wouldn't say you have the Lego set.


If I was an insurance agent and I looked in your garage and you had most of the parts needed to build a 1969 Camaro and your garage burned down and everything was destroyed; I would never give you the money for a fully restored 1969 Camaro.

Hypothetically, if I was a Lego insurance agent (maybe one day) and I went through your collection brick by brick, I wouldn't give you replacement value if your Taj Mahal unless you had the Taj Mahal set 100% Complete.

CupIsHalfEmpty

Pitfall69 said:

If I was an insurance agent and I looked in your garage and you had most of the parts needed to build a 1969 Camaro and your garage burned down and everything was destroyed; I would never give you the money for a fully restored 1969 Camaro.

To me, If you owned a 1969 camaro and completely disassembled it for restoration, or if you purchased every single part for a 1969 camaro and had them in your garage, that would be the same "value".

So you have to ask what is a "complete" set? is it parts, manual and box. Or is it just parts?

My opinion is a set is just the parts. So to me if you own all the parts for one set, and those parts are for that set*, you own that set regardless of whether you bricklinked them, bought the set used and completed it, or bought it brand spankin new.

*(being mindful of the set A,B, and C discussion from above).

madforLEGO

Trying to compare this to parts of a car does not work IMO. Why? Because in order to have a claim on a car you have to prove you had the car (ie title or record of sale or at least a VIN that can be traced back to ownership) Never mind one is a toy and the other is a rather expensive car. And only a handful of sets have a 'VIN' (like 41999, coincidentally also a vehicle)
I sell sets that are complete and the majority of people seem to agree that having all of the parts and correct colors counts a set, more apparently will pay more as a set if it has its original instructions, even more if it is boxed still, or rather has its original box. But all three are correct in the eyes of buyers. It is a matter of degrees.

As for the Legends argument. Seeing as both have a unique set number I would say you own a Legends set. Regardless, I feel the Legends argument does not really apply here either. Why? because many of the Legends sets do have differing parts to them because LEGO no longer had the mold for those parts.
Not certain about the Black Seas Barracuda, but I see many referring to the ship as both #6285 and #10041 even if they have an instruction book showing #6285 or #10041, but I know main Street and Metroliner Legend sets do have different parts than their original counterparts. Last I checked Taj Mahal has one set number and was released once.

IMO if you get the all and accurate-to-the-time-period parts to the set, you own the set. Now, many will say well it does not have the instructions, but then again you can print many copies now from LEGO's own site,does that mean a copy means incomplete set? No. I would put much more stock into if the set has its correct type and color pieces (train windows vs regular windows for example) and it has all of it printed bricks at least. Preferably I'd like to also have all the the stickers too, but again not really a 'part' in the set, though I feel better to have a complete set with all stickers, but that is me. Original and correct parts are what people should be at least worried about, more than if the original instructions are there. Just expect that you will not get that many buyers if you try to sell it without the original instructions, but that still does not mean it is not a 'complete set'. But these are only my opinions.

Pitfall69

^You are correct about the BSB my friend, but one thing that is overlooked in that set are the sails. The Legends release are made of a different material and has different printing than the original. If I bought an original BSB with instructions, but the sails were from the Legends release, I would return the set. I would want ex

Pitfall69

...I would expect to get what came in the box.

Basta

@Pitfall69 I had a long post typed up earlier but got distracted and didn't post it. Really though I think we are talking about slightly different things.

I know I won't have a complete set, or an original boxed set. But as long as I have all the pieces, or close enough so it looks like the original then as far as my own collection goes I am happy to say that I own it.

Obviously yourself and some others may not agree, and that's also fine, but I'm not talking about selling it etc.

If I was selling I would most certainly disclose all details and would not say "Origional, complete set" or anything to that effect.

Even I would want to know that detail if I was to buy a second hand set. It would change what I value the particular set at, but I would still be happy to add the set to my "My Sets" list if I happened to buy it.

(Ok so that wasn't so short :)

piratemania7

I don't think any of it has to do with selling it, potentially selling it or telling someone whether it comes from BL or not.

Personally, and again, wide spectrum of opinions here and it's great, but you have to think fundamentally what is "the set"? To me, it's the way TLG created it, not the way I create it over a long summer holiday piecing it together brick by brick.

Pitfall69

I'm having gateway problems. Sorry. If I am coming across as an a$$ I'm sorry, this is frustrating :(

Basta

^ I was more answering @Pitfall69‌ and not getting what he thought he was if he purchased such a set, the only way that would happen is if the details were not disclosed.

Agree about wide spectrum of opinions, and all are valid.

It is a personal thing, and as I said I know I don't have a full original set, but for me the instructions and box of any opened set live in the garage. It's the bricks that come together to make the finished set that I have on display which are important.

Bosstone100

I use the Brickset database to catalog sets own and sets wanted. I bricklinked Cafe Corner and checked the box. Why? because it's not a want anymore. It's owned. If the ACM was right on the regular page with the Owned/Wanted checkboxes, I'd probably use it more and specify that I have the parts.

Don't care what anyone else thinks about what is owned based on original box, instructions, etc. Don't care what an insurance agent would say. I'm not selling anything. As far as I'm concerned, brickset is a collection tracker. A collection is what we say it is as individuals, because at the end of the day, that's all that matters.

cody6268

Take it this way. I have one of the motorcycles from Matchbox's Holden Pickup from the '70s. Just because I own the little yellow motorcycle, doesn't mean I own the whole model.

adello25

I don't think that the original box needs to be had in order to say that you own a set. If i buy a brand new set from a Lego store today and throw away the box (which I do with sets) then does that mean that I don't own the set?

I BL'd Cafe Corner/Millenium Falcon/Eiffel Tower and a few other sets. I am very picky and made sure that I got every piece exact (Panels with no side supports for cafe corner, radar dish, riggings, light bluish gray levers for MF, correct variations for parts such as the 1x1 headlight brick) and have the instruction manuals, so I believe that I do own these sets.

Basically, if I compared them to a set that someone purchased from Lego when they were available, there would be absolutely no difference....except maybe that I have fresher looking parts.

Paperbackwriter

Pitfall69 said:

...I would expect to get what came in the box.

I agree completely. Assuming you mean the box is needed too. I have two 10190s. One doesn't have a box. The other does. As much as I might want to rationalize it, I only have one complete 10190. And, it's really not all that subjective.

binaryeye

Paperbackwriter said:

I have two 10190s. One doesn't have a box. The other does. As much as I might want to rationalize it, I only have one complete 10190. And, it's really not all that subjective.

It's completely subjective.

binaryeye

Sorry, double post. The forum is acting very strange today.

adello25

Paperbackwriter said:

Pitfall69 said:

...I would expect to get what came in the box.

I agree completely. Assuming you mean the box is needed too. I have two 10190s. One doesn't have a box. The other does. As much as I might want to rationalize it, I only have one complete 10190. And, it's really not all that subjective.

It's absolutely subjective. I'd say that you have 2 complete 10190. Not having the box shouldn't take away from the set.

Paperbackwriter

Hey, my standards hurt my own self interest as I often throw away boxes since my lego world is sort of a very casual interest with no investment aspect to it. Box + printed instructions + all parts that are listed in the instruction book = a complete set. But, complete ain't important to me. So to speak........

Pitfall69

I don't think you have to have a box to "own" the set, but in some instances, having the box actually makes the set. Sometimes the box and instructions are more valuable than the Lego pieces inside; which is the case for a lot of older Lego sets.

@Paperbackwriter. I have pretty high standards when it comes to Lego as well :)

Paperbackwriter

Pitfall69 said:

I don't think you have to have a box to "own" the set, but in some instances, having the box actually makes the set. Sometimes the box and instructions are more valuable than the Lego pieces inside; which is the case for a lot of older Lego sets.

@Paperbackwriter. I have pretty high standards when it comes to Lego as well :)

I think self interest drives a lot of what's behind a definition. For a while, I joined those who said 10190 wasn't really part of the modular building series. Why? Probably because I missed out on it. I finally stopped lying to myself and picked up a couple 10190s.

Pitfall69

madforLEGO said:

As for the Legends argument. Seeing as both have a unique set number I would say you own a Legends set. Regardless, I feel the Legends argument does not really apply here either. Why? because many of the Legends sets do have differing parts to them because LEGO no longer had the mold for those parts.
Not certain about the Black Seas Barracuda, but I see many referring to the ship as both #6285 and #10041 even if they have an instruction book showing #6285 or #10041, but I know main Street and Metroliner Legend sets do have different parts than their original counterparts. Last I checked Taj Mahal has one set number and was released once.

I want to get back to this.

Without the box and instructions, the average person would not be able to tell the Legends release of BSB, Metroliner, Black Falcons Fortress etc. from the original. Therefore, you would need the box and instructions to verify that you indeed have one or the other. The box and instructions pretty much make the set. Yes, TLG no longer had the mold for some parts that came with the original. This is also true with parts that made up Cafe Corner. TLG no longer has the molds. So, by taking the liberty by substituting parts, you effectively are making your own Legends Cafe Corner. You see where I'm going with this?

Pitfall69

Really, it is up to you whether you consider a pieced together set a set that you own :) If you have most of the bricks to build a Taj Mahal and consider that "owning" a set, that's fine. I have a friend that has an 1989 LeBaron convertible, said to be previously owned by Jon Voight ;)

Paperbackwriter

Pitfall69 said:

Really, it is up to you whether you consider a pieced together set a set that you own :) If you have most of the bricks to build a Taj Mahal and consider that "owning" a set, that's fine. I have a friend that has an 1989 LeBaron convertible, said to be previously owned by Jon Voight ;)

Along those lines, I have a four legged animal that's in contention for the Kentucky Derby. She's an eleven year old dog who thinks she's fast. To her, it's all subjective.

sweetness34

I know lots of people have complete sets of CMF but not many get the box that come with the figures.

Basta

Just to clarify, I do not consider having 3500 pieces of the 5922 needed to complete #10189, as me having that set.

I will not be adding the Taj to "My Sets" until I have ordered and received the remaining 2400 pieces.

Pitfall69

^I hope everyone knows my dialogue is all in good fun :) This subject interests me a great deal and it is great to get everyones viewpoints.

madforLEGO

Pitfall69 said:

madforLEGO said:

As for the Legends argument. Seeing as both have a unique set number I would say you own a Legends set. Regardless, I feel the Legends argument does not really apply here either. Why? because many of the Legends sets do have differing parts to them because LEGO no longer had the mold for those parts.
Not certain about the Black Seas Barracuda, but I see many referring to the ship as both #6285 and #10041 even if they have an instruction book showing #6285 or #10041, but I know main Street and Metroliner Legend sets do have different parts than their original counterparts. Last I checked Taj Mahal has one set number and was released once.

I want to get back to this.

Without the box and instructions, the average person would not be able to tell the Legends release of BSB, Metroliner, Black Falcons Fortress etc. from the original. Therefore, you would need the box and instructions to verify that you indeed have one or the other. The box and instructions pretty much make the set. Yes, TLG no longer had the mold for some parts that came with the original. This is also true with parts that made up Cafe Corner. TLG no longer has the molds. So, by taking the liberty by substituting parts, you effectively are making your own Legends Cafe Corner. You see where I'm going with this?

Sorry, but I feel you really do not need to have the instructions and box to have a 'complete' set. Now you may need them to try to ensure you truly have a complete set, but that is apples and oranges IMO. (also goes back to my printed out instruction copies comment)
Again you only need the original parts to have the complete set, the only thing the box and instructions may do is verify the set has the correct parts. Even then I have seen LEGO themselves do part substitutions that have slightly different parts than what was boxed or shown in the instructions. Such as different type clips or if there is a newer version of the part; I do not believe they always change the instructions to show this difference. However, sites with Inventory lists like BL can generally do this. Does that mean one must include the printout of the inventory to say it is complete and accurate? No. (It could not hurt I'm sure)
Same with having the original instructions and box. Is it needed for a 'complete' set? No, but it cannot hurt if you are reselling to have those, as most people tend to chuck the instructions and box once it is built

Basta

^ on the topic of element differences, it would be really interesting to see a first batch Death Star #10188 vs. the most recent. Surely in the 7 years that the parts for this have been made by multiple moulds especially the common parts. I would also imagine that there could be some colour variation as well.

pastelnerd

I absolutely agree with madforLEGO on boxes and instructions. It's just like collecting antique toys, if it has the box and/or instructions it's worth more but it doesn't mean that it's a broken toy if it doesn't have them.

Pitfall69

@madforLego I agree. All I was saying is if you don't have the box or instructions, how will you know what set you have? I agree you don't have to have the box and instructions to have a complete set, but like I said before, there are some instances that the box and/or instructions "make" the set :)

TheLoneTensor

Such is the problem with any level of counterfeiting. Without evidence, you cannot convince most anyone that you have a full set. Since Lego doesn't stamp unique serial numbers into their bricks, there is very little you can do to actually confirm it's a true, complete set once it's out of the box*. You could have parts from multiple sources, pick up instructions from somewhere else and then buy a box from yet another place. You could even then whip up a fake purchase receipt and boom, you could claim that you now have a 100% complete, original Cafe Corner up for sale on Ebay and who would/could dispute you? You'd be lying, but if it was such a good counterfeit, who would know and more philosophically, who would care?

Not that I think lying is a good thing, but if you have all the components, and when those compiled components are indistinguishable from "the real thing," I think that yes, piecing together a set does count as owning a set.

Peter1975

What YOU decide counts, right? If you think you own a certain set, because you have collect a lot of loose Lego's and together they contain a set. Then you own that set rigtht? Don't you be afraid that I come and check if you haven't told a lie about owning a set or not......

Pitfall69

Well, we do have "grammar police" within this forum, so wouldn't it stand to reason that there are Lego Set Police lurking around as well :)

"No set for you!"

Pitfall69

Maybe I'm just too anal when it comes to my Lego. I know that @piratemania7‌ knows just how obsessive I am about these sort of things ;)

emmtwosix

I think it's interesting that the discussion keeps going back and forth between what "owning" a set means and arguing the definition of what a complete set is (even though, to an extent, it is integral to the argument.) Very entertaining.

I keep wanting to jump in, but I never know which talking point to address. Anyway...as you were :)