Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
Recent discussions • Categories • Privacy Policy • Brickset.com
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
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
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.
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?
"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.
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.
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)
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".
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.
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?
http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?S=3466-1
This piece (Not sand green) is rare and expensive.
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.
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).
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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. I have pretty high standards when it comes to Lego as well :)
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?
I will not be adding the Taj to "My Sets" until I have ordered and received the remaining 2400 pieces.
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
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.
"No set for you!"
I keep wanting to jump in, but I never know which talking point to address. Anyway...as you were :)