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

messy

Do the monthly mini models (i.e. #MMMB017-1) count as sets even though they don't have boxes / polybags? I'm sure I have all the pieces in in my collection for the loose sets but do not consider that I have these 'sets', as I was not in a store at the time of the promotion.

In terms of my collection I consider that I own a set even if I have misplaced a box, if I have all the original parts, or if I have acquired a used set that is complete without box but instructions.

These are my own preferences and as the debate that has been happening shows there are a lot of individual nuances in terms of what is considered a set.

In terms of recording my collection I have stopped recording multiple purchases of some sets that I am going to use just for the elements / minifigs.

One thing that always puzzles me is the amount of forthcoming / unreleased sets that are checked as owned.

Pitfall69

messy said:

One thing that always puzzles me is the amount of forthcoming / unreleased sets that are checked as owned.

Nothing like putting Lego in your cart before the horse ;)

Kleiovous

Surely if the product which left the factory is what counts, then you also need to own the shipping box it was sent in to 'REALLY' own it.
In which case I doubt many of us actually own our sets, perhaps they are simply visiting...

timinchicago

Let me preface this comment by saying this topic makes my head hurt, and not in a good way!

What about a scenario where Person A buys a NIB set and then decides to part it out for sale. Person B comes along and buys ALL the parts from Person A to create the exact same set that was previously NIB. Does Person B now "own" the set?

Pitfall69

I would say yes because Person B bought all the parts that came with the set that Person A bought.

timinchicago

^I would tend to agree too. How about if Person B only purchased 99% of the parts and supplemented the other 1% with pieces from another (but different) NIB set that he already owned?

Paperbackwriter

I'm starting to understand why I was required to take, and obtain a high score on, the LSAT before being admitted to the law school of my choice. Now it's time for me to say goodbye and go away for several weeks/months before I say something offensive about, well, never mind. Later...

Pitfall69

Now that's when it starts to get tricky.

I pulled these parts from 4 different sets that were made over the last 35 years. Can you tell me exactly what era each of these bricks were made? Each brick came from a different mold. Over the years the molds have changed and so has the color palletes.

Pitfall69

If you replace a part from a set that was made in2014, with a part that was made in 1978; I would say that you don't have a complete set.

If you tell me that you "own" the Classic Yellow Castle, but every piece of the castle was built from new PAB parts; I would tell you that you don't own the set.

timinchicago

^ I would also agree with that. If there are discernible differences from pieces from a different era then that must be taken into account. However I would say that all pieces from the same era should be considered fungible and as such any like pieces from that era could be substituted and still considered to own the set.

TheLoneTensor

The answer is 42.

CupIsHalfEmpty

The word "Set" is to ambiguous. what about being more descriptive and assigning different words to describe each state that Lego bricks can be in?

MISB set
Open box set
used complete set
used complete with no instructions set
used incomplete set
bricklinked with original parts set
bricklinked with whatever parts set
built from a random pile of bricks set
etc.

then from there each person can determine where to draw the line on whether they click the "owned set" box on Brickset or not. And if you go to sell, as long as you describe the state of the Lego bricks you are selling. the purchaser can reference their line and determine if, once acquired, they can also click the "owned box" or not.

It may just be the Canadian in me coming out, but can't we all just be friends? :D

messy

TheLoneTensor said:

The answer is 42.

said TheLoneTensor, with infinite majesty and calm.

rancorbait

CupIsHalfEmpty said:

It may just be the Canadian in me coming out, but can't we all just be friends? :D

Right!

Pitfall69

Wait, nobody is getting vicious with anyone are they? I think this is one of the most civil of debates. Especially when everyone seems to be disagreeing with one another :) It could be because @TheLoneTensor hasn't said anything to piss anyone off :)

BTW, the answer is 24. I'm dyslexic.

rancorbait

Pitfall69 said:

It could be because @TheLoneTensor hasn't said anything to piss anyone off :)

Pitfall69 said:

Wait, nobody is getting vicious with anyone are they?

Well, that's about to change ;oP

TheLoneTensor

Careful, "that guy" (and I refuse to name the demon this time) might appear again and put us all in our deserved place.

Pitfall69

Ahhhhh. "Beetlejuice. Beetlejuice. Beetlejuice."

Legoboy

What...have...you...done? Grab your kids and run.

Legopants

Yodalicious said:

... and dispose of the box ...

Nooooooooooooo!!! Please tell me you're joking!!! :-D

Bobflip

When I started buying Lego again I was wary about the day I’d have to break all the sets down and sort it - I thought I’d be really precious about each set containing its original parts if I wanted to rebuild. Completing some incomplete sets made me get over that. They’re not original complete sets, but it’s a complete set. However, when I’m Bricklinking the missing bits, I’ll always get the spare parts as well.

piratemania7

***BUMP***

To me owning a set means I bought it from a retailer or sealed from someone else OR have a guarantee it is original with all the parts the box and instructions like someone on here knows about. : )

Otherwise you don't own the set.

Pitfall69

^Well, that sucks, because I was about to click the box saying I "owned" a Skulls Eye Schooner ;)

chuxtoybox

Should I comment on a thread that ended two months ago? Well, I want to share my current personal feelings on this topic and God forbid I start a new thread, so here goes.

I've recently taken apart some of my sets and mixed the elements with the chaos that is my Lego collection and now I feel as though I no longer own those sets. I'm not arguing whether or not I do or don't own those sets anymore but how it's been making me FEEL to have done this and I actually wish I had duplicates of every set I've ever bought still sealed so that I could truly say that I still own those sets.

Even if I went through my collection and found all of the elements necessary to build one of the sets I know that more than likely it would not be the same element that originally came out of the box, so it would not be from the original set. (Suddenly I feel like Sheldon from The Big Bang Theory).

So I'm not arguing for or against but just wanted to share my current feelings about my Lego collection, and that at this time I'm leaning more towards "if you bought the pieces separately you don't really own the set". But I am crazy and I have been tested.

Pitfall69

Oh no!!! You didn't just resurrect this thread did you?

I really don't think there is really a right or wrong answer if you are intending to keep everything in your collection. The grey area happens if/ when you intend to sell your sets.

MorkMan

I'll throw my two cents in:
This set of Batman & Robin. Does it count if you have all the pieces at home, but didn't buy it in the store? I believe that owning a set means you have all the pieces to do it. @Someone said that there are shades of owning a set, and I have to agree. It's not a black and white world anymore.
Furthermore @chuxtoybox and @Pitfall69‌, it's OK to resurrect old threads... It brings the fun back to life over and over again. :)

Pitfall69

^So, you have the stickers to complete the model? Instructions?

piratemania7

At the end of the day I thought we settled this dispute?

No really I think although you may have mixed the sets together you still bought and opened the box and built the set. I get what you are saying about not having the exact pieces but that clearly wasn't an issue for you if you mixed the pieces in the first place.

Long story short...this thread was resurrected.

Bosstone100

So, if a piece is missing and Lego sends you a replacement, does that mean you don't own the set? How do you know that would have been the piece that was supposed to be in your set? The whole thing is silly.... again.

CircleK

I'm kind of glad this thread got necroed b/c I needed to go back and read it anyways. My opinion is that a set is just the sum of it's bricks. If you bricklink a set and don't use part substitutions then you have it. With that being said, I would never list a knowingly bricklinked set for sale without stating that fact. Bricklinked sets are comprised of parts of varying ages and lots, so the probability of color variance is much higher. Any potential buyers should be informed that it was sourced.

Where it gets gray for me is part alternatives. Anyone who has ever created a wanted list by parting out a set on BL has probably seen the area where they must choose between alternative parts before uploading the list.

On Bricklink:

"Alternates:
Some production runs of the same set might include different parts than other. These items are listed below."

In my opinion, if the part was originally included in a production run of the set, then it is still official. So, if you Bricklink a Grocer for example and use a Dark Bluish Gray Door Frame 1x4x6 Type 2 instead of a Dark Bluish Gray Door Frame Type 1 then you are still ok. My only feeling on that is that if you're using an alternative part then you should be consistent with it and not mix them (i.e. use both Type1 and Type2's doors), but that's just me. I don't consider part alternatives the same thing as part substitutions, but others may feel differently.

Pitfall69

There have been many instances that Lego have changed parts and colors throughout the life of a product. For example: The UCS Imperial Star Destroyer started out with all light grey parts, then a mixture of light grey and "Bley" and an all "Bley" set. This is another subject to discuss as well. The Black Seas Barracuda originally came with shooting cannons then they changed the molds to make them non-shooting. Both cannons are acceptable for completing the set.

CCC

Plus lego replacement parts substitutes modern equivalents sometimes, even though they were never in the set. The train windows in older sets for example have sometimes been replaced by modern equivalents in the online inventories.

I don't have an issue with mixing up sets of similar age, then splitting them back into their retrospective sets. Who cares if one brick came from the wrong set but is otherwise correct, it probably came from the same storage bin in the factory.

I don't consider a set complete if it doesn't have the official stickers. So the Batman and Robin example above is not complete in my view.

Bosstone100

I bricklinked Market Street with different doors... black I think. I check it off as complete. Why? Because now I don't need it. My system works for me based on the tools we are given. It's not like I'm entering a contest or something.

madforLEGO

Bosstone100 said:

I bricklinked Market Street with different doors... black I think. I check it off as complete. Why? Because now I don't need it. My system works for me based on the tools we are given. It's not like I'm entering a contest or something.

If you 'own the set' and it is not the same exact type and color of parts found in the box when a new one was purchased, that is your opinion you 'own it', and that is fine IMO. However, try to sell it as a 'complete' set to someone else and I think it is a bit of misnomer that it is complete, Is it complete ie has parts to complete the set? Yes, but it is not accurate to the parts found in the box when buying a new one. The buyer is likely going to either point out that it is not complete (or at least accurately complete) or they are not going to realize until they receive it and compare to a BL inventory list, or unless someone sees it and points it.

Now I'm sure there are those with no scruples that will sell off a set like Market street as 'complete' for example that has the wrong doors, windows, arches, and railing pieces, as 'complete' (I see it on eBay all the time, but I belive most say that substitutes were used) but I for one would only sell a set as complete if it has the same color and part type that was originally in the box. Stickers and Instruction IMO are optional, but I like to have all of the stickers for that set, and it certainly does not hurt the value of the set in most people opinions when buying a set.

I guess the question really is: Is this thread more about complete AND accurate set, or is it about completing a set any means necessary?

Bosstone100

^ When it comes to my personal collection, the only opinion that matters is my own. Selling something as complete without it being complete based on what is supposed to be in the set, well... I can't say much about the inscrupulous.

CCC

^^ How do you define accurate?

If you go by Lego's official online inventory (which is copied to brickset) then Market Street contains 10x #60594 for the windows. Whereas bricklink says it contains 10x #6556. The printed manual says the old part, but online Lego themselves say the new part. So which is accurate?

Pitfall69

Can you place window panes inside the lower part properly?

Pitfall69

According to Bricklink; this is the alternate part. You cannot put the window pane inside. I have most the sets that has the alternate part. In my opinion, this part shouldn't even be listed. Also, Bricklink is NOT the he all end all of Lego Inventory. It us a Marketplace first ans foremost.

CCC

In the instruction manual, Lego says 4496377, which is the old #6556 in white. Yet the online Lego database (and thus brickset too) says the correct part is 4530590, which is the new #60594 in white.

So Lego themselves have introduced the problem, as they no longer produce the old one, and replace it with a different part.

The bricklink database is correct for the set at the time of issue.

The question then is if someone sells a set with the new windows, is it wrong?

oldtodd33

That window that @Pitfall69 has listed is the only window listed in the BL inventory period. There is no alternate part from BL. You can put glass in the frame, it has the holes for it. That and it is the same part in the #10183 Hobby Train and the #10173 Holiday Train. So yes, it would be wrong.

Ronyar

So what about minifigures? (and I apologize if this was tackled back in one of the earlier pages) If I take parts from other figures (such as the hip and legs from one, a torso from a second, and a head from a third) and put them together to make a different figure all together, do I have the complete figure? I know I have cannibalized several figures before to make a complete one when piecing together sets from lots I've purchased. For all I know I'm putting it back to the way it came originally. But at the end of the day I have all the correct parts for the minifig.

oldtodd33

^ There are 4 unique minfigure torso styles since 1978, so you have to get those correct.

madforLEGO

oldtodd33 said:

That window that @Pitfall69 has listed is the only window listed in the BL inventory period. There is no alternate part from BL. You can put glass in the frame, it has the holes for it. That and it is the same part in the #10183 Hobby Train and the #10173 Holiday Train. So yes, it would be wrong.

There are two kinds of those train windows (differing studs). One has solid studs on the ends, one has all hallow studs on top I believe (The older ones)Want to know which ones are from MS? Look for the ones that are about 5-6 a piece on BL.

Does LEGO screw up and put available parts that could work in their parts replacement? Sure, but those are not accurate to the set, and I do not believe the new Window frames out have holes that fit the old shutters (which are also in MS, not the newer ones with reinforced connection points).

So yes,. LEGO is not helping, but I consider the BL parts lists, which are usually derived from instruction books (at least from the newer sets that have the part lists in the book) pretty darn accurate

Pitfall69

I'm actually glad this thread was resurrected; lots of useful information regardless whether one considers their sets complete or not.

Pitfall69

Ronyar said:

So what about minifigures? (and I apologize if this was tackled back in one of the earlier pages) If I take parts from other figures (such as the hip and legs from one, a torso from a second, and a head from a third) and put them together to make a different figure all together, do I have the complete figure? I know I have cannibalized several figures before to make a complete one when piecing together sets from lots I've purchased. For all I know I'm putting it back to the way it came originally. But at the end of the day I have all the correct parts for the minifig.

All depends. There have been at least 3 different head molds since 1978. If you put a new hollow studded, smiley face head(From Parisian Restaurant) on an old Forestmans torso; then no, I wouldn't consider that an acceptable minifigure.

CCC

^^^ the problem again is the word accurate. If you supply exactly what Lego claims is in the set now then you are also accurate.

Which is why a seller should be careful to state what is in a set or where they got the parts from and a buyer should ask questions if there is any doubt.

mrfuture

I think everyone have a different opinion what is a set. From parts or bought in a shop.
To me it is if I have all parts to make a set without take from other sets. It is a set I recently wanted to rebuild my Classic Space Galaxy Explorer, but some of its parts was in a model I do not want to take a part. Then I Bricklinked the missing parts and used what I had. But I still count it as I own the set not 1 and a half set. But then again I Bricklinked the 3 first module houses since they was out of production at the time I found the likening for module houses. I also may have a few set that have got lost in time, I have the parts but do not remember what set they was in.
If I buy second hand a bucket of LEGO parts and find parts known to set this or that I have not yet start to tick of that set in my Brickset collection. Since i do not know if it is complete, even if i find partially assembled parts of that set.

chuxtoybox

Hypothetically (theoretically?), if you could make 10 different sets from one assortment of elements, would you then consider yourself as owning all 10 of those sets?

I keep thinking of the episode of Big Bang Theory where Penny uses all of the washers in the laundry room the day Sheldon ALWAYS does his laundry to get back at him. "I'll just do my laundry another day", he says. (Forgive me if this is not verbatim)

"But in your heart of hearts you'll know that SATURDAY is laundry day!", she replies, knowing how neurotic he is about everything. (Once again probably not verbatim but I hope you get the drift)

I've thought about piecing together Hogwart's express, but if I did I wouldn't check it off as "one of the sets I own". It could almost be viewed as a bizarre MOC.

Once again, I'm not trying to tip the argument either way but sharing the personal conflict I've been having over this recently which is why I resurrected this thread.

I took apart my LOTR sets to build a tunnel for a train layout I've been working on and started to grieve over the sets no longer being complete. This then made me see collecting sets but not opening them in a whole new light. Are all of these thoughts irrational? Probably, but my mind is a scary place.

I like that minifigure question because it puts a different spin on it. If all of the parts were authentic, how could I not say that I own that figure?

Pitfall69

I love The Big Bang Theory. The fact that the show constantly mentions Lego is awesome and I know Sheldon would not consider pieced together sets as "owning" the set...lol :)

chuxtoybox

Bosstone100 said:

So, if a piece is missing and Lego sends you a replacement, does that mean you don't own the set? How do you know that would have been the piece that was supposed to be in your set? The whole thing is silly.... again.

If the piece was missing, the piece that Lego sent me would become the original piece to my set. Yes, it is all silly and I know this can be torn apart but it's fun.(Because if Lego sent me a REPLACEMENT for a BROKEN PIECE it wouldn't be part of the original set. Not that anyone would know or care.)

Here's a spinoff question: If you did piece together a set, would you care whether the parts were new or used or both? I know that I personally would want all of the elements to be new.