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

Faedian7

I only consider the sets that I own to be the ones that I purchased new or were mint in box that were given to me. While I may have sets that were pieced together over the years from MOCs, etc., I don't consider them to be something that would I would tick off on a set that I owned.

Ronyar

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

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.

I'm familiar with the 3 head types (solid stud, open stud with three supports inside, and then the hollow stud ), but I'm actually at a loss on the torsos. I can identify the current looking torsos, and then the ones on my childhood minifigs from the late 70's/early 80's, but I have no idea what the other two types would be? Is there a reference somewhere that would have pictures showing the difference? I know this is the type of thing you'd know if you didn't go through a dark age during the change, but my dark age was pretty lengthy.

binaryeye

chuxtoybox said:

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?

The definition of "own" is up to the collector. But if that definition is considerably different than the definition used by those collecting the same thing, you're just deluding yourself.

chuxtoybox said:

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.

As long as you still have all of the pieces, I don't see the problem. Almost every set I own has been broken down and stored in boxes, sorted by piece type. As far as I'm concerned, I still own every set because all can be built concurrently.

oldtodd33

^ You have to look inside the torso. The first was hollow, completely void of anything, the second has little teeth in it, two on each end front to back not side to side the third is the one most common up until about 2000 when they designed an X pattern into the mold to better grip the legs. As far as legs go, I think there is only one style from 1978 to today.

madforLEGO

chuxtoybox said:

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?

Go back a few pages, this was debated at some point. IMO the set has to be itself, meaning on any given moment you have to be able to build it and leave it built.
BUT again it is a matter of perspective, that is my perspective, as I feel the other reasoning is purely silly, but I'm sure some would few it as acceptable.

Pitfall69

oldtodd33 said:

^ You have to look inside the torso. The first was hollow, completely void of anything, the second has little teeth in it, two on each end front to back not side to side the third is the one most common up until about 2000 when they designed an X pattern into the mold to better grip the legs. As far as legs go, I think there is only one style from 1978 to today.

The newer legs have LEGO stamped inside the feet. The style of the legs may not have changed, but the molds have been updated.

zipsforbananas

I apologise if this point was raised in this thread previous life and I missed it, but does the way Lego is intended to be used factor into this at all?
I appreciate that a set consists of the pieces that came in the set's box, and that even identically defined bricks will not actually be the bricks from that box.
However, as it could be argued that Lego is meant to be mixed, it's simply not possible to know (unless you're INCREDIBLY careful when MOCing) to get the sets back together again at the end.

What I'm trying to get at is that only the purest displaying collector will be able to fulfil the criteria settled on here. MOCists will have no chance of ever knowing, though they have all the parts from their sets in their collection, whether they will ever have the sets together again.
Should that, or even could that, be considered when the criteria are as stringent as this? Will MOCers simply have to accept they have lost ownership of all their sets and compromise on their philosophy of being to compensate?

CCC

zipsforbananas said:

Will MOCers simply have to accept they have lost ownership of all their sets and compromise on their philosophy of being to compensate?

This MOCer simply doesn't care! For most sets, boxes go in the bin. I care about the parts I own, rather than the sets they came from. Many of the parts I don't even know where they came from as I buy them on BL/BO. I'll keep the instructions so I can build the set if I want to.

Even if I did keep the boxes, I wouldn't care about having a 1x4 black brick from one set exchanged with exactly the same 1x4 black brick from another set. They came from the same place anyway, so who cares which box they came in on their journey to me.

zipsforbananas

^That's exactly the sort of perspective I was thinking of.
I get the feeling the ultra-specific definition we settled on here was decided by dedicated collectors. And going by what @binaryeye said, "The definition of 'own' is up to the collector. But if that definition is considerably different than the definition used by those collecting the same thing, you're just deluding yourself," I wonder if the definition would be accepted by the majority of those collecting worldwide.

I absolutely accept that if selling to someone you should accept their definition of these things, and so selling publicly you need to as stringent as possible. But for the sake of people's personal collections I can't see that we could be that strict. It would be like an arrow in the heart of so many people who would think that because they had played with their Lego they had forfeited the right to ever put on back together and claim it is the set. Heck, my Star Wars collection, before it got so big I couldn't do it in a day any more, was regularly taken apart and mixed up before being rebuilt. I've sold a few of those sets, and this thread tells me that means my older collection is only pretending to be a collection.

Add to that how so many sets sold second hand are sold without any idea of these standards and how many Lego sets around the world fall foul of them. Could this be a situation where the sheer weight of collectors round the world, even though these standards are technically right, would mean we simply can't be this precise?

Pitfall69

I think what you are trying to do now is define what a collection is as opposed to owning a particular set. A collection can be anything you want it to be; a collection of sets, Lego pieces, minifigures, boxes, instructions. You can have a collection without actually owning a particular set. "Here is my collection of 10 Star Wars Cloud Cities built to perfection, sans the minifigures." What you have here is a collection of incomplete sets and if you "tick off" the box on Brickset saying you own 10 Cloud Cities; you are living in a city in the clouds.

Pitfall69

I don't think there is a clear definition of what Lego pieces are and what their purpose it. One could argue that if Lego pieces were meant to just be a pile of bricks; why have them come in a box with instructions on how to build that particular set? Why not just sell sacks of Lego bricks and nevermind putting them in a box that has a set number on it. Have you noticed that for some time, Lego have put inventory of what's in the box either on the box or in the instructions? Why do they bother to do this? My opinion is; that they realize that Lego sets have become a prized collectible and if one were to mix up or lose their pieces, one could refer to the inventory.

CCC

I thought the inventory on the box was to show value for money / what you get.

Pitfall69

CCC said:

I thought the inventory on the box was to show value for money / what you get.

Is it? Is that an official statement from TLG?

zipsforbananas

That's a good distinction @Pitfall69‌, but the collection has still lost something of its value if it has become a collection of bricks that merely represent the sets I thought I had. It was very much the fact that it was a collection of sets that mattered, with both the collection and the fact they are sets being important.

The point about instructions is good, but for many years alternate builds were pictured, so mixing up the bricks was encouraged, and it may be an assumption but it seems a fair one that the alternate builds were only restricted to using bricks from that set because TLG couldn't necessarily assume anyone buying had other sets.
And hey, I'd take the central message of the Lego Movie as TLG telling us what the bricks are meant to be used for! Imagination! Mixing! Building whatever you like, whilst also being able to rebuild the original sets if you fancy it.

And I'd always thought the inventory was to show you what you were getting and so that you could get the set back together from amongst the other sets and know what to order if you ever lost a part, all those sorts of things. I expect it was included with a useful purpose in mind, rather than simply reinforcing the identity of the set.

Getting back to that first point though, I do feel you are rather brushing over a quite important issue. I have bought and do own specific sets, but your definitions mean I am living in cloud city land if I continue to think of myself as owning the sets, now that I can't be sure I still have all the original pieces (or in many cases could never have been as I got them on eBay from non-AFOL sellers).
The watertight legal definition we arrived at seems ill-fitting to me in a world of Lego fans of all kinds. It may be acceptable amongst collectors of a certain calibre (and if that sounds sarcastic I don't mean it to be, I am genuinely impressed at your knowledge of different bricks of different eras!), but I just don't see it as a good fit for the rest of the diverse Lego loving world.

Pitfall69

I think every collectible has parameters that are set to determine the value and completeness.

For example: If you had an orginal Colt pistol, but the serial numbers didn't match, the grip was custom and some of the original screws screws were replaced with modern screws; you would have a Colt Pistol, but you wouldn'thave THE original Colt pistol. To convince yourself you did, would be...well...wrong. Sure, the pistol that you have has value, but the value is significantly less than if you had the "real deal". Most collectors want the "real deal" and NOT a hodgepodge of parts put together to make something similar to the original.

Pitfall69

Your point about instructions or box art showing alternative builds is taken. That's what is great about Lego, you can do anything you want with the bricks and parts.

As far as the inventory is concerned; you kind of solidified my point. If nobody cared about getting the correct parts to complete their model; why bother printed the inventory?

zipsforbananas

Hmm, not exactly. The inventory only specifies the correct piece in size, shape, colour, etc, and doesn't necessitate that when you have a few of them you can only reconstitute the set with the one that came from that box.
I think what I'm saying is perhaps we should have a definition of set that requires all the correct pieces, but not necessarily the exact ones that came in the box. Then, there could also be a further, more stringent definition for the absolute real deal, for the collector for whom vintage and pedigree matters, but the standard definition would be more realistically applied to the majority of Lego collectors.

Within that first definition substitute pieces (different colours, part variations, etc) are of course not allowed. How specific it is where what from the outside appears to be the right brick, but internally has differences (like those 1x4 red bricks you photographed) is involved is the only detail I can think would be debatable. And perhaps it should be assumed that the piece will be correct from the outside, but only necessarily be the exact right part where there are production variations if specified.

CCC

Pitfall69 said:

As far as the inventory is concerned; you kind of solidified my point. If nobody cared about getting the correct parts to complete their model; why bother printed the inventory?

So what is the difference between the black 3001 in say a SW #75030 Millennium Falcon and a black 3001 in the creator #31021 Furry Creatures?

For me, nothing. They are the same part that were probably stored in the same bin at some stage. They were put into different boxes, they may have traveled in different lorries to different stores, but they ended up in the same place. If I chose to swap them over, I still consider both sets to be complete. The inventory is there to tell me which parts go in each set, not identify the actual parts that were placed into the box. Until lego stamp the set number on each part, I see no problem exchanging parts between sets. If I showed you two black 3001s, you wouldn't be able to identify which came from which set. Isn't that the point of lego. Very different models are built from identical parts. When you buy a set, you are buying the instructions for a particular model, along with the collection of generic parts that you need to make that model. The parts that you got could have equally well appeared in another box, it was just that fate happened to put them in the set you bought and not a completely different set.

binaryeye

Pitfall69 said:

You can have a collection without actually owning a particular set. "Here is my collection of 10 Star Wars Cloud Cities built to perfection, sans the minifigures." What you have here is a collection of incomplete sets and if you "tick off" the box on Brickset saying you own 10 Cloud Cities; you are living in a city in the clouds.

Again, it completely depends on the collector. What if the collector doesn't care about minifigures and wants to display only the models? Sure, they don't own an entire set, but for their purposes it may as well be checked off their list.

Take, for example, me. I'm not a set collector. My interest in sets is for the build, minifigures, or parts they provide. All of my sets eventually get broken down and sorted into my parts collection. So, with help from Rebrickable, I use Brickset's collection feature to track my parts collection. If I acquire a set, I check it off as owned. If I later sell or trade off some of the minifigures from a set, nothing changes. Of course I realize I no longer own the entire set. My purpose for clicking the "I own" checkbox is not to get my set collection 3% closer to complete. I'm not deluding myself. Obviously, I would never try to sell any of my non-complete sets as complete sets. And if I ever were to start collecting sets, I would track that collection separately.

Pitfall69 said:

Have you noticed that for some time, Lego have put inventory of what's in the box either on the box or in the instructions? Why do they bother to do this? My opinion is; that they realize that Lego sets have become a prized collectible and if one were to mix up or lose their pieces, one could refer to the inventory.

I think it more likely the parts list is included to help the average consumer to more easily request replacement parts. If LEGO were trying to reinforce the concept of sets as collectibles, it would be in their best interest to not include an inventory of parts.

Pitfall69 said:

For example: If you had an orginal Colt pistol, but the serial numbers didn't match, the grip was custom and some of the original screws screws were replaced with modern screws; you would have a Colt Pistol, but you wouldn'thave THE original Colt pistol.

I agree, and I wouldn't expect a collector to disagree. But the pertinent question is whether you've got an original pistol if it has been re-assembled from different parts of multiple originals.

Pitfall69

Listen guys, I think you are going off on a tangent a little bit. I never said that you couldn't use identical parts from different models to complete a set that uses the same part. What I have said is that you cannot use modern/current parts to complete older models. You cannot use all new yellow bricks, minifigures and custom stickers to complete the Classic Yellow Castle. You do not own the set and you will NOT convince me otherwise. You DO NOT own a UCS Millennium Falcon if you substituted all the expensive parts and created custom stickers for the model. All youhave is a Lego model of the Millennium Falcon.

Pitfall69

If you Bricklinked a Cafe Corner with all the correct parts, I have no problem with checking off the "I own" box. Personally, I wouldn't consider it 100% complete if it were missing the instructions, but that is just me. One could argue that the only thing the instructions add to the set is value. One could also argue that the box too adds value, but nothing more.

zipsforbananas

The problem is that you are simply referring to "new" bricks as the problem with an old set. I can see three levels of precision here.
1: A piece of the right specifications and colour is acceptable in any set that requires that piece.
2: A piece made from the same mould, so with the same internal structure and minute details, and with the exact same colour, not simply the red/sand green/etc, but the right colour given that precise shades and colour mixes have varied over the years (and sometimes within sets!).
3: The piece must pass those criteria and also have been produced in the same year as the set and so be just as old, perhaps worn and weathered, as a piece from that era would be.

When you dismiss a Classic Yellow Castle made from modern bricks, would you still dismiss it if the bricks met criteria level 2 but the bricks were from a pick-a-brick wall? (I know that's hypothetical because different moulds and colour palettes are used now, but I imagine some bricks have not changed much if at all down the years.)

I think everyone agrees that the first level is expected. Most would understand second, though I suspect the majority of Lego owners wouldn't have the attention to detail to notice such a level of precision. And the third is also understandable, but is doubtless unobtainable in most people's collections. And that's where I say your standard is unrealistic.
Does that make sense?

Pitfall69

Criteria 2 would NEVER be met. The color and mold to produce parts in the late 70's are different than the parts on the PAB wall.

As far as Criteria 3 is concerned; I don't think the piece has to have to be "weathered". I purposely buy sealed bulk bricks made in the 70's-80's, so I can complete older models. Those bricks have no wear, but because they are the same bricks used in the models I'm completing, they are acceptable.

I don't think I'm being unrealistic. There are many people in this forum that have a level of OCD far beyond mine.

zipsforbananas

Okay, would you dismiss it if the parts met criteria 2 but were from the other end of the era in which those bricks were produced that way? I imagine there could still be quite a wide range of ages within the parts that did meet criteria 2.
(The next question is how you could know whether or not a piece that passed 2 would pass 3 or not?)

Pitfall69

This is all fine. Check off all the "I own" boxes all you want. What you define as owning if different than mine, but when you go to sell your "Classic" Space sets with modern bricks, missing pieces, substituted parts, no instructions, cobbled together minifigures; be prepared to list your items as such because a typical Lego buyer would expect the set to be original and complete.

Pitfall69

I know because I pay attention to detail. These are bricks from my collection from various time periods. It is obvious that they are different.

I don't mean to be an a$$, but it is just obvious that people care more about their Lego than others ;)

CCC

^^ I'm not so sure a typical Lego buyer would. Maybe a typical Lego buyer here, but not a more general typical Lego buyer.

Pitfall69

CCC said:

^^ I'm not so sure a typical Lego buyer would. Maybe a typical Lego buyer here, but not a more general typical Lego buyer.

I will rephrase. "A typical Lego collector"

Pitfall69

Again, I personally don't care what you do with your collection. My opinions are just that...opinions. You don't have to agree with me. I have sold many used sets from various decades and most of my buyers ask questions about the sets they want to buy from me. Most ask the same questions I would ask if I were buying a used set. I'm only basing my opinion on my experience as an AFOL, a collector and a seller.

zipsforbananas

This is exactly what I've been getting at all along.
Of that list of things you wouldn't want in a set you were buying, modern bricks, missing pieces, substituted parts, no instructions and cobbled together minifigures, modern bricks is the only part that I would expect to not necessarily be noted, provided the outward aesthetics of the bricks were the same. So those four red bricks would all be acceptable as a red 1x4 to most people. And so a set that is original but for one brick that has been replaced by a brick of the same kind can be regarded as complete. Or more commonly, a set that has been dispersed into a mass of bricks and pulled back together, but with no guarantee it is using the right era bricks any more, can be regarded as complete.

When selling, of course specialist collectors have every right to ask those questions, but let's set the benchmark at a level that most people, and importantly most children, would recognise and can attain.
Let's recognise a set where all parts are what they are meant to be (e.g. 1x4 red) as complete, and leave it up to a more discerning collector to ask (e.g. which of the 1x4 reds in this picture) rather than expect every seller to list all those details.

1265

To answer the thread title question, "No."

I'll leave it at that.

oldtodd33

^ I am going to agree with @Pitfall69 here. @zipsforbananas Your definition of a complete set is totally unacceptable. When I buy an old set, I expect that all of the original pieces are present and haven't been replaced by newer pieces. I am not a child, I am a collector and when I spend my money for a high quality set, I expect a high quality set.

Why? Because when you get a new part from PAB, it has never been used before. It has all the new look of a new piece. An older pieces from 10 years or more ago looks different. I once received a set I bought that was described as complete. When I got it, the pieces were so different in shade and wear and use that it was obvious they didn't come together when new. I messaged the seller and told them of what I received and then I sent it back for a full refund. That set looked so bad when built, I just couldn't accept it.

When I buy a set that is incomplete and I know about it, I am completely prepared to go to my basement and hunt down the correct parts with period correct mold marks and numbers and match the wear and tear of what is in the set I received.

Bosstone100

To answer the thread title question, "Yes."

I'll leave it at that.

Bosstone100

Let's hear an argument without talking about selling the set. If you can't, opinion dismissed.

The title says nothing about ever selling a set. I don't know why it even has to be said. When you sell something, you should accurately describe it BUT that's not what the thread title is asking.

1265

Bosstone100 said:

To answer the thread title question, "Yes."

I'll leave it at that.

Does copying a post reply and changing one word for another on Bricklink count as "owning" the post?

:)

1265

Bosstone100 said:

Let's hear an argument without talking about selling the set. If you can't, opinion dismissed.

The title says nothing about ever selling a set. I don't know why it even has to be said. When you sell something, you should accurately describe it BUT that's not what the thread title is asking.

I gave you my opinion with in mind of not selling the set. No matter what the situation is, the answer is "no." Capish?

Bosstone100

1265 said:

Bosstone100 said:

Let's hear an argument without talking about selling the set. If you can't, opinion dismissed.

The title says nothing about ever selling a set. I don't know why it even has to be said. When you sell something, you should accurately describe it BUT that's not what the thread title is asking.

I gave you my opinion with in mind of not selling the set. No matter what the situation is, the answer is "no." Capish?

And I firmly say "yes." And is that supposed to be Italian?

1265

Bosstone100 said:

1265 said:

Bosstone100 said:

Let's hear an argument without talking about selling the set. If you can't, opinion dismissed.

The title says nothing about ever selling a set. I don't know why it even has to be said. When you sell something, you should accurately describe it BUT that's not what the thread title is asking.

I gave you my opinion with in mind of not selling the set. No matter what the situation is, the answer is "no." Capish?

And I firmly say "yes." And is that supposed to be Italian?

Yes, capish? :)

dougts

Legoboy said:

Yodalicious said:

I find it interesting that some people believe you need the box to have the set.

Whereas I can't see past the end of my nose. The product that left the factory is what's required to own a set. I really can't consider it being anything else.

The box is packaging, not part of the product.

I guess by this logic I don't own my car either(no longer has the full body shrink wrap it shipped from the factory), or my toothbrush even. Or my clothes (tags are long gone!). Sheesh, I guess I really don't own anything...

Pitfall69

^I don't think he meant you have to have the box to own the set. I imagine he was just saying what was put into the box at the factory.

dougts

^ seemed that is exactly what he was saying from the context. And many others have said so as well.

matticus_bricks

What an interesting discussion! I have often thought about it myself, but I had no idea so many others had such strong opinions about this! Well, to be honest, although I've been reading Brickset for awhile, I'm a new member of the site, and I haven't added my collection of sets yet, so I haven't really decided what criteria I will use when choosing my sets.

This may seem totally odd, but I think as long as I have ever received a set as gift when I was a child, or bought it as adult, I would consider that as a set I own, unless I have since sold it, whether as a complete or incomplete set. So, even if a set is completely dismantled in my (now sorted) collection, and I may not have all of the parts or Minifigs anymore, I still consider myself the owner of that set. After all, it was mine at some point and as long as I haven't sold it, I could probably part it out from my parts, maybe with a little help from Bricklink.

That said, I wouldn't necessarily consider those sets as part of my "collection". My collection of sets includes only those that I have set aside, preferably in their original boxes with instructions if I have those, for the sole purpose of building that set whenever I feel like it. Sets that are in my collection have either been meticulously parted out or have never been assimilated into my loose bricks and will never be separated again from their specified set or used for MOC-ing.


....by the way, I believe it is spelled "capisce". :-X

zipsforbananas

I'm not disagreeing with the good, strict standard of @Pitfall69‌ and others at all, I do agree with it, but I don't think it should be applied as THE normal definition of owning a set. May I call it the elite standard?

My reason is, any set that has ever been part of a child's collection and has been played with, pulled apart and mixed up with other sets cannot hope to ever again meet it.
For a set to fit the elite standard it will almost have to have been originally bought by a collector, and only ever sold on to collectors, and so have got to you having never been owned by anyone but a collector.
It creates a pedigree kind of market that is good, but shouldn't be the normal way of thinking of sets. It quite clearly is the elite standard, and should be, and is good as such. But it is the elite standard, not the standard that should normally apply to everyone.

Lots of details have flown back and forth, but I don't believe anyone has yet addressed this point. Justifications for the elite standard may well and do hold up, but that doesn't mean they SHOULD be applied in all cases, as if all cases conform to their laboratory-style setting. I say there are other factors in play, we need to consider them all.

Sethro3

I never scrutinized all the little details in regards to this.

I figured if I have all of the pieces to a set, I own the set. Instructions/box are neat to have, but not must haves since everything is online anymore.

I do agree, older pieces look different than new pieces. The problem there becomes using "new" old pieces vs new new pieces. I have many sets from the late 80s/early 90s from my childhood. Naturally some of those bricks are going to look worn due to age/play/what have you. But surprisingly some of those same pieces look brand spanking new. So much that you couldn't tell it was any different from a new brick. I know it is my old used brick because I had my entire collection that stopped in 1996ish stored in a tote container at my parents house until recently when I first started to piece together older sets. So I know for a fact none of those new pieces are new since I would never have had an opportunity to mix them. Short of my parents buying new pieces (not sets, mind you) and randomly tossing them into my color sorted bins in my old collection, these old pieces are "new." With all of this in mind, outside of a potential mold change, how does one distinguish new vs old pieces of the same era. If I want to piece together a different set, it would then have a mix of worn and new pieces, even though they would be from the approximate same era.

I recently bought a Mega Core Magnetizer set since I didn't have it as a kid. Some of those pieces look new. Now one could assume the seller bought some new pieces to finish the model, but a lot of the pieces that look new are of old molds that don't exist anymore. Also, the set ended up missing a handful of non-essential pieces, so why would the seller replace some pieces with new and not complete the set and expect a higher price tag?

madforLEGO

Anyone can say they have a 'complete' set, but I think this really is in the eye of the beholder of 'casual collector' vs 'serious collector' vs 'strict' collector:

Casual collector:
-wants the set
-likely wants printed parts to be in the set (as those appear in instructions)
-may or may not care about condition of parts
-May or may not care about color substitutions
-does not care if all part types are correct type (from brick and plate being wrong time period to parts not correct type for time period) as long as there is a reasonable facsimile of that part.
-May or may not care if stickers, or all stickers, are present, or if reproductions are used.
-May or may not care if original instruction are present only if there is a way to get instructions to build it.
-may or may not care if box is present

Serious collector:
-Cares about condition of parts
-Cares if stickers or printed parts are missing.
-Cares if stickers are reproductions
-Cares if original instructions are present
-Cares if parts types are not correct (from brick and plate being wrong time period to parts not correct type for time period)
-Cares if color substitutions were made
-May or may not care if box is present
-May or may not care if box has its cardboard tray and any plastic inserts.

Strict collectors
-Must have parts all in excellent condition
-Must have box with tray insert and any plastic that came with it and also the original catalogs and other items in the box
-May or may not care about the condition of said box (likely cares and wants a good to excellent condition box).
-Must have original instructions
-Must have original stickers (preferably on sheet still); no reproduction of any kind.
-Parts MUST be from original box and not from a hodgepodge of parts from someone collection re-parted into the set or BL/LEGO/brick owl, etc.(even if they are all correct type for the period)
-Basically want MISB or something one step away from MISB

I used 'cares' as a measure for serious and casual because collectors may buy a set missing a sticker or part if they know about it and could replace it, but it could devalue the set to them if buying it from someone.
Strict collectors, as it appears some are here, I used 'must' as they seem to demand near perfection and if it does not meet their standards it is not 'complete' and likely would not buy as 'complete' and likely would take exception to those who call it 'complete'.

These are my opinions and I'm sure people have their own criteria for what they deem as a collector, but likely fit somewhere in these three 'molds'.

I will say this regarding original instructions: I think people have been spoiled by sites that post instructions as well as LEGO making them available via PDF but back in the day, this did not exist. You could have had a pile of parts but with no instructions you would have a bit of rough time building the set. I think serious collectors realize this and want original instructions, not just cheap copy printouts, or an electronic copy as they could likely do that. They want to know that time and effort was made to have those original instructions as well as the attention to detail of the correct parts for the set. I doubt 'casual' or 'serious' (as I described about that is) collectors care if a set is BL'd, AS long as the correct parts were used to recreate the set and a copy of the original instructions are there, as well as any printed parts/stickers on the set.

piratemania7

Ultimately one cannot dictate what others think/feel or hold as an opinion. At the very least this is an open and welcoming forum where we can all express our ideas. I think there are a plethora of good points sprinkled throughout here.

Just thought I'd mention that.

iancam33

No one truly owns any set. LEGO has implanted tiny nanoprobes in each and every piece and will activate said nanoprobes on stardate 2362.674. All pieces will return to LEGO. End of discussion. :)

arl100

^So long as they don't come alive and suffocate you in your sleep. There's an idea for a new horror film.

On a serious note, I buy parts from Bricklink to create sets on a regular basis. Personally, it counts as owning them, so long as they look the same as the original model, though personally I am not too fussed on micro changes to the mold.

If you spend money on it, you own it.

iancam33

^hey, hey, hey, now. No more serious notes. LEGO has nanoprobes with your name on them now, bud.

Pitfall69

I have a funny feeling that the Lego "vault" wouldn't be as special if all the sets in there "looked" like the original sets.

"Hey, this is my 1967 Shelby Cobra. Well, it looks like a 1967 Shelby Cobra, but it is just a kit mounted on a Volkswagen chassis and has has a Ford 5.0 small block. I spent money on it, so therefore I own a 1967 Shelby Cobra. At least that is what I will tell everyone ;)."