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

piratemania7

Agreed with @Pitfall69‌'s statement above.

When you start talking about the LEGO vault and the contents of it; you start talking about purity. Unless you hold in your hands exactly what LEGO intended for you to hold, then you can create and create and buy and buy and make your own "creation" but it's not the original found in said vault.

I can purchase instruction manuals, spend lots of €£¥$ on LEGO and even buy original boxes, but unless I buy it all as one directly out of the factory I don't intrinsically own that set.

Bosstone100

^ Sure you do. The only way it becomes an issue is if you sell it as original.

1265

arl100 said:

^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.

Thanks, I now can add many sets to my "sets own" database. Let me see how many vintage sets I own. Heck, I can create many sets owned with the same parts. Wow, I never would of dreamed about owning so many older sets. Thanks. :S

binaryeye

Pitfall69 said:

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.

Of course it wouldn't. But not everyone who collects is attempting to replicate the LEGO vault.

piratemania7 said:

When you start talking about the LEGO vault and the contents of it; you start talking about purity.

As above, not everyone collects "purity".

piratemania7 said:

Unless you hold in your hands exactly what LEGO intended for you to hold, then you can create and create and buy and buy and make your own "creation" but it's not the original found in said vault.

Who knows what LEGO intends? As best I can tell, LEGO produces the majority of sets to be played with as toys, some to be display pieces, and a few as collector items. If a collector wants to collect the "purity" of the LEGO vault, that's fine by me. But that collector doesn't have the right to dictate that their definition of collecting is the only valid definition.

And anyway, nothing anyone collects is the original found in the LEGO vault. The only thing remotely similar is a MISB collection.

piratemania7 said:

I can purchase instruction manuals, spend lots of €£¥$ on LEGO and even buy original boxes, but unless I buy it all as one directly out of the factory I don't intrinsically own that set.

I'm not sure how anyone can intrinsically own a set they themselves buy. And regardless, it depends on the collector's definition of "own" in the context of their collection.

1265

^^
I'm gonna give you a Like because I'm dizzy from reading your post. ;)

CCC

Pitfall69 said:

"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 ;)."

What if you replaced a damaged headlight or a seatcover with one from the 1968 version instead? That is clearly not as special either, since it is not original.

piratemania7 said:

When you start talking about the LEGO vault and the contents of it; you start talking about purity. Unless you hold in your hands exactly what LEGO intended for you to hold, then you can create and create and buy and buy and make your own "creation" but it's not the original found in said vault.

So what did Lego intend customers to own during the colour change years? What if you got a set with a mixture of old and new colours? Did lego intend that or was it a mistake?

What did they intend customers to own when they change a set part way through a run? How many people have ticked off the zombie hearse when they have the version without glow in the dark stickers? From the artwork for the series, the intention was clearly that this set was meant to have glow in the dark stickers. Yet for whatever reason it was changed part way through the run and the later sets were not as originally intended. Do they still count as owning a set?

jdylak

So I have boxes and boxes of mixed up pieces and I start building sets. Old, new, and in between. How do I know what specific piece went to that set of that time period? Bricklink doesn't tell me what specific style of 1 x 4 piece came out of the box for that set does it? It doesn't say if a 1 x 6 brick has open tubes on the bottom. So, to me myself, if I have a 1 x 6 brick, I have a 1 x 6 brick. That's what it is, a 1 x 6 brick. If it were stickers I needed, I would get the originals. Boxes I care nothing about.

madforLEGO

Pitfall69 said:

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 ;)."

That is a bit apples and oranges though, as while the drive train may be Ford you are using other parts from other manufacturers. That would be like someone saying I used MBs to complete my LEGO set which is complete. Now as no one is saying that (mercifully) I think that the comparison to a kit car is reaching.
Now if you bought all of the parts to an original Cobra and built it then yes it is owning one.

piratemania7 said:

Agreed with @Pitfall69‌'s statement above.

When you start talking about the LEGO vault and the contents of it; you start talking about purity. Unless you hold in your hands exactly what LEGO intended for you to hold, then you can create and create and buy and buy and make your own "creation" but it's not the original found in said vault.

I can purchase instruction manuals, spend lots of €£¥$ on LEGO and even buy original boxes, but unless I buy it all as one directly out of the factory I don't intrinsically own that set.

Wait now we are getting into 'Purity'? For one, aren't ALL the sets in the vault MISB? I think that is what makes them vault worthy, not having a bunch of opened boxes or loose sets. Again this is debate that will never end as there are those with varying opinions as to how they see collecting sets.

piratemania7

I just think "piecing" a set together is purely different than buying it MISB and therefore owning the set is purely different as well.

klatu003

Are you guys still arguing about this? To each his "own" unless you are selling. :-)

I have checked the "own" box at Brickset for two modulars that I have sourced with lots of modifications - very impure. My criteria is that those pieces are now dedicated to those builds, so they can't count towards "owning" any other sets. But wait -- I used parts from my second Grand Emporium, but I still "own" two Grand Emporiums. What to do, what to do. My head is spinning.... there is no place like "own", clicks her red heels together .......

Pitfall69

^You are having impure thoughts?

CCC

piratemania7 said:

I just think "piecing" a set together is purely different than buying it MISB and therefore owning the set is purely different as well.

What it if you buy it second hand? That is also different to buying it MISB.

NeilJam

One reason I use Brickset is to keep track of how many pieces my collection consists of. If I can identify sets that were included in a second-hand random box of bricks I will add those to my collection on here but will note if it is not complete or has no instructions. I would likely do the same if I ever pieced together a particular set, but don't really see myself doing that.

piratemania7

Reading another thread on the forum got me thinking about this one....

If the price of a set were to become simply "too high" would it not make sense to just piece it together from BL? Once the MISB piece is out of the equation then I think its all out the window.

You may as well spend far less and piece the set together that way...of course, then it isn't MISB and the effervescent question of whether you own the set rises up and then it's all mute anyway. :smile:

Pitfall69

"it's all mute"??? Is this your way of telling us not to talk about this anymore?

Pitfall69

Being a LOTR fan, I would expect you to know the difference between "mute" and "moot". Ya, know "entmoot", the gathering of trees to discuss going to war.

Anyway, I wonder how much Bricklinking a Town Hall would be, now that it is retired and the prices are steep?

oldtodd33

^If you wanted the box and were BL'ing the set there's a guy on Ebay selling the empty box for a $100 right now.

Pitfall69

oldtodd33 said:

^If you wanted the box and were BL'ing the set there's a guy on Ebay selling the empty box for a $100 right now.

Holy Crap!!! That is ridiculous

madforLEGO

All depends on how much the set costs collectively to buy. I found at the time I was BL'ing #10190 It was pricey, about 200-250 USD to build one, but now obviously it was a good deal. I think people tend to forget that there are shipping and handling costs that also factor into the overall cost of the set, which can be quite pricey if having to buy from overseas, buy only a handful for parts but have to pay handling fees and shipping for that handful of parts, OR have to buy x dollars in items from a store to meet their minimum purchase cost. Bricklinking a set also takes up a lot of time hunting down parts, getting them bought, and shipped, and ensuring you do not mess up a part count (especially if buying for more than one set), then if you bought enough to build more than one set, the time to sort the parts into their 'sets' counts.

It also matters how much those pieces now cost that are discontinued.
I would not try to BL a Cafe Corner for example due to how much some of those parts skyrocketed in price. That and the piece count and cost, even back then, would have driven me batty to try to keep up with will piecing it together. (especially after Bricklink'ing Market Street).

Finally, are you using any type of replacement? For example, windows for Market street are a certain 1x4x3 train window, and it is not just any of those as there are two type of train window, you can tell which because one goes for far more on BL than the other (at last check). And the instruction cost is insane.
Some people are obviously buying any parts to build Market street to sell because you can tell they have the wrong hoses, windows, or doors.. Sometimes do not even have the Dark Blue arch ways, or are using the 'new' 1x8x2 archways from the WVM and not the appropriate ones from the era of the set.
Now I know I'm being nitpicky but it bugs me when I see a 'complete market street' up for sale when it is obvious by pictures and language used in the listing that the parts are not accurate to the year the set was released, but that is just my peeve about it. However when people are paying 500 USD for a set not accurate to the time period, especially when they may believe it is, it bugs me. I know I may stir a debate as to why is that a big deal, but it is just my opinion.

monkyby87

I don't think Lego considered any of this when they were making Legos, and maybe still don't. If I am able to build a set with pieces, old or new, and follow the instructions without deviation then I own the set. End of story.

Pitfall69

^Certainly not the end of the story. When you have closed your book, others continue to read ;)

Drmnez

This whole debate is just preference. Realistically and technically it's the same if you piece it together yourself or build from a box. There is no arguing. Some of us just prefer to think its only a Lego product if it came from a boxed set. Which is fine, but as another mbr mentioned it only really matters if you are trying to sell it as an original

Sethro3

^I agree. Selling a bricklinked version with modern pieces instead of original era pieces and calling it 100% complete is questionable. Directly stating what parts were replaced and what parts are original, would be different.

With that said, personally if it has the same style of part (new or old), I'd consider it legit. No, it isn't the same era, but it is the proper color/shape. Taking WMV dark blue arches into consideration. Looking at it, you can't really tell the difference. Although I think technically the underside is reinforced and doesn't hold certain elements underneath anymore like they used to. So it technically is a new mold.

But when you are looking at the dark red roof slopes for CC and some have open stud and some are closed stud with no other apparent differences, I think it is silly to question if you own a set or not. But it leads back to if you are trying to sell it as original, then it should have original parts.

Pitfall69

^This is true, but as said before, many people are selling 100% Complete sets without telling potential buyers that they substituted parts. Either they are being dishonest or like many on this thread, truly believe they have the set.

zipsforbananas

^^I thought we got that consensus a while ago (though to be fair I only jumped into this the last time it was going, who knows how many times the issue has been thrashed out before?).
For personally owning a set, there must surely be limits, but the bar for claiming you own a set is relatively low.
But if you ever try to sell that set or give it to someone else, you may have to be a lot more stringent, up to the standards of the person you're selling/giving it to.

I.e. if @Pitfall69‌ were selling to me, he could get away with giving the correct mixture of the right specification of bricks according to dimensions and colour.
But if I were selling to him I would have to make sure the bricks were the original bricks from that set, any replacements were noted, and bricks would need to be correct according to age and other more specific details such as internal details of the bricks.

Pitfall69

I haven't used Bricklink to do inventory in a while. What is the "new" tag next to the parts mean?

CCC

^ A new image or data about the part has been upload. Some 1980s parts have been getting new tags, confusing some people!

jasor

piratemania7 said:

Reading another thread on the forum got me thinking about this one....

If the price of a set were to become simply "too high" would it not make sense to just piece it together from BL? Once the MISB piece is out of the equation then I think its all out the window.

You may as well spend far less and piece the set together that way...of course, then it isn't MISB and the effervescent question of whether you own the set rises up and then it's all mute anyway. :smile:

I love that you used this from BL'ing Green Grocer to bump this thread :tongue:

Pitfall69

^He's a sly one.

Pitfall69

CCC said:

^ A new image or data about the part has been upload. Some 1980s parts have been getting new tags, confusing some people!

I would really like to update their database with different part variations. For example: The sails from the Legends Black Seas Barracuda and the re releases of Red Beard Runner (Pirate Battle Ship) and Armada Flagship (Spaniard Ship) have different parts and the sails are different. The sails are actually made from a different material.

piratemania7

Pitfall69 said:

CCC said:

^ A new image or data about the part has been upload. Some 1980s parts have been getting new tags, confusing some people!

I would really like to update their database with different part variations. For example: The sails from the Legends Black Seas Barracuda and the re releases of Red Beard Runner (Pirate Battle Ship) and Armada Flagship (Spaniard Ship) have different parts and the sails are different. The sails are actually made from a different material.

I'll be receiving Legends BSB in a few days time. Perhaps if this update hasn't been done yet I could venture a stab at it.

Pitfall69

I will be doing a review on the differences between the original BSB and the Legends version shortly.