Home› Collecting
Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

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

24567

Comments

  • brickmaticbrickmatic Member Posts: 1,071
    "Oh, that was easy," says man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white, and gets killed on the next zebra crossing. Most leading theologians claim that this argument is a load of dingo's kidneys. But this did not stop Oolon Colluphid making a small fortune when he used it as the central theme for his best selling book, Well That About Wraps It Up for God. Meanwhile the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different cultures and races, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation.
  • drdavewatforddrdavewatford Administrator Posts: 6,755
    :-))

    Does this count as the greatest digression in the history of LEGO online forums ?
  • brickmaticbrickmatic Member Posts: 1,071
    I would think that the answer is yes! :) However, we'll have to ask @Istokg to be sure ;)
  • charg1nmalaz0rcharg1nmalaz0r Member Posts: 5
    brickmatic. a set is a model and minifigures.the rest is just packaging and the instructions to build the model.

  • brickmaticbrickmatic Member Posts: 1,071
    Oh no.... I thought this was put to rest with The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy quote. (Great book, by the way, I recommend you read it if you haven't.)

    I do feel compelled to reply, despite the fact this has been beaten to death. Ah well, such is my nature. Please, please, please, just skip over this post if you're getting tired of this philosophical debate.

    A set can be defined however you like. But if you define a set a particular way, it will limit your responses to other questions if you want to remain logically consistent with your a prior definitions. If you want to be irrational, then it doesn't matter.

    I define things as follows:

    A set is the numerically identical collection of tangible items that has been offered for acquisition by TLG as a collective unit. The tangible items include plastic elements, sticker sheet, and instructions. The box and other packaging can be considered a container for the set, not an integral part of the set. However, because the box and packaging is strongly associated with the set it can be considered an accessory part of the set.

    A model is the intangible specific arrangement of plastic elements. When a model is built it is fixed in a tangible medium.

    Plastic elements are the numerically identical tangible bricks, mini figures, and other parts produced by TLG. Parts is synonymous with elements.

    Ownership is pretty straightforward. Note, since a model is intangible it follows the same logic as ownership of intellectual property, which is also intangible, but may be fixed in a tangible medium.

    Based on my definitions, you can figure out all of the questions I have been posing in a consistent way. To answer the original question, you do not own the set if you build the corresponding model from disparate parts unless those parts originate from the set you are attempting to own. This answer is using the above definitions, of course.

    Now, if your definition of a set is model and mini-figures, what do you mean by model? If you're talking about a specific arrangement of bricks, then until the model is realized through the act of building it, you do not own the set. You wouldn't own a set unless it is built. If by model you mean the parts that make up the specific arrangement of bricks, regardless of configuration, then you would need to accept that you own a superposition of sets. This arises from the possibility that a definite set of bricks can potentially belong to more models than it is possible to build at a single point in time using that set of bricks.

    The conclusions logically flow from how you choose to define set.
  • wander099wander099 Member Posts: 114
    ^ A fantastic book that is even better in audiobook form when narrated by the great Stephen Fry.

    As for set ownership, my position is this. Logically, I say if you own the pieces to make a set and you have access to the instructions (and thus could print out a little booklet if you want), then you own the set. The box seems irrelevant because it is packaging, just like the plastic bags of parts inside.

    However, my personal feelings toward my own collection are different. Every set I own has been bought by me or for me and I have opened the box and assembled the set new. If I had a used set I would only consider it an actual set if I bought it in entirety (not necessarily separated out from other sets, but not missing any pieces either).
  • brickmaticbrickmatic Member Posts: 1,071
    About a month ago I went to this store we have where I live where I came across these cool little word magnets that were on sale. They were words made up of individual letter magnets. I thought they were neat, so I went ahead and bought LOVE YOU and GO WIN. I like the positive message these words send. When I got home I put LOVE YOU and GO WIN on my refrigerator. About a week ago I found out I can buy individual letter magnets online. It was like pick-a-magnet. I went ahead and ordered E, I, S, V, and L. When I got the shipment in the mail I put the letters on my fridge across from LOVE YOU and GO WIN. I went ahead and arranged these extra letters I bought to spell out a word. I put together LIVES, because I like life. Well what do you know, when I got up today my little brother had taken apart LIVES and put together EVIL. Not only did he mess up my word LIVES, he put EVIL between LOVE YOU and GO WIN. Didn't look right at all. That, and my S is now missing. I was so frustrated that I just took all the letters and mixed them up in a big pile. So now I own a big pile of letters: two Es, a G, two Is, two Ls, two Ns, three Os, an S (somewhere), a U, two Vs, a W, and a Y. I'm kind of bummed about the whole thing, but I went online and found instructions to build more words. I'm thinking of going big and putting together WISEGUY as soon as I find the missing S.

    The question I have is: I currently own a pile of letters. What words do I own?

    Also, for anyone interested, it is much cheaper to build your words from individual letters bought online than it is from the official word magnet store. You just need to be organized and put some time into it, but the process is a lot of fun!
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    ^ This would probably be better received in the word magnet forum... but even they may find it tiresome.
  • CypressLICypressLI Member Posts: 3
    My first post and look what happens...

    I think we need a "Philosophy of Lego" category.
  • brickmaticbrickmatic Member Posts: 1,071
    Good news! I found the missing S! I decided to drop the WISEGUY idea and instead opted for LOVE YOU GUYS !

    ;)
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,290
    Better news! I looked online and they are having a sale on Ds. You could buy two and you could form LONGWINDED
    slovakiasteph
  • princedravenprincedraven Member Posts: 3,764
    I think you should go with: Vow Lego Lives In You
  • madforLEGOmadforLEGO Member Posts: 10,791
    If a tree falls in the middle of the forest.. and no one is around to hear it, does it count as a set?
  • leguyleguy Member Posts: 2
    Rather than debating the semantics I think the question really is how do you use Brickset? To put it bluntly are you a builder or are you a collector?

    As a builder a set is just a shorthand way to know what parts you own. It doesn't matter how the parts came to be as long as they are functionally equivalent, and they are all there.

    As a collector I would say what counts is if you either own the original box or instructions, and in fact it doesn't even matter if you have any of the parts. At first this may sound counterintuitive, but part of the information a collector is looking for on Brickset is rarity. The fact that someone owns a pair of instructions and or a box shows that the full set existed at some point in time. (Observant readers will point out that a box and a pair of instructions could become separated and therefore turn into two "sets", but not much can be done about that.) I would further argue that missing or replacement parts are actually a question of set condition not set identity.

    In fact I don't think either of these definitions are mutually exclusive. People could list what sets they own by parts, but if they don't list having a pair of instructions or box then I don't think they should be added to the main tally. That way we wouldn't end up seeing people owning sets that were never released and other peculiarities that currently happen within the database. ;)
  • RabbitWizzardRabbitWizzard Member Posts: 26
    If someone offers a set, i expect all the pieces to be there. If i own a set, maybe a piece is missing but i still say i own it. Definition of the word changes under the circumstances. Discussing the exact definition of the word will get us nowhere because we are many and are different.
  • brickmaticbrickmatic Member Posts: 1,071
    ^ You realize that without a common definition for things we wouldn't be able to communicate, right? Well, except with a Babel fish that is.
  • YellowcastleYellowcastle Administrator, Moderator Posts: 5,234
    ^ http://www.tv.com/star-trek-the-next-generation/darmok/episode/19088/summary.html
  • brickmaticbrickmatic Member Posts: 1,071
    ^ http://xkcd.com/902/
  • IstokgIstokg Member Posts: 2,363
    edited June 2011
    Well just think how valuable your LEGO can be... see the 321 Clown Set (attachment)... nothing but common parts that many of you have... and yet it's worth over $1000 (only sold in Denmark and Japan in 1965 in limited quantities).... the drawback is that without the box and instructions it's only worth less than $5.

    In this instance (as with most "put together" instances)... you may own the model(s)... but you certainly don't own the set....
    Pitfall69
  • RabbitWizzardRabbitWizzard Member Posts: 26
    ^ You realize that without a common definition for things we wouldn't be able to communicate, right? Well, except with a Babel fish that is.
    Yes. You and the person you're talking with should share the same definition. If you do it doesn't mean it's perfect for the whole world in every situation and the only possible one ;)
    Some people want the the important parts, some people all the parts, some people the instructions, some people the box, some people the unopened box. Thats established. You will never be able to work out a definition that fits everyone.
  • doriansdaddoriansdad Member Posts: 1,337
    I look at it this way - if I buy a new in box Taj Mahal and give it to one guy to assemble and then go buy the correct pieces in color and quantity off bricklink and give these and a laptop to another guy to download the instructions to build and come back in 10 hours the end result is going to be identical....a completed Taj Mahal.

    Now when it comes time to sell on average you will find the set with the box and instructions will go for more than the set without these items. The price difference on average will be what the market values the box and the instructions to be and nothing more. If the box, instructions and bricks did somehow combine to become something special other than the sum of its parts, or a "set", it would command a higher price. This just does not occur. There is no extra value to having all three of these items together in an unsealed set. The guy with the briclink Taj could go buy a box and instructions and would receive on average the same price as the store bought Taj. Likewise the guy with the store bought Taj could sell the set without the box and instructions and on average would receive the same price as the bricklink sourced Taj. The market does not value the fact all parts were bought at the same time vs at different times as long as they are of similar condition.

    Now sealed sets, especially limited run sealed sets, are another breed altogether. A sealed set offers an intangible difference to an opened or bricklink set. Once opened however the store bought set will never command a price higher than the sum of its parts. So in my mind there is a huge difference between factory sealed sets and all others, but no difference between opened factory sets and PAB sets.
  • brickmaticbrickmatic Member Posts: 1,071
    edited June 2011
    @RabbitWizzard You miss my point. I'm not arguing for a particular definition. Instead, I am soliciting the readers to offer their own definitions and then point out the logical conclusions that stem from how they choose to define sets. In particular, there is a sort of paradox that arises if you feel that piecing together a model from parts counts as owning a set. To understand the dilemma, consider a giant pile of loose bricks that you own and then determine the sets you own based on the pile of parts you own. Your answer may be none, a single set, a group of sets, or a group of a group of sets/set. In the later case you would own a superposition of sets. I don't think most people who espouse piecing together a model as counting as set ownership believe that they can own a superposition of sets, yet this is the logical conclusion of how they choose to define what a set is. This would be a logical inconsistency in their reasoning. You may resolve this inconsistency by saying you only own sets if they are built, but the corollary is that if you take apart a set you stop owning it.

    @doriansdad You say:
    If the box, instructions and bricks did somehow combine to become something special other than the sum of its parts, or a "set", it would command a higher price. This just does not occur
    Um, did you not read what @Istokg wrote?
    see the 321 Clown Set (attachment)... nothing but common parts that many of you have... and yet it's worth over $1000 (only sold in Denmark and Japan in 1965 in limited quantities).... the drawback is that without the box and instructions it's only worth less than $5.
  • drdavewatforddrdavewatford Administrator Posts: 6,755
    There's no right or wrong answer to this, only personal opinions. I liked the 'rule of thumb' suggested previously that if you've only got the bricks then you have a model, but if you have bricks, box and instructions you have a set, but others have disagreed, and their opinion is just as valid on this occasion.

    If you're planning on selling, however, the definition of a 'complete set' becomes much more critical, and more specifically the need to be entirely transparent about whether it's the original bricks you're selling etc.
  • doriansdaddoriansdad Member Posts: 1,337
    Brickmatic I did read that post. I am confirming his findings. A sealed set is worth more than an opened factory set or PAB set, but there is no difference between an opened factory set and PAB set. In the clown example the $1k price tag is only for the seal. Once opened the price will drop to the market value of parts, box and instructions only. I have not looked at this set but I am guessing the correct parts (not modern counterparts) in new condition would run more than $5. I think I have gravitated to the idea that a complete set includes the seal as it is clearly worth more (much more in alot of cases) than an opened set or pieced together set. If you don't own the sealed box with instructions and bricks then you don't own the complete set.
  • brickmaticbrickmatic Member Posts: 1,071
    @drdavewatford However, opinions can be logically inconsistent. In the case of logic, there are forms of arguments that are valid and forms that are logical fallacies. If you are to take a logical approach to statements being made about set ownership, then you can actually point out invalid reasoning. There is a very interesting (to me) logical problem if you are of the opinion that a pieced together model constitutes a set. No one who subscribes to that opinion has really resolved that logical problem.

    @doriansdad Interesting point about the seal. Hadn't really thought of that, but it makes sense. I'm not comfortable, however, with the fact that I lose ownership of a set the moment I break the seal. Might it be that the inflated prices are a reflection of the guarantee that you are indeed purchasing a complete set versus an open set that might be a complete set, but potentially could have been tampered with? In other words, an opened set is complete, but loses value because the buyer cannot be assured that it is. By analogy, if I buy a new car, ship it by flatbed truck to my house, and then try to sell it, I will not come close to recouping my investment. The car would sell at the price point of a used car despite never having been used.
  • wander099wander099 Member Posts: 114
    ^ I like your car analogy. I think that makes a lot of sense and reflects my view of buying new vs. buying used. I consider my sets complete though I have thrown out the boxes, but if I was buying, I would want a sealed box if possible to be certain the set is not missing anything.
  • cycoduckcycoduck Member Posts: 22
    I am a huge fan of the Architecture series and, when I saw that 21021 Marina Bay Sands was only available in Asia, selling for lots of money on eBay/Bricklink, I was discouraged. I decided to Bricklink the set, augmenting what I didn't have in my overstock inventory. Luckily, I was able to get everything together and build the set (minus 1 piece, the label piece).
    So, I am curious. What are your thoughts on Bricklinking a set that is pricey and hard to get. If you have all of the pieces, and built the set, do you count it as a 'have' in your collection?
  • prof1515prof1515 Member Posts: 1,550
    If you didn't buy the actual product, no collector would consider themselves to have it. If I grab some clay and make myself a vase, I don't have a Greek amphora no matter how similar to an actual Greek amphora it may look (ignoring the fact that my sculpting skills would render a result that couldn't even be mistaken for pottery). Like that clay creation, you have an assemblage of components, in this case Lego bricks, identical to that found in a particular set but you don't have that particular set any more than I'd have a Greek amphora. From a consumer point-of-view though, I suppose it doesn't make any difference and is the economical means of attaining that which you want. Ultimately, if it's for your own pleasure, does it matter what I or anyone else thinks about your "collection" and its origin?
  • ColoradoBricksColoradoBricks Member Posts: 1,659
    Your collection is just "yours", it is yours to enjoy and if a bricklinked version hit the spot for you, go for it.
    I have bricklinked my own versions of GC and CC, they look great and have no desire to have the originals.
  • Bluefairy_56Bluefairy_56 Member Posts: 320
    I too believe that if you have all the pieces, whether they were from the original set or collected together from other sources to complete the set, it is a complete set so long as the pieces match in colour, shape and size.

    I have bought several sets that were incomplete, but I matched the ID numbers and colours exactly to complete each set. I also now have lots of spares (as I bought a dozen or so of each). So instead of having 3 incomplete sets, they are now added to my others as complete, including all the mini figures, instruction books and all the bricks and accessories.
  • CCCCCC Member Posts: 20,526
    cycoduck said:

    I am a huge fan of the Architecture series and, when I saw that 21021 Marina Bay Sands was only available in Asia, selling for lots of money on eBay/Bricklink, I was discouraged. I decided to Bricklink the set, augmenting what I didn't have in my overstock inventory. Luckily, I was able to get everything together and build the set (minus 1 piece, the label piece).
    So, I am curious. What are your thoughts on Bricklinking a set that is pricey and hard to get. If you have all of the pieces, and built the set, do you count it as a 'have' in your collection?

    Absolutely the same as a set of any price. If you have all the bricks / parts in the correct colours, then you have the complete set - if you are a displayer. If you are a "completist" collector, then you need the original instructions and box to be complete. If you are a seller, then you have the parts to the set, but not a complete set.

    I don't believe you have a complete set if you don't have the name plate. You have a significantly cheaper variant of the set, which looks almost as good for display, but it is not complete. Same as if you replace some parts with cheaper alternatives in other models. It may look just as good, but it is not strictly complete.

    Your example shows why the name plate for some of the architecture sets (and UCS sets) can be so high. You are not going to get one unless someone else parts the set out. If it is a valuable set and that is the only unique part, then that part will be a significant cost.
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor Member Posts: 3,937
    The only real difference is if you try to sell it later, especially if the set is older. Parts evolve, colors are mixed differently in different batches and others fade.

    For example, the geometry of the 1x1 plate w/clips has evolved over time. Also, as close as Lego tries to get colors, one batch may be a visibly different hue than another. Then there's fading. If you are selling an older set, the bricks may look great together, but if you have to patch in a few new pieces, those might really stand out because they haven't uniformly faded as the others have. It's the old "replace the drapes and suddenly you need new carpet" problem.

    The last one can be annoying even if you are keeping it for yourself.
    Pitfall69
  • ColoradoBricksColoradoBricks Member Posts: 1,659
    ^ Those days, color matching issues are in new sets ... #42009 had several yellow shade. Sets with large amount of LBG also shows differences...
  • GalactusGalactus Member Posts: 260
    brickmatic said:

    @RabbitWizzard You miss my point. I'm not arguing for a particular definition. Instead, I am soliciting the readers to offer their own definitions and then point out the logical conclusions that stem from how they choose to define sets. In particular, there is a sort of paradox that arises if you feel that piecing together a model from parts counts as owning a set. To understand the dilemma, consider a giant pile of loose bricks that you own and then determine the sets you own based on the pile of parts you own. Your answer may be none, a single set, a group of sets, or a group of a group of sets/set. In the later case you would own a superposition of sets. I don't think most people who espouse piecing together a model as counting as set ownership believe that they can own a superposition of sets, yet this is the logical conclusion of how they choose to define what a set is. This would be a logical inconsistency in their reasoning. You may resolve this inconsistency by saying you only own sets if they are built, but the corollary is that if you take apart a set you stop owning it.

    Regarding the pile of loose bricks, one can also define the sets owned as, for instance, the models that can be made/build from those bricks with the constraints that:
    - each part can only be used once (in max. 1 model);
    - the models are chosen such that the remaining number of pieces is the lowest possible.
    Using this definition one does not own a superposition of sets.

    To answer the OP's question: I'm ok with it if you want to count that as owning a set. I'm not sure if I would do the same. So far I only count a set as 'owned' if I bought the set as a whole (so no Bricklinking etc.) and complete. Up until now complete is with box and instructions, but not in all cases sealed boxes. If I stumble upon a cheap complete set without the box and/or instructions (and I buy it), I'll probably count it as 'owned' as well, but so far that hasn't been the case. Somehow it doesn't feel right to me (for my own collection, that is), to count Bricklinked 'sets' as a set I would own.
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 Member Posts: 11,454
    edited February 2014
    For the sake of an argument I'm not going to tell anyone what is right or wrong.

    It is great news if the consensus was that a set missing minifigures and/or parts is considered "owning" a set because now I have about 3000+ sets ;)

    Personally, I don't consider a set in my collection a set without having 100% of the pieces to build the set. Era specific colors and molds are a must for me. Would you have a complete set of CMF Series 10 if you were missing the Mechanic? Instructions get lost or torn and boxes get thrown away, so I would still say I have the set. Although, if I were to sell or buy a set, I wouldn't consider it 100% complete if the instructions were not included.
  • BastaBasta Member Posts: 1,259
    You can class a Bricklinked set anyway you want to, but as mentioned if you decide to sell I think you should be upfront about it's origins, as not everyone feels the same way.
  • prof1515prof1515 Member Posts: 1,550
    I've got 1x1, 2x1, 4x1, 2x2, 2x3 and 2x4 plates in every color so does that mean I "own" every set that those pieces were found in? They're just "incomplete" sets, after all. ;-P
  • prof1515prof1515 Member Posts: 1,550
    Check out my 10189 Taj Mahal (incomplete):
    image
    Pitfall69DougoutGalactus
  • oldtodd33oldtodd33 Member Posts: 2,696
    ^ What he said.
    Pitfall69
  • CCCCCC Member Posts: 20,526
    Pitfall69 said:

    Would you have a complete set of CMF Series 10 if you were missing the Mechanic? Instructions get lost or torn and boxes get thrown away, so I would still say I have the set.

    What if you bricklinked the head from one seller, the torso from another and the legs from a third seller and you already have the spanner, a bandana and a baseplate in your collection. I'd say that was then a complete set. You may even have spare a instruction sheet and a ripped open packet, which makes it even more complete.
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 Member Posts: 11,454
    I am so excited that I was able to complete my #375 Classic Yellow Castle!!! Oh wait...It looks like I have #6075 Classic Yellow Castle as well!!! I better add these to my database collection ;)
    jasorpiratemania7DougoutLegoboyGothamConstructionCo
  • ChrisbstmChrisbstm Member Posts: 151
    I would say having the instructions is the clincher
    Pitfall69
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 Member Posts: 11,454
    TheLoneTensor said:

    ...It's the old "replace the drapes and suddenly you need new carpet" problem.

    I'm always wondering if the carpet matches the drapes ;)

    Furrysaurus
  • legogallegogal Member Posts: 754
    This discussion is a riot!
    Summary: Let each person define "set" as she wishes, and just be sure to notify any buyers of anything that is not original.
    Did I use too many words?
    chuckp
  • piratemania7piratemania7 Member Posts: 2,146
    legogal said:

    This discussion is a riot!
    Summary: Let each person define "set" as she wishes, and just be sure to notify any buyers of anything that is not original.
    Did I use too many words?

    And if it's a "he"?
  • legogallegogal Member Posts: 754
    Hahaha!
    Four options: The "he"s can:
    -have a duel at twenty paces,
    -throw their bricks at each other,
    -have a p*@sing contest or
    -pretend they are "she"s.
    Your choice!
  • Bosstone100Bosstone100 Member Posts: 1,431
    edited April 2014
    @Pitfall69‌ - congrats on finishing the yellow castle. I've been collecting yellow bricks here and there for mine for a possible castle expansion. I need to remove some paint from some minifigs my brother had some fun with after I entered my dark ages. Hopefully I have some more of the castle guards to go with the set. Can't find some of the helmet grilles either. Kids!
  • Lego91Lego91 Member Posts: 86
    For me personally:
    I own several Polybags where I bought the bricks on Bricklink, for me they are complete and count as set when I have the bricks and the (original) instruction. If the instruction is not original it has to be printed out. Otherwise it doesn't count.
  • madforLEGOmadforLEGO Member Posts: 10,791
    edited April 2014
    Lego91 said:

    For me personally:
    I own several Polybags where I bought the bricks on Bricklink, for me they are complete and count as set when I have the bricks and the (original) instruction. If the instruction is not original it has to be printed out. Otherwise it doesn't count.

    I would say if all of the pieces are of correct type (type 1 clip instead of a type 2/3 for example) and you have all of the stickers and printed bricks(if those made with the set), it is good enough to be 'complete' with a copy of the instructions. But I have to admit that I still like to get an original instruction book that came with set to say it is truly complete. Also if you check prices some original instructions and of sold sets with original vs printed instructions everyone appears to agree that having the original instructions helps sell a complete set.

    Ultimately it is in the eye of the beholder.... or person purchasing the set.
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 Member Posts: 11,454
    @Bosstone100‌

    I hope you know I was being sarcastic ;)

Sign In or Register to comment.

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon

Recent discussions • Categories • Privacy Policy • Brickset.com

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register

Categories

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.