Brickset ForumShopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Brickset.com site issues
Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
Recent discussions • Categories • Privacy Policy • Brickset.com
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 26.5K All Categories
- 16.1K General
- 3 Announcements
- 3.1K Collecting
- 3.7K Everything else LEGO
- 1.7K Building and Techniques
- 2.3K Brickset
- 14 Ambassador
- 1K Introduce yourself
- 380 The Database
- 436 Brickset.com
- 314 Forum Operation
- 15 FAQs
- 13.9K Shopping
- 1.7K Shopping USA/Canada
- 336 Shopping Elsewhere
- 11K Marketplace
- 1.2K Other
- 570 Community and Events
- 262 Photography/Video
Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Comments
The main focus for me was to be as true as possible to the original set. How is anyone trying to rebuild the original set going to be able to do so when there are changes to the instructions and/or inventory lists?
I understand that online inventories are fan-created thus open to mistakes. That's not even tackling the online inventory changes by Lego that are correlated with these inventories.
But to leave 36 1x4s on the Brickset inventory site would be misleading unless there was a notation about said changes.
If you want to know what version of the part was originally in the set, usually the inventory in the back of the instruction manual is accurate to the set's first run. With that said, even a sealed set does not always include the exact same versions of parts as the set's first run, and sometimes there is even some random variability in which version of a part it will include. LEGO generally does not care about minute differences between parts, and when transitioning from one version of a part to another they will sometimes use them interchangeably even in new, sealed sets.
In general terms, I have no idea. Nor do I care. More importantly, TLG don't care either.
If YOU, personally, want to do it, then your best bet is to find an instruction book and go from there. Even then, that may be wrong. Obviously the books are designed and printed before the sets are packed. They will contain the part numbers current at the time of printing. By the time they are packed, that part may have been superseded by a slightly different design, such that NO set ever actually contains the exact set of parts shown in the manual.
You might get away with using one of the fan-created inventories because they ought to be a true representation of one or more actual sets. If you trust them.
As I've said, "Replacement parts" on lego.com, normally has the current part number - anything else wouldn't make sense. If you want a replacement part, then the only thing TLG can offer you is what they think they have. Having said that, you might order a part with a new number, but actually receive an older design.
I imagine that, or it's equivalent, is effectively the source for Brickset's inventories. The thing is that TLG change them. Not only do they change the parts when a part is updated, but they add things. No everything is available. That's not because it goes out of production - when that happens, the part is still shown, but marked as unavailable. However some parts are never shown, maybe because they're licensed. But there are other reasons - particularly for larger one-off parts. However, TLG may subsequently add them to their site, so it makes sense for Brickset to periodically update their existing inventories too.
The inventories here are automatically generated. For someone to go through them and correct them would be a massive task, especially as it would need to be done repeatedly. They're probably the best we have, but there will still be thousands of errors. Look at the top of the inventory of virtually any set and it contains two counts - one for the number of pieces believed to be in the set and another for the number in the inventory. They are rarely the same.
If you think it can be done automatically in some way, then consider that what one person regards as being the same isn't necessarily the same as what the next person does.
We have no plans to make local corrections: it would be a full-time job.
Didn't realize how much of Brickset was automated. Having worked with other fan wikis, I just jumped to assumptions.
Just sounds like a mess with no simple, single resolution.
www.rebrickable.com, www.bricklink.com and www.brickowl.com all carry inventories for most Lego sets, and all 3 allow you to buy any parts you may need.
Bricklink is the largest user-contributed source while Brickowl takes Brickset's approach and uses Lego's official inventory feed which is then amended as necessary by users. Rebrickable is a great resource but I'm not sure how their inventories are created.
www.peeron.com is another source of set inventories but I don't think it's updated any more.
If you're planning a project it's probably best to check all of these before committing, and bringing up any discrepancies here on Brickset.
Speaking of SDCC sets, I have to finish cleaning up the scans of the SDCC booklets & convert them to PDFs... @Huw, did you manage to nail down if TLG is okay with Brickset having PDF copies of the SDCC instructions?
Bricklink has its own problems. The biggest of which is that each inventory is compiled in a different fashion which makes them inconsistent - although it's getting better.
They don't use the correct part numbers of colour names. That might be OK if there was a one-to-one correlation between the official version and theirs - but there often isn't. The most obvious example is probably with the various "silver" colours that have been used over the years.
They also use their own part numbers - for a kick-off, TLG don't use suffixes. There are historic reasons for all that, but do you continue to live in the past or do you look to the future? Sometimes, they update an entry when the real part number becomes known, but usually they don't. Nor do they correctly distinguish between variants of the same part. If a design change is obvious, then they might get it right; if it isn't, then some inventories will show the correct part and others won't - as I said, it's inconsistent and depends on who uploads it. Some people care about all detail differences; some people, probably most of them, only care about the differences that they think will affect them personally. But there are plenty of sets that are listed as having a part that hasn't been produced for many, many for years.
Many of the inventories contain errors. Maybe they're corrected later, but maybe not. It often seems that certain individuals want to be the first person to post an inventory, and take short-cuts in the process.
Some are obviously taken by looking at the instructions - probably the PDF, because they get the colours wrong. In the instructions, the parts are ordered by colour. If all the Dark Stone Grey Parts are shown as Black, then it's because someone has looked at the instructions, not handled the bricks. We've also determined that the instructions inventories are often wrong, because they pre-date production. But they're also wrong because they don't include the spares.
Yes, Bricklink is peer-reviewed. But there aren't many people who will stand up and say that somebody else is wrong.
If you want to play with this sort of thing, then there are a number of ways of getting good approximations to reality. Combining methods might bring you nearer to the truth. However, for the purist, unless TLG start to make more information available, there will always be a grey area of doubt and uncertainty. It would be nice if TLG did play ball, but I don't see it as likely - there's nothing in it for them, but if they make a mistake, they might be handing sensitive information to their competitors.
I think you're talking about Rebrickable, and their inventory carries your name. It lists several different colours for a part labelled as 4073. That part hasn't been produced for many years, so it's not going to be in a set from this year. I'm also quite certain that it will never be produced again. 4073 is widely believed to be a 1 x 1 round plate. It isn't. 4073 was a sprue consisting of two similar plates, presumably to simplify production. We've moved on from there which is why I don't imagine it will every be produced again.
And while we're at it, the solid and transparent parts are listed with the same part number. The former are ABS; the latter polycarbonate. That means they've got different part numbers - 6141 and 30057 until very, very recently (and perhaps they still are - I have no way of finding out).
Correct. Possibly. 100% accurate? No. Sorry. This comes back to what I said earlier about Bricklink - everybody has their own standards.
Two of the points of BL using their own numbering scheme are to give numbers where lego has none and to give similar code numbers to similar parts (such as printed torsos). It is much easier to search through types of heads with recessed stud / blocked open stud etc. Whereas lego often use one number to refer to both types of modern head stud.
Sure there are some errors, especially with older parts. If people really care about detailed differences, they can update the information. But note that lego's inventories are worse here, since they actively replace old / out of stock parts with the modern equivalent.
I don't know what you mean by many. I'd say relatively few that have been on there for two months or more contain (serious) errors. Simply because errors that are spotted are corrected.
Mistakes can happen from both inventories and from the parts. Which set has all the dark stone grey (or BL DBG) listed as black? Let them know and they'll correct it. That sort of major error gets noticed and corrected as soon as a seller parts a set out. If inventories don't contain the extras straight away, they tend to get added by someone else. Although in my opinion this mistake is made by people using the lego inventory online rather than using the set. Of course, online lego inventories also don't contain these parts either so at worst BL is as bad as lego here. This is just one reason BL inventories are better than lego's own lists.
Remember also that sometimes there is no such thing as the original version. Two sets bought in the first week of sale can possibly have different extras, or different variants of a similar part. There is no right or wrong in that case.
There are plenty of people that do, that is why there are inventory change requests that go through.
Personally I believe BL inventories are more complete than lego's replacement parts lists. They tend to be complete, whereas many of lego's are missing some parts (especially licensed sets, although these are getting better now). They tend to have the extras listed (lego doesn't) and they don't get updated with newer versions of replacement parts when original items go out of stock (lego does).
Of course, they are used as two very different things. BL lists try to be a snapshot of what was originally released. Lego's lists try to be a resource so that people that have lost parts (or want to build a set) can get hold of the parts from current stock.
TLG regard them as being the same part. I would say there are functional differences but, once again, it's their choice to make not mine. The only inventories that TLG produce are those in the instructions - which are probably the most accurate ones available. Occasionally a part may be updated before a set is actually produced, but that's about it.
What's available on their web site aren't actually inventories, nor are they intended as such. If we choose to use them that way then the have to make allowances for that. They are lists of parts that they will sell or give to you if something is broken or missing. With that in mind, it is entirely appropriate that part numbers are updated to current versions.
I've no idea, and it's probably been corrected. However, my point was that, particularly if you look at a brand new set on the day of release (or before), the Bricklink inventories often appear to have been rushed and accuracy takes second place, something that doesn't breed confidence. Over time, that may well be resolved but you never know at what point it's correct. If ever.
I was actually referring to the inventories in the instructions not containing the spares, and therefore copying them to Bricklink being inappropriate.
Notwithstanding the point that TLG doesn't have online inventories, what they do offer doesn't (or didn't - I can't get to the new site at the moment) include a count. In that repsect they includes the spares as much as they include anything (there are very few sets where none of a particular part is used). Sure, you can persuade it to give you a count, but it's not necessarily correct because it's capped. Look at Tower Bridge. It has more than 500 brick yellow cheese wedges. If you lose them, TLG will (or would) only let you order 200 of them.
That was the very first point I made on the subject. However there are still rights and wrongs.
I have no problem with any of that. However, all of what I have said is true - Bricklink does have its own problems.
Anybody who is seeking to make serious use of any of this type of information, from any of the sites, needs to understand the limitations of them all. They, and only they, can then make an informed decision according to what they are trying to achieve.
The longer numbers (what TLG calls "Element ID", at least, they do when it comes to bricks) include all sorts of things that probably wouldn't interest anybody. For example, there are something like 3000 numbers just for T-shirts.
Then take heads. They get different part numbers and different element IDs. Totally inconsistent. BL does as before, a prefix number for the head, followed by sequentiallly assigned number to ID it. Plus a "self imposed" description to help search for it.
BL cares about consistency, as it documents past and present. Lego doesn't care so much, it only cares about present distribution (internal) and prrsent selling parts (external).
If I could only use one numbering system, I'd go for BLs.
For example torso 2814 in #4000010 is 6089142. It has a Design ID, as you'd expect, of 76382.
What you probably don't know, or you wouldn't have raised it, is that without arms, fresh from the printing machine, it has a Part ID of 6089141 and a Design ID of 18793. That is entirely consistent with a head - print it and it gets a new Design ID. Of course, it is then united with it's arms. Do that with the appropriate pieces of any colour, or print, and you get something with a Design ID of 76382. No inconsistencies anywhere. You just think it's inconsistent because you're only in possession of part of the story.
I agree, everyone has different standards, you included. While the systems used by BrickLink, Brickowl, Rebrickable & here at Brickset aren't perfect, the people involved in building these sites have done an admirable job with the level of information available to them. If you have such serious misgivings about the information provided by these sites, perhaps you should build one that is up to your standards.
As for needing a magnifying glass to read the numbers? I still have better than 20/20 vision & can read the numbers unaided, not everyone over 30 has failing eyesight...
;-)
Just in case that was aimed at me, I've contributed 1,000s of times to updating BO's catalogue. I don't bother with BL because I'm not a massive user of the site these days. Sorry if that makes me a heathen.
But "accurate" only has one meaning.
Maybe you can, but I wouldn't be so confident. I've seen a Technic panel (or rather, a matching pair) where the number is so small, a fraction of a millimetre, that I could only see that it WAS a number with a magnifying glass. Reading it was much harder.
That's a bit difficult when the underlying system is different. Nor is it likely to change all the time people, like you, think the sun shines out of Bricklink's nether regions.
A round plate is not 4073; they know it but they stick with it. Yes, there are issues trying to use TLG's numbering for their purposes but surely the answer lies in adapting the system rather than misusing it. The LDraw system, for that's what it is, was designed at a time when not as much data was available as subsequently. Surely, as more information comes to light, it ought to be taken on board and the system adapted. Over time, the rift is only going to become bigger, and you can be pretty sure that TLG are not going to change theirs.
There's also more to this "give" lark than doing what somebody else is going to do any way. I've just told you how torso (and, by implication, other assembled parts) numbering works and quoted information that I doubt you'll find anywhere else. That takes quite bit of research and time - a lot more than sitting down and creating incorrect inventories. There are a few other people chasing that sort of thing, but not many. Having said that, it would seem there are more people than I had imagined that have noticed and been concerned by theses things, whether or not they have the resources to pursue them.
You like Bricklink? Fine. You like to "give". Fine. So rather than argue defending their inadequacies, how about trying to address them? I wish you luck.
As far as I'm concerned, as long as Bricklink continue to resist TLG's approach, then they might as well be talking about Mega Bloks.
They don't resist their approach, they enhance it. They are using many of the up-to-date part numbers, along with the historically ones before such data was released by lego. They also use many of the element IDs. However, they also link them together.
So if someone wants to buy a reddish brown hood on BL they could enter any of the three part numbers used for hoods in the past (even if not for reddish brown hoods). Or they can enter the element IDs 4227655 or 4655372. All five codes will find the part they are after.
If they were to adopt the strict lego stance, then 4227655 and 4655372 are completely different items. Sellers would have to decide which code to use, or split their stock into two. Similarly buyers would have to decide which part they wanted and risk missing out if they use the less popular code. And in fact on lego replacement parts if a buyer was looking for 4227655 (or part number 30381) having looked up the element ID in the manual, then lego would tell the buyer that they cannot purchase it as it is out of stock. They will not tell them about the other element ID 4655372 that is in stock. Whereas as BL ties them together. So it uses the existing lego numbering at the same time as enhancing it by linking the same parts together. Would it have mattered if in the past they had no official number, so they had used an ID of hood01 or xxhg06 or something else unofficial. Would it matter if they kept that ID linked to the part if they were using the up-to-date publicly released code IDs? For me, no. It makes no difference, and at the same time helps people that have already logged the old ID in their projects.
To me, the BL approach makes more sense than the lego one. It builds on it, whilst making it more user friendly where there are inconsistencies such as the one above.
If BL are talking megabloks, I hope you don't use the minifig section on brickset or indeed most other fan sites. After all, the data, naming schemes and photos are obtained direct from BL, using the BL numbering system. Something that cannot be done with the lego database. So many people rely on the bricklink numbering rather than the alternatives such as the Bartneck taxonomy - you only need to look in marketplace when people are trading minifigs and if a code is used it tends to be the BL one not the taxonomy one(*). Are they all talking megabloks, as they should be using the combination of the 4 lego element IDs for the individual parts? *BO uses the taxonomy after being denied permission to use the BL one.
We don't know why those two parts have different Design IDs - or many others. One day, that may change make sense. However, it is very difficult to decide that two parts "are the same" because it's subjective. You've already pointed out an issue with the different design of studs on heads - for some people it matters; for others it doesn't. If, the two parts above turn out to be made of different materials and one cracks and the other doesn't, then people will suddenly be very interested in the fact that they aren't the same. TLG make a decision in that regard - an informed one. Life gets complicated when someone else makes a different, uninformed one.
There are plenty of parts where, when the entry was created the number was unknown. You then have no choice but to invent one. The method chosen was to start it with a letter - which works because it's totally outside the system TLG use. So far, so good. However, when the actual part number becomes known, the correct approach is to change it - if you wish to keep the number you've created as an alternate, then that's fine (and everybody's happy) but not the other way around.
Which neatly illustrates what's wrong with having a proprietary system.
accurate [ak-yer-it] adjective
Full Definition of ACCURATE
By the narrower definitions of accurate, even TLG would be getting it wrong... I have a #75030, which from straight out of the box, at least six parts aren't accurate as per TLG's inventory for that set.
Its also likely that I have tetrachromacy, I used to annoy one of my friends who was in graphic design, I'd often point out she used slightly different shades when filling sections that were meant to be the same colour (talking differences like 255-127-33 vs 253-125-35).
What do you mean by correct though? Correct from which viewpoint?
They had an incorrect number for the 1x1 plate, and they later added the correct one(s). They retain the old one as some people would have already been using that for their projects on BL. They have currently correct data and they keep the historic data (even if wrong) as that data was already in use for buying and selling on BL. It would be incorrect for the users of BL to just change the part number - which is why it is added, not changed. Remember BL is primarily a selling / buying tool, not a or historically accurate catalogue. Although it is often used as this, and is actually more correct and more complete than what lego offers online.
Bricklink's inventories are (usually) correct at the time of listing or at least soon after they have been checked. However, some of them do not match what lego currently claim is in the set (as suggested by bricks and pieces). So are the BL inventories correct? They were correct at the time but now they are incorrect as lego says something different. Lego has changed the parts list, so one "correct" approach is to update it on BL. The other "correct" approach is to leave it exactly as it is, as it is a true record of the set as issued not a modified list that lego has changed to be able to offer replacements to customers. Correct is entirely dependent on viewpoint of what you want it to mean.
Given that lego didn't list element IDs in instructions prior to about 2006 or so (I don't have any with me so I cannot check), I think the BL (and the other pre-BL) cataloguers did an excellent job of cataloging part IDs. Having no printed reference and having to read them off the parts is a tough job. I still find it difficult to read entire part numbers on smaller parts. I'm not surprised there were errors such as reading the number off a sprue and assigning it to a part. I haven't got any older 1x1 round tiles with me, but I just popped a modern one off a model and I cannot see a number on it. If I was confronted with assigning a number when there is no number on the part but it came on a sprue that has a number on it, then I'd have the choice of making up a random number or using the one printed on the sprue. I know what I would use.
It may surprise you, but we're talking about a proprietary product. It's called LEGO. Everything is LEGO-centric, or TLG-centric. If either go away, then discussion on the subject become rather pointless.
My comment relates to having another proprietary system, reinventing the wheel. But you know that, so you can carry on arguing with yourself. I'll even let you have the last word - but I'll have the formatting:
Then there are colour errors, that mainly occur (these days) with metallic type colours and transparent colours, where consistency is not good.
There were of course errors at the time of switch over from old greys and browns to new, but then there were many errors by Lego in that period, mixing up the two colour eras even within sets.
Service Temporarily Unavailable
The server is temporarily unable to service your request due to maintenance downtime or capacity problems. Please try again later.I refresh and the page loads as normal.
Very frustrating and not sure what to do about it.
If they are still appearing let me know.
It seems that after this weekend when all shop stocks seems to be at 0, the feature disappeared altogether, any chance to see it coming back ?
Thanks !
It provided too much information which could be used for unintended purposes, hence it being removed.
At the moment it is being replaced with a '+' symbol, which does not actually give you any results for single terms. So if I search for '10221 ' ( <- with a space either in front of behind the set number or name) it does not give any results.
http://brickset.com/search?query=10221+
The '+' replacement should only be used if you have multiple terms which are seperated by a space. eg: 'star wars' would query 'star+wars', which works fine.