from sets between 2008 and 2010 that have a white
knot on the tie and Light Grey lapels, sides and button prints, as in the part
on the left in the image.
The assembly on the right is from sets in 2007, 2010 and 2013, which has the
same torso as the current entry for this part - black knot and Dark Grey lapels,
sides and button prints, on the right in the image.
Is this a misprint on those torsos I have or is it a differrent torso altogether?
from sets between 2008 and 2010 that have a white
knot on the tie and Light Grey lapels, sides and button prints, as in the part
on the left in the image.
The assembly on the right is from sets in 2007, 2010 and 2013, which has the
same torso as the current entry for this part - black knot and Dark Grey lapels,
sides and button prints, on the right in the image.
Is this a misprint on those torsos I have or is it a differrent torso altogether?
Is this down to print density? The part name does not mention the shade of the
colour grey. I wonder if a thin coat of grey appears dark (bluish) grey whereas
a thicker coat appears lighter.
Is this down to print density? The part name does not mention the shade of the
colour grey. I wonder if a thin coat of grey appears dark (bluish) grey whereas
a thicker coat appears lighter.
Under a magnifying glass, they both look equally dotty (or pixelated). I hope
the image at the original resolution can show that. Also the tie on the black
knot, seems to have some shading whereas the tie with the white knot looks to
be more of a solid colour. I cannot tell if there is a difference in printing
apart from the fact that they look different.
Is this down to print density? The part name does not mention the shade of the
colour grey. I wonder if a thin coat of grey appears dark (bluish) grey whereas
a thicker coat appears lighter.
Under a magnifying glass, they both look equally dotty (or pixelated). I hope
the image at the original resolution can show that. Also the tie on the black
knot, seems to have some shading whereas the tie with the white knot looks to
be more of a solid colour. I cannot tell if there is a difference in printing
apart from the fact that they look different.
The close up of the knot does make it look different. I anything, the black knot
looks more "correct" as the tie is uniformly black, unless it is a tie that is
half white, half black.
from sets between 2008 and 2010 that have a white
knot on the tie and Light Grey lapels, sides and button prints, as in the part
on the left in the image.
The assembly on the right is from sets in 2007, 2010 and 2013, which has the
same torso as the current entry for this part - black knot and Dark Grey lapels,
sides and button prints, on the right in the image.
Is this a misprint on those torsos I have or is it a differrent torso altogether?
It looks like an unintentional variant to me. I think that it is a design mistake
and not an error during the production process.
from sets between 2008 and 2010 that have a white
knot on the tie and Light Grey lapels, sides and button prints, as in the part
on the left in the image.
The assembly on the right is from sets in 2007, 2010 and 2013, which has the
same torso as the current entry for this part - black knot and Dark Grey lapels,
sides and button prints, on the right in the image.
Is this a misprint on those torsos I have or is it a differrent torso altogether?
It looks like an unintentional variant to me. I think that it is a design mistake
and not an error during the production process.
I would propose to add these to the catalog as 973pb0322c01a. Especially now
we know that these have been found as an alternate for 973pb0322c01 in 2008 and
2010.
from sets between 2008 and 2010 that have a white
knot on the tie and Light Grey lapels, sides and button prints, as in the part
on the left in the image.
The assembly on the right is from sets in 2007, 2010 and 2013, which has the
same torso as the current entry for this part - black knot and Dark Grey lapels,
sides and button prints, on the right in the image.
Is this a misprint on those torsos I have or is it a differrent torso altogether?
It looks like an unintentional variant to me. I think that it is a design mistake
and not an error during the production process.
+1
I would propose to add these to the catalog as 973pb0322c01a. Especially now
we know that these have been found as an alternate for 973pb0322c01 in 2008 and
2010.
Is this a misprint on those torsos I have or is it a differrent torso altogether?
As far as I can tell the Lego part number is 4275491 and so if Lego uses this
same part code for all its set appearances then it must be a misprint. I guess
the only way to be sure would be to try using Legos Broken/missing parts service
and then painstakingly check all the sets it appears in and check the toros part
number is the same for all.
If the service is'nt available for your region then for browsing purpses
you can just make out your based in the United States!
[…]
As far as I can tell the Lego part number is 4275491 and so if Lego uses this
same part code for all its set appearances then it must be a misprint. I guess
the only way to be sure would be to try using Legos Broken/missing parts service
and then painstakingly check all the sets it appears in and check the toros part
number is the same for all. […]
LEGO uses the same element ID for different variants and prints.
E.g. according to BL,
[P=3626bpb0203]
[P=3626bpb0357]
[P=3626cpb0357]
share the PCC 4524911.
(Happy example with both colour and variant differences. Grey/brown is not a
misprint.)
So you wouldn’t know whether it’s a misprint or a new “revised” print.
[…]
As far as I can tell the Lego part number is 4275491 and so if Lego uses this
same part code for all its set appearances then it must be a misprint. I guess
the only way to be sure would be to try using Legos Broken/missing parts service
and then painstakingly check all the sets it appears in and check the toros part
number is the same for all. […]
LEGO uses the same element ID for different variants and prints.
E.g. according to BL,
[P=3626bpb0203]
[P=3626bpb0357]
[P=3626cpb0357]
share the PCC 4524911.
(Happy example with both colour and variant differences. Grey/brown is not a
misprint.)
So you wouldn’t know whether it’s a misprint or a new “revised” print.
I’m sure there will be some anomalies but in your example whilst you are correct
that the brown and grey are intentional print differences and not misprints I
don’t think they actually share the same part number it’s just bricklink has
made it seem that way and for understandable reasons...
The problem is Lego did some weird stuff back in that era where they merged some
head and torsos together using one single part number!? See Brickset link which
shows the combined part (Grey + Torso) as 4227735 and not 4524911
So we are definitely looking at a different part in that instance but if you
search for 4227735 on Bricklink it doesn’t appear probably because a merger of
parts like this wouldn’t have fit in with the way BL do things hence why they
probably just used the same code as the brown version?
As for Lego using the same part number for mold variants this is another example
of where Lego themselves never intended anyone to take those differences so literally
because in Legos eyes whatever stud type was used it’s still the same part number
and it’s the all-important and relevant print decal that warrants a different
part code so in my view it’s just unfortunate the BL community has gone to such
lengths to essentially separate the same parts when most people just want the
correct print decal and don’t really care which mold was used!
As for the Black Torso in question, this is still quite a current part and the
OP should still be able to determine whether it’s a misprint or intended difference
from using brickset and/or Lego site as a reference source!
[…]
As far as I can tell the Lego part number is 4275491 and so if Lego uses this
same part code for all its set appearances then it must be a misprint. I guess
the only way to be sure would be to try using Legos Broken/missing parts service
and then painstakingly check all the sets it appears in and check the toros part
number is the same for all. […]
LEGO uses the same element ID for different variants and prints.
E.g. according to BL,
[P=3626bpb0203]
[P=3626bpb0357]
[P=3626cpb0357]
share the PCC 4524911.
(Happy example with both colour and variant differences. Grey/brown is not a
misprint.)
So you wouldn’t know whether it’s a misprint or a new “revised” print.
I’m sure there will be some anomalies but in your example whilst you are correct
that the brown and grey are intentional print differences and not misprints I
don’t think they actually share the same part number it’s just bricklink has
made it seem that way and for understandable reasons...
So all of the decorated parts (with their own TLG numbers) must be renumbered
because for sure TLG does not number all of the decorated 1 x 2 tiles the same
number with an pb extension - they give each one a different number as best I
know. And then only keep the number available for a little while and do not supply
it for parts from collectible minifigs etc etc.
The problem is Lego did some weird stuff back in that era where they merged some
head and torsos together using one single part number!? See Brickset link which
shows the combined part (Grey + Torso) as 4227735 and not 4524911
So we are definitely looking at a different part in that instance but if you
search for 4227735 on Bricklink it doesn’t appear probably because a merger of
parts like this wouldn’t have fit in with the way BL do things hence why they
probably just used the same code as the brown version?
As for Lego using the same part number for mold variants this is another example
of where Lego themselves never intended anyone to take those differences so literally
Hmm, no, the example of jumper studs was given already. It is not a matter of
being anal to recognise mold differences. You can try it yourself with this part:
Newer parts clutches, older ones fall off. I would like to think that TLG intended
that improvement, that they stopped making the old part becasue it was not doing
the job it was supposed to do and that the new part should be sold with new sets.
However, the old part came in older sets and what will you do if a buyer tells
you the old part you sent him is a fake becasue there is no way for him to know
otherwise?
because in Legos eyes whatever stud type was used it’s still the same part number
and it’s the all-important and relevant print decal that warrants a different
part code so in my view it’s just unfortunate the BL community has gone to such
lengths to essentially separate the same parts when most people just want the
correct print decal and don’t really care which mold was used!
I have no idea what TLG's intentions are with mold changes and mold variants.
My question was posted in catalogue, not selling. You sell lots, not catalogue
entries. You can refer to the catalogue entry in your listing, you could also
use the catalogue image and you might even end up in the price guide for your
listing, but that all has nothing to do with the catalogue entry as reference
source, which is where my question was posted.
The only requirement BL has for you to list a lot with a refrence to the catalogue
entry, is that you must not mix new and used in the same lot. It is a general
selling offence to sell used as new in a lot, but generally not to mix variants.
So I do not think it unfortunate the catalogue can serve as a reference guide
but also as a sales tool. To do both qually well, will always be a challenge.
If every car manufacturer only makes white cars, there will be no other colours.
This does not mean that all consumers by default mostly want a white car, it
just means that car manufacturers are all the same and treat their customers
all the same, no matter what their customers might say or think.
What does happen in the BL listings though is that you frequenlty get a seller
who tells you that it is too much effort to list properly in variants, but price
their non-specific and incorrect unsorted parts at the high price for the scarcer
out of production part. In essence it is not too much work to look up the part
in priceguide, but it is too much work to list it properly. Strange - doing half
a job for the full gain.
As for the Black Torso in question, this is still quite a current part and the
OP should still be able to determine whether it’s a misprint or intended difference
from using brickset and/or Lego site as a reference source!
Nope, the differences in question arised in a certain time period, continued
for awhile and then stopped, as I have them from three different sets from three
different years, as I mentioned from 2008 - 2010. I also have the current catalogue
entry for that torso assembly from prior to that period and after that period.
I would agree that for reference purposes it would not even be important if it
occured in only one set at one time. I've had some misprints on tiles like
that and do not bother with it. This however, stood out for the reasons I gave
above.
The LEGO site does not keep its information nor keep a snapshot of the situation
as it was 10 years ago. The information you refer to is either:
1. kept current with current part numbers and current designs; or
2. Not a historical record of what happened.
The LEGO site is not a reference source by any stretch of the imaginaition as
it is designed as a site to sell current replacement parts, not serve as a reference
work (which is what a catalogue does).
And for reference purposes, the part in question was submitted as new entry.
[…]
As far as I can tell the Lego part number is 4275491 and so if Lego uses this
same part code for all its set appearances then it must be a misprint. I guess
the only way to be sure would be to try using Legos Broken/missing parts service
and then painstakingly check all the sets it appears in and check the toros part
number is the same for all. […]
LEGO uses the same element ID for different variants and prints.
E.g. according to BL,
[P=3626bpb0203]
[P=3626bpb0357]
[P=3626cpb0357]
share the PCC 4524911.
(Happy example with both colour and variant differences. Grey/brown is not a
misprint.)
So you wouldn’t know whether it’s a misprint or a new “revised” print.
I’m sure there will be some anomalies but in your example whilst you are correct
that the brown and grey are intentional print differences and not misprints I
don’t think they actually share the same part number it’s just bricklink has
made it seem that way and for understandable reasons...
So all of the decorated parts (with their own TLG numbers) must be renumbered
because for sure TLG does not number all of the decorated 1 x 2 tiles the same
number with an pb extension - they give each one a different number as best I
know. And then only keep the number available for a little while and do not supply
it for parts from collectible minifigs etc etc.
The problem is Lego did some weird stuff back in that era where they merged some
head and torsos together using one single part number!? See Brickset link which
shows the combined part (Grey + Torso) as 4227735 and not 4524911
So we are definitely looking at a different part in that instance but if you
search for 4227735 on Bricklink it doesn’t appear probably because a merger of
parts like this wouldn’t have fit in with the way BL do things hence why they
probably just used the same code as the brown version?
As for Lego using the same part number for mold variants this is another example
of where Lego themselves never intended anyone to take those differences so literally
Hmm, no, the example of jumper studs was given already. It is not a matter of
being anal to recognise mold differences. You can try it yourself with this part:
Newer parts clutches, older ones fall off. I would like to think that TLG intended
that improvement, that they stopped making the old part becasue it was not doing
the job it was supposed to do and that the new part should be sold with new sets.
However, the old part came in older sets and what will you do if a buyer tells
you the old part you sent him is a fake becasue there is no way for him to know
otherwise?
because in Legos eyes whatever stud type was used it’s still the same part number
and it’s the all-important and relevant print decal that warrants a different
part code so in my view it’s just unfortunate the BL community has gone to such
lengths to essentially separate the same parts when most people just want the
correct print decal and don’t really care which mold was used!
I have no idea what TLG's intentions are with mold changes and mold variants.
My question was posted in catalogue, not selling. You sell lots, not catalogue
entries. You can refer to the catalogue entry in your listing, you could also
use the catalogue image and you might even end up in the price guide for your
listing, but that all has nothing to do with the catalogue entry as reference
source, which is where my question was posted.
The only requirement BL has for you to list a lot with a refrence to the catalogue
entry, is that you must not mix new and used in the same lot. It is a general
selling offence to sell used as new in a lot, but generally not to mix variants.
So I do not think it unfortunate the catalogue can serve as a reference guide
but also as a sales tool. To do both qually well, will always be a challenge.
If every car manufacturer only makes white cars, there will be no other colours.
This does not mean that all consumers by default mostly want a white car, it
just means that car manufacturers are all the same and treat their customers
all the same, no matter what their customers might say or think.
What does happen in the BL listings though is that you frequenlty get a seller
who tells you that it is too much effort to list properly in variants, but price
their non-specific and incorrect unsorted parts at the high price for the scarcer
out of production part. In essence it is not too much work to look up the part
in priceguide, but it is too much work to list it properly. Strange - doing half
a job for the full gain.
As for the Black Torso in question, this is still quite a current part and the
OP should still be able to determine whether it’s a misprint or intended difference
from using brickset and/or Lego site as a reference source!
Nope, the differences in question arised in a certain time period, continued
for awhile and then stopped, as I have them from three different sets from three
different years, as I mentioned from 2008 - 2010. I also have the current catalogue
entry for that torso assembly from prior to that period and after that period.
I would agree that for reference purposes it would not even be important if it
occured in only one set at one time. I've had some misprints on tiles like
that and do not bother with it. This however, stood out for the reasons I gave
above.
The LEGO site does not keep its information nor keep a snapshot of the situation
as it was 10 years ago. The information you refer to is either:
1. kept current with current part numbers and current designs; or
2. Not a historical record of what happened.
The LEGO site is not a reference source by any stretch of the imaginaition as
it is designed as a site to sell current replacement parts, not serve as a reference
work (which is what a catalogue does).
And for reference purposes, the part in question was submitted as new entry.
I think you misunderstand me because I’m not necessarily asking that all the
variant information that contributors have put together over the years should
be lost!
However when sellers are expected and pressured into getting certain mold variants
listed correctly this is where I have a problem because many experienced Bricklink
buyers will not always be understanding even though the seller is simply trying
to list as per the correct Lego part number/decal print yet in the eyes of many
hardcore enthusiasts and certainly the BL admins this won’t count for much if
a buyer complains regardless of what you specify in your terms??
Is it therefore the sellers fault that Bricklink has insisted that a straight
forward official Lego part code should be sorted and separated down into multiple
variants which takes time, requires more storage space and adds to confusion
and only caters for the benefit of a very minor few who care about variants?
This is also more than just a time thing as going back to my Leia head example
from another thread. You have this version 3626bpx83 of the part in Light Nougat
which is supposedly used on 8 minifigures, then you have this version 3626cpx83a
used on two minifigs and then this one 3626cpx83 only used on one minifigure
yet they were all given the same part number by Lego so who’s to say only a certain
head should be used on a certain minifig just because a slighty different mold
was used for some batches and a slightly better print was used for other batches?
Also a lot of bricklinkers like yourself are experienced and understand how Bricklink
works but this then just clouds what is expected of other less expereinced users
yet it needs to also make sense for newbie and other general bricklink users
too?
For starters if someone is looking for a head for the female padawan minifigure
are they going to instantly realise there are other search matches and sellers
beyond their small pool of initial search results? This is why even though I
have the same identical stock for this part I list it in two locations with notes
which is not ideal and I’m sure something not everyone would approve of but
again I justify doing this because not everyone is so concerned about variants
or even properly understands how to find what they need?
Also just to end on your other point about the Toros in your op. I have never
suggested the Lego site to be a complete historical reference source however
it is TLG who give their parts a part number and so it is TLG who know what was
or was'nt intended? and before I originally replied to your OP I checked
the Lego site as I knew I had once seen this particular Torso here and therefore
the point I was trying to make is that you already have all the known sets that
the Torso belongs to or at least all the sets that Bricklink or Brickset believe
this Torso belongs to. I have already checked the first set on the list 7635
which has the torso listed as part code 4275491 now if every other set has this
part listed as 4275491 then it should be clear that any different versions of
this torso are unintended misprints or colour variations.
If on the other hand you find one set with either a different part code against
the torso or you can’t even find the torso listed then this may well mean it
came with a different part code and is not a misprint!
South Africa
United Kingdom, England
). I hope
Netherlands, Zuid-Holland
USA
France, Nouvelle-Aquitaine