Subject:
|
Re: partial set notation
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Sun, 24 Sep 2000 23:14:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
547 times
|
| |
|
|
Tim Courtney wrote:
> That gets into problems when it spits out the piece count and totals up the
> pieces in your collection. If this would be implimented, it would be wise
> to have a 'number of pieces owned' field for the user to fill out, so it can
> give you an 'accurate' total on your list page. (But we all know that we
> have random pieces aquired off of aucitons or otherr places that don't
> necessarily fit into a specific complete set).
In the spreadsheet I use to track my sets, I have a column for "missing
parts" and a column for "missing minifigures". I also have a column for
notes. One problem is that I don't update this as I trade parts, and of
course also don't enter my parts lots into the system in any way.
I'm interested in manageable ways to maintain documentation of my
collection. I'm not sure that it is at all manageable to maintain a
complete and accurate listing of all the pieces, and obviously unless
one only buys complete sets, and never trades or sells parts from those
sets, any system which relies on an inventory of sets will not be
complete. One part of the interest is in how to insure the collection.
In my collection, a significant portion of the value is the rare pieces
I have, whether they were bought by the piece, or came in a deep
clearanced set, or somewhere in-between.
Probably the way to maintain a sense of what one's collection really
encompasses is to keep an inventory of sets with notes to indicate
significant pieces missing, and an inventory of rare pieces. The set
inventory would give a ball park figure on number of parts (if you
assume that those somewhat incomplete sets are made up for by the
individual parts lots). Depending on your buying habits, the true parts
count is probably higher (in my case, I'd guess 2-5%).
If it becomes necessary to make an insurance claim, and much of the
collection is completely gone (stolen, melted to slag in a fire) or
whatever, one can take the set inventory plus the rare parts inventory
and develop a measure of what was lost. Part of this would entail
adjusting the rare parts to account for parts which are part of the sets
in the set inventory, and possibly adjusting the set inventory if too
many of the rare parts from a set or sets were not part of the
collection.
Back to what Lugnet should provide though...
I'm not sure Lugnet should try and provide that inventory system. I
think it is interesting to have the possibility of documenting the sets
one has via Lugnet, and Lugnet certainly should provide some room for
comments, I don't think Lugnet can hope to provide much more. It
probably is worthwhile having two columns for number of sets # complete
and # partial. But much more than that is probably too much (but of
course if Todd feels Lugnet should provide more, that's cool also).
What I would like to see is a separate project to develop a good
inventory system. I think such a tool needs to be a local application,
and ways need to be developed to allow quick entry of items into the
inventory system. There is no reason that a tool to collect a parts
inventory for a set can't be part of that project (the requirements have
a lot of similarities).
Frank
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: partial set notation
|
| "Kevin Wilson" <kwilson_tccs@compuserve.com> wrote in message news:39CD8B62.2EEAB9...rve.com... (...) That gets into problems when it spits out the piece count and totals up the pieces in your collection. If this would be implimented, it would be (...) (24 years ago, 24-Sep-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
