Subject:
|
Re: Whats the difference between 6218 and 6259 ?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.cad.dev
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Mar 2001 08:59:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
629 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Ray Sanders writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss writes:
>
> <snippage>
>
> > Maybe the lack of connections on this part (no studs, no enclosed
> > anti-studs, the only hard connections are finger-hinges) that it has low
> > tolerances that allow TLC to use a single mold?
> >
> > The 2507/30058 numbers (and a number of other 4-digit/5-digit duplications)
> > are probably due to TLC switching part numbering schemes, and later having
> > to create a new mold to replace worn-out molds.
> >
> > If we want to start tracking when numbers are found on opaque or
> > transparent pieces, let's be careful about jumping to conclusions. Unless
> > we find the same number on both trans and opaque pieces, we can't say
> > anything *for certain* about the numbers and how LEGO uses them.
> >
> > Steve
>
> All along we have been using these numbers as 'part numbers', when actually
> they appear to be a mould number. What we are finding here is that there are • 1-n
> mould numbers for each 'part shape'. In each of these examples, the part/piece
> appears to have identical shape, but with different (or no) mould number.
> Perhaps a shape identifier is what is needed, something superior to the • present
> part (or mould) number.
>
> The shape idetifier could be one of the previously known numbers, so long as • we
> can correlate the related numbers. Having a shape identifier would relieve us • of
> not having to know the mould number when an obviously new piece appears, and • not
> knowing what number to call it.
>
> Ray
In the main, I think they really are part numbers, considering the total
number of parts there are very few exceptions, which I think can be explained
by
1) some technical need for separate moulds for clear vs. opaque parts
2) TLC allocating a new part number to a previous part for other reasons we
cannot guess (poor memory, technical change not visible in the finished part,
other inventory management problems).
I think you only have to look at a selection of common parts (eg. 2x2 plates)
through the years to see that there are several generations of mould, because
there are clear differences in the typeface and position of the "3022" text.
Clearly TLC do not (did not) allocate a new number each time they make a new
mould.
Chris
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Whats the difference between 6218 and 6259 ?
|
| In lugnet.cad.dev, Chris Dee writes: <snips> (...) Correct. The actual mould number is probably the composite of the 4/5 digit number and the X-XX number (usually first appears as 1-01). I would guess that the X-XX number has to do with the actual (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
| | | Re: Whats the difference between 6218 and 6259 ?
|
| (...) Another thing to keep in mind: we're seeing the results of a system changing over time. It appears that TLC has changed its part-numbering strategy at least twice over the years, with some other minor adjustments occuring along the way. (...) (...) (24 years ago, 18-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Whats the difference between 6218 and 6259 ?
|
| In lugnet.cad.dev, Steve Bliss writes: <snippage> (...) All along we have been using these numbers as 'part numbers', when actually they appear to be a mould number. What we are finding here is that there are 1-n mould numbers for each 'part shape'. (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-01, to lugnet.cad.dev)
|
19 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
