 | | Re: 24-tooth Technic gear confusion - Part(s) 3648, 3648a, x187
|
|
(...) In general, I do what Steve tells me to do :) I do agree that everything should be the "generic" number unless it's specifically known to be a certain revision. I believe that's how things are on peeron now - the only thing that has x187 is (...) (23 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.db.inv)
|
| |
| | Re: 24-tooth Technic gear confusion - Part(s) 3648, 3648a, x187
|
|
In lugnet.cad.dev, Lance Hopenwasser writes: [snipped description of the situation] (...) *Eventually*, I'd expect there to be a 3648a and a 3648b. That is, if the other version is ever rendered for LDraw (assuming it hasn't already). In LDraw, when (...) (23 years ago, 2-Dec-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.db.brictionary, lugnet.db.inv)
|
| |
| | 24-tooth Technic gear confusion - Part(s) 3648, 3648a, x187
|
|
I am really confused about the variations on the 24-tooth Technic gear which appear in quite a number of the sets I am attempting to inventory/verify. First of all there seem to be two major variations: the earlier one has three axle holes, and the (...) (23 years ago, 27-Nov-02, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.db.brictionary, lugnet.db.inv)
|
| |
| | Re: Bag info on Peeron?
|
|
"Dan Boger" <dan@peeron.com> wrote in message news:1038238063.3de2...ron.com... (...) able to (...) perhaps (...) very (...) Very good; I was pretty sure that was the case, but I just had to know for sure... (23 years ago, 25-Nov-02, to lugnet.db.inv)
|
| |
| | Re: Bag info on Peeron?
|
|
Quoting Lance Hopenwasser <hopenwasser@acm.org>: (...) Yes, the data is still kept internally - hopefully, one day, you'll be able to set up a preference if you want the bag info to be shown or not, or perhaps a "click here to see bag info" link. I (...) (23 years ago, 25-Nov-02, to lugnet.db.inv)
|
| |
| | Bag info on Peeron?
|
|
I just noticed that the bag information is not listed anymore on the Peeron set inventories (instead the pieces are agreggated together). While I concur that this is probably more useful to most people most of the time (in fact the only reason I (...) (23 years ago, 22-Nov-02, to lugnet.db.inv)
|
| |
| | Re: Peeron crosses 2000 inventory mark!
|
|
(...) As a side-note on this issue, it's further complicated by the fact that it depends on when the 6285 was bought in the U.S. First-year U.S. sets DID have shooting cannons. I have a 6274 Caribbean Clipper and a 6276 El Dorado Fortress bought in (...) (23 years ago, 18-Nov-02, to lugnet.db.inv)
|
| |
| | Re: Peeron crosses 2000 inventory mark!
|
|
I think the issue below is one that bothered me a great deal doing inventories of the pirate sets. Many of those sets were done across the change in minifig heads from solid to hollow studs. That means that one MISB set 6285 could have part number (...) (23 years ago, 18-Nov-02, to lugnet.db.inv)
|
| |
| | Re: Peeron crosses 2000 inventory mark!
|
|
(...) I agree 100%, it is only an issue if it is done from instructions. (...) A MISB set is of course to prefer, but in my opinion inventories done from instructions are necessary to fill out the gaps. If someone afterwards verifies the inventory (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-02, to lugnet.db.inv)
|
| |
| | Re: Peeron crosses 2000 inventory mark!
|
|
"Martin Bruun" <Citembe@dkmail.zzn.com> wrote in message news:H5IEzp.8yK@lugnet.com... (...) set (...) alternative (...) That would only be true if doing an inventory from instructions, in which case one should state it somewhere in the inventory (...) (23 years ago, 14-Nov-02, to lugnet.db.inv)
|
