 | | | | | | |
| |
|
I'm in the middle of a massive set rebuilding effort, something I
might post more about later as I finish it up.
One of my goals is to figure out what sets I have. This is not
quite as easy as it sounds, because I have a few tons of lego
that I picked up at garage sales and whatnot, and those have lots
of random lego which I'm working my way through, trying to break
them down into their original sets.
It seems that one could have a set in various states:
A. have the pieces, have the instructions, have the box
B. have the pieces, have the instructions, no box
C. have the pieces, no instructions, have the box
D. have the pieces, no instructions, no box
From a collector's standpoint, 'A' is certainly a set. I've never kept
boxes around because I don't have room, so I've always felt that 'B'
qualifies as having the set. Probably 'C' too.
'D' doesn't feel like having the set somewhow, but if I were to find all
the pieces to the yellow castle, pull the instructions off brickshelf,
build it, and put it on a shelf, then it would be hard to argue that I
didn't have the set.
On the other hand, I don't think I have set 6807, the supposedly rare
unnamed classic space set... but I could build three or four of them with
my spare parts just within reach. What if find the parts for it in this
pile?
And on basically the same note - to be space complete in the eyes of the
community, do I need to have all the pieces, or all the instructions and
the pieces, or (augh!) all the boxes too?
I'm certain this comes down to however I feel like defining my sets, but
I'm interested in everyone's opinion on this...
Remy Evard -- evard@mcs.anl.gov -- www.mcs.anl.gov/~evard -- 630.252.5963
Manager of Advanced Computing and Networking, MCS, Argonne National Lab
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Remy Evard writes:
> And on basically the same note - to be space complete in the eyes of the
> community, do I need to have all the pieces, or all the instructions and
> the pieces, or (augh!) all the boxes too?
>
> I'm certain this comes down to however I feel like defining my sets, but
> I'm interested in everyone's opinion on this...
>
>
> Remy Evard -- evard@mcs.anl.gov -- www.mcs.anl.gov/~evard -- 630.252.5963
> Manager of Advanced Computing and Networking, MCS, Argonne National Lab
In my, personal, opinion I own a set if I have the pieces for it, without the
same pieces being used for other sets. If I have bought, say set number 1 and
set number 2, and with ttheir combined pieces, then either I own set 1 and set
2 OR I own set 3 (mabe with some pieces left), but I don't own set 1, 2 AND 3.
Instructions aren't necessary to own the set in my opinion, neither is the box.
Sybrand Bonsma
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Sybrand Bonsma writes:
> In lugnet.general, Remy Evard writes:
>
> > And on basically the same note - to be space complete in the eyes of the
> > community, do I need to have all the pieces, or all the instructions and
> > the pieces, or (augh!) all the boxes too?
> >
> > I'm certain this comes down to however I feel like defining my sets, but
> > I'm interested in everyone's opinion on this...
> >
> >
> > Remy Evard -- evard@mcs.anl.gov -- www.mcs.anl.gov/~evard -- 630.252.5963
> > Manager of Advanced Computing and Networking, MCS, Argonne National Lab
>
> In my, personal, opinion I own a set if I have the pieces for it, without the
> same pieces being used for other sets. If I have bought, say set number 1 and
> set number 2, and with ttheir combined pieces, then either I own set 1 and set
> 2 OR I own set 3 (mabe with some pieces left), but I don't own set 1, 2 AND 3.
> Instructions aren't necessary to own the set in my opinion, neither is the box.
>
> Sybrand Bonsma
Obviously, if legos ever become as valuable as collector's pieces as say Barbie
and GI Joe from the 50's and 60's, it would help if they were still in an
unopened box, with everything complete. Other than that, I agree with Sybrand,
that as long as you can have the complete set built with all the correctly
colored pieces (even if they aren't the same exact ones that came in the box
originally) then you can say you have a set.
-Jonathan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Jonathan Little wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Sybrand Bonsma writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Remy Evard writes:
> >
> > > And on basically the same note - to be space complete in the eyes of the
> > > community, do I need to have all the pieces, or all the instructions and
> > > the pieces, or (augh!) all the boxes too?
> > >
> > > I'm certain this comes down to however I feel like defining my sets, but
> > > I'm interested in everyone's opinion on this...
> > >
> > >
> > > Remy Evard -- evard@mcs.anl.gov -- www.mcs.anl.gov/~evard -- 630.252.5963
> > > Manager of Advanced Computing and Networking, MCS, Argonne National Lab
> >
> > In my, personal, opinion I own a set if I have the pieces for it, without the
> > same pieces being used for other sets. If I have bought, say set number 1 and
> > set number 2, and with ttheir combined pieces, then either I own set 1 and set
> > 2 OR I own set 3 (mabe with some pieces left), but I don't own set 1, 2 AND 3.
> > Instructions aren't necessary to own the set in my opinion, neither is the box.
> >
> > Sybrand Bonsma
>
> Obviously, if legos ever become as valuable as collector's pieces as say Barbie
> and GI Joe from the 50's and 60's, it would help if they were still in an
> unopened box, with everything complete. Other than that, I agree with Sybrand,
> that as long as you can have the complete set built with all the correctly
> colored pieces (even if they aren't the same exact ones that came in the box
> originally) then you can say you have a set.
>
> -Jonathan
I always have fun when I buy a set from EBAY. Many times the seller isn't LEGO
knowledgeable, and they may have assembled a set. I recently won a few auctions
where the sets were 1970's sets. Among them I sometimes find Cellulose Acetate
pieces mixed in. I know full well that CA was discontinued in the mid 1960's, so
somebody did some set re-assembly. In one case the set was #196 (Building Set with
People), a big head people set from 1975 with an old car with the big spoked
wheels. Well all the bricks in the set were old, but mint Cellulose Acetate
pieces. Someone reassembled this set using older bricks. I just got a #396
Thatcher Perkins Locomotive Model set from 1975, and there were some Cellulose
Acetate pieces as well. I like to play detective to find these anomolies. It's
almost "A hah! I caught you".
Gary Istok
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Remy Evard writes:
> It seems that one could have a set in various states:
> A. have the pieces, have the instructions, have the box
> B. have the pieces, have the instructions, no box
> C. have the pieces, no instructions, have the box
> D. have the pieces, no instructions, no box
About a year or so ago I wrote a pseudo-serious, long-winded post on RTL on
this very subject (for the terminally curious, I'll try and find it on
DejaNews). In essence, the "setness" of a set is contained in its unique
pieces, such as the LL924 bricks on the Space Cruiser #487. Unique pieces
take priority even over the presence or absence of instructions or box,
because one can build the set--from memory, perhaps--without the instructions
or box, but not without the pieces unique to that set.
To look at it another way, if one acquires the common pieces, unique pieces,
the instructions, and the box from different respective sources, can one be
said to have "the set?" Does this differ from having "the set" from a single
source? How?
Hmmm....
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
I would say that the status of your having a set or not depends on the
purpose of making the claim. For the ultimate in collectibility, every
set must be in the condition it arrived at the retailers when first
released. For the purposes of having the satisfaction of being able to
display a particular model, all you need is the bricks to build that
model, even if you have to cannibalize another model. For the purposes
of inventorying your collection, and getting a quick estimate of how
many bricks you own, you should only count sets that are complete or
almost so, and not count sets you could possibly build from the
components.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> I would say that the status of your having a set or not depends on the
> purpose of making the claim. For the ultimate in collectibility, every
> set must be in the condition it arrived at the retailers when first
> released. For the purposes of having the satisfaction of being able to
> display a particular model, all you need is the bricks to build that
> model, even if you have to cannibalize another model. For the purposes
> of inventorying your collection, and getting a quick estimate of how
> many bricks you own, you should only count sets that are complete or
> almost so, and not count sets you could possibly build from the
> components.
In terms of collectability, I agree with you completely; I should have been
more specific.
Here's that aforementioned DejaNews link:
http://x41.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=416977265.1&CONTEXT=944760325.1620967669&hitnu
m=0
Not to be taken too seriously!
Dave!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > I would say that the status of your having a set or not depends on the
> > purpose of making the claim. For the ultimate in collectibility, every
> > set must be in the condition it arrived at the retailers when first
> > released. For the purposes of having the satisfaction of being able to
> > display a particular model, all you need is the bricks to build that
> > model, even if you have to cannibalize another model. For the purposes
> > of inventorying your collection, and getting a quick estimate of how
> > many bricks you own, you should only count sets that are complete or
> > almost so, and not count sets you could possibly build from the
> > components.
>
> In terms of collectability, I agree with you completely; I should have been
> more specific.
> Here's that aforementioned DejaNews link:
>
> http://x41.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=416977265.1&CONTEXT=944760325.1620967669&hitn • u
> m=0
>
> Not to be taken too seriously!
>
> Dave!
Hellooo LEGOnauts,
I have to say that a set does consist of unique pieces and the common pieces
that make up a model. These can come from any source, such as *the storage
box* or the original package. The original box is not necessary for this
definition. Having the instructions is kind of like a file on record proving
that it is there (somewhere, in my case since I mix all my parts and then sort
them by type).
Instructions make inventory and reconstruction possible for me, for instance
if I build 6090 and find that I have three baseplates and one set of
instructions do I have three sets? I know they are there with my other parts
and I have the instructions to remind me.
Boxes are useless for any purpose other than memorablia or storage of other
boxes. As storage they are bad because they don't protect bricks, and things
tend to slip out of them.
Sets are the physical form of the model, and that is that.
Aaron>maniac@vol.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Dave Schuler wrote:
> About a year or so ago I wrote a pseudo-serious, long-winded post on RTL on
> this very subject (for the terminally curious, I'll try and find it on
> DejaNews).
For the newbies, and those who don't recall trivia well, this was in
response to my posing a thought question. Dave's answer was well
written, I agreed with it then, and still do. Very worth rereading if
you're interested in the zen of sets.
Frank's reply, below, comes at this question from a different
perspective, and so I agree with it as well.
--
Larry Pieniazek larryp@novera.com http://my.voyager.net/lar
- - - Web Application Integration! http://www.novera.com
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
NOTE: Soon to be lpieniazek@tsisoft.com :-)
| | | | | | |
