Subject:
|
Re: "Reusable" Containers for Storage
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.storage
|
Date:
|
Tue, 18 Oct 2005 17:15:15 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7084 times
|
| |
|
|
Tim (Smith) wrote:
> I found that glad-ware style containers weren't very space efficient
> and don't stck well. For smaller parts, fishing tackle boxes by Plano
> or Flambeau. Bigger parts in small stacking drawers. Abundant parts
> in bags in drawers or tubs like you said, then pull out a cup full
> when I need them.
I definitely agree with the point about inefficient containers (though I use
some re-usable containers to on my work table to hold a working set of
parts). But key is that's space efficiency. My system is less time
efficient. You need to find the right balance between at least the following
tradeoff factors:
- Space
- Cost
- Time to sort parts into the system
- Time to retrieve parts from the system
- Neatness of storage (will your wife let you have it in the living room? in
the spare bedroom? confined to the basement?)
Note that shelving/drawers/furniture is part of the equation also. Also,
these factors are all interrelated (a more space efficient system could
improve retrieval speed, but it can also hinder it).
Personally, with a 600,000+ piece collection, space efficiency is most
important to me, though the system also has to be time efficient or I get
discouraged from building with the pieces. Even though I'm single, neatness
is still important. The guest room has to be presentable and useable. LEGO
mess needs to stay off the ground floor (I do want to get some nice display
cases for MOCs downstairs, but I don't want LEGO to dominate my
groundfloor - even if it's in nice display cases).
I'm guessing that for a collection up to 100,000 pieces, the re-useable
containers work really well. They should fit on a few book cases at most,
and be pretty time efficient for sorting and retrieval. Having most of the
pieces [except brick] in Plano (etc.) boxes probably works pretty good for
up to 50,000 pieces or so. Of course this also depends on the brick mix. A
primary color sculptor will have a totally different storage system than a
minifig completist, who just cares to collect enough brick to have a few
MOCs to show at fests and train shows.
I think it would really help storage (and sorting) discussions if people had
some estimate of how many pieces they have (I have a spreadsheet where I
enter set and part counts as I sort sets - it's somewhat behind, and just
jumped 36,400 pieces over the weekend because I finally entered in my 91
Walgreens sets...). Interestingly it took me about 2 years to think I
probably had 500,000 pieces (I had broken 400,000 and had a lot yet to sort,
it took another 2 years to break 500,000, and another 2 to break 600,000,
and I'm now convinced I DON'T have a million pieces - though I am pretty
confident that I literally have TONS of LEGO since when I moved cross
country, my household goods amounted to 6.5 tons, and a lot of it was LEGO,
I think it's very likely LEGO was 1/3 the weight, possibly more, probably
not half).
Frank
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: "Reusable" Containers for Storage
|
| (...) My primary factor, at the moment, is cost. I have a large enough collection that better storage is necessary (how large, exactly, I'm not sure - it's big enough to fill a good-sized, non-walk-in closet), but I don't have the money to go to (...) (19 years ago, 18-Oct-05, to lugnet.storage)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: "Reusable" Containers for Storage
|
| (...) I found that glad-ware style containers weren't very space efficient and don't stck well. For smaller parts, fishing tackle boxes by Plano or Flambeau. Bigger parts in small stacking drawers. Abundant parts in bags in drawers or tubs like you (...) (19 years ago, 18-Oct-05, to lugnet.storage, FTX)
|
6 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
|
|
|
|
