That might have come from Lego. I've seen before where they add the newer version of a part to a set's inventory without also removing the older version. Could also be that the inventory was pulled from Lego with the new version already there, and a user has added the old version because that's what originally came in the set.
@Markyd7 @Hoddie I looked at the set and indeed went with the idea of Hoddie that it was a manually added part with no 'alternate' number, and I actually filed a request to make them alternate (alternate link100) in this set. BUT... then I went looking further and I just realised this is one of these 'automated' alternates by Brickowl, Lawrence just seems to have forgotten to set an alternate number for it (known alternates always get attached 'automaticly' UNFORTUNATLY, and always with the same 'alternate link' number).
And I shout UNFORTUNATLY as this causes a huge mess in the catalog, and I would really appreciate (and I know I'm not the only one) if Lawrence stops actioning this kind of automated 'alternates' for each part in each set, for the simple reason it 'adds' brand new parts/brand new molds to sets from a long time ago, that where issued ONLY with original molds... (while newer sets might indeed carry both) The result: those newer molds become 'alternate' in 5-10-15 year old sets, while those molds are barely a few months or years old :-(
Look at the sets (11) it comes in, while in reality it should only be in 3 sets...
Look at it: 2003 sets, sets from 2007-2010 suddently 'carry' that part, while the 93106 was issued around 2012/13 :-( It happens with ALL items with 'alternates' and it is simply a BIG MESS and doesn't reflect the reality at all, a real headache for fine-tuners, and a reason for them to never trust BO inventories because of it :-(( :-(( :-((
@Lawrence: Not sure if you understand the consequences of these automated alternates, I truly think the idea behind it was good, but the result of such is quite a burdon, alternates should be based an ONLY based on peoples 'findings' of real contents after exploring and building sets, any 'generalised' method of such is just big nonsense IMHO (sorry to say) and I have expressed this before...
Comments
@Hoddie
I looked at the set and indeed went with the idea of Hoddie that it was a manually added part with no 'alternate' number, and I actually filed a request to make them alternate (alternate link100) in this set.
BUT...
then I went looking further and I just realised this is one of these 'automated' alternates by Brickowl, Lawrence just seems to have forgotten to set an alternate number for it (known alternates always get attached 'automaticly' UNFORTUNATLY, and always with the same 'alternate link' number).
And I shout UNFORTUNATLY as this causes a huge mess in the catalog, and I would really appreciate (and I know I'm not the only one) if Lawrence stops actioning this kind of automated 'alternates' for each part in each set, for the simple reason it 'adds' brand new parts/brand new molds to sets from a long time ago, that where issued ONLY with original molds... (while newer sets might indeed carry both)
The result: those newer molds become 'alternate' in 5-10-15 year old sets, while those molds are barely a few months or years old :-(
Look at the sets (11) it comes in, while in reality it should only be in 3 sets...
http://www.brickowl.com/catalog/lego-black-metal-detector-93106
Look at it: 2003 sets, sets from 2007-2010 suddently 'carry' that part, while the 93106 was issued around 2012/13 :-(
It happens with ALL items with 'alternates' and it is simply a BIG MESS and doesn't reflect the reality at all, a real headache for fine-tuners, and a reason for them to never trust BO inventories because of it :-(( :-(( :-((
@Lawrence:
Not sure if you understand the consequences of these automated alternates, I truly think the idea behind it was good, but the result of such is quite a burdon, alternates should be based an ONLY based on peoples 'findings' of real contents after exploring and building sets, any 'generalised' method of such is just big nonsense IMHO (sorry to say) and I have expressed this before...