Item numbers

WoutR

Could someone please help me understand what the source is for the Item numbers listed in the catalog?

Looking at, for example, the numbers for the 3001 bricks I find a lot of numbers that I have not found elsewhere. Some make me question the reliability of the information.
(See: http://www.brickowl.com/catalog/lego-brick-2-x-4-3001-15589-54534#colors)

For example, a blue 2x4 brick is listed as 300123 and 300173. In the old LEGO numbering system, this would be design 3001 in color 23 and 73. Color 23 is Bright Blue, so that is a match. But what would color 73 be? A typo for 23?

I also see a Pearl Light Gold Brick with item number 4176402. No-one I know has ever seen one. Have these bricks actually been made? Where were they used? Where does the catalog entry originate, and how reliable is it? I currently question both the part-color combination and the item number, but I would love to be wrong ;-)

Hoddie

It's a community-driven resource, and submissions may not necessarily be correct or supported by evidence. It's highly unlikely though that someone would go out of their way to add bogus information just for the hell of it, much more likely that errors will simply be honest mistakes.

BO lacks a visible recorded history of submissions, but I seem to recall Lawrence saying the history is recorded and may be made accessible at some point in the future.

TheSkirrid

There's a lot of bogus colour information here Hoddie :-(
300173 and 4176402 are both bogus LEGO reference numbers. It used to be really annoying entering new stock via BO directly as most popular parts have a huge number of bogus colours assigned to them [modulex colours and pearls mostly]. Who did this, and why I don't know. At least they're not so visible in the interface now.

For a real list of colours and parts it's best to use Ryan Howerter's colour chart [via his Flikr or Brickset] with your chosen parts database, some sites [BL are especially bad] conflate separate colours - I made a huge effort last year at Rebrickable to fix missing and conflated colours, but no-one's perfect, especially when LEGO themselves have such poor records and when trying to cross-reference.

WoutR

Thank you for responding.

It's a community-driven resource, and submissions may not necessarily be correct or supported by evidence. It's highly unlikely though that someone would go out of their way to add bogus information just for the hell of it, much more likely that errors will simply be honest mistakes.

I do not assume ill intent, and there could be reliable sources I simply do not know about.

BO lacks a visible recorded history of submissions, but I seem to recall Lawrence saying the history is recorded and may be made accessible at some point in the future.

That could be interesting if there is too much bogus information... Knowing the source (imported from other database, LEGO instruction manual etc) would add to the reliability of the catalog.

There's a lot of bogus colour information here Hoddie :-(
300173 and 4176402 are both bogus LEGO reference numbers.

I suspect that is true, but then I cannot explain where these numbers came from. And I do not know another element with the same number, so how can we be certain? As AFOLs we do not have full access to the LEGO database.

It used to be really annoying entering new stock via BO directly as most popular parts have a huge number of bogus colours assigned to them [modulex colours and pearls mostly]. Who did this, and why I don't know. At least they're not so visible in the interface now.

Part 3001 was made in some modulex colors, but they are rare and were never used in sets. Testbricks, color samples, prototypes and Q-elements sometimes make it difficult to determine if something is bogus or not. There must be a lot I do not know about.

For a real list of colours and parts it's best to use Ryan Howerter's colour chart [via his Flikr or Brickset] with your chosen parts database, some sites [BL are especially bad] conflate separate colours - I made a huge effort last year at Rebrickable to fix missing and conflated colours, but no-one's perfect, especially when LEGO themselves have such poor records and when trying to cross-reference.

I know my way around the BL catalog and its oddities reasonably well, but BO is still confusing me. Maybe because much of the parts that I am collecting are not entered into the BO catalog yet. (Look at the decorated 3001 for example, most parts are completely undefined so I would never buy them here.)

Ryan Howerter's colour chart is amazing. I am also recommending that to anyone with color questions.

TheSkirrid

Rebrickable has some admin features that can directly query LEGO's database, so ElementID can be checked pretty reliably as far back as 300101 [but some parts, like Homemaker, never had official part numbers hence the efforts of the early part numbering heroes, like LUGNET, LDraw and Peeron].
That being said I think that Brickset is the only 'pure' source of official LEGO Group information, as there's little to no user interaction with their data, except for minifig classification it's all puled from LEGO sources only.

robernat

@TheSkirrid

as most popular parts have a huge number of bogus colours assigned to them [modulex colours and pearls mostly]. Who did this, and why I don't know.

What do you mean by that? That they show up in the list of 'known' colors when you open the color tab?

WoutR

Rebrickable has some admin features that can directly query LEGO's database, so ElementID can be checked pretty reliably as far back as 300101 [but some parts, like Homemaker, never had official part numbers hence the efforts of the early part numbering heroes, like LUGNET, LDraw and Peeron

They probably had part/design numbers, we simply do not know them. Just like we did not have any color information.

That being said I think that Brickset is the only 'pure' source of official LEGO Group information, as there's little to no user interaction with their data, except for minifig classification it's all puled from LEGO sources only.

The Brickset catalog sometimes contains replacement parts, so some caution is advisable. And, like all public databases, it is incomplete (especially on older sets). That said, it is a great source of information.

@TheSkirrid

as most popular parts have a huge number of bogus colours assigned to them [modulex colours and pearls mostly]. Who did this, and why I don't know.

What do you mean by that? That they show up in the list of 'known' colors when you open the color tab?

Showing up is a minor issue, but having additional information like item numbers seems to be a larger concern. Even with a community driven resource like this, it is important to aim for accuracy and reliability. Having doubt about these two item numbers makes me doubt a dozen other previously unknown numbers also, and that makes me feel uneasy about the entire catalog.

WoutR

Next question: If we think that there is bogus information, is there a way to correct it?

robernat

@WoutR Yes you can correct it, just press 'edit' on the particular item (after selecting the color), select the ID you wish to remove, leave a comment for Admin and submit.
But it might be interesting to find out first why and how these ID's enter the database, if it's part of something automated, then it might simply come back later on...
@Lawrence
could you have a look where these particular ID's came from, where they 'imported' from somewhere, if so, from what source, or where they submitted by a contributor? Like 3001 blue with ID 300173
and I actually have an example myself
http://www.brickowl.com/catalog/lego-light-gray-train-pantograph-2881

Now those pantographs have never been officially produced in color light gray, so not in sets, and light gray hasn't been produced for over a decade and back then TLG didn't give 'Part Color Codes' in instructions, so where on earth did the ID's come from, 288102 is somehow understandble (LDD/Ldraw ?), as 02 is TLG's color number for Old Light Gray, but 288152 ?

WoutR

Bump.

I think this is waiting for a response from Lawrence.

Lawrence

If you have reason to believe an ID is incorrect you can of course use the edit form to request it is removed, along with an explanation note at the bottom.

WoutR

Could you please answer RobErNat's questions also? If this is part of something automated I would be wasting my time.

Lawrence

To clarify, if you have reason to believe it's false, for example if it belongs to another item, then it may be a good idea to suggest it's removal. But if it's just because the item number hasn't been seen on another website then it would probably be best to leave it as is.

WoutR

That is why we asked you to check where these numbers originated.


I would just hate to leave it in when I am pretty sure the item do not exist (and has never been found as Q-element). And also when the item number seems to break the old item numbering rules.

We have so few sources of reliable information that AFOLs are copying data from one database to the next. If it is wrong here, it might spread and become impossible to get rid of.

WoutR

It feels like I would be wasting my time here.

TheSkirrid

Just as an aside, as to how weird part numbers are LEGO have just provided a part number for a part from 1986 [4773 numbered by LDraw is now officially 4770 in LDD].

WoutR

Both 4773 and 4770 are unknown on Brickset, so I think we cannot check which of these numbers contains a typing error.

All AFOL databases probably copied this part number from Peeron. I do not know where that number originated.