Simon

Early LEGO History (1949 - 1965)

Recommended Posts

Yep, you are so right, I should have remembered those sets. So the color code would be:

B=Blue  G=Green  R=Red  Y=Yellow  W=White  Bl=Black  Lg=Light Gray  Tc=Trans/clear  Ty=Trans/yellow

Can others live with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think there is a trans-Yellow I just kept.growing the color list just in case some odd ball sets has been released after without getting a proper set number.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To see what it would look like, I created an example for this set: 459. The inventory of 459-1 is wrong, but there is a single user, and as long as I don't know who that is, I don't want to change the inventory. The color versions are newly added, so is Retail Pack 461.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you use K for black? It's the standard in printing, isn't it?

RGB = Red, Green, Blue

CMYK = Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, Black

Because if you have B, and Bl, either could seem to mean blue or black.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

K = key, not true for Lego colors. even if it is one of the most common colors. ink color naming is not what I think about when reading lego colors and most won't know what K stands for.

 I am fine with "Bk" if Bl is to ambiguous for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On April 21, 2018 at 4:11 PM, Simon said:

Yep, you are so right, I should have remembered those sets. So the color code would be:

B=Blue  G=Green  R=Red  Y=Yellow  W=White  Bl=Black  Lg=Light Gray  Tc=Trans/clear  Ty=Trans/yellow

Can others live with this?

Will there be a sorting problem mixing 1 and 2 letter designations?  If you want the standard sort with Bk being first is what I mean.  

I know these sets are in a limited number of colors, but it looks strange to me when I think about other multi-word color names usually being in all caps, like DBG for Dark Bluish Gray, and Upper Case+lower case for abbreviated one word colors.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, biodreamer said:

K = key, not true for Lego colors. even if it is one of the most common colors. ink color naming is not what I think about when reading lego colors and most won't know what K stands for.

 I am fine with "Bk" if Bl is to ambiguous for you.

To be honest, I don't expect to touch that part of the database. I'm not even familiar with the sets in question. I really have no stakes in this. It just seemed an obvious alternative to me so I thought I'd suggest it. I actually do prefer Bk, it's probably the clearest option yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks,

it is just a code, right? Remember that names for the sets will also contain the color, as in "2 x 8 Bricks, Black", and, in the description, I intent to add "This is the black version of set xxx" with a link to the original -1 version, which contains all colors.

Furthermore, for the -1 version, I would like to use an image of the original box, with one or two small catalog images in the description. However, if we use the same image for each of the individual colors, we get a similar problem as with the multiple inventories; when you own this set in several colors, and add each color to a set list, you end up with a row of similar images (all the same box as the -1 version). So for the individual color versions, such as -1R or -Bk, I would like to use temporary rendered images of the actual contents, so six 2 x 8 red bricks for the -1R image, and six 2 x 8 black bricks for -1Bk. That way, in the set list, you will see immediately what you own, the type of bricks, the number of bricks, and their color. For the rendered set images I use the same LDraw definitions as we already use for the inventories. If we find images of actual boxes showing the color of the bricks inside, or if anyone creates real pictures of the contents of these sets, we can replace the rendered images.

So from the very start, it will be obvious which is the black version, not matter what code we use.

In the next few days, I will create an example with all six colors, so we can see how it looks, and if the sorting works properly, and then we decide what code we will be using.

(might take a few days, as I am scheduled for surgery tomorrow...)

Take care,
Simon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you used capital letters on both BK and the reason why I was against that is that you don't know if it's two colors or one ie B and K or BK. while if you mix you now that each color starts with a Capital letter. Bk you know is one color. so that LBG isn't Lime + Blue + Green or Light Blue + Green and so on. All capital is ambiguous. mixing size isn't..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gimme a break, I'm still working on it... -smile-

Everything should be Bk now, but it might take a while before the cache is refreshed...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings, Folks;

I have not posted anything to this thread for the last five month or so, mainly because I felt I needed to do much more research, but by now I think I have a good idea about what happened with LEGO during those first 10 years, and there are a few things I would like to discuss with all those interested.

Let me start with plastics.

As some of you might know, LEGO started creating bricks in 1949 using a form of plastic called 'Cellulose Acetate', also called 'Cellidor' which was found to be somewhat unstable. in other words, over long periods of being exposed to heat and humidity, the parts became warped. In 1963 LEGO started switching over to ABS (Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene), a much more stable plastic. This switch however did not happen all at one time. It started in 1963, and was not complete in some countries until 1972.

Besides the difference in stability, CA and ABS also differ in color; ABS has darker red, blue, yellow and green, and in clutch power, as ABS bricks stick much better together then CA bricks.

Now looking at a catalog form 1963, LEGO actually had very few parts back then:
    - 10 types of bricks: 1x1, 1x2, 1x6, 1x8, 2x2, 2x2 rounded, 2x3, 2x4, 2x8, 2x10, 8x16
    - 9 types of plates: 1x1, 1x2, 2x2, 2x3, 2x4, 2x8, 4x8, 4x8 rounded, 6x8
    - 9 windows / 1 door
    - 1x1, 1x6, 1x8 printed bricks

Obviously, Rebrickable has all these parts already defined, basically as ABS bricks.

So I am wondering: would it make sense to add new molds for the CA versions of these bricks?

Take care,
Simon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me give an example of what I'd like to do.

Right now we have this for 3001:

1949-1950    bslot04/a/b/c    Brick 2 x 4 without Bottom Tubes, Slotted
0 sets        3001c            Brick 2 x 4 without Bottom Tubes
1954-1987    3001a            Brick 2 x 4 without Cross Supports
1988-2018    3001            Brick 2 x 4

This is what I propose:

1949-1955    bslot04/a/b/c    Brick 2 x 4 without Bottom Tubes, Slotted
1956-1957    3001c            Brick 2 x 4 without Bottom Tubes
1958-1962    3001ca            Brick 2 x 4 without Cross Supports (Cellulose Acetate)
1963-1987    3001a            Brick 2 x 4 without Cross Supports
1988-2018    3001            Brick 2 x 4

The newly added 3001ca will be used for all sets between 1958 and 1962, everything after that will remain the same.

Any comments?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would also like to suggest to change the part-numbers of the slotted bricks and the minitalia bricks to fit with the default design-id + letter(s) combination.

As an example for the 3001:

bslot04        becomes 3001s        Brick 2 x 4 without Bottom Tubes, Slotted (with 1 slot)
bslot04a    becomes 3001sa        Brick 2 x 4 without Bottom Tubes, Slotted (with 2 slots, opposite)
bslot04b    becomes 3001sb        Brick 2 x 4 without Bottom Tubes, Slotted (with 2 slots, right)
bslot04c    becomes 3001sc        Brick 2 x 4 without Bottom Tubes, Slotted (with 2 slots, left)

m3001        becomes 3001ma        Brick 2 x 4 Minitalia with Centre Cross Supports
3001mib        becomes 3001mb        Brick 2 x 4 Minitalia with Bottom Tubes

These are all molds of the basic 2 x 4 brick; they all look alike seen from above, and they all have the same outer dimensions, so in my opinion it makes perfect sense to call all 3001xx. If we do this, we end up with:

3001s      Brick 2 x 4 without Bottom Tubes, Slotted (with 1 slot)
3001sa    Brick 2 x 4 without Bottom Tubes, Slotted (with 2 slots, opposite)
3001sb    Brick 2 x 4 without Bottom Tubes, Slotted (with 2 slots, right)
3001sc    Brick 2 x 4 without Bottom Tubes, Slotted (with 2 slots, left)
3001c    Brick 2 x 4 without Bottom Tubes
3001ma    Brick 2 x 4 Minitalia with Centre Cross Supports
3001mb    Brick 2 x 4 Minitalia with Bottom Tubes
3001ca    Brick 2 x 4 without Cross Supports (Cellulose Acetate)
3001a    Brick 2 x 4 without Cross Supports
3001b    Brick 2 x 4 without Cross Supports, with Hole in Top
3001    Brick 2 x 4

I think @biodreamer has suggested something like this some time ago, and there are already slotted bricks that follow this naming system (3006). Furthermore slotted bricks are currently only used in a handfull of sets, so the impact is very limited. When we renumber parts the set inventories and member parts lists are automatically updated.

Any objections or comments, please let me know...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Personally, I don't think Miniitalia should have the same mold since the size of the bricks are different. They should really be in their own category. it's like DUPLO its a own category with their own molds.

And if you start separate the plastics you will end up with more of the mold problem some sets exists with both plastics and I wouldn't be surprised if sets exist that had a mix in them. I am however not against it, as long as you are aware of the problems, I got plenty of CA bricks and they are simply not as good quality as the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/20/2018 at 10:50 AM, biodreamer said:

Personally, I don't think Miniitalia should have the same mold since the size of the bricks are different. They should really be in their own category. it's like DUPLO its a own category with their own molds.

I am a bit confused by this: according to all sources I am aware of (here is one) Minitalia 2 x 4 brick was fully compatible with regular 2 x 4 bricks, and the outward dimensions were the same. The differences were: (1) minitalia used open studs and (2) *some* of the 2 x 4 bricks (the first series) had three x-shaped columns on the inside, instead of three tubes. Furthermore, all the walls were slightly thinner, and a different plastic was used, so the colors were different. Are you sure that the minitalia 2 x 4 doesn't stick to a regular 2 x 4?

On 10/20/2018 at 10:50 AM, biodreamer said:

And if you start separate the plastics you will end up with more of the mold problem some sets exists with both plastics and I wouldn't be surprised if sets exist that had a mix in them.

Yes, I know there was a lot of overlap (Samsonite kept using CA bricks up to nine years after introduction of ABS in Europe), and because in these days, sets were packaged manually, there's all kind of variation, in type of bricks, in colors, and also, in type of plastic. We just have to settle for the most common versions.

ABS was introduced in 1963, so if you bought a set in 1960, it was surely CA. If you bought it in 1965, it could have been new ABS, or old stock CA. But for our inventories, it doesn't matter, we only document when a set became available, not when it was bought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your right I was thinking about modulex not minitalia. my mistake.

I am not certain that it's a good idea to implement the CA thing now. maybe we can tackle the mold issue first before introducing more of it. as far as I know there hasn't even been a guideline nailed down when a part should have new mold entry compare to coexist on the same entry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No problem - we might be doing modulex too... -smile-

I am not in any hurry to do the CA thing, or spend weeks on ancient sets - not many people seem interested, and I also have other things that need to be done. But I am not really sure what the mold issue is, that you are referring to. Can you explain?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now