• 0
icedragonj

part 2456a?

Question

I was going through and cataloging some old parts and noticed most of the 2x bricks have an a version, for example 3003 and 3003a with the a version missing the cross supports and was used in older sets. 

For part 2456, the 2x6 brick, there doesn't seem to be a 2456a version in the database, but I have some that are missing cross supports.  Should I add this as a new part?  Is the date when cross-supports were added the same for all brick sizes?  Could we tell which sets are meant to have the 2456a version based on date?

For part 3007, the 2x8 brick, there is already a 3007a version, but it is missing the tubes from the bottom which is a different variation to the other a options.  Should 3007a be renamed to 3007b for consistancy, with a new 3007a part being added as the version without cross-supports?  I have some of these as well.

3006 2x10 brick has the same issue as 3007, and again I have some parts that are missing the cross-supports.

20200201_121406[1].jpg

20200201_121451[1].jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 1
2 hours ago, icedragonj said:

Ah, I misunderstood what was meant by cross-supports because the first version I looked at was the 2x2 part 3003.  This part has a 3003a without cross support version despite the original 3003 not having any cross supports.  I was talking about the little ridges on the sides as this was the only difference I could see so I assumed that was what was meant by cross-supports.  

Are these ridges minor enough to not be considered as a mold variation?  They seem to have been added on all 2 wide bricks at the same time as the cross supports.

Makes more sense. They’re usually referred to as reinforcement ridges. They are considered mold variations. The problem is figuring out what sets which type came in which is why such a small variation like that is mostly ignored. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1
53 minutes ago, icedragonj said:

I was going through and cataloging some old parts and noticed most of the 2x bricks have an a version, for example 3003 and 3003a with the a version missing the cross supports and was used in older sets. 

For part 2456, the 2x6 brick, there doesn't seem to be a 2456a version in the database, but I have some that are missing cross supports.  Should I add this as a new part?  Is the date when cross-supports were added the same for all brick sizes?  Could we tell which sets are meant to have the 2456a version based on date?

For part 3007, the 2x8 brick, there is already a 3007a version, but it is missing the tubes from the bottom which is a different variation to the other a options.  Should 3007a be renamed to 3007b for consistancy, with a new 3007a part being added as the version without cross-supports?  I have some of these as well.

3006 2x10 brick has the same issue as 3007, and again I have some parts that are missing the cross-supports.

20200201_121406[1].jpg

20200201_121451[1].jpg

Howdy.

Firstly the ‘a’ version does not mean not cross supports. A mold variation designation is added as it’s known. The first variation gets added as a, second as b, etc... These designations are largely decades old. 
 

2456 has a note on it regarding the difference between 2456 and 2456old. Are you saying you have a different variation to either of those? im a little confused because in the images you uploaded both parts have cross supports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1
30 minutes ago, biodreamer said:

The ridges on the wall is because the wall is thinner to save plastics, so calling them reinforced is a lie it's after all weaker. they need that ridge to keep the grip on the studs with the now thinner walls.

we currently have a very weird distribution of when a part needs a new mold. sometimes it just small cosmetic changes other cases they require new functionality. I have several times asked for a guideline on this that the site follow. When that is posted we can start splitting and renaming molds before that it seem to depend on who look at the request.

If the parts functionality is changed it’s an alternative part. If it’s cosmetic it’s a new mold. Here’s the definitions of every type of part relation possible on Rebrickable. I will endeavor to create a help page about it for you. 
 

Part Relationships

  • Print - Printed/Painted surface
  • Pattern - Marbled color, embossed, molded patterns
  • Mold - Alternate mold which can be used as a functional drop-in replacement
  • Alternate - Similar part that can usually be used as a replacement, not necessarily functionally compatible
  • Pair - One of a pair of parts, e.g., tyre + wheel, left + right panels
  • Subpart - Subpart of a larger composite/assembly part
  • Similar Image - Used to display the related parts image if this one is not available


The common process though has been to not add new molds as new parts if we don’t know what sets certain types are in. That’s why you’ll see in many part notes information regarding different types of molds that we list under one part.

Yes, there’s lots of work to be done with parts, the system is decades old and has been maintained by many different people. Continuity errors are a small price to pay for the huge benefit of having a community like rebrickable collating all this information together. 

Hope that’s all helpful. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Ah, I misunderstood what was meant by cross-supports because the first version I looked at was the 2x2 part 3003.  This part has a 3003a without cross support version despite the original 3003 not having any cross supports.  I was talking about the little ridges on the sides as this was the only difference I could see so I assumed that was what was meant by cross-supports.  

Are these ridges minor enough to not be considered as a mold variation?  They seem to have been added on all 2 wide bricks at the same time as the cross supports.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

The ridges on the wall is because the wall is thinner to save plastics, so calling them reinforced is a lie it's after all weaker. they need that ridge to keep the grip on the studs with the now thinner walls.

we currently have a very weird distribution of when a part needs a new mold. sometimes it just small cosmetic changes other cases they require new functionality. I have several times asked for a guideline on this that the site follow. When that is posted we can start splitting and renaming molds before that it seem to depend on who look at the request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

well if we look at 3003 and 3003a the ridges are cosmetic and just visible from the underside unless transparent, still if we look at 3004 we have only a single entry when there should be four if such minor changes as side support and hole in pin would be enough for a new mold since they are cosmetic and visible only from the underside unless transparent.

This what I mean, we either need to add a lot of molds and do the hard work of finding out when they came and went in the production history. 

Right now it's very hard to understand where the border goes because it is shifting for each part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
1 hour ago, biodreamer said:

This what I mean, we either need to add a lot of molds and do the hard work of finding out when they came and went in the production history. 

You didn't give the other option. Right now the either/or is this:-

"...we either need to add a lot of molds and do the hard work of finding out when they came and went in the production history. "

or

We write in the part notes explaining minor differences until someone puts the work in to figure out all the details of the mold variation in order to add the mold variation to the database.

 

The example you give, 3004, explains a minor difference between molds and explains why we currently don't have a separate listing for it.

It's not shifting for each part, the criteria is exactly the same. For those parts that have all the variations listed someone has put the leg work in, on those parts without no one has. It's not easy figuring out which mold came in what. Ideally, you need someone with a large organized collection of vintage LEGO. Otherwise it's many hours of searching the internet for info. Feel free to put the work in and let us know your findings. Make sure to have all supporting information, including pictures, to allow us to evaluate the legitimacy of the new mold. Then we'd gladly approve your new mold variation as a separate part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Thank you both for your responses!  So my understanding is that unless I have evidence of when the mold variation was introduced, I should just leave it alone under the single part number for now.  Might try and do some research at some stage if I have the energy!

Unfortunately I do not have a large organised set of vintage lego, the few pieces I do have are from bulk lots I got off ebay, which means an unsorted incomplete mess. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

I don't think we can expect anyone to have enough of a collection to iron down when a mold both came into production and when it was replaced. I have a quite big collection but it's a mess there is very hard or impossible to place a specific common part/color combination to a specific set. So finding when a "brick" mold came around is limited to looking at the printed/stickered parts to determine where it belongs in the timeline. So I would say all mold needs a discussion like this one to iron out where the cut should be. More data gives better accuracy.

so for 2456, i can say that we had ridges 2012 and regular brick at 1998 by looking at my printed/stickered part.

by looking at the color I can move the edge to at least 2004 since I have both mold in Dark Blueish Grey and the earliest set with this part was released 2004.

a cut somewhere between 2004 and 2012 is not accurate enough. So I wouldn't be able to confirm it because the mold was introduced in my dark ages.

So that will need the help of the community which can help fill the missing gap with data.

I don't own a similar mold for 3006, so if that exist that should be processed at the same time. I have no reliable data at all on the larger bricks because I have no stickered or printed version of them and all my parts is in the basic 7 color scheme. (white,red,blue,yellow,black,light grey and green) which are worthless to point at a timeline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

There is also a new Mold of 3006 that isn't noted among the parts:

In image 3006a CA, 3006 CA, 3006 ABS, 3006c? ABS This new Mold has a mold id  starting at no 26 from the time they started marking the part with 3006. (mold id 25 is the normal 3006)

when was it released? No idea

3006molds.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

oh and that 3007 with ridges on the wall has part id 93888 marked on them instead of 3007 as the old had. and they have restarted the mold id count from 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Some more checking and it turns out I got 3006 mold no 25 in Light Grey. this means that mold is really old. That would indicate that mold no 26 should be a quite old mold as well.

found newer mold with ridges with part id 92538 in Black and Blue and that look like the regular 3006 when it comes to the side support. So mold no 26 might only been around for a short while, I only got two parts in red from that mold.

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