@Atuin said:
"This set has so many confusing misentries on various database sites it's hilarious...

What's especially annoying is that such misentries heavily mess up part and color lifespan data, resulting in tons of VERY faulty "researches" by self-appointed Lego data-analysts..."

I've checked several sites and all of them appear to have this set as 2005 with an inventory of correct bricks and colors. What misentries are you talking about?

But I'm aware of other situations, such as Bricklink counting metal train axles as "chrome silver."

Is that the lowest number of owners we've had for an RSotD? I'm tempted to look.

@Norikins said:
" @Atuin said:
"This set has so many confusing misentries on various database sites it's hilarious...

What's especially annoying is that such misentries heavily mess up part and color lifespan data, resulting in tons of VERY faulty "researches" by self-appointed Lego data-analysts..."

I've checked several sites and all of them appear to have this set as 2005 with an inventory of correct bricks and colors. What misentries are you talking about?

But I'm aware of other situations, such as Bricklink counting metal train axles as "chrome silver.""

Maybe it's been corrected since last time I checked. I just remember it was erroneously listed as a 1995 set on one of the bigger sites a few months ago.

Might also (but unlikely) be an issue with inconsistencies regarding ID suffixes, but it was clearly this set shown.

EDIT:
Metal train axles are under TLG terminology somewhat "Chrome Silver" indeed. The ACTUAL correct color would be "Nature", but that would cause even more confusion.

What is upsetting me more is some Dacta sets with weirdly long life spans, whose inventories clearly defy Lego chronology.

2004 Duploville figures in Light Lilac in a 1993 set? Please...

@PurpleDave said:
" @Miyakan said:
"I need some more information on this Chromika."

Based on the lack of any other sets bearing that name, I'd say the trial was a failure."

Chromika itself wouldn't become a world brand either. I know the name only in connection to this pomo set.

@MCLegoboy said:
"15 2x3 bricks, eh?
16 piece count?
The inventory doesn't even show 2x3s or slopes like the packaging suggests.
False advertising all around."

The 2x3 brick on the package is just an icon.

The inventory on Bricklink shows it has 16 1x1, 1x2, 2x2 and 2x4 bricks, but there are no slopes.
I guess they write 15 because if a part is missing they don't get complaints.
Also, looks like it's a trial set, so maybe it's a gift.

@kyrodes said:
" @MCLegoboy said:
"15 2x3 bricks, eh?
16 piece count?
The inventory doesn't even show 2x3s or slopes like the packaging suggests.
False advertising all around."

The 2x3 brick on the package is just an icon.

The inventory on Bricklink shows it has 16 1x1, 1x2, 2x2 and 2x4 bricks, but there are no slopes.
I guess they write 15 because if a part is missing they don't get complaints.
Also, looks like it's a trial set, so maybe it's a gift."

Given that this is VERY likely a promotional gift and for that a gift for the type of conventions only few selected corporate guys have access to... I wonder why they bothered printing that on the bag at all. We in the EU still don't have pcs. counts printed on the box in 2024!

Oh, it’s paper? I thought I was looking at a game cartridge

It says on the packaging that it contains 15 pieces, yet right next to that number shows builds that clearly consist of more than 15 pieces.
WTH?

@AustinPowers said:
"It says on the packaging that it contains 15 pieces, yet right next to that number shows builds that clearly consist of more than 15 pieces.
WTH? "

This clearly was given out to businessmen on a commercial convention, the branding doesn't make sense any other way (see earlier comments). Why it was given a set number in the "usual" range is up to speculation, but take into regard this was done before. Also remember that 2005 was quite a turbulent time for TLG.

Also I suspect some guys there really, really like to mess up AFOL sites with releases like this.

@watcher21 said:
" @TheOtherMike said:
"Is that the lowest number of owners we've had for an RSotD? I'm tempted to look."

if you look into the abyss the abyss looks back
3220 "

I wonder whether any of the Brickset team has 3220

@watcher21 said:
" @TheOtherMike said:
"Is that the lowest number of owners we've had for an RSotD? I'm tempted to look."

if you look into the abyss the abyss looks back
3220 "

But at least the abyss has gifts for you! Incidentally, twice as many people report owning that set now as reported owning it when it was RSotD. I wonder if its notoriety here led people to seek it out, if it being RSotD reminded people that they had it, both, or something else.

@TheOtherMike said:
" @watcher21 said:
" @TheOtherMike said:
"Is that the lowest number of owners we've had for an RSotD? I'm tempted to look."

if you look into the abyss the abyss looks back
3220 "

But at least the abyss has gifts for you! Incidentally, twice as many people report owning that set now as reported owning it when it was RSotD. I wonder if its notoriety here led people to seek it out, if it being RSotD reminded people that they had it, both, or something else."

I wouldn't trust those gifts. Probably a howling void, a eldritch abomination, or a triangular demon guy in a top hat and bow tie waiting to haunt your nightmares in those boxes...

Simply put: Beware Christian bearing gifts!

@TheOtherMike said:
" @watcher21 said:
" @TheOtherMike said:
"Is that the lowest number of owners we've had for an RSotD? I'm tempted to look."

if you look into the abyss the abyss looks back
3220 "

But at least the abyss has gifts for you! Incidentally, twice as many people report owning that set now as reported owning it when it was RSotD. I wonder if its notoriety here led people to seek it out, if it being RSotD reminded people that they had it, both, or something else."

Have you ever seen a made-for-TV horror film called Trilogy of Terror?

Why does it look like a Bluetooth speaker?