Mursten

[Peter Blomberg]

Does anyone know why there are so many Mursten brick fixes on the tracker?

There are also many new Mursten parts waiting to be reviewed.

When reviewing Mursten parts, are there any specifics that the reviewer needs to know? If I understand it correctly, the windows and doors have fins that go in the Mursten end slots. Are there any measurements on the slot size or the fin size that need to be checked? What about the total window height compared to a Mursten brick height?

[Magnus Forsberg]

Does anyone know why there are so many Mursten brick fixes on the tracker?

We had to give them all a different stud, one that didn't ad a lego logo.

[N. W. Perry]

We had to give them all a different stud, one that didn't ad a lego logo.

Relevant to that is a discussion found here: https://forums.ldraw.org/thread-27849.html

In short, no-logo studs are correct for slotted bricks, but for the most part, non-slotted bricks have always had stud logos. So there is the question of whether those versions should exist in the library as they don't reflect real-world parts. But the history of early parts is very complex, and there may be a few cases where no-logo, non-slotted variants did exist—the article above summarizes my findings so far.

Besides that, I had done a lot of work on Mursten-era parts, mostly to make them more accurate to the physical parts. This introduced various official part fixes, as well as new or updated subparts. The appearance of some of these in the tracker led other authors to make further improvements.

In the case of these parts, hopefully the comments provide enough detail on what has been changed/needs to be reviewed, but of course I'm open to questions or clarifications on any of the parts I've worked on.

[Rene Rechthaler]

one brick from the mursten/system border has some open questions for me:
700b.dat  https://library.ldraw.org/parts/49695
u8010d.dat https://library.ldraw.org/parts/26968
bottom studs indicate system (logo on top studs), which brick is correct?
I have some of these bricks, the only one without stud logo is the one with the small triangular supports.
Even the ones with the low cross have stud logos.
u8010c.dat https://library.ldraw.org/parts/26967

[N. W. Perry]

one brick from the mursten/system border has some open questions for me:
700b.dat  https://library.ldraw.org/parts/49695
u8010d.dat https://library.ldraw.org/parts/26968
bottom studs indicate system (logo on top studs), which brick is correct?
I have some of these bricks, the only one without stud logo is the one with the small triangular supports.
Even the ones with the low cross have stud logos.
u8010c.dat https://library.ldraw.org/parts/26967

This also raises the question of when/where the term "Mursten" should apply for library purposes. While "mursten" is simply Danish for "brick", it usually denotes the period from 1953–1957 or so, when boxes were labeled "LEGO Mursten". We would usually also include the first Automatic Binding Bricks from 1949–1952 in this category, even though it predates the Mursten era from the historians' point of view.

Perhaps more importantly, should the term be used in any part where bottom tubes exist? The introduction of tubes in 1958 pretty much conclusively marks the end of any early historical period for which a qualifying term like "Mursten" seems useful. But what does the LDraw user actually expect from seeing this term? Is it better to use it too much, at the risk of being inaccurate? Is it OK as a keyword, even where it mightn't be as a category? And so forth, and so on…

[Peter Blomberg]

This also raises the question of when/where the term "Mursten" should apply for library purposes. While "mursten" is simply Danish for "brick", it usually denotes the period from 1953–1957 or so, when boxes were labeled "LEGO Mursten". We would usually also include the first Automatic Binding Bricks from 1949–1952 in this category, even though it predates the Mursten era from the historians' point of view.

Perhaps more importantly, should the term be used in any part where bottom tubes exist? The introduction of tubes in 1958 pretty much conclusively marks the end of any early historical period for which a qualifying term like "Mursten" seems useful. But what does the LDraw user actually expect from seeing this term? Is it better to use it too much, at the risk of being inaccurate? Is it OK as a keyword, even where it mightn't be as a category? And so forth, and so on…

Although the term LEGO System was introduced in 1955 and appears alongside Mursten on set packaging, I associate System with the "stud and tube" innovation patented in 1958.

I accept the historical inaccuracy when including Automatic Building Bricks in the Mursten category due to the slot similarity. For simplicity, I would also include the "Plastic Building Bricks" 1949-1955 if not for any other reason than that 'Automatic Building Bricks' and 'Plastic Building Bricks' are too long.

I would exclude Jumbo and Kiddicraft bricks from the Mursten category. The point being that not all bricks produced before "stud and tube" need be Mursten.

[Chris Böhnke]

one brick from the mursten/system border has some open questions for me:
700b.dat  https://library.ldraw.org/parts/49695
u8010d.dat https://library.ldraw.org/parts/26968
bottom studs indicate system (logo on top studs), which brick is correct?
I have some of these bricks, the only one without stud logo is the one with the small triangular supports.
Even the ones with the low cross have stud logos.
u8010c.dat https://library.ldraw.org/parts/26967

Judging by the BL photos all of the ones with bottom tube should have logos on studs (do we differentiate between old and new logo btw?).

I think there's a version without any supports and a big logo at the bottom center too. That likely didn't have stud logos.

@N. W. Perry:
Jumbo bricks definitely are not Mursten. Wrong scale and wrong era.
Kiddicraft bricks also shouldn't be compatible with Mursten afaik. Using inch as base unit vs mm. Also technically a "third party" item, so anyways not Mursten.


Regarding the difference Mursten <-> Automatic Binding Bricks:
I think the main difference is the presence of a molded "LEGO" text inside of Mursten (which came later). Which is something I am not sure if it should be included in the LDraw model anyways.
I couldn't find much info on the topic, hard to tell if this is due to lack of general interest or indeed a lack of differences.

If the bricks are basically identical, there wouldn't be 2 files, so I guess putting the few possible Automatic Binding Bricks in the Mursten category is fine. Keep in mind that the "Homemaker" label isn't always that historically accurate too (just as an example).

[N. W. Perry]

Although the term LEGO System was introduced in 1955 and appears alongside Mursten on set packaging, I associate System with the "stud and tube" innovation patented in 1958.

That's logical for our purposes. "System" actually comes from "system i leg", a product line that chose as its basis the existing LEGO Mursten parts, plus some scale-compatible vehicles and other accessories. (Would those additional parts be part of the Mursten category? I have dreams of modeling them someday…)

@N. W. Perry:
Jumbo bricks definitely are not Mursten. Wrong scale and wrong era.
Kiddicraft bricks also shouldn't be compatible with Mursten afaik. Using inch as base unit vs mm. Also technically a "third party" item, so anyways not Mursten.

Agreed, though I'm not aware of a proposal to incorporate any Jumbo bricks into the Mursten category anyhow.

Regarding the difference Mursten <-> Automatic Binding Bricks:
I think the main difference is the presence of a molded "LEGO" text inside of Mursten (which came later). Which is something I am not sure if it should be included in the LDraw model anyways.
I couldn't find much info on the topic, hard to tell if this is due to lack of general interest or indeed a lack of differences.

I have been working on modeling the underside logos of the Mursten era, for use in my own models. The two major variants are blockletter and dogbone, and while I don't suggest the underside logos are necessary in library parts, the dogbone logo already exists and would be trivial to add. (The blockletter variant, on the other hand, has many sub-variants, and also depends quite a bit on which country the brick was molded in. These differences do indeed seem beyond the scope of modeling for library parts.)

If the bricks are basically identical, there wouldn't be 2 files, so I guess putting the few possible Automatic Binding Bricks in the Mursten category is fine.

I agree, and I don't think there's any controversy on that point. The only issue I can see is that some parts with tubes are currently labeled as Mursten (either in keywords or category), specifically some of the 10x20 baseplates, but possibly others as well.

[Rene Rechthaler]

as I said, I have 3 different versions of these (there are more)
- u8010b.dat https://library.ldraw.org/parts/49701 (no top stud bottom logos, added the big one at the bottom)
- u8010c.dat https://library.ldraw.org/parts/26967 (top studs with logo, no bottom studs, low cross)
- 700b.dat https://library.ldraw.org/parts/49695 (top studs with logo, one row of bottom studs)
strangely, they all have number 700e big at the bottom (but different indexes)
-> should u8010c become 700a? (why are there so many different ones on the tracker? does anyone have different physical parts?)

[Peter Blomberg]

Agreed, though I'm not aware of a proposal to incorporate any Jumbo bricks into the Mursten category anyhow.

I'm the only one who mentioned Jumbo and Kiddybrick; specifically to exclude them from Mursten although they precede the "stud and tube" patent. My point was to not include everything prior to "stud and tube" as Mursten.

Since there is no clear transition from "Mursten" to "System", I see no problem with some brick plates having tubes labeled as Mursten. I would consider it more from longevity of the part into the "System" era. Those parts that didn't make it a long time (i.e. not present in this century), can be labeled as Mursten.

The logos (both top and bottom) should not matter as they don't affect the connectivity in any way. These are extremely rare pieces nowadays and few would actually use CAD software to design complex builds with them. They seem to be more of a collectors' curiosity. Granted, some collectors accrue historically accurate LDraw files, but there is no reason why those must be part of the official library. The library permits them if submitted and they pass the reviewing process.

[Peter Blomberg]

as I said, I have 3 different versions of these (there are more)
- u8010b.dat https://library.ldraw.org/parts/49701 (no top stud bottom logos, added the big one at the bottom)
- u8010c.dat https://library.ldraw.org/parts/26967 (top studs with logo, no bottom studs, low cross)
- 700b.dat https://library.ldraw.org/parts/49695 (top studs with logo, one row of bottom studs)
strangely, they all have number 700e big at the bottom (but different indexes)
-> should u8010c become 700a? (why are there so many different ones on the tracker? does anyone have different physical parts?)

To me, these look like the same part - a 10 x 20 brick "plate".

[Rene Rechthaler]

To me, these look like the same part - a 10 x 20 brick "plate".

then why do we have 7 parts: 700a/b and 8010 and its variants b/c/d/e?
(as stated above, I think there may be some doubles)
Does anyone have the ones with 2 crosses and the one with the rounded/square supports?
because of the bottom stud row of some, there are differences in connecting.