Set numbering

[Erik Leppen]

I've been wondering this for a while now, but Lego set numbering already lacked sense for quite some time but it seems increasingly random. Isn't it about time that Lego devises a set numbering system that actually makes sense?

For example, the Technic theme has had 8xx in the beginning, followed by 8xxx for decades. We're running out of 8xxx numbering, so what did TLC do? Of course we pick 9390 up to 9395. Who would have guessed that. It seems they're filling the gaps now, but isn't it time to instead just leave the gaps for what they are, and just move to a whole new system? One that is actually thought out and leaves room for the future?

I'm going to do a suggestion. Say Technic will have 5 first-half and 4 second-half models every year.

Technic 2013 first half: 81301 - 81305. 8 for Technic, 13 for the year, 0 to indicate first half-year, 1 to 5 the set index within this half-year.

Technic 2013 second half: 81311 - 81314. The 1 indicates the second half-year.

Technic 2014: 81401 - 81405 and 81411 - 81414.

...

Technic 2099: 89901 - 89905 and 81411 - 81414.

At this moment, all numbers using 0 or 1 have been in use. Every century these increase by two.

Technic 2100: 80021 - 80025 and 80031 - 80034. The 2 indicates first half-year, the 3 indicates second half-year

So we have

Technic 20nn: 8nn01 - 8nn05 and 8nn11 - 8nn14.

Technic 21nn: 8nn21 - 8nn25 and 8nn31 - 8nn34.

Technic 22nn: 8nn41 - 8nn45 and 8nn51 - 8nn54.

Technic 23nn: 8nn61 - 8nn65 and 8nn71 - 8nn74.

Technic 24nn: 8nn81 - 8nn85 and 8nn91 - 8nn94.

If TLC were to start with this system, they can reserve all 8xxxx numbers for the Technic theme, and then use it for 500 years. Now that's a durable system. What they should not do is use other 8xxxx numbers for other themes, and actually reserve all those numbers for Technic, at once. Doing that is the only way to ensure that the system stays logical even after a long time.

If they want to survive even longer, they can do it another way.

Technic 2013, 80001 up to 80009.

Technic 2014, 80010 up to 80018.

Technic 2015, 80019 up to 80027.

...

Done. This will save them for a millennium and will surely fill all 8xxxx numbers, leaving no gaps.

Also the latter system leaves enough room for all other themes.

Exclusive. 10000 up to 19999. (as we have started a relatively logical sequence of 101xx and 102xx numbers in there already)

City. 20000 up to 29999.

Trains. 30000 up to 39999.

Kingdoms. 40000 up to 49999.

...

Technic 80000 up to 89999.

Star Wars 90000 up to 99999.

A smaller theme or one that is considered temporary (most licenced themes) can reserve 1000 places instead of 10000 (e.g. 40000 up to 40999), or maybe even as few as 100. Even if a theme reserves 100 places and more are needed and there is no room, than at least we have 100 consecutive numbers, which is already a whole step forward from now, where it is difficult to find even five consecutive numbers that make sense. And seeing we have had four-digit numbers for a few decades now, we can be quite sure that the move to five-digit numbers will give us enough room for several centuries.

I actually don't see any reason not to switch to something like this. It's one more digit to remember for customers, but this is a system that people will be used to quickly enough and then it can only be easier.

So, why haven't they switched already?

[CopMike]

Interesting question Erik! I'll start by saying that I don't know the "rules" by TLG for the numbering system (if there is any) but I do know that there's been a discussion in the Ambassador forum on how to make the numbers last. I like your thoughts and let's here if someone else has any thoughts on the subject.

[Rick]

Fugazi wrote a great article about set numbering a while ago. There is also some discussion in there.

[AndyC]

Why does it matter?

Honest question, because outside of TLG the product code really isn't terribly important, indeed for most products from most companies you probably wouldn't even notice it on the box. In fact, given that some leaks seem to stem from people prodding the LEGO website with likely upcoming set numbers, I wager that it'd beneficial for LEGO to make set numbering even more arbitrary than it is now.

[Erik Leppen]

people prodding the LEGO website with likely upcoming set numbers

If that's the problem, then the problem is within early uploads to that website. Information that shouldn't be disclosed to the world, shouldn't be on that website. Simple as that. Otherwise it's "security through obscurity" and that is usually a bad thing, because all that has to happen is one person finding it, and with the Lego-building part of the world counting a billion people of not more, that is bound to happen. ;)

[Aanchir]

I think the reason TLG's numbering doesn't make sense is because keeping four digit numbers is (for now) the best option, and TLG has a lot of four-digit numbers they still haven't used. Frankly, why should TLG's numbering make "sense" beyond that? The important thing about TLG's numbers is that they make it easier to look up sets, and making five digits the standard would make the numbers harder to remember. Meanwhile, numbers for a specific theme during a specific year will usually be clumped together at least somewhat, so the numbers still make as much sense as they need to within the range of sets currently available in most stores.

Beyond that, numbering rules aren't extremely important. There's absolutely no reason a Technic set today should follow the same numbering rules as a Technic set 20 years ago, or even 5 years ago. So I think it's perfectly reasonable to continue using up four-digit numbers, even if it means deviating from decades-old numbering schemes and inevitably adopting a five-digit numbering scheme when four-digit numbers cease to be an option.

[Erik Leppen]

What I'm hoping to achieve with this topic (in this specific forum) is that when the time does come (and it will) that four digit numbers are filled and TLC has to move to five-digit numbers anyway, I'd like them to do so in an at least somewhat ordered manner. After all, when the move does need to be made, having a logical system surely doesn't have real downsides I think.

And yes, I do think a logical system would make remembering the numbers easier. If the system is based on the years like I suggested, the numbers are even easier to remember because they make more sense (thinks that make more sense are easier to remember).

I mean, if Technic had been numbered like I suggested from 2000 now, I can look up the number of "that model from summer last year" by simply looking at 8101n.

there are only a few digits left to even remember At least, I can't imagine that parents who buy their kids sets from the same theme each year, wouldn't notice whether the numbers of subsequent years are logical.

And I'm saying this now rather than waiting until four-digit numbers do get filled up, 'cause it wouldn't surprise me if they 'd start cluttering the five-digit range all over the place already.

Edit: yes, as a mathematician I can get pretty hung up on something as trivial as a numbering system

Edited August 30, 2011 by Erik Leppen

[1980-Something-Space-Guy]

What I'm hoping to achieve with this topic (in this specific forum) is that when the time does come (and it will) that four digit numbers are filled and TLC has to move to five-digit numbers anyway, I'd like them to do so in an at least somewhat ordered manner. After all, when the move does need to be made, having a logical system surely doesn't have real downsides I think.

And yes, I do think a logical system would make remembering the numbers easier. If the system is based on the years like I suggested, the numbers are even easier to remember because they make more sense (thinks that make more sense are easier to remember).

I mean, if Technic had been numbered like I suggested from 2000 now, I can look up the number of "that model from summer last year" by simply looking at 8101n.

there are only a few digits left to even remember At least, I can't imagine that parents who buy their kids sets from the same theme each year, wouldn't notice whether the numbers of subsequent years are logical.

And I'm saying this now rather than waiting until four-digit numbers do get filled up, 'cause it wouldn't surprise me if they 'd start cluttering the five-digit range all over the place already.

Edit: yes, as a mathematician I can get pretty hung up on something as trivial as a numbering system

Nice to see a fellow enthusiast of the purest of all sciences!

I think that I agree here with you. Surely, if they hadn't started using the 5 digit numbers already, they could have a logical system by this time. Just look at the codes for CMFs. I think they just don't care enough, or at least there isn't such a strong need for such a system, although I would love to see it.