I've ordered a lot of pieces (at least a lot for me) on BrickLink, among them a bunch of "3794b - Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud with Groove (Jumper)". Instead of that variant, I received "15573 - Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud with Groove and Bottom Stud Holder (Jumper)".

I've checked the order again, and the description for that piece reads "Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud with Groove (Jumper) We do not differentiate between 3794, 3794a, 3794b and 15573!". I missed that part, so I know this is at least partially my fault (it's not too bad though, my MOC will still work, but if I had needed 15573 and gotten 3794b it might not have).

So my question is, is this just another thing I have to look out for, or is this a really bad practice and should not happen on BrickLink?

  • How does having this one version of the part make a difference in your project?
    – chicks
    Nov 15, 2019 at 2:47
  • 2
    @chicks In my moc it doesn't (so it's a question for future orders), but for example this construction is only possible with part 15573: i.imgur.com/LgjzV69.png
    – Christian
    Nov 15, 2019 at 6:39

4 Answers 4


I'd say this is something to look out for when dealing with a part that BrinkLink itself notes is very similar to other part numbers. Reading the detailed notes about buying sets is more important than parts generally. I'd read a bit more closely about the stated condition of used parts than new parts.

I've made a few dozen orders on BrickLink over the years and I haven't run into this exact situation. Yet any issues I've had have been easily resolved by contacting the seller. I wouldn't pester the folks that say they treat them all as the same part, but you can probably find somebody out there who will give you exactly what you want. Find another seller, read to make sure they don't have a similar warning, and drop them a note to make sure everybody is on the same page.

  • Okay, I will watch out for this aswell on future orders. Thank you.
    – Christian
    Nov 15, 2019 at 6:39

There are various cases and some shops tend to have quite relaxed rules for what they sell in terms of part variation or used brick policy (basically how much brick is used to be considered acceptable for sale by that particular shop).

In your particular case the warning you mentioned was stated in that particular shop's Terms & Conditions. You had to read it before accepting these terms. And I advise you to do so every time, as there may be specific details explained. Like, used part quality policy, additional fees, returns policy, and so on.

  • 1
    Actually that wasn't the case (I do read the Terms&Conditions quite thoroughly, and I would have spotted it there). The text I quoted above replaced the (default) part description in the list of parts I wanted to order. So it means on future orders I have to check the descriptions of all items to see if they are just the default or if there is something added/replaced.
    – Christian
    Nov 15, 2019 at 8:45

Here's an image from BrickLink for the catalog item 15573:

BrickLink jumpers

It seems clear to me that 15573 and 3794 are different parts.

Not distinguishing between them I would consider lazy, if not bad practice. Wouldn't bother starting an argument with that store, as they basically did warn you, but I'd blacklist the store for future purchases.


On a superficial level, the functionality is the same - two studs below with single stud in the middle. But some users find the differentiation important.

At the very least, the seller's stock should be split into Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud, Jumper (Undetermined Bottom Type) which makes it clear no differentiation has been made, and Plate, Modified 1 x 2 with 1 Stud with Groove and Bottom Stud Holder (Jumper), which even LEGO thinks is different.

Items for sale which do not comply with the Item Listing Policy can be reported on the Problem Item For Sale page.

You can report a problem BrickLink listing as "item is listed under the wrong catalog entry", a reason that isn't forbidden by the Item Listing Policy, but seems to be implicitly forbidden by existence on the list of problems.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.