I own the LEGO set 6205 and I noticed from another picture on Brickowl and Bricklink the wing design is different. Is there an alternate version or did someone who had the set mix up the pieces and build it the wrong way?

  • The images on Brickowl and Bricklink both seem to be from the same source. The image does not seem to be build according to the instructions available from the Lego web site for set 6205.
    – Dan1138
    Commented Jan 28, 2020 at 2:32

2 Answers 2


To figure out which party made a mistake, compare everyone's work with the official art displayed on the box.

Short answer: Go compare images against the box art.

enter image description here

Detailed answer:

First, let's investigate and try to understand what the OP is talking about with some build dependency in the wing area of Set #6205.

So, upon going to both Bricklink and Brick Owl, we see the same curious image both sites are using, that seems to conflict with the original box art.

Hey, look, the fabled alternate build!

enter image description here

So, let's compare:

LEGO alternate builds tend to add something of value that is visually or functionally appealing.

  • Focusing our attention at the original's wing design, notice how the tapered flow traverses smoothly back to the stern of the ship, versus the squared off-bluntness of the alternate.

    So... where's the further-appeal rational for the alternate here? is LEGO offering us a battle damaged version?

Let's nitpick this image's authenticity further.

  • A) The reflective glare obstructs the minifig, giving us that shine-on-you-crazy-diamond effect only the Pink Floyd fan would appreciate.

  • B) The shot of the cannon weapon is skewed here, but if official, would be aesthetically squared, and oh so perfect.

    enter image description here

Furthermore, there is no proof of the existence of "Dash-Two" instructions.

  • When LEGO offers multiple builds of a set, they tend to add a dash "-" and a sequential build number at the end of the set's name. So, if one existed, it would read "6205-2".

    Dashy-Two, Dashy-Two! Where are you?

    enter image description here

Finally, just Look at it. On the surface it looks like a build mistake that anyone of us could make, but seriously, after looking deeper, does anyone really think LEGO would approve this?

So, taken it in all together, these detail errors just wouldn't fly at LEGO.

Conclusion: The 6205 alternate build image is simply bogus, and should be ignored as an innocent mistake at Bricklink and Brick Owl.

But... That was some very impressive attention to detail, young Justan Ryan.

enter image description here


Inventory for 6205 set on Bricklink has quite a few alternate pieces (look at the bottom of the page on BL), which suggest me there are two versions of this set. You can find alternate parts as they are linked to parts found in initial inventory.

Note. During production of a set LEGO may change a piece or two to similar part of a different color or mould. This has been done quite a few times. Rarely LEGO may re-work the set a little, resulting in change of more than a few pieces within inventory, which happened here.

Other (better) known examples of sets having several versions:


21303 WALL•E

  • The image at Brinklink uses a number of pieces found in neither the parts list nor the alternate parts list you mention.
    – ikegami
    Commented Jan 26, 2020 at 11:35
  • @ikegami Could you give an example? I'd love to submit a request to fix an issue on BL in case there is one.
    – Alex
    Commented Jan 26, 2020 at 18:18
  • The "Dark Bluish Plate 2 x 4", the "Dark Red Tile 2 x 2 with(?) Groove", and the V-shaped red piece underneath.
    – ikegami
    Commented Jan 26, 2020 at 18:23
  • @ikegami Nice, good catch!
    – Alex
    Commented Jan 26, 2020 at 18:28
  • Now with links :) Dark Bluish Grey Plate 2 x 4, Dark Red Tile 2 x 2 with Groove, Dark Red Wedge, Plate 4 x 4 See the other answer for a side-by-side comparison of the BL pic and what it should look like
    – ikegami
    Commented Jan 26, 2020 at 18:32

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.