Answers.Body: <p>To figure out which party made a mistake, compare everyone's work with the official art displayed on the box.</p>
  <p><em>Short answer:</em> Go compare images against the box art.</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/CMZah.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/CMZah.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
  <p><em>Detailed answer:</em></p>
  <p>First, let's investigate and try to understand what the <em>OP</em> is talking about with some build dependency in the wing area of <em>Set #6205</em>.</p>
  <p>So, upon going to both <em>Bricklink</em> and <em>Brick Owl</em>, we see the same curious image both sites are using, that seems to conflict with the original box art.</p>
  <p>Hey, look, the fabled alternate build!</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/Yc2Ij.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/Yc2Ij.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
  <p>So, let's compare:</p>
  <p><em>LEGO</em> alternate builds tend to add something of value that is visually or functionally appealing.</p>
  <ul>
  <li><p>Focusing our attention at the original's wing design, notice how the
  tapered flow traverses <em>smoothly</em> back to the stern of the ship, versus
  the squared off-bluntness of the alternate.</p>
  <p>So... where's the <em>further-appeal</em> rational for the alternate here?
  is <em>LEGO</em> offering us a battle damaged version?</p>
  </li>
  </ul>
  <p>Let's nitpick this image's authenticity further.</p>
  <ul>
  <li><p><em>A</em>) The reflective glare obstructs the minifig, giving us that <em>shine-on-you-crazy-diamond</em> effect only the <em>Pink Floyd</em> fan would appreciate.</p>
  </li>
  <li><p><em>B</em>) The shot of the cannon weapon is skewed here, but if official, would be aesthetically squared, and oh so perfect.</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/ilUYP.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/ilUYP.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
  </li>
  </ul>
  <p>Furthermore, there is no proof of the existence of &quot;<em>Dash-Two</em>&quot; instructions.</p>
  <ul>
  <li><p>When <em>LEGO</em> offers multiple builds of a set, they tend to add a dash
  &quot;<em><strong>-</strong></em>&quot; and a sequential build number at the end of the set's name.
  So, if one existed, it would read &quot;<em>6205-2</em>&quot;.</p>
  <p><em>Dashy-Two</em>, <em>Dashy-Two</em>! Where are you?</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/40v6N.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/40v6N.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
  </li>
  </ul>
  <p>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 <em>LEGO</em> would approve this?</p>
  <p>So, taken it in all together, these detail errors just wouldn't fly at <em>LEGO</em>.</p>
  <p><em>Conclusion</em>: The <em>6205</em> alternate build image is simply bogus, and should be ignored as an innocent mistake at <em>Bricklink</em> and <em>Brick Owl</em>.</p>
  <p><em>But... That was some very impressive attention to detail, young Justan Ryan</em>.</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/vm8BS.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/vm8BS.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-24T19:25:09.613Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-11-07T05:19:55.377Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2022-11-07T05:19:55.377Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Rin Rio-Oki
Answers.Body: <p>Inventory for 6205 set on <a href="https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=6205-1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bricklink</a> 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.</p>
  
  <p>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.</p>
  
  <p>Other (better) known examples of sets having several versions:</p>
  
  <p><a href="https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=8880-1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">8880</a></p>
  
  <p><a href="https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=21303-1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">21303</a> WALL•E</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-26T11:35:10.333Z
Answers.Text: The image at Brinklink uses a number of pieces found in neither the parts list nor the alternate parts list you mention.
Answers.UserDisplayName: ikegami
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-26T18:18:29.283Z
Answers.Text: @ikegami Could you give an example? I'd love to submit a request to fix an issue on BL in case there is one.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Alex
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-26T18:23:25.857Z
Answers.Text: The "Dark Bluish Plate 2 x 4", the "Dark Red Tile 2 x 2 with(?) Groove", and the V-shaped red piece underneath.
Answers.UserDisplayName: ikegami
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-26T18:28:18.957Z
Answers.Text: @ikegami Nice, good catch!
Answers.UserDisplayName: Alex
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-26T18:32:12.163Z
Answers.Text: Now with links :) [Dark Bluish Grey Plate 2 x 4](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3020#T=S&C=85&O={%22color%22:85,%22iconly%22:0}), [Dark Red Tile 2 x 2 with Groove](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3068b#T=S&C=59&O={%22color%22:59,%22iconly%22:0}), [Dark Red Wedge, Plate 4 x 4](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=43719#T=S&C=59&O={%22color%22:59,%22iconly%22:0}) See the other answer for a side-by-side comparison of the BL pic and what it should look like
Answers.UserDisplayName: ikegami
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2020-01-24T21:43:54.773Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2020-01-24T21:52:19.203Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2020-01-24T21:52:19.203Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Alex
Body: <p>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?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2020-01-28T02:32:41.163Z
Comments.Text: The images on Brickowl and [Bricklink](https://img.bricklink.com/ItemImage/SN/0/6205-1.png) 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.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Dan1138
Tags: <sets><star-wars>
Title: Are there two versions of the set 6205?
UserDisplayName: Justan Ryan
ThreadText: # Are there two versions of the set 6205?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2020-01-24)
  
  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?
  
  **Tags:** sets, star-wars
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: The images on Brickowl and [Bricklink](https://img.bricklink.com/ItemImage/SN/0/6205-1.png) 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.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2020-01-24. Score: 4
  
  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](https://i.sstatic.net/CMZah.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/CMZah.png)
  
  *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](https://i.sstatic.net/Yc2Ij.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/Yc2Ij.jpg)
  
  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](https://i.sstatic.net/ilUYP.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/ilUYP.jpg)
  
  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](https://i.sstatic.net/40v6N.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/40v6N.jpg)
  
  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](https://i.sstatic.net/vm8BS.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/vm8BS.jpg)
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2020-01-24. Score: 1
  
  Inventory for 6205 set on [Bricklink](https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=6205-1) 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:
  
  [8880](https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=8880-1)
  
  [21303](https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=21303-1) WALL•E
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_4**: The image at Brinklink uses a number of pieces found in neither the parts list nor the alternate parts list you mention.  
  > **username_3**: @ikegami Could you give an example? I'd love to submit a request to fix an issue on BL in case there is one.  
  > **username_4**: The "Dark Bluish Plate 2 x 4", the "Dark Red Tile 2 x 2 with(?) Groove", and the V-shaped red piece underneath.  
  > **username_3**: @ikegami Nice, good catch!  
  > **username_4**: Now with links :) [Dark Bluish Grey Plate 2 x 4](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3020#T=S&C=85&O={%22color%22:85,%22iconly%22:0}), [Dark Red Tile 2 x 2 with Groove](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=3068b#T=S&C=59&O={%22color%22:59,%22iconly%22:0}), [Dark Red Wedge, Plate 4 x 4](https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=43719#T=S&C=59&O={%22color%22:59,%22iconly%22:0}) See the other answer for a side-by-side comparison of the BL pic and what it should look like  
  
  ---
  
  