How would you feel about re-releases?

CCC

^^ And what about when they run out? They then have to do another public consultation in five years to decide whether to reissue it again?

I much prefer the "once it is gone, it's gone" route. I wouldn't mind them reissuing (hard-to-find) parts for older sets, maybe reusing them in a new set. That way, anyone genuinely wanting to build the original could easily build it by sourcing the correct parts. However, those people that own the original will always have the original - with box, manual, etc. In that way, you wouldn't just get people buying up the new releases because they are valuable, rather than because they are wanting to build the set.

As to price, if people are willing to pay 2.5x RRP or more, and lego did re-release it, then why should they not charge the same as resellers? Not 1.1 or 1.3x, charge what people are willing to pay for what is then a niche product.

Basta

CCC said:

As to price, if people are willing to pay 2.5x RRP or more, and lego did re-release it, then why should they not charge the same as resellers? Not 1.1 or 1.3x, charge what people are willing to pay for what is then a niche product.

Only problem would be that if they released say 20,000, they most likely would not find that many people willing to pay current market price for say CC MISB. How often does one sell now I would guess less then one a day world wide. 20,000 would be a huge amount in comparison.

As much as I would love a MF or the first few Modulars for a lot less then current prices I tend to agree about "once it is gone, it's gone".

Yodalicious

^ Me too. I missed CC and GG and I'm not happy about that, but it is what it is and I've moved on. Wish they were part of my street layout, but something else will come along. I'd rather TLG focus on new buildings than rerelease the past ones because I can always pay (a small fortune) for or attempt to build (for a small fortune) the old ones.

y2josh

jack_bricks said:

And about producing new sets. As a company I would prefer producing with existing materials and reuse them like cutting die, labels, molds, desgins etc... Therefore you have as less research costs as possible and additional to that you profit of a higher retail price at less production costs, if the batch is big enough.

It's been mentioned before, but in many cases (Café Corner being one of them), TLG would not actually be working with existing materials. They would have to go back and use old molds to reproduce that model, and so would be sinking resources into a set that, more than likely, would sell fewer copies than its original run. So when you factor in @Basta's point that they could have devoted that effort to producing a set they know NO ONE has... they essentially wind up spending money to compete against themselves.

sadowsk1

Sure, rerelease old sets. Who cares about resellers. If Lego stands to turn a good profit I'm sure they would do it which might explain why they haven't, yet. Maybe they are waiting to see how many people get hooked on particular sets or series and then they will make a calculated move.

JT32

Don't get me wrong I've made a little bit of money from reselling but that's not the reason I don't want them to do re-releases.

I'd just prefer if they put their efforts into creating new models with new techniques and new ideas. Sure I'd love a brand new Cafe Corner, Green Grocer and 10179 (to build not resell) but I'm much more exciting to see what they can come up with in the future to wow me with rather than bring out old sets that were around for long enough before.

madforLEGO

Noble Idea, except is also drowns out the overall profits of TLG.. There is another thread I think about this so I am hesitant to try to list ALL of the reasons why this is bad, or at least why TLG must think this (as it has not been done since the 'Legends' line.

1) of all of the previously re-released sets, I think only the Club car sold out, everything else I think they had to clearance, or just did not sell well.(Maersk container ship does not really count-see below)
2) As someone noted many dyes or colors are not in stock, causing more development time for what many already consider an 'inferior' design now.
3) Again those who have it may have paid dear for one.. now, while you may not think it is a big deal, they may, which may lead them to stop buying LEGO product (not a likely scenario but you never know).
4) The secondary market, whether people like it or not, helps drive primary sales.. Why do you think LEGO sold a ton of FBs late last year, why do you think Lloyd figures are sold out? Now, doing this would probably stop some, but not all resellers, but then again do you really WANT to do that? Regardless of issues that people have with Re-sellers (and trying not to start a war here). I think it can be said that if not for them buying tons of product, it would not be keeping prices down long after the item is gone from LEGO. If you think GG is expensive, imagine if re-sellers did not hoard them away, think CC prices. And LEGO is not going to perpetually keep re-releasing old sets for the benefit of the few just so they can lose money.
5) I do not think that LEGO group would be able to get enough demand to justify shelf space and costs of a re-issue as a new set, 20000 is not enough people, sorry, considering what some sets sell collectively, plus you can nix out those with the set already. Believe what you will, but I think they discovered this with Legends line, which is why you do not see many if any re-releases. I really do not count the Maersk container ship as that was by demand (and cash) of Maersk that LEGO produce more.

I just think that LEGO is not going to 'roll the dice' and hope it sells a ton, they want to make money, not lose it by having to discount a set that they should not have re-released in the first place

Im sure there are various other reasons, but I think you can also see the monorail threads begging for a re-release.

Sherlockbones

Although aren't we getting a castle re-release next year?

madforLEGO

Well the theme may be coming back, but it is all speculation as to what is coming out for it, because people saw that some website had the sets listed in their 'Legend' section everyone got excited, but my guess is it is either Legends of Chima that got misplaced in that sub section of 'Legend' or it is the name of the new castle's line and not necessarily a re-release.

dougts

Sherlockbones said:

Although aren't we getting a castle re-release next year?

details on that seem to be sketchy, but the bit i read was that it was not a re-release but more of a re-imagining, re-designing with modern techniques, parts, etc. This is actually what makes MUCH more sense than a re-release does.

If CC gets re-released (which I don't think it will or should), it would be with the newer style doors and windows, and other upgraded parts and techniques. As it should be.

Venunder

In a purely selfesh way I would say yes, Lego should rerelease the oldest collector sets.
I would love a Taj Mahal, Carousel and the early modular buildings. But I will never pay the stupid prices they currently sell for on the secondary market.

However to appease the purist collectors I would make a few changes to each set to distinguish the new versions from the originals.
Either by changing some of the colours used or by using a few different building techniques.

richo

I might be in the minority, but I am still reasonably confident they will remake the UCS Falcon.

jack_bricks

Ok if it heads this direction - I either don't want that Lego does re-release sets. Because I don't want to loose any profit and therefor I love to sell older sets for insane prices on ebay an BL. So a no go for me here.