Predictions on Discontinuing Sets and their Secondary Market Value

y2josh

^^I see your point, but I'd buy ten $400 LEGO sets before I even consider spending the same on a PS4.

On top of that, a $320 Creator set such as this is probably at, or at least near, the correct price point. Though there is certainly some overlap, it seems unlikely that a good majority of consumers are saying something like, "Well, I could get Tower Bridge... or I could get the entire TMNT theme." I realize that System models in the City, Star Wars and LotR lines do compete against these larger sets, but I think, in general, the audience for these types of sets is looking at a smaller portion of LEGO's overall catalogue.

Still... there ARE a ton of great large sets that have come out or are slated to later this year... so I can sympathize there.

dougts

video/computer games are one of the best values around entertainment wise. $50/$60 new games can easily evoke hundreds, sometimes thousands of hours of playtime. Look at MMOs as well - even at $15/month, the amount of hours played makes that cost just pennies per hour or even less.

compare that to a $25 trip to the movies - two hours, and that's it.

pillpod

It seems there's an obsession over the whole 10 cents per part thing. Can anyone explain? Obviously we all want sets to be as cheap as possible but I feel like people scoff at sets that are above 10 cents per piece and label it as too expensive.

y2josh

LegoFanTexas said:

I just don't understand why LEGO doesn't get the whole "consumer marketing" thing.

SOH has just under 3,000 parts and is just over $300. It should be the other way around, just over 3,000 parts and just under $300 ($299).

Taj Mahal was $299 with nearly 6,000 parts, abit granted they were almost all very small.

The problem is, 'part count' isn't an 'average consumer' metric, so while we think, "Why wouldn't they just add a few pieces" your average consumer is either in the "LEGO is too expensive" camp or else they're looking at the size of the model. Of all the 'mild LEGO enthusiasts' I know, not one of them is concerned by piece count (which is another reason I'm so critical of the outmoded price per part metric).

y2josh

pillpod said:

It seems there's an obsession over the whole 10 cents per part thing. Can anyone explain? Obviously we all want sets to be as cheap as possible but I feel like people scoff at sets that are above 10 cents per piece and label it as too expensive.

As I referenced above, I think this is an attitude that rarely makes sense. Looking at SOH and Taj Mahal as examples... yes, Taj Mahal has over twice as many pieces... but a vast majority of them are tiny. Meanwhile, the Opera House is comprised of much larger pieces, and so doesn't have an inflated part count.

So here's the thing... I would be willing to bet that, set before someone who has an average understanding of LEGO, they would choose the Opera House as the better value if told that they were available at similar price points.

LegoFanTexas

pillpod said:

It seems there's an obsession over the whole 10 cents per part thing. Can anyone explain? Obviously we all want sets to be as cheap as possible but I feel like people scoff at sets that are above 10 cents per piece and label it as too expensive.

Every part takes a certain amount of time to attach, to some extent, build time is directly related to part count.

Tower Bridge takes a long time to build, all those cheese slopes, lining them up perfectly, takes time. This makes the overall process take longer and thus it "feels" like a better deal.

If Tower Bridge took 30 minutes to build and had 400 parts instead of 4,000 parts, would you still think it was worth $240, even at the same size?

For that matter, what if it was just a large plastic model of the Tower Bridge for $240? Everyone would think that was insane.

Taj Mahal is large and detailed, it uses a huge number of small parts for that detail and should take a good long time to build. For $299, that was a heck of a deal.

I've watched the video three times now, each time I'm less impressed. I see a bunch of large parts that won't take that much time to put together, it feels more like "large plastic toy" and less like LEGO than Tower Bridge does.

But I'll have to build it to see if that is correct or not. :)

pillpod

I can see that perspective, but I don't think most people look at piece count as a direct correlation to build time. I also don't think lining up 200 cheese slopes enhances any building experience.

I generally prefer a great model, no matter what the pieces it takes. Who cares if it's comprised of 4,000 1x2 bricks or 2,500 bricks but a bunch of large plates? Comparing TB to SOH is difficult because SOH needs those larger dark tan plates because there is a lot of floor space to be covered. TB on the other hand is built more vertically.

y2josh

LegoFanTexas said:

pillpod said:

It seems there's an obsession over the whole 10 cents per part thing. Can anyone explain? Obviously we all want sets to be as cheap as possible but I feel like people scoff at sets that are above 10 cents per piece and label it as too expensive.

Every part takes a certain amount of time to attach, to some extent, build time is directly related to part count.

Tower Bridge takes a long time to build, all those cheese slopes, lining them up perfectly, takes time. This makes the overall process take longer and thus it "feels" like a better deal.

If Tower Bridge took 30 minutes to build and had 400 parts instead of 4,000 parts, would you still think it was worth $240, even at the same size?

For that matter, what if it was just a large plastic model of the Tower Bridge for $240? Everyone would think that was insane.

Taj Mahal is large and detailed, it uses a huge number of small parts for that detail and should take a good long time to build. For $299, that was a heck of a deal.

I've watched the video three times now, each time I'm less impressed. I see a bunch of large parts that won't take that much time to put together, it feels more like "large plastic toy" and less like LEGO than Tower Bridge does.

But I'll have to build it to see if that is correct or not. :)

A) There's a difference between enjoying the building experience and finding the greebling tedious. Tower Bridge is a fantastic model, but it was extremely boring at points. I can't say for sure if SOH will be less boring without building it myself, but from the video, it certainly LOOKS like a more interesting build.

B) If TLG honestly thought build time added to the value in any significant way, they'd have stopped the pseudo pre-sorting of numbered bags (which I believe we both agree are largely unnecessary) a long time ago.

Dougout

I judge my sets on how interesting the build was and how much I like the end result. Cheese slopes are okay for detail and sometimes they can be used in fascinating ways (so can't all lego pieces) like in the siding for the front of the Horizon Express. I don't place much value into piece count though, so getting 500 cheese slopes in the TB doesn't impress me as much as getting new parts from say the LOTR series or Jabba's Palace.

I also don't place much value on "build time". Honestly, if a set it taking too long to build, often I feel there is too much greebling or I am just plain bored with it.

TheLoneTensor

y2josh said:

B) If TLG honestly thought build time added to the value in any significant way, they'd have stopped the pseudo pre-sorting of numbered bags (which I believe we both agree are largely unnecessary) a long time ago.

Well, there's a difference between sorting time and greebling time. One is onerous, the other rewarding.

I'm with LFT though, because this seems like it's a lot of large pieces, more snap-tite than Lego. Does it even have any interior details? It would have also been cool to have some nanofigures or micro trees or something to give it a bit more color than just white and dark tan.

While I'm flowing, I also get annoyed when Lego markets things like "LOOK AT ALL THE DARK TAN BRICKS YOU GET!" I look at the model and say "holy crap, look at how many repetitive dark tan bricks you have to deal with."

monkey_roo

Hey
This is a bit of a wooly post, in that i am not sure what I am really doing here. As a big lego SW fan I have been buying sets since 1999. That means that as of now I have all the re-releases of the 1999 era sets. This raises the quandary do I keep the 1999 sets as they represent a part of Lego SW history or do I sell them because, and I put this bluntly, the models simply don't cut the mustard when it comes to displaying (except where you set up an evolutions type display, kinda cool to line up every iteration of the X-Wing next to each other for example). Which leads me to thinking about what sort of value the original set raise.
This brings me to the nub of the post.
1 - What sort of price to the sets go for (I have no idea and other than Evilbay/bricklink not much to go on)
2 - Is there a market for them?
3 - generally interested to see what people think about keeping older sets v's selling once re-issued?

Please note I haven't listed anything here as I am purely chatting here and not pushing a sale or anything.

Thanks loads
Matt

dougts

y2josh said:

As I referenced above, I think this is an attitude that rarely makes sense. Looking at SOH and Taj Mahal as examples... yes, Taj Mahal has over twice as many pieces... but a vast majority of them are tiny. Meanwhile, the Opera House is comprised of much larger pieces, and so doesn't have an inflated part count.

Agreed. Price/Weight or price/volume are both much better metrics, but they aren't printed on the box, and are a little less tangible for people to judge on.

y2josh said:

So here's the thing... I would be willing to bet that, set before someone who has an average understanding of LEGO, they would choose the Opera House as the better value if told that they were available at similar price points.

Well, now I think you are stretching here. Put them side by side. TM is 64x64, has a built up base ~6 bricks high around the entire perimeter, then the enormous middle section. Add in the towers of course as well. It stands over 16 inches tall compared to 11 inches for the SOH. the TM is going to dwarf the SOH. Tell a random person they are the same price and ask which is a better value - I'd say the TM would win hands down.

y2josh

^I suppose I have to see them side by side, but I remember the Taj Mahal being smaller than I thought it would be (though, looking up the dimensions, it does seem to occupy more space). I still maintain that the relative blandness of the Taj Mahal would swing things towards the more recognizable Opera House... but I may be coming at this from the perspective of 'LEGO enthsiast' more than 'average consumer.'

y2josh

tensor said:

While I'm flowing, I also get annoyed when Lego markets things like "LOOK AT ALL THE DARK TAN BRICKS YOU GET!" I look at the model and say "holy crap, look at how many repetitive dark tan bricks you have to deal with."

I think this is telling of the audience they believe the set is for. Many AFOLs are legitimately excited about the number of parts available in dark tan for this set, and I think Jamie is usually the designer that highlights the most 'fan-demanded' pieces (the black lamppost, for example).

Side note: I actually find sorting parts relaxing to a point, whereas I only find greebling rewarding for so long before it starts to get boring and forces me to take a break.

dougts

Dark Tan (or technically in LEGO terms, Sand Yellow) is a color that many AFOLs/Moccers have been anxiously awaiting to be made available in more variety and quantity. we've seen a lot of plates in this color over the last year in a wide variety of themes. With the palace cinema and now the SOH, we are finally getting large quantities and and even larger variety of pieces. This is great news, as it is a truly fantastic color to work with.

Agree on the sorting. And greebling just makes my hands cramp up all too quickly.

pillpod

The SOH has deck space and flat surfaces. They could easily replace a couple 6x12 plates with a bunch of 3x2 plates; but what would be the point? The architecture calls for a certain approach and I assume tlg takes the more rational and efficient route than the "well, these people like a lot of parts, so lets do it for the same of parts count."

Diggydoes

I'm no mod but i guess this doesn't belong here in the marketplace?!

Renny

1) Brick Link and Ebay would provide you with excellent pricing information on what those SW sets from 1999 are worth (both new and used)

2) There is but I'm sure it's pretty small. Almost all of them have had newer versions released that look nicer and are more readily available. I would think that the market would be collectors who are probably only looking for msib at this point or perhaps mini figure collectors.

3) Depends on lots of factors, difficult to answer. Personally when there is a newer version of a set that I own and a better new version comes out I have no problem selling the old one and purchasing the new one. Most times the sale of the old one pays for the new purchase entirely and then some.

Trenth

This is off the current topic, but does anyone have any info about 10223 Kingdoms Joust (discontinue date)? I have been putting this purchase off for awhile, not really sure why, but now I have to pick between this and Helm's Deep. I love both of these sets, and I just have a feeling I'll be kicking myself if I buy one and the other is discontinued and prices skyrocket. Of course the best plan is to buy both, but like many of you I'm sure, LEGO has not been kind to my wallet as of late.

Trenth

Plus the tower of Orthanc looms on the horizon.

y2josh

I'd get Helm's Deep AND Joust before I even thought about Orthanc. It's going to be around for awhile, so should be your lowest priority.

Trenth

Right Orthanc is far down the road for me.

Devastator

If I had the 2010 era King's Castle I would go for the Joust, as it complements it nicely. I did pick up Helm's Deep the other day off Amazon because of a small discount and I'm not seeing it in any stores were I am.

rocao

I know we've had this discussion previously.

TLG establishes price points at which their products will be offered. Each element has an internal production "cost" that is a factor of the material cost (i.e. ABS vs rubber, and the amount of material used) and the process cost (i.e. cost of the mold divided across number of pieces in a production run)

When TLG first started listing the piece count on sets many decades ago, the piece count was a more relevant metric than it is today.

The element library was a lot smaller and the pieces were less specialized. This means that there was less deviation in both the material cost and the process cost. This results in a stronger correlation between piece count and price.

Because the pieces were more standard, there was less disparity in the size of models with similar piece counts. Also, set models had fewer connection types and resulted in fewer building techniques. This all translates into a similarity of building experience and model size that could be intepreted by piece count.

Today, there is a looser coupling between the production cost of a set and piece count. The metric is also less relevant for predicting the size of the finished model and the complexity of the build. To say that a set is overpriced or a great value, too complex or too simple on piece count alone is to not understand how LEGO is designed and made, and how it has evolved over the years.

LegoFanTexas

^ That is all true, but it still misses something important...

A set with 2,000 parts, whatever they may be, generally takes twice as long as a set with 1,000 parts to put together, plus or minus a bit.

Sorting takes time, finding parts takes time, etc.

I don't see part count as having as much to do with size or weight of the model, frankly I don't care about either much. I'm more looking at how long it will take to build and how complex it is likely to be.

rocao

Extrapolating your point that models should be priced according to build time means that technic models should be inordinately more expensive than system sets. That doesn't make much sense to me. Build time might be why a consumer prefers a set, but it shouldn't be how TLG decides to price a set. Should they do away with providing instructions or make them harder to decipher and charge us more for the experience?

LegoFanTexas

^ :) Like most things in life, there is a happy middle ground.

If they designed the modulars with 20,000 parts, all 1x1 plates, I would get very bored... :)

So there is a fine line between too few parts and too many parts. That line is probably in a different place for different people.

Robie House for example, I think has too many parts. I understand why, they are going for the "brick" look (as in real bricks), however every time I try to bring it out to build it, my thumbs revolt. :)

So 2,000 parts is great for a modular, but too many for that. Tower Bridge was just right, UCS Falcon was just right, the modulars are just right, etc.

CCC

LegoFanTexas said:

If they designed the modulars with 20,000 parts, all 1x1 plates, I would get very bored... :)
.

Plus they wouldn't be very stable. You'd need at least a few hundred 1x2 plates to tie the columns of 1x1s together.

cloaked7

dougts said:

video/computer games are one of the best values around entertainment wise. $50/$60 new games can easily evoke hundreds, sometimes thousands of hours of playtime. Look at MMOs as well - even at $15/month, the amount of hours played makes that cost just pennies per hour or even less.

compare that to a $25 trip to the movies - two hours, and that's it.

Excellent point, and I think experts, and the data, confirm this. If I'm not mistaken consumers now spend more $$ on games than they do movies. One reason is that you get more value (entertainment time) for your money.

Then , as has been mentioned, there is the comparison of a $30-60 video game vs a $100 LEGO set. One that Timmy spends 40+ hours playing with, the other 4 hours playing with. From that perspective video games are by far the better value.

Course, LEGOS engage a creativity part of the brain that video games generally don't do. Course a game like Portal is engaging. Also, LEGOS can be used to construct custom designs, so that aspect of play is endless. If the builder has lots of LEGOS.

You put all that together and at some point the consumer shifts from LEGOS to other toys simply due to the price.

A current example of how price matters... for those that know about cabinet top options. The cost of solid surface cabinet tops has shot up a lot due to the cost of oil. So much so that granite is now competitive with it. I had a friend who recently built a home and put granite throughout because of that.

cloaked7

We all know this, but I think for the current discussion it is worth noting. There's a difference in cost and value.

LEGO obviously has to pay close attention to cost. And, cost is part of the equation when arriving at RRP.

The consumer doesn't give a flip about cost, they want value. And, we all know this too - relatively speaking cost can be determined much, much easier than value. Value is the fun factor, build time, etc. when compared to price. When each of us try to determine what the value of an item is (the value to ourselves) we consider price per piece, build time, build fun, playability, attractiveness of the model, packaging, etc. And, all of these factors run through our little brains as we compare LEGO set to LEGO set, or LEGO set to video game, or LEGO set to movie ticket, etc.

Interesting tidbit - did you know a parking space (I think it was in New Jersey) recently sold for $500,000? ! ! ! Did it cost that? No way. But, someone determined the value to them was $500,000. Now, a parking space would never, ever have that kind of value to me. Well, unless I won the lottery. And, maybe not even then.

prevere

Funny, only 21 Lighthouses posted on eBay right now. And 34 SEs (about the same for Shuttle Adventure).

Pretty low quantities for sets that retired only a few months ago. Yeah, it's summer and there are likely resellers waiting in the weeds with more.

But these are two relatively lowly-discussed sets that are really nice pieces.

cloaked7

I like both sets a lot. Hopefully lots will sell this summer, leaving fewer to sell when I list mine later. :-) I think the SE will easily get to $200. I can wait.

Pitfall69

It will be interesting to see how they will perform in the holiday season. I only have 2 Lighthouse Islands to sell and no Shuttles.

cloaked7

I don't have as many of the SE as I'd like to have. They were a difficult set to get on sale at a good discount, so I didn't end up with many. I don't think it was offered on Amazon for much of a discount (if ever) and wasn't at retailers except for TRU. And, it was often limited quantities, etc. I suspect that there was never much inventory of them, which happens with some sets. Course, low inventory will often means low production. A good thing for resellers.

For me the SE was an iconic set at a good price point. A couple other pluses for a reseller. Who knows? It may even end up selling for $250-300. Maybe I need to hold mine even longer that I initially thought. :-)

LegoFanTexas

The Shuttle will do well long term, $300 is not out of the question... But it will be Christmas 2014 I think before it hits that, or beyond.

Lighthouse will be a solid $100 this Christmas I think, it will have trouble beyond that due to the fact that while cool, it isn't large or iconic.

BoiseState

How about the Tie Fighter? Iconic and a fun build, but perhaps in stores for too long and easily found discounted?

Pitfall69

You don't want to be left holding more than your Lego sets ;)

Pitfall69

I'm lucky to have a lot of storage space, so I can hold onto Lego sets until it is time to sell them.

I know we have talked about the UCS MF countless number of times, but I may actually consider selling mine in a few months. How much more does this set have to go before it tops out?

LegoFanTexas

UCS Falcon has reached $3K, give or take a hundred. Will it keep going up?

Yes.

Has it seen its day?

Yes.

It will keep rising due to inflation and slowly reduced supply, but it also will get harder and harder to sell as well.

I would not keep one for "investment" anymore, there are better things to invest in with that money, if profit is what you seek.

Pitfall69

"Yeah, but Ernie, I mean, c'mon, we don't want the heart sticking around!"

The "heart" of my collection IS the UCS MF, but I don't think I can justify having it it just hanging around fir that kind of money

madforLEGO

m

cloaked7 said:

I don't have as many of the SE as I'd like to have. They were a difficult set to get on sale at a good discount, so I didn't end up with many. I don't think it was offered on Amazon for much of a discount (if ever) and wasn't at retailers except for TRU. And, it was often limited quantities, etc. I suspect that there was never much inventory of them, which happens with some sets. Course, low inventory will often means low production. A good thing for resellers.

For me the SE was an iconic set at a good price point. A couple other pluses for a reseller. Who knows? It may even end up selling for $250-300. Maybe I need to hold mine even longer that I initially thought. :-)

Pretty sure Amazon had #10231 Shuttles on sale many times at about 80-85 bucks, at least in the US. I just think not many people wanted them, now they are sold out and everyone wants one.. Probably though it would be out forever and then it was gone (partly due to the fact the 10213 was out before the design change)

Pitfall69

For $90-100 I'll sell my lighthouses. I too don't see much more movement than that.

bp10030

b-wing now with 'Call to check product availability' at u.s. [email protected]

SiE

If your holding UCS falcons as an investment your bonkers. Sell them and re invest. There are quite a few sets that are going to do really well available at the moment.

TheLoneTensor

SiE said:

If your holding UCS falcons as an investment your bonkers. Sell them and re invest. There are quite a few sets that are going to do really well available at the moment.

Easy to write that (well, maybe not, given the grammar), but this set is unique and is the paragon of Lego reselling. Every day that goes by one more gets opened, one more gets moisture damage on the box, one more gets dropped, one more gets dinged, one more box gets scratched, one more box fades from light exposure. The point is, this set hasn't peaked as is because the already limited supply becomes more limited over time.

That said, the biggest risk is Lego re-releasing it in some form, which imho is just a matter of time. So yeah, I know if I still had one, I'd dump it now.

prevere

Looks likes prices for the #7191 X-WIng UCS are still about where they were before Red Leader came out. Just sayin'.

FollowsClosely

prevere said:

Looks likes prices for the #7191 X-WIng UCS are still about where they were before Red Leader came out. Just sayin'.

Volume would be more telling.

doriansdad

For me 10179 is the holy grail of Lego collecting and pretty high up on the list of Star Wars collectibles in general. I know the ones we own won't double in value every year but I just don't see us ever being able to part with them. No doubt TLG will eventually do a UCS Falcon rehash but it will be much smaller and nowhere near as cool. I would take the old 7191 over the new X-Wing model anyday.

Renny

It would be difficult to part with my UCS Falcon but every set has a "breaking" point *for me* that it makes more sense to sell and not keep. Not quite there yet on the Falcon but it's getting close. As for future re-released versions of UCS sets, not all of them will be remade (I doubt the B-Wing, Obi Wan's Starfighter or SSD will ever see the light of day again) so those may slowly climb in value but others like the Snowspeeder and Y-wing are open game.

I may be in the minority here but I like the idea of re-released versions of the UCS sets (if they are done well). I would much rather have the newest UCS X-Wing and an extra $250 than have kept my previous 7191 X-Wing. Not only do I get to experience a new UCS build (with new shiny parts) but I get to use the extra profit from the previous UCS sale to either buy a whole new bunch of sets or an entirely new UCS set.

ColoradoBricks

#7191 is still the only X-Wing UCS, I know LEGO wants us to really think #10240 is a UCS, but even them do not call it that way...