Please refrain from posting animated GIFs, memes, joke videos and so on in discussions other than those in the off topic area.

Dismiss this message to confirm your acceptance of this additional forum term of use.

Predictions on Discontinuing Sets and their Secondary Market Value

1355356358360361668

Comments

  • Gavin83Gavin83 Member Posts: 251
    I still think mines of Moria will do well. It's a terrible set but was available at large discounts and is the only set likely to contain Boromir and a cave troll, plus some of the other minifigs were cool as well.
  • vitreolumvitreolum RomaniaMember Posts: 1,406
    I'm actually on the other side with lotr/hobbit, I think some of the sets will do very well and translate well into lego. I for one enjoy most of the sets, one of the few series I'm actually interested in the sets as well, not only the minifigs.

    The soon retired hobbit sets were also available only one year, that's another plus.

    @Farmer_John Two more years of Hobbit movies coming will only increase the hype, not make people tired of them. The more advertising everywhere, the better, not the other way around. Just look at star wars and superheroes...
    cardgeniusTheLoneTensor
  • richoricho Member Posts: 3,807
    ^ I agree, but more so on Lord of the Rings. The Goblin King Battle was a disappointing set for a flagship Hobbit one.
  • Farmer_JohnFarmer_John USA - 4,035 Miles from 62 West Wallaby St., Wigan, Lancashire, UKMember Posts: 2,402
    edited February 2014
    vitreolum said:

    I'm actually on the other side with lotr/hobbit, I think some of the sets will do very well and translate well into lego. I for one enjoy most of the sets, one of the few series I'm actually interested in the sets as well, not only the minifigs.

    The soon retired hobbit sets were also available only one year, that's another plus.

    @Farmer_John Two more years of Hobbit movies coming will only increase the hype, not make people tired of them. The more advertising everywhere, the better, not the other way around. Just look at star wars and superheroes...

    Don't get me wrong...I really like the movies (although the Hobbit movies have added a ton of new material to the books...I think just to get an extra movie in).

    My point is I just don't hear the hype that is heard on other Lego themes. A lot of parents correctly view LotR/Hobbit as extremely violent, which can impact sales to the younger crowd. My "canary in the coal mine" for Lego sets is my kids and what they are interested in. Having seen the LotR/Hobbit movies and reading the books, they asked for SW, Super Heroes and Friends sets for Christmas 2013; not LotR. The LotR minifigures are somewhat interesting to them, but not the sets. Once they are well into their teens it is possible they may want the sets. However, LotR is just not the sweet spot for TLG, and from a reseller perspective that is usually not good.
  • YellowcastleYellowcastle Member Posts: 4,401
    Obviously, this is not my forte but I would bet the house on most if not all LotR and Hobbit sets doing well once A) People realize they're going and 2) The next generation of LotR fans come of age. If anything, I'd hold on to these for a little while and not bite at the first uptick. Batman went crazy because no one figured it would return (n some of those sets were just plain better).

    I expect many of these sets will command a premium.
    TheLoneTensorCircleKmadforLEGOEKSamAmbroisecloaked7
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,371
    ^I agree and I doubt there will be anymore LOTR and Hobbit movies, whereas you can do Barman "forever". You get what I did there :)
    khmellymel
  • doriansdaddoriansdad CTCMember Posts: 1,337
    Barman, now there is a superhero I could relate to. Carrying around mini-bar sized bottles of vodka, whiskey and jagermeister in a utility belt and saving insanely bored cubicle workers every Friday afternoon.
    roxioPitfall69LegoManiaccLostInTranslation
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,371
    Lol. Autocorrect strikes again. Hey, there's a new Superhero for ya.
  • Farmer_JohnFarmer_John USA - 4,035 Miles from 62 West Wallaby St., Wigan, Lancashire, UKMember Posts: 2,402
    Speaking of Lego train sets, how has the Ghost Train performed since it was EOL'd?
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 17,569
    That's not a real train (one that goes on tracks out of the box) so is unlikely to have a train following.
    DougoutmadforLEGO
  • binaryeyebinaryeye USMember Posts: 1,734

    With two more years of Hobbit movies coming, I think most will be tired of the LotR/Hobbit Lego sets.

    Two more years? I suppose sets may be out for two more years, but it seems the last wave will be released late this year to coincide with the final installment of The Hobbit.

    Obviously, this is not my forte but I would bet the house on most if not all LotR and Hobbit sets doing well once A) People realize they're going and 2) The next generation of LotR fans come of age. If anything, I'd hold on to these for a little while and not bite at the first uptick.

    There's a good possibility that many fans of LoTR are in their dark ages. Kids that were 12 when the movies were current would now be about 21 to 25. I don't know of any stats on when people destined to become AFOLs experience their dark ages, but it seems to me 21 to 25 is probably within that age range.

    I know discussion here is based mostly on the relative short term. But it wouldn't surprise me at all if, in 5 to 10 years, LoTR sets are among the most valuable from this era of LEGO.
    FollowsCloselyEKSamprevere
  • pharmjodpharmjod 1,170 miles to Wall Drug, USAMember Posts: 2,873
    ^I don't disagree with that sentiment. However, since I do not have unlimited resources (money and storage space) holding a set for 5-10 years isn't something I'm personally interested in doing.
  • jcb193jcb193 Member Posts: 148
    My fear with the long term investing is that lego quality is improving at such a rapid rate. Minfigs look sooo much better now than they did 10yrs ago. Design elements, quality, packaging. I'm not a vintage resellers, but as an example, it's hard for me to believe that anyone would buy a Harry Potter Hogwarts castle from series one, when they can get the most recent one cheaper, and it's significantly better. I feel like only completists would be in the market for LOTR long term. I have a theory that once the license expires, the number of buyers dwindles dramatically. If there are new IJ sets out there, there will be interest in the old ones. If there is new HP out there, interest in the old ones increases (or at least awareness). But if Lego never redoes LOTR, isn't the market pretty small?
    dougts
  • richoricho Member Posts: 3,807
    edited February 2014
    CCC said:

    That's not a real train (one that goes on tracks out of the box) so is unlikely to have a train following.

    I agree, although I have a different view on the constitution, which is lovely, and is also basically a 'push' train to most buyers (excluding the skilled on here who will modify it to run on power functions).
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 17,569
    jcb193 said:

    My fear with the long term investing is that lego quality is improving at such a rapid rate. Minfigs look sooo much better now than they did 10yrs ago. Design elements, quality, packaging. I'm not a vintage resellers, but as an example, it's hard for me to believe that anyone would buy a Harry Potter Hogwarts castle from series one, when they can get the most recent one cheaper, and it's significantly better. I feel like only completists would be in the market for LOTR long term. I have a theory that once the license expires, the number of buyers dwindles dramatically. If there are new IJ sets out there, there will be interest in the old ones. If there is new HP out there, interest in the old ones increases (or at least awareness). But if Lego never redoes LOTR, isn't the market pretty small?

    So following that logic, if they redo lotr, prices will drop whereas if they don't redo it, prices will also drop if no one wants the sets. I doubt lotr will be redone, but I think there will always be a small population wanting the sets or minifigs. Importantly, they will often be reasonably well off adults.

    There were no Batman sets for a while. Yet Batman sets did quite well in that gap.
    Pitfall69FollowsClosely
  • jcb193jcb193 Member Posts: 148
    Well, I think we're in unchartered territory. I think Lego design/marketing/reselling has changed more in the last 5yrs, than in the previous 25.
    FollowsCloselypharmjodMathBuilder
  • richoricho Member Posts: 3,807
    ^ very good point. A lot more people are stockpiling sets. Take batman. How many people had MISB Batcaves first time round at retirement compared to now?, it's chalk and cheese. Some of the LOTR sets are nice and might do well, but I agree it's very hard to predict. You only have to look on bricklink, type in just about any recent set, and there are oodles of them, and that's only sellers who are listing close after retirement, it's probably way higher in reality. It's always over supply that causes bubbles, not sure this will happen here, and the great thing about lego is you have a solid modular load of bricks to fall back on, but I do wonder if sellers are at some point going to overtake buyers of retired sets, especially as sets are generally getting better, and product choice wider, so there is always amazing stuff to buy from the current range. As always, only time will tell.
  • cheshirecatcheshirecat Member Posts: 5,332
    Presumably the overriding issue is has the relatively small population wanting these eol sets grown more or less than the relatively small population holding sets for resale.
  • jcb193jcb193 Member Posts: 148
    I know, and every time I think there are too many resellers, I go and sell a Fire Brigade for $275 (that I bought last week for $150), or even a Grand Emporium for $200, that is readily available for less.....No clue on the long term value (as richo said, you always at least have the bricks), but there's plenty of money to be made in the short term investing.
  • prevereprevere North of Bellville, East of Heartlake, South of Bricksburg, West of Ninjago City Member Posts: 2,876
    Short-term investing in Lego is a getting to be a bigger gamble every day. (Short-term as in doubling in less than 24 months).

    # of sets released in 2013 - 507
    # of sets released in 2012 - 493
    # of sets released in 2005 -387
    # of sets released in 1995 - 190
    *Generic #s here. Left CMF off the list entirely / DUPLO included, so this is a wishy-washy list. Source- BL.
  • vitreolumvitreolum RomaniaMember Posts: 1,406
    Regarding new and improved sets decreasing the prices of older ones, it depends. In case of Potter, the new ones don't really affect the others (5378 is still the most expensive castle), and some have increased in price since the theme retired (4767, 4766, 4730 to name some).

    Same goes for Batman or SW sets, new Bane didn't drop the price of the old one; nor did new Jango and Boba decrease the price of old ones (Cloud City Boba is actually increasing in price from what I've noticed in auctions).

    Of course that doesn't apply to all sets, but usually the ones that decrease are not great performers to start with.
  • prevereprevere North of Bellville, East of Heartlake, South of Bricksburg, West of Ninjago City Member Posts: 2,876
    ^Speaking of Boba. I have a Cloud City version, minus the decorated legs. I swear they are in my house somewhere!
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,284
    edited February 2014
    jcb193 said:

    My fear with the long term investing is that lego quality is improving at such a rapid rate. Minfigs look sooo much better now than they did 10yrs ago. Design elements, quality, packaging. I'm not a vintage resellers, but as an example, it's hard for me to believe that anyone would buy a Harry Potter Hogwarts castle from series one, when they can get the most recent one cheaper, and it's significantly better. I feel like only completists would be in the market for LOTR long term. I have a theory that once the license expires, the number of buyers dwindles dramatically. If there are new IJ sets out there, there will be interest in the old ones. If there is new HP out there, interest in the old ones increases (or at least awareness). But if Lego never redoes LOTR, isn't the market pretty small?

    There are some things I agree with here, but there are also a lot with which I don't agree.

    I think it's far from definitive that brick quality today is better than in the past. If I had to describe it, I would simply say brick quality is "different". There were issues in the past, and some have been addressed, but there are also new issues that either didn't exist or weren't as prevalent as they are today.

    Packaging quality? I'll take a box from the 80's any day of the week; many had styrofoam and cardboard trays with the intent of providing storage for the bricks, and the photos of alternate designs and flaps with windows really showcased the set. There have been a lot of cost-cutting measures since and the only definitive improvement that I can point to recently is the inclusion of cardboard backing to protect instruction manuals (although manuals didn't really suffer much damage in vintage sets)

    IMO, design quality is hit and miss and can go either way. We are seeing larger, more complex models than in the past, so those naturally tend to result in a better design. Rehashes do usually have improvements, but even in your example of Hogwart's Castle, I prefer the original #4709 over subsequent versions #4757 and #5378. The latest, #4842, is probably the best, but it's worth pointing out that it shares a lot in common with the original, so it's not simply better because it's newer than 4757 and 5378. There are many people that prefer a prior version of the AT-AT over #8129.

    Minifig quality is one aspect where I would definitely agree that the design quality continues to improve, but that doesn't translate automatically to a value reduction in older versions. sw038 and 30564, the original Watto and Aldar Beedo, are tragically poor designs that have seen a significant recent improvement, yet they still command an impressive ~$100 and ~$25 respectively, both more than their successors.

    I agree with what you're saying that retired themes suffer from lack of exposure. Rather than "completionists", I think it's more correct to say that "more ardent collectors" and not casual consumers will be the ones buying sets of retired themes. But that really is nothing new.

    The trick is, and has always been, to identify desirable sets -- those that have both long term desirability and room to grow in perceived value, the amount that people would be willing to pay. A good set will always be a good set. The poorly designed sets are the ones that suffer from not being able to ride along a tide of popularity.
    jcb193Yellowcastle
  • Farmer_JohnFarmer_John USA - 4,035 Miles from 62 West Wallaby St., Wigan, Lancashire, UKMember Posts: 2,402
    binaryeye said:

    Two more years? I suppose sets may be out for two more years, but it seems the last wave will be released late this year to coincide with the final installment of The Hobbit.

    Doh!!! You are correct Sir! With all these movies coming out based on books, Hollywood likes to stretch them to make additional revenue. I was thinking The Hobbit was four movies, but it's three (based on one book). Hunger games is four movies (based on three books)...
  • prevereprevere North of Bellville, East of Heartlake, South of Bricksburg, West of Ninjago City Member Posts: 2,876
    ^It's all about splitting the last book into two movies.
  • ecmo47ecmo47 North CarolinaMember Posts: 2,086
    ^Like the final installment of Harry Potter.
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    edited February 2014
    prevere said:

    Short-term investing in Lego is a getting to be a bigger gamble every day. (Short-term as in doubling in less than 24 months).

    # of sets released in 2013 - 507
    # of sets released in 2012 - 493
    # of sets released in 2005 -387
    # of sets released in 1995 - 190
    *Generic #s here. Left CMF off the list entirely / DUPLO included, so this is a wishy-washy list. Source- BL.

    I don't consider short-term to be < 24 months. I consider it about 6 months. If I'm holding Lego for > 24 months, I'm holding Lego for too long.
    dougtslego007Pitfall69
  • Farmer_JohnFarmer_John USA - 4,035 Miles from 62 West Wallaby St., Wigan, Lancashire, UKMember Posts: 2,402
    If the new Lego movie is a big success, will it bring a lot of people out of their Lego dark ages? If so, that could be a boon for reselling...
  • BumblepantsBumblepants Sofia BG/Dallas TXMember Posts: 5,696
    ^Good point. I have already seen several reviewers take note of their newly found desire to go out and buy some sets after seeing the film.
  • JamesJTJamesJT Member Posts: 440
    #10230 sold yesterday for £120 on ebay UK. They were £42 in the [email protected] sale and I'm wishing I'd bought a few more.
  • DougoutDougout Member Posts: 888
    edited February 2014
    ^That's weird it's going for about $100-110 in the states. I meant to grab some more, but I think I'm fine with the ones I have. Nice set, I don't think there is a ton of demand for it though. It might have been better to invest in the real mods. Maybe in the UK it will do a lot better.

    However, it if anyone got it at a discount, then it should be fine.
  • FollowsCloselyFollowsClosely Member Posts: 949
    edited February 2014
    I actually passed on that set all together. I just don't see enough demand to make this worth while in the quantities I desire. I may have been wrong again.
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,284
    edited February 2014

    If I'm holding Lego for > 24 months, I'm holding Lego for too long.

    If you mean this only for your particular circumstance, I can't dispute that. But if you're applying this more broadly as advice, I'd like to counter that it depends on one's business model.

    For full-time resellers trying to turn over inventory to capitalize on arbitrage or the initial post-retirement surge, it's probably true. But for hobby resellers who aren't as focused on turning inventory, it's a reasonable approach to hang on to a set which has the markings of continued appreciation rather.

    http://www.bricksetforum.com/discussion/7057/10196-grand-carousel-875-shipped-new-in-box

    Selling 10196 just shy of 2 years into retirement for $875 probably worked well for @LegoFanTexas if he had a bead on his next investment candidates, and he probably grew that money quite well.

    I sold one this past holiday season, an additional 2 years later, for $1850. I was convinced 10196 would be a set that would continue to appreciate. As a hobby reseller who only finds the time to sells a few dozen sets a year, making an additional $1000 with no additional work fit my circumstance. LFT maybe turned that $875 into more than $1850 in that time span, but with significantly more work and what I perceive as more uncertainty.
    YellowcastleBumblepants
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409

    If the new Lego movie is a big success, will it bring a lot of people out of their Lego dark ages? If so, that could be a boon for reselling...

    You would think... Except that TLG released 500+ sets last year... That is a LOT to pick from, that makes buying much of anything from 2012 or older very questionable.

    There is a lot of LEGO goodness out right now that is current, I believe that it is a harder pitch to sell older sets for the same high margins as it once was.

    That doesn't mean there is no profit to be made, but as margins get lowered, it becomes less interesting.
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    rocao said:

    http://www.bricksetforum.com/discussion/7057/10196-grand-carousel-875-shipped-new-in-box

    Selling 10196 just shy of 2 years into retirement for $875 probably worked well for @LegoFanTexas if he had a bead on his next investment candidates, and he probably grew that money quite well.

    Actually, I did better than that... That specific set I purchased for $550, about 2 weeks before I listed it here. So I paid a lot more than RRP for it, but flipped it in a month. Bought it locally from someone who was thrilled to sell it for what they got, in turn, I was thrilled to sell it for what I got.
    rocao said:

    I sold one this past holiday season, an additional 2 years later, for $1850. I was convinced 10196 would be a set that would continue to appreciate. As a hobby reseller who only finds the time to sells a few dozen sets a year, making an additional $1000 with no additional work fit my circumstance. LFT maybe turned that $875 into more than $1850 in that time span, but with significantly more work and what I perceive as more uncertainty.

    If I had known then what I know now, I'd probably have kept it. I had 5 or 6 of those pass through my hands over the past 2 years, never could bring myself to open one. I kept finding enough "current sets" to open and build, by the time I said, "ok, to heck with it, time to build that thing!", it had passed $1,500 and I just couldn't do it.

    That set has passed all my expectations, I expected it to hover around $1K for a long time, it blew right through it, but I've been doing this for far less time than you have, so I can see why you saw it and I missed it.
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409

    I actually passed on that set all together. I just don't see enough demand to make this worth while in the quantities I desire. I may have been wrong again.

    Regarding the mini modulars, the only way I see that set blowing through the roof is if they retire it, then come out with the next one of the next 5 mini modulars. That would create demand for the first, otherwise if they leave it at 5, it will be forgotten with time.

    I have bought and sold dozens of them, but for quick flips when I got it on sale with enough of a discount and VIP points and freebies to make a profit of $20 or so per copy.
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    edited February 2014
    rocao said:

    If I'm holding Lego for > 24 months, I'm holding Lego for too long.

    If you mean this only for your particular circumstance, I can't dispute that. But if you're applying this more broadly as advice, I'd like to counter that it depends on one's business model.

    For full-time resellers trying to turn over inventory to capitalize on arbitrage or the initial post-retirement surge, it's probably true. But for hobby resellers who aren't as focused on turning inventory, it's a reasonable approach to hang on to a set which has the markings of continued appreciation rather.

    http://www.bricksetforum.com/discussion/7057/10196-grand-carousel-875-shipped-new-in-box

    Selling 10196 just shy of 2 years into retirement for $875 probably worked well for @LegoFanTexas if he had a bead on his next investment candidates, and he probably grew that money quite well.

    I sold one this past holiday season, an additional 2 years later, for $1850. I was convinced 10196 would be a set that would continue to appreciate. As a hobby reseller who only finds the time to sells a few dozen sets a year, making an additional $1000 with no additional work fit my circumstance. LFT maybe turned that $875 into more than $1850 in that time span, but with significantly more work and what I perceive as more uncertainty.
    I don't think I could have used more "I's" in my post if I tried, so I'm confused by your confusion as to whether or not I was speaking to my particular circumstance or giving advice. Like I've said many times, nobody should take advice from me or anyone else on here. My advice to everyone is get as many viewpoints as you can and make a judgement for yourself.

    So let's go deeper on my thought process. I tend to be of the mindset that once a set gets 2x what I paid for it, out the door it goes. I'm also talking about gross here, not net. If I paid $100 for something, and it's going for $200, away with it, and I pocket $70. There's always the chance it might go higher, but I feel (and again, this is my comfort line) that 2x is fine enough for me, and asking for more than that is risking things; the bubble on that set might burst, I might stupidly crush it one day moving something around, all sorts of things. There are certain sets like the UCS MF, the Carousel, Taj Mahal, and others that will always break this convention and appreciate to (what I consider) unsustainable levels, but as it stands, my process works for me.

    So why the two years? Because if I'm holding onto a set that long, I'm risking things happening to it, like the aforementioned crushing, or spilling, or a rat pooping on it. No, I don't have rats, but who the hell knows what might happen to that set which was worth $1000 yesterday, but now is worth $300 because I need to disclose rat poop in the listing. 2 years is a totally arbitrary limit based on the earth revolving around the sun twice, but it what makes me comfortable. It also gives me enough time to determine if I've chosen wisely (Carousel) or poorly (DS).
    FollowsCloselyLegoFanTexassidersddYellowcastleLostInTranslation
  • LegoboyLegoboy 100km furtherMember Posts: 8,695

    I actually passed on that set all together. I just don't see enough demand to make this worth while in the quantities I desire. I may have been wrong again.

    Regarding the mini modulars, the only way I see that set blowing through the roof is if they retire it, then come out with the next one of the next 5 mini modulars. That would create demand for the first, otherwise if they leave it at 5, it will be forgotten with time.
    I'm not sure. Whilst TLG continue to release any modular - full size or mini, a modular fan who's constantly tempted by at least a full sized modular each year has only got to search the word 'modular' into Brickset to see what's needed to complete their collection.

    http://brickset.com/sets?query=modular

    I suspect the mini-modulars will end up legendary.
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    Legoboy said:

    I actually passed on that set all together. I just don't see enough demand to make this worth while in the quantities I desire. I may have been wrong again.

    Regarding the mini modulars, the only way I see that set blowing through the roof is if they retire it, then come out with the next one of the next 5 mini modulars. That would create demand for the first, otherwise if they leave it at 5, it will be forgotten with time.
    I'm not sure. Whilst TLG continue to release any modular - full size or mini, a modular fan who's constantly tempted by at least a full sized modular each year has only got to search the word 'modular' into Brickset to see what's needed to complete their collection.

    http://brickset.com/sets?query=modular

    I suspect the mini-modulars will end up legendary.
    Certainly it might be some people's only way to get an affordable, albeit stunted, version of CC, MS, GG and now FB.
  • khmellymelkhmellymel United KingdomMember Posts: 1,226
    ^ that was actually the reason I bought it to begin with a couple years ago, but the build was pleasantly and surprisingly interesting in its own right (not that I had any modulars at the time to compare it to). I was actually looking to get another copy for here in the UK because I really wanted to build it again! Alas, I missed out on the sale.
  • dragonhawkdragonhawk USMember Posts: 633
    I thought this thread would be more festive with FB officially marked retired at [email protected]
  • prevereprevere North of Bellville, East of Heartlake, South of Bricksburg, West of Ninjago City Member Posts: 2,876
    Surprised at what I call low #s of FBs available on BL and eBay. I thought I'd see double the numbers listed now. Lots of people waiting for the price to increase I imagine.
    FollowsClosely
  • rocaorocao Administrator Posts: 4,284

    I don't think I could have used more "I's" in my post if I tried, so I'm confused by your confusion as to whether or not I was speaking to my particular circumstance or giving advice. Like I've said many times, nobody should take advice from me or anyone else on here. My advice to everyone is get as many viewpoints as you can and make a judgement for yourself.

    LOL... I wouldn't characterize it as outright confusion. The first thing I said is that if you're only talking about yourself, then fair enough. But your statement was similar to the common refrain "If you are doing x, you are doing it wrong."

    So why the two years? Because if I'm holding onto a set that long, I'm risking things happening to it, like the aforementioned crushing, or spilling, or a rat pooping on it. No, I don't have rats, but who the hell knows what might happen to that set which was worth $1000 yesterday, but now is worth $300 because I need to disclose rat poop in the listing.

    Again, whatever floats your boat, but that logic would make more sense to me if you were forced on the day of your purchase to decide how long you were to keep it and couldn't change your mind.

    If you locked those sets away for 2 years, and then came back to find the sets were no worse for wear, they aren't any more likely to suffer a catastrophe on day "2 years + 1".

    IMO, the biggest factor that threatens the aftermarket value of a particular set is not rat poop or the increasing number of sets LEGO is churning out in subsequent years, but whether LEGO is going to introduce a set that is a suitable replacement for the one in question. Obviously this most frequently takes the form of re-designs or re-releases.

    2 years is a totally arbitrary limit based on the earth revolving around the sun twice, but it what makes me comfortable. It also gives me enough time to determine if I've chosen wisely (Carousel) or poorly (DS).

    I do get what you're saying about risk, but shouldn't that be more a function of the current value of the set than a function of the time you've held it?

    With all that said, I do think two years is about the right time to cash in on most sets. I'm just saying one should frequently re-evaluate, and in some cases it could be reasonably determined that two years is premature.
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    edited February 2014
    rocao said:

    If you locked those sets away for 2 years, and then came back to find the sets were no worse for wear, they aren't any more likely to suffer a catastrophe on day "2 years + 1".

    It's all a matter of risk at that point. I tend to view "2 years + 1" as riskier than 2 years, but that's just me. I've had enough close calls in my life to never underestimate the power of "+ 1 day."
    rocao said:

    IMO, the biggest factor that threatens the aftermarket value of a particular set is not rat poop or the increasing number of sets LEGO is churning out in subsequent years, but whether LEGO is going to introduce a set that is a suitable replacement for the one in question. Obviously this most frequently takes the form of re-designs or re-releases.

    I think it's many factors together, all of which could cause the bubble on a set to burst. It could be external to the entire market (like a new LOTR set with Ringwraiths that would pop the value on Weathertop) or internal to you and your sets (like rat poop, or stacking your FB's one too many high for just a little too long).
    rocao said:

    With all that said, I do think two years is about the right time to cash in on most sets. I'm just saying one should frequently re-evaluate, and in some cases it could be reasonably determined that two years is premature.

    I totally agree with your last point about re-evaluation, and the more it can be done (given the time and ability one has to do it) the better. Of course, I consider my mannerisms more guidelines than rules really. It helps keep me sane as I combat imaginary rats. They are in the walls I tell you!
    Yellowcastle
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,371
    edited February 2014
    Storage is at a premium in my home and I'm sure in many of our homes. Our timeline for keeping sets varies depending on how much room we have.
  • Pitfall69Pitfall69 0 miles to Legoboy's houseMember Posts: 11,371
    I'm curious to know what sets people invested in 2013 that were the biggest gainers percentage wise and which sets have been the biggest busts?
  • JeffHJeffH Member Posts: 173
    ^41999 and 21050 come quickly on top of my head. 21050 was a pleasant surprise as I can not resist the huge discount B&N gives.
  • nkx1nkx1 Member Posts: 719
    edited February 2014
    For me, #41999 was the biggest gainer. An immediate 100%+ ROI (before fees/shipping), however temporary it was, is obviously quite good. The price of this set has since dwindled to about $350 currently.

    #9474 (Helm's Deep) was a bit of a disappointment. It's hovering right around $160 currently. Not exactly a bust, but less of a performer than I expected.

    #8110 (Unimog) is also a very slow climber. I'm sure it will increase a bit over time, but currently, you can buy one for about $250 or less shipped.

    I'm still waiting for TRU to sell out of #4207 (City Garage) to see how it will perform. [email protected] has been sold out of this for a month or so, but TRU still has them in stock. I'm not overly optimistic on it's aftermarket performance, since it's been on sale at TRU for $112 for a while and it's still not gone. Demand might be pretty low for this set.
  • JeffHJeffH Member Posts: 173
    ^My local Discovery store has stack of #8110 lying around would not help....
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 17,569
    edited February 2014
    Pitfall69 said:

    I'm curious to know what sets people invested in 2013 that were the biggest gainers percentage wise and which sets have been the biggest busts?

    Percentage-wise, Stig keychains. I sold one at auction at about 18x purchase price. Although that was late 2012, not 2013. They are still about 4x purchase price on BL.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy