Predictions on Discontinuing Sets and their Secondary Market Value

dougts

brickupdate said:

Personally, I am AMAZED at what LEGO is doing. For those comparing older sets to their disappointment in newer sets, I would love to see some direct comparisons. Whenever I go back to 80s or 90s sets and look at how expensive they were for what you got, I'm shocked. Here is just one comparison based on the last few comments here about Pirates. There is a 20 year difference between these two sets, and the newer set has the same overall look, but is less than half the price (which makes it more accessible to kids), and a lower price per piece count.

I think you are going back too far in your comparisons. To me, the pinnacle of LEGO design and value is about 2006 to 2011 or 2012.  Compare the stuff made in that era to what we are getting the past 3 years or so and you will see my beef.  Higher/same prices for sets that have much less overall "size" and feeling of completeness

Pitfall69

Yeah, 20 years is quite a long time. There have been many advances in manufacturing and packaging. Plus, Lego wasn't made in Mexico and China either correct?

TheLoneTensor

Dad said:

People can say what they like about the VW. I know it's hoarded but that's been available at £56 from the European Amazons at times. Would probably be a £100 set if they brought it out tomorrow so becomes more attractive when compared to the prices of the sets available post eol. Not sure I've explained that clearly, hope so!!

I agree with this.  I think the VW is in a similar position as was the FB with its speculation, value and refusal to die.  It's iconic, will never be made again, and could easily fetch $200 very soon after it retires, regardless of how hoarded it may currently be at the time.

That's another good point really about the extended longevity of a set sometimes working positively toward reselling.  Take the FB.  There's a good chance that thing could have been $180 or so if it had come out right as it retired.  Instead, barring discounts, it rode $150 from cradle to grave.

TheLoneTensor

Pitfall69 said:

I know it is a licensed set, but Brickbeard's Bounty has almost a 2 year head start and is still $65 behind the Black Pearl. What does this tell us?

That a cooler looking ship tends to have more appeal.  The PB is a badass looking ship really.

Maxime_1987

Pitfall69 said:

Is it 30% off RRP? You also said rebate; does this mean you will get money back in the mail? Sounds like you aren't from the US.

Off! Not rebate sorry! Yeah Canadian so the prices are quite up here. 

DAVEmoon

I think in 4 years time,everyone that has not got a couple of helicarriers will kick themselves.star wars the big ones and no doubt the new big ones will come,but the stupid small star wars sets i detest.I don't hold 1.Ive decided a while ago now just modulars and large sets ie Simpsons tumbler x wing etc.really looking forward to wall e.as for the question the grand emporium over the train all day.but train is still a nice buy.

Pitfall69

^So, it's true. People in Ireland DO drink all day ;)

Aanchir

dougts said:

I think you are going back too far in your comparisons. To me, the pinnacle of LEGO design and value is about 2006 to 2011 or 2012.  Compare the stuff made in that era to what we are getting the past 3 years or so and you will see my beef.  Higher/same prices for sets that have much less overall "size" and feeling of completeness

Really? Because the closest equivalent to 70411 Treasure Island during that period was 6241 Loot Island, and that set was terrible (and regrettably, the only 2009 Pirates set I actually owned — I bought it for the base and to date have only managed to use that base piece for one MOC). Other than the giant, specialized base, it featured a piddly little hiding place for the treasure, perhaps the least convincing palm trees I've ever seen in a LEGO set, a dinghy with an implausibly large cannon in it, and a rather miserable price per piece. The only redeeming features of that set, in my eyes, were the minifigures and the rickety pier.

By comparison, 70411 brings back the lovely brick-built skull faces that I remember from my childhood (enhanced with the benefit of new curved elements), uses a clever function to reveal the treasure's hiding place, includes just as many launchers, figures, and animals as 6241, and boasts a much better price per piece (even after six years of inflation). It features a classic-looking treasure map, not a land-based treasure map inexplicably pilfered from the Indiana Jones theme, and the level of detail on its pier puts the one in 6241 to shame! It's even designed to combine with one of the smaller sets. I have a hard time fathoming how anybody could really prefer 6241 to 70411.

Regarding the other new sets, 70413 The Brick Bounty has 150 more parts than 6243 Brickbeard's Bounty for the same price and corrects many of the big complaints with that earlier ship. And even though the two new Imperial Soldier fortifications are considerably smaller than 6242 Soldiers' Fort in both size and piece count, they are the same price put together that that set was individually, and again boast a higher net piece count and a much more intricate build, without the same reliance on large wall panels. And they are in fact designed so they can be linked together to form one solid fort!

It still confuses me to no end how so many AFOLs demonized the castle sets two years ago for being "too juniorized" thanks to their many large wall panels (when they're really on par with classic LEGO castles in that regard), then turned right back around and complained that the new Pirates sets, with their intricate brick-built detail, have too many small pieces! You really can't have it both ways. Or rather, you could, but you'd have to be prepared to pay a LOT more, and considering how many people already complain that LEGO is too expensive, that's probably not realistic for most people.

Pitfall69

I think what most AFOL's want is a set that feels complete. For example, many people have said that Helm's Deep didn't seem complete. I would gladly pay a few bucks more if I could get a set that isn't lacking. We all understand that Lego is mostly for children, but we are consumers as well and we want what we want :)

madforLEGO

^^- It is because the new sets look 'phoned in' by the designers. Again to see three sets in one 12x12 cube just smacks of cheapness on LEGO's part, both in design and cost. The ship looks like the last one, which looks like the Black Seas Barracuda from long ago. You can also only really compare the newest line to the last line as it is the closest to compare to, and if you compare those I think most see that the new ones simply look cheaper and smaller than what they could have done. I think that is where most of the beef comes from. It is like LEGO is not really trying with the line.
Look, people can 'rah-rah' the new pirate line all they want, but I think it is a bit pathetic compared to what they could have done with it, and likely could have done and still kept prices down IMO.

Now, maybe this line is a feeler to gauge how popular Pirates will be so they kept the cost down, in which I can kind of see their line of thinking that they do not want to spend a lot to gauge interest; BUT it can bite you when you have done really nice Pirate lines in the past only to release these with a straight face.

Ultimately what would be nice IMO is to see LEGO make a brickbeard cartoon ala Ninjago and Chima and build a nice story line.

mathew

Aanchir said:

It still confuses me to no end how so many AFOLs demonized the castle sets two years ago for being "too juniorized" thanks to their many large wall panels (when they're really on par with classic LEGO castles in that regard), then turned right back around and complained that the new Pirates sets, with their intricate brick-built detail, have too many small pieces! You really can't have it both ways. Or rather, you could, but you'd have to be prepared to pay a LOT more, and considering how many people already complain that LEGO is too expensive, that's probably not realistic for most people.

Because we're spoiled after getting sets like Medieval Market Village and Imperial Flagship.  But keep defending juniorized Lego sets like it's 1999 all over again:

Chubbles

Not every set needs to be some elaborate set up or else most average people won't afford it and thus won't be fans of Lego.  Part of the appeal for me is I can buy a few 30-40 dollar sets for the kids and a few 70+ for myself and there is never a shortage of options.  

Pitfall69

mathew said:

Because we're spoiled after getting sets like Medieval Market Village and Imperial Flagship.  But keep defending juniorized Lego sets like it's 1999 all over again:

I have two of these sets, so I guess that makes it double awful.

@Chubbles , part of the appeal is also desirability and these types of sets are not that.

Pitfall69

Why aren't there values for Collectible Minifigures on Brickpicker? I have about $3,200 worth of CMF's that are not counted on my Brickfolio.

prevere

^I would think they would at least have complete series listings under the "set number" for each.

prevere

Pitfall69 said:

I have two of these sets, so I guess that makes it double awful.

@Chubbles , part of the appeal is also desirability and these types of sets are not that.

By the way, why is so hard for Lego to come out with a quality restaurant? Besides the Parisian modular, I can't think of any other city set in the past 10 years within that category that didn't seem like a fast food stop off the turnpike.

juggles7

TheLoneTensor said:

I agree with this.  I think the VW is in a similar position as was the FB with its speculation, value and refusal to die.  It's iconic, will never be made again, and could easily fetch $200 very soon after it retires, regardless of how hoarded it may currently be at the time.

What about Architecture Fallingwater?  Couldn't you just as well be describing it?  I mentioned it as going away a couple of weeks ago, and was greeted with yawns.  Could it become the FB of the Architecture line?

Oh, and just when you think you've seen it all dept. -- Amazon shipped me a Tumbler without benefit of a shipping box.  That's right, just slapped an adhesive shipping label right onto a $200 collectible.  And no, it was NOT a third party seller.  It was "sold by, ships by".  They also lassoed it with some clear packaging tape to make sure it stayed shut.  Stupidity just seems rampant these days. 

chuckp

Pitfall69 said:

I have two of these sets, so I guess that makes it double awful...

Wouldn't that be a McDouble awful? :wink:  

Pitfall69

This is the only decent restaurant besides the Parisian Restaurant. 

DAVEmoon

@pitfall69 well we know how to handle ye lot.two words Jeremy Kyle.
I rest my case

CCC

I imagine kids don't want a quality restaurant. Much easier (and cheaper) to do a fast food outlet and not worry about the building or having to put in chairs and tables.

TheLoneTensor

juggles7 said:

TheLoneTensor said:

I agree with this.  I think the VW is in a similar position as was the FB with its speculation, value and refusal to die.  It's iconic, will never be made again, and could easily fetch $200 very soon after it retires, regardless of how hoarded it may currently be at the time.

What about Architecture Fallingwater?  Couldn't you just as well be describing it?  I mentioned it as going away a couple of weeks ago, and was greeted with yawns.  Could it become the FB of the Architecture line?

If you're asking can Fallingwater be compared to the VW, I'd say no.  I don't think there are as many people that have fond memories of some house the Frank Lloyd Wright designed as they do the classic VW van.  Plus there are the playability and iconic recognizability factors, which I think the VW also comes out ahead (really, how many people, especially anyone under 50, even know what Fallingwater is?)  All of this might explain the yawns you reference.

If instead, you're asking if it could be the FB of the architecture line, I really don't know what that means.  I don't think it's a sleeper, if that's what you're asking.  Perhaps someone with good experience reselling architecture sets could speak better.

mathew

Fallingwater is a pretty big deal in the architecture world and the most iconic Lego model in the series. It's value should rise exponentially upon retirement. However it has been out forever hence the Fire Brigade comparison.

CCC

Most iconic for who? It's not for me.

bluedragon

My mum and sister are both architects and Fallingwater is their favourite out of the entire line. My mum has it displayed in her office. I think it will do very well.

Farmer_John

Pitfall69 said:

So, I was doing some research on Pirate Ships and I thought I would share some info. Brickbeard's Bounty came out in 2009 and retired in 2010. It was out exactly a year and cost $99.99 USD. According to Brickpicker, its market value is $260.20 USD. The Black Pearl came out in 2011 and was also $99.99. It retired in 2012; it was out about 13 months. The Black Pearls market value is $324. I know it is a licensed set, but Brickbeard's Bounty has almost a 2 year head start and is still $65 behind the Black Pearl. What does this tell us?

Wow...I didn't realize that BB was out for such a short period of time.

Out of curiosity, where did the QAR come out in the mix?

And while we're on the subject, I would love to see a large scale "Flying Dutchman" be released...although it never will now.

Aanchir

mathew said:

Aanchir said:

It still confuses me to no end how so many AFOLs demonized the castle sets two years ago for being "too juniorized" thanks to their many large wall panels (when they're really on par with classic LEGO castles in that regard), then turned right back around and complained that the new Pirates sets, with their intricate brick-built detail, have too many small pieces! You really can't have it both ways. Or rather, you could, but you'd have to be prepared to pay a LOT more, and considering how many people already complain that LEGO is too expensive, that's probably not realistic for most people.

Because we're spoiled after getting sets like Medieval Market Village and Imperial Flagship.  But keep defending juniorized Lego sets like it's 1999 all over again:

Except the new Pirates sets are nothing at all like that. That set is characterized by large, chunky pieces and a lack of detail. The new Pirates sets are characterized by lots of small brick-built details. It's astonishing that you can't seem to tell the difference. If the new Pirates sets are considered "juniorized", then the term "juniorized" has truly lost all its meaning, because once upon a time it referred to sets that offered a simplistic building process (such as in many late 90s themes like Rock Raiders), not just sets that AFOLs happened to dislike.

And anyway, I'd like to think most AFOLs aren't delusional enough to expect an entire theme of sets to have the size and detail characteristic of D2C sets like MMV or the Imperial Flagship. Nobody's denying that the Imperial Flagship was exceptional. But that's because it was literally an exception to the norm. It was not even released with LEGO Pirates branding on the box! How could anybody in good conscience expect any affordably-priced set from a kid-oriented play theme to measure up to a $180 set for ages 14 and up? That would be like expecting a LEGO City fire station to measure up to the Fire Brigade, or a LEGO City space shuttle to measure up to the Shuttle Expedition.

mathew

While I agree that iconic is an overused term aside from the landmark series (white house, lincoln memorial etc.) Fallingwater is probably the most "known" in architecture circles.

Bumblepants

I think the issue with the current Pirates line is that there is nothing between the $20-30 sets and the $100 Ship. Most afols, myself included, were expecting a $60-80 range soldiers fort of some kind. No matter how detailed a $30 set is, it will never be terribly exciting to our crowd.

I imagine given the apparent weak performance of sets like Mill Village Raid and White Cap Bay, Lego probably decided to just put out smaller, more kid friendly sets that would sell better. And the end of the day it is all about what will sell and what won't. They probably just came to the conclusion that if anyone is going to drop big bucks into a Pirate set they are going to get a ship and not a fort/outpost.

Sethro3

I tend to only buy sets for the figures, which is unfortunate. I'd love to have a nice soldier outpost or a nice ship. I do feel these might be lacking, but I could still picture myself picking multiples up of the $30 set. I doubt I'd buy the ship, even if it does have a good turn around on reselling.

With that said, the comparison between the mid 90s set and the new set isn't very realistic. The mid 90s set had over double the number of pieces. Yes, it was more expensive, but it also looks more substantial. I came back into LEGO after the last pirates wave, so I didn't get any of them, but the new sets look decent for the money. But I just bought the figures on their own and called it good.

Chubbles

Built all the Pirate sets this weekend minus the Ship and thought they looked pretty cool when combined.  They were very fast builds though.

CCC

mathew said:

While I agree that iconic is an overused term aside from the landmark series (white house, lincoln memorial etc.) Fallingwater is probably the most "known" in architecture circles.

I guess it depends how you define architecture circles and also what you mean by iconic. I'm not an architect, and I'm not really into much modernist architecture. I very much enjoy classic architecture though. I'm also from Europe.

There are three sets I didn't know and had to look up when they first came out. Robie House, Farnsworth House, Fallingwater. A few of the others, I don't think I would have recognized from the pictures alone, but had heard of the names before.

If you widen it to the general public, I reckon most people in Europe would be able to easily identify some of them, but not those three above. They'd get Big Ben, Leaning Tower of Pisa, Eiffel Tower, Empire State Building, White House, Sydney Opera House. Some of the others, less so.

binaryeye

CCC said:

There are three sets I didn't know and had to look up when they first came out. Robie House, Farnsworth House, Fallingwater. A few of the others, I don't think I would have recognized from the pictures alone, but had heard of the names before.

I live about a two-hour drive from both Farnsworth House and Robie House and had never heard of either until seeing the LEGO sets.

VorpalRyu

^^ Have to say, I'm Australian & as for the Architecture sets, if I were looking to get a few of the sets in the range, Big Ben, the Eiffel Tower & the Leaning Tower of Pisa would probably be my top three. Have to say even if I were to get serious on collecting the range, Robie House, Farnsworth House & Fallingwater would be low down on the list, heck the United Nations HQ, the Flatiron Building  & the Sydney Opera House would rate higher than them (& I don't particularly think much at all of the SOH).

CCC

PS. I didn't mean get as in buy, but get as in be able to identify (either from the lego set or from a picture of the actual building).

VorpalRyu

@CCC, you're not alone, with Robie, Farnsworth & Fallingwater, I had to look them up. It may sound strange, but I'm a big sci-fi, yet I find a lot of 'modern' architecture to be bland & boring as hell. My dream house would be an old style mansion with gargoyles & stone columns...

mathew

Aanchir said:

mathew said:

Aanchir said:

It still confuses me to no end how so many AFOLs demonized the castle sets two years ago for being "too juniorized" thanks to their many large wall panels (when they're really on par with classic LEGO castles in that regard), then turned right back around and complained that the new Pirates sets, with their intricate brick-built detail, have too many small pieces! You really can't have it both ways. Or rather, you could, but you'd have to be prepared to pay a LOT more, and considering how many people already complain that LEGO is too expensive, that's probably not realistic for most people.

Because we're spoiled after getting sets like Medieval Market Village and Imperial Flagship.  But keep defending juniorized Lego sets like it's 1999 all over again:

Except the new Pirates sets are nothing at all like that. That set is characterized by large, chunky pieces and a lack of detail. The new Pirates sets are characterized by lots of small brick-built details. It's astonishing that you can't seem to tell the difference. If the new Pirates sets are considered "juniorized", then the term "juniorized" has truly lost all its meaning, because once upon a time it referred to sets that offered a simplistic building process .....

 That would be like expecting a LEGO City fire station to measure up to the Fire Brigade, or a LEGO City space shuttle to measure up to the Shuttle Expedition.

You have to admit that the newest city space theme is pretty juniorized even compared to previous ones. It seems to be a trend as of late. 

Pitfall69

My cousin is an Architect and has some of the Lego models, but isn't into Lego. I knew what Falling water was, but had no idea about the Robie House or the Farnsworth House. I imagine a great percentage of people wouldn't know what they were either.

Aanchir

Bumblepants said:

I think the issue with the current Pirates line is that there is nothing between the $20-30 sets and the $100 Ship. Most afols, myself included, were expecting a $60-80 range soldiers fort of some kind. No matter how detailed a $30 set is, it will never be terribly exciting to our crowd.

I imagine given the apparent weak performance of sets like Mill Village Raid and White Cap Bay, Lego probably decided to just put out smaller, more kid friendly sets that would sell better. And the end of the day it is all about what will sell and what won't. They probably just came to the conclusion that if anyone is going to drop big bucks into a Pirate set they are going to get a ship and not a fort/outpost.

I can agree with this. I understand the justification for keeping many of the sets low-priced (and the ability to join some of the sets together helps offset this), but I really do wish there were MORE Pirates sets this year. A vessel for the soldiers, even a small one like 6274 Caribbean Clipper, would be a great addition to the theme. Truth be told, while I love the quality of recent Castle and Pirates sets, it bothers me greatly how the range and frequency of sets in "evergreen themes" (besides City, of course) have diminished in recent years.

And while people may complain about sets from these themes feeling like rehashes of the sets from the previous generations of Castle and Pirates, this kind of "back to basics" approach is almost mandatory when new sets in these themes are so few and far between. By contrast, while some people may feel like LEGO City is repetitive with its tendency to have a new police station every year, I think that actually helps the theme out in terms of variety. This way, you can have slightly unconventional variations on the theme (like the Forest Police and Swamp Police waves) instead of every new police wave having to represent the quintessential metropolitan police force.

Also, being able to repeating the same theme year after year means there is a powerful incentive to make each year's sets thematically different from the last. But thanks to their long hiatuses, each wave of Castle and Pirates has to cater to an audience that, more likely than not, has never owned a previous LEGO castle or pirate ship. Both of the last pirate ships may take cues from the Black Seas Barracuda, but if you had to design a set for kids who had never had a chance to own a LEGO pirate ship before, wouldn't you also take cues from one of the most beloved LEGO pirate ships of all time? Same goes for LEGO Castle sets. Both of the latest King's Castle sets, with their corner towers and large, centrally placed gatehouses, could be said to take structural cues from the classic Black Monarch's Castle — the latest one even shares the ability to join with a separate, smaller gatehouse.

AFOLs might consider this kind of thing unimaginative, but frankly the typical buyer for a LEGO castle or pirate ship doesn't care if it resembles one from three to six years, ago, let alone if it resembles one from 20 years ago! They just want a quintessential castle or pirate ship playset — something that incorporates all the features they think are most important in that type of playset. And while LEGO has refined their knowledge of these must-have features over the years (Black Monarch's Castle didn't have a throne room or treasury, for instance, whereas they are standard in modern LEGO castles), they are not features that tend to change radically from generation to generation. This is also why you DON'T see the same kind of repetition in LEGO Space, because while many generations of kids have perceived the past fairly similarly, the way kids perceive the future changes much more rapidly.

Eugh... sorry for rambling again. Long story short, even though I generally haven't collected evergreen themes in years (I prefer story-driven themes set in invented worlds, like Ninjago, Elves, and BIONICLE), it DOES bother me that Castle and Pirates sets are so few and far between these days.

VorpalRyu

Of the Architecture range, I'd say the safer bets for reselling are the ones with wider appeal, Eiffel, Pisa, Empire State, etc... Stuff like Robie House, you're looking at Architects & architectural design fanboys, which of the latter, I can't see being a big market...

Pitfall69

Here's a list of American Buildings and where people rank them. Look where Falling Water is.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Favorite_Architecture

mathew

VorpalRyu said:

Of the Architecture range, I'd say the safer bets for reselling are the ones with wider appeal, Eiffel, Pisa, Empire State, etc... Stuff like Robie House, you're looking at Architects & architectural design fanboys, which of the latter, I can't see being a big market...

It's definitely a niche Lego market.  But consider that Sungnyemun, a set that I passed over several times, that very few in the United States (or elsewhere) has heard of is selling for almost 5x what it originally retailed for.  Granted it had a short release window compared to Fallingwater and Robie House, it shows that there is an after market for this line.

VorpalRyu

@Pitfall69 with that, I'm surprised TLG hasn't done the Jefferson Memorial. The only place I've seen one of the those three sets (Robie/Farnsworth/Fallingwater) in stock was a Lego specialist toy store & I think they were the only two he ever got in stock. Does anyone know of the likely Australian RRP for Farnsworth House? I know he's asking something like $70-80...

madforLEGO

mathew said:

VorpalRyu said:

Of the Architecture range, I'd say the safer bets for reselling are the ones with wider appeal, Eiffel, Pisa, Empire State, etc... Stuff like Robie House, you're looking at Architects & architectural design fanboys, which of the latter, I can't see being a big market...

It's definitely a niche Lego market.  But consider that Sungnyemun, a set that I passed over several times, that very few in the United States (or elsewhere) has heard of is selling for almost 5x what it originally retailed for.  Granted it had a short release window compared to Fallingwater and Robie House, it shows that there is an after market for this line.

Yeah, but the fact that the US did not have it long I think is why it is so sought after (because many glanced over it, saying they would get it later). If it was out for 5 years I do not think that it would do well as it is doing now

Will these do OK? Probably. There are many architects and many have disposable income as well, but I would not be throwing any large amount into these for resell.

thedingman5

Bumblepants said:

I think the issue with the current Pirates line is that there is nothing between the $20-30 sets and the $100 Ship. Most afols, myself included, were expecting a $60-80 range soldiers fort of some kind. No matter how detailed a $30 set is, it will never be terribly exciting to our crowd.

I imagine given the apparent weak performance of sets like Mill Village Raid and White Cap Bay, Lego probably decided to just put out smaller, more kid friendly sets that would sell better. And the end of the day it is all about what will sell and what won't. They probably just came to the conclusion that if anyone is going to drop big bucks into a Pirate set they are going to get a ship and not a fort/outpost.

Doesn't #40158 (Chess Set) meet the price point and army building needs? I do think that they undersold / undermarketed the inclusion of the Chess Set into this year's overall line.

xeeeej

Pitfall69 said:

Here's a list of American Buildings and where people rank them. Look where Falling Water is.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/America's_Favorite_Architecture

The Robie House is #138 on that "authoritative" list, and the corresponding LEGO set is approaching 2x RRP.
All aboard the bandwagon for Fallingwater, #29 on the list.

Pitfall69

Ha!! "Authoritative". To be fair, they interviewed AIA members first, then opened it to the general public. Had this been only a general public survey, O think Falling Water and Robie House would be even further down the list.

TechnicNick

Pitfall69 said:

Ha!! "Authoritative". To be fair, they interviewed AIA members first, then opened it to the general public. Had this been only a general public survey, O think Falling Water and Robie House would be even further down the list.

If they'd asked Europeans, Fallingwater and Robie House would probably be higher up. Us old-worlders are quite jealous that the finest exponent of a Euro-centred school of Architecture is an American. I expect FW will do well, the market among Architecture buffs is possibly bigger than many might think.

mathew

madforLEGO said:

 
Will these do OK? Probably. There are many architects and many have disposable income as well, but I would not be throwing any large amount into these for resell.

Robie House is selling for $300+
I think Fallingwater is a predictable safe bet to hit $175-200 a year or two post retirement.  Depends on where you want to invest your funds and what your expectations are.

Pitfall69

DAVEmoon said:

@pitfall69 well we know how to handle ye lot.two words Jeremy Kyle.
I rest my case

I haven't a clue...???