What UCS Set should be made next?

brumey

a pink UCS Disney Castle with tons of play features

for ages 6 and up

waaay up

brumey

with a limited white edition including light bricks

Lego_Nerd98

@brumey a mini version will probably come in the Architecture series xD

brumey

UCS BTTF Biff Tanner Pleasure Paradise Tower

including marty mc flys mum, biff in his bath robe, bikers, girls, marty and of course the famous biff tannen museum and a jahcoozi.

prevere

Lego_Nerd98 said:

With the news of a brand new Death Star upcoming in the Ultimate Collector Series, I am curious to know what you guys think the next UCS model should be.

I would personally love an updated UCS Tantive IV....what about you?

AT-AT is tops for me. A Vader head bust or C-3PO would also be a welcome change.

TigerMoth

It appears that UCS is at least three different things.

The original "Ultimate Collector Series", labelled as such, included #10026 which, at 187 pieces, I don't imagine is really anybody's idea of UCS, but that's what it says on the box.

Then there's the current "Ultimate Collector's Series",  which includes some sets from the 75xxx series and which carry a special gold logo.

Then there's what Brickset calls "Ultimate Collector Series" which includes most if not all of the above, except #75144, and a few other things as well.

Then there's what Brickset calls "Ultimate Collectors Series" which is solely the new #75144. That seems to either be a mistake, or indicates there's a mistake in the classification of other current sets.

All of the above are Star Wars sets. There are also other sets labelled with "Ultimate". There are also other Star Wars sets labelled "Ultimate", but without "Collector('s) Series".

CCC

Then there are various MOCs where the UCS moniker has been used too.

BrickDancer

Before there should be anymore damned(!) rehashes or re-releases of the ever important UCS SW theme, they should release the following overdue pieces:

A-Wing
AT-AT
ARC-170 Starfighter
ETA Starfighter
Speeder Bike
Mon Calamari Cruiser
Podracer
Clone Turbotank
Republic Attack Shuttle
Republic Gunship
Republic Venator Cruiser
Vader Bust
Jar Jar Bust
Stormtrooper Bust
Cloud City

Lego_Nerd98

@BrickDancer Agreed! I would love to see a "Ewok Village"-like set of Cloud City, with lots of characters and scenes from the movie. Do you think a V-Wing or a Rebel Alliance Transport would be good?

BrickDancer

^I considered the V-wing for a second, but thought it would be too small. The Rebel Alliance Transport would look similar to a Mon Calamari Cruiser, except it would be slightly smaller with less shape. Even though I would want a Mon Calamari for filling in the void, they don't actually make for good Lego built ships. The round curves and bland exterior lacking color or features doesn't replicate well in brick form.

Redbullgivesuwind

There is only one USC model they need to, nay must, make and that is Mr T. And I pity the fool who disagrees.

datsunrobbie

UCS C3PO scaled to match the UCS R2D2 would be nice, but I suspect it would be too many pieces to ever make it as a set

Lego_Nerd98

@datsunrobbie but maybe they should make a set with both of them in scale to each other! :)

ecmo47

We haven't seen any capital ships from AFA yet. That would be my guess for the next USC. I'm sure we will be blown away by the new Star Destroyer. 

Roberto

I would like to see a Dagobah set, a Bespin, but I would even see a Luke's house set. It seems that the range of Lego Star Wars sets was wider in the past than nowadays.

SumoLego

Is there really a question as to the relative detail between any UCS SW and the Batmobile, Tumbler and the Helicarrier?

They are indiscernable.  (n/sarc)

Picopirate

I would like a C3PO bust... with chrome gold bricks.

sonsofsceva

Chrome silver Naboo ship

Lego_Nerd98

@sonsofsceva Yes! I would love to see a J-type 327 Nubian Royal Starship....or maybe the H-type Nubian Yacht. That would be amazing :)

Vortex

Alright then, so since we yet again talking about UCS and yet yet again " what constitutes a UCS? " ; I'll tell you what's been keeping me up at nights. 10198, Tantive iv.

 Is this an outside UCS also(and there there is such a category). Most of my esteemed colleagues would reject right away but hey its as much one and more as some of the other obscure ones like DS, Ewok Village.
Surprises me it's a very rarely talked about set an vehicle in general.

#So firstly the number 101** ... at th time the series represented UCS.

#Piece count of close o over 1400 agrees with UCS tag 

And then these glaring images I re discovered on theh back of SSD box and on its own. 

So could this 10198 be considered the original UCS rehash?

Vortex

Also , w suggested age is 14+ 

Yes , no says Anniversary Edition, still says more than some o those other UCS contenders . I know t final verdict, but it should still make for some interesting exchange of "Opinions". : )

My further 2 cents, I have don't own the original one,this is my UCS Tantive atleast :p

bandit778

There is an interesting debate/ read in the star wars special edition of bricks, 3 different reviewers, all have different opinions on the UCS sets and there were still sticking points about a few of the sets as to if they are UCS or not. 

samiam391

In terms of the UCS vs non-UCS debate... 

drdavewatford

bandit778 said:

There is an interesting debate/ read in the star wars special edition of bricks, 3 different reviewers, all have different opinions on the UCS sets and there were still sticking points about a few of the sets as to if they are UCS or not. 

Ha - I wondered if any of you guys had read that yet!

I'm one of the three reviewers who contributed to that lengthy article on what constitutes UCS, and it's interesting how many sets the three of us disagreed on even though we'd all consider ourselves pretty well-informed when it comes to LEGO Star Wars.

And as for #10198, incidentally.....not a chance! IMHO, of course....

Lobot

There's a simple test for a UCS set:

It either needs to be 95%+ Grey, or your fingers really hurt after you've built it, or you spend countless hours looking at it from every possible angle. 

I really don't know why it causes such a debate amongst fans!  And, moving swiftly on, top of my list would be:

• AT-AT
• Nebulon B Medical Frigate
• Updated Star Destroyer
• TIE Bomber

datsunrobbie

I always thought if it was a Lego UCS set that it would have "UCS" printed on the box, sort of like my 50th Anniversary Stratocaster is labeled on the pickguard.

BrickDancer

@drdavewatford I always went with Brickset's listing of the UCS line as the official line up. Since it had all of the sets that should properly be considered UCS, with the Sandcrawler as the only outlier in consistency since it didn't have the plaque sticker included.

However, I just noticed yesterday that the DS #10188 was added to the list. What sparked it's status change and now inclusion?

drdavewatford

BrickDancer said:

However, I just noticed yesterday that the DS #10188 was added to the list. What sparked it's status change and now inclusion?

I wasn't aware that 10188 had been added to the list. It certainly wasn't me that added it - not UCS in my opinion, even if it is possibly my favourite set of all time....

xwingpilot

@drdavewatford I don't subscribe to Bricks so didn't see that article. Do you know what criteria was used in tagging sets as UCS in the Brickset database?

drdavewatford

xwingpilot said:

@drdavewatford I don't subscribe to Bricks so didn't see that article. Do you know what criteria was used in tagging sets as UCS in the Brickset database?

Not sure, to be honest.

Regarding 10188, I'm wondering if that pesky @CapnRex101 was responsible - he was another of the reviewers in that UCS article and we disagreed on a few of the sets, including 10188....

;-)

BrickDancer

So what are the sets that some folks consider UCS but are not officially designated as such?

The one I see cited often is the '10 years of Ultimate SW Sets Poster'. But why this is referenced as the proper list is not understood since it included so many obvious non-UCS sets (7 out of the 21) such as:

#10144 Sandcrawler
#10198 Tantive
#10123 Cloud City
#10195 AT-OT Dropship
#10131 TIE Fighter Collection
#10178 Motorized AT-AT
#10188 Death Star

This poster should automatically be excluded from any consideration due to it's obvious and glaring errors of inclusion.

drdavewatford

BrickDancer said:

So what are the sets that some folks consider UCS but are not officially designated as such?

There is no 'official' designation; while I don't think it'd be fair to Bricks to effectively transcribe the content of the article here, the set branding hasn't always reflected UCS status even when a set is pretty much universally accepted as being UCS, and LEGO themselves long since gave up trying to follow any 'rules', if indeed they ever did.

BrickDancer said:

The one I see cited often is the '10 years of Ultimate SW Sets Poster'.......

........This poster should automatically be excluded from any consideration due to it's obvious and glaring errors of inclusion.

I completely agree; if ever you needed evidence that LEGO themselves had lost the UCS thread then that poster was it. I wouldn't consider any of the sets you listed above to be UCS, and some of them, e.g. #10131 and #10178, were particularly absurd choices.

bri4jenn

Cloud City for sure.  It's been far too long since it has been produced.

xwingpilot

I only own one UCS set (so far), but I would have thought that in the absence of consistent labelling or set design from TLG, the following physical criteria could be used:

1. Labelled as a UCS set on the box, or
2. Has a UCS plaque for display.

That would cover those sets that TLG has designated as UCS (hard to argue with that), and also those sets that are clearly designed as UCS display sets that TLG didn't (for whatever reason) designate as UCS on the packaging.

I expect to be corrected very shortly, but I'd be interested to know why sets that don't meet either of those criteria should be considered UCS sets.

bobabricks

I believe that any of the "100xx"/"101xx"/"102xx" sets + the 2014 sandcrawler and the Slave 1 from this year are all the UCS sets. It sounds weird that sets like #10123 or #10131 would be UCS, but Lego obviously gave them those product numbers for a reason. None of them fit in with the rest of their wave product number wise and these product numbers have been used since the start of UCS to define these sets as collector's. I feel this is the only thing defining UCS sets, because it ain't part count #10026 and it ain't the plaque #75059 . It seems that Lego is on a new course for UCS product numbers with the 750xx numbers, we'll see what happens there. That's just what I think though. Really and truly, it's what you want to collect and how much of it you want to collect.

xwingpilot

I agree that #10026 is a strange choice for the UCS designation, but TLG clearly labelled it as such on the box and included a plaque. #75059 is also a UCS set because of the labelling on the box, even though it doesn't come with a plaque. I don't think the set number or part count can be used to determine what constitutes UCS, because TLG have varied both on sets clearly labelled UCS on the box.

CCC

drdavewatford said:

BrickDancer said:

The one I see cited often is the '10 years of Ultimate SW Sets Poster'.......

........This poster should automatically be excluded from any consideration due to it's obvious and glaring errors of inclusion.

I completely agree; if ever you needed evidence that LEGO themselves had lost the UCS thread then that poster was it.

It doesn't say over 10 years of UCS Lego Star Wars sets though. It just says over 10 years of Ultimate Lego Star Wars Sets. So Lego seems to have the thinking that you can have an ultimate set without it being part of the similarly named series.

TigerMoth

CCC said:

It doesn't say over 10 years of UCS Lego Star Wars sets though. It just says over 10 years of Ultimate Lego Star Wars Sets. So Lego seems to have the thinking that you can have an ultimate set without it being part of the similarly named series.

But you can. We know that. But there's a difference between a "Ultimate" and "Ultimate Collector's Series" - and a few other different variants. FWIW, some of the Nexo Knights are labelled "Ultimate". Does anybody want to call them UCS? No.

Are #10181 or #10234 Architecture sets? No, but they're architecture.

hewman

BrickDancer said:

This poster should automatically be excluded from any consideration due to it's obvious and glaring errors of inclusion.

So you're saying the only official list should be ignored because it doesn't agree with your viewpoint of what constitutes a UCS set?

I'm not saying this is a good list, just that it's the only official one out there. It looks like they just did a search for Lego sets numbered 10XXX which wouldn't work any more. Perhaps that's why they feel compelled to add "UCS" to sets these days.

CCC

^ It's not an official UCS list though. It is a list of "Ultimate" sets, not UCS sets.

hewman

^Yes but until Lego come out and say something else this is as close to official as we have. If you don't accept this list (a perfectly reasonable thing to do) this argument can have no satisfactory resolution.

CCC

hewman said:

^Yes but until Lego come out and say something else this is as close to official as we have. If you don't accept this list (a perfectly reasonable thing to do) this argument can have no satisfactory resolution.

Why is it perfectly reasonable to accept it? It is just as perfectly acceptable to not accept it, as it is not a list of UCS sets. It is a list of Ultimate sets. It doesn't have the UCS tag on it.

There is no satisfactory resolution to the argument what is and what isn't UCS and probably never will be. Simply because there is no agreed definition of what UCS is among the LEGO community. Even three fairly similar minded (in their interests) contributors to Bricks cannot agree what is and isn't UCS. Everyone has to make their own mind up as to what is UCS and collect whatever they want and badge their collection however they want.

Bobflip

I wonder if LEGO themselves weren't entirely sure what the UCS branding meant, maybe at first it was to be rare collectibles (to include the 10026), then moved towards focussing on large detailed models, character busts and a big playset that's been around forever.

TigerMoth

Bobflip said:

I wonder if LEGO themselves weren't entirely sure what the UCS branding meant

It doesn't "mean" anything. It's a label used solely to get money out of your pockets and into theirs.

Bobflip

That's the aim of business. The label would still have had some thought and reasoning behind it. 

drdavewatford

hewman said:

^Yes but until Lego come out and say something else this is as close to official as we have.

It's clearly not an official list of UCS sets as a number of sets previously identified by LEGO themselves as UCS don't appear on the poster....

CCC

Bobflip said:

That's the aim of business. The label would still have had some thought and reasoning behind it. 

Of course there is reasoning. Something along the lines of ... How can we get adults to buy this and know it is not a kids toy? Let's call it "Ultimate" to make it sound like it will be the best version ever. How can we sell multiple sets? Let's add "Series". What if they don't want them all? Add "Collector" too, so that they know it is both a collectable and a collection.

cheshirecat

drdavewatford said:

It's clearly not an official list of UCS sets as a number of sets previously identified by LEGO themselves as UCS don't appear on the poster....

No it could be official, it might just not be a definitive list. They may see all of those, plus the other identified UCS sets as UCS but couldn't fit them all on in the layout they planned. Its certainly the case they would surely see any set they've already defined as UCS set as being an ultimate star wars set so they should have been on the poster either way.

Its all largely mute as that's probably a poster drawn up by some lowly marketing bod because they had nothing better to make them fill their time. Irrespective of the wider point that TigerMoth is correct, there is no definitive list as its purely a marketing thing designed to get money out of your pockets and pretty poorly implemented with even the clearly UCS MF not using the proper nomenclature. Beyond that even, there almost certainly isn't a single person in LEGO that has an official definitive list - otherwise we'd know about it.

CCC

Yet they did think #10026 should be on it, over any missing ones.

drdavewatford

CCC said:

Yet they did think #10026 should be on it, over any missing ones.

And quite right too, considering it's one of the few which not only carries the UCS branding on the box, but also includes a display stand and plaque.