Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
(I couldn't really see any other thread on anything recent to post this to so forgive me if you see this as clutter.)
Anyway as I am real excited about the rumoured new UCS sets coming up. It got me thinking About when will they be unveiled? I'm talking of course about #75159
. Not that silly attack on hoth play set thingy.
I noticed they are both listed on bricklink as 2016 sets but there has been no details of either set provided yet and we are in March.
Is the 2016 release listing maybe more of a guess than an actual fact? Plus there's the fact that there is already two bonified SW UCS sets available to buy at the mo which have both been out for just over and just under a year (plus the UCS play set sandcrawler). This would mean 6 SW UCS sets available all at the same time (well at least 5 if the sandcrawler survives this year) surely that would be a first? Or am I missing something, as this seems fairly unlikely from my past experience of collecting Lego.
Also what is the usual time scales between leaked "accidentally on purpose" set numbers/details, to the unveiling of box art etc, to actual release?
Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
Recent discussions •
They're coming out. Guaranteed. Sometime this year.
Official reveals are usually a month or 2 before release? I think? Other than that the usual insiders post stuff months before.
That way it covers the old, but allows scenes to be produced that may or may not be in the new film to be added without the production of a large set that may not sell off the back of the film alone.
Otherwise you're doing it wrong :)
While the idea of building sets might be classed as play, #10030 & #10143 are most definitely not "play sets" . And after building #10221 , apart from the bridge to stand the figures , you would need to be fairly strong to swoosh it anywhere (same with #10179 and #10212). These sets are huge and primarily display pieces once built and a lot of UCS collectors would like this to continue with future UCS releases hence the animosity towards the Hoth play set ane why there are so many discussions / arguments about what should classed as a UCS set in the first place.
I hope the powers that be at TLG recognise that there needs to be a balance with the treatment of the UCS Tag. You can't make everyone happy with every set but there may be a need for more decisiveness on the matter of PLAY OR DISPLAY .
For example , I love the SSD, though I fail to understand the pains and bricks used to in accommodating that compartment . It's an unsure approach for a model screaming display Period !
I imagine that effort and bricks / budget would have suited better used for the underbody or even extending it 5 inches forward and a couple sideways . I have tried that with mine and I like it better.
I mean you lads know better than any, every inch Does counts.... When talking display ;)
Need a First Order UCS set!
Well speaking as an afol who got back into Lego because of the great display able UCS sets I seen 6 years ago. I would have to say that I am bothered. For instance, The ewok village is cool and all but it would be probably broken up and stored if I were to buy it.
Most of the Lego I buy is for display purposes really. When my girlfriend bought me the Simpsons house I loved it but then quickly realised there were so many pieces that were just loose that had no real place to go. Inside the house was even worse, I hate that Lego don't make things like chairs apart of the model.
1) The UCS branding on the box
2) The set having a UCS display plaque
The Ewok Village has neither of these.
The name keeps tricking me.
Maybe they'll re-design the box and put the UCS badge on it...
There is a poster from a few years back that has the early sets, and the later sets are identified with a silly little gold badge on the box.
Here you go:
It was an Official TLG poster ( not a random espionage attempt by some freckle faced intern) Unless and until TLG comes with a refreshed one which omits some of the questionable ones, I will consider them "Ultimate" which for me is UCS . I may not agree with the choice but it's not for me to decide that.
As always for "Posterity" reasons, I'll stick it here again . Cringe we may but face the demon we shall ;)
#10131 TIE Collection
#10123 Cloud City
#10198 Tantive IV
The best way to tell if a set is an impressive display piece for collectors is to look at the built set on the shelf.
More like.... Nooooooooooooo!
Thus, I think the primary motivation is to sell as many of these sets as possible during their initial offering, and the secondary market be damned!
Even if it means retconning non-UCS sets into a list describing them as 'Ultimate'. Greed definitely shoots first, and Han definitely steps on Jabba's tail... and who didn't like seeing a celebration on Naboo and Coruscant? (Because a celebration in the Empire's capital makes any lick of sense?)
(I'll spare everyone the language distinction with the Batmobile Ultimate Collectors' Edition.)
Here is the best list that encompasses everything imho. It includes all of the "Ultimate Collector" sets including the helicarrier and tumbler etc. No silly personal opinions like having to include plaques or disregarding the box.
That being said, I never thought 10188 was considered a UCS. But I know some people believe it is. It is included on the " all encompassing" list above.
Oh, I thought that poster that is shown above was regarded poorly all along. I believe that is the same one that was shown on a slide at the Lego panel at celebration and it was a little hard to ignore some of the mumbled scoffs.