Brickset ForumShopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
UCS falcon rumours (that turned out to be true!)
Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
- 24.9K All Categories
- 2 Announcements
- 2 Current Announcements
- 10K General
- 173 Brickset.com articles
- 3K Collecting
- 3.4K Everything else LEGO
- 1.6K Building and Techniques
- 13K Shopping
- 1.7K Shopping USA/Canada
- 328 Shopping Elsewhere
- 10.1K Marketplace
- 62 Charity Sales
- 2.1K Brickset
- 70 News
- 13 Ambassador
- 2 Announcements
- 978 Introduce yourself
- 314 The Database
- 388 Brickset.com
- 274 Forum Operation
- 15 FAQs
- 1.1K Other
- 544 Community and Events
- 13 Fairy Bricks
- 250 Photography/Video
Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Comments
It better have a functional Hyperdrive
If they throw in a hyperdrive, I might be inclined to spend even more in order to guarantee I can make the Kessel Run in under 12 parsecs. I mean, any old hyperdrive can get you to the next star system, but this is a UCS Millennium Falcon. This better be able to outrun not just those Imperial bulk cruisers, but the big Corellian ships, too! Attention to details like that are key to successfully replicate such a distinct ship in Lego form, after all!
If I owned a MISB 10179 I would probably dump it right now.... quickly... get what I could. If a near equal set comes out later this year, just because it's a new set number... it won't save 10179 from price decline.... used or new.
The 1978 #398 U.S.S. Constellation Set never recovered its' historic high value, once the 2003 #10021 nearly identical version was released.
If there's a new one out this year and it's a better set, then Yay! I get two cool Falcons.
But then it wouldn't be realistic...
One thing we not really talked about is how much publicity Lego will get if they break the Taj Mahal's 5922 piece record. Sure if its the most expensive Lego set ever they will get publicity but it will focus on the cost. If its the largest set ever then the cost will be a secondary issue.
I am not convinced Lego ever set out to make the Taj Mahal the largest ever set. If Lego ever had this goal there would have been better candidates. In fact I am not sure Lego has ever set out to make the biggest set but I am not sure why. Tower Bridge and Big Ben could have been bigger if Lego had chosen to include a little more of the structure.
I always thought if Lego did set out to make the largest ever set, a flagship set for their brand they had two very good options. To base the set on a real world record breaker or to make an iconic Star Wars set.
For a real life record breaker the Empire State Building seemed a obvious choice having held the record for over 40 years, its iconic and easily recognisable. The other option would be the Burj Khalifa which might be a little less repetitive to build.
If Lego went with a licensed set then it would have to be Star Wars. I think their best options here would be either the Death Star or the Millennium Falcon. Lego again could have made the new Death Star the largest ever set by adding an outer shell.
But there is a good case for Lego to make the Millennium Falcon its all time flagship set. Lego and Star Wars now go hand in hand and the Millennium Falcon is the most iconic Ship from the franchise. Not only that but it is about the biggest thing Lego could make practically at minifigures scale and it would be very fitting for the flagship set to be a minifigure set.
Anyway I guess what I am saying is I will be very disappointed if this set doesn't break the 6000 part mark. I also think to be the greatest ever it would have to be at least as big as the original. At the moment the biggest set I have is the Ghostbusters Firehouse and just like the Taj Mahal its doesn't feel like the greatest ever.
Of the 8 sets to break 4000 pieces 5 of them have been made in the last year and a half: Firehouse Headquarters, Big Ben, Disney Castle, Death Star and Assembly Square. The others being Taj Mahal, Millennium Falcon and Tower Bridge. So for those saying xxx is too much how many of you have brought two of these sets adding up to xxx?
I would say maybe we have had too many large sets recently but what we haven't had for almost 10 years is a contender for greatest ever Lego set and its about time we did.
I still think the Castle is the best build within its 4k-pcs category, but... I hoped for Taj Mahal record being broken with it. Now that we know it didn't happen, I'd be even more surprised if it doesn't happen for the new Falcon. There's a legend to this set (I mean 10179) that even I can't ignore, and I'm no SW fan.
^ Yes that's another reason I want to see the Taj Mahal piece count record go. About 2000 of the parts have one stud or no studs.
I would like to see a true champion that has both the weight and numbers to back up it being the biggest set of all time.
Buy first, think about where to display it afterwards, and then worry about how to pay the credit card bill.
Either way, I might be tempted to buy this. I got #75105 for my brother and would like one for myself, and a UCS would be a no brainer. How to display it? Well, I thought and have seen people display it somewhat 'attached' to the wall, vertical, like in ESB when it it is attached to the Star Destroyer.
I agree the Disney Castle could have been another contender for largest set and would have been had it been complete. Its interesting that of that top 8 the biggest 3 are complete Taj Mahal, Millennium Falcon and Firehouse Headquarters. The others Tower Bridge, Big Ben, Disney Castle, Death Star and Assembly Square all are part of something bigger.
:o)
I agree, although I admit my original motivation was partly as an investment. I went into it knowing full well the risks, and that a re release could happen. I knew my worst case scenario was having a really cool Lego set that I just paid too much money for and I was comfortable with the risk.
Like a lot of my investments, I "rang the bell" on 10179.
Well yes. I suppose if you're planning your financial future on the possible value of a plastic toy then you've got plenty to worry about.
Harsh it may be, but anybody who spends their money on a Lego set that they can't afford is an idiot, plain and simple.
This painful lesson applies to everything, not just silly, plastic toys.
It's not like this.
Nobody likes to overpay. Currently, there is no choice. Either you pay the going rate or you don't have it.
But the moment there is a reissue, you have overpaid.
One example is vintage 80s toys. Used to command high values until they were reissued in the 2000s.
You still have the same toy, but it no longer has its former high value or exclusivity.
But in 2011 along came the 10219 Maersk Train, and it had 3 of those helmets in Maersk blue... now they sell for as little as $1 each. Even the (easy to identify) older versions (no "LEGO" on the inside of the helmet) took a massive hit... now selling for as little as $42 for would be purists....
https://www.bricklink.com/catalogPG.asp?P=3833&colorID=72
(Didn't really think about it like that)
(You know what I meant, smartass. :P)
I thought it was Sussudio...
Sithssudio.
Or I guess I could try and sell mine and use the sales to buy the new one...
Hmm...
(A+ topic derailment in progress.)
X-Men Fighter?
Imperial Shi'ar Destroyer?
Fantastic Fource be with you?
Force Ghost Rider?
It gets worse from here on out, so I'll stop :-)
Now back to the Star Wars marvel crossover game...
I would love to own a UCS MF but, that $800 price tag is both amusing and annoying.
Annoying because I probably won't ever be able to get one.
Amusing because I could almost treble the power output of my car with that sort of money and, I'm pretty sure it will be more exciting.
It goes back to the comment @Istokg made regarding money being no object for some lucky people, lterally.
Its not envy, just relativity and justification.
The way I have started to see UCS sets and to excuse the money one would spend to buy one (I do not own any), is too look at it as a piece of art. People spend a lot of money buying a painting, photograph, poster, statute, etc., so why not buy a UCS and proudly display it as another nice piece of art?
I mean, a UCS is a LEGO created product that was based on someone's piece of art, so why not have it be a piece of art one can display at home or work? Either way, I too do not have enough disposable money to spend on any of them, so that's that.
This is exactly how my wife and I look at purchasing LEGO. We have the disposable income to purchase it just like someone who purchases art and things like that.
Congrats!
...and there's the disclaimer. :/