75187 BB-8 - UCS or not?

LostInTranslation

UCS as defined by Lego *does* only apply to Star Wars (before anyone says Batmobile, that was Ultimate Collector's *Edition*).  
IMO if Lego have called something UCS either on box branding or retrospectively on official marketing material give it a UCS tag. Otherwise, I think the label just becomes even more arbitrary than they have already made it. 

playwell

^^^

Although I disagree with your point a "Plaque" tag would not be a bad idea along with a "micro scale" and "oversize scale (is there a better word for it)" tag.

Put it this way if BB8 was in a box which had UCS on it would we have a thread asking if it was worthy of being called UCS, I don't think so.

I think we make too much of UCS, as collectors we like labels but Lego doesn't show enough consistence for these labels to mean anything.

But much more importantly can we change the name of Advanced Models to Creator Expert.

Mauro23

Is it really the case that 10240 and 10221 have no UCS stated on the box or instruction? In such case what was here the factor to classify it as UCS...?

CCC

omnium said:

It's one of the main criteria. But some people think UCS should only apply to Star Wars too, for example.

Some people, including LEGO.

MaffyD

^ Just you wait @CCC - they'll manage to mess it up someday...

MaffyD

@lostintranslation - You're absolutely right, if you're after that specific model and you know what it is called (right now, that is easy for BB8, but might not remain so, nor might it apply to other sets).

I use tags when I want to compare a range of models, like "all the space shuttle sets" or something. It's not ideal, as there's no one tag that contains just the right things I'm looking for, and I suspect that's probably true for anyone who uses tags - hence this query in the first place, probably?

FWIW, I'm happy it remains off the list of UCS, because it would be one less set I have to mentally filter out of my list of 'UCS spaceships'.

LostInTranslation

@SMC - Regarding Advanced Models, you can't just change it to Creator Expert, as many of the sets were not released under that theme but just as Creator, or Factory or even no theme. But it is weird that there's no theme or subtheme for Creator Expert, just a tag. I think it should be the other way round personally - Creator Expert as a theme/subtheme and Advanced models as a tag. But I don't know how that would affect the database structure. 
I'd also like to be able to search for all licensed sets but there's no tag for that either! 

monkeyhanger

Should #10179 be declassified as it is no longer the "Ultimate" official incarnation of the MF by TLG, if you consider the new set superior (most would say it is)?

FowlerBricks

Yes! He is UCS!

bandit778

monkeyhanger said:

Should #10179 be declassified as it is no longer the "Ultimate" official incarnation of the MF by TLG, if you consider the new set superior (most would say it is)?

No, it just means you have to buy both if you want all the UCS sets.   ;P

IMO, if Lego hasn't called it a UCS set (as yet) then it shouldn't be labelled as such on the database.

Personally though, if it looks good and is a nice build, I don't care what they call it, I will still buy it.

playwell

LostInTranslation said:

@SMC - Regarding Advanced Models, you can't just change it to Creator Expert, as many of the sets were not released under that theme but just as Creator, or Factory or even no theme. But it is weird that there's no theme or subtheme for Creator Expert, just a tag. I think it should be the other way round personally - Creator Expert as a theme/subtheme and Advanced models as a tag. But I don't know how that would affect the database structure. 
I'd also like to be able to search for all licensed sets but there's no tag for that either! 

Yes "Licensed" would be a good tag but is the Lego movie Licensed?

Tower Bridge was not released under Creator Expert but the updated box has Creator Expert on it. So Lego has decided (not me) that past sets in the same line were Creator Expert sets even if they didn't have it on the box.

So lets have a look at what comes under Advanced Models, there are 56 sets:

Of these 43 are in themes that are now called Creator Expert:

12 Modular Buildings
9 Winter Village
6 Large Vehicles
5 Micro Buildings
4 Trains
4 Fairground
3 Ships

10 are in themes that haven't been made since 2013 when the Creator Expert label was first used but if made now would come under Creator Expert.

5 Aircraft
3 Sculptures
2 Real Space

3 are odd ducks:
10210 Imperial Flagship
10184 Town Plan
10190 Market Street

I don't see much wrong with putting at least 53 of them under Creator Expert as that is what Lego is calling them now.

But then I might have Town and City as one theme too.

datsunrobbie

#9675 has a plaque, but seems unlikely to make most people's UCS list. As for the database, my vote would be that a UCS set has "UCS" printed on the box or some other official literature from LEGO. Either way, a photo documenting the designation should be included in the photos for the set. History tends to change over time. If LEGO puts out documentation that says a set that was not labeled UCS is a UCS set, that documentation should be noted. Then people can argue over the documentation, like whether the poster from 2011 entitled "OVER 10 YEARS OF ULTIMATE LEGO STAR WARS SETS" has anything to do with UCS, since it is lacking the words "Collectors Series".

Scogali

I 100% personally consider it a UCS, but I ALSO 100% believe it should NOT be listed as such in the database itself. For a database designed for mass usage, there has to be some sort of reference point as a lowest common denominator for the user to operate from. 

"Feeling" like it should be UCS and grouping it like that in the system means a user will have to begin second guessing the system itself as to where things may be stored, which isnt healthy for any computerised database. In the interests of mainting a consistent, accessible user system it shouldn't be Ucs – in the Brickset database – until its "official" (while conveniently sweeping the other past discrepancies under the carpet :P)

Call it what you like for yourselves but specifically for a computer database, its a slippery slope.

Drmnez

I hate ucs and that dang plaque. Love the sets but even if there was a 100% official list from Lego ppl would still say that based on x, y, q, u criteria "these" are ucs set... Except for this, that, and the other. Not an insult towards anyone, I'm just expressing my grievance towards the topic

TheBrickPal

omnium said:

It's one of the main criteria. But some people think UCS should only apply to Star Wars too, for example. I think a "Plaque" tag a good start.

Will get to adding soon! Great idea.

@SMC The problem is that all Creator Expert sets are Advanced Models, but not all Advanced Models are Creator Expert sets. ;-)

SumoLego

datsunrobbie said:

Then people can argue over the documentation, like whether the poster from 2011 entitled "OVER 10 YEARS OF ULTIMATE LEGO STAR WARS SETS" has anything to do with UCS, since it is lacking the words "Collectors Series".

I agree with this - just because a set appeared on the vaguely-worded poster doesn't declare it a UCS set.  Thus, the TIE Fighter Collection, AT-AT, etc may be 'Ultimate' sets, but not UCSes.  Which, I guess would disqualify R2 as well.

Or, until LEGO says they all are.

CCC

SumoLego said:

Which, I guess would disqualify R2 as well.

The R2-D2 poster did use the "Ultimate Collector Series" phrase, not just Ultimate...

dougts

@CCC you still haven't spoken to the issue of 10188, 10236, 10240, and 10221, in relation to your criteria.  All are currently flagged as UCS in the database, despite not having any box labelling to indicate UCS, not having appeared on any posters (that I am aware of) designating them as such and not being labelled that was in the online catalog description.

10188 and 10236 are not controversial all that much - they are clearly as much playset as model, but #10221 would be the odd outlier.  It *CLEARLY* checks every box that you would ask as UCS set to check - except for the one you have determined should be the sole arbiter of such status. Comments?

Mauro23

It is clearly a playet, includes 4 minifigs... ;-)

Fauch

75159 is UCS, so it makes sense to include 10188 in the UCS list too.

SumoLego

CCC said:

SumoLego said:

Which, I guess would disqualify R2 as well.

The R2-D2 poster did use the "Ultimate Collector Series" phrase, not just Ultimate...

I suppose that would prove my point.  (And disprove my evidently uninformed observation.)

CCC

dougts said:

@CCC you still haven't spoken to the issue of 10188, 10236, 10240, and 10221, in relation to your criteria.  All are currently flagged as UCS in the database, despite not having any box labelling to indicate UCS, not having appeared on any posters (that I am aware of) designating them as such and not being labelled that was in the online catalog description.

10188 and 10236 are not controversial all that much - they are clearly as much playset as model, but #10221 would be the odd outlier.  It *CLEARLY* checks every box that you would ask as UCS set to check - except for the one you have determined should be the sole arbiter of such status. Comments?

I don't add the tags. I cannot comment on why they were decided to be added as UCS. I don't think I have ever seen Ewok Village referred to as UCS by LEGO (but I could be wrong). It is not labelled as UCS at BL, for example, either. Whereas the SSD is listed as UCS at BL. Again, I don't know who made the choice, here or there.

It shows the problem with using gut feelings to assign labels. If BB-8 (or EV or ...) is allowed as UCS, bending one "rule"*, then why not allow the Hellicarrier and other non-SW sets in as well, bending another "rule". How many "rules" does a set have to meet before it is not allowed as UCS. So should the Disney Castle be UCS, for example? Or the Simpsons House. I doubt they will ever do another Simpsons House, so in one sense, that is going to be the ultimate version.

* Obviously these are presumed rules, as there appear not to be any hard and fast rules.

Addicted2Oxygen

We could remove the tag :D

dougts

Agreed. But the 10221 situation (and a couple others) shows that relying on some sort of official LEGO designation is not all that much better though, as they have been wildly inconsistent about it, and generally don't seem to care all that much about accurately cataloging such things.

As a result, going with a single rule like the one you suggested doesn't solve the ultimate problem all that much better than the guy feel process. 10221 is obviously a UCS set. Having a UCS list that excludes it because it wasn't called UCS by LEGO marketing at some point would be silly.  Yet that's what would happen if your rule was folliwed

unfortunately I don't believe there is one simple hard and fast rule which allows us to create the UCS list. LEGO hasn't followed it, nor provided consistency that would allow us to derive it, therefore it is somehat subjective at this point

datsunrobbie

^ #10221 is obviously a very large set. But LEGO did not see fit to anoint it with the UCS badge. 

I have several Fender Stratocasters. Two of them, from across the room, appear to be identical, but one has a 50th Anniversary badge. That one is a 50th Anniversary model, the other one is not, and the only difference is the badge. It would be silly for me to say they are both 50th Anniversary models.

dougts

datsunrobbie said:

^ #10221 is obviously a very large set. But LEGO did not see fit to anoint it with the UCS badge. 

I have several Fender Stratocasters. Two of them, from across the room, appear to be identical, but one has a 50th Anniversary badge. That one is a 50th Anniversary model, the other one is not, and the only difference is the badge. It would be silly for me to say they are both 50th Anniversary models.

they didn't put the badge/label on most of the SW UCS sets. So by this logic, none of them should be categorized as UCS

monkeyhanger

datsunrobbie said:k

^ #10221 is obviously a very large set. But LEGO did not see fit to anoint it with the UCS badge. 

I have several Fender Stratocasters. Two of them, from across the room, appear to be identical, but one has a 50th Anniversary badge. That one is a 50th Anniversary model, the other one is not, and the only difference is the badge. It would be silly for me to say they are both 50th Anniversary models.

If they were both made 50 years after the original and the only badging was on the box (presumably not on display, some might say they were both 50th anniversary models. :P

The 10221 is the ultimate iteration of that ship (the only iteration) and very collectable. I'd call it a UCS. Looks far more worthy of the tag than a few confirmed UCS.

CCC

dougts said:

Agreed. But the 10221 situation .....

I agree. It is very difficult.

The difference is, we weren't asked about #10221 ... :-)

dougts

CCC said:

dougts said:

Agreed. But the 10221 situation .....

I agree. It is very difficult.

The difference is, we weren't asked about #10221 ... :-)

I'm asking you about it.  You proposed a UCS definition that doesn't include 10221, which proves my point - there is no holy grail of UCS definitions. We can all come up with different "systems" to meet our own idea about what should and shouldn't be considered UCS, but the reality is that LEGO has made a mess of it, and hasn't cared enough to clean it up.  The rest of it is just fan theories

Aanchir

Since 2014, LEGO has a very consistent definition of UCS: if it's a Star Wars D2C set then it's UCS, if it fails to meet any of those criteria then it's not. BB-8 is not D2C, therefore, not UCS by the current definition.

People keep bringing up older sets without any UCS markings on the box, but in general, all of those would be considered UCS if the current definition were applied retroactively. The only grey area there is that I don't remember if the original two UCS sets were D2C. But in their case they are clearly labeled as UCS.

stlux

Isn't #10221 the greyed out set being teased at the bottom of that "10 years of UCS SW sets" poster? The SSD was officially announced a little bit after that poster came out. (poster in May, announcement in June)

Mauro23

stlux said:

Isn't #10221 the greyed out set being teased at the bottom of that "10 years of UCS SW sets" poster? The SSD was officially announced a little bit after that poster came out. (poster in May, announcement in June)

Yes, but not all sets on this poster are UCS sets...

datsunrobbie

Mauro23 said:

stlux said:

Isn't #10221 the greyed out set being teased at the bottom of that "10 years of UCS SW sets" poster? The SSD was officially announced a little bit after that poster came out. (poster in May, announcement in June)

Yes, but not all sets on this poster are UCS sets...

The poster does not say "UCS" or "Ultimate Collector Series", it says "10 years of Ultimate LEGO Star Wars Sets".

datsunrobbie

Aanchir said:

Since 2014, LEGO has a very consistent definition of UCS: if it's a Star Wars D2C set then it's UCS, if it fails to meet any of those criteria then it's not. BB-8 is not D2C, therefore, not UCS by the current definition.

People keep bringing up older sets without any UCS markings on the box, but in general, all of those would be considered UCS if the current definition were applied retroactively. The only grey area there is that I don't remember if the original two UCS sets were D2C. But in their case they are clearly labeled as UCS.

https://www.promobricks.de/lego-star-wars-ucs-millennium-falcon-75192-kommt-auch-in-den-fachhandel/41533

Apparently someone at LEGO Group saw your post and decided that #75192 will be sold through other channels besides D2C, for the sake of consistency. :)

Drmnez

Has anyone actually asked Lego for an official statement regarding ucs? I think that would put the debate to rest. 
I emailed them about it a while ago and never got a response. Maybe one of you guys with more of a presence in the afol community can get one

CCC

dougts said:

CCC said:

dougts said:

Agreed. But the 10221 situation .....

I agree. It is very difficult.

The difference is, we weren't asked about #10221 ... :-)

I'm asking you about it.  You proposed a UCS definition that doesn't include 10221, which proves my point - there is no holy grail of UCS definitions. We can all come up with different "systems" to meet our own idea about what should and shouldn't be considered UCS, but the reality is that LEGO has made a mess of it, and hasn't cared enough to clean it up.  The rest of it is just fan theories

Indeed, there isn't a consistent definition of what a UCS set is. To me, to you, to brickset, to LEGO. In the past I'm guessing Huw has decided what is UCS and what isn't based on his views about how the product fits in with the then current LEGO behaviour. I cannot recall an admin ever asking about the nomenclature of other sets such as #10221, they made the decision based on their views at the time.

When it comes to BB-8, it is clear that it does not fit with other UCS sets of recent times. Although it looks like a UCS set, it is not marketted that way. It has no badge or branding, it is not D2C. So it appears not to fit with the current "definition" used by LEGO.

Of course it is all just fan theories. I don't think LEGO really cares about it. They want to get as wide an audience as possible for the relatively cheap BB-8 set (compared to most other UCS sets) and so it goes into more general stores. If that means they don't use UCS branding, then it is up to them. If they don't want two UCS sets in the same year, it is up to them. The set is still the same set. If people want to call it UCS that is fine, if others don't that is also fine. I've never really understood the "collect only UCS sets" line anyway, UCS means nothing about the model just about how it is branded / sold.

If BB-8 is included now, then other sets of the past could also have been included, even if surpassed now. For example #10144 the original Sandcrawler could be a candidate - although it was sold via general retail, and it was up against a much more UCS-looking set in the same year (DS II) - so it is just like BB-8 is now, not branded as UCS, sold at general retail and there was another UCS in same year. However, for the time it looked like an ultimate version of a Sandcrawler, even if it has now been surpassed. #10195 could be another, this was D2C and not general retail and a large detailed model (or pair) and there was not even another UCS that year (although DS had just come out in 2008 which wasn't UCS but is listed as UCS, so the same could have applied to 10195 if Huw had wanted). 2006 is a funny year - ISD isn't UCS, but two smaller sets, Tie and AT-ST, are. So then it appears size isn't an issue.

The point about the "question" is until now, Huw or admins have decided what gets tagged as UCS and what isn't. I think this is the first time users have been asked. There are clearly different views - yes, no, don't care. What is important for the brickset database is that admins decide what it is.

Mauro23

The "cleanest" UCS definition you can find on LEGO fan sides ist the one from BrickLink. They have not listed 10188 under UCS  (due to my proposal) like it is the case here, as it was never stated by LEGO, that it belongs to the UCS category. And yes, it is not logical when the successor DS is categorized under UCS by LEGO themselves. 
I think much easier definition for Star Wars is the D2C definition which can be found here on Brickset when you look at the D2C tag for Star Wars sets. It includes all UCS sets + EV, 10131, 10144, Tantive IV, Motorized AT-AT, 10195, Cloud City ...

Aanchir

Drmnez said:

Has anyone actually asked Lego for an official statement regarding ucs? I think that would put the debate to rest. 
I emailed them about it a while ago and never got a response. Maybe one of you guys with more of a presence in the afol community can get one

One of the closest examples I've seen is here: https://brickset.com/article/10443/sandcrawler-ucs-or-what Which basically states what I mentioned above, that since 2014, all Star Wars D2C sets are considered UCS and branded accordingly.

darkstonegrey

From that marketing statement by LEGO regarding future UCS sets:
"The decision has been made to change the packaging for future 'LEGO exclusive' Star Wars sets to include the UCS seal and de-link from the core Star Wars packaging."

Based on that, the style of packaging alone excludes #75187 BB-8 from UCS.

I wonder if @Huw could provide more details as to where the source for that quote can be found?

bandit778

darkstonegrey said:

From that marketing statement by LEGO regarding future UCS sets:
"The decision has been made to change the packaging for future 'LEGO exclusive' Star Wars sets to include the UCS seal and de-link from the core Star Wars packaging."

Based on that, the style of packaging alone excludes #75187 BB-8 from UCS.

Technically, that would also discount the new Falcon as from what I have seen it doesn't have the UCS seal on the box although it has gone back to putting Ultimate Collector Series (missing the 's off the collector's from the UCS seal) in writing like the origianal Tie Interceptor and X-Wing. So even now the rules have changed again.

Shib

I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again, AFOLs care far more about things like classifications than LEGO.

So ultimately I'd say it doesn't matter whether it gets a UCS classification or not.

XStrike

If UCS HAS to be Star Wars, that disqualifies this set immediately.

Aanchir

XStrike said:

If UCS HAS to be Star Wars, that disqualifies this set immediately.

Took me a while to figure out what you meant before I realized that "oh, it's probably just a dig at the sequel trilogy". TBH this tendency to straight up deny the legitimacy of things based on personal preference bothers me in general. Is it really that hard to accept that a thing you don't like can be a part of a thing you do like? For instance, I like ice cream, but I'm not going to insist that any ice cream I don't like isn't real ice cream.

I see this tendency a lot in LEGO discussions too, especially in categorization discussions like this. It gets kinda tiresome.

Drmnez

^preach!
its annoying isn't it?

M_Boss

Another aspect of this is that BB-8 has a different plaque than many of the other recent UCS sets, as the sticker is on a 6 x 12 modified tile as opposed to a 8 x 16 tile

CCC

M_Boss said:

Another aspect of this is that BB-8 has a different plaque than many of the other recent UCS sets, as the sticker is on a 6 x 12 modified tile as opposed to a 8 x 16 tile

Yeah. Let's call this one a mini-UCS, and the other ones with plaques with modified tiles (Planets) can be micro-UCS. :-)

MaffyD

Does all this mean that when I bought #10221 as one of my must have UCS sets, I was duped by Brickset?! They had better recompense me or they'll hear from my lawyers! ;-)

As for ST not being Star Wars? Eh? That's taking gatekeeping to a whole new level, IMO.  I may be quite disinterested in anything other than 4-6, but I'm not going to pretend that they don't exist or ignore the positive aspects of them.

But the prequels are awful.

CCC

MaffyD said:

As for ST not being Star Wars?

Yeah. Star Trek is Star Wars, as is Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Doctor Who. And that other one where the wierd guy goes meep, meep, meep.

ST is probably not a good abbreviation when discussing SW.

MaffyD

"Use the force, Harry" - Gandalf (bonus nerd rage points if you use a photo of Patrick Stewart next to the quote)

sid3windr

^ Somewhat sounds like the average Dimensions level, though, too. :P

"E.T. phone Batman"...