Rumours about Star Wars UCS models

mressin

Maybe releasing a new X-Wing model was part of the 10 year licensing agreement.

SirKevbags

I'm curious about how much influence Lucas now Disney has in the decision making process about which sets will be made. Could be none at all.

If the license agreement is fixed and they get a set amount regardless then it wouldn't matter. If its on a percentage of each sale however then I would think they would want a strong input.

Anyone have a clue on how the deals are structured?

cheshirecat

^ Yep, I've thought about that before. It would certainly be understandable if the licence ensured that the most popular ships were always available - x-wing, mf etc. No idea though.

To most of the above, I think we can all appreciate that as collectors you have reason to be disappointed that a slot has been wasted and/or (although i don't attribute this to most of the people here) the set you thought would be worth X$ is now not likely to get to that level. I can even understand, although i don't agree with it, that a re-release somehow diminishes the 'ultimate' nature of the series. Its probably a stupid phrase to use, similar to why as scientists we try to avoid words like maximum/maximise or minimum/minimise unless they absolutely apply not just to the current point in time. But as has been said, what was ultimate isn't necessarily ultimate today and so long as they can claim its somehow better than the old version (seems easy with the piece count) then I can't see why there's a problem. (This might be the reason we won't see a new UCS MF as I can't see them wanting to match let alone up the piece count).

However, its this 'LEGO ignore us at their peril', 'LEGO are stupid' message that comes across which just makes your arguments seem stupid. Even LFT points out that most of the >RRP large sets he sells are for kids. More importantly though I'm entirely sure that LEGO, with all its sales data (hard data about how many sets are sold, the rate of sales, profitability of different UCS sets and even an idea of how many are sold to consumers/resellers) as well as other important information about licencing agreements and production runs, that LEGO are in a far better position to know if this is a good or bad decision, not just in terms of business but any bad feeling amongst collectors.

It could be seen as LEGO opening another front against resellers (it will surely have a knock on effect on any sets reaching silly multiples, although the influx of resellers has probably done that anyway) but I think its much simpler than that, just a very simple, correct, business decision based on cold hard facts.

Picopirate

A collectors edition does not guarantee that it will increase in value or otherwise be a wise investment. It is more of a statement that collectors are likely to appreciate the detail and will likely want it for their collection. It is similar to the colectors edition of a movie or video game. In fact products that have "collectors" in their name rarely increase in value. If something is a true collectable then it will not drop in price if a similar product is released. The original starwars action figures have not dropped despite numerous re releases. Unless LEGO revived an EOLed set using the same exact model number and box art or otherwise begins guaranteeing exclusively (numbering sets) then people have no reason to complain. If anything it just reduces the potential value of the new set and if people dont buy it then they wont rerelease sets in the future.

StevenAshby

Think i one of the few who are genuinly excited about this release. Since coming back to lego I have wanted an UCS X wing but could never justify the premium to get the original. This looks better and will take center stage in my collection. There has to come a point when we have to accept some models just cant be made UCS with the limited piece count for a resonable RRP (lego arent going to start releasing 600 pounds sets the market is tiny) you guys want 6000 piece UCS style models speak to cavegod he has done them better than LEGO ever will :)

drdavewatford

pvancil27 said:

What was sacrificed though? At worst you can say it was pushed back a bit. I dont think they said "Oh, lets make an X wing, and scrap the Slave 1" and then never go back to it. If it bumped anything its the UCS Wampa That would have been made in 2022 because they had already released a UCS Ewok and a UCS Jar Jar bust was deemed too stupid...........In the end, its all point of view. I look at it as a kids toy that I'm lucky enough to be able to still enjoy, and not as a collectible or investment.

"Pushed back a bit" ?! We're only blessed with 2 UCS slots a year max, so even losing just one of them on account of a re-release is bad news. If the re-release of the X-wing isn't just a one-off then genuinely new UCS models will potentially be delayed for years or maybe never released at all. I don't care about the investing aspect, but I am dismayed at the possibility of new UCS models being displaced by remakes in the release schedule.

And as for your view of LEGO as a kids toy and not a collectable, in general you're spot on, but when it comes to "Ultimate Collector Series" the name, and the age rating, offers a pretty big clue that these sets are NOT for kids and ARE for collectors. Given this, different rules apply, and hence the vitriol which has greeted this new X-wing from some quarters. There's an argument this re-release maybe indicates that LEGO wants to have their cake and eat it - push the "collector" aspect when it suits them, and then cheapen the UCS 'brand' and expect collectors to suck it up....

Finally, not wanting to piss on anybody's parade, but I think the Millennium Falcon is highly unlikely to get the remake treatment, unless LEGO cut it down in size, part count and price. Don't forget that the sales of the original were at best modest, so why would they go down that road again ?

Jverweij

y2josh said:

^^This is the problem. I agree with you on 99% of LEGO models... but the Ultimate Collector's Series is supposed to be collectible more than it is a toy.

nonsense, you just want it to be that.

y2josh said:

Jverweij said:

I can't imagine any fan of LEGO (so not someone who wants to make money) will seriously be complaining if an iconic set is rereleased. Yes you may already have it, but others don't. Why are some collectors so incredibly selfish?

Yes. Stupid collectors wanting to give their money to LEGO without buying an inferior quality model (of a ship they already own). Very selfish indeed.

And again, no one's complaining much about the (hopefully) anomalous re-hash in and of itself. It's that something new was potentially sacrificed to make room for something that a lot of people already own.

Sounds to me like that's exactly what you are complaining about. Read my post again, I have no problems with collectors, I am a collector myself. I do have a problem with people collecting because of the monetary value it holds. Most angry people here are angry because their product is losing value, not because a better version is coming up, or because a possible new UCS is being withheld

mountebank

drdavewatford said:

Finally, not wanting to piss on anybody's parade, but I think the Millennium Falcon is highly unlikely to get the remake treatment, unless LEGO cut it down in size, part count and price. Don't forget that the sales of the original were at best modest, so why would they go down that road again ?

That depends on whether on re-releasing such a set, TLG's motivation would be solely to make money or to make a huge statement that LEGO can be the ultimate "toy" and thus pull in more AFOLs.

lulwut

This discussion is funny because the debate on rehashes has shown up at least once amongst other things I collect. Things I have realized:

1. The market is bigger than what you think you know and is always growing.

2. It's not all about you. Every sour grape is likely accompanied by a few more happy collectors.

3. Well deserved rehashes still do well in the aftermarket.

I get the whole rehash taking up valuable resources and potentially a new x product, but why can't these people understand that not everything is made for you? Sit out on a few until something you like makes its rounds. If the current offering doesn't suit you, you don't fork cash over, and just maybe they'll get the hint once their pocket runs thin. The whole system auto corrects itself.

I've been collecting diecast jets far longer than I have on Lego. My biggest peeve early on was the sheer amount of Phantoms that were constantly put out on the market instead of new planes. I couldn't believe that anyone was actually buying them until I ran into a hobby shop that stocked them and didn't have problems selling. And then it hit me, what if, just what if someone else fancied the things I didn't? *DUN DUN DUN*

I'm still lost on the 'limited' phenomena. Not much to say about that.

monkeyhanger

Retained value of a UCS set is something to think about for many people. Will they really pay out what many would consider "daft" money on something that is nigh on worthless as soon as you use it? I really couldn't justify to myself (and my wife) paying out £200+ for a set if I didn't know that I could get at least all my money back on it if times were tough or if I fell out of Lego. That sentiment is multiplied when you are paying £400/600/800 for a set. For me, exclusivity and retained/increased value are not a bad thing. There is a limit to what i'll pay out for - I would never pay £1000 for a UCS MF - I would never want one at that pricepoint, I would go without. Missing out on something is just tough luck, we all miss out on something at some point unless we have the financial means to overcome it - that's life.

The retained/increased prices of some Lego sets are amazing, mainly because AFOLs will pay extra to obtain some set - kids or parents buying for their kids will usually decide something is not value for money when someething skyrockets in the aftermarket.

mathew

y2josh said:

^^This is the problem. I agree with you on 99% of LEGO models... but the Ultimate Collector's Series is supposed to be collectible more than it is a toy. So you throw some terrible re-hash in the mix, and you diminish the perception that the series is special in any way.

Oh BS. First off, if it's so terrible then that will only enhance the value of the original, right? Of course it's not terrible like you're suggesting and it will make a new generation of collectors very happy. It will also teach resellers a lesson that they can't hang onto a set forever thinking that it will only keep increasing in value. For those that shelled out the $700 for the original, well, too bad. But if you're spending that kind of money on Lego then you must have money to burn.

pvancil27

y2josh said:

^^This is the problem. I agree with you on 99% of LEGO models... but the Ultimate Collector's Series is supposed to be collectible more than it is a toy.

You ASSUME it's supposed to me a collectible. The Modular are also listed as 16+ but include playable elements. The Death Star is a playset and not a UCS but it's only a slightly lower age of 14. Now that said I do get your point. It is supposed to be more collectible then system level things.

y2josh said:

So you throw some terrible re-hash in the mix, and you diminish the perception that the series is special in any way.

Most people dont think it's terrible. Without spending the time to re-read the pre-photo posts, I'm going to take a wild guess that you were one of the people who was vehemently against the idea of a re-released X-Wing. So before you ever saw the photo you knew that you were not going to like it and nitpicked it to death. It could have been 5 times the sze of the first one for 50 bucks and likely you still would have found it bad, just because you already had decided it was bad. And LEgo re-releasing it doesnt diminish the perception, thats you diminishing your own perception of what a UCS is. Which seems to be different then mine and possibly different then LEGO's

y2josh said:

And yes, that's great for you, and it's great for people that want a larger-scale X-Wing, but if you think my wanting to spend my money on a new model in the 'series' is selfish, then it is equally (though preposterously so) selfish to want to waste the May release on a ship that already exists.

MY point on the selfish thing is you are looking at it solely from your point of view and not being objective on why it makes sense.

y2josh said:

And here's a better analogy than the Dodge Grand Caravan, though it will hold equally little weight with you if you just can't come at this from the perspective of a collector or if you don't care for the series.

I can come at it from a collectors persepctive, and I have before on other hobbies, I just choose not to.

y2josh said:

From 1986-1993, Hallmark put out reindeer ornaments corresponding to the eight reindeer from the beginning of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. So '86 was Dasher, '87 was Dancer, '88 was Prancer and so on and so forth. So this X-Wing would be equivalent to Hallmark getting to '92 and, instead of releasing Donder, they put out another Dasher ornament that was slightly inferior to the '86 version, but otherwise mostly similar.

I get what you are saying, but the one difference is those were planned out. If LEgo has said this year was supposed to be a Slave 1 and Lukes LAndspeeder UCS, and they removed Slave 1 for the X Wing, then it would make more sense (Although admittedly it is a much better example then the Dodges.) I would also say that giving people a chance to get a missed ornament wouldn't be a bad thing either, assuming in this case said ornament was welling for 7times its retail cost.

y2josh said:

But again, if you don't care about the collecting aspect of a hobby, it's not a sentiment you're likely to understand. In the end, no one's stopping you from buying the re-hash, just as no one's forcing me to buy it myself, and my distaste for this blemish on the UCS sets shouldn't stop you from being excited about it.

My reason for engage people is I actually want to try and understand why people feel its a blemish, and I want more then the cookie cutter answers that most people have given. I'm very much into understanding both sides of a debate, to me if you dont at least understand the otherside of a issue, then I dont get how you can be sure your opinion is correct. Its like with politics, I tend to be slightly left leaning but I watch Fox News because I enjoy my ideas to be challenged, not patted on the back and told they are right. I tend to be that way on everything, including "Why the UCS re-hash is great/terrible." I think its great, but I want to actually understand why people think its terrible. I hear their reasons and I want to challenge them (As I have here) to get a deeper understanding.

In the end its a business decision that I get. I collect McFarlane Sports figures also, every year the football line has a Tony Romo figure. It's not because he's the most awesome player ever, its because he is a Cowboy and he sells. Yes he takes a lineup spot from a more deserving player from a smaller team but the sales are just there. Same thing here, I'd love a Slave 1 (Or for God sakes a long overdue TIE Fighter) but they probably wouldn't sell as well to the casual lego or Star Wars fan as the X Wing will. And with the global economy still in fairly poor shape, it makes sense that they'd go that route.

pvancil27

drdavewatford said:

pvancil27 said:

What was sacrificed though? At worst you can say it was pushed back a bit. I don't think they said "Oh, lets make an X wing, and scrap the Slave 1" and then never go back to it. If it bumped anything its the UCS Wampa That would have been made in 2022 because they had already released a UCS Ewok and a UCS Jar Jar bust was deemed too stupid...........In the end, its all point of view. I look at it as a kids toy that I'm lucky enough to be able to still enjoy, and not as a collectible or investment.

"Pushed back a bit" ?! We're only blessed with 2 UCS slots a year max, so even losing just one of them on account of a re-release is bad news. If the re-release of the X-wing isn't just a one-off then genuinely new UCS models will potentially be delayed for years or maybe never released at all. I don't care about the investing aspect, but I am dismayed at the possibility of new UCS models being displaced by remakes in the release schedule.

Understandable, but like i said above the market for a UCS Skiff isnt likely to be large, as its a fairly bland item. Yes they still need to release a TIE fighter and A Wing and AT-AT and Slave 1, but I also think people overestimate how popular some of those models will be with the non-hardcore collectors. I think the Sith Nightspeeder is the stupidest thing ever but my want it all Star Wars attitude would make me buy it as a UCS, but most people wouldnt.

drdavewatford said:

And as for your view of LEGO as a kids toy and not a collectable, in general you're spot on, but when it comes to "Ultimate Collector Series" the name, and the age rating, offers a pretty big clue that these sets are NOT for kids and ARE for collectors.

See above.

drdavewatford said:

Given this, different rules apply, and hence the vitriol which has greeted this new X-wing from some quarters. There's an argument this re-release maybe indicates that LEGO wants to have their cake and eat it - push the "collector" aspect when it suits them, and then cheapen the UCS 'brand' and expect collectors to suck it up....

I disagree MOSTLY that different rules apply. I do think the remakes should be way more spaced out then system remakes. But I dont think they should be completely off the table. they SHOULD be reserved for those rare Iconic ships that people really want. My problem with the vitriol is it seems to me to be coming solely from a "I have this, so I want something else" point of view. I haven't seen (or noticed) one post that really points out why its bad outside of some perceived slight against their idea of what something should be.

drdavewatford said:

Finally, not wanting to piss on anybody's parade, but I think the Millennium Falcon is highly unlikely to get the remake treatment, unless LEGO cut it down in size, part count and price. Don't forget that the sales of the original were at best modest, so why would they go down that road again ?

I think there will eventually, especially if they make a Han Solo offshoot movie like rumored. It would make too much sense to do one then. But again you are talking at least 5 years down the line, if it gets done before say 2019ish then it's too soon IMO.

mountebank

This is a really interesting discussion, especially because, at its heart, it stopped being about LEGO some time ago.

richo

For the product itself

monkeyhanger said:

Retained value of a UCS set is something to think about for many people. Will they really pay out what many would consider "daft" money on something that is nigh on worthless as soon as you use it? I really couldn't justify to myself (and my wife) paying out £200+ for a set if I didn't know that I could get at least all my money back on it if times were tough or if I fell out of Lego. That sentiment is multiplied when you are paying £400/600/800 for a set. For me, exclusivity and retained/increased value are not a bad thing. There is a limit to what i'll pay out for - I would never pay £1000 for a UCS MF - I would never want one at that pricepoint, I would go without. Missing out on something is just tough luck, we all miss out on something at some point unless we have the financial means to overcome it - that's life.

The retained/increased prices of some Lego sets are amazing, mainly because AFOLs will pay extra to obtain some set - kids or parents buying for their kids will usually decide something is not value for money when someething skyrockets in the aftermarket.

I would never pay over say £350 for any Lego set, and that includes the current UCS Falcon if I am assessing the value against the product, not the fact it's now worth £1000 on the aftermarket. There are a lot of great sets out there, so I can easily miss out the aftermarket Falcon and pick up another great large or UCS set.

My gut feel is overall aftermarket prices will soften for all UCS sets. It was and perhaps is a slight bubble at the top end, and maybe new minty items will still command a premium price for the tiny band of hardcore completists, but in our well informed Lego community, are there really people here would still happily pay four figures for a UCS Falcon?, when it's highly likely and strongly commercially justifiable to remake THE most iconic ship by a mile in the Star Wars Universe.

streeker

To steal @CaptAPJT's idea:

drdavewatford said:

Finally, not wanting to piss on anybody's parade, but I think the Millennium Falcon is highly unlikely to get the remake treatment, unless LEGO cut it down in size, part count and price. Don't forget that the sales of the original were at best modest, so why would they go down that road again ?

According to Brickset for 10179

1906 people own this set
3884 people want this set

Three thousand, three hundred and eighty_eight people want this set, double the amount of people who own. Second most-wanted set only to 10188 by a measly difference of 3. That's why.

Like what @kevbags alluded to in his post, there's 10 ten years left on the existing Star Wars license and considering how many movies, spinoffs, TV shows, cartoons, etc., Disney (king of merchandising) is going to milk Star Wars to get back the billions they paid to Lucas, and, secondly, how deep Disney and LEGO already are linked, that license will most likely be renewed. So whether it's 10 years or 20 years or 30 years, nothing will be untouchable.

I am very happy to see 10240 for purchase. The more, the merrier.

mathew

There will definitely be a MF re-make, but it will probably be more like 2,200 pcs. at $250. Therefore, the current UCS MF should hold its value. I personally would rather have a MF that isn't to minifig scale that you can actually pick up and swoosh around. The UCS MF appears to be so bulky and it doesn't even have an interior.

cavegod

^ thats because it's a display piece not a play set.

cheshirecat

^^ would be hard to claim it as ultimate if that was one with twice as many parts previously released.

Diggydoes

I´m totally ok with this re-release at all, but i don´t understand why they couldn´t produce a "unique" version of R2-D2? Like with a chrome dome or some?! I think this could´ve make this whole set waaaay more attractive and unique!

rocao

streeker said:

According to Brickset for 10179

1906 people own this set
3884 people want this set

Three thousand, three hundred and eighty_eight people want this set, double the amount of people who own. Second most-wanted set only to 10188 by a measly difference of 3. That's why.

I'm not dismissing that there is demand for 10179, but those numbers also need to be put in the proper context.

People clicking 'want' doesn't necessarily mean they would purchase the set if it were reissued. As you state, nearly the same number of people 'want' 10188, and it's been available for them to purchase for nearly five years.

emmtwosix

It will definitely be interesting to see what this will do to the aftermarket prices of sets to come, and even for sets that are already on the market. 7191's price will have to come down, at least a bit, in my opinion, if resellers want them off their shelves in a decent amount of time. Though, I suppose if they were willing to hold onto them for 13 years, maybe that's not the case.

Even if someone specifically wanted the old X-wing, what would stop them from changing their minds, deciding, "maybe I don't need to spend $1k on that X-wing after all." This revelation has the potential to change the face of the aftermarket forever. Hopefully resellers will realize their investments aren't eternal bastions of rising profit margins, that they too have a shelf life, and will price them to move instead of waiting for dividends to collect, ad infinitum.

Of course, I realize that supply & demand pricing takes two, so again, hopefully buyers will be able to restrain themselves at some point and simply say "that's way too high, I'm not going to pay that."

Then again, they have been doing the same thing with system sets for years - maybe nothing will change. Only time will tell.

emmtwosix

mathew said:

I personally would rather have a MF that isn't to minifig scale that you can actually pick up and swoosh around.

You're crazy... That's what the system sets are for! Or the midi! Or the mini! Minifig scale or bust!

rocao

mathew said:

It will also teach resellers a lesson that they can't hang onto a set forever thinking that it will only keep increasing in value.

You keep mentioning being "taught a lesson", so I'm guessing you think resellers are doing something bad and should be reprimanded. I, on the other hand, don't find offense in someone selling something for what others are willing to pay, and certainly not a punishable offense.

CaptAPJT

rocao said:

You keep mentioning being "taught a lesson", so I'm guessing you think resellers are doing something bad and should be reprimanded. I, on the other hand, don't find offense in someone selling something for what others are willing to pay, and certainly not a punishable offense.

Personally I think re-sellers are an important part of the community and allow many of us to get hold of sets that we'd otherwise not be able to enjoy. However as with any kind of business there's risks involved and shouldn't just assume a sets value will increase ad-infinitum. Admittedly I don't think there are too many people holding onto 7191 hoping for mega profit after 13years. I do feel slightly sympathetic to those who may have in the past couple of years shelled out £500 or more on the original UCS X-Wing but they're probably the same guys causing 10179 to cost upwards of £1000 so clearly have far too much money anyway.

pvancil27

YEa, even in my dislike for the practice of reselling I wouldnt say any resellers on here need to be "taught a lesson."

piratemania7

I am buying one when it comes out. By the time I have bought my Palace Cinema later in march ( waiting for double points and the free Star Wars poly ) I should have been able to have saved enough.

mathew

rocao said:

You keep mentioning being "taught a lesson", so I'm guessing you think resellers are doing something bad and should be reprimanded. I, on the other hand, don't find offense in someone selling something for what others are willing to pay, and certainly not a punishable offense.

No. Resellers have their place in the Lego ecosystem. Being taught a lesson doesn't necessarily mean that they are doing something wrong. It's just that they can't assume that a certain set will just keep increasing in price over a given length of time. It's interesting that so many resellers used to be in the baseball card business. You would think that they would of learned lessons from that industry's collapse. Apparently many here that are complaining did not.

piratemania7

I say, we all be friends and build. Imagine what type of MOC's could be created if we all put our love for the brick together?



Of course, at the end of the day, anyone or thing that ups the amount I have to pay for a set second hand, deserves to be tarred and feathered. Just saying...

emmtwosix

Umm, last I checked "greed" was a vice, not a virtue, right? I love resellers too (most of them), but a few exemplify the precise definition of greedy. Just look at some of the "Buy It Now" prices on eBay.

Unfortunately, I feel like this trend is on the upward slope and our hobby is being somewhat hijacked by investors who couldn't care less about Lego, only profit. As long as resellers continue to have an interest in the hobby, and a little bit of a conscience, we'll be fine.

y2josh

pvancil27 said:

I can come at it from a collectors persepctive, and I have before on other hobbies, I just choose not to.

This alone makes me feel like your later note that you WANT to understand both sides isn't the case at all. For myself, I do understand both sides, and I completely agree that it's a smart business decision so long as it stays anomalous and doesn't become a recurring move - I just don't personally like it.

My problem is how dismissive you are of people who are upset because it's a repeat, and how that's not a good enough reason for you, presumably because you choose not to look at this through the lens of a collector, even though that's exactly why they're upset and is reason enough for them. So you're now looking for a justification you can't find, because the justification for that sentiment lies squarely in coming at the problem from the perspective of the collector.

As to the inferiority of the new model - I may indeed have been opposed to a re-hash pre-photos (I was), but if you look at the ships side by side... and look at the film models... it's hard to make a case for the new one being better outside of the engines. @BrickDancer did a better job than I ever could of pointing out the sloppy build techniques, but the whole ship reminds me of the SSD, where the back is incredibly detailed and the rest of the ship (especially the nose and canopy) looks like it suffered as a result.

streeker

rocao said:

I'm not dismissing that there is demand for 10179, but those numbers also need to be put in the proper context.

No, I think I used the proper context: the huge amount of pent-up demand shown by ownership versus desirability -- a clear 100% increase between the two. Of the top ten Most Wanted Sets, only Cafe Corner and Sandcrawler comes close, and that at a distant 25% increase,

Normally, I would agree with you that clicking 'want' doesn't necessarily mean 'buy' for any other set, but this is the Millennium Falcon, most iconic ship in the Star Wars universe, the one that people really regret not owning.

Let's look at the context of its release and discontinuation. It was the first set to hit $500, and in 2007, that price was unheard of, crazy even. LEGO has weaned us really well because after that first hard pill, a $400 SSD and $400 Death Star are much easier to swallow now, aren't they? And in comparison to the $2,000 that is the going rate for a new 10179, that initial $500? Peanuts, a right bargain, and why if offered for purchase today, a similar USC-type MF would be an automatic buy rather than just a wistful 'want.'

All that aside, I have more reservations about the deepening LEGO/Disney relationship and leverage over creative control than whether rehashes will be made.

y2josh

streeker said:

All that aside, I have more reservations about the deepening LEGO/Disney relationship and leverage over creative control than whether rehashes will be made.

Agree with you completely here. Disney's had the license for four months and they already have a new trilogy and something like four spin-off movies planned. If we thought Lucasfilm was milking Star Wars, I feel like it's only going to get worse with Disney at the helm.

samiam391

mathew said:

rocao said:

You keep mentioning being "taught a lesson", so I'm guessing you think resellers are doing something bad and should be reprimanded. I, on the other hand, don't find offense in someone selling something for what others are willing to pay, and certainly not a punishable offense.

No. Resellers have their place in the Lego ecosystem. Being taught a lesson doesn't necessarily mean that they are doing something wrong. It's just that they can't assume that a certain set will just keep increasing in price over a given length of time. It's interesting that so many resellers used to be in the baseball card business. You would think that they would of learned lessons from that industry's collapse. Apparently many here that are complaining did not.

First off, I'm not a very large LEGO set resale, and do it mostly to fund my actual hobby. It's a nice way to get LEGO for free.

Secondly, I don't know why you, @mathew, are constantly ragging on re-sellers. Sometimes you act like they are mindless little fools or something. We all have our different ways of re-selling.

I think it's high time that you respect, and quit disrespecting, many people's ways of business on these forums. I ask that as kindly as possible.

A little wise clip from Bambi once said, "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all". :-)

Now I've got my fingers crossed that this thread won't completely turn into another re-seller debate.

When is this set being released? May sometime?

Anyone have any thoughts on what is to come in October? :-)

cavegod

^ 10236 Ewok Village

samiam391

cavegod said:

^ 10236 Ewok Village

That's right, somehow slipped my mind. I'm very, very intrigued to see how LEGO approaches this one.

Has the potential to be an incredible set, but at the same time, if built wrongly, be a disaster of a set.

Agent_Debris

I have a feeling that the Ewok village will be more a play set type of thing based on say the main erea of the village where Han and Luke etc were going to be cooked for dinner in C3P0's honour, rather than a load of tall lego built trees etc, but I could be wrong.

CaptAPJT

Will the Ewok Village be an official UCS set or just a play set like 10188? I'm not so keen on getting something that's just a bunch of trees connected with bridges and a dozen mini figures. I just don't think it'll look good on display with my "Wall of UCS"

Jverweij

they are really going to make an Ewok Village?? hmm that might be interesting :)

pvancil27

y2josh said:

pvancil27 said:

I can come at it from a collectors persepctive, and I have before on other hobbies, I just choose not to.

This alone makes me feel like your later note that you WANT to understand both sides isn't the case at all. For myself, I do understand both sides, and I completely agree that it's a smart business decision so long as it stays anomalous and doesn't become a recurring move - I just don't personally like it.

My problem is how dismissive you are of people who are upset because it's a repeat, and how that's not a good enough reason for you, presumably because you choose not to look at this through the lens of a collector, even though that's exactly why they're upset and is reason enough for them. So you're now looking for a justification you can't find, because the justification for that sentiment lies squarely in coming at the problem from the perspective of the collector.

As to the inferiority of the new model - I may indeed have been opposed to a re-hash pre-photos (I was), but if you look at the ships side by side... and look at the film models... it's hard to make a case for the new one being better outside of the engines. @BrickDancer did a better job than I ever could of pointing out the sloppy build techniques, but the whole ship reminds me of the SSD, where the back is incredibly detailed and the rest of the ship (especially the nose and canopy) looks like it suffered as a result.

On my quote, let me modify it slightly. I can take my personal opinions from acollectors point of view having done so, but I choose to look at my opinions in a more relaxed way. If that makes sense. Hopefully that will make it seem like I'm not actually wanting to see the otherside. I'm also not trying to be dismissive, I'm just more amused that a few guys are being all doomsayer talking about how everything is ruined. It's just the same spiel I've seen over other collectibles over the years and in the end 90% keep buying it anyway, and the 10% that dont and quit are usually replaced fairly quickly by a larger subsection.

I never built the first UCS nor have I ever seen a built one in person, But I guess I dont get how you can come up with massive critiques off a few pictures and a video having not been able to actually touch one. That said I'dd defer to your (and Brickdancer's) opinions.

I do think you'll see a few more remakes eventually, but they will be few and far between. I wouldnt be shocked to See the Snowspeeder and eventually Falcon redone in some form (the Snowspeeder needs it too, the nose on that thing is garbage.). I could see them maybe redoing the Star Destroyer too. I'd be shocked if we ever saw any others redone though.

drdavewatford

CaptAPJT said:

Will the Ewok Village be an official UCS set or just a play set like 10188?

My money's on a playset - hard to see it making a worthwhile UCS, whatever the set number might suggest.

BrickDancer

^^Please refrain from comparing Lego to other hobbies that are not equal in use or form. Lego has very little parallel with baseball cards, comics, die cast cars, etc. Lego's value is found in its use, versatility and uniqueness of set and/or part. If the investment bubble were to ever burst, this hobby will remain intact as it has always been and meant to be.

Secondly, all those opposed to this rehash have not mentioned a word of its monetary value or negative impact to resell of their MISB 7191's. Those folks even state clearly it is not a money issue or decline of their asset. So approaching the matter from that angle is not accurate as a view of why we dissent with this move.

It's not just the UCS line that should be protected from TLG's rehashing, but also the Modulars, Monument Sculptures (Taj, Eiffel, Liberty) and Expert Creator (Carousel, Dreamliner, VW Beetle& Camper Van). These are not system sets that are the bread and butter for revenue. These are flagship sets to demonstrate Lego's creativity and push the envelope. Imagine if they rehashed the Imperial Flagship or Emerald Night, you would be happy with that?

Bandit

^^ my prediction is this will be a $300-$400 playset that finally, shall we say, sends a few proton torpedoes down 10188's exhaust port.

y2josh

^Even though I'm all for the Ewok Village and have been wanting TLG to make it for awhile, I'm not sure it would be able to rival 10188 in terms of popularity or versatility. 10188's biggest strength is that it can pull from two movies and several key scenes to populate the structure with features and minifigs. An Ewok Village, short of somehow incorporating every scene on Endor, is going to be fairly limited in terms of what it can do and which characters it can include.

BrickDancer

^Another key feature of 10188 is that it's a perfect globe shape that lends to be a beautiful display piece. A sprawling play set will be much harder to pull off.

mathew

BrickDancer said:

^^Please refrain from comparing Lego to other hobbies that are not equal in use or form. Lego has very little parallel with baseball cards, comics, die cast cars, etc. Lego's value is found in its use, versatility and uniqueness of set and/or part. If the investment bubble were to ever burst, this hobby will remain intact as it has always been and meant to be.

Well technically if you build a set, never take it apart then it's really no different from any other collectable. Sure you can break down a set and use it for parts, but that's not really the point of this discussion. I agree that should the Lego investment bubble burst that its intrinsic value as a building toy will remain. Yet, you won't be able to just sell the loose bricks and assume that you can get back your initial investment.

BrickDancer said:

Imagine if they rehashed the Imperial Flagship or Emerald Night, you would be happy with that?

I would be a little dismayed as I own the Imperial Flagship, but I wouldn't complain about it vocally.

pharmjod

Having previously owned and built the first UCS X-wing, I think this one looks pretty nice. At least as good as the original. The wing mechanism appears to be a vast improvement over the firsts (even if it leaves the grey technic piece in the middle of the wing). At this point I'm all about what keeps LEGO profitable and making new sets period. Occassional rehashes hurt no one and likely help LEGO immensely.

And regarding Disney milking Star Wars, go for it. Lucas was milking it in completely ridiculous ways. At least Disney seems to be trying to create a good product first time out with the choice of director. It will be interesting though to see if original trilogy stuff disappears altogether as kids get older and only care about what is new and hot.

Legoboy

Bandit said:

^^ my prediction is this will be a $300-$400 playset that finally, shall we say, sends a few proton torpedoes down 10188's exhaust port.

My money is on it's a playset and sells for a couple of hundred quid. ;-)

LegoFanTexas

y2josh said:

^Even though I'm all for the Ewok Village and have been wanting TLG to make it for awhile, I'm not sure it would be able to rival 10188 in terms of popularity or versatility.

Perhaps... perhaps not...

Just to toss a thought... If it was about twice the footprint of 10188 in length, while staying the same overall height and width, it would fit well enough on many shelves and be workable for a kid's room. If they will give it a decent brick/plate built base rather than the smaller $100 playsets, that would give it something "special".

That would be big enough to have a few big trees, an AT-ST, minifigs, speeder bikes, bunker, shield generator, landing platform, etc. Perhaps it could be 3 different playsets built into 1 set, perhaps 1/4 of a circle, with each 1/4 being something different.

1. Landing Platform/Shuttle/Luke-Vader
2. Ewok Village
3. Shield Bunker Battle
4. Speeder Bike Chase

Just an idea...

y2josh said:

An Ewok Village, short of somehow incorporating every scene on Endor, is going to be fairly limited in terms of what it can do and which characters it can include.

Unless they blow us away with a 5,000 part set! :) Unlikely, but you never know!

It is also possible that they'll do the Jabba's Palace thing...

What if they release the above 4 items in 4 different sets, that can be attached together, release them 6 months apart. Make each one about 1,200 parts, so the total is 5,000 parts, but the cost of each set is $150, making it an easier price to pay for each part.

People might balk at $600 all at once, but pay $150 at a time every 6 months to put it together.

LegoFanTexas

pharmjod said:

And regarding Disney milking Star Wars, go for it. Lucas was milking it in completely ridiculous ways. At least Disney seems to be trying to create a good product first time out with the choice of director. It will be interesting though to see if original trilogy stuff disappears altogether as kids get older and only care about what is new and hot.

George was perhaps too close to it, I'm interested in the spin-off movies as much as anything else.

If Han and Boba get their own movies, if done right, those could be very sweet indeed.

Disney has done very well with Marvel the past few years, no reason they can't do the same here.