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.
10240 Red Five X-Wing Starfighter
Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
Recent discussions • Categories • Privacy Policy • Brickset.com
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- All Categories
- 16.2K General
- 3 Announcements
- 3.1K Collecting
- 3.7K Everything else LEGO
- 1.7K Building and Techniques
- 2.3K Brickset
- 14 Ambassador
- 1K Introduce yourself
- 385 The Database
- 438 Brickset.com
- 316 Forum Operation
- 15 FAQs
- 13.9K Shopping
- 1.7K Shopping USA/Canada
- 337 Shopping Elsewhere
- 11K Marketplace
- 1.2K Other
- 571 Community and Events
- 262 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
Good option for those of us who dont want to spend 800$ on one of the most iconic ships from the movies. Lets wait and see what the next model is before we go all doom and gloom guys. If its another rehash then Doom and gloom it all you want.
Anyway, I'm more of an oldies person, and still don't see much a difference. I would rather have had a different set, as opposed to a re-hash. Boba's/Jango's Slave I, Venator, etc..
Honestly, I'll pry end up getting the new one anyway, if anything just so I can build more LEGO :-)
Sure prices on the secondary market of the original will most likely take a bit of a dive, it may even affect prices of other EOL UCS models as people hold off spending big amounts in the hopes of a cheaper remake, but this problem is only going to affect a relitivly small amount of people.
Personally I think that as long as we don't see a continual release of rehashed UCS sets one after the other I'm fine with it.
The new version may not be flawless, but it uses a large number of far more impressive building techniques than the previous version, creating a much more accurate likeness without any need to introduce overspecialized parts to do so. And the X-Wing, given its iconic status, deserves no less. It's not like LEGO City or even minifig-scale LEGO Star Wars where the design is updated every two to five years, to the consternation of collectors-- it has been over a decade since the last UCS attempt at an X-Wing, and at this point the old one needed an update so badly that there's really not much sense in complaining. You can't even complain about this one "not matching your fleet" like in LEGO City or LEGO Star Wars playsets, because nobody (to my knowledge) has a fleet of UCS sets, and frankly the old one didn't go very well with later brethren like the UCS Y-Wing anyway.
Want a different UCS set? A year is not so long a wait, and with every passing year the quality of the UCS sets tends to improve, so you'll probably get a better model in the long run (assuming you're not hoping for something truly obscure, like a Z-95 Headhunter, or something simply impossible, like an accurately minifig-scale Sandcrawler).
I say this as an owner of the original UCS X-Wing who has frankly been disappointed with the quality of the model for years. Few are the UCS sets since 7191 that haven't surpassed it in terms of overall design quality. It was great for its time, but its time ended a long time ago and it's high time the X-Wing got a second chance at success. And chances are, I won't complain if 13 years down the road we revisit it once more.
I'll also mention that some existing UCS models could do with a re-visit, especially the N1 starfighter 10026 which gets its butt kicked by the system 7877 in almost every way.
I've said before and it still applies that I'd like a UCS Venator, A-Wing, Slave 1 etc.. Lets face it though we might as well accept the inevitable remakes and choose to enjoy them, or pass them by.
As far as I'm concerned "The King is dead! Long live the King!"
Another complaint I have about this set is that it's not different enough from 7191 to justify buying it if you own the earlier set. At least with System set reissues, the sets are usually different enough to justify buying the later versions. For example, 7151, 7663 and 7961 are all different enough from one another to make the later versions worthwhile purchases for owners of the previous versions.
First, congrats to all those non-owners of #7191! It is a joyous day for all of you and there is no problem at all with this re-release of an existing UCS model. Please take pictures as you checkout at the cashier as a memento.
Second, why does everyone think this is such an improvement over the previous? The wing connection is horrendous with a light bley technic cutting through half of the white wing. The nose looks simple, like a system version compared to the brick-built slope nose of 7191. Less detail and layering on side of fuselage. Lack of red on engine intakes looks bland. Main improvements I can see are the rear half of the thrusters.
What's done is done, they've broke the covenant of the UCS line for what it is in principle and what it means to those folks who already own it. Yes, its been 13 years since they bought it (or paid over the odds for one recently). But all those excited new customers will out weigh the negative in their calculations, especially once you put the revenue on the balance scale too. Its just a matter of business, so I'll respect that. But that's not what I thought Lego valued most, I thought it was their brand (damaged UCS line integrity), creativity (release a new model) and respect for their own creations of the decades (rehashing a crown jewel). This move is counter to all those points. Maybe I should start thinking more rationally and business-like when it comes to my buying & collecting habits.
The old set is 13 years old. Are there really people who stashed 20 of these things in their closet 13 years ago and couldn't see the writing on the wall the last year or so? Even then why should LEGO make decisions because it will piss off resellers? For a collector why wouldn't they want another X-Wing? It's similar yes, but it's still another one of the most iconic Star Wars vehicles there is.
I'm sure many will disagree with me but just my 2 cents on the whole thing.
We all know that LEGO usually goes above and beyond the call of duty to ensure it's customer's happiness. Stories here on brickset, LEGO Cuusoo, etc., more than prove that.
It seems that they've been slipping away from this somewhat, but they still maintain a very healthy and outstanding profile.
However, if one wants to take LEGO's side in this argument, you could say that they didn't do it for profit. The X-Wing is Luke's ship, it took out the Death Star, it flew to Dagobah, etc.. It's iconic, plain and simple.
LEGO's fan base has grown to astronomical proportions compared to what it was 2000. I think it'd be fair to say that LEGO re-released this set to give other people a chance at it. 13 years is a very long time, and this ship is very coveted. An entirety of new fans will come along, and those that have always been fans, but never had the opportunity, will now have it.
Yes, one can easily argue that it was all for profit, but you can also argue it was done for the fans.
It's a slight to the "long time collectors" for sure, but one has to make sacrifices. I'm somewhat peeved too about this, but I'm somewhat more cheered up knowing that people will get to open up and build an X-Wing. A ship that may have always been their "jewel", or as was previously termed in this thread, their "holy grail".
It'll be a great moment for them, and honestly, it makes me smile.
While they are opening up their X-Wings, I'll be anxiously waiting for October!
My son wasn't born then, he'll be 8 this year... While I already own 7191, I might end up buying this for my son so he can build one himself either this year or next, depending on when he is ready for it...
Being able to give him an all-new set rather than taking apart 7191 which he already has seen built, is actually a nice option.
I'm not thrilled about this development, but I do understand it, given the business factors LEGO has to keep in mind, I probably would have made the same decision.
BTW, why does everyone call this is a UCS set? I don't see UCS or Ultimate anywhere on the box. Yes, I see that it has a display plaque, but is the word Ultimate anywhere to be found?
That'll get into the entire UCS debate, over what's a UCS and what's not.
I think the plaque and piece count are the main factors in associating it as a UCS.
In all fairness though, LEGO doesn't specifically call it UCS.
I'm surprisingly ambivalent about this X-wing remake, however. Maybe it's because 13 years seems a reasonable wait to re-release such an iconic set for a new generation of LEGO Star Wars fanatics, and maybe I'm kidding myself that this UCS remake is a one-off. Certainly I'll be less forgiving if more precious UCS slots start to get filled up by remakes going forward - with so many potential UCS sets still waiting to be produced - A-wing, Slave 1, AT-AT, Venator etc. etc. I'd rather the designers gave us something we can't already get rather than make small incremental improvements to existing sets.
Bottom line however is that LEGO are primarily in the business of selling sets and making money, and I'd bet a year's salary that an iconic ship such as the X-wing will sell exponentially more copies than, say, the B-wing. So it's not rocket science.
Maybe TLG need to reevaluate the use of the UCS installs as it means different things to different people.
If TLG want an acronym for the flagship sets May i suggest CURRENT,(Collectors Ultimate Redesigned Rehash Encompassing New Techniques) :)
TLG Will be gauging the reception and success of this set as to the viability of future UCS redesigns.
So if you are unhappy with the idea of UCS rehashes in the future have your say by not purchasing it.
There are a ton of people out there that would gladly snap up a more iconic UCS vehicle like the X-Wing, so it's kind of a no-brainer move really.
Of course, my fondness of the ship primarily stems from countless hours playing the PC games: X-Wing, X-Wings vs TIE Fighter, and the B-Wing expansion, which predates the births of a good portion of LEGO's market audience :P
"The wings themselves on 7191 don't sag, but their weight strains the technic pin attachment points to the body such that the four wings don't extend perfectly uniform. They're prone to coming a little loose and it doesn't take much to jar it completely loose. The mechanism to open and close them is difficult.
The photos show that the new model is attached with beams so it looks like these problems have been addressed."
'04 - 1
'05 - 1
'06 - 2
'07 - 1
'08 - 1
'09 - 0
'10 - 2
'11 - 1
'12 - 2
'13 - 1 (so far announced)
Before '04, they averaged two per year.
While there is the word "ultimate" for #10240 and a stand with data sheet , UCS comparison stops there. So is #7191 still the only UCS X-Wing ?