Please use our links: LEGO.com • Amazon
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.
Granted, you can play with 10240, however it comes on a stand and is meant to be on a stand. 10188 is missing the stand. :)
The VW Beetle has a plaque. Is the VW Beetle a UCS? Nope.
Does the Batmobile have a plaque? Nope, although it is a UCS.
A plaque doesn't mean UCS to me. I love this debate, it never grows tiresome. :-)
I have it nonetheless, just to be on the safe side. :-)
10215: Obi Wan's Starfighter
10212: Imperial Shuttle
10186: General Grievous
In fact, the last large SW set to be actually labelled with "UCS" was the 10179 Millennium Falcon.
to me, it is clear LEGO stopped using the UCS designation several years ago. Doesn't really mean anything though does it? They put out two 10xxx Star Wars sets a year - some have the UCS display plaques, some don't. For whatever reason, they decided to do away with the UCS brand and let people decide for themselves how to "categorize" these things - LEGO likely doesn't care much about that.
But as said above, if it walk's like a duck and talk's like a duck...
The UCS branding lives. The #10240 makes no mention of it.
so your definition of UCS or not UCS has absolutely *nothing* to do with what is contained anywhere in box set you buy and take home, but rather is dependent upon what the marketing people - who are notoriously inconsistent and often lack attention to details - decide to put in a description that is completely removed from the record once the set disappears from LEGO's website?
Sorry, but that is just absurd. All relevant facts seem to indicate the LEGO has been, either by design or simply by lack of attention to detail, wildly inconsistent, vague, and at times self-contradictory with the entire UCS concept, almost from the beginning. the #10240 is just as much a UCS as the #10227, #10212, #10221, and #10215 - either they all are, or they all aren't
I sure think #10240 is just as "Ultimate" as #7191
Just my opinion...
Look at #10227 and #10240 - the boxes, the instructions, the build, the stickers, the presentation. Someone picks up these two things NISB 10 years from now, and they don't show up anywhere on lego.com anymore. The only thing they can look at what is on the box and what is in it. Now make a rational argument that somehow #10227 is "UCS" but #10240 is not.
It will be interesting however, whether in the next catalogue TLG release marketing their next big Exclusive SW display model, they use the words "Ultimate Collector's Edition". How can they if they no longer use them to market or brand their product?
Just so you know. ;-)
You are the one who is claiming that #10212, #10221, #10215, and #10227 are somehow "UCS", but #10240 is not, despite the fact that it shares the same characteristics as all those other sets. The burden is on you to present a rational, reasoned case that would convince others that your position is somehow correct, despite all the strongest physical evidence indicating otherwise. You so far haven't even attempted to do so.
Just because a set has a plaque, it does not make it UCS. I have demonstrated this - #10187.
Just because the set is big or has a #10*** net number, it does not make it a UCS. I have demonstrated this - #10144, #10123, #10131.
There is little more I can do so please, please, put myself and others out of our misery and provide us with evidence that #10240 is indeed a UCS?
I thought we were talking about Star Wars sets, which is the only "series" of UCS sets to date. Repeatedly bringing in #10187 is comparing apples to oranges.
So, let's try this from another angle then - what is the list of UCS sets then according to you?
and for the record, I don't collect UCS sets, only the ones I like. I don't have anywhere near all of them, and could care less if I do or not. This is an academic exercise for me, but I have an abhorrence for what I consider to be clearly inconsistent and illogical arguments, and I can't stop myself from debating them.
I also feel that LEGO has been inconsistent in their use of the term, and it's not clear to me that every omission was deliberate. Thus, I'm not really concerned if someone is technically right if they refer to a non-UCS labeled set as UCS, especially if it helps me know to which set they are referring.
But please, I am still waiting for you to provide me with evidence the #10240 is a UCS. Actually, I think I'd rather know on what basis a #10123 could possibly be considered a UCS. Now that's absurd. ;-)
#10221 - no use of "ultimate" anywhere, including the product description
#10212 - the term "Ultimate Collectors model" is used in the product description, but no mention of being part of the "Ultimate Collectors Series"
#10240 - "Build the ultimate..."
Now, it seems nothing short of obvious to me that these inconsistencies are almost certainly due to marketing department laziness. Likely, different copywriters wrote these descriptions, especially given that they are spaced out over several years. There doesn't seem to be an adherence to any set of standards, or reference back to a "UCS template" stylebook of any kind.
This leaves us with three choices:
1) We adhere to the idea that in order to be "UCS", a product must be labeled as such, either on the product or in the official description. This leaves us with the scenario where 10221, 10212 and 10240 are NOT part of the "Ultimate Collectors Series", but 10215, 10225 and 10227 are.
2) We adhere to the idea that in order to be "UCS" the product itself must be labeled as such (in which case, #10179 was the last UCS product, since nothing since then has been labeled that way. but then you run into the problem that LEGO continues to describe products since #10179 as being part of the Ultimate Collectors Series.
3) We adhere to the idea that LEGO, for some reason, stopped labeling the UCS sets with a UCS designation, but that 10xxx series sets with the mounting stand (if applicable) and specification plaque are clearly UCS, as they continue the same line of characteristics that previous UCS sets had.
I submit that one of these ideas is so absurd to be laughable, and another is self-contradictory, leaving only one as plausible.
The points I choose to make are taken directly from Lego itself.
"Build the ultimate LEGO® Star Wars™ X-wing Starfighter!
Collect and create the most highly detailed LEGO® Star Wars™ X-wing Starfighter ever produced"
In the first two sentences we see the words "ultimate" and "collect." What's more they claim its "the most highly detailed." Naturally you wouldn't expect Lego to say "buy a crappy knock-off, this is just a copy of something we did 13 years ago." In the designers video we hear the designer describing the improvements over the predecessor.
The term "Ultimate" is fully open to interpretation, it could mean the best possible. That is subject to change over time. What was the Ultimate a few years ago has certainly been superseded now. Maybe it means final, the last of its kind?
Maybe Lego cleverly dropped the UCS designation when they started working on 10240, fearing some kind of backlash from having two "Ultimate Collectors Series" X-Wings.
All I can say is that I believe I collect what are, at that time, the largest and "most highly detailed" Star Wars Lego sets. It may not say it on the box, it may not say it in the blurb, but I know that I collect a series of ultimate lego models.
The only way of deciding which is better between 7191 and 10240, is to get someone who is completely ignorant of the age difference and branding to decide which they would have.
I own a 10240, I wouldn't mind getting a 7191. In some ways the two are incomparable.
UCS sand red brick.