10240 Red Five X-Wing Starfighter

TheLoneTensor · May 2013

ColoradoBricks said:
Not sure it was mentioned before, but I was looking through the LEGO catalog I received today. While the #10227 B-Wing and #10225 have the UCS mention, #10240 X-Wing does not (along with the DS on the same centerfold..). I checked [email protected] and same thing, no mention of UCS for #10240 (Build the ultimate LEGO® Star Wars™ X-wing Starfighter!) but it does for #10227 (Take on the Empire in the ultimate collector series B-wing Starfighter™!) and #10225 (Presenting the ultimate collector series R2-D2).

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 ?

In designation only, but if it looks like a duck and smells like a duck...

CaptAPJT · May 2013

Agreed, it takes a UCS release slot, has a UCS piece count, has a 10xxx set number. Some might argue your point but I think it's apparent to 99% that it is a UCS albeit in everything but name.

ColoradoBricks · May 2013

If those are the criteria, Then #10188 is an UCS too, well, OK not data sheet :)

LegoFanTexas · May 2013

10188 is missing the display plaque and it isn't really a display set, it is a play set.

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. :)

graphite · May 2013

^ It would take another couple hundred bricks to make a "display stand" suitable to hold up the DS =)

1265 · May 2013

In the LEGO Design video for #10240 ..... https://youtube.com/watch?v=oB_h2Rl7OsA the designer makes several references as the replacement and newer version of the X-Wing Starfighter. It's always been clear to me that #10240 is included in the UCS.

ColoradoBricks · May 2013

I agree, It has all about UCS, but the title...

Legoboy · May 2013

......therefore it is not a UCS.

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. :-)

rocao · May 2013

I think TLG's omission was deliberate and they're happy for it to be vague. They welcome the people that will consider it UCS and will therefore want to collect it. At the same time, they can point to the omission of the UCS branding to insist they didn't make 7191 UCS X-wing obsolete and desecrate the meaning of UCS.

Legoboy · May 2013

^ Exactly, they're happy to allow people to think they have a UCS when buying #10240 when really they don't. ;-)

I have it nonetheless, just to be on the safe side. :-)

samiam391 · May 2013

Legoboy said:
^ Exactly, they're happy to allow people to think they have a UCS when buying #10240 when really they don't. ;-)

I have it nonetheless, just to be on the safe side. :-)

Better pick up your copy of #70113 then to be safe too, I hear they are potentially branding that one as UCS...

CaptAPJT · August 2013

Anyone notice the difference between the stickers on the box and in the instructions? 2 per side vs just the 1?

dougts · August 2013

Legoboy said:
......therefore it is not a UCS.
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. :-)

In that case, none of the following are UCS sets either, as none are branded with that designation on the official set name or on the box.
10225: R2D2
10227: B-wing
10221: SSD
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...

CaptAPJT · August 2013

dougts said:

Legoboy said:
......therefore it is not a UCS.
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. :-)
In that case, none of the following are UCS sets either, as none are branded with that designation on the official set name or on the box.
10225: R2D2
10227: B-wing
10221: SSD
10215: Obi Wan's Starfighter
10212: Imperial Shuttle
10186: General Grievous

In that case the only UCS set I own is 10174 (goes and cries in the corner)

Legoboy · August 2013

dougts said:

Legoboy said:
......therefore it is not a UCS.
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. :-)
In that case, none of the following are UCS sets either, as none are branded with that designation on the official set name or on the box.
10225: R2D2
10227: B-wing
10221: SSD
10215: Obi Wan's Starfighter
10212: Imperial Shuttle
10186: General Grievous

Why wouldn't they? I can't speak for the older models but the #10225 and #10227 are clearly referred as UCSs by TLG. It's right there in black and white - not in their set name but in TLG's descriptive title.

The UCS branding lives.

ColoradoBricks said:
Not sure it was mentioned before, but I was looking through the LEGO catalog I received today. While the #10227 B-Wing and #10225 have the UCS mention, #10240 X-Wing does not (along with the DS on the same centerfold..). I checked [email protected] and same thing, no mention of UCS for #10240 (Build the ultimate LEGO® Star Wars™ X-wing Starfighter!) but it does for #10227 (Take on the Empire in the ultimate collector series B-wing Starfighter™!) and #10225 (Presenting the ultimate collector series R2-D2).

The #10240 makes no mention of it.

dougts · August 2013

@Legoboy

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

LegoFanTexas · August 2013

My personal opinion on what is UCS is based on what is "Ultimate"...

I sure think #10240 is just as "Ultimate" as #7191

Just my opinion...

Legoboy · August 2013

dougts said:
@Legoboy

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?

Wow, that's a long sentence, but to keep my answer short - yes! UCS is all about marketing. It's what dragged me out of my Dark Ages.

dougts said:
Sorry, but that is just absurd.

Let's keep it civil huh? It's hardly a heated argument. There are many things in this forum I might not agree with but I don't go around calling them absurd. Why the hostility? I thought you were better than that.

dougts said:
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

Why? Just because it has a 10*** set number? So you would consider a #10131 or #10144 a UCS? What about a #10123? A #10123 playset is the #10188 of its day but I have never heard a #10123 mentioned in the same breath as UCS before. No way is it a UCS.

dougts said:
For whatever reason, they decided to do away with the UCS brand and let people decide for themselves how to "categorize" these things....

Clearly not It is evident TLG continue to quote it themselves.

dougts · August 2013

Legoboy said:

dougts said:
Sorry, but that is just absurd.
Let's keep it civil huh? It's hardly a heated argument. There are many things in this forum I might not agree with but I don't go around calling them absurd. Why the hostility? I thought you were better than that.

sorry, not trying to be uncivil. I think you are making an absurd argument that doesn't flow from logic. I am not calling you absurd or trying to inject any hostility at all. Sorry if it came across the wrong way.

legoboy said:

Why? Just because it has a 10*** set number? So you would consider a #10131 or #10144 a UCS? What about a #10123? A #10123 playset is the #10188 of its day but I have never heard a #10123 mentioned in the same breath as UCS before. No way is it a UCS.

who said anything about 10xxx ? Not me. Personally, I'd go by the plaque standard, as it seems most obvious and consistent.

legoboy said:

Clearly not It is evident TLG continue to quote it themselves.

LEGO chose to stop labeling and branding any of these sets as UCS several years ago. That was my point, that was what I specifically said, and it is still true. They stopped using the brand. What they say in a marketing blurb is a LOT less definitive that the characteristics of the set (plaque), or the printing on the box/instructions.

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.

Legoboy · August 2013

^ I can't. Neither are UCS! If there's no reference to it in the boxes I took home, they stopped the UCS branding years ago. In 10 years time when we're all back in our dark ages, that same someone who's just come out of their dark ages, who won't have ever heard of UCS will pick the two sets up and will think nothing of them other than they look pretty. The #10240 is just a bigger version of the 20 smaller ones that will have been released by then. There's nothing on the box, nothing in the instructions, nothing on the plaque - if TLG no longer market their brand, it can no longer exist. UCS has gone!

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?

y2josh · August 2013

LegoFanTexas said:
My personal opinion on what is UCS is based on what is "Ultimate"...

I sure think #10240 is just as "Ultimate" as #7191

Just my opinion...

By definition, they can't both be 'ultimate.'

Just so you know. ;-)

Legoboy · August 2013

^ I agree. Maybe the rehash of the B-wing in 10 years time won't be a UCS either. ;-)

LegoFanTexas · August 2013

y2josh said:
By definition, they can't both be 'ultimate.'

Just so you know. ;-)

I of course meant they are both "Ultimate" when compared to the system scale X-Wing. Not to each other. :)

dougts · August 2013

Legoboy said:
^ I can't. Neither are UCS! If there's no reference to it in the boxes I took home, they stopped the UCS branding years ago. In 10 years time when we're all back in our dark ages, that same someone who's just come out of their dark ages, who won't have ever heard of UCS will pick the two sets up and will think nothing of them other than they look pretty. The #10240 is just a bigger version of the 20 smaller ones that will have been released by then. There's nothing on the box, nothing in the instructions, nothing on the plaque - if TLG no longer market their brand, it can no longer exist. UCS has gone!

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?

Why do you continue to ascribe to me things I've never said and positions I've never held? Note that I didn't say LEGO doesn't market their product with those words (inconsistently), only that they have chosen, for reasons unknown, to no longer brand or label their products with that term, neither in the box or instructions, or in the official product names.

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.

Legoboy · August 2013

dougts said:
Why do you continue to ascribe to me things I've never said and positions I've never held?

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.

Oh dear, how ironic. It's best you make sure you don't fall foul of the very thing you accuse me of. Not once have I mentioned three of the sets you refer to. To the contrary, I actually said, "I can't speak for the older models." My #10187 shares some characteristics of other UCSs. It has a 10*** set number, it has a high piece count and it has a plaque. Is it a UCS?? If not, what other characteristics would it need, because so far, I have demonstrated it appears to hold the same characteristics as the #10240!

dougts said:
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.

How so? I have yet to hear you provide a compelling argument as to why the #10240 should be considered UCS. Because it has a plaque? So does the non UCS #10187. Because it's big? The #10026 is far from big but despite its physical size suggesting otherwise, it is a UCS. What physical evidence is there the #10240 is a UCS again? You sound like a collector who missed out on #7191 and needs an alternative.

dougts said:
You so far haven't even attempted to do so.

To the contrary, I have demonstrated that TLG have referred to various sets being UCS in one form or another. You haven't found a single shred of literature to suggest the #10240 is.

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?

dougts · August 2013

I'm not claiming those sets are not UCS, I'm saying that they are UCS and share the exact characteristics as #10240, therefore it too is clearly a UCS set.

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.

rocao · August 2013

I think that a set is technically only UCS if it is labeled that way by TLG -- be it the box, the manual, or the official product description.

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.

Legoboy · August 2013

dougts said:
I'm not claiming those sets are not UCS, I'm saying that they are UCS and share the exact characteristics as #10240, therefore it too is clearly a UCS set.

So what makes any of the three sets a UCS? None have plaques and none are 'display' pieces. What makes a #10123 a UCS? I'm really struggling with this now. Just how is a #10123 a UCS?

dougts said:
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.

I thought we were discussing characteristics of what made a UCS so felt a plaque being a common occurrence made #10187 a valid inclusion.

dougts said:

So, let's try this from another angle then - what is the list of UCS sets then according to you?

All in the Brickset category of UCS other than the #10240. It's interesting to find neither the #10123, the #10131, the #10144 nor the #10188 in there. It's even more interesting to find that the new #10236 Ewok Village isn't in their either. Now that is a direct comparison to #10123 and #10188, neither of which are considered by the Brickset database to be UCS. As far as I know, nowhere have any of these sets been referred to as UCS by TLG.

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. ;-)

dougts · August 2013

^ so, if that is the definition, then how do we define the following? None of them are called UCS or mention UCS on the package or instructions:

#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.

CaptAPJT · August 2013

I think we can argue about how "Ultimate" something is until we're blue in the face. So perhaps the real question is which model is the best 10240 or 7191? Again we could rally back and forth about the flaws of each model (call me pessimistic but I imagine there will be more criticism regarding the opposing model then praise for that which you claim to champion.

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.