New Star Wars UCS Thread

graphite · February 2015

^ Would have been interesting if they had offered the set with 2 color packs. A base set with all the structure parts windshield etc and then a Boba Slave 1 and a Jango Slave 1 color pack like they did with that one My Own Train set.

Pitfall69 · February 2015

graphite said:
^ Would have been interesting if they had offered the set with 2 color packs. A base set with all the structure parts windshield etc and then a Boba Slave 1 and a Jango Slave 1 color pack like they did with that one My Own Train set.

I mentioned this a long time ago, but then people would still end up having to buy two because they would want to have both on display.

Drmnez · February 2015

^^fact... It would have been a Decently priced UCS to expensive one cuz I would have bought two

Brew · February 2015

I am lucky to have many of the SW UCS sets and have a fairly subjective question to ask. I am deciding between Sand Crawler and Slave I right now and would like to know how those rank with respect to other older UCS sets in terms of building pleasure, size and display accuracy/wowness factor.

donutboy · February 2015

Has anyone watched the Design video for the UCS TIE Fighter. That sticker under the cockpit window is so wonky. I would be really upset if that had happened any set I own. I don't think stickers should be on such expensive sets anyway. Too easy to mess them up, as the video shows.

Pitfall69 · February 2015

^Yes, it was mentioned immediately in the UCS Tie Fighter thread.

dougts · February 2015

CCC said:
The only ones I consider UCS are the ones called UCS by Lego. Of course others can call what they like UCS, even non-lego sets, it is up to them. There is a clear definition. If Lego says it is UCS, it is UCS. Otherwise it is not. It is just a marketing badge.

so this would not include the following sets then, none of which were labelled as UCS anywhere on the box or instructions, but which I agree most people would say are in fact UCS:
#10240
#10225
#10227
#10212
#10215

GallardoLU · February 2015

Brew said:
I am lucky to have many of the SW UCS sets and have a fairly subjective question to ask. I am deciding between Sand Crawler and Slave I right now and would like to know how those rank with respect to other older UCS sets in terms of building pleasure, size and display accuracy/wowness factor.

Owning both, and the SSD my vote is for the Slave I. the colors draw the eye very easily and its size is comparable to the Sandcrawler. its no where near as massive as the SDD but due to it being minifig scale its presence is just as impactful. as for build I really enjoyed the Sandcrawler (not counting the treads) it often was surprised by the connections used in the shaping, but being browns almost exclusively it doesn't really "pop" when viewed. so if I were to pick from those 2 all over again it'd be Slave I.

ColoradoBricks · February 2015

dougts said:

so this would not include the following sets then, none of which were labelled as UCS anywhere on the box or instructions, but which I agree most people would say are in fact UCS:
#10240
#10225
#10227
#10212
#10215

That is where it is getting confusing.. the set description:
#10240 has "Build the ultimate LEGO® Star Wars™ X-wing Starfighter!"
#10225 has "Everyone's favorite droid from the Star Wars galaxy is now part of the ultimate collector series"
#10227 has "Take on the Empire in the ultimate collector series B-wing Starfighter™!"
#10212 has "This Ultimate Collector's model features an opening canopy"
#10215 has "Blast off into The Clone Wars with Obi-Wan's collector-series Jedi starfighter!"

The only thing we can agree about the UCS designation that it is vaguely inconsistent :)

binaryeye · February 2015

I love how the description for #10240 comes as close as possible to saying it's UCS but doesn't in some effort to placate owners of #7191. They even use the term "collect" along with "ultimate". I'm surprised they couldn't sneak "series" in there somewhere.

BrickDancer · February 2015

^It's not to placate the #7191 owners, it's TLG's way of being honest and owning up to the fact that #10240 is an inferior clone of the original and thus not "the" true UCS X-wing =)

In my eyes, Red Five will always be the blemish on Lego's legendary SW UCS line.

dougts · February 2015

ColoradoBricks said:

dougts said:

so this would not include the following sets then, none of which were labelled as UCS anywhere on the box or instructions, but which I agree most people would say are in fact UCS:
#10240
#10225
#10227
#10212
#10215
That is where it is getting confusing.. the set description:
#10240 has "Build the ultimate LEGO® Star Wars™ X-wing Starfighter!"
#10225 has "Everyone's favorite droid from the Star Wars galaxy is now part of the ultimate collector series"
#10227 has "Take on the Empire in the ultimate collector series B-wing Starfighter™!"
#10212 has "This Ultimate Collector's model features an opening canopy"
#10215 has "Blast off into The Clone Wars with Obi-Wan's collector-series Jedi starfighter!"

The only thing we can agree about the UCS designation that it is vaguely inconsistent :)

Exactly. But in the same quote by @CCC that I quoted, he said: "there is a clear definition. If LEGO says it's UCS, then it's UCS. Otherwise it's just a marketing badge"

I would say it severely strains logic to call the UCS status of these sets "clear" using CCC's definition. Those product descriptions are the epitome of marketing speak. They exist solely to sell the product, and never appear on the product itself, just like the UCS label or designation also doesn't appear on the product

As far as I can tell, TLG has never clearly and definitively stated what is and isn't UCS. Thus, it is not possible to even use CCC's definition, since LEGO has never said what is and isn't UCS In fact, they've been completely inconsistent all along: old sets and new sets clearly labelled, a bunch in the middle that aren't. A poster that uses the word ultimate in a different context and which contains sets that are certainly not UCS alongside most that are. Plaques on most UCS sets, but not all of them. It's a mess. I don't think they really care to be honest

TheLoneTensor · February 2015

I think the concept of "UCS" is defined by the consumer, not Lego. @sash501 here is looking for UCS sets, and at the end of the day, he and others like him are going to buy sets that fit that criteria in their mind, whether they have official Lego designation, a plaque, minifigures, displayability or playability.

It's kinda like trying to classify "Modular Buildings" or "Expert Trains."

BrickDancer · February 2015

Doesnt what Brickset or Bricklink consider as UCS matter? Which is also the same list I and others agree with.

I don't understand why there is such a strong urge to dismiss the label as a whole as if it doesn't actually exist due to a couple inconsistencies over 16 years of releases. Only 1 SW set fails the plaque rule, the Sandcrawler. Besides that, the list holds true.

http://brickset.com/sets/theme-Star-Wars/subtheme-Ultimate-Collector-Series

Drmnez · February 2015

Just do away with the label and the plaque. That way no argument will exists for future sets

dougts · February 2015

Yep. That is the correct list in my mind too. But let's not fool ourselves into think it's "official" or that LEGO has defined it for us clearly

It's more of a "I know it when I see it" thing

cavegod · February 2015

Bricksets ucs list is correct apart from the busts they are more creator than ucs.

drdavewatford · February 2015

cavegod said:
Bricksets ucs list is correct apart from the busts they are more creator than ucs.

Ha - on the basis of their packaging the busts are plainly UCS as you well know, however much you might wish that it wasn't the case!

Bumblepants · February 2015

Drmnez said:
Just do away with the label and the plaque. That way no argument will exists for future sets

I highly doubt Lego cares if we argue about how sets are categorized. But if they do care, they should just do a Jar-Jar bust, label it UCS and upset everyone.

drdavewatford · February 2015

^ I'd buy it....

;-)

cavegod · February 2015

^ yeah you would too!

TarDomo · February 2015

Jango Fett´s Slave 1... that would be a must-have.
But my personal number 1 suggestion is the Trade Federation Droid Control Ship.

Pitfall69 · February 2015

Bumblepants said:

Drmnez said:
Just do away with the label and the plaque. That way no argument will exists for future sets
I highly doubt Lego cares if we argue about how sets are categorized. But if they do care, they should just do a Jar-Jar bust, label it UCS and upset everyone.

drdavewatford said:
^ I'd buy it....

;-)

cavegod said:
^ yeah you would too!

Why would you want a Lego bust of me sitting on your display shelf staring at you?

WookiePajamas · February 2015

I don’t think we will see a UCS Falcon. I do think we will see an Ep 7 Falcon. (New satellite dish). If they did UCS, they couldn’t do system, and from the trailer, I think it would be a foolish move to eliminate such a potential big seller by limiting to only the UCS crowd.

That being said, I would hope it is a set with enough detail that it too can enter the debate on if it is an UCS. :smile:

New Star Wars UCS Thread

Comments

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Categories